HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/03/2007, PH1 - EIR, Rezoning - MARGARITA AREA °°°
council3 07
j acEnaa REpoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI SPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Mary Beatie, Senior Contract Planner, TPG Consulting, and
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, REZONING, AND,
VESTINGNNENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE A TOTAL OF 178 LOTS ON
APPROXIMATELY 99 ACRES — KING VENTURES, MARGARITA AREA (CITY
FILE NO. TR,PD,AND ER 98-06.)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
-1. Introduce the Draft Ordinance, Attachment 7, approving the Zone change on the central 11-
acre portion of the subject property from R-2-SP (Medium-Density Residential, Specific
Plan) and C/OS-SP (Conservation/Open Space, Specific Plan) to R-2-SP-PD (Medium-
Density Residential, Specific Plan, Planned Development) and C/OS-SP-PD
(Conservation/Open Space, Specific Plan, Planned Development).
2. Adopt the Draft Resolution, Attachment 8, which adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
(ER 98-06) and approves the 178-lot revised Vesting Tentative Map No. 2428, based on
findings, and subject to mitigation measures, conditions, and code requirements.
DISCUSSION
Background
For decades, the Margarita Area has been designated on the City's Land Use Element Map as
one of the key areas for residential expansion. On October 12, 2004, a significant step toward
realizing that additional residential capacity, as well as setting aside areas for various commercial
uses, occurred with the adoption of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) and accompanying
Program Environmental Impact Report. The annexation of the western portion of the Specific
Plan area, referred to in this agenda report as the "Western Enclave", was approved by LAFCO
on July 17, 1997, after the City Council's approval of the annexation and pre-zoning.
The first three subdivision maps proposed within the MASP comprising the Western Enclave
were:
1. VTM No. 2342 (Cowan/French, City file No. TR/ER 63-05);
2. VTM No. 2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw, City file No. TR/ER 66-05); and
3. VTM No. 2428 (King, City file No. TR/ER 65-05).
I
Council Agenda Report—RevisL esting Tentative Map No.2428
Page 2
These three developments have been planned in a coordinated fashion by the three applicants in
order to better achieve the many objectives and requirements of the MASP, but most importantly
with respect to the Western Enclave:
1.) Neighborhood Compatibility
2.) Traffic Issues
3.) Drainage and Project-generated Run-off
4.) Mitigation Measures (aesthetics/light & glare, biological resources, and construction
related hazards)
On January 25, 2006, the Planning Commission considered the three vesting tentative tract maps
for the Western Enclave of the MASP. On March 7, 2006, the Council considered the
unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission to approve the three vesting
tentative maps and mitigated negative declarations, based on findings, and subject to mitigation
measures, conditions, and code requirements. This recommendation included consideration of a
conceptual request by King Ventures for certain modifications to the map that would allow for
higher densities and additional lots. At the March 7, 2006 hearing the City Council approved
only the Vesting Tentative Maps for Cowan/French and Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw subject to
mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and code requirements in compliance with the
MASP and Program EIR.
With regard to the King Map, Council expressed its general support for the requested
modifications to the original King map to accommodate additional density, but declined to take
action on the requested modifications, directing instead, that the design of a revised lot layout be
finalized and re-submitted so that it could be reviewed through the normal planning, zoning and
CEQA processes.
Despite not taking a final action on the map, either as originally designed or with the proposed
modifications, the Council did adopt a resolution accepting the project sponsor's offer of
donation of a conservation easement and ultimately, fee title, to the 71-acre open space lot (Lot
178) along the north edge of the subdivision in the South Hills area, subject to the details of the
easement language being worked out On May 15, 2007, by Resolution No. 9897, the City
Council formally accepted a Deed of Conservation Easement to the 71-acre open space lot.
The subject revised VTM No. 2428 constitutes the formal resubmittal of the earlier conceptual
request. The revised proposal has been reviewed through the normal planning, zoning and
CEQA processes for consideration of revisions to accommodate additional density, as directed
by City Council at its hearing of March 7, 2006.
In reviewing the revised King VTM No. 2428 along with the other two maps within the Western
Enclave, staff's directive has been to evaluate how they achieve the objectives of the MASP and
whether they are consistent with the Plan's development standards. Attached to this agenda
report is the copy of the Planning Commission agenda report for the revised King VTM
(Attachment 6). More detailed information on the two approved maps and the revised King map,
including the initial studies of environmental impact and discussion of issues unique to the
specific maps, are on file in the Community Development Department.
/-z
Council,Agenda Report—Revisi, .'esting Tentative Map No.2428
Page 3
Staff has evaluated the revised King map against the MASP and applicable standards and finds it
is in substantial compliance. Where literal or precise compliance may still be in question in
minor instances, conditions of approval are included to require the needed degree of compliance.
General.Site Location and Descriation
The approximately 99-acre VTM No. 2428 site lies within the Margarita Area Specific Plan
(MASP) generally located in the southern part of San Luis Obispo, south of the South Hills,
north of Prado Road, and lying between South Higuera and Broad Streets (Attachment 1).
The subject VTM No. 2428 is situated in the northwest corner of the MASP lying along the
lower slopes of the South Hills and adjacent to two other approved tentative subdivisions
comprising the Western Enclave of the MASP (Attachment 2). The subject site is also adjacent
to other existing development, including El Camino Estates, a residential subdivision along
Margarita Avenue off South Higuera Street, and the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park off
South Higuera Street. Lands to the east of the proposed project and the Western Enclave
properties, also within the MASP are undeveloped. The subject site is currently vacant. The
project site slopes upward to the north. The bulk of the more steeply portions of the site are
included in the 71-acre open space lot (Lot 178) for which a conservation easement has been
accepted. The site is traversed by three natural drainage courses (Attachment 3).
Planning Commission's Action
At a regularly held public hearing on May 23, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the
requested revised King VTM No, 2428 as well as the requested zone change to add the PD
(Planned Development) overlay to the central approximately 11 acres of the site in order to
accommodate an increase in density for the project. The Commission took oral and written
public testimony from residents living in neighborhoods adjacent to the site, and more
particularly in the Chumash Mobile Home Park to the west of the site. While no one expressed
strong opposition to the project, concerns were expressed and questions asked about restricting
perimeter lot development to single-story homes, air quality effects of dust and particulates from
construction, adequacy of advance noticing of construction activity, locations of fencing and
open space preservation, and how proposed grading could impact perimeter lots.
The Planning Commission commentary and discussion centered on adequacy of off-street
parking and proximity to users within the PD portion of the site, affects of revised grading on
adjacent neighborhoods, support for the additional density, unintended public use of guest
parking within the PD in order to access open space, and consistency of bike path connections
with recently adopted 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
In addition to testimony from neighbors, the applicant's representative, Dave Watson, also
spoke, expressing his concurrence with staff's recommendations, including the recommended
conditions of approval and mitigation measures. Mr. Watson also clarified that 55 guest parking
spaces are proposed for the 85 detached single family units within the central PD portion of the
site. He also explained that the grading is more responsive to the neighborhood concerns for
privacy by lowering the elevation of the road beds and reducing the elevation of the adjacent
home pads and resulting "towering over"effects.
J-3
Council Agenda Report—Revist esting Tentative Map No. 2428
Page 4
In response to public, Planning Commission, applicant and staff testimony, and as directed by
the Planning Commission in their action on May 23, 2007, several minor editorial or
typographical errors have been corrected in the Planning Commission Resolution (see
Attachment No. 4). More substantive changes were made to Conditions of Approval as follows:
a. Conditions of approval #26 and 69 have been modified to require consistency with the
recently adopted 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
b. Condition of Approval #65(g) has been re-worded to clarify how the private lot owner
will be responsible for maintaining the drainage swales along the west and south
property lines.
C. Condition of Approval #86 has been re-worded to clarify how it will be determined
whether a lot shall be restricted to construction of a single-story residence when
adjacent to existing developed and approved neighborhoods along the west and south
subdivision boundary, and requiring all rear yard setbacks adjacent to said
neighborhoods be no less than 20 feet.
d. Condition of Approval #88 has been revised to clarify that all owners and occupants of
residential or commercial properties with 100 feet and all residents and owners within
the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park shall be notified prior to commencement of
grading activities. The condition was also changed to provide advanced notice from "at
least one week"to"at least two weeks".
e. Conditions of Approval #90, 91, & 92 have been added to require adequate provisions
for guest parking and that fireplaces be gas-supplied rather than wood-burning.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact. Furthermore, the Zone
Change and revised Tract Map do not adversely affect the public facilities financing strategies
and mechanisms of the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions.
2. The Council may deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General
Plan or Margarita Area Specific Plan as specified by the Council..
3. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed.
Direction should be given to staff and the applicants.
Council Agenda Report—Revise_.Jesting Tentative Map No.2428
Page 5
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map
Attachment 2—Composite Map of Western Enclave Subdivisions
Attachment 3 —Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map
Attachment 4—Planning Commission Resolution (No. 5481-07)
Attachment 5 —May 23, 2007, Planning Commission Minutes
Attachment 6—May 23, 2007 Planning Commission Report (w/out Draft Resolution)
Attachment 7 —Draft Ordinance adopting the Zone Change for a portion of the site
Attachment 8—Draft Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map
Documents provided to Council:
Half-size reductions of the 24 x 36 inch Vesting Tentative Map sheets
Grading Comparisons Exhibit
G:/CD-PLAN/Ddavidson/CounciUCCResoKing V entures7-3-07
�iYk�,,'s"y�'�""`d'�'S`�: �, x �','�u'tY-.�rf,rR.. .�'� •a - .T7
'�'""-�r dpi -`�rs�,�r.�, '• �$°'a!'�� �y� y � �
a r i
a Y. .a�� 4'�,y .Lt"o_ ,a�r!k r� lr W4`�T •lr ��' �1
Yq t+u
4'�,•�_r`{PTrz "2.t�stF'�}'<�i�,`�,Z.�'1'Cw�4'!V`JR�� ,�}t.
F� T._x T ' �q�P`� �'i' �TY Ft�`•I�r�".'="vu..`i"L!Ty^l++�� • �I�
4W � � -5 a+,.:v*-h�A'% ei z �4.to i�r� �y,y`t'�lv 'g} •�.��••,�,�
ol
. .N r r,� �z' �,,, x-r' a'..•,.}g. L_'�' "�}r4 ? pA K'"e' ti' 4te
'.��I� � }�{ � f �•. t l'Y 4�� �, t + 7cV+ �r err T;,y+r ti�� t#.rS.w t kJ�
1► � 4'1.2 M ( t 45,1 w � h- i `� YT 1 y fit" I.yn1. Y
' - � � i > 3 / \ rX < , n ,,a Gvhri t'«v r N ' + ?•,.
. ., y R '•,FCS- TT t i '. 1 nn: t ,r * ; .. ,t}�
�i���■- � 'n,� f A i i .. � Mr •F ~ ��rr�r v' r / 3 T `v�� %s,�L.�.
