Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/2007, PH2 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE TO CREATE TWELVE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTI Ccouncil ,3 zo% , A agenda Report Im N �z CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directgr� Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE TO CREATE TWELVE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH EXCEPTIONS (300 LAWRENCE DRIVE,TR/PD/ER 82-05). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a Resolution, denying a vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone to create twelve single-family residential lots with exceptions (TR/PD/ER 82-05). REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant seeks approval of a vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development (PD) rezone to create twelve single-family residential lots with exceptions on a 3.46 acre site at the westerly terminus of Lawrence Drive. The project was originally submitted on May 15, 2005, as a vesting tentative tract map to create 14 single-family lots. Since then, the applicant has modified the proposal several times: from a standard subdivision where each lot must stand on its own for compliance with standards, to a PD rezone to request exceptions to the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations (though that is not the intent of the PD zone). The many project changes have resulted in staff evaluating several different proposals for site development. On October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council denial of the project and recommended the applicant redesign the project consistent with the General Plan (Attachment 3). Staff supports this recommendation because the proposal is inconsistent with the General Plan in several respects and does not meet PD rezone requirements. Major inconsistencies have been found relative to open space resources, natural site features, and the preservation of both plant and animal habitat that are to be protected (or mitigated) according to City policy. Furthermore, the site is not physically suited for the type and density of development proposed. The staff report outlines these issues in detail -- issues that in the collective have thus far posed major obstacles to support for the application. Many of the policy inconsistencies found in the proposal are directly related to unmitigated environmental impacts. These impacts have been documented by the City's Natural Resource Manager and the applicant's biological studies. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only allows projects with unmitigated impacts to be approved if an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)is prepared that addresses overriding considerations. In this case, overriding considerations would not be consistent with the General Plan or eliminate environmental impacts without a project redesign. A better investment in time and money would be for the applicant to file a new application that addresses the various policy issues noted during the process thus far, • • Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 2 and return to the Planning Commission for review. According to City policy and zoning, with a better project proposal, housing can and should be constructed at the location. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 300 Lawrence.Drive Applicant: Total Development Company Representative: Michael Coss/Mike Hodge Zoning: R-1 & C/OS-40 (Low Density Residential & Conservation and Open Space with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres) General Plan; Low Density Residential & Open Space Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has not been prepared for the project since CEQA does not require one for projects that are to be disapproved (Section 21080(5)of the CEQA Guidelines). Situation On May 15, 2005, the City received an application for a vesting tentative tract map and environmental review to create 14 single-family lots on a 3.46-acre site at the westerly terminus of Lawrence Drive. On October 11, 2005, the applicant submitted plans with a modified subdivision approach, which included a PD rezone to request exceptions to the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations. On April 10, 2006, the applicant again submitted modified plans with a standard subdivision (no PD rezone request). On July 19, 2006, the applicant again modified his application to contain a subdivision with a PD rezone to request exceptions to the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations. Thus, the project has gone through numerous redesigns and modifications, and for each one staff has evaluated the proposal, applying the appropriate set of standards and requirements, as necessitated by the particular type of proposal. The project has therefore been difficult for staff to evaluate, as the various proposals for site development submitted over the past year and a half, have required review under different codes and requirements. Despite staff s strong advice against pursuing the latest version of the project because of the inconsistencies with City policies and standards, the applicant requested the project be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. On October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the project and recommended to the applicant he redesign the project consistent with the General Plan (Attachment 3). Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff outlined two options for the applicant for continued processing of the subdivision proposal. One was to go forward with the application to the Council with the Planning Commission recommendation for denial. The other was to withdraw the application, continue to work with staff on General Plan compliance, and resubmit a new application. This second option would necessitate the payment of new fees. Upon receipt. 0 0 Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 3 of a new subdivision concept plan for preliminary staff comment, it appeared the second option was being actively pursued. However, following a meeting to discuss the new proposal, the applicant decided to move forward with his original plan and requested the project be scheduled fora public hearing before the City Council. Due to the site's steep topography and presence of significant natural resources, site development presents significant design challenges. In anticipation of the difficulty in designing a project that meets General Plan policies and City standards, staff has worked with the applicant since May 2005 to help define constraints and develop mitigation measures for project impacts that would meet City requirements. During the course of this time period, staff met with the applicant approximately 20 times (both on and off-site) and prepared approximately 8 letters. Despite these efforts, the application before the Planning Commission, and now the City Council, does not provide adequate plan revisions or information to show how the project can meet General Plan policies. Site Description The vacant, rectangular-shaped site consists of approximately 3.46 acres located on the north facing slope of the South Hills. The site slopes from south to north with an average slope of 20%. The upper portion of the property contains serpentine rock with thin soils and numerous plant species which are restricted to such soils. This includes several species classified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as "List 1B, Plants of Highest Priority", which are considered rare and endangered in California and elsewhere, and some are listed as "species of local concern" by the City of San Luis Obispo's Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). The lower portion of the site consists of deeper and more productive soils derived from the serpentine rocks, but capable of supporting a more diverse mix of plants. Two additional species classified by the CNPS as "List 1B" plants or as "species of local concern" by the COSE are found in this portion of the property. Additional site features include two small wetlands, rock outcroppings, an area of native needlegrass grassland and a variety of native and non-native trees and shrubs, including California Buckeye, Toyon, Coast Live Oak, Pine, Eucalyptus and French Broom. Many years ago, a portion of the property was evidently used for the unengineered dumping of unconsolidated construction debris. This portion of the property occupies about one-half acre located toward the center of the site, and has been colonized by a fairly large and mature stand of California Buckeye, Toyon and Coast Live Oak. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). 2 �� 0 0 Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 4 Project Description The project is a vesting tentative map and PD rezone to subdivide an existing 3.46-acre site into 12 residential lots and one open space lot. The parcels range in size from 6,875 square feet to 22,058 square feet. Since most of the proposed lots (Lots 3-9 & 12) do not comply with density standards, as more fully explained below, a PD rezone is being requested. PD zoning would provide flexibility to the current zoning requirement of a required reduction of density for lots with steeper cross-slopes as described in Table 1 of the Zoning Regulations (shown below). The effect of a PD rezone would be an exception to the slope density formula. More specifically, under current zoning steeper slopes require larger lot areas. That is, lots in the R-1 zone with a cross-slope category of 15% or less would need a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet to meet its density requirement; lots in the 16-20% range would need a minimum lot size of 10,500 square feet, and so on. With a PD zone, these standards could be customized, provided the project offers features beneficial to the City(PD rezoning requirements are discussed in further detail on Page 8 of this report). Table 1: Maximum Residential Density for Cross-Slope Categories Average Cross-Slope Maximum Density Allowed(density units per net acre) in% R-1 R-2,O,C-N, R-3 R-4 C-R,GD,C- GS,MU, M- GT c MU 0-15 7 12 18 24 36 24 16-20 4 6 9 12 36 24 21-25 2 4 6 8 36 24 26+ 1 2 3 4 36 24 Additionally, one very-low off-site affordable housing unit is proposed for the project, and the applicant seeks an interpretation of the City's affordable housing incentive (density bonus) regulations that would allow an increase in the base density of the site from 10 units to 12 units. Please see Page 7 of the Planning Commission staff report for a more detailed discussion on affordable housing (Attachment 5). Other components of the proposed subdivision include extensive site grading and the installation of private improvements, including a cul-de-sac with curb, gutter and sidewalk at the end of Lawrence Drive, and two private driveways. The private driveways are proposed at the end of the private cul-de-sac to serve lots 7-10 and off Meadow Street to serve lots 1-3. Access to the site off Meadow is via an existing common driveway agreement. An existing 30-foot wide public pedestrian access and utility easement located along the site's northerly boundary is proposed to be abandoned. A new public pedestrian easement through the site to the adjacent open space is proposed at the end of the private cul-de-sac off Lawrence Drive (Attachment 2, Sheet 3). o • Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 5 Planning Commission Action On October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission, on a 5-1 vote (Stevenson absent and Miller voting no) recommended to the City Council denial of the project. The Planning Commission also recommended the applicant redesign the project consistent with the General Plan (Attachment 3). Significant public comment was received regarding the project in the form of letters (16) and public testimony (19). Public comment included concerns relating to: project inconsistency with the General Plan and PD rezone requirements; proposed exceptions to density standards; destruction of open space resources; and grading, drainage, traffic, access and parking impacts to the site and surrounding neighborhood. Planning Commission discussion focused on the project's inconsistency with the General Plan and PD rezone requirements, as well as incompleteness and need for significant design modifications. The Planning Commission staff report and hearing minutes are attached(Attachments 4 & 5). Proposal Not Consistent With General Plan The site is designated as "Low Density Residential & Open Space" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and the site is currently vacant. The General Plan anticipates single- family residences developed in some fashion on the Low Density Residential portion of the site and wildlife and native plant habitat preservation on the Open Space portion. Due to the site's steep topography and presence of significant natural resources, development over the Low Density Residential portion presents significant challenges to site design. General Plan conformity is required by law. The City must make a finding that a tentative map is or is not consistent with the General Plan. Based on staff's detailed review, the development proposal is not consistent with numerous General Plan policies. Listed below in bold print are applicable General Plan policies, followed by staff's analysis. 1. General Plan COSE Policy 8.25.1 (Loss of open space) states: "The City may permit loss of an open space resource as described in Goals 8.21 and 8.22 only when preserving the resource would permanently deprive the landowner of all reasonable use..." 2. General Plan COSE Policies 7.21.1.D (Protect listed species) and 7.21.2.0 (Species of local concern) state: "The City will protect listed species and species of local concern through its actions on: land-use designations; development standards; development applications..." 3. General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.2.11 (Site Constraints) states: "Residential development shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation, and significant trees". 0 Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 6 4. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.8 (Preserve Natural Features) states: "Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms,views,creeks,wetlands, wildlife habitats,and plants". COSE Figure 8: Open Space Resources in a Subdivision Parcel before subdivision: Preferred subdivision:" Acceptable subdivision: Example of resources and Open space resources are Open space resources are parcel boundaries in a separate parcel within easements -_.-._.--_-_._._._._._._.._.I I-_:_-_.-.r.-------r-----._.I creekcorridor& wetland - i I i i j i i I i i I i I l --------- road "- - - - - ----------------------------- road - - - road - -- - Staff Analysis: The project is not consistent with these policies [items 1-4 above] or Figure 8 of the COSE because the project does not respect the site's existing constraints, adequately preserve or incorporate natural site features, or adequately protect listed species or species of local concern. Furthermore, other site layout and development options exist that would preserve existing open space resources without depriving the landowner of all reasonable use. The site contains several plant species that the General Plan requires to be protected. These include species classified by the CNPS as "List 1B, Plants of Highest Priority", which are considered rare and endangered in California and elsewhere or as "species of local concern" by the COSE. The former include the San Luis Obispo Star Tulip, San Luis Obispo Dudleya, Palmer Spineflower, Cambria Morning Glory and Adobe Sanicle, and the latter includes the Clay Mariposa Lily. The Adobe Sanicle is considered "rare" by the State of California, due to evidence that the San Luis Obispo area is the only area where this species still survives. In addition, the site contains two small wetlands, native needlegrass grassland, scenic rock outcroppings and a variety of native and non-native trees and shrubs (California Buckeye, Toyon, Coast Live Oak, Pine, Eucalyptus and French Broom) (see Figure 2 prepared by LFR, Inc., enclosed). All of these species and features are considered open space resources as described in Goals 8.21 and 8.22 of the COSE. These species are resources that must be protected through careful placement of roads and structures on the site. As indicated on Sheet 2 of project plans, proposed grading and development will destroy nearly all of the open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site without providing any justification for why avoidance is infeasible. 2-� o • Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 7 5. General Plan COSE Goal 7.22 (Trees and other plants) states: "Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California species". 6. General Plan COSE Policy 7.22.1 (Protection of significant trees) states: "Significant trees are those making substantial contributions to the natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native species,shall be protected." Staff Analysis: The project is not consistent with this Goal and Policy [items 5 and 6 above] because nearly all existing trees on the site are proposed to be removed (with the exception of one pine tree and four buckeye trees), with a statement that there is no guarantee that those four buckeye trees can be saved, as they are currently located within the proposed building envelopes of the lots. The applicant has submitted two letters from Mid-Coast Geotechnical, Inc. stating that all of the unengineereed fill must be removed (Attachment 6); however, no justification for this statement is provided. While staff understands that a 12 to 15-foot tall fill slope may be a hazard and some of the buckeye trees would need to be removed to facilitate site development, it is unclear why a 2-4 foot tall fill slope containing additional trees constitutes the same problem. Engineering justification for why the approximate 12-15 mature buckeye trees that exist on the lower end of the fill cannot be saved by implementing alternative grading techniques has not been made. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any justification as to why the existing trees located outside of the unengineered fill area along the easterly property line, which includes two pine trees and an oak, need to be removed as well. 7. General Plan COSE Policy 7.22.4 (Preservation of grassland communities and other habitat types) states: "Grassland communities and other habitat types in...designated open spaces areas shall be preserved". Staff Analysis: As indicated in Figure 2 prepared by LFR, Inc. (provided to Council), native grassland (needlegrass) exists towards the northwest corner of the site. Although a portion of this resource is proposed to be located within a deed restriction on Lot 1, a significant portion of native grassland remains unprotected within the building footprints of Lots 7 & 8 and would ultimately be destroyed with site development, which is inconsistent with this General Plan policy. 8. General Plan COSE Goal 8.25 (Open space mitigation) states: "The City will avoid the loss of open space and require mitigation for the loss of open space". 9. General Plan COSE Policy 8.25.3 & 8.25.3.A (Required Mitigation) states: "Loss or harm shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible". o • Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 8 Staff Analysis: The project is not consistent with this Goal and Policy [items 8 and 9 above] because the Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment prepared by LFR Inc. (Council Reading File) does not provide specific mitigation for any of the natural resources impacted by the project. Where project impacts are unavoidable, COSE Policy 8.25.3.A requires mitigation to consist of creating an area at least equal to that of the habitat loss, and of substantially equal quality, in the following order of preference: 1) The same kind on the same site; 2) The same kind on a different site; 3) A similar kind on the same site; 4) A similar kind on a different site. The submitted report describes the site and its important natural resources, identifies direct and indirect impacts of the project, and potential mitigations for those impacts requiring mitigation; however, it does not outline any mitigation per se. The primary shortfalls in the report are that (1) the report seems to rely largely or entirely on the California Native Plant Protection Act (rather than the COSE) as the direction for mitigation, and (2) it fails to propose specific mitigation efforts for many of the impacts, perhaps under the assumption that only species considered "of concern" by the State of California need to be addressed. The numerous General Plan policies listed in this Council Agenda Report clearly state which natural resources are to be protected in the City and how they are to be protected in a development plan. There is no specific mitigation outlined in the project proposal for any of the natural features or species impacted, with the one exception that the native needlegrass grassland should be preserved and not used for other mitigations. 10. General Plan COSE Policy 8.22.2 (Open space buffers) states: "Buffers shall be required in the following situations: Between urban development and natural habitats such as wetlands, hillsides and ridgelines, scenic rock outcrops, grassland communities and between new development and scenic resources or the greenbelt, to address view blockage, lighting and noise, and visual transition from urban character to rural character." Staff Analysis: The project is not consistent with this General Plan Policy because it does not provide buffers between proposed development and the open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site. These resources require preservation and appropriate buffer zones. Proposal Does Not Meet.Subdivision Man Act Requirements Section 66474 of the California Government Code specifies that a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map if it makes aM of the following findings: 1. That the proposed tentative map and its design and improvements are not consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the site is not physically suited for the type and density of development. 3. That the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 2-� Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 9 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of the subdivision will conflict with public easements through or within the property. For the reasons explained in the General Plan Consistency section of this Council Agenda Report, the Planning Commission found that findings 1, 2 and 3 can be made, thus necessitating denial of the proposed tentative map. Planned Development Rezone Is Not Warranted Based on existing R-1 zoning and average slope of the site (20%), the site has a density value of 10 units. However, due to site's steep slopes, which require larger lot areas based on Table 1 of the Zoning Regulations (Page 4 of this report), the number of actual lots that could be created on the site would be less than 10. For this reason, the applicant has requested a PD rezone for the project to allow an exception to the required reduction of density for lots with steeper cross-slopes. The PD overlay zone is intended to provide for flexibility in the application of zoning standards to proposed development. The purpose is to allow consideration of innovative planning and other aspects of project design, and more effective design responses to site features, land uses on adjoining properties, and environmental impacts, than the development standards of the underlying zone would produce without adjustment. The City expects each planned development project to be of significantly higher design quality, including more effective and attractive pedestrian orientation, environmental sensitivity, energy efficiency, and more efficient use of resources, than would be achieved through conventional design practices and standards. Pursuant to Chapter 17:50 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), in order for the City to approve a PD rezone, the project must incorporate a minimum of two of four of the following mandatory project features: 1. A minimum of 25 percent of the residential units within the project are affordable to households of very low, low or moderate income (See Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 for incentives provided for affordable housing development, including density bonuses and possible fee waivers); 2. The project will achieve greater energy efficiency than standard developments through the incorporation of green building techniques, scoring at least a silver rating on the IFF or other equivalent rating system, or achieving a minimum of .30 percent greater energy efficiency than the minimum required by California Code of Regulations Title 24; 3. The project will preserve, enhance, and/or create a significant natural feature with a minimum area of one-half acre; or o • Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 10 4. The project will provide a substantial public amenity, for example, a significant public plaza, a public park, or a similar improved open space feature, including provisions for guaranteed long-term maintenance not at the expense of the City. In addition, the reviewing authority must make all eight of the following required findings: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary zoning district; 2. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning; 3. The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project, its compatibility with adjacent land uses, and its successful mitigation of environmental impacts; 4. The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines; 5. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project; 6. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan; 7. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use; and 8. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. According to the applicant's most recent statement, the project proposes to fulfill its mandatory feature requirements by: 1) Preserving a significant natural feature of a minimum of '/2 acre through transferring fee title of 12,432 s.f. of land located along the southerly property line and placing deed restrictions on some of the lots; and 2) Providing a substantial public amenity by construction of an overlook for use by the public at the western edge of the site. No further details have been provided. As proposed, the mandatory project feature requirements for a PD rezone have not been adequately met. The proposed open space protection is a requirement of the General Plan and must be provided whether the project is a PD or not. It therefore does not represent better design 09,-16 o • Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 11 than is possible in the underlying zone. In addition, as indicated in Figure 8 of the COSE shown on Page 6 of this report, deed restrictions are not an acceptable form of open space resource protection and furthermore are not even proposed over the site's most sensitive plant species. The proposed viewing deck is not situated on the project site, but rather on adjacent public land (Attachment 8). Details of the proposed deck, including an evaluation of impacts to City owned open space resources has not been provided. Normally for PD rezone requests, the City would expect required project amenities to be provided on the project site. The proposed PD, therefore, does not provide significantly higher design quality. Regardless of the whether the project does or does not meet its mandatory feature requirements, all eight required findings listed above cannot be made to support the PD rezone request. This is because to approve a rezone, the proposal must be consistent with the General Plan. In this case, for reasons specified in the General Plan Consistency discussion above, the project is not consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, there are other findings that cannot be made, e.g. the project does not represent innovative planning, does not effectively respond to site features, and does not successfully mitigate environmental impacts. Based on this information, the PD rezone request must be denied. Conclusion Staff supports the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the application because the site is not physically suited for the proposed type and density of development. Consistent with the findings of the Commission, the design of the subdivision and proposed improvements would cause substantial environmental damage and substantially and avoidably injure wildlife and their habitat. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is not consistent with the General Plan or PD rezone requirements. The subdivision findings require denial. Further environmental review at this stage is not warranted due to the lack of compliance with City policies and standards. Performing an Initial Study would reveal the project's significant effects on the environment, thus necessitating the preparation of an EIR. Taking these steps earlier would have only increased the applicant's costs without resolving the General Plan, subdivision, and-zoning inconsistencies of the project. CONCURRENCES The City's Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the development proposal in detail, including the Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment prepared by LFR Inc., and concurs with the analysis,conclusions and the Planning Commission recommendation. The Public Works Department has reviewed the hydrologic and hydraulic report and addendums prepared by Keith Crowe, PE, for the project and finds they are incomplete because they do not adequately address all of the required report components indicated in Section 2.2 of the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual. As proposed, the project could have an adverse impact on adjacent properties and downstream facilities. 0 0 Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 82-05 March 20,2007 Page 12 FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Since the project does not proposed to change the General Plan designations of the site, it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may direct staff to perform the environmental review for the project. Staff does not recommend this alternative due to the lack of information provided in the proposal and the need for additional studies. It should be noted that completion of the Initial Study would result in the need to prepare an EIR for the project. 2. The Council may continue review of the project. If more information is needed, direction should be given to staff and the applicants. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduced copy of project plans 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5465-06 4. Planning Commission minutes 5. Planning Commission staff report 6. Letters from Mid-Coast Geotechnical, Inc. dated February 22, 2006 &July 13, 2006 7. Exhibit of public viewing deck 8. Draft Resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff 9. Correspondences Documents provided to Council: 1. Full-size project plans 2. Figure 2 prepared by LFR, Inc. Council Reading File: 1. Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment prepared by LFR Inc. 2. Letters received after the Planning Commission staff report was printed GAtcorey\CC\TR-PD 82-05 Lawrence\TR-PD 82-05rpt.doc ■m�zc�t��m0lti/ .� .. . . log NIIII :I win !111��1111 ti Hill 1111 II�IIIIII1N111 VI-CINITY MAP File No. 82=05 300 Lawrence Attachment 2 T a ib q iir,oll NN 11 14hi f� HII HIM R R a , Attachment 2 gilo e N ° e , e e sc:^: .'f•� a a.�• a+° �, � 0 jp di '!� I •64� 5 77 . 1 a� ail ' 2-/S Attachment 2. \ R < N .., Vlff • .v......Y..... .., i4i ti .. 1 I 1 , / •1 J 1, � y " ` � , y •ddd + �� 'T i i•r, It _ \ i !-t ttachment 2 olN � ei�; E oil Ik 4 i it a � it Sl�ff (i tl z-/7 Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO.5465-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 LAWRENCE DRIVE (TR/PD/ER 82-05; TRACT 2723) 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 October 25, 2006, for the purpose of considering TR/PD/ER 82-05, a vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone to create 12 single-family residential lots with exceptions; 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 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: 1. The design and improvements of the vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone are not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 2.2.8 and 2.2.11, and Conservation and Open Space Policies 7.21.1.13, 7.22.1, 7.22.4, 8.22.2, 8.25.1, 8.25.3 and 8.25.3.A because the project proposes grading and development over nearly all of the open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site, which does not respect the site's existing constraints, adequately preserve or incorporate as amenities natural site features, adequately protect listed species or species of local concern, preserve significant trees and native grasslands, mitigate for the loss of natural resources, or incorporate buffer zones around resources requiring protection. 2. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type and density of development because exceptions to the Zoning Regulations for the required reduction of density for lots with steeper cross-slopes are being requested, and significant open space resources requiring protection are not incorporated into the development plan. Planning Commission Resold 0465-06 � � Attachment 3 TR/PD/ER 82-05 Page 2 3. The design of the tentative tract map and proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the project proposes grading and development over wetlands, trees, listed species or species of local concern, and native grasslands. 4. The project is not consistent with the Planned Development rezone requirements of the Zoning Regulations because the project is not consistent with the General Plan, the site is not adequate for the project given existing constraints, and the project does not represent superior design and innovation, effectively respond to site features, or successfully mitigate environmental impacts. 5. The vesting tentative tract map does not further the public interest and necessity by providing significant additional housing opportunities since the number and type of housing provided will not significantly add to the needed housing supply in the City and the project impacts outweigh the benefits of the provided housing. Section 2. Denial. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council denial of application TR/PD/ER 82-05 and recommends to the applicant redesign of the project consistent with the General Plan. On motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Brown, Christianson, Ashbaugh, Carter and McCoy NOES: Commr. Miller REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25`s day of October 2006. Doug Davi son, Secretary Planning Commission: z�9 Attachment 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 25, 2006 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Peter Brown, John Ashbaugh, Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Andrea Miller Absent: Commissioner Charles Stevenson Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Tyler Corey, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Supervising Civil Engineer Rob Livick and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of September 27, 2006. Approve or amend. The minutes of September 27, 2006, were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 300 Lawrence Drive. TR, and PD 82-05 (SLO Tract 2723); Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map creating 12 single-family lots and one open space lot with exceptions to density standards and PD rezoning to allow exceptions to density standards; R-1 zone; Total Development Company, applicant. (Tyler Corey) Associate Planner Tyler Corey presented the staff report recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council, denial of the vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development Rezone, based on findings which he outlined. Natural. Resources Manager Neil Havlik, reviewed General Plan consistency issues, environmental concerns, and indicated specific rare plant species that would be impacted by the development proposal. Deputy Director Doug Davidson explained the reason for the lack of environmental review, and that performing environmental review and conditioning the project at this stage is not feasible due to the lack of information provided, need for additional studies, and unknown project impacts. .2'-20 Draft Planning Commission N.—Ie, l� Attachment_ 4 October 25, 2006 Page 2 Marshall Ochylski, applicant's representative, gave a PowerPoint presentation of the project, provided written documentation on the project's various re-submittals, and focused on the issue of density. Greg McGowan, applicant's representative, supported environmental review of the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Paul Gordon, 461 Lawrence Dr., SLO, opposed the project and voiced concern with increased traffic. Matthew Keeling, 532 Lawrence Dr., SLO, voiced concerns with traffic and inconsistencies with the General Plan and did not support the project. Elizabeth Ellis, Lawrence Dr., SLO, felt the project was not suitable for the location. Dave Hacker, 569 Lawrence Dr., SLO, felt the project was not consistent with the General Plan and should be denied. Terri Joslin, 491 Lawrence Dr., SLO, agreed with previous speakers, expressed concerns with traffic, and expressed opposition to the project. Sandy Jordan, 660 Lawrence Dr., SLO, expressed concerns with natural resources issues, site topography, and did not support an exception to density standards for the project. Kevin Cooper, 452 Lawrence Dr., SLO, agreed with previous speakers and felt there was a need for the applicant to submit additional information. Shawn McMann, 2438 Cumbre Ct., SLO, had concerns with the loss of view, environmental impacts, possible impacts to property values, and did not support the project. Dan Coulden, 2463 Ladera Ct., SLO, discussed the letter he previously submitted to the Commission, expressed concerns with a decrease in property values, and opposed having a street put in behind his home. Paula Carr, 615 Lawrence Dr., SLO, had concerns with parking and traffic on Lawrence Drive, and project conflicts with the General Plan. Marian Eaton, 610 Lawrence Dr., SLO, agreed with previous speakers and opposed the project. Richard Stevens, 309 Lawrence Dr., SLO, opposed the project, focusing on traffic coming from Broad Street and parking for the public access to the open space. Russell Robinson, 2442 Cima Court, SLO, discussed the information in the letter he submitted, and added a concern of possible flood damage from improper drainage. Draft Planning Commission b.Ateo Attachment 4 October 25, 2006 Page 3 Lawrence Wright, SLO, agreed with previous speakers and opposed the project. Mike McGee, 2615 Meadow St., SLO, spoke against the project, noting his main concern was drainage. Arnold Jonas, 2437 Cumbre Crt., SLO, voiced concerns with a number of impacts to the City and stated that the project is a flatland development proposed on a site with steep topography and significant natural resources that require protection and consideration by the General Plan. Jim Echart, Ladera Ct., SLO, agreed with previous speakers, and did not support the project. Mike Gunkel, Ladera Ct., SLO, agreed with previous speakers, noting his objection to the project and potential drainage impacts resulting from site development. Mike Inase, 660 Lawrence Dr., SLO, had various concerns with the project and the impact to the neighborhood, and did not support the project. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on the project's non-conformance with the General Plan. Commr. McCoy noted his concern with the lack of environmental review, and asked Natural Resources Manager Havlik about specific trees on the site and their significance. Commr. Ashbaugh brought up the project's inconsistencies with the General Plan and the possible consequences with the Commission's denial and asking staff about possible altematives to the plan submitted. Commr. Carter asked Natural Resources Manager Havlik about the comparison to Bowden Ranch, discussed affordable housing both on- and off-site, and noted his desire to come to an agreement regarding new housing. Commr. Brown responded to earlier remarks made by Commr. McCoy, noted the applicant is not ready to bring to the project to the Commission, and spoke to the public's comments with a hope that a revised project will be submitted that is consistent with the General Plan in the future, noting that their traffic concerns relate to current, not future, residents Commr. Miller asked Deputy Director Davidson to clarify the affordable housing option presented by the applicant, and expressed the need for housing. _22 Draft Planning Commission I,Meso I* Attachment 4 October 25, 2006 Page 4 Commr. Christianson agreed with staff and the absence of environmental review since the project does not meet General Plan policies. On motion by Commr. Brown to recommend the City Council.deny the vesting tentative tract map and PD rezone based on findings, and that a substantially different proiect by the applicant be submitted .(based on the letter of October 13. 