I•���- -+ �� i i ryt. x+r fib-- i ? Y9 of rl r ^v r +"C.f,1 1.r�A}rN'Qix.�� .a
I
wr r T t x
3
(•(SSII .t, r `'S i` � rt h Sr l l'v-,id J .� V,.
f r
�IIII�■ = 3 e Jn
�.,.. Y
r
I���II. • � 1 K L �� 1 �' rf� 1
1111/ ••• �`' �� �
■ ,,Yi11�■ mu ,
IIIII:11��
VICINITY MAP liFlole No. 98=06
713 act=
�5 Dedicated to fhe
C of San Luis
TR 228
apo for Open
Q I9 (King) Space
21 35 37 38
22 23 35 39
20 2 31 32 33}! 4 y
26 27 28 29 30 130 tl
\ 4� 129 3Attachment
ttahmt L
I18
13
I! It 118 11!li3 LZ 1r M
13 .�.. Q e o n 4 0 1� 1�g •J 1 ` 141 1 t3
12 = 1 16 7 1 4 }!` 46 47 4
it N e o g 8 9 96 �P t70 3 7 139
10 88 09 95' 1 187/ 115 `41 138 `
9 9! I63 16! 6 Ifi 1 � 136
9
a 87 86 8 91 92139 15
- 162 I61 IBO 133 131 150 63 �
8'�5 4 3 2 1 8I 79 78 77 76 75 8 7!7} 72 71 70 9 68 67 6 8 W so 59 56
O 80 61 38 37
34 35 60 10tIf
03
❑ O� {7-1_,� r[���i�i I`�� r� 33 11;LA {I/w I� .8 39 / 68 102 105
C �na (oclu 1 lr,]EJDf l� 30 143 42 41 !0 I 771 0 100
7229
99 ,
28 67 74 97 I I 106 130
27 11 4 66 I I 73 gg I 107 I 129 ,
26 I 1 46 65 J 78 95 1 198 128
4 p 1 /��/��i� 23 47 64 1 77_ 94 I 127 '
2 e..�«~J 4��' Ulr1 _ 1 93 I I08 126 I O
l�J r n Ifo 125
v 133 81- I I11 124 1 ,
24 49 - aYWj 132
16ry 15 14 13 12 1 11 f9 9 e 7 6 5 4 1 2 1 23 62 _ 13� 1 1
91
17 _- -I---- 58 1 1 112 _122 1 I e
SI 60 at 90
a I 52 59 82 89 I13 121 I
K
10 19 2120 4
0 21 23 l 25 26 27 28 1 29 30 31 32 33 34 22 21 53 1 A I 88 Ila 119 1
Z 1 4I 9 I 54 57 MW aJ I 113 118 1
19 20 55 6 117
iJ A B C 0 E i 0 N I J 65 8fi 118 1
K L N N
_ S I 9 V W 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 F7 1
0 P 0 R 1 1~ 2 3 s 3 6 11
R•
Z I
If
D
❑ r- I I
1
I
�I
1 I I
I
I
II
� I
I I
I
1 I
1 1
CRY Or SAN LUIS OBISPO Y619I6 'I! 1
A PROPOSED 08VELOPYONT CIVIL
ro9 U;0jNC EER[NGtHE 1YwR6RA ARBA SULTANTS
W "g
AWH19:M 2 w M1M YaYw 'I' O
_ _ r
17 �--
F$ 3
g I�
�l
! III�hfill
.
'J.
Cd
log
in
rt }yII \=
6
/ L,
' 1 Attachment 4
RESOLUTION NO. 5481-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE
FROM R-2-SP TO R-2-SP-PD AND APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENATIVE TRACT
MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3000 CALLE MALVA
PD/TR/ER 98-06; TRACT 2428-Revised
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
May 23, 2007, for the purpose of considering TR/ER 98-06, a request for a vesting tentative tract
map to subdivide an approximately 99-acre site into 178 lots; a request for "Planned
Development (PD) Overlay Zoning District on approximately 11 acres of the 99-acre site
currently zoned R-2-SP (Medium Density Residential), and a request for Creek Setback
Encroachments within 5 lots designated for Open Space-Riparian, 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 City Council on May 15, 2007, by Resolution #9897, accepted a
conservation easement, and ultimately fee title, to the 71-acre open space lot (Lot 178) donated to
the City of San Luis Obispo by the project applicants, John E. and Carole E. King, as an integral
part of their project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and 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 Council makes the following
findings in support of approving the proposed project:
Subdivision May findings
1. As conditioned, the design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General
Plan because the proposed project respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks, wetlands,
significant trees), will incrementally add to the City's needed.residential housing inventory,
result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the density and lot q
4
' Resolution No. 5481-07
Attachment 4
Page 2
sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-1-SP,
R-2-SP, R-3-SP, and the requested R-2-SP-PD residential areas as well as the C-OS-SP, C-
OS-40-SP, and requested C-OS-SP-PD open space zones because the site contains slopes
that are less than 30% in the areas to be developed, has suitable and appropriate access via
existing and planned streets consistent with the MASP, and preserves and provides for
long-term maintenance of areas of important or sensitive habitats via lots designated for
open space.
3. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property within, the
proposed subdivision because all such easements have been accommodated by the
proposed design of the subdivision and location of improvements.
4. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public
health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development is a
similar scale to existing development already adjoining the site to the south and west and
approved development adjacent to the south of the site. Additionally, new construction will
be designed to meet existing building and safety codes.
5. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitats subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004 together with the mitigation monitoring
program adopted with said EIR approval, because all said applicable mitigation measures
and monitoring program are incorporated into the project as recommended below.
6. The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the Community Development Department
on May 1, 2007 adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with
this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided
to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The Planning Commission finds and
determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, as modified,
determining there is no substantial evidence of new or further significant impacts not
already identified either in the prior certified Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
Margarita Specific Plan or in the subsequent Initial Study prepared for this site specific
project.
7. The offer of donation of a conservation easement and ultimately, fee title, to the 71-acre
open space lot proposed in the subdivision map is consistent also with the General Plan of
the City of San Luis Obispo.
Planned Development Findings
8. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable Margarita Area Specific
Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 3
Plan, and the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary zoning districts,
both existing and proposed. The project provides exclusively residential and open space
land uses on the subject site as required by the General Plan, MASP, and applicable zoning
districts, accommodating the prescribed residential density ranges for Low, Medium and
Medium High Density land use designations, along with a pro-rata share of Affordable
Housing required for the Western Enclave area of the MASP, and preservation of open
space areas as prescribed by the MASP.
9. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations including
those modifications as authorized herein by utilization of the PD Overlay rezoning.
10. The approved modifications to the development standards of Zoning Regulations through
the PD Overlay 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, because doing so enables concentrating more units within the central
portion of the site to achieve higher densities prescribed by the MASP while maintaining
larger lots and maximum setbacks in perimeter lots for privacy protection to adjacent
developed areas and allowing the open space lots to be centered on the alignment of the three
drainage ways in their natural state without relocation.
11. As conditioned the project complies with all the applicable City Design Guidelines.
Further, the PD rezoning areas includes detached and attached single family construction
that follows the MASP Design Guidelines, including use of shared driveways, Craftsman
architecture utilizing wood and stucco exteriors, one and two-story buildings, front and
back porches, side and rear-loaded garages facing away from public streets, and common
landscaping designs.
12. As conditioned all affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the
proposed project, particularly as relates to other already approved subdivisions within the
Western Enclave of the MASP, for which the utility, services and infrastructure needs were
designed comprehensively and in coordinated manner.
13. 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 and Margarita Area
Specific Plan because the subdivision design is respectful of adjoining, established
neighborhoods by placing fewer and larger lots next to these developments and
accommodating the minimum required rear yards prescribed in the MASP. Grade
elevations have also been modified by the revised subdivision design so that new buildings
do not "tower" over established neighborhoods.
14. The site is suitable 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 since, due
to the sloping constraints of the site the project has been designed predominantly as as
Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 4
single- family, detached-style development. Access streets to the subdivision and
connections to adjacent existing and approved development are entirely consistent with the
MASP Circulation Element requirements and prior EIR conclusions with respect to
location and capacity, including provisions for construction of the Prado Road extension to
Broad Street.
15. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project, as conditioned, 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 because, once completed, the project will be a logical and
appropriate expansion of the desired design and character of the residential neighborhoods
of the community as prescribed by the General Plan and MASP.
16. The project incorporates a minimum of two of four mandatory features to qualify for PD
Overlay Zoning, and these are that:
a. The project will preserve, enhance, and/or create a significant natural feature with a
minimum area of one-half acre. The project proposes the creation of 6 lots that will
encompass a total of 73 acres (about 73% of the total site) for open space use pursuant
to the requirements of the MASP. A donation of one such lot, Lot 178, comprising 71
acres along the south face of the South Hills, has already been offered to and accepted
by the City as a conservation easement and ultimately, fee title. Through this
donation this lot will be preserved as a permanent open space, the use of which will
be enhanced through maintenance of wildland fire green-breaks, controlled public
access and connection to other linear open space lots, centered on the site's three
existing drainage ways, via of a system of trails/paths connecting to and through
adjacent existing and approved subdivisions consistent with requirements of the
MASP.
b. 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. The
project includes development of trails, public streets, public parking, habitat
enhancement and open space/wildland fuel management as a part of the construction
and on-going operation of the residential/planned development project. Public
benefits will accrue from the project's preservation of natural creek channels largely
in their natural form and location, and a carefully integrated parallel storm water
runoff collection system (serving the entire Western Enclave development), and
introduction of paths and trails to allow public access to these areas, while also
accommodating the public benefit of access to and management of these waterways
by the proposed Homeowners' Association for the tract and Western Enclave.
Creek Setback Exception Findings
17. The location and design of the exceptions proposed respecting pedestrian trails within and
��z
• Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 5
crossings over the creek corridors will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality,
and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement,
because the location and design of the trails and creek crossings will be constructed outside
of the established floodway and will not impede flood waters or planned storm water
management improvements and maintenance required for the tract. Further these features
provide for desired passive use and enjoyment of the creek corridors as a tract amenity, and
established access ways provide for management and monitoring of the natural and
enhanced habitat in the area of the corridors, and facilitate movement of localized habitat of
the site and general area.
18. The exceptions proposed herein will not limit the city's design options for providing flood
control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies, as no adverse
environmental impacts have been identified as a result of the placement and design of the
proposed trails and crossings and further the retention of the creeks in their natural location,
together with the parallel storm water runoff collection system, will ameliorate historical
flooding occurrences at the existing Prado Road culvert.
19. The exceptions proposed herein will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans,
nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans. No adverse
environmental impacts have been identified as a result of the placement and design of the
proposed trails and crossings. Special construction techniques will be used to minimize the
potential for urban runoff to alter the flow regime in the creeks, thus protecting them from
"flash" flows and urban pollutants.
20. The exceptions proposed herein will not be a grant of special privilege because the
proposed trail networks are consistent with requirements of the adopted MASP to
accommodate special site features not occurring on other lands of similar zoning in the
vicinity and will be augmented with devotion of additional private lands to increase the
functional width of the overall natural corridors to benefit multiple purposes of preserving
natural habitat, enhancing the aesthetic and passive recreation quality of the subdivision
and facilitating maintenance of natural drainage flows and pattern. Further the channels (3
in all) separate development areas of the site from one another, the interconnections and
creek crossings provide access between all units of the PD neighborhood, as well as options
to connect into the perimeter pedestrian and bike systems planned for this subdivision and
the overall Western Enclave and Margarita Area Specific Plan. Because the channels run at
odd angles and traverse the site diagonally, this produces remnant areas that are inefficient
and would reduce overall densities if the efficiency of the encroachments were not
permitted. Rather than relocate the channels as permitted by the MASP, the creek corridors
will be maintained in their present configuration, preserving, therefore in a largely
undisturbed manner, the established habitat values and. runoff patterns while seeking
modest exceptions to regain efficiencies in land planning and overall project design.
21. The exceptions proposed herein will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property in the area of the project or downstream, because the collection and flow of
flood waters will not be impeded, nor will the trails and crossings impede the planned
improvements to the tract storm drainage system.
Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 6
22. Site development cannot be accomplished with a materially different redesign of the project
because redesign of the project to accommodate trails outside the corridors, while possible,
would be at the expense of achieving densities desired by the MASP and ultimately would
compromise the "affordability by design" objectives of that Plan.
23. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property in
that the minimum density threshold of the MASP for the subject site calls for no less than
149 units (not including affordable housing requirements.) A potential redesign could affect
at least 37 lots/units, and potentially more as the changes domino through the tract. This
would potentially impact a finding of consistency with density required for the project by
the MASP, compromising the ability to develop the property as planned.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the
following mitigation measures and monitoring programs into the project:
Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
Reduction of Light and Glare
1. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP
to be carried through to lot-specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates
compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall
be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components
of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass
associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional
lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent
property lines.
Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential
and commercial components of the project. City staff, including Planning and other
departments, will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements related to
lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working
drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is
installed pursuant to the approved lighting plan.
Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program"
2. Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a
combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps.
Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the
creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space=Riparian" for the
//y
Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 7
express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area,
as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits.
3. Mitigation for Impacts to Creek Habitats. Mitigation for impacts to creek habitats will be
through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and
the Army Corps of Engineers.
4. Mitieation for Impacts to Serpentine BunchQrass Habitat. A mitigation program involving
restoration of serpentine bunchgrass habitat at an identified area in the so-called "saddle"in
the King property's open space parcel, shall be required. This area occupies between one-
half and three-quarters of an acre. The program would at a minimum, replace the existing
non-native grassland in that area with a grassland containing a majority of native
bunchgrass species including purple needlegrass, meadow barley, and California brome. In
addition, a program for additional protection for the open space lands of the project will be
developed. The goal of this program will be to provide protection for remaining areas of
serpentine bunchgrass habitat and species within that habitat in the South Hills open space
parcel through mechanisms such as fencing, trail realignments, and drainage improvements
on the access road to the communication site on neighboring property. Finally, the project
sponsors propose to donate fee title to the open space lot 178 to the City of San Luis
Obispo as permanent open space as part of the project.
5. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive. Species. None of these species are expected to be
difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details
of the effort. Mitigation for impacts to five plant species of concern shall be required as
follows:
Palmer Spineflower. None required.
Brewer Spineflower. None required.
Obispo Indian Paintbrush. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot
enhancement site.
Miles Milkvetch. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot
enhancement site.
Obispo Dudleya. Due to the very small number of impacted individuals and the ease of
transplanting, transplant these individuals to suitable sites within the project open space.
Obispo Mariposa lily. None required.
Adobe Sanicle. Relocate some individuals to a suitable site within the project open space;
consider transplanting the balance to a suitable site in Laguna Lake Park or other suitable
off-site location approved by the City, or consider lot adjustments to protect the major
portion near lots 82, and adjacent multifamily lot. On Sept. 5, 2006, the SLO City council
authorized, as mitigation discussed herein, the use of several areas within Laguna Lake
Park for relocation of adobe sanicle occasioned by the proposed revised VTM #2428
residential development proposal within the Margarita Area Specific Plan. In its action, the
Council found that Laguna Lake Park offers the best habitat suitable for the adobe sanicle.
Further, the adobe sanicle already occurs there naturally.
Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by
the City. On Sept. 5, 2006, the SLO City council authorized, as mitigation discussed herein,
�is
Resolution No. 5481-07 — Attachment 4
Page 8
the use of several areas within Laguna Lake Park for relocation of Congdon tarplant
occasioned by the proposed revised VTM #2428 residential development proposal within
the Margarita Area Specific Plan. In its action, the Council found that Laguna Lake Park
offers the best habitat suitable for the Congdon tarplant. Further, the Congdon tarplant
already occurs there naturally.
Loggerhead Shrike. Remove myoporum tree before nesting season.
6. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of
construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or
300 feet from raptor nests, until after young have fledged.
7. Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation
program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands
outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-
Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal)
is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable
habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species,
and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in
seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution
system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants
propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and
utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-
Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced
to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase
its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a
Master Home Owners Association (MI-IOA) established initially for the Western Enclave
area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
➢ Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the
City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street design
to assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest extent
required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and
MASP/AASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required
subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of
Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities, the applicant shall also
initiate and complete for approval by the City pre-construction surveys for nesting birds
and adhere to performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for required
off-site mitigation shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural Resource
Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections by City Staff
during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation
measures and conditions of approval.
Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials
Management Plan'
Resolution No. 5481-07
� Attachment 4
Page 9
8. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are
known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous
materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve
hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or
produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will
also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of
chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective
measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of
hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the
project proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1.2 states:
"The project proponent will complete a Phase 1 environmental site assessment for each
proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments
indicate a potential for soil andlor groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the
road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following
Phase II environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or
groundwater contamination.
a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase 11 site assessment will
include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If
soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire
Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and
possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved.
b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase H
assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and
analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated
by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering,
the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan
to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the
SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. .
Monitoring Program: The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management
Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development
Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site
preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or
construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any
site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop
Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire
Department.
Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council approval of application TR/ER 98-06 with incorporation of the following
conditions and code requirements into the project:
1-17
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 10 Attachment 4
Conditions:
Streets:
1. Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the subdivider shall
present a detailed schedule and delivery 'Plan", to be approved by the Public Works
Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current
City boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road
Extension (PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new
roadway from the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending
easterly to the intersection of proposed "M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Sierra Gardens
(DeBlauw) property as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first
segment shall be referred to as the 'Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment
(PRE-WE). The second segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on
Tract 2353, easterly, to Broad Street. This second segment shall be referred to as the 'Prado
Road Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment(PRE-MB).
At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for Right-of-Way
acquisition, design and construction:
a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking:
The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width
improvement of the 'Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE),
and shall submit schematic plans for the full width improvement of the 'Prado Road
Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). The final map and improvement
plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative
Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the
review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as
overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave
Property Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised
of MASP property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the
conceptual design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway.
b. The PRE-WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes, sidewalks,
utilities, storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary
street appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.
c. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to
facilitate the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues
available to acquire said public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is
unable to acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of
condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary
slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree
to pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney
and court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the necessary street
improvements and striping, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
I Ir
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 11 Attachment 4
d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete
construction of the PRE-WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the
subdivision. If right-of-way is not available at the time of approval of the final map, the
subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO
properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary
access shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required
to be removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent
properties.
e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion of
the engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and
associated construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall
complete the construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or
before the 100th unit is occupied in the Western Enclave (approx. 1 year after Tentative
Map Approval). If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost
estimate for the PRE-MB section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may
require that the developer (property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible
future formation of a community facilities district or other such financing mechanism,
that would fund any final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not
contained in the Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates.
f. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a
minimum: (1) initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of
the roadway subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB
segment prior to occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave
(approx. 3 years after Tentative Map Approval) , and (2) complete construction of the
northern half of the PRE-MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit
in the Western Enclave (approx. 5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way
is not available at the time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public
acquisition of said right-of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to
submit an interim plan for providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall
be approved by the Public Works Director.
g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider
shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the
environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as
established by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may
include fee credits and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against
non-TIF city-wide and MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate
completion of the Prado Road extension.
h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw) can be incorporated on
an interim basis at the time of construction of PRE-WE and will remain in place until
PRE-MB is completed and anadditional access point is provided at an adopted MASP
location.
/-l9
• Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 12
2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall
be paid prior to issuance of each building permit, subject to condition I.g. above.
3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 (Revised) and VTTM 2342
shall consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined
development known as Margarita Area Specific Plan Western Enclave. The public
improvement plans for each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as
considered necessary by the Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition
between the subdivisions in the case that one project is developed before another. The
scope of required improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director.
4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area
Specific Plan and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering
Standards and Standard Plans and Specifications, except as to any design deviations
permitted herein.
5. Prior to final map approval, the final design, location, and number of traffic calming
measures including bulb-outs, choke-downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck-downs, etc. shall
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Choke-downs adjacent to open
space corridors shall be lengthened to include the entire length of the open space corridor.
Plans submitted for review shall include a turning diagram demonstrating a fire, garbage or
other large city or delivery multi-axe] truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming
features. Additional or alternative traffic control measures such as raised tabletops may be
required to comply with the MASP objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will
be compatible with the neighborhood."
6. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored
after development. The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct
traffic counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works
Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the
subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the subdivision or
acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be
responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public
Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards.
7. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The
inclusion of bulb-outs at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the
roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian.
8. Prior to approval of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving
materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
9. Except for the 71-acre lot donated to the City, project common areas including, but not
limited to, landscaped areas landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado
Road) shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master
�-zo
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 13 Attachment 4
Homeowner's Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not
limited to parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water
impact and water meter installation fees and shall be paid for by the subdivider.
10. The final locations of multi-use path connections to public streets shall be reviewed and
approved by the Natural Resources Manager and City Traffic Engineer. Where multi-use
paths intersect public streets, the roadway shall be narrowed and the crossing designed
perpendicular to the roadway.
11. The final design and location of private streets and fire access ways, and the approaches
thereto onto public streets, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director
and Fire Department. Plans submitted for review shall include a turning diagram
demonstrating a fire, garbage or other large city or delivery multi-axel truck's ability to
negotiate into and within the private streets and access ways within the proposed "PD" and
Lot 178 portions of the site.
12. The proposed street bulb-outs shall be designed with minimum inside and outside radii of
20' and 10' respectively.
13. Analysis of the street drainage design shall be provided with the submittal of complete
public improvement plans. Streets designed with a quarter crown shall justify the curb
capacities in accordance with city standards. Some areas may require that the bulb-outs be
reduced in depth or removed completely to accommodate the drainage along the high side
of the street.
14. Bulb-outs at T-intersections may need to be replaced with standard curb returns of a smaller
radius to achieve the desired traffic calming goals and to accommodate street drainage.
15. The number and location of catch basin shall consider city standard spacing and drainage
design requirements. The number of catch basins shall be limited to those required by code
and/or design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
16. The transition between Street N and Street W shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Moving of the quarter crown section from one side of the street to the
opposite side shall not be completed with a super-elevated section unless all drainage issues
are addressed.
17. Street intersections shall be provided with directional curb ramps in accordance with city
and ADA standards or guidelines. T-intersections shall include receiving ramps on the
through street.
On & Off-Site Improvements:
18. With respect to all off-site improvements, prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s)
shall either:
( 1 ( ) Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 14
a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or
interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or
b. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire
interest to the subject property and that the City assist in acquiring the property required
for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent domain in
accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary. Subdivider
shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such acquisition,
including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation. Said agreement
shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. If
condemnation proceedings are required, the Subdivider shall, no later that 90 days prior
to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a form acceptable to the
City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property to be acquired:
i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land
Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of
California.
ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee;
iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of
obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to
accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge
in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so.
iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including
purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the
appraised price.
V. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval,
the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated
costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings.
The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be
acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would
apply and would have to be followed.
19. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation of a
stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final
pump station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the WWMP-DDM and the
following"
a. The pump station shall be a triplex design.
b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre-developed rate with
all three pumps running, the 10 year pre-developed rate with two pumps running and
the 2 year pre-developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the
pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre-development flow rates for each of the
/-Z2
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 15
design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches
the required discharge regime.
c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur.
d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the
subdividers, their heirs and/or assigns have rights to.
20. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality BMPs with the January
2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff
from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets,
and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
21. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all
recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The
final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close
proximity to the existing soil contamination.
22. The final design of the proposed off-site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into
consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A
Zone") on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for
San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo
Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with
FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final
documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in
compliance with the WWMP-DDM requirement for construction within a Special
Floodplain Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage.
23. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to or
concurrently with the final subdivision maps. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in
acquiring off-site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider
shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on-site detention of
stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual or,
b) request in writing that the City assist in securing the property following procedures as
outlined above. All costs associated. with securing said rights including the eminent
domain process shall be borne by the subdividers.
24. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received
an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the
construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis Obispo
County defer to the City for the processing of the grading.permits for property outside the
City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the grading permit with the City
Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees
associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for
plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing.
25. To the degree feasible, shared driveways shall be utilized to reduce the number of driveway
• Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 16
curb cuts in the subdivision and increase the provision of on-street parking. Prior to
hearing by ARC, the applicant shall provide plans to the Public Works Department with
additional detail adequate to show locations of all proposed shared driveways.
26. Where a Class 1 bicycle path provides access across a public street, raised decorative
paving, choke-downs, curb ramps and signage shall be provided and the street crossing
shall be designed to direct pedestrians across the roadway in a perpendicular manner,
consistent with the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
27. The subdivider shall installnp �vate street lighting along the private internal streets per City
standards, up blic street lighting along public streets interior to the subdivision, and off-site
ublic street lighting along Prado Road leading to and from the development, as determined
by the Director of Public Works. All public and private street lighting installed by the
developer shall include the luminaires as well as all wiring and conduit necessary to
energize the light standards from PG&E's point of service.