2006, by Tyler Corey). Seconded by Commr. Christianson. AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Ashbaugh and Brown NOES: Commrs. Miller, McCoy and Carter ABSENT: Commr: Stevenson RECUSED: None The motion failed on a 3 :3 tie vote. On a second motion by Commr. Miller to have the applicant work with staff to meet the General Plan requirements and make another presentation. Seconded by Commr. McCoy. AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Miller and McCoy NOES: Commrs. Brown, Christianson and Carter ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson RECUSED: None The motion failed on a 3:3 tie vote. On a.third motion by Commr. Brown to recommend the City Council deny the vesting- tentative estingtentative tract map and PD rezone based on findings, and to recommend the applicant redesign the project consistent with the General Plan. Seconded by Commr. Christianson. AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Brown, Christianson, Carter, McCoy NOES: Commr. Miller ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson RECUSED: None 2. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Doug Davidson gave an agenda forecast of upcoming agenda items and projects. Draft Planning Commission N...e10 ) 10 AffaChrl' ent 4 October 25, 2006 Page 5 3. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday November 15, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis Recording Secretary Approved by Planning Commission on November 15, 2006. Diane R. Stuart, �M Management Assistant o2-z y Attachment 5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO . PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner(781-7169) DATE: October 25, 2006 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community Development p� FILE NUMBER: TR/PD/ER 82-05 (County Tract Map No. 2723) PROJECT ADDRESS: 300 Lawrence Drive SUBJECT: TR/PD/ER 82-05 — Review of a vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development (PD) rezone to create 12 single-family residential lots with exceptions, on R-1 & C/OS•40 zoned property located at the westerly terminus of Lawrence Drive. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council deny the vesting tentative tract map and PD rezone, based on the findings included in the attached resolution. BACKGROUND Situation . On May 15, 2005, the City received an application for a vesting tentative tract map and environmental review to create 14 single-family lots on a 3.46-acre site at the westerly terminus of Lawrence Drive. On October 17, 2005, the applicant submitted plans with a modified subdivision approach, which included a PD rezone to request exceptions to the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations. On April 10, 2006, the applicant again submitted plans with a modified subdivision approach back to a standard subdivision where each lot must stand on its own for compliance with City standards. On July 19, 2006, the applicant again modified the subdivision approach back to a PD rezone to request exceptions to the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations. Asimfic d, die-r-Ject h. gone turott...numerous redesi.—M. -evaluated- with a different set of standards and requirements. As such, the project has been a "moving target" for staff to evaluate the various proposals for site development, which have been sporadically submitted over the past year and a half with the most recent project changes received on October 4, 2006. On October 13, 2006, staff prepared a letter to the applicant outlining all of the outstanding items and issues surrounding the project(Attachment 2). With full knowledge of the project's inconsistencies with City policies and standards, the applicant requested the project be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviews tentative tract maps and rezoning requests for compliance with the General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and makes a recommendation to the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests. Data Summary Address: 300 Lawrence Drive Applicant: Total Development Company Representative: Michael Coss/Mike.Hodge Zoning: R-1 & C/OS-40 (Low Density Residential & Conservationand Open Space with a Attachment 5 TR/PD/ER 82-05 (Total Developme'rit Company) 300 Lawrence Drive Page 2 , minimum parcel size of 40 acres) General Plan: Low Density Residential & Open Space Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has not been prepared for the project since the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)does not require one for projects that are to be disapproved(Section 21080(5)of the CEQA Guidelines). Site Description The vacant, rectangular-shaped site consists of approximately 3.46 acres located on the north facing slope of the South Hills. The site slopes from south to north with an average slope of 20%. The upper portion of the property contains serpentine rock with thin soils and numerous plant species which are restricted to such soils. This includes several species classified by the California Native Plant Society (CLAPS) as "List 1B, Plants of Highest Priority", which are considered rare and endangered in California and elsewhere, or listed as "species of local concern" by the City of San Luis Obispo's Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). The lower portion of the site consists of deeper and more productive soils derived from the serpentine rocks, but capable of supporting a more diverse mix of plants. Two additional species classified by the CNPS as "List 1B" plants or as "species of local concern" by the COSE are found in this portion of the property. Additional site features include two small wetlands, rock outcroppings, an area of native needlegrass grassland and a variety of native and non-native trees and shrubs, including California Buckeye,Toyon, Coast Live Oak,Pine,Eucalyptus and French Broom. Many years ago, a portion of the property was evidently used for the unengineered dumping of unconsolidated construction debris. This portion of the property occupies about one-half acre located toward the center of the site, and it has been colonized by a fairly large and mature stand of California Buckeye, Toyon and Coast Live Oak. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Project Description The project is a vesting tentative map and PD rezone to subdivide an existing 3.46-acre site into 12 residential lots and one open space lot. The parcels range in size from 6,875 square feet to 22,058 square feet. Since most of the proposed lots do not comply with density standards (Lots 3-9& 12), a PD rezone is being requested to allow an exception to the required reduction of density for lots with steeper cross-slopes as described in Table 1 (Maximum Residential Density For Cross-Slope Categories) of the Zoning Regulations (Attachment '3). The cross-slope categories require increased lot area for lots with steeper slopes (i.e. lots in the R-1 zone with a cross-slope category of 15% or less would need a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet to meet its density requirement; lots in the 16-20% range would need a minimum lot size of 10,500 square feet, and so on). One very-low off-site affordable housing unit is proposed for the project to increase the base density of the site from 10 units to 12 units. Other components of the subdivision include extensive site grading and the installation of private improvements, including a cul-de-sac with curb, gutter and sidewalk at the end of Lawrence Drive, and two private driveways. The private driveways are proposed at the end of the private cul-de-sac �-2-Ce TR/PD/ER 82-05 (Total Developr nt Company) Attachment 5 300 Lawrence Drive Page 3 to serve lots 7-10 and off Meadow Stmt to serve lots 1-3. Access to the site off Meadow is via an existing common driveway agreement. An existing 30-foot wide public pedestrian access and utility easement located along the site's northerly boundary is proposed to be abandoned. A new public pedestrian easement through the site to the adjacent open space is proposed at the end of the private cul-de-sac off Lawrence Drive. EVALUATION Section 66474 of the California Government Code specifies that a.legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map if it makes any of the following findings: 1. That the proposed tentative map and its design and improvements are not consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the site is not physically suited for the type and density of development. 3. That the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of the subdivision will conflict with public easements through or within the property. General PlanConsistency The site is desigated as_"L.ow Density_Residential & Open Space"_on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and the site is currently vacant. The General Plan anticipates single- family residences developed in some fashion on the Low Density Residential portion of the site and wildlife and native plant habitat preservation on the Open Space portion. Due to the site's steep topography and presence of significant natural resources, development over the Low Density Residential portion of the site presents significant challenges to site design. In anticipation of the difficulty in designing a project that meets General Plan policies and City standards, staff has worked with the applicant for over a year through the preparation of numerous letters (Attachment 4) and meetings (both on and off site) to help the applicant define constraints and develop mitigation measures for project impacts that would meet City requirements. The applicant, however, has not responded with adequate plan revisions or information to show how the project will change to meet General Plan policies. Given the applicant's desire to "move forward", staff was left with no alternative other than recommending denial of the project. General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The City must make a finding that a tentative map is or is not consistent with the General Plan. Based on staff's detailed review, the development proposal isnot consistent with numerous General Plan policies. Those 2-.2� TRIMER 82-05 (Total Develop2wht Company) Attachment 5 300 Lawrence Drive Page 4 policies are listed below in order of importance to the project in bold print and staff's analysis follows in italics. 1. General Plan COSE Policy 8.25.1 (Less of open space)states: "The City may permit loss of an open space resource as described in Goals 8.21 and 8.22 only when preserving the resource would permanently deprive the landowner of all reasonable use..:' 2. General Plan COSE Policies 7.21AM (Protect listed species) and 7.21.2.0 (Species of local concern) state: 'The City will protect listed species and species of local concern through its actions on: land-use designations; development standards; development applications..:' 3. General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.2.11 (Site Constraints) states: "Residential development shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation, and significant trees". 4. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.8 (Preserve Natural Features) states: "Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms,views,creeks,wetlands,wildlife habitats,and plants". Staff Analysis: The project is not consistent with these policies or Figure 8 of the COSE (Attachment S) because the project does not respect the site's existing constraints, adequately preserve or incorporate as amenities natural site features, adequately protect listed species or species of local concern and other site layout and development options exist that would preserve existing open space resources without depriving the landowner of all reasonable use. As previously discussed the site contains several plant species that are classified by the CNPS as "List LR, Plants of Highest Priority", which are considered rare and endangered in Ga_li mia and elsewhere or as "species of local concern" by the COSE. The former include the San Luis Obispo Star Tulip, San Luis Obispo Dudleya, Palmer Spinejlower, Cambria Morning Glory and Adobe Sanicle, and the latter includes the Clay Mariposa Lily. The Adobe Sanicle is considered "rare" by the State of California, due to evidence that the San Luis Obispo area is the only area where this species still survives. In addition, the site contains two small wetlands, native needlegrass grassland, scenic rock outcroppings and a variety of native and non-native trees and shrubs (California Buckeye, Toyon, Coast Live Oak, Pine, Eucalyptus and French Broom) (see Figure 2 prepared by LFR, Inc., enclosed). All of these species and features are considered open space resources as described in Goals 8.21 and 8.22 of the COSE. As indicated on Sheet 2 of project plans, proposed grading and development will destroy nearly all of the open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site without providing any justification why avoidance is infeasible. S. General Plan COSE Goal 7.22 (Trees and other plants) states: "Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation,particularly native California species". TR/PD/ER 82-05 (Total DevelopA mt Company) Attachment 5 360 Lawrence Drive Page 5 6. General Plan COSE Policy 7.22.1 (Protection of significant trees) states: "Significant trees are those making substantial contributions to the natural habitat or to the urban .landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Sign cant trees, particularly native species,shall be protected." Staff Analysis: The project is not consistent with this Goal and Policy because everyexisting tree on the site is proposed to be removed with the exception of one pine-tree and four buckeye trees with a statement that there is no guarantee that those four can be saved, as they are currently located within the proposed building envelopes of the lots. The applicant has submitted two letters from Mid-Coast Geotechnical, Inc. stating that all of the unengineereed fill must be removed(Attachment 6); however, no justification for this statement is provided While staff understands that a 12 to 15-foot tall fill slope may be a hazard and some of the buckeye trees would need to be removed to facilitate site development, it is unclear why a 2-4 foot tall fill slope containing additional trees constitutes the same problem. Engineering justification for why the approximate 12-15 mature buckeye trees that exist on the lower end of the fill cannot be saved by implementing alternative grading techniques has. not been made. Furthermore, the applicant has not provided any justification as to why the existing trees located outside of the unengineered fill area along the easterly propertyline, which includes two pine trees and an oak, need to be'removed as well. 7. General Plan COSE Policy 7.22.4 (Preservation of grassland communities and other habitat types) states: "Grassland 'communities and other habitat types in the Greenbelt...shall be preserved". Staff Analysis: As indicated in Figure 2 prepared by LFR, Inc. (enclosed), native grassland (needlegrass)exists towards the northwest corner of the site. Although a portion of this resource is proposed to be located within a deed restriction on Lot 1, a significant portion of native grassland remains unprotected within the building footprints of Lots 7 & 8 and would ultimately be destroyed with site development, which is inconsistent with this General Plan policy. 8. General Pian COSE Goal 8.25 (Open space mitigation)states: "The City will avoid the loss of open space and require mitigation for the loss of open space". 9. General Plan COSE Policy 8.25.3 & 8.25.3.A (Required Mitigation) states: "Loss or harm shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible". Staff Analysis: The project is not consistent with this Goal and Policy because the Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment prepared-by LFR Inc.-does not provide specific mitigation for any of the natural resources impacted by the project. Where project impacts are unavoidable, mitigation shall consist of creating an area at least equal to that of the habitat loss, and of substantially equal quality, in the following order of preference: 1) The same kind on the same site; 2) The same kind on a different site; 3)A similar kind on the same site; 4)A similar kind on a different site. The submitted report describes the site and its important natural resources, identifies direct and indirect impacts of the project, and potential mitigations for those impacts requiring mitigation; however, it does not outline any mitigation per se. The primary shortfalls 2-z 9 TR/PD/ER 82-05Attachment 5 (Total Develo�.ent Company) 300 Lawrence Drive Page 6 in the report are that (1) the report seems to rely largely or entirely on the California Native Plant Protection Act as the direction for mitigation, and(2) it fails to propose specific mitigation efforts for many of the impacts, perhaps under the assumption that only species considered "of concern" by the State of California need to be addressed. The numerous General Plan policies listed in this report clearly address natural resources of the community and their preservation in relation to the development plan. There is no specific mitigation outlined for any of the natural features or species impacted with the one exception that the native needlegrass grassland should be preserved and not used for other mitigations. 10. General Plan COSE Policy 8.22.2 (Open space buffers) states: "Buffers shall be required in the following situations: Between urban development and natural habitats such as wetlands, hillsides and ridgelines, scenic rock outcrops, grassland communities and between new development and scenic resources or the greenbelt, to address view blockage, lighting and noise, and visual transition from urban character to rural character." StaffAnalvsis: The project is not consistent with this General Plan Policy because the proposed development does not respect the open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site. These resources require preservation and appropriate buffer zones. The only buffer the project is proposing is a 10 foot setback for structures ftom the westerly property line adjacent to City owned open space in the South Hills, which is inadequate to provide a visual transition from urban character to rural character, and does not address the issue of establishing mitigation sites and buffers for those sites. Planned Development Rezone The applicant has requested a PD rezone for the project to allow an exception to the required r%hwtiaa-of-dmd y-fQr.Wts-with.atM=CMss-Aom._Ttw-PD overlay-=r.isintend%Uo.lzmvide for flexibility in the application of zoning standards to proposed development. The purpose is to allow consideration of innovation in site planning and other aspects of project design, and more effective design responses to site features, land uses on adjoining properties, and environmental impacts,than the development standards of the underlying zone would produce without adjustment. The City expects each planned development project to be of significantly higher design quality, including more effective and attractive pedestrian orientation, environmental sensitivity, energy efficiency, and more efficient use of resources,than would be achieved through conventional design practices and standards. In order to approve a PD rezone, the project must incorporate a minimum of two of four mandatory project features and the review authority must make all eight required findings (Attachment 7). According to the applicant's most recent statement, the project proposes to fulfill its mandatory feature requirements by: 1) Preserving a significant natural feature of a minimum of V2 acre through transferring fee title of.12,432 s.f of land located along the southerly property line and placing deed restrictions on some of the lots; and 2) Providing a substantial public amenity by construction of an overlook for use by the public at the western edge of the site. TR/PD/BR 82-05 (Total DevelopQnt Company) O Attachment 5 300 Lawrence Drive Page 7 Staff has concerns with the proposed deed restrictions because they represent the lowest form of protection for open space resources (an easement or dedication is preferred), and are not proposed over the site's most sensitive plant species. Previously, information to evaluate the proposed viewing deck was not submitted. On October 12'b, 2006, a conceptual exhibit of the deck was provided. A quick review shows that it is situated on public property (Attachment 8). Normally for PD rezone requests, the City would expect required project amenities to be provided on the project site. Once we look more closely at this modified proposal, further information will likely be needed. Regardless of the whether the project does or does not meet its mandatory feature requirements, all eight required findings included in Attachment 7 cannot be made to support the PD rezone request. This is because to approve a rezone, the proposal must be consistent with the General Plan. In this case, for reasons specified in the General Plan Consistency discussion above, the project is not consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, there are other findings that cannot be made, e.g. the project does not represent innovation in site planning, does not effectively respond to site features, and does not successfully mitigate environmental impacts. Based on this information,the PD rezone request must be denied. Affordable Housing The project proposes one very-low income off-site affordable housing unit, which would entitle the project to a density bonus of twenty-five percent. However, the applicant has not identified the location of the off-site property or unit to be dedicated, nor has a mechanism to restrict that unit been provided for-consideration. For projects that propose affordable housing units, an affordable housing plan is required to be submitted that indicates the location of the property and unit, value of the land and/or unit, suitability of the land and/or improvements for housing, feasibility of developing affordable housing, appraisal of valuation of real property,development ..