28. For lots abutting the existing developed Margarita and Chumash Village projects, the
slopes and drainage structures proposed in those rear lots shall be maintained by the
property owners, with an additional slope and maintenance easement to the HOA so that
the HOA can maintain these slopes if the property owners fail to do so in a satisfactory
manner. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation so that a 6-foot
high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top of the slope. Details on the
level of maintenance shall be provided in the draft CC&R's and reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director.
Water,Sewer, Solid Waste & Utilities:
29. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation
calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting
infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be
required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project.
30. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of
the Utilities Engineer.
31. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a
bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest
point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow.
32. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall
apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on
the sewer laterals, per City and UPC standards.
33. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall include
a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, where the water service enters the
building.
L�
• Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 17
34. The sewer and water mains should be located approximately 6 feet on either side of the
street centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm
drains (including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer.
35. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating
common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled water.
Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from the
City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the proposed
subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas and
extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the
recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water
standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the
anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system.
36. Prior to hearing before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the applicant shall
add additional detail to the plans adequate to show the locations of all red curbs, fire
hydrants, water meters, backflow preventers, solid waste storage areas (for the detached
lots), the solid waste collection vehicle's ability to safely maneuver and access containers
on the private roads in the PD portion of the development), to the satisfaction of the
Utilities Department. Said details shall also indicate appropriate screening for backflow
preventers, and shall clearly indicate any requested deviations from City standards.
37. Prior to hearing before the ARC, the applicant shall provide a landscape and irrigation plan
that indicates how any parkway areas associated with detached and/or meandering
sidewalks can be irrigated efficiently without overspray, in compliance with Chapter 13.20
of the Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. Parkways shall be a
minimum of 6-feet in width to allow the planting of street trees.
38. Recycled water will be required to be used throughout the development to the maximum
extent feasible. Recycled water use areas will include any landscape or turf areas that are
under common ownership or control, and for which the maintenance will be by contract.
39. Prior to hearing before the ARC, the applicant shall provide detailed plans adequate to
show the width, grade, structural cross-section and turning radii of all fire access roads and
connections with public or private roads within the subdivision and within the 71-acre open
space lot are suitable for travel by City fire trucks.
Grading& Drainage:
40. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's
recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck
access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of
the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of building permits.
41_ Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required
tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the
I' An
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 18
Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. Certain trees
may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist.
42. The developer of VTM #2428 shall begin grading operations related to site preparation and
infrastructure construction near the westerly edge of the property in order to reduce the
potential for short term impacts of "herding" rodents and other small animals toward the
adjacent mobile home park.
43. Any required grading for storm flow collection features behind Lots 19-57 shall be done to
the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager, Fire Dept. and Public Works Director.
44. All driveways shall comply with City Engineering Standards#2130 and#2140 for down-
sloping and U--sloping driveways.
45. With regard to down-sloping and up-sloping driveways, common driveways shall be
considered throughout the subdivision at the time of review by the Architectural Review
Commission, particularly for Lots 30/31, 32/33, 37/38, 39/40, 41/42, 44/45, 50/51, 52/53,
54/55 & 56/57, such that driveway slopes do not exceed 20%.
46. The final pad grading and certification shall be in accordance with the approved plans,
grading ordinance, and final soils engineer recommendations. The public improvement
plans shall be reviewed by the project soils engineer. The soils engineer shall provide
written notification to the city indicating that the plans have been reviewed and are in
general conformance with the report recommendations.
47. Depending on the timing of subdivision grading and/or building permit applications, the
2007 California Building Code, based on the 2006 International Building Code may be in
effect. The provisions of the new CBCABC may differ from those of the current
regulations. The soils engineer shall provide an appropriate response regarding the current
grading recommendations in comparison to the new codes to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Building Official.
48. Expansion index testing or other soils analysis may be required on a lot-by-lot basis for all
graded pads and for in-situ soils on natural lots where deemed necessary by the City
Engineer or Building Official.
49. Final pad certifications shall include the certification of pad construction and elevations.
The soils engineer shall certify all grading prior to acceptance of the public improvements
and/or prior to building permit issuance. The certification shall indicate that the graded
pads are suitable for their intended use.
50. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected as recommended by the soils engineer. Brow ditches,.
drainage collection devices, and drainage piping may be required. The public improvement
plans and final map shall reflect any additional improvements and easements necessary for
slope protection and maintenance.
51. Downstream and/or offsite drainage improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of
the city prior to commencing with public improvements or subdivision grading. If off-site z/r
Resolution No. 5481-07
� Attachment 4
Page 19
improvements are not complete, a phasing plan and on-site detention may be required.
52. The width of all public or private drainage easements shall be approved to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. Drainage easements requiring subsurface piping systems shall not be
less than 15' in width. Surface drainage improvements located along the westerly and
southerly tract boundaries shall be located in easements not less than 10' in width.
53. The interceptor drainage ditch located along Lots 75 — 80 shall be constructed with an
approved outlet to the existing drainage channels or to an approved off-site drainage
easement.
54. The new section of pedestrian/bike path proposed on Lot 178 shall be located upslope of the
HOA maintained interceptor ditch unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and
Natural Resource Manager.
55. The interceptor ditch shall be designed to accommodate any improved or diverted runoff
from the existing or proposed trail improvements.
56. The public improvement plans and final drainage report shall include additional analysis of
the runoff from the existing and proposed trails or access roads. The proposed interceptor
ditch shall be extended to protect Lots 52—57 if necessary.
57. The abandoned access road crossing Lots 44 — 51 shall be likewise evaluated. The road
drainage shall be clearly defined and drainage improvements and easements shall be
provided if necessary. The road may be re-graded to eliminate any cross lot drainage if
applicable.
58. The presence of springs within the development area has been identified by the soils
engineer as one of the primary geotechnical concerns. All areas of known or observed
seeps and springs shall be specifically addressed by the soils engineer. General
recommendations shall be provided for all lot areas, roadways, and for the installation of
utilities.
59. Drainage systems designed to collect spring water or other sub-surface waters shall be
directed to the natural drainage channels to the maximum extent feasible. Subsurface
drainages shall not be directed to the surface of the public streets unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer.
60. Utility trenches shall be protected with trench dams based on recommendations by the soils
engineer. Trenches to individual Lots shall be likewise protected to avoid the collection and
deposition of sub-surface drainage to under-floor or under-slab areas. Relief drains shall
outlet to a location approved by the City Engineer.
61. If nuisance spring water is expected or encountered with the subdivision improvements
and/or home construction, a separate French drain system may be required with storm drain
extensions to individual lots or areas of concern.
Homeowners' Association:
1 Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 20
62. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that established a "Margarita Area
Master Homeowner's Association" (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the
subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential
tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole
discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many
they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements.
The Master HOA, and any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall
provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional
drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and
trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel
reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The
CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Map, or
any phase thereof."
63. The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of
the lots designated as "Open Space" or"Wetlands Mitigation" (except for the 71-acre lot of
the King map, which is proposed for donation to the City). Those open space areas that
accommodate trails intended for public use shall be maintained for public access in
perpetuity. Maintenance responsibilities shall also include maintenance of any cut or fill
slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm drainage system within private
streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the MHOA (to be included in CC&
R's).
64. The MHOA shall be responsible for maintaining any required red curbing and fire lane
signage approved within the subdivision.
65. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved
by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval.
CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots:
a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an
existing MHOA, if one exists.
b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council
approval.
d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions
herein.
e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared
access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community
Development Director at the time of final map approval.
f. The MORA shall be responsible for maintenance of the drainage swale running along
and behind Lots 19-57 (i.e. all lots backing onto the 71-acre open space lot), as depicted
/r�6
Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 21
on sheet 2 of the Vesting Tentative Map.
g. Drainage swales along the west and south tract boundaries shall be maintained, repaired
and/or replaced by individual lot owners and ,,eeessible to the MHOA^ in such a
way as to allow clear and unobstructed storm water flows. No storage, alterations,
construction and/or landscaping may be permitted in or around these swales in a
manner that interferes with accessibility to, the design, and function of the overall tract
storm drainage system. In the event that individual lot owners do not properly maintain,
repair and/or replace the drainage improvements, the MHOA shall have the right under
the CC&R's to enter said lot owner's property, effect such maintenance, repair and/or
replacement, and bill said owner for costs related thereto. In the event MHOA is
unwilling or unable to manage the storm system within the any portion of the tract
(including the PD Zone as noted below), the City shall have the right to enter said
property and maintain, make repairs and/or replace storm drainage system features and
bill the MHOA for said work. MHOA and City access will be established through storm
drainage easements recorded with the final map.
66. With respect to that portion of the subdivision within the PD Zone (Lots 86-177), the
CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions, in addition to the above:.
a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&Rs and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private
driveways, drainage swales and storm drainage improvements, on-site sewer
facilities, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping lying outside
of private building footprints and patios .
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association
fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred,
and the right of the City to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure
conditions of CC&Rs and final map are being met.
c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are
parked in unauthorized places.
e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motor homes, or trailers nor long-term
storage of inoperable vehicles.
f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&Rs without prior City Council
approval.
/r2 /
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 22
h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of
A officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers
of the association.
i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways
as required by the City Fire Department.
j. CC&Rs shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards
which are substantially screened from view.
k. All garages must be available for parking a vehicle at all times, to be enforced by
the homeowners association and the City.
1. No change in City-required provisions for trash collection without prior approval by
the Community Development Director.
Paths/Open Space:
67. The multi-use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the
Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in
locations that will be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions warrant a
narrower path based on consideration of in-the-field found conditions.
68. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall
be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director.
69. Class I path crossings at "N" St. should be perpendicular to the street. A cross section
should be developed to show transition of path up to the roadway crossing. A raised table-
top design with decorative pavement, choke-downs, and signage shall be provided and
crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians to cross the roadway in a direct
perpendicular manner, consistent with the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
70. Pathway extending from Open Space lot to "N" St. should be shown to cross "N" St, to "D"
St. as indicated by MASP.
71. A Class I trail system shall be provided from Street "S" through Lot 84 providing a physical
connection to the terminus of Calle Jazmin.
72. The mid-block crossing of"S" Street shall be eliminated due to its close proximity to Calle
Malva.
73. The proposed bridge crossings shall provide an accessible path-of-travel in accordance with
the current codes.
Air Quality:
74. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply
/-3 6
\ � 1
Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 23
at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not
limited to PM-10, NOx emissions,Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity
management plans, and phasing techniques.
Housing Programs:
75. Lots 171-175 of the "condominium" lots on the revised map, to be reserved for the
development of 26 affordable housing units, shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior
to, or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of Tentative Tract 2428. Lots 176 & 177
are reserved for development of six (6)"open market"-rate condominium units. Improvement
plans for Phase 1 of Tentative Tract 2428 shall include complete access and infrastructure
(roads, water, sewer, and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority site. Additional affordable
housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire
Tentative Tract 2428 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table 2A of the City Housing Element.
Planning Requirements:
76. Bulb outs at "T" intersections need to be added to the straight leg "crossing the `T"' and
elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out
transitions for the intersecting street leg.
77. City Standard driveway approaches shall be provided at alley private access points to public
streets to and provide adequate line of sight where red curbing would otherwise be needed.
78. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the
San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation
Measures listed above.
79. Guest parking spaces shall be designed so motorists can enter and exit the public street in a
forward motion,in no more than 2 movements.
80. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and
County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the
benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and
the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the
recordation of the final map.
81. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction
project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be
notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied.
82. New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating and illumination by means of proper
design and orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure.
83. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
1-731
• Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 24
or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside,
void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto,
including but not limited to environmental review.
84. Proposed hillside Lots 19-57, which back up to the large open space parcel, are hereby
designated sensitive sites and must comply with the Community Design Guidelines for
hillside development. Individual lot development shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Planning staff may make the
determination upon submittal of complete plans if the minor or incidental architectural
review process is appropriate.
85. Proposed hillside Lots 19-57 are located within a wildland/urban interface area and shall
comply with all applicable local and state fire code requirements, subject to the approval of
the Fire Marshal. A final fire management plan outlining fuel minimization and maintenance
proposals shall be submitted along with subdivision improvement plans to the approval of the
Natural Resources Manager and the Fire Department.
86. Where the finished pad elevation for a lot along the westerly and southerly boundary of this
subdivision is four or more feet higher than the highest pad elevation of the lots adjacent to
it within the Chumash Mobile Home Park, El Camino Estates,. or approved TM 2353,
development of said higher lot within VTM 2428 shall be limited to a single story structure.
In no instance shall rear yard setbacks for lots adjoining existing Chumash Village Mobile
Home Park,El Camino Estates or approved TM#2353 be less than 20 feet.
87. Except as required.above, the following additional conditions of approval relate to requested
exceptions to standard City requirements and will apply only within the area rezoned for
"PD"Planned Development Overlay:
a. Public street side yard setbacks shall be no less than 10 feet to the residence from edge of
right-of-way and no less than 20 feet to the garage that has access to the public street.
b. Street-side setbacks on private streets shall be no less than 5 feet to the residence and no
less than 20 feet to the garage from the centerline of the private street for Lots 117 through
137; for all other lots, no less than 15 feet from garages to the centerline of the private
street and no less than 5 feet for all other non-street fronting side and rear yard setbacks.
c. Lot coverage by structures shall be no more than 75% of total net lot area, excluding
garages and carports, patios, decks and roof overhangs.
d. Upper floor setbacks from property lines need not be more than as required for the ground
floor portion of the structure.
e. All patio areas exterior to the residence may not exceed an aggregate total area of 500
square feet.
f. No exterior patio fence/wall heights may exceed a maximum height of 42 inches (3-1/2
feet.)
/-3.2
1 Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 25
g. Driveway depths for garages facing private streets shall be designed to accommodate a
parking space in front of a garage that prevents the parked vehicle from encroaching into
the travel lane of the common area portion of the drive or street. Variations of design to
meet this performance standard will be subject to approval of the Community
Development Director and final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the ARC.
h. In no event will a floor plan for a lot be allowed that provides more bedrooms than
allowed by the MASP for the size of the lot. (Ref. Section 2.2.2 of the MASP.)
88. Notice of the onset of clearing or grading activities (or other activities likely to cause dust,
noise or animal movements) shall be given to all owners and occupants of residential or
commercial properties within 100 feet of such activity and all residents and owners within the
Chumash Village Mobile Home Park. Such notice shall inform neighbors at least two weeks
prior to commencement of activities such as clearing or grading which may result in dust,
noise, or animal movements, that such activity is about to take place and advising that certain
precautions may be taken to reduce or minimize any effects there from.
89. Prior to review by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant shall provide specific
scaled illustrations showing precise dimensions, area and locations of both private and
common open space together with complete tabulations demonstrating compliance with open
space requirements of Section 16.17.030. B. of the City Subdivision Ordinance.
90. Prior to review by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant shall provide
tabulations of and specific scaled site plans showing precise dimensions for all guest parking
facilities within the single-family portion of the Planned Development component. Without
unduly adding hardscape to the site, the amount of guest parking spaces shall be maximized
to prevent overspill onto adjacent public streets and more closely meet expected demand.
91. Within the affordable housing component of the project, parking spaces shall be provided that
are nearby and convenient to all units.
92. All fireplaces within the development shall be gas-supplied,rather than wood-burning.
Code Requirements:
1. Traffic impact fees and water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid as a condition of
issuance of building permits.
2. The property is tributary to the Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees
shall be paid prior to the final map approval.
3. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water
system if the property includes an active well.
4. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and
excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less
than five acres, but which is part, of a larger common plan of development or sale, also
x-33
Attachment 4
Resolution No. 5481-07
Page 26
require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by
a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity
occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to
the State Water Board.
5. The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading ordinance.
6. Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees
is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage).
7. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and
a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
8. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final
.map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units,
metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer.
9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code (CFC). Access roads
shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide
all-weather driving capabilities. All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius.
10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum
of 5"high x 'h" stroke and be on a contrasting background. [UFC 901.4.4]
11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of
the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire
protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the
CFC.
12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California
Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project.
13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department
approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows.
�-,3y
Resolution No. 5481-07 Attachment 4
Page 27
On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Stevenson, Christianson, Miller, Gould-Wells and
Carpenter
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23 day of May, 2007.
Pam Ricci, cling Secretary
Planning Commission
/-3s'
SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 23, 2007
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Dan Carpenter, Amanda Brodie, Diana Gould-Wells,
Andrea Miller, John Ashbaugh, Charles Stevenson, and Carlyn
Christianson
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Senior Planners Jeff Hook and Pam
Ricci, Contract Senior Planner Mary Beatie, Natural Resources
Manager Neil Havlik, Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum,
Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick and Recording Secretary Jill
Francis
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: It was the consensus of the Commission to modify the
order of the agenda and hear Business Item 4 first.
MINUTES: Minutes of April 25, 2007. Approve or amend.
The minutes of April 25, 2007 were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made from the public.
BUISINESS ITEM:
4C.-Citywide. General Plan Conformity Report for the City's CIP Program; City of San
Obispo, applicant. (Jeff Hook)
Senior Planner Hook presented the staff report, listed the top 10 CIP projects for .
discussion, and reco nded that the Commission find and report to the City Council
that the 2007-09 Capital ovement Plan, Appendix B, conforms with the General
Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Ashbaugh suggested the plan make note of the City asing energy
efficient vehicles, as well as consistency with the Bicycle Transportation specific to
the Bob Jones Trail.
Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 5
May 23, 2007
Page 3
mmr. Stevenson had questions regarding the retaining wall, the style of the proposed
dw g unit, maintenance needed on the main house, and particular architectural
eleme He noted the secondary dwelling should be complimentary to the main
dwelling a not of another architectural design.
Commr. Brodie p ' ted out several text corrections.
Commr. Ashbaugh sugted a pathway (stairways/porches) to the secondary unit be
of the railroad architectural ign.
On motion b Commr. Miller to a e the exception to allow the existing residence to
be considered as a secondary dwellin7%ait, based on amended findings and .subject to
amended conditions to more close) re'qRwt the requirements of the City's SDU
ordinance. Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh.
AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Brodie, Gould-Wells, ristianson, Miller, Ashbaugh
NOES: Commr. Stevenson
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
Commissioner Stevenson voted against the designation of the existing s ture as a
SDU because he felt that the proposed new primary residence was out of char r with
the existing historic structure.
The motion carried on a 6:1 vote.
2. 3000 Calle Malva. PD, MOD/TR and ER 98-06; Consideration of a vesting
tentative tract map and amend the Zoning Map to add a Planned Development
overlay to the central portion of the property to allow for smaller lot sizes and
dimensions with varied setbacks and lot coverages, and environmental review; C-
O/S-100 zone; John King, applicant. (Pam Ricci)
Deputy Director provided a brief summary regarding the Margarita Area Specific Plan
(MASP) and introduced Mary Beatie, a Senior Planner with TPG Consulting, Inc. He
explained that Ms. Beatie has been providing assistance in processing the three vesting
tentative tract maps proposed in the Western Enclave of the MASP. Ms. Beatie
presented the staff report, recommending the Commission adopt a resolution as a
recommendation to the City Council to amend thezoning on an approximately 11-acre
portion of the central portion of the subject property from R-2-SP (Medium-Density
Residential with a Specific Plan overlay) to R-2-SP-PD (Medium-Density Residential
with a Speck Plan and Planned Development overlay), approve a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (ER 98-06), and approve Vesting Tentative tract map 2428, based on
findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. She provided a detailed
presentation of the project history including the Planning Commission's conceptual
support in January of 2006 for increased density in the center of the project.
Dave Watson, applicant's representative, noted his concurrence with the staffs
recommendation and indicated that he was available for questions.
Planning Commission Minutes_- Attachment 5
May 23, 2007
Page 4
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Daryl Boothe, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with increased density and
congestion, increased parking problems, and construction traffic and noise.
Elizabeth Righetti, San Luis Obispo, wanted to see lots adjacent to Chumash Village
limited to single-story homes and asked that notices for construction activity have a
greater range and be mailed out more than a week in advance.
Gene Nelson, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the locations of fencing and
felt that open space preservation was important.
Robert Phelps, San Luis Obispo, presented the Commission with a written statement,
expressed concerns with air quality from construction dust and supported a 30-day
notice of when grading would begin.
Douglas Gerald, San Luis Obispo, had no problem with the increased density of the
project in the PD portion, but was concerned with grading that affected the perimeter..
He asked where a possible "roundabout' would be located.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In reaction to testimony provided by existing neighbors of the project site, the
Commission focused on project conditions that would most directly affect adjacent
development both during and after development such as those dealing with air quality
and grading.
Commr. Stevenson recommended that the amount of guest parking within the project
be maximized. He supported the changes described by staff to project grading to
minimize the grade differentials between the project and surrounding existing
development, but noted that greater setbacks were still warranted to minimize new
buildings from towering over other lots. He suggested revisions to corner lots, and
recommended that fireplaces in the project be gas burning to alleviate air quality
concerns of neighbors.
Commr. Brodie asked if this project would be compatible with the Bicycle Transportation
Plan and was informed that it is. She asked if there would need to be excess parking for
public accessibility to open space areas. Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum
explained that the open space areas were intended to serve the surrounding
neighborhoods and that most people would walk there, but that there would be on-street
parking available to accommodate those that might drive there.
Commr. Ashbaugh asked for clarification on the proposed grading plan; he was told that
the lots along the northern tier that bordered the large open space area were being cut
somewhat to more closely meet the lower grade of the street.
/_38.
Planning Commission Minutes
� Attachment 5
May 23, 2007
Page 5
Commr. Miller reiterated her understanding of the overall grading plan, and felt that the
local residents could be given two weeks notice of when grading will start.
Commr. Gould-Wells explained that there are strict controls over air-quality as it relates
to grading and notice requirements, especially in the case of potentially asbestos-
containing materials.
On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh to adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on an
approximately 117acre portion of the subject property from R-2-SP (Medium-Density
Residential_ with a Specific Plan overlay)..to R727SP-PD. (Medium-Density Residential
witha_ Specific Plan and Planned Development overlay), and approve a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (ER 98-06), and approve Vesting Tentative tract map 2428, based
on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements, with the modifications
identified by staff in their presentation, changes to conditions 86 and 88 (two weeks
notice), clarification in the condition wording regarding the care of common landscaping.
references in conditions 26 &_ 69 that the project. be compatible with the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, and new conditions including the creation of convenient parking for
the affordable component, direction to maximize quest parking, and that fireplaces be
gas-buming. Seconded by Commr. Stevenson.
AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Brodie, Gould-Wells, Christianson, Miller, Ashbaugh
and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carred on a 7 : 0 vote.
4611h.,Ci ide. GPI 49-06: Review of the Draft South Broad Street Corridor Plan; City
an
is Obispo, applicant. (To be continued to June 13, 2007)
This item was ued to the meeting of June 13, 2007, without discussion.
4. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Deputy Director Doug Davidson gave an agen ecast of upcoming events.
B. Planning Commission Retreat
Deputy Director Davidson discussed the Commission's upcoming J 0t' retreat and
explained the format in more detail. Commissioner Ashbaugh noted tha ill be
unable to attend.
5. Commission
/-39
i
( r Attachment 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING CONMUSSION AGENDA REPORT rrEM a i
BY: Mary Beatie, Contract Sr. Planner, TPG Consulting, Inc. MEETING DATE: May 23, 2007
&Pam Ricci, Senior Planner, City of SLO pf;Z_
FROM: Doug Davidson,Deputy Director,Development Review b,
FILE NUMBER: TR/PD/ER 98-06, (County Tract Map No. 2428)
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3000 Calle Malva
SUBJECT: Environmental review, rezoning of an approximately 11-acre portion of the 99 acre
site, from R-2-SP to R-2-SP-PD, and, consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2428 to
create a total of 178 lots on approximately 99 acres, located adjacent and to the north of existing
single-family development along Margarita Avenue east of South Higuera Road, and adjacent
and easterly of the Chumash Village Mobile Home Park fronting on South Higuera Street.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Planning Commission resolution which recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on an approximately 11-acre portion of the subject
property from R-2-SP, Medium-Density Residential with the Specific Plan overlay, to R-2-
SP-PD, Medium-Density Residential with the Specific Plan and Planned Development
overlays, and approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 98-06).
2. Adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) No. 2428, based on
findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements, and approving a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (ER 98-06).
BACKGROUND
Situation
John King has filed an application for a revised VTM and environmental review to create a 178-
lot subdivision on a 99-acre site in the northwestern corner of the Margarita Area Specific Plan
(MASP). The current map is a revised version of a VTM that the Planning Commission reviewed
on January 25, 2006 showing 148 lots. In conjunction with this tract map, the applicant is also
requesting approval of a rezoning from R-2-SP to R-2-SP-PD for the approximately 11-acre
portion in the center of the site for"Planned Development" design to allow more variation in the
project design than normal standards would allow and an increase in allowed density to better
achieve the objectives of the adopted MASP. The Planning Commission reviews vesting
tentative tract maps, rezonings, and environmental documents and makes a recommendation to
the City Council, which takes a final action on such requests.
Data Summary:
Address: 3000 Calle Malva, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Applicant: John E. &Carole D. King (owner& subdivider)
Representative: Dave Watson, King Ventures
��d
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 2
Environmental status: A Final E1R for the Margarita Area Specific Plan, which included the
subject site was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004. A
subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration, tiered to the prior FEIR is
recommended for the site-specific project PD-rezoning and VTM No.
2428.
Site Description
The approximately 99-acre site is located at the base of the South Hills, adjacent and east of the
existing Chumash Village Mobile Home Park off South Higuera Street and adjacent and north of
the existing El Camino Estates subdivision along Margarita Avenue. The site also lies north of
approved VTM No. 2353 (DeBlauw) Sierra Gardens subdivision. The subject site is one of three
subdivisions comprising the "Western Enclave" as identified in the Margarita Area Specific Plan
(MASP), lying north of Prado Road between South Higuera Street and Broad Street. The other
two maps comprising the Western Enclave, Vesting Tentative Maps No. 2353 (DeBlauw) and
No. 2342 (Cowan/French), were both approved with Mitigated Negative Declarations by the City
Council on March 7, 2006. The subject site is gently sloping with a southerly aspect, is currently
vacant, and is traversed from generally north to south by three natural drainage ways.
Project Description:
The subdivision would allow the creation of 178 lots total, consisting of the following:
• 6 open space lots (Lots 81-85 as riparian corridors & the 71-acre hillside Lot 178);
• 80 lots for single-family residential development (Lots 1-80);
• 85 lots for single-family residential development as part of a planned development (Lots
86-170);
• 5 lots for 26 "Affordable Housing"Condominium Units (Lots 171-175); and
• 2 lots for 6 "Market Rate"Condominium Units (Lots 176 & 177)
A total density of 197 residences on 20.26 acres is proposed resulting in an overall averaged
density of 9.7 units per acre.
The "Planned Development" overlay zoning to the existing R-2-SP zoning is proposed on an
approximately 11-acre portion in the center of the site. Within the proposed PD zone, there
would be primarily single-family dwellings (85), but also 32 condominium units. The 26 required
Affordable Housing Program units represents the previously agreed pro-rata share of the overall
Affordable Housing component for the Western Enclave; the balance of the required units will be
provided within VTM No. 2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw). The other 6 condominium units will
be "market rate".
Another component of the current request is for the Council to reaffirm its acceptance of the
offer of donation of a conservation easement, and ultimately, fee title, to the same 71-acre open
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 3
space lot at the north edge of the subdivision in the South Hills area. Although this open space lot
is now identified as Lot 178, it remains unchanged in size and location from the prior map.
Specific development plans for this project will be subject to further review by the Architectural
Review Commission at future meetings.
Previous.Review:
On October 12, 2004, the City Council certified the Final EIR for and approved the Margarita
Area Specific Plan (MASP), by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series). This action included
approval of both text and map amendments to the City's General Plan, rezoning the subject site
to R-1-SP (Low-Density Residential), R-2-SP (Medium-Density Residential), R-3-SP (Medium-
High Density Residential), C/OS/SP (Conservation/Open Space) and C/OS-40-SP
(Conservation/Open Space-40-acre minimum). As specific development proposals are processed
for sites within the MASP, new initial studies are prepared and the applicable mitigation
measures contained in the MASP Final EIR are incorporated into the respective tiered
environmental assessments.
On January 25, 2006, the Planning Commission considered three vesting tentative tract maps for
the area commonly referred to as the "Western Enclave" of the MASP. These three maps were
identified as VTM No. 2342 (Cowan), VTM No. 2353 (DeBlauw), and VTM No. 2428 (King).
The Commission unanimously recommended to City Council approval of the vesting tentative
maps and mitigated negative declarations, based on findings, and subject to mitigation measures,
conditions, and code requirements. This action included approval of the conceptual request by
King Ventures, submitted to staff a day prior to the Planning Commission hearing, for certain
modifications to the map that would allow for higher densities and additional lots. At a
subsequent City Council hearing on March, 7, 2006, the Council expressed their general support
for the modified version of the King map (TR/ER 65-05; County Tract Map No. 2428), which
might accommodate additional density, but declined to take action on the requested
modifications, directing instead, that the design of a revised lot layout for the remainder parcels
be finalized and re-submitted so that it could be reviewed through the normal planning, zoning
and CEQA processes. Despite not taking a final action on either the map as originally designed
or the proposed modified map, the Council did however adopt a resolution accepting the project
sponsor's offer of donation of a conservation easement and ultimately, fee title, to the 71-acre
open space lot along the north edge of the subdivision in the South Hills area. The other two
VTM maps (Cowan/French & DeBlauw) were approved by the Council.
EVALUATION
The evaluation section of this report is structured to provide a discussion of the application
requests, General Plan/Margarita Area Specific Plan compliance, compliance with the Zoning.
Regulations, environmental review, and conformance with the City's Growth Management
polices. This evaluation, where pertinent, will also highlight the material differences between
this proposal and the original map design reviewed in 2006.
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 4
L APPLICATION REQUESTS
Vesting Tentative Mau No. 2428
The revised map proposes an increase of 30 lots (from 148 to 178 lots) and an accompanying
increase of 32 residential units (from 165 to 197 units) from the original design. The originally
proposed 6 open space lots remain unchanged both in location, size, and function.
Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to develop in substantial compliance
with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined
complete on April 2, 2007 per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Map) of the City's Municipal
Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code(Subdivision Map
Act). Section 66474 of the California Government Code specifies the findings for approval of a
tentative map, which are included as Findings 1-7 in the attached Draft Planning Commission
Resolution (Attachment 8).
Five of the subdivision lots, Lots 171-175, are proposed for 26 units of affordable housing
development, will be dedicated to the Housing Authority as soon as infrastructure (street access,
utilities, etc.) is completed for those parcels, and before recordation of the Final Map. Two lots,
Lots 176 & 177, are reserved for development of six (6) "market rate" condominium units. The
precise development proposal for the condominium lots will be processed at a later date;
however, such development is to be consistent with the Affordable Housing Program included
with this VTM proposal as approved by the City Community Development Director.
As in the original map design, the subject revised map retains the bike/pedestrian ways
throughout the subdivision and traffic calming features to promote the pedestrian friendly
environment envisioned by the MASP. As in the original design, the subject revised map retains
proposed open space Lots 81-85 to achieve biological and drainage mitigation required by the
MASP FEIR, as well as to incorporate opportunities for passive recreation amenities for the
future residents of the subdivision as stipulated by the MASP. These lots are still proposed to be
maintained by a proposed Master Homeowner Association in conjunction with additional open
space lots in the adjacent approved VTMs Nos. 2342 and 2353. Lot 178 of the subject VTM No.
2428 is still proposed for permanent open space purposes by way of an offer of dedication to the
City which was previously accepted by City Council action on March 7, 2006, by Resolution No.
9778 (2006 Series). The City Council subsequently took action on May 15, 2007 by Resolution
#9897 (2007 Series) to accept a conservation easement on the subject 71 acre parcel (Lot 178).
PD Rezoning
As noted in the project description, the applicant proposes to add the "PD"Planned Development
Overlay Zone to the existing R-2-SP zone(to create "R-2-SP-PD" zoning) in the approximately
11-acre central area of the site. The "PD" zone is intended to encourage imaginative development
and a more effective use of site. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than
/-Y3
-� Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesfm Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning CommiAon Agenda Report
Page 5
normal standards would allow. Through the use of PD zoning, lot size, configuration, yards,
building heights, lot coverage, and parking may be specified for the project without conformance
to the standards of the underlying zone. Such variations from normal standards however are
required to provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could
not be provided or achieved under conventional regulations.
Further, in this instance, the project is also subject to the MASP. The MASP was developed to
respond to a variety of pressures and demands emerging within the City, including a higher
demand for housing within a market of relatively unaffordable housing and land costs; trends
favoring higher density living in a walkable residential environment; and more urban amenities
to facilitate transit oriented travel without sacrificing valued open space amenities. The adopted
MASP is a coordinated land use and transportation strategy intended to facilitate the protection
of open space and the production of housing while minimizing additional vehicle trips and
vehicle miles traveled in the City. The MASP supports the creation of planned developments
through utilization of "PD" overlay zoning as a mechanism to better-achieve these multiple
objectives.
The applicant's stated objective, accompanying the proposed preliminary development plan
required by Section 17.50 Planned Development chapter of the Zoning Ordnance, is to:
Create a multiple-product Planned Development neighborhood in the Margarita
Area consisting of predominantly detached single family residential units on 165
lots. Also proposed is a higher density, attached housing project consisting of 32
condominium units, 26 of which are proposed for "affordable housing", which in
conjunction with 23 affordable housing units approved with the adjacent VTM
No. 2353-DeBlauw, will satisfy Section 10.8 requirements of the MASP for
Western Enclave area.
To approve the planned development rezoning, the City Council must be able to find that
the PD zoning meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable Margarita Area Specific
Plan, and the proposed land use is allowed within the applicable primary zoning districts,
both existing and proposed
2. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations including
those modifications as authorized herein by utilization of the PD Overlay rezoning.
3. The approved modifications to the development standards of Zoning Regulations through the
PD Overlay 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 the applicable City Design Guidelines
5. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed
project,
i-7 7
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 6
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 suitable 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.
8. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project, as conditioned, 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
The portions of the project covered by the proposed PD Overlay Zone (Lots 86-177) propose a
total of 117 units on approximately 11 acres (85 detached and 32 condominium units for
approximately 10.5 units per acre). The 85 units proposed will offer seven floor plan choices,
some with variations ranging from one-bedroom, single story units, with a single car enclosed
garage, up to 2, 3, and 4 bedroom 2-story units with two-car enclosed garages. The 32 two- and
three-story condominium units offer a range of studio and 1-, 2- & 3-bedroom options, with
single and 2-car garages in 17 units and open parking spaces for the other 15 units and 13 guest
parking spaces. Four handicap-accessible condominium units are also proposed (one unit each in
studio, 1, 2, & 3-bedroom options.) For additional details regarding proposed units and open
space provisions, please see attached Attachment 4.
The PD area is proposed to meet MASP development regulations for the applicable Medium
Density and R-2-SP-PD zoning districts, with the exception of the following requested modified
standards:
1. Public Street Yard Setbacks:
Required: Per MASP Table 3b (units primarily fronting on private street): 15 ft. to house; no
explicit requirement for garage setback.
Requested: Minimum 10 ft. to the residence. Minimum 20 ft. to a garage that has direct access
to the public street.