—plan.-for-the lot, including existing and/or proposed improvem n c, floor pjgng_and_hUilding. elevations, and long-term program of affordability. This information has not been provided, and therefore the proposal cannot be evaluated for consistency with General Plan Housing Element Pulices 2.2.3, 4.2.1 & 4.2.2 and the Affordable Housing Standards, which require affordable units to be intermixed and comparable in appearance and basic quality to market-rate units of the project. Site Drainage The hydrologic and hydraulic report and addendum prepared by Keith Crowe, PE, dated October 47 2005 and April 9, 2006, does not adequately address all of the required report components - indicated in Section 2.2 of the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual. As proposed, the project could have an adverse impact on adjacent properties and downstream facilities. The report is incomplete and must address the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream hydraulic structures and natural systems, including any necessary mitigation measures, such as detention, water quality mitigation measures, channel improvements and other necessary downstream improvements. TR/PD/ER 82-05 (Total DevelopZnt Company) O Attachment 5 300 Lawrence Drive Page 8 Conclusion The vesting tentative map and PD rezone are not consistent with the General Plan. The site is not physically suited for the type and density of development. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements would cause substantial environmental damage and substantially and avoidably injure wildlife and their habitat. Performing environmental review and conditioning the project at this stage is not feasible due to the lack of information provided,need for additional studies and unknown project impacts. Based on the project's significant inconsistencies with City policy, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the vesting tentative tract map and PD rezone. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may provide direction to the applicant to work with staff to ensure project consistency with the General Plan. 2. The Commission may direct staff to perform the environmental review for the project. Staff does not recommend this alternative due to the lack of information provided and need for additional studies, which would result in significant processing delays. It should be noted that completion of the environmental document would not change the project's inconsistencies with the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS �••Yi�iawjr� 2. Letter date October 13, 2006 4. Project completeness letters dated June 15, 2005&January 27,2006 9. Letter from Troy&Helene Finger dated October 14, 2006 10. Letter from Kathy & Steve Schwaiger dated October 17, 2006 11. Letter from Wayne &Gail Miller dated October 17,2006 12: Letter from Glen Matteson Dated October 17, 2006 z-3z ���III�NII I�IIIIIIIII � n Attachment 5 c, of sanIUIS-OBIMV Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 October 13, 2006 Michael Coss Total Development Company P.O. Box 6013 Los Osos, CA 93412 Subject: TR,PD,ER 82.05 (300 Lawrerice Drive,Tract#2723) Dear I&Coss: Following discussion with you yesterday, City Administrative Officer Ken Hampian asked that I provide you with a list of outstanding items and issues surrounding the proposed vesting tentative tract map and PD rezoning at the subject site, and an explanation of what additional information is needed from you to aid in the evaluation of the proposal. General Plan Issues The project appears inconsistent with the following General Plan Policies: 1. General Plan COSE Policy 8.25.1 (Loss of open space). 2.- General Plan COSE Policies 7.21.1.D-(Protect listed species). 3. General Plan Land Use Element GM)Policy 2.2.11 (Site Constraints). 4. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.8 (Preserve Natural Features). Comment: As indicated on Sheet 2 of project plans, the proposed grading and development will result in destruction of nearly all of the open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site, without providing any justification why avoidance is infeasible. While this could be characterized as a disagreement over policy interpretation, we need you to articulate why it is infeasible to provide for protection of these open space and plant resources on site. 5. General Plan COSE Goal 7.22 (Trees and other plants). 6. General Plan COSE Policy 7.22.1 (Protection of significant trees). Comment: The project does not appear to be consistent with this Goal.and Policy because nearly every existing tree on the site is proposed to be removed with the exception of one pine tree and four buckeye trees (and this is conditional and subject to a statement that there is no guarantee that those four can be saved, as they are currently located within the proposed building envelopes of the lots). This is another policy interpretation issue where we need you to clearly articulate why the approximately 12-15 mature buckeye trees on the lower end of the fall area cannot be saved by implementing alternative grading techniques. Furthermore, we need you to Attachment 2 PG OThe City of San Lu1s.0blspo Is committed to Include the disabled In all of Its services,programs and activities. Z �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(808)781-7410. O O Attachment 5 : TR,PD,ER 82-05 October 13,2006 Page 2 provide an explanation of why the existing trees located outside of the unengineered fill area along the easterly property line, which includes two pine trees and an oak, need to be removed. 7. General Plan COSE Policy 7.22.4 (Preservation of grassland communities and other habitat types). Comment: A significant portion of native needlegrass grassland remains unprotected within the building footprints of I.,ots 7& 8 and would ultimately be destroyed with site development. To aid in resolving this"policy issue, please provide an explanation of how this grassland community can be preserved or why its destruction should be allowed notwithstanding this particular General Plan policy. 8. General Plan COSE Goal 8.25 (Open space mitigation). 9. General Plan COSE Policy 8.25.3 &8253.A(Required Mitigation). Comment:The project does not appear consistent with this Goal and Policy because the Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment prepared by LFR, Inc. does not provide specific mitigation measures for any of the natural resource impacts stemming from the project, but for a statement that the native needlegrass grassland should be preserved.and not used for other mitigations. We need you, for each sensitive species and habitat listed in the assessment report, to explain how the loss or harm to them shall be mitigated to the maximum extent-feasible. And, if not feasible,explain why not. Without this analysis, we cannot make a determination as to conformity with this General Plan goal and policy. 10.General Plan COSE Policy 8.22.2(Open space buffers). Comment: The project does not appear consistent with this General Plan Policy because the proposed development plan does not provide for buffer zones around open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site. We need an explanation of how such buffers can be accomplished, or, if not provided, why not. This is necessary In order to make the required General Plan conformity finding. PD Rezone Issues Per Chapter 17.62.045A &B of the Zoning Regulations,the project must incorporate a minimum of two of four mandatory project features and the review- authority must make all required findings in order to approve a PD rezone. According to your most recent statement, the project proposes to fulfill its mandatory feature requirements by: 1) Preserving a significant natural feature of a minimum of 1h acre through transferring fee title of 12,432 st of land located along the southerly property line and placing deed restrictions on some of the lots; and 2) Providing a substantial public amenity by construction of an overlook for use by the public at the western edge of the site. Attachment 2 PG 0 Attachment 5 TR,PD,ER 82-05 October 13, 2006 Page 3 Staff has concerns with the proposed deed restrictions because they represent the lowest form of protection for open space resources (an easement or. dedication is preferred), and are not proposed over the site's most sensitive plant species. If proceeding in this direction, please provide an explanation of why the deed restriction method is warranted in this situation, and include draft deed restriction language for review as no such information has been submitted to.us. Previously, you did not provide any information to evaluate the proposed viewing deck for compliance with PD requirements. On October 12'h, 2006; you provided Doug Davidson, Deputy Community Development Director, a conceptual exhibit of the .deck. A quick review shows that it is cited on public property. Normally for PD rezone requests,the City would expect required project amenities to be provided on the project site. Once we look into this proposal we will have further questions and will need additional information from you. Regardless of the whether the project does or does not.meet its mandatory feature requirements, AD eight required findings cannot be. readily made to support the PD rezone request. This is because to approve a rezone,the proposal must be consistent with the General Plan. In this case, for the reasons specified in the General Plan Issues discussion above,the project is not consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, there are other findings that cannot be made, e.g the project does not represent innovation in site planning, does not effectively respond to site features, and does not successfully mitigate environmental impacts. We suggest you review the findings necessary to approve a rezone and explain how they might be met. Affordable Housing Issues - The project now encompasses one very-low income off-site affordable housing unit, which would entitle the project to a density bonus of twenty-five percent. However; you have not identified the location of the off-site property or unit to be dedicated, nor has a mechanism to restrict that unit been provided for consideration. For projects that propose affordable housing units, an affordable housing plan is required to be submitted that indicates the location of the. property and unit, value of the land and/or unit, suitability of the land and/or improvements for housing, feasibility of developing affordable housing, appraiso of valuation of real property, development plan for the lot, including existing and/or proposed improvements, floor plans and building elevations, and long-term program of affordability. This information has not been provided, and therefore the proposal cannot be evaluated for consistency with General Plan Housing Element Polices 2.2.3, 4.2.1 & 4.2.2 and the Affordable Housing Standards, which require affordable units to be intermixed and_comparable in appearance and basic quality to market-rate units of the project. Please provide the information required pursuant to Sections 17.91.080 & 17.91.100 of the Zoning Regulations to evaluate the very low income affordable housing unit. Attachment 2 PC Attachment 5 TR,PD,ER 82-05 October 13,2006 Page 4 Site Drainage.Issue - The hydrologic and hydraulic report and addendum prepared by Keith Crowe, PE,.dated October 4, 2005 and April 9, 2006, respectively do not adequately address all of the required report components indicated in Section 2.2 of the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual. Additionally, the report author did not conclude that the project will have no adverse impact to adjacent properties or downstream facilities. The report is incomplete and must address the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream hydraulic structures and natural systems, including any necessary mitigation measures, such as detention, water quality mitigation measures, channel improvements and other necessary downstream improvements. Some specific areas that require further analysis include: 1. Submit hydrologic mapping for the existing and as proposed site. The mapping should identify catchment areas and points where the improved or unimproved runoff leaves the site. The mapping previously provided with the reports is too small and nearly,impossible to verify, please submit larger, legible versions. Additionally, the hydrologic mapping needs to -agree with the preliminary grading plan. 2. The detailed analysis should also include the drainage offsite to Cima and Ladera. These drainages appear inadequate for the increase in runoff. Additionally, .this proposed subdivision doesn't appear to reflect drainage easements over different parcels:this should be corrected 3. The plans show the proposed storm drain outlet onto the private driveway on the former Mitchell Drive. Clarify where this water will be diverted to and provide for outlet protection. There does not appear to be a drainage easement for the benefit of this property and the proposed increase in peak concentrated runoff generated by this development. 4. The report and plans must include all the requirements/recommendations of the Geologic Appraisal by Cleath and Associates dated 2/16/05_and the Geotechnical Engineering Report dated 11/2/04. You need to include mitigation measures for spring water. Said plan shall include a collection system for subsurface water from utility trenches and future development. Any subsurface drainage system shall outlet to the existing easterly drainage swale. Environmental Review Issues I think it important to reiterate that Section 21080(5) of the CEQA Guidelines does not require public agencies to complete environmental review for projects that are to be disapproved. Consistent with this section, it is the Community Development Department's policy not to perform environmental review of a project that will be recommended for denial. If the project was to be recommended for approval, the following list includes the initial items identified as Attachment 2 PG A'tachment 5 TR,PD,ER 82-05 October 13,2006: Page 5 necessary to start the environmental document. You should be aware that the Initial Study process usually reveals additional areas of analysis and supplemental studies needed to complete the document. So, should you decide to redesign the project to ensure consistency with the General Plan,at a minimum the following information will be required: 1. Revised drainage study to include all the required components detailed above under Site Drainage. , 2. Complete mitigation plan for all natural resources.imquiring mitigation as a result of the project. 3. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the unengineered fill slope. In the event a Phase 1 indicates the potential presence of hazardous materials a Phase 2 survey shall be conducted and results forwarded to the Fire Department for review. I hope the above discussion is helpful to you. I trust you will provide the missing information cited above in a timely fashion; and with regard to the policy interpretation issues, you have a better understanding of which General Plan Policies still need to be addressed and how. Sincerely, Tyler.Corey Associate Planner cc: Michael Hodge 351 San Miguel Avenue San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Marshall.Ochylsld P.O.Box 14327 1026 Paha Street, Suite 210 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Ken Hampian, CAO Jonathan Lowell,City Attorney - John Mandeville, Community Development Director Doug Davidson,Deputy Community Development Director Planning File TR, PD,ER 82-05 Attachment 2 PC 2L-3 7 ' Attachment 5- a - � IIIII :� � � � • c� o san l�u�s oB�a . spo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 14, 2005 Michael Coss Total Development Company P.O..Box 6013 Los Osos, CA 93412 Subject: TR,ER 82-05 (300 Lawrence Drive,Tract#2723) Dear Mr. Coss: Planning staff has completed its preliminary review of your application, a fourteen lot residential subdivision and environmental review. Preliminary review is necessary to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that your application has been determined to be deficient. The Community Development Department is not able to certify your application complete at this time. We will be unable to process your application until additional information and/or revisions for a complete application has been submitted, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 4 Preliminary review indicates that your application will remain in an incomplete status until the following information and/or revisions are submitted: 1) General Plan Open Space Policy E.1.0 states, "Protect sensitive habitat and unique resources from development impacts by requiring a habitat buffer around these areas. The habitat buffer should: (1) be located between sensitive habitat or unique resources and proposed, existing, or potential development; (2) be a sufficient width and size to protect the species most sensitive to development disturbances and to compensate for project impacts as determined by a qualified biologist during the initial planning phase of development; and (3) be designed to complement the habitat value associated with the sensitive habitat or unique resources and to protect such resources. Natural Resource Constraints. The site lies on the north-facing side of the South Hills. These hills consist of serpentine rocks and soils derived from those rocks. These are known in our area to harbor several species of rare plants. Staff has observed four species of such plants on the site: these include the San Luis Obispo mariposa, the San Luis Obispo dudleya, the clay mariposa and the Palmer chorizanthe. In addition, there is an ecologically valuable grove of California buckeye trees (which may have been planted) in the middle of the site. A stability analysis shall be conducted that indicates how these valuable trees can be maintained while allowing for some development below. Finally, staff has identified several areas which appear to be jurisdictional wetlands on the lower Attachment 4 M © The City of San Luis Obispo Is committed to Include the disabled In all of Its services,programs and activRles. .2,-37 Telecommunications DeWoe for the Deaf(805)781-7410. • i Attachment 5 TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter June 14, 2005 Page 2 portions of the site. These constraints require evaluation, and consideration as to how they will affect the development potential of the property. Submit a complete biological site ,assessment (constraints analysis)prepared by a qualified biologist for review. Please contact the City's Natural Resources Manger with questions at 781-7211. 2) General Plan Open Space Policy A.4.a. states, "Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall be located to optimize resource protection". Significant-resource areas identified by the biological site assessment should be preserved in a separate open space lot, to be owned by a.Homeownees Association or be dedicated to the City of San Luis Obispo. Because the site is bordered by Cit open space on two sides with similar plant species, it is likely the City will desire fee ownership of the open space lot. Resource areas not dedicated shall be included in easements with appropriate buffer zones and allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities clearly defined and conditioned. 3) General Plan Open Space Policy A.3 states,"Incorporate recreation and public access on or near hills and mountains consistent with.this Chapter, Section J." Chapter 5.2.E.l.d of the Community Design Guidelines states, "The use of cul-de-sac streets should be avoided wherever possible. If cul-de-sacs are necessary, the end of the ctrl-de-sac should provide a pedestrian walkway and bikeway between private parcels to link with an adjacent cul-de- sac, street, and/or park, school, or open space area." For the project to be consistent with this policy and development guideline, pedestrian access should be provided from the project site to the City open space. 4) Indicate the location, type, trunk and canopy diameter of all trees on the property and indicate status (e.g.to be removed,maintained or relocated). 