Staff's Analysis: Reducing the required public street yard setbacks 5 ft. within the PD area
enables concentrating more units within the central portion of the site to achieve
higher densities prescribed by the MASP while maintaining larger lots and
maximum setbacks in perimeter lots for privacy protection to adjacent developed
areas. Twenty foot setback to garage allows adequate depth in driveway to park a
car outside the public right of way.
�'LJr
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 7
2. Interior Private PD Street Yard Setbacks:
Required: Not explicit in Zoning Ordinance or MASP. Subdivision Ordinance. requires 8 ft.
of landscape between building and edge of pavement of private drive and
minimum 18 feet from garage to edge of pavement.
Requested:Minimum 5 ft. to the residence. Minimum 20 ft. measured from the garage to the
centerline of the private street for Lots 117-137. For all other lots, minimum 15 ft.
measured from garages to the centerline of the private street.
Staff's Analysis: Practically, a vehicle of a typical 18-ft. length may extend out into the private
drive and create a passing hazard Private street widths and driveway depths will
need to be designed so as to accommodate a 20-ft minimum parking space in front
of a garage to prevent a parked vehicle encroaching into the travel lane of the
common area portion of the drive or street.
3. PD Side and Rear Yard Setbacks:
Required: Table 3b of MASP requires for side setback to a neighboring lot to be as per R-2
Zone which requires 5 ft. minimum at first story, including to a covered parking
area, increasing incrementally depending on height of roof up to 15 ft. for a 35 ft.
high roof. Street side setback of a comer lot is 15 ft. per Table 3b of MASP. Rear
yards for first or second stories to residence required at 20 ft.; nothing specified for
third stories.
Requested: Minimum 5 ft. in any instance.
Staffs Analysis: Some second stories proposed within PD area will be stepped back but not in
all instances. The PD area has been designed to allow many of the side and rear
yards setbacks that are not occupied by homes and private patios to be
"consolidated" within bands of open space that will run between and throughout
units in the neighborhood without fencing; some side and rear yards will be
adjacent to open space lots which provide additional "setback" from adjacent
development, others adjoin rears or sides of other lots. While not providing strict
compliance with side and rear yard setback concepts this design enables common
access and unified landscape maintenance throughout these bands of open spaces
to be managed by the PD Homeowners Association. Further, exterior patios
constructed within individual lots will be restricted to fencing around said private
area no more than 42 in. in height, and subject to Architectural Design Review and
CC&Rs.
4. Minimum PD Lot Size:
Required: MASP requires minimum lot areas in the R-2-SP zone applicable to the proposed
unit designs ranging from 2,400 sq. ft. for a 1-bedroom home up to 5,000 sq. ft. for
a 4-bedroom home.
Requested: Minimum 3,030 sq. ft., (maximum 7074 sq ft.)
i-y4
.��...5..•'SC'1'iT.'f`iSlrY.4.'.S.-.A.MLY.Mgt�
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 8
Staff's Analysis: The PD Site Plan for selected lots do not appear to comply in every instance
to the minimum lot sizes prescribed by the MASP based upon bedrooms provided
by the particular floor plan designated, The range of lots sizes proposed however,
would seem to be able to accommodate one or more of the proposed floor plans.
The lot sizes may also be able to be adjusted slightly in certain instances in order
to accommodate a particular floor plan. In no event will a floor plan fora lot be
allowed that provides more bedrooms than allowed by the MASP for the size of the
lot. (Ref. Section 2.2.2 of the MASP.)
5. Lot Coverage•
Required: MASP requires a maximum lot coverage of 60% in the Medium Density (R-2-SP)
area of the site.
Requested: Maximum 75% of Lot Area for all structures excluding garages and carports,
patios, decks and roof overhangs.
Staff's Analysis: Given the desirability of maintaining larger lots and maximum setbacks in
perimeter lots for privacy protection to adjacent developed areas, and the need for
densities overall to fall within the desired range of 7-16 units suggests a need for
smaller lots within the PD area and higher lot coverage in order to provide a
range of housing types and sizes to satisfy market demand variations.
6. Upper Floor Building Setbacks:
Required: See discussions above under No. 1, 3, &4.
Requested: No additional upper floor setbacks will be required from property lines in the PD
neighborhood maximum
Staffs Analysis: See discussions above.
7. Maximum Exterior Private Patio Area:
Required: The MASP does not prescribe standards for patio areas. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a minimum of 250 sq. ft of qualifying private open space for projects in
the R-2 zone, with a minimum dimension at ground level of 10 ft. in every
direction or 6 ft. for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck.
Requested: One or more patios per residence shall not total more than 500 sq. ft.
Staffs Analysis: The proposal for patio spaces appears to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance
requirements for Private Open Space. The final design of patio spaces will be
required to meet the zoning ordinance standards and will be subject to
Architectural Design Review.
8. Patio Fence Heights:
Required: The Zoning Ordinance has a specific maximum fence height requirement for
1-Z17
l
i; Attachment 6
is
6.....r.�...w:YL'�:.L:..^J+G4L'.Le"Y\ntirn..::,,:•'•_...
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06) —
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 9
fences within street yard areas.. The PD Site Plan however, does not appear to
propose any fencing in such locations. The Zoning.Ordinance limits fence heights
in other yard areas to a maximum height of six feet. No such fences of this type
appear to be proposed. The Ordinance states that any wall connected to and a part
of the house, may be any height allowed in the underlying zone. The only fencing
(or walls) proposed within the PD area would be those to surround the private
patios, likely connected to the residential unit.
Requested: Maximum 42 in. proposed.
Staff's Analysis: The proposal appears to satisfy requirements of the MASP and Zoning
Ordinance with regard to fence height limitations.
One of the objectives of the current design and the request for PD zoning is achieving higher
densities within the central portion of the site to better achieve MASP desired densities, while
preserving larger lots with conforming yard areas and setbacks and thus lower densities in areas
directly adjoining established or already approved neighborhoods (Chumash Village Mobile Home
Park, El Camino Estates, and VTM No. 2353 (DeBlauw). Another objective achieved by the
current design is limiting grading and landform modifications as much as possible to respect the
steeper slopes of the property and retaining the three creek/storm water channels traversing the site
in their natural state to maximize their open space and habitat values as desirable amenities for the
development. The PD overlay zoning allows flexibility in designing to the irregular size, angles
and direction of these channels in order to leave them in their natural location, even though the
MASP allows such channels to be relocated The PD Overlay Zoning will also facilitate the
objective of utilizing private streets and shared driveways to increase land area available for
housing. The PD portion of the site is also designed to respect the MASP and subdivision
ordinance requirements for both "private" and "common' use open space, The revised
subdivision design still proposes common use lots centered along the existing alignment of
drainage ways, to retain and enhance these features as environmental mitigation, components of
the comprehensive drainage system for the Western Enclave, and as a development amenity.
Further, the subdivision design proposes a prohibition of perimeter lot fencing to allow the yard
setbacks and portions of the single-family homes and private patios to be "consolidated" within
bands of open space that will run between and throughout units in the neighborhood, accessible to
all as common open space.The illustration and documentation of precise dimensions and calculated
areas of all private and common open space will be subject to further review by the ARC (see
Condition of Approval No. 89).
The revised project design also improves the relationship of lots adjacent to existinglapproved
neighborhoods through deeper lots, greater (20 ft.) rear yard setbacks, and grading modifications to
reduce the "towering over" effects of new buildings. While these modifications push the balance of
the project further into the center of the site, this project is able to devote the majority of the site
(roughly 83%) to exclusively single family structures to retain compatibility with adjacent
established neighborhoods and respect the constraints for residences to be built on slopes up to 30%
along the base of the South Hills and achieve some increased density at the center of the site.
Further, shared private driveways are used in the PD area to lessen the amount of land otherwise
i-yam
_...n _.. .__._
/ a
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06) _'-,1-. w_:_..;•;.-:
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 10
dedicated to public streets, facilitating clustered smaller lots to maintain the desired higher levels of
density. The smaller lots are tied together by neighborhood green spaces for use by PD residents,
and by open space lots common to the subdivision with associated creek corridors and trail
networks. (See also additional discussion of grading below under"Geologic\Grading".)
IL GENERAL PLAN/MASP COMPLIANCE
Land Use:
The residential and open space lots are located and sized in accordance with the Low Density,
Medium Density, and Medium-High Density Residential, and Open Space land use designations
and provisions of the MASP applicable to the subject site. Based upon the acreages in the
subdivision devoted to Low Density, Medium Density, and Medium-High Density/Planned
Development and the densities desired for these areas by Table 1 of the MASP land use
designations, a total of 175 units would be the minimum number of units needed for the area
being subdivided including the required affordable housing units (pro-rated for this portion of
the Western Enclave to be 26 units.) The project is proposing 197 total units, for an overall
density of approximately 9 units per acre which is within the range of 7-16 units per acre desired
by the MASP for this site. Staff has considered the proposed density against the competing
demand of minimizing grading and finds that the lower-end density on this more sloping site to
be acceptable. Due to the more sloping nature of the site compared to others that are flatter,
higher density would result in more lots of a smaller size resulting in more extensive grading—a
tradeoff of potentially more adverse environmental impacts in terms of aesthetics and slope
stability concerns.
Traffic and Circulation:
Access to the Revised VTM No. 2428 remains effectively unchanged. Access to the site is
available from several locations: 1) From the planned easterly extension of Prado Road pursuant
to the MASP (and recommended conditions of approval) via Calle Malva which will extend
north from Prado Road through approved VTM No. 2342 (Cowan/French) and the existing El
Camino Estates neighborhood, 2) From South Higuera via Margarita Avenue connecting to the
northerly extension of Calle Malva, and 3) From Prado Road via streets extending north through
VTM No. 2353 (DeBlauw) and connecting to proposed "D" and "N" Streets. Once Prado Road
is fully constructed east and west, the site (and the Western Enclave and the entire Margarita
Area) will also have access to Broad Street to the east. The location of these accesses to the site
as well as other proposed streets to complete circulation internal to the subject VTM No. 2428,
are all located in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the MASP. The relatively minor
increase in the number of lots (30) and residential units (32) will not significantly affect the
overall capacity of area roads to accept the increased trips associated with this development
increase. (For additional details in this regard, please refer to analysis contained in Checklist Item
#15: Transportation/Traffic, of the attached Initial Study.)
/7Yp
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 11
Pedestrian and Bike Paths: Consistent with the MASP, Class I shared pedestrian/bicycle paths
are still proposed by the Revised VTM within Open Space Lots 82, 83, 85, and 178 (the 71-acre
lot dedicated to the City for public open space) connecting to "N" Street and crossing "S" Street
through Lot 84. These paths will conform to requirements of the MASP, including how they are
integrated into the small creek/drainage corridor lots. Conditions of approval require special
treatments at "N" and "S" Streets to demarcate the roadway crossings. The paths will thereby be
linked to the established trail system along the South Hills. These paths may be narrowed in
specified locations within the open space lots to no less than 8 feet based upon recommendations
by the City Natural Resource Manager in order to accommodate protection of or avoidance of
interference with special concern species, in accordance with the stipulations of Biological
Mitigation Program for compliance with MASP FEIR mitigation.
Street Development:
Perimeter streets "W", "N", and "S", Calle Malva and "D" within the subdivision are now the
only proposed public streets within the Revised VTM; all other streets within the central 11-acre
area proposed for PD zoning are now proposed as private streets to be maintained by a
Homeowners Association. The private streets have been laid out and sized to assure
maneuverability within and access by larger City service vehicles (solid waste and fire trucks)
and delivery trucks.
Construction of streets to access the subdivision from adjacent developments and neighborhoods
(Calle Malva, "D", and "Y' Streets) will be conditioned, as before with the original design, to
occur in relation to timing of construction of"D" and/or"F' and "M' Streets in VTM No. 2353
(Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) and Calle Malva in VTM No. 2342 (Cowan/French) such that either
Calle Malva, "D" or "Y' Streets and/or "F' and "W Street will provide primary access to the
site initially.