5) Provide a detailed slope and density analysis for the site and resulting lots. The proportional weighting method shall be used todetermine the average cross-slope. Determine the `het area"for each lot to properly calculate the proposed densities in accordanoe with the Zoning Regulation standards. When determining the"net area"for the entire site the street right-of- way dedicated-to the City(Lawrence Drive cul-de-sac) and areas that contain `plants of highest priority" designated by the California Native Plant Society shall be excluded from the area used in the density calculation. The resulting density number is rounded to the nearest one-hundredth unit, not whole number as provided. Adjust the project and lot sizes - accordingly to comply with standards. - 6) The applicant should be aware that "density" is the number of"dwellings" per net acre, measured in density units. The creation of individual.lots is a discretionary approval that must meet General Plan policies, Zoning and Subdivision Regulation requirements. Because a particular piece of property has a specified density based on its size, slope and zoning, does not mean that it can be subdivided to support an equal number of "lots". Attachment 4 PC 2:-�39 Q Attachment 5 TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter June 14,2005 Page 3 Based on staff's preliminary review, most of the proposed lots are not large enough to support their "density", which is a requirement of the General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations for the creation of any new lot. In a standard subdivision as proposed, each lot must stand on its own for compliance with City standards. Based on project plans, the lots and subdivision layout do not appear to meet City requirements and a number of exceptions will be needed. The applicant should seriously consider revising the subdivision approach to a Planned Development (PD), which could allow the project to take advantage of reduced building setbacks, smaller lots and site density,provided the proposal can meet mandatory PD project features specified in the Zoning Regulations. Please review and revise subdivision approach. 7) Section 3309.14 (Special Grading Standards) of the City's Construction Codes states, "The topography of a site proposed for development shall remain substantially in its natural state. Mass recontouring shall not be allowed. The percentage of the site, exclusive of building area(building footprint) to remain in its natural state(no grading of any kind allowed) shall be in accordance with TABLE A-33-A1. All graded plans shall be rounded on all edges to blend with natural slopes. The rounded edges shall have a radius equal to one-half the height of the,cut or fill slope." Based on Table A-33-A1 and the site having an approximate cross slope of 16-20%, 60% of the site must remain in a natural state. Please indicate on plans how the proposed grading plan complies with this requirement. 8) Provide building envelopes, location' of driveway cuts and typical street, side and rear yard setbacks for all proposed lots on map. Also, indicate grading limits and retaining wall locations and heights for each lot. The applicant should be aware that the project is subject to Chapter 6.2 (Hillside Policies) of the General Plan .Land Use Element and Chapter 5.2 & 7.2 (Subdivision Design and General Residential Project Principles & Hillside Development) of the Community Design Guidelines and the layout of the subdivision shall facilitate development consistent with these chapters. The Community Design Guidelines specifically state.that retaining walls for new construction should not exceed 3 feet in height_and new buildings must conform to natural slopes by stepping the foundation to reduce and/or eliminate the need for grading and retaining walls. 9) Provide a complete wall/fencing plan for the project. The applicant should be aware that wall/fence height exceptions for the project will not be supported. 10) The grading plan shall include all grades and structures located within 15 feet of-the property.lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. Provide estimated quantities of cut and fill material in cubic yards on plans. 11) Section 902.2.2.4 (Dead Ends) of the City's Construction Code requires dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length (300 feet where buildings along-the dead-end roads are protected by an approved fire sprinkler system throughout) shall be Attachment 4 ' Fr, y } Attachment 5 TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter June 14, 2005 Page 4 provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The homes proposed on lots 1-5 along the lower private driveway exceed the 300-foot distance requirement from Meadow Street and must be provided with a Fire Department approved vehicle turn-around. Please revise plans to comply and contact the City's Fire Marshall with questions at 781-7386. . 12) The applicant should be aware that City Staff does not support the proposed abandonment of the 30-foot wide pedestrian access, sewer,water line and utility easements that exist over the entire 30-foot wide Mitchell Drive street abandonment Per Council Resolution No. 8021 (1992 Series). The applicant should revise plans accordingly. 13) The common driveway easement that exists over the entire 30-foot Mitchell Drive street abandonment area can only serve a maximum of 4 residential units as specified in the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. Based on existing development and access, only three additional units are allowed to use the common driveway access easement. An exception is required if the easement is to serve more than 4 residential units which must be agreed to by all interested/affected parties through a new/revised agreement. Please revise plans to comply. 14) The proposed private drives that lead to lots 1 & 10 do not meet the Subdivision Regulations for flag lot requirements. These lots must own the flag area in fee, which must be 24 feet in width with 20 feet of pavement, can only serve a maximum of 4 lots and cannot be included in the determination of required lot area or site density. A 10-foot setback is required for all structures adjacent to the access road pavement. All lots using the accessway shall have an access easement over it. Please revise. 15) This development shall comply with the Waterways Management Plan. Provide a complete hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report in accordance with the Waterways Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual (DDM). The preliminary report submitted does not address all of the items contained in Chapter .2.3 of the DDM including sections addressing Chapter 9 of the DDM—Detention Basin Designs and the water quality provision required by 1010B of the Engineering Standards. Please revise, innd contact Rob Livick at 781-7194 with questions. 16) Clearly label and identify all exceptions being requested on map in accordance with the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 16.48, Subdivision Exceptions, and state - purpose of each exception. - 17) If a reduction of density with slope exception is being requested for the project, a complete application for an Administrative Use Permit along with a$685 application fee must be submitted for a density exception per Chapter 17.16.010 of the Zoning Regulations. Include a detailed slope and density calculation for all proposed lots. Also, provide a calculation of the average density for the adjacent development and justify how �."a•C !'mint 4 c Attachment 5 TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter June 14,2005 Page 5 the proposed lots are consistent. This exception only applies to parcels that are essentially surrounded by development as least as dense as the proposed development and shall not authorize density greater than that allowed for the category of less than 15% slope for the zone. The applicant should be aware that the applicability of this exception is for individual infill parcels,not new subdivisions that are-"essentially.surrounded" by open space. 18) The design of the detention basin shall show safe overflow path that does not impact existing development. 19) The interior detention basin slopes shall be revised to be no steeper than 3:1 and exterior slopes no steeper than 2:5:1. 20) Provide detailed information where the drainage goes in the event of over spill on the adjacent property. 21) Provide draft covenants,conditions and restrictions(CC&R's)for the proposed accessways, detention basin, storm drains and open space easements. 22) An Archeological Resources Inventory (ARI, Phase 1 Study) is required for the project, per the City's Archeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Please see the attached list of qualified archeological consultants for the San Luis Obispo area. 23) Provide a statement of existing and proposed land use. Indicate whether the intent is to sell individual lots or buildout the subdivision after final map approval. The above list includes all of the items initially identified as necessary for us to certify your application as complete. The City may ask for additional information upon more detailed review of your project. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the specific items necessary to submit for a complete application, please contact me at 781-7169. Sincerely, l Tyler Corey Associate Planner - - Attached: Qualified Archeological Consultant List cc: Michael Hodge 351 San Miguel Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment 4 Pt Attachment 5 TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter June 14, 2005 Page 6 Marshall Ochylski P.O. Box 14327 1026 Palm Street, Suite 210 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Planning File TR,ER 82-05 r Attachment 4 a .2,r�13 lO A'tachment 5 February 2003 crty of san Luis oBlspo QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA (Specialization Key: P-Prehistoric; H-Historic;M-Site Monitor; PA- Paleontology) Clay A.Singer(P,H) Vance G.Bente(H) Sherri M.Oust(PA,P) C.A.Singer and Associates Woodward Clyde Consultants Cogstone Resource Management P.O.Box 99 500 IV'St.,Suite 100 1801 E.Parkcourt PI.F205 Cambria,CA 93428-2821 Oakland,CA 94607 Santa Ana,CA 92701 (805)927-0455 (510)879-3274 (714)245-0264 Roberta Greenwood(P,H) Bertrando and Bertrando(P,H) Lein Lynn Odom(P,M) Greenwood and Associates Research Consultants Hatash Consultants 725 Jacon Way 267 Foothill Blvd. 604 4.Ocean Avenue,Suite B Pacific Palisades,CA 90272 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Lompoc,CA 93436 (310)454-3091 805 543-7831 805 735-3693 Thor Conway(P,H) Dr.John Parker(PAM) Macfarlane Archaeological Heritage Discoveries Inc. P.O.Box 462 Consultants(P,H) 793A Foothill Blvd.,Suite#108 Cayucos,CA 93430 7290 Marmota Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 (805)772-0117 Ventura,CA 93003 (805)545-0724 (805)659-2657 Douglas Wood&Assoc.(PH) Robert O.Gibson(PM) Anthropological Studies Center 1461 Higaera,Suite 1 P.O.Box 102 Sonoma State University,Bldg.29 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 Paso Robles,CA 93447-0102 1801 E.Cotati Avenue (805)5441680 (805)238-5411 Rohnert Park,CA 94928-3609 EIR Consultant (805)238-7029(fax) (707)664-2381 Carole A.Denardo(P,H) Mark Vigil(M) Central Coast Archaeological Applied Earthworks SLO County Chumash Council Information Center 515 E.Ocean,Suite G 515 S.Elm Dept.of Anthropology,UCSB Lompoc,CA 93436 Arroyo Grande,CA 93420-3709 Santa Barbara,CA 93106-3210 (805)737.4119 (805)481-2461 (805)893-2474 (records search) (805)893-8707 fax James and Mary Maniery(P,H) Barry Price(P,H,PA) Julia Garvin Costello PAR Environmental Services,Inc. Applied.Earthworks Foothill Resources,Ltd. 1906 21st Street 5088 North Fruit Ave.,Suite 101 PO Box 288 Sacramento,CA 95816 Fresno,CA 93711-3061 Mokelumne Hill,CA 95245 (916)739-8356 (209)229-1856 (209)286-1182 Nancy Ferrell ,CRMS(P,H) FarWestern Anthropological Scott M.Hudlow 813 Paso Robles Street Research Group(P) 6312 Castiepoint Street Paso Robles,CA 93446 P.O.Box 413 Bakersfield,CA 93313 - - (805)237-3838 Davis,CA 95617 (661)834-9183 . - (530)756-3941 Attachment 4 Ft '_-2- -W Q i Attachment 5 Mary K.Maki,Archaeologist(P) Joyce L.Gerber(P) Karen Rasmussen Foster(P,H) Conejo Archaeological Consultants 3953 Spica Way SAIC 2321 Goldsmith Avenue Lompoc,CA 93436 525 Anacapa St, Thousand Oaks,CA 91360 (805)680-6937 Santa Barbara,CA 93101 (805)494-4309 (805)564-6100,ext.49 Ethan Bertrando(P,H) Robert L.Hoover(P,H) LSA Associates,Inc.(P,H) 188 Del Norte Way 1144 Buchon Street 2215 Fifth Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 San Luis Obispo,CA93401 Berkeley,CA 94710 (805)544-1308 (805)544-0176 (510)540-7331 TRC Solutions(P,H,PA) Albion Environmental,Inc.(P,H, David E.Wrobleski(P,H) 21 Technology Drive PA) TRC Irvine,CA 92618 1414 Soquel Avenue,Suite 205 4221-A,Balloon.Park Rd.,NE (949)341-7426 Santa Cruz;CA 95062 Albuquerque,NM 87109 (831)469-9128 (505)761-0099 JW uchw0I09y/ciVMdMedo&Wst2003 is r Attachment 4 �-ys" Il �luIIup�I 1� Attachment 5 �llu I uP N cit Of sanvul OBISW-- 990 �Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 January 27, 2006 Michael Coss TOual Developm= Company P.O. Box 6013 Los Osos, CA 93412 Subject: TR, ER 82-05 (300 Lawrence Drive,Tract#2723) Dear Mr. Coss: Thank you for providing the additional information to the Community Development Department as requested in the City's June 14, 2005, letter. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that upon detailed review by City departments of the additional information submitted, several items remain outstanding that could affect the design and layout of your proposed project at the subject property. Your application cannot be certified as complete at this time because some of the information included with your re-submittal is either incomplete or inaccurate. 1) For the project to be consistent with the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines, the proposed 10-foot wide pedestrian access easement within the common access driveway adjacent to Lot 1 shall be relocated to the upper portion of the site off Lawrence Drive, and extended thru Lot 8 to the City open space. In addition, provide a 15-foot wide City maintenance easement for the purpose of fire hazard abatement from the termination of the existing common driveway easement on Lot 1 to the City open space to the west,or provide a joint 15-foot wide pedestrian/City maintenance easement off Lawrence Drive. Please revise. 2) Planned Development (PD) Requirements. As proposed, the project does-not adequately fulfill its mandatory project feature requirements for PD zoning. In order to meet the project feature requirements, the open spacelmitigation site proposed at the northwest comer of the property shall be dedicated, in fee, to the City consistent with General Plan policy, and an improved pedestrian trail extending from the end of Lawrence Drive to the adjacent City open space thru Lot 8 to the existing trail access at the end Exposition Drive shall be provided and constructed consistent with open space trail standards and maintained not at the expense 'of the City. At a scheduled meeting, staff will further discuss these alternatives, which will bring the -project into compliance with the requirements for PD zoning. 3) Clearly identify all proposed open space easement areas and land dedications on plans for reference. Include area calculations. Attachment 4 The City of San Luis Obispo Is committed to Include the disabled in all of Its services,programa and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-741o. �_� .� Attachment 5 TR, ER 82-05 —Completeness Letter January 27, 2006 Page 2 4) Indicate how the project will mitigate the losses of native trees, including Oaks, Buckeyes and Toyons. Staff recommends a 1:1 replacement ratio using 15-gallon stock and utilizing the northwest corner of the property as a mitigation area. Please address and show on plans. 5) Lidicate on plans special grading techniques to be used Hear the Buckeye treeS proposed to remain. Specifically, grading should go.in horizontally until outside of the dripline of the trees. Plans indicate retaining walls and fill adjacent to the Buckeye trees proposed to remain (Lot 6, Sheets 5 & 6). This is unacceptable; plans shall be revised to indicate special griding requirements adjacent to all proposed Buckeyes to remain to the review and approval of the soils engineer, a Certified Arborist, and the City's Natural Resources Manager. Please revise grading plans to address. Contact Neil Havlik at 781-7211 for assistance. 6) Project plans shall clearly identify project mitigation and a mitigation site for the small wetland area and Adobe Sanicle population, Cambria Morning Glory, Palmer's Spinflower and San Luis Obispo Dudleya that will be impacted by the project design. 7) The open space lot along the southerly portion of the site proposed to be dedicated to the City shall be modified to include the mitigation area proposed at the northwest corner of the property, as well as a portion of the Buckeyes being preserved. Contact Neil Havlik for direction. 8) Provide a detailed landscape plan for the project that indicates the size, number and species of all proposed landscape plantings and indicate irrigation methods on plans. Special attention shall be given to the location, type and number of street trees, landscape strip adjacent to the common access way along northerly property boundary and open space mitigation area proposed at the northwest comer of the property. 9) The slope analysis for the site shall use the proportional weighting method as describe in Chapter 17.16.010 of the Zoning Regulations. The average cross-slope is to be determined by proportional weighting of the cross-slope of uniformly sloping'sub-areas. Cross slope determinations shall be based orF, the "existing topography" of the net site area after accounting for any approved on`-site grading. necessary to accommodate right-of-way improvements. This means that the "existing topography" of the artificial fill area of the site must be included in the slope analysis. The slope analysis submitted does not utilize uniformly sloping sub-areas for"Area'B". When determining the "net area" for the entire site the street right-of-way dedicated to the City and areas that contain "plants of highest priority" designated by the California Native Plant Society shall be excluded from the area used in the density calculation. Figure 2 of the Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment prepared by LFR on November 8, 2005 indicates the extent of the sensitive areas to be excluded. Show how the net area determination takes these areas into consideration for the resulting density calculation. The resulting density number is rounded to the nearest one- Attachment 4 x Attachment 5 TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter January 27; 2006 Page 3 hundredth unit. Please revise. 10) The topography of a site proposed for development shall remain substantially in its natural state. Mass recontouring shall not be allowed. The percentage of the site, exclusive of building area (building footprint) to remain in its natural state (no grading of any hind allowed) shall be in accordance with TABLE A-33-Al. Based on Table A-33- Al and the site having an approximate cross slope of 16-20% (to be verified with revised slope analysis), 60% of the site must remain in a natural state. Indicate on plans how the proposed grading plan complies with this requirement. 11) Provide a "complete" grading and drainage plan for the project. Clearly indicate grading limits on each lot. Show all existing and proposed contours in areas that are proposed to be graded. Include the existing and proposed contours for the proposed driveway to lots 3 and 4. Clarify where runoff from lot 7 will be diverted to and provide an easement as needed. The proposed 5-foot storm drain easement shown on Lots 1 & 8 shall be extended thru the drainage swale to the northwest corner of the property.on Lot 1 adjacent to 2447 Cima Court. - Show all proposed drainage easements necessary for the project. Provide estimated quantities of cut and fill material in cubic yards on plans for reference. Also,specify truck circulation access route on plans. 12) Clarify the design for the proposed drainage Swale up slope of lots 9-12. Staff recommends a more permanent swale (see Stoneridge development) that acts like an intercept or some form of concrete drain which will intercept runoff from the rock covered slopes above the site. Also, the swale is proposed to be over exposed bedrock which may prove to be difficult for the developer. 13) Sheet 5 of plans indicates retaining wall heights up to 6 feet tall along various property lines. Fencing will likely be proposed on top of the walls, which will result in wall/fence combinations taller than 6 feet The maximum height of wallstfencing is 6 feet measured from the"love' side. As previously stated, walUfence height exceptions for the project will not be supported and changes to the grading plan to reduce retaining wall heights will be required. Show the location of all proposed fencing to verify compliance with standards. Please revise plans as necessary to comply. 14) The proposed stepped retaining walls along the northerly property boundary adjacent to the common access driveway will create privacy and overlook impacts on the adjacent properties to the north. Based on Section A-A on Sheet 5, the road elevation will be the same elevation as the top of the existing 6-foot fence separating the properties. Revise the grading plan to significantly reduce this impact consistent with General Plan policy and the Community Design Guidelines. 15) The accessway to Lot 3 is more than 150 feet long and must be at least 24 feet wide with 20 feet of pavement Plans indicate a 2446ot wide accessway with only 18 feet of pavement. Attachment 4 =2_1W Attachment 5 TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter January 27, 2006 Page 4 Please revise. 16) Submit the following circulation information with the assumption that Meadow Street between Mitchell and Lawrence will be closed to through vehicle traffic as a condition of this subdivision: • Project's average daily, am peak and pm peak hour vehicle trips proportioned to Lawrence and Meadow Streets, northbound and southbound distribution of those trips, and percentage of Lawrence trips that a traffic professional estimates to cut through the neighborhood when the Lawrence to Broad Street route is not the most direct route. • Clearly indicate how the site design complies with Fire Department regulations for emergency access. Contact Jim Tringham, Fire Marshal, at 781-7386 for assistance. 17) The site design shall be revised to comply with the Uniform Design Criteria (No. 1010A of the City's Engineering Standards): Specifically, this standard requires space for the turning of vehicles at the ends of access courts (cul-de-sacs). If a court serves seven or more dwellings (from.Lawrence Drive), a turning circle with dimension equal or greater than those in the Engineering Standard 7020 shall be provided. If a court serves six or fewer dwellings (from Mitchell Drive), a hammerhead or other arrangement may be approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. Please revise plans_ to comply and contact Peggy Mandeville in the Public Works Department.at 781-7590 with questions. 18) A more detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties is required. The report shall.include the following: , • Analysis of the overside drain on Lawrence and sidewalk underdfain at Meadow St. Include curb capacities for Lawrence Dr. ` Analysis to include drainage at the intersection of Woodbridge and Meadow. The storm drain at this location may have to be upgraded to an open side catch basin. • Analysis to include the drainage swale on 2468 Ladera. This swale appears to be inadequate for the increase in runoff. The tract doesn't appear to have a drainage easement to this swale. • Project plans shall show the proposed storm drain outleting onto the private driveway on Mitchell. Clarify where this water will be diverted to and provide outlet protection. • Include clear aerial maps depicting the drainage areas used to calculate the pre and post development runoff. The one provided is difficult to read. The analysis provided may not include all of the contributing water shed. Provide analysis that includes the fording by Cleath and Associates, Geologic Appraisal dated 2/16/05. • The required analysis shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce flooding of Lawrence and Meadow streets. Attachment 4 k Attachment 5' TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter January 27,2006 Page 5 19) This development shall comply with the Waterways Management Plan. Provide a complete hydrologic and hydraulic analysis report in accordance with the Waterways Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual (DDM). The drainage study provided included the use of HEC-HMS to determine runoff. This method of analysis is inaccurate for this size of de�Ul0pm0nt. The drainage Study .shall address ali the requirements of the Waterways management Plan, DDM including using the Rational Method or other appropriate method of analysis to determine runoff for a development of this size. 20) The plans shall include all the requirements/recommendations of the Geologic Appraisal by Cleath and Associates dated 2/16/05 and the Geotechnical Engineering Report dated 11%2/04. Include mitigation measures for spring water. Plan shall include a collection system for subsurface water from utility trenches and future development. Any subsurface drainage system shall outlet to the existing easterly drainage Swale. 21) Fire hydrants will be required. The Fire Department will determine the final location of the fire hydrants. Please contact Jim Tringham, Fire Marshall,at 781-7386 for assistance. The proposed 20 ft wide driveway may not be adequate for fire engines and will need to be reviewed by the Fire Department. 22) The tentative map shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meter; shall be shown. Indicate on the plans what utilities are to be private and what is to be public. See the public improvement plans for 2699 Meadow Street,City Plan#0122, for more information on the public sewer and water main in the Mitchell private driveway. 23) Clearly label and identify all exceptions being requested on map in accordance with the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 16.48, Subdivision Exceptions, and state purpose of each exception. 24) Provide a revised statement indicating how the project will meet its inclusionary housing requirement including plans showing the number,type and location of affordable units to be I built or converted and the term of affordability, or a preliminary calculation of in-lieu fees, or an offer of land dedication. If met through payment of an in-lieu fee, please contact Doug Davidson,Housing Programs Manager, at 781-7523 for assistance in calculating a fee _ estimate. 25) Submit a solid waste collection plan that indicates how the proposed lots will be serviced. Contact Ron Munds in the Utilities Department at 781-7258 and the San Luis Garbage Company at 543-0875 for assistance. Attachment 4 `l ! Attachment 5 . TR,ER 82-05—Completeness Letter January 27,2006 Page 6 26) Architectural Guidelines. The following changes shall be made to the Architectural Guidelines submitted for the tract: a. All"should" language contained within the guidelines shall be converted to"shall". b. There shall be a statement indicating that the development of each lot will require a planning application for Architectural Review to the approval of the City. Meru #1 under City Approval describes an over the counter review. c. The. side yard setback requirement.of. 3 feet shall be eliminated. Based on the proposed lot widths, which comply with City standards, a reduction in the side yard setback requirement is not warranted or supported. d. The 15-foot street yard setback requitement for garages facing the street shall be eliminated. In no case may an enclosed parking space from which vehicles exit directly onto the street be located less than 20 feet from a common driveway easement. Lots 4, 6, 10 & 11 as shown on Sheet 5 do not comply with this requirement and will need to be revised. Given the proposed substandard street width and lack of on-street parking, further reductions to potential on-site vehicle parking will not be supported. e. Consider implementing height restrictions (i.e. single story at street level)for Lots 5, 6, &7 so as to not block views for Lots 8-12. The items listed above include the minimum amount of additional information necessary to deem the project complete. Staff may request additional information to supplement your application, and to make an appropriate recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council on the proposal. Staff is.looking forward to discussing the project in further detail at a scheduled meeting. Please contact me at 781-7169 to setup a meeting time. Sincerely, Tyler Corey Associate Planner cc: Michael Hodge MI. San Miguel Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Marshall Ochylski _ P.O. Box 14327 1026 Palm-Street, Suite 210 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Planning File TR,ER 82-05 Attachment 4 Fe- Attachment 5 October 14, 2006 Re: Lawrence Drive subdivision Dear planning commission, This proposal is a safety hazard on Ladera court, Cema court, and Woodbridge St. In addition it is a taking of,esthetic,safety, and home valves to the property owners on these streets. This project will otter the hydrology of the south hills causing the addition of continuous water into.Ladera court, Cema court and onto Woodbridge Street. In addition this proposal adds the drainage and storm load for 8 units onto these streets. Since the homes on the abandoned portion of Mitchell drive where built a continuous f low of water (a creek) from the south hills has entered Ladera court and Cema court then onto Woodbridge Street. This continuous flow crosses Ladera court at Woodbridge Street and has caused algae and matter to grow in the crossing area. I have slipped there and have seen cars loose control since the cars are turning onto Woodbridge from Ladera(cul du sac)and are in this water and muck year 'round. This is the case at every driveway also. This safety issue was caused by the building of a few houses in the corner of this area Now this proposal has 12 additional houses being built without the hydraulic - concerns of the downstream residence and the city being considered. How much more water is going to be at this intersection and on these streets? Our family has to deal with the unsafe area in our street and in front of our house. Having increased year round flows would increase this safety risk. This may cause undue legal action against the City for approving an increase to a known safety risk. Sincerely, Troy and Helene Finger 473 Woodbridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 Attachment 9 O Attachment 5 10-17-06 To:Tyler Corey From: Kathy and Steve Schwaiger RE: 300 Lawrence Dr, SLO App#PD,TR &ER 82-05 I would like it put on the record that I am apposed to adding 12 additional lots at the end of Lawrence Drive for the following reasons: • It's my understanding that there would be a cul-de-sac at the end of the street leading to the 12 sites. Parking is already a very big problem on Lawrence.There are many times when you can not find parking near your residence. • Traffic is another concern.The grade on Meadows Drive is very steep and narrow. Additional traffic would pose an even bigger problem at that corner.Cars and large trucks cut the comer caving in the asphalt and creating drainage problems.This would only be made worse by additional traffic. • Drainage is already a problem in the neighborhood with underground springs running on many of the properties at end of Lawrence Drive. Additional grading and residences would only add town already existing drainage issue. These are very real concerns. Meadows Dr was not engineered to handle the existing traffic let alone additional traffic from 12 proposed sites.Parking is already a problem and underground spring will always exist.This is the wrong project for this area. Thank You, Kathy and Steve Schwaiger Attachment 10 W. v Attachment 5 From: <TOWMILLERS@aoi.com> To: <tcorey®slocfty.org> Date: 10/17/06 8:49PM Subject: Re: Opposition to proposed construction at 300 Lawrence To: Mr. Tyler Corey From: Wayne and Gail Miller Re: 300 Lawrence Drive- Application #PD,TR& ER82-05 We own property at 404/402 Lawrence Drive in San Luis Obispo and wish to oppose the proposed construction of.12 lots at 300 Lawrence. We oppose this proposed construction for the following reasons: 1. We understand that the proposed lots would be built around a cul-de-sac. This would create too much traffic on both Meadows and Lawrence drive. 2. A parking problem already exists in the area. Adding twelve more lots would only add to an existing problem. 3. Meadows Is a narrow road with a steep grade. It was not engineered to handle the current traffic and the road is deteriorating because of the existing traffic. 4. There are underground streams in the area that also cause eroding of the road on Meadows. This Is a drainage problem for my property and surrounding properties. Further construction and traffic would cause more drainage problems In the area. This proposed construction would have a negative effect on our neighborhood. Sincerely, Wayne and Gail Miller is CC: <TOWMILLERS@aol.com> Attachment 11 a Attachment 5 October 17, 2006 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo Subject: Proposed rezoning and subdivision at 300 Lawrence Drive (File 82-05; October 25, 2006 hearing date) Honorable Commissioners: The application before you is not consistent with the General Plan or with the intent of the Planned Development zone: It should be denied. A carefully designed"planned development" for this end of Lawrence Drive would include the following,features,which the current proposal does not: • A proper street termination(cul-de-sac), with public pedestrian trail and easement extending to the South Hills dedicated open space. • Protection for the site's sensitive plant species,including well-defined building envelopes, with mitigation for minor"take"that cannot be avoided. • Dedication in fee of the hillside open space that is zoned C/OS. It appears that the site can accommodate a reasonable number of building sites,on more- or-less conventional lots, with some exceptions to cross-slope standards, while avoiding the complications of an owners' association(if that is the subdivider's preference). Maybe the best advice would be "Let's not be greedy." Glen Matteson 566 Lawrence Drive San Luis Obispo - - Attachment 12 it ZS7S M� . 0`� Attachment 6, - . aa �,INC, C e 0 t e ' C h n 1 C a I E n 9 n .eering_ Services Fobrttaty 22,2006 Flle No.04.5302 Report No. 11296 Totd tioveloptimt compwv PA.Baric 6013 Los Oeok CA 93412 Attu:Micbael Cosa SUBJECTt APN: 004-931.042,Levina o Drive,San Luis Obispo P.EFERENCE: Our(leoteolmical Hngineering Report,.dated November 2,2M. Dee Mr Coss: Vele have prepared this letW to address the ugdoomerded fill on the subject site with relation to the vegetation and trees that have grown In the fill slope sire tie placement of the fill. As noted in the referenced mpor%wehaverecommendedthattheundocumenud811 matecisl beremm ed,processed or screened and recompacted to reconstruct the fill slope. However,to aooaumplish thik the organic matter associated with the vegetation and trees, including any roots enoctaoremd in the tmdooimmented fill will have to be removed. We wideipate being onsite dor q grading operations to eon&m to the recommendation from the refereaad report have been fbilowed. If we can be of fordw assistance in this matter,please eoullut the uadeaslgrned. - - �t Respock�lly sttbmitu�. IvlID00iA.4f 0ageahmaal,hu. too" �^ cc ten Z60075 C0►1 °� E, an due, 12-31-2006 .DChelh P. O . 6o$ 3125 1332 itodels Circle . Suitt 100 • Paso Aobits , CA 83447-3125 but . ( 605123.7 . 1.462 a PAX ( 605 ) 237 . 1483 • San Luis Obispo ( 6051544 .3226 Attachment, 6 JWXEMID-COAST GEMCHr1ICAL,INC. Ge Ott c h n i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g S e r v i c e : July 13,2006 File No.04-5302 Report No. 11547 Total DevdopmeW Cbl►,ILC P.O.BOX 6013 Los Osm CA 93412 .At1n:MIcMd Coss f3UHMIN APN:004-9314420 Lawtew Drive,Sen IA&Obispo RIi�FEBEItTCEB: I)Our Qeot i EB&Dcft Repmy dated November 2.2004. 2)Our leflar,dated Febrmzy 22,2006. Dtatr?&Coes: Thislettnrhasbeenps+epaa,edtofitttberreinfaaneo>a'rrxomkwdadonsf4gKdbg&auftd0mMwMftd tabbk fill maftial an the mWeat alta. Pee out d'is unkmu® an alta an j* 5, 20061, $1e rubble MI wM be required to be rmaoved I nlm the stw or pmessed oat site and recomputed. R,ega &ass, all of the argadc memorial mod in the removal pmaees wlll be req*W to be removed frm Ste site. Ffwe can be of fiw&w assistance intbis maw please cotbct the uadeasiBned. . Q� � �subu�tted, �� • c � " �1. MiD{lQNSTt3ootea�al,yac. ��cg� C.; a6067s , 12-31-2006 DCJ-Glh bad ad Coss(e-mail) P. O . Bot 3125 • 1332 Yeodplt' Citele. Soite 190 • PASO Robles , CA 93447.3125 RutIRe. /9.37 1 A A 2 • PAI ig6g1237. 1483 • San Luis Obispo ( 8051544.312.0 Attachment 7 r7F�foSGG �:6—��-�C�'�/ Ot.�w►+e��h SPe.Gt X / IX 'RA ----- - X d3l X I � i � X � I " z r b v O I / C � � h S X X � a I t i X 0 Attachment 8 Draft Resolution RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 LAWRENCE DRIVE (TR/PD/ER 82-05; TRACT 2723) 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 October 25, 2006, and recommended denial of Application TR/PD/ER 82-05, a request to create twelve single-family residential lots with exceptions; 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 20, 2007,for the purpose of considering Application TR/PD/ER 82=05; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The design and improvements of the vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone are not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 2.2.8 and 2.2.11, and Conservation and Open Space Policies 7.21.1.D, 7.22.1, 7.22.4, 8.22.2, 8.25.1, 8.25.3 and 8.25.3.A because the project proposes grading and development over nearly all of the open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site, which does not respect the site's existing constraints, adequately preserve or incorporate as amenities natural site features, adequately protect listed species or species of local concern, preserve significant trees and native grasslands, mitigate for the loss of natural resources, or incorporate buffer zones around resources requiring protection. 2. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type and density of development because exceptions to the Zoning Regulations for the required reduction of density for lots with steeper cross-slopes are being requested, and significant open space resources requiring protection are not incorporated into the development plan. 3. The design of the tentative tract map and proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the project proposes grading and development over wetlands, trees, listed species or species of local concern, and native grasslands. Attachment 8 Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 4. The project is not consistent with the Planned Development rezone requirements of the Zoning Regulations because the project is not consistent with the General Plan, the site is not adequate for the project given existing constraints, and the project does not represent superior design and innovation, effectively respond to site features,. or successfully mitigate environmental impacts. 5. The vesting tentative tract map does not further the public interest and necessity by providing significant additional housing opportunities since the number and type of housing provided will not significantly add.to the needed housing supply in the City and the project impacts outweigh the benefits of the provided housing. SECTION 2. Denial. The City Council does hereby deny the vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone for property located at 300 Lawrence Drive (Application TR/PD/ER 82-05; Tract 2723). On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20`s day of March,2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonaanowell, City Attorney 1 "5 1 WL 1 O Attachment 9 Corey, Tyler From: Megarecord@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 01,2007 8:13 AM To: Corey,Tyler Subject: Re: 300 Lawrence Project Letter for Council John&Adelaide Mostachetti February 28, 2007. 2699 Meadow Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 To: Members of the City Council, RE: Project at 300 Lawrence Drive. My wife and I own a home which borders the north east comer of the project. We both support a land owner's right to develop their property in a reasonable fashion.There are however rules and regulations that must be followed. This project must be consistent with the General Plan. It is my understanding that this project is not consistent with numerous General Plan policies. Due to site constraints, we do not support a density bonus on this site from 10 to 12 units. There is no reason why more trees cannot be retained on this site, as well.Access to all parcels should be through Lawrence Drive.As a former planner with the County of Santa Barbara, I would advise the applicant to'Work with your contours, minimize your grading & return to the Planning Commission with a project that is consistent with the General Plan". In closing, I would ask your Council to request that the applicant revise their project so that it will be consistent with the policies of the General Plan and to return to the Planning Commission for further review at that time. Sincerely, John &Adelaide Mostachetti AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. si1i2007 �� March 6,2007 Mayor of San Luis Obispo Honorable Dave Romero Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council Reaardina: Development at 300 Lawrence Drive We are Jim and Mary Eckhart,living at 2475 Ladera Court in San Luis Obispo. Our home backs up to the proposed development at 300 Lawrence Drive being considered by the City Council on March 2e,as shown on the following plot map. E a o ML Our Property Access Road I Turn LAWRENCE Around Application Denial It is our understanding that the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Staff and the Planning Commission have both recommended that the City Council deny the application TR/PD/ER 82-05,based on their judgments that: 1. The plan submitted is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Conservation and Open Space Policies. 2. The site is not suitable for the proposed density of development. 3. The plan submitted does not adequately provide for mitigation for the substantial environmental damage and damage to wildlife habitat that would result. Based on our review of the application and the recommendations of the City planning organizations,we strongly urge that the City Council support the recommendation of their planning organizations,and deny the application TR/PD/ER 82-05. We see no justification for the applicant to be permitted to proceed with a plan that is not in compliance with the General Plan, and clearly not in the best interests of the City of San Luis Obispo,the surrounding neighborhoods or the future owners of the new homes. Environment Damage and Mitigation The lower portion of the property has the most important environmental issues, including wetlands,native grasslands and plants considered to be of local concern by the COSE, most of which will be destroyed if this portion of the property is developed as planned. Just as important,this portion of the property holds the greatest promise for mitigation of the environmental damages that will occur in the upper portion of the property where the main development is occurring. We believe that the lower portion of the development should be left as open space, preserving the wetlands and native grasslands and providing opportunities for necessary environmental mitigation for the project as a whole. Access Road for Lower Portion The plan currently provides access to the there homes on the lower portion of the property via a narrow lane that comes off Meadow. Apparently there is not enough space to allow a cul de sac for these three homes. Instead,there will be an uphill hammerhead turnaround allowing trucks and other vehicles to turn around as they enter the development,and to back up along the access lane which borders our back fence. The ensuing engine noise and the beep,beep,beep of the reverse signal alarms will be coming directly into our kitchen and bedroom—within twenty feet of this area. We find this to be totally unacceptable. If the tower portion of the property is developed,access to these homes needs to be done in a way that does not leave the five existing neighbors with an intolerable situation. Conclusion We are not asking that this property not be developed. We knew when we purchased our property last year that this property was going to be developed,but we were comforted in knowing that San Luis Obispo has a reputation for holding its developers accountable to the General Plan. Whatever development does occur should be based on a responsible,professional plan,a plan that the applicant and the City planning organizations have been able to reasonably come to agreement on. In the long term, a development done without proper compliance with the General Plan and without taking into consideration the environmental issues and concerns of the owners of surrounding properties will end up causing the City,the neighbors and the future owners problems and legal struggles that could have been avoided had the issues been properly addressed up front. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Respectfully submitted, MAR 0 9 2007 ITCors,?;, ._ 'f-VELOPMENT oV *ATTACHMENT 9 RECEIVED MAR 0 2007 SLO CITY CLERK March 7, 2007 Mayor of San Luis Obispo Hon.Dave Romero City Council Members of San Luis Obispo Regarding: Development Project 300 Lawrence Dr. We own the property at 2468 La&m Ct., San Luis Obispo,which borders on abandoned Mitchell St. Our property supports a drainage swale into Ladera Ct. In your preparations for the upcoming council agenda Sar March 20*we want to clarify that.we do not oppose orderly developments in compliance with General Plan stipulations, but as cun=W proposed, this project is incomplete and a lhrce in that regard. The basic General Plan requirements are not met and repeated requests by the Planning Department to correct omissions or make adjustments to the current proposal apparently were#laity ignored. Density site constraints and environmental demands are an example. Without going into details of our specific objections and concerns at this time we ask that this council reject developer Michael Coss' plan and direct him to bring his proposal into full compliance with Planning Commission suggested corrections. The city of San Luis Obispo has rules and regulations to protect her residents. That must be understood and honored by any developer. Colette Gunkel Mike Gunkel • ig�i���i��r 9 RECEIVED March 11, 2007 MAR 1 12007 SLO CT71Y CLERK City of San Luis Obispo Honorable Mayor Dave Romero and other Council Members 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Regarding: REQUEST FOR SLO CITY COUNCIL"DENIAL" OF THE 300 LAWRENCE STREET PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT March 20, 2007 San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting Respondents: Dan and Linda Caldon Dear Mayor Romero and other San Luis Obispo City Council Members, My home is located at 2463 Ladera Court, San Luis Obispo. My wife and I live at the end of the Ladera Court cul-de-sac. Our property is directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the 300 Lawrence Street proposed development. It should be noted that both my wife and I support a land owners right to develop their property in a reasonable and lawful manner. However, we do not believe that the developer's proposal for the 300 Lawrence Street Property is`reasonable" and is lacking in the"lawful" requirements of the City of SLO General Plan Guidelines. My home as well as several others will be"negatively" affected by the developer, Mr. Michael Coss current proposal for the 300 Lawrence Street property. Of paramount concern to me and others is Mr. Coss' refusal to work within the guidelines of the San Luis Obispo General Plan and in conjunction with City Planning Department Staff. It seems to me that Mr. Coss is now attempting an"end run" around the City Staff in hopes that the SLO City Council will approve his proposed development. Mr. Coss' refusal to adhere to the General Plan, Requirement Consistencies and the Staff Recommendations presents a serious issue to the SLO City Council. "If' approved a very dangerous president for other developers and city building projects will have been set..... For the above reasons (and several others) my wife and I are urging the San Luis Obispo City Council to "REJECT AND DENY" Mr. Coss' proposed 300 Lawrence Street development at the March 20, 2007 City Council Meeting. Mahl 7-9 March 11, 2007 Page 9 2 300 Lawrence Street In my October 24, 2006 Letter to the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission and Mr. Tyler Corey I addressed several other important issues involved with Mr. Coss' development of the Lawrence Street property. Besides the Developers"Non Consistent" General Plan Issues my wife and I stand"Adamantly Opposed"to the proposed development due to but not limited to the following reasons- !. The proposed extension of Mitchell Street Alley Way or Private Drive"on"the property line of homes on Ladera and Cima Courts. It should be noted that the Mitchell Street Extension was ABANDONED many years ago by the City of San Luis Obispo. 2. We believe that "all" access to parcels of the 300 Lawrence Street Development should be off Lawrence Street. 3. The lack of an Open Space or Green Belt area directly behind the homes on Ladera and Cima Courts. This open space area would resolve many serious issues including: a buffer zone for the existing homes on Ladera and Cima Courts, provide an access "Walkway"to the Green Belt Areas from Meadow Street, and protection of many of the sensitive land areas. 4. Lack of addressing the serious water run off and flooding issues in a reasonable and acceptable manner. 5. A lack of concern for and the protection of the trees, wetlands and native grasslands on the Lawrence Street Property. More trees should be retained and the hill side grading should be kept minimal. 6. Over Building of the Lawrence Street Property due to site constraints. We do not support a density bonus from 10 to 12 building sites due to the properties sensitive environmental issues and hill side slope. In closing, I ask that the San Luis Obispo City Council"Reject and Deny"Mr. Michael Coss' Proposed 300 Lawrence Street Development until such time as he submits a revised project consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo's General Plan. In addition, perhaps the City Council could stress to the applicant the importance of working together with the Citys Planning Staff. Sincerely, Dan and Linda Caldon 2463 Ladera Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel. 805 541-9123 cc. Mr. Tyler Corey, SLO Associate Planner �—Z15" Mr. Tyler Corey Marcfi 11, 2007 Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Corey, MAR 12 2007 Re: Proposed 300 Lawrence Street Project SLO CITY CLERK From our perspective at 2442 Cima Court, we enjoy the beauty of the natural field that slopes up from our backyard to Lawrence Street, and our first choice regarding the proposed project would be for the city to purchase it and add it to the adjoining open space. Since that seems unlikely, and since we realize that housing growth in the city is a necessary fact of life, we would like to offer our support to you and the Community Development Department in your efforts to carefully review proposed projects and approve only those which align with the City's General Plan. We appreciate the fact that you have asked for a substantial number of changes in the plan submitted by the developer, Michael Coss. It seems to us that he has more interest in financial gain (by trying to squeeze as many lots as possible into the three acre site) than he has in developing a project compatible with the General Plan that will blend seamlessly into the surrounding neighborhoods and hillsides and respect the concerns of current residents in the area. His refusal to make appropriate changes seems to indicate that he also has little regard for the natural resources, the extreme slope, and volume of water run-off from the hill, which increases markedly during the rainy season. As the hillside is cut away and filled to develop buildable lots, the natural drainage paths will be changed, possibly causing a problem for the houses below the project. In order to mitigate these concerns, it is our hope that specialists in building on hillsides and managing drainage will be consulted before any lots are developed. We also would like the sizes of lots to be compatible with our neighborhood and not simply developed as though the property were flat. No doubt houses will be built on the hill, but we ask the Community Development Department and the City Council to continue to comply with the General Plan and to approve a project that serves the city, blends with the surrounding hills, and does not adversely alter the lifestyle of the current residents whose property is adjacent to the proposed Lawrence Street project. We would like to thank you for your continued diligence in considering the needs of all parties affected. Sincerely, Z 'W" Russell and Wendy Robinson 2442 Cima Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 O O RECEIVED March 11, 2007 MAR 12 2007 Mayor of San Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK Honorable David Romero Members of San Luis Obispo City Council Regarding: Development at.300 Lawrence Drive, TR/PD/ER 82-05 We are Richard and Jacqueline Rall. We live at 2449 Ladera Court, San Luis Obispo. Although our property is not immediately adjacent to the proposed project,we have taken an active interest in this project and the effect it may have on our neighbors and friends. We are not opposed to development of this property provided that the proposed development is in compliance with the Planning Commission's recommendations and the City's General Plan. It is our understanding that proposals made by the developer to date are inconsistent with the General Plan and the developer has ignored the recommendations of the Planning Commission that would bring the project into compliance. Please deny this application until it is in agreement with the General Plan. O"!,,� 06�- Richard M. Rall /411 2cqYine P. Rall ®ECEIVED RED FILE MAR 16 2007 MEETI G AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK March 16,2007 DATE 3 a-) ITEM #�Z O: San Luis Obispo Mayor& City Council FROM: Paul &Jean Marcotte 2445 Cumbre Ct. San Luis Obispo Re: 300 Lawrence Drive—Public Hearing Dear Mayor/Council Members: Please be advised that we strongly request that you deny the developers application to build twelve(12)single-family lots on this 3.46-acre parcel and accept the resolution of the Planning Commission which.has recommended denial at its public hearing held on October 25, 2006. We make this request based on the following facts: 1) The design/improvements are not consistent with the General Land Use Plan,nor is it physically suited due to the density of the development(12 homes in a 3.46 acre plot); 2) The site is situated on a slope of approximately 20%which would create additional drainage problems for residents living on Ladera& Cema Courts and on Woodbridge Street; 3) During the October 25th public hearing,the Planning Department staff reported that the developer was unwilling to make any changes to the original application, was uncooperative with staff during the 12-month review and insisted that the project be submitted for public hearing. 4) Planning staff has ruled that the site does not preserve several plant species, significant trees and other native California species. 5) The Fire Department, in its review of the proposed site, reported that the plan submitted by the developer did not show appropriate access for emergency fire vehicles. G. Marcotte a B. Otte UCIL CDD DIR /CAO IN DIR �q ACAO - FIRE CHIEF ATTORNEY � )W DIR R�CLERK ORIG r�/°OLICE CHF DFP' Fi ; 'c EC DIR - �j_-.. -_ [�,UTIL DIR 1� tiOU HR'DIR • MatthewIld Shanta Keeling RED FILE 532 Lawrence Drive MEETING AGENDA San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �Z 7ITEM 4 20 o March 15, 2007 (Sent via email) DATES — RECEIVED MAK i 4 IsS LO CITY C L E R Honorable Dave Romero & City Council Members u!d \ I 990 Palm Street WCOUNCIL CDD DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 VCAO IN DIR ACAO C�FIRE CHIEF Tyler Corey i'ATTORNEY DPW DIR Community Development Department fi7ICLERK/ORIG OLICE CHF❑ �r` `'� hCt HPT DS EEC DIR 919 Palm Street VXTIL DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 R DIR ✓GCAO Re: Item No 2 of March 20, 2007 City Council Meeting; Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Rezone to Create Twelve Single-Family Residential Lots with Exceptions (300 Lawrence Drive, TR/PD/ER 82-06) As residents of the City of San Luis Obispo we entrust the future development of our community to our elected officials and City staff with the understanding that they will develop and implement sound planning policies that will maintain the character of the community and its natural environs. The City has invested a great deal of time and expense in preparing a General Plan to ensure our community grows in a manner consistent with its existing character and state law. Based on the information presented before you the proposed project is poorly designed and is not in conformance with numerous General Plan policies relating to density and the preservation of natural resources. In addition, the proposed project is not consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act Requirements as specified by the California Government Code. City staff repeatedly notified the project applicant of these inconsistencies only to have the project applicant submit revised plans that still do not meet the specified density requirements. The project applicant appears to be less concerned with reasonable local policy and state law, as well as the general concerns of the immediate neighbors, than maximizing profit. We are not aware of any local or state policy providing variances for developers to turn a profit at the expense of established policies and laws governing consistent and environmentally sound development. Although unfortunate, we have little sympathy for the applicant's apparent lack of due diligence in determining the allowable density for the subject site based on readily available local and state planning criteria prior to purchasing the property with the intent of developing it as a financial venture. Moreover, we question the applicant's ability and overall intent to implement a project in conformance with applicable city standards given his apparent inability and lack of concern in developing a suitable project scope given repeated and reasonable City staff guidance. We commend and are in full support of the City staff and the Planning Commission recommendation before you to deny the application because the site is not physically suited for the proposed type and density of development. We would also like to reiterate the staff report finding that the City's Natural Resource Manager is in concurrence with this recommendation and that the Public Works Department finds the applicant's hydrologic and hydraulic evaluation a i . • Matthew9d Shanta Keeling 532 Lawrence Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 is incomplete because it does not adequately address the City's Waterways Management Plan — Drainage Design Manual. We appreciate the opportunity to voice our opinion on this issue and respectfully request you act in accordance with the public trust awarded to you by your elected positions and deny the current proposal as would be consistent with the City's General Plan policies and state law. As residents with young children subject to the dangers of increased traffic flow as a result of any additional development at the terminus of Lawrence Drive we are in strong support of the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to protect the numerous young children in the neighborhood at the time a suitable project proposal is brought before you. We already have concerns over the existing traffic flow and speeds given Lawrence Drive is subject to a high density of on street parking that results in poor sight distance for drivers using our street as a shortcut and upslope residents with little concern for existing residential speed limits. Please keep in mind that the tentative Broad Street Enhancement Project recommendations consisting in part of adding a traffic signal on Broad Street at Lawrence Drive and a cul-de-sac at the end of Caudill Street along with a median strip on Broad Street also has the potential to divert additional Broad Street traffic through our neighborhood along Lawrence Drive that should be addressed at the time this project is evaluated. At a minimum we feel stop signs should be provided along Lawrence Drive at the intersections of Tenbrook and Chandler streets to slow down traffic. Sincerely, Matthew & Shanta Keeling o • Cano, Elaina From: Cano, Elaina Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:21 AM RECEIVED To: Cano, Elaina Subject: FW: 300 Lawrence Drive - MAR 14 2007 ' RED FILE SLO CITY CLERK -----Original Message----- MEETING AGENDA From: Corey, Tyler DATEA"TEM #� Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:20 AM To: Cano, Elaina Subject: FW: 300 Lawrence Drive Here you go. COUNCIL CDD DIR CAO .� FIN DIR W ACAO JY,FIRE CHIEF -----Original Message----- Iff A70RNEY R PW DIR From: Dave Hacker [mailto:dave_hacker@dot.ca.gov] �CLERK/ORIC, POLICE CHF Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:13 AM ❑ DEPT HE); REC DIR To: Council, S1oCity r��P��-�—�_� UTILDIR Cc! Corey, Tyler - C� R HR DIR Subject: 300 Lawrence Drive K C.a o Dear City Council Member: The proposed tract at 300 Lawrence Drive is a poorly designed project. It conflicts with no less than 10 General Plan policies relating to density and natural resources. A well-designed project would attempt to work within these existing policies and constraints. Instead, this proposal would simply divide the property into as many units as possible based on only engineering constraints and financial gain. Either the speculator/developer bought the property knowing most of the site's constraints and believes that the general plan does not apply to his project, or he didn' t do his homework to learn the site's constraints before purchasing and is now asking the City to bail him out of his poor business decision. Either way, it is a poor business decision to put forth this non-conforming proposal. There are reasonable, practicable, and feasible alternatives that would allow development on suitable portions of the property while preserving most of the site's unique, native, natural resources, minimizing impacts to the existing neighborhood, and conforming with the General Plan. The burden is on the applicant to find such an alternative. The City Council 's responsibility is to steward the community's interests, embodied by the General Plan, by ensuring that only such an alternative is permitted. Our family respectfully requests that you deny the current proposal for 300 Lawrence Drive. In addition to the fundamental conflicts with the General Plan, here are summaries of other specific concerns that we have about this project: - Adobe Sanicle and other Rare Plants The "open space" designations on site are proposed mostly because they are the most difficult to build on; the fact that some of the rare plant species occur there is being used as a red herring. These areas are above a large, vertical, serpentine outcrop that is difficult to incorporate into useable building envelopes. No concessions are proposed for the rarest of plants found on site: adobe sanicle. No concessions at all are proposed for the rarest of plants found on site: adobe sanicle. There are 15 known patches of adobe sanicle in the world , grouped in four or five populations in SLO and Monterey Counties. Almost all of these patches are in SLO County. Many historic populations have been lost to development. This plant has been listed as State Rare since 1981, under a law that predates the California Endangered Species Act. To permanently remove this plant from the 1 property not only conflicts withQeneral Plan policies, it pushesae species closer to listing under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. The conceptual "Native Restoration Overview" to relocate these and other rare plants from the property begs the question of why these plants do not already occur in the proposed transplanting sites, or how the transplanting sites could support denser populations than occur naturally. Many sites in the South Hills appear suitable for adobe sanicle, and yet the species does not occur in those sites and we do not know enough about the species to explain why. The applicant's own consultant wrote that any relocation would be experimental with unknown results. Because the best available information suggests that relocation would only result in a permanent loss of habitat and reduction of the population, avoidance is the wisest .strategy for this extremely rare plant. Impacts such as the applicant proposes are generally considered unacceptable unless there is no practicable alternative. Practicable alternatives (including no project) have not been explored. I submit that such impacts are generally acceptable only when the public benefit outweighs the impacts. . .we see little public benefit in this proposed gated community of a few houses. It should be noted that the applicant and his consultant have sought no input from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) , which is the appropriate resource agency to consult with for such impacts and mitigation proposals. I expect that the CDFG would generally oppose the transplanting proposal because no effort has been made to minimize or avoid impacts. In addition, the California Native Plant Society formally opposes transplanting as mitigation because it has proven to be generally unsuccessful (http: //www.cnps.org/cnps/archive/transplanting.php, http://www.cnps.org/cnps/archive/mitigation.php) . CDFG generally aligns itself with CNPS policies on rare plants. Lastly, the "open space" designation proposed for some of the rare plants is too weak of a designation to avoid future, indirect impacts. Retaining the open spaces as part of the residential lots would inevitably result in incompatible activities such as weed abatement, composting, and landscaping. These are just some of the unregulated impacts that I have witnessed in other "open space" deeds attached to residential lots in the City and around the County. Waters of the US and State The applicant's environmental consultant states that the freshwater seep on site is not subject to Federal Clean Water Act Regulation. All wetland delineations are subject to the Army Corps of Engineers' verification, which has not happened on this site. The Army Corps may take jurisdiction over this wetland, because it does have hydrologic connectivity to Meadow Creek. Regardless, the consultant did not inform his client or the City that the wetland is a "water of the State" as defined by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and is therefore subject to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulation. The applicant and his consultant have sought no input from the RWQCB. Traffic, Parking, Neighborhood Character The Planning Commission was quick to dismiss the neighborhood's concerns about traffic impacts. We recognize that there is an existing traffic problem (speeding) ; the Planning Commission failed to consider the cumulative impact of the existing traffic, the proposed construction-related traffic, the proposed increased residential traffic, and the future increase from the City's plan to place a signal at Lawrence and Broad, which will direct more trips onto Lawrence. Lawrence Drive and Meadow are long, straight, and on a hill. People who drive the length of the streets tend to speed, especially downhill. Every trip generated by this development would travel the entire length of Lawrence, Mitchell, or Meadow, with no stop signs or other traffic calming measures proposed. This includes many years of contractors driving through, because the developer proposes only preparing the lots for sale instead of building all of the houses at once. We would prefer that the houses be built all at once rather than dragging out the construction- related impacts for many years. After construction, residential traffic in the neighborhood would increase by 240 driving events per day (10 round trips/residence=120 round trips) , or roughly one more vehicle every three to six minutes driving the entire length of one of our streets. The cumulative traffic impacts warrant further consideration.. The proposed gated, private drive is not only out of character with our neighborhood, but would force the new residents and their guests to further impact the limited on-street parking. 2 Please uphold your obligations tthe General Plan and your consents; do not appeal to the speculator's bid for all of us to sacrifice smart planning just to bail him out of a poor business decision. Please deny the current proposal for 300 Lawrence Drive. Sincerely, Dave Hacker and family 569 Lawrence Drive 541-4241 3 CIL ZCDD DIR J2-FIN DIR ACRO f2FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED ,(2-AiTORNEY ,P1 PW DIR aCLERW'ORIG Te?POLICE CHF 2UQ2 13 AD EADS $RECDIR 1��,R � 4March 14,2007. QURID RIRSLQ CITY CLERK 01 Dear Council Members, RE:Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Rezone to Create Twelve Single- Family Residential Lots with Exceptions at 300 Lawrence Drive,San Luis Obispo This letter is in regards to the proposed rezoning of 300 Lawrence Drive. Please stand behind San Luis Obispo City staff recommendation to deny the rezoning application.As outlined in the staff report,staff has spent countless taxpayer funded hours working with the applicant for the proposed rezoning. Over the course of nearly a calendar year, the applicant has pointlessly ignored staff by disregarding countless staff recommendations concerning California environmental laws and San Luis Obispo planning policies.Please do not overturn and continue to exhaust valuable taxpayer funded staff time and resources by voting to approve the rezoning. Additionally,after a long and complicated planning commission meeting the San Luis Obispo commissioners voted to deny the applicant based on poor site planning,and an incomplete application with many vague planning interpretations that have still not been fully defined. Their findings for denial included: 1. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type and density of development. 2. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements would cause substantial rare and endangered environmental damage and substantially and unavoidably injure wildlife and their habitat. 3. The design of the vesting tentative tract map is not consistent with the General Plan, municipal code or PD rezone requirements. I 4. Finally,as stated in the city staff report,the project does not comply with CEQA and the San Luis Obispo General Plan.Voting_for this project is a violation of California Environmental Law. If this application is approved we personally will contact:The Sierra Club,The Environmental Defense Council,The California Native Plant Society,and ECOSLO.These organizations will defend the endangered natural resources and the planning policy that San Luis Obispo city staff has worked so hard to protect.We also encourage the site's development in a manner consistent with good site design and compliance with all SLO City policies and Plans.We recognize the right of the landowner to do so. However,please deny the application based on it in violation of the San Luis Obispo municipal code,the San Luis Obispo General Plan,and CEQA Thank you for your consideration, George W.Sistek and Terry L.J slip l La 4 Residences 491 Lawrence Drive RED FILE San Luis Obispo,California 93401 ME ING AGENDA 21 PAT4 ITEM # . - I) 03/14/2007 11:15 8057830100 PCF AVIATION LLC PAGE 01/01 RECEIVED MAR 14 2001 San Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK 3/14/2007 City Council: I am writing to you today in regard to an agenda item scheduled for your March 20,2007 meeting concerning a proposed development at 300 Lawrence Drive. As I'm sure you are aware, this project does not conform to the General Plan and both city staff and the Planning Commission have recommended against approval of the requested tentative tract map and PD rezone. The staff report goes into great detail about why the project does not meet the General Plan requirements. I would like to add that the proposed project also does not blend with the surrounding community. The proposed development would result in 12"mlcmansions" behind a gate next to a neighborhood of post-war 1200-to-1500 square foot homes. The maim point I would like to make is that this is not the longtime family owner of this parcel trying to develop it. Total Development Company is just that, a development company. They Imow, or should have known, about the restrictions on the site before they purchased the parcel. They now claim that they can't make any money if they are forced to meet the General Plan requirements. Shouldn't that have been a question they asked before they purchased the parcel? Are the city and the local neighborhood now to be forced to live with a poorly designed project because of a bad business decision by Total Development Company? Instead of doing their homework and bringing a project before the City Council that meets the General Plan,Total Development has tried to run roughshod over city staff and the Planning Commission in hopes that the Council will simply give them a pass on meeting the city's zoning and planning requirements. At this time,Total Development Company still has the opportunity to redesign the project in order to meet the General Plan requirements. But if you approve the project as submitted it will send a message to other developers that they need mot bother with the General Plan, city staff or the Planning Commission in the future. If they simply obfuscate long enough, they can get the City Council to approve the project in the end. I urge you not to let Total Development to get away with their attempt to have the City Council bail them out. S COUNCIL ADD DIR ,01CA0 ./FIN DIR ACAO ,Z—FIRE CHIEF k Mallon 45ATTORNEY ,�i PW DIR 55 wrence Drive .21'CLERK/ORIG ErPOLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CDr-MT HEADS 'REC DIR 805-720-3202 � TIL DIR �� HR DIR RED FILE NAnJDAGENDADATEITEM #-�-- i RECEIVED RED FILE 14 267 MEETING AGENDA L141 LO CITY CLERK DATES TEM #-Zt� 3/14/07 EACAC _DD DIR�IN DIR-IRE CHIEF PW DIRRE: 300 Lawrence Drive Housing Tract POLICE CHF REC DIR UTILDIR HR DIR Dear San Luis Obispo City Council Members, � ,�c This letter is being written in an attempt to require the proposed housing tract at 300 Lawrence Drive be re-worked. The proposed tract is inconsistent with the city's General Plan. Our primary concerns are with the density proposed and destruction of natural resources. We ask that you deny the current proposal and uphold the guidelines set forth in the General Plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Jeremy Otto and Family 543 Lawrence Drive 748-?495 RFn FILE OUNC L March 13, 2007 IIA f..�AGENDA RECEIVED AO ADD DIR DATE ITEM # �cAO .2'FIRE CHIEF 17 ATTORNEY ZrPW DIR To: San Luis Obispo City Council MAR Z 2007 kTCLERfgORIG C POLICE CHF Re: 300 Lawrence Drive proposal ❑ DEPT HEADS OREC DIR SLO CITY CLERK k7 8'UTIL DIR -IFMA ®IFS I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning and development on the 300 Lawrence Drive property and to ask Council to deny it in full. Specifically, I have several major concerns regarding the proposal as submitted: 1) Zoning and building regulations should not be changed simply to provide the owner a better return on his investment. The owner and his developer have so far failed to propose a plan that will fall within the current zoning and site restrictions. No one is denying him the ability to build on the property within reasonable limits. But, he should not be granted a change in zoning and easements simply to allow him to realize a profit. He purchased the property knowing it would be difficult to develop. It was his responsibility to take that into consideration when making his offer. In pursuit of his financial goals,he has consistently ignored Staffs direction to work within the current zoning and building designation. It is unacceptable for rezoning and exceptions to be granted solely for the purpose of providing a developer, speculator and/or owner a return on his investment. 2) The developer's plans require wanton clear cutting and destruction of nearly all the trees,bushes, plant life and natural habitats, along with re-grading of a large portion of the site. His plan does not take into account the natural settings and surrounding properties. It does not attempt in any serious way to wo&within the restrictions of the lot size,terrain or surrounding neighborhoods. Destruction of the tree line and vegetation would negatively impact the view shed of properties below and inflict a major change to the look and natural habitats of the surrounding open space. His offer to build a public overlook would detract from the privacy and values of already established homes located below the site as it would only serve to view into the back windows and yards of those properties. Further, this "public overlook"would ultimately become a self-serving, semi- private balcony for the subdivision he proposes (since it would be accessed via a private drive with no nearby public parking). 3) Removal of the debris field would prove problematic at best. It is unknown what hazardous materials are currently now safely entombed under the earth and would become airborne if excavated. From a public health and environmental standpoint, avoiding these toxic exposures would be of utmost importance. Further, it has been noted that the serpentine rocks in the area contain asbestos which would became airborne if he attempts to level the lot or otherwise engage in any major excavation. Removal of the debris field would also require the destruction of nearly all plant and wildlife habitats that have established themselves in the area. This includes a healthy stand of California Buckeyes which grow on top of the field and are protected under California law, and possibly a den of red foxes that have taken residence in the area. 4) The developer has not undertaken any real environmental studies on the area to show what impact his plan will effect on the lot in question,the adjacent properties and the March 13, 2007 O • surrounding South Hills Natural Reserve. The plan seems only designed to maximize the number of high value residential units that can be created. In conclusion, it is in the best interest of and fairness to the surrounding homes and properties as well as the city of San Luis Obispo that the rezoning and development plan proposed be denied in full. Further, Council should instruct the owner and developer that no exceptions to zoning or building regulations will be granted on the lot now or in the future. It would be most unfortunate for the city to set precedence otherwise, allowing him and other developers the misguided notion that they can manipulate city regulations in favor of their own financial gain. Simply put; further proposals for development should be crafted within the zoning designation and environmental restrictions that currently exist for the lot. The property can easily be developed and enjoyed,in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods, open space and contained natural elements as it stands. This action is the only logical, fair and appropriate resolution. Sincerely, Shawn McNabb 2438 Cumbre Ct. COUNCIL 1.21FIN D DIP RECEIVED GAO DIR AGAR E CHIEF MAR 13 2007 2437 Cumbre Court ATTCANEY DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �LEWORIG LICE CHF SLO CITY CLERK ❑ DEp HEADS FC DIR DIP March 11,2007 rHR DIR Honorable Mayor and City Council RED FILE City of San Luis Obispo / — 990 Palm Street MING AGENDA San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 DATE ITEM RE: TD/PD/ER 82-05, Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development Rezone to create twelve Single-Family Residential lots with exceptions at 300 Lawrence Drive. Mayor Romero and City Council members, I strongly support Council adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation for denial of the referenced applications. This,development proposal has been in process for approximately two years without meaningful progress by the applicant toward resolution of numerous General Plan policy conflicts and inherent significant design flaws. Any future development applications for the property should be required to conform to relevant City plans, policies, and standards, and to respect the unique and difficult topographic and environmental constraints that exist on the site. Numerous policy and design deficiencies of the current design derive from a development methodology of vegetative stripping and massive grading intended to maximize the number of residential parcels which would be created. The resulting plan is more suited to a site with gentle topography and little vegetation rather than the complex, highly compromised environment of the subject property. Sensitive land use design is critical in this situation! Unfortunately, the proposal to date has instead relied on inappropriate, heavily engineered solutions. Given the deficiencies of the plan before you, it is highly desirable that an entirely new development proposal be submitted, one which is less intrusive and more respectful of the multitude of potential on and off-site physical and visual impacts. Understandably, Council may wish to provide guidance to the applicant regarding some basic design components which could facilitate approval of a new application. Such guidance should not be used, however, to attempt to modify the present plan, but should be the basis for a new beginning. To that end I suggest that you consider requiring the following: • Reduction of the number of dwelling units to a more easily accommodated range of eight to ten units, within General Plan proposals; 2 • Avoid development on the lower:portions of the site to avoid highly sensitive environmental resources and off-site impacts, and dedication of this area as part of the adjoining South Hills Natural Area; • Concentrate new construction in the central portion of the site with adequate public access off Lawrence Drive, where most grading will have to occur in almost any development scenario; • Provide plans for adequate public infrastructure, in particular storm water drainage, to avoid any on or off-site adverse impacts. Public policy provides for residential development of this property within established and acceptable limits. There is a no justification for deviation from those limits merely to provide for enhanced economic return from the project. I am confident that the Council, involved advisory bodies and city staff will insure that the City's best interests are observed. Sincer4Jnas Arnold c: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner, Community Development Department