Although bulb-outs and choke downs are still proposed fairly liberally throughout the proposed
subdivision and are certainly appropriate devices to achieve traffic calming as required by the
MASP, additional traffic control devices such as raised tabletops at open space crossings may be
beneficial to further the MASP objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be
compatible with the neighborhood." A condition of approval has been recommended to require
the final design, location and number of traffic calming measures to be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Director prior to final map approval.
Geologic\Gradin
The subject site lies essentially at the toe or lower lying inclines of the south-facing South Hills.
This site is the more steeply sloping site of the three proposed Western Enclave developments.
As such, grading will likely be the most extensive on this site. As with the original design, the
design of the Revised VTM proposes the lot and street layouts to follow the natural gradient of
P _
Attachment 6 !:
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 12
the site to minimize grading. Also, the subject map proposes about 60% of the subdivision (over
120 lots) will utilize shared driveways, another means to minimize driveway cuts and thereby
reduce grading.
Concern was expressed at the January and March 2006 public hearings on the previous
subdivision design for this site for potentially undesirable elevation differences between the
previously-proposed lots and adjacent lots within the existing Chumash Village Mobile Home
Park to the west and development within the adjacent proposed VTM No. 2353 (DeBlauw).
Many of the lot pads previously proposed along these southerly and westerly property lines had
elevation differences of 5 feet or more, creating an undesirable privacy situation where one
neighbor may be able look down into the yards or windows of adjacent homes.
To some extent, this type of grade differential between new and existing developments must be
anticipated in hillside settings. There are often competing goals with accommodating needed
elevation requirements for drainage, for instance, and elevations of previously existing or
proposed adjacent development. During the public hearings in 2006, the careful location of
fences at the tops of the banks, particularly where the slope bank exceeds a ratio of 3:1 (3 ft. of
vertical for every 1 foot horizontal) was recommended to mitigate privacy concerns. Previous
conditions of approval recommend that where such slope ratios will exist and elevation
differences between adjacent lots exceed 4 feet, that privacy fences be established at the top of
the bank and the remainder of the slope bank, including drainage structures, be owned and
maintained by the Homeowners Association through deed restriction.
The revised VTM currently under consideration has made modifications to its preliminary
grading plan and overall development proposal to address the above-described privacy concerns
and appears to better conform to the City's essential grading requirements and standards, and
objectives of the MASP (see Attachment 5 which compares the extent of grading proposed
before with the current proposal). In addition to proposing the deeper rear yard setbacks at 20 feet
for consideration of 2-story units along the westerly and southerly property lines adjacent to the
Chumash Mobile Home Park and El Camino Estates, the grading plan has also reduced the
previous worst case elevation differences along the southerly property line adjacent to the
approved DeBlauw VTM No. 2353 from approximately 10.5 feet to 4.5 feet. This has been
accomplished in part by elevating the building pad several feet by now "splitting" the former rear
yard cut between the front and rear yards. While this eliminates the need for retaining walls in the
rear yards of lots adjacent to the DeBlauw VTM No. 2353, the tradeoff results in some
downward slope of front yards from street grades and portions of rear yards sloping slightly to
the property line. Despite the reduction in many of the previously proposed cuts, the previous
condition of approval described in the paragraph above is still recommended for this revised map
to minimize the privacy concerns in the event final grading plans reveal a need for similar
elevation differences in isolated locations..
The addition of the PD development within the center of the site has also provided opportunities
to absorb cuts and fills within the "green areas" between the units. The slopes are proposed to be
i-si
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06) •-- ; �._,
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 13
a maximum of 3:1. It is possible also that some of the peripheral lots on the east edge of the site
against the South Hills open space lot (Lot 178) will require terraced grading within the lot to
step construction pads to accommodate construction of split level houses, eliminating the need
for a single larger cut for the entire pad area. In this regard the Public Works Dept. has expressed
concerns now that the changes described to the extent and location of cut and fill will create
some new conditions not previously encountered with the prior design regarding down-sloping
and up-sloping driveways. Notably, the building footprints for Lots 58 — 78 will need to include
garage setback notes, or clarify that these lots may require garages be elevated above the existing.
grade. Further with regard to up-sloping driveways common driveways should be considered for
lots 30/31, 32/33, 37/38, 39/40, 41/42, 44/45, 50/51, 52/53, 54/55 & 56/57, keeping driveway
slopes under the maximum of 20% slope. In addition, conditions of approval are recommended
to require that all driveways shall comply with City Engineering Standards #1230 and#2140 for
down-sloping and up-sloping driveways.
Biolosical Resources:
Biological impacts of the three Western Enclave projects fall into several categories: wetland
impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats, and impacts to sensitive species. These impacts and
related mitigation measures are all discussed more site-specifically in the attached Environmental
Initial Study for this map. Copies of the environmental assessments and adopted Mitigated
Negative Declarations for the other two approved VTMs comprising the Western Enclave area
(VTMs No. 2342 No. 2353) are on file with and can be viewed at the City Community
Development Department The Revised VTM makes no material changes to the design, size,
location or function of the open space lots; consequently, no new impacts to biological resources
result from the new design. The applicant commits to carrying out the same biological resource
mitigations previously established for this site, individually, and for the entire Western Enclave
developments collectively.
Oven SDace/Recreation•
The three unnamed natural drainage swales running southward through the site out of the South
Hills are still proposed by the subject revised VTM No. 2428 to be protected for multiple
benefits pursuant to the "Open Space-Riparian" designation requirements of the MASP. In order
to not jeopardize the integrated design aspects of the three Western Enclave subdivisions with
regard to design, use and function of these inter-connected drainages, it was important that the
revised design not result in any substantive changes to the drainages from the original VTM No.
2428 map proposal. In addition to biological and drainage benefits (described elsewhere in this
report), the MASP envisioned these drainage ways being preserved largely in their natural state
to also achieve open space and passive recreation opportunities, both within the MASP generally,
and within the Western Enclave area specifically.
The subject map proposes Lots 81-85 to achieve these multiple purposes. These lots comply
with the MASP specifications for "creeks". These 3 corridors also provide channels for limited
i-sz
F,
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06) -
Planning Commission Agenda Report —=
Page 14
storm water runoff from the subject tract (the majority of run-off will be directed to a parallel,
traditional underground drainage collection system to be built.) The MASP calls for these
corridors to be about 15 meters (50 feet) in width, generally centered on the natural flow line of
the channel. The proposed subdivision design shows roughly 10 to 20-foot setbacks from the top
of creek bank or edge of riparian vegetation to building envelopes consistent with Section
17.16.025 of the zoning regulations (creek setback ordinance). These 5 open space lots are
proposed to be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association as set forth in the
recommended conditions of approval.
As noted above, Lots 82 through 85 will also incorporate Class I pedestrian/bike paths consistent
with the MASP designations for"trails" within the Western Enclave area. Generally these trails
will be 12-feet in width, with provisions, pursuant to recommended conditions of approval for
the City Natural Resource Manager to reduce this width (to no less than 8 ft.) consistent with
stipulations of the Biological Mitigation Program. After considerable consideration, staff
determined, based on the final locations of streets and open space lots resulting from the
coordinated and integrated design with the adjacent VTM No. 2353, that moving the trail
location to align with the more westerly drainage swale of the subject property made the best
sense, instead of placing it within the central drainage as indicated by the Plan, where a logical
connection or extension through adjacent development could not be provided. Ultimately these
trails will connect with the existing trail system across the South Hills Open Space Lot 178 of the
subject subdivision, for which an Offer of Donation by the project sponsor for conservation
easement, and ultimately fee title, purposes has already been accepted by the City. These 12 ft .
wide combined pedestrian and bike paths along the creek channels, as noted, are consistent with
the MASP, and are on at least one side and in some cases on both sides of the 3 creeks. As such
bridge crossings are necessary and planned to tie the trails into the surrounding residential
neighborhoods. Placement of the combined trails within the 15 meter corridors and providing
flexibility to allow paths as narrow as 8 ft. given site and creek-specific considerations together
with necessary bridge crossings to maintain appropriate continuous connections, require certain
exceptions and findings pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance as contained in the attached draft
Resolution (see Attachment No. 8). The granting of such exceptions is appropriate for this
development since, as noted, the drainages are narrow in some locations making adjustments
necessary to accommodate the continuity of the path system, Further the subdivider will be
making enhancements to the creek corridors to benefit their natural habitat capabilities off-setting
years of degradation from cattle grazing, and making them a valuable amenity to the overall
development. For further discussion of this, please refer to Attachment No. 4 "Planned
Development (PD) Overlay Zoning District Required Features and Findings".
These 5 open-space lots are intended to not only provide a valuable open-space\aesthetic and
recreational amenity to this new neighborhood, but will ultimately provide city-wide benefits by
accommodating inter-connection of existing and future pedestrian/bicycle trails and paths and
bike lanes surrounding and within the remainder of the Margarita Specific Plan area.
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVestin Tentative Ma (Kin TR/PD/ER 98-06) f 3i
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 15
Inclusionary &.Affordable Housing:
The Planning Director is recommending approval of the proposed Affordable Housing Plan
finding that it is consistent with the MASP and Housing Element. A recommended condition of
approval stipulates that Lots 171-175 of this map (along with Lot 105 of VTM No. 2353-
DeBlauw) be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior to, or in conjunction with, recording the
first phase of VTM No. 2353 and Revised VTM No. 2428, respectively. Improvement plans for
Phase I of the each VTM shall include complete access and infrastructure (roads; water, sewer,.
and utilities) to serve the Housing Authority site. Additional affordable housing requirements
will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire VTM tract exceeds 2,000 sq. ft.
Public-Utilities/Services:
Infrastructure for all standard public services for telephone/data, electricity (including street
lighting), gas, fire (including hydrants), domestic water and sewer, trash collection and storm
drain remains unchanged from the original proposal and will be constructed at the site by the
subdividers. Although numerous private streets/drives are now proposed for the central PD area
of the subject Revised VTM No. 2428, their design is such that accessibility to lots by fire trucks
and solid waste collection trucks is not compromised.
Other Design Features:
The subject map proposes over 60% of the subdivision lots (primarily within the PD area) will
utilize shared private driveways in order to reduce grading, and minimize driveway cuts that
would otherwise be associated with multiple individual driveways.
The overall project design provides adequate parking in conformance with requirements of
Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.060, including off-street/guest parking consistent with Table 6
therein. (Please refer to Attachment No.4 for additional details provided by the applicant.)
IV. CONFORMANCE WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES
According to the City's General Plan, the City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one
percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents
with very low and low incomes. Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must
have adopted a specific plan or a development plan for it. Such plans must provide for phased
development consistent with one-percent annual, citywide population growth and taking into
account expected in-fill residential development within the 1994 City limits.
On April 18, 2006, the City Council accepted the 2005 Annual Report on the General Plan and
approved a revision to the Residential Growth Management Ordinance phasing schedule
(Council Resolution #9789. Under the current phasing schedule, dwelling units are allocated to
the Margarita Area as follows:
��y
a
Attachment 6
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06)
Planning Commission Agenda Report
Page 16
2005-2007: 80 Units
2008-2010: 368 Units
2011-2013: 300 Units
2014-2016: 120 Units
Total: 868 Units
Therefore, the earliest that the construction in the Margarita Area could be completed is 2014.
This build-out timeframe is possible assuming all subdivision requirements are met, including
construction of Prado Road.
The Margarita Area will not use any of its allocation during the 2005-2007 interval, totaling 80
units. According to the Growth Management Regulations, the Council can allocate those units to
a future interval to encourage completion of neighborhoods that have been started. It is likely
that these units would be allocated to the last phase of development in the Margarita Area, 2014-
2016, because additional units can be placed in this interval without exceeding the 1%
maximum. However, if infill development is less than expected during any of the prior intervals,
the Council can increase the allocation to the Margarita Area before 2014 as long as the total
number of dwellings constructed will not exceed 1% for that interval.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the
conditions and code requirements of the attached draft Resolution.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may recommend approval of the project with modified findings and/or
conditions.
2. The Commission may continue review of the project, if more information is needed.
Direction should be given to staff and the applicants
3. The Commission may approve a resolution recommending that the City Council deny the
proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the Margarita Area
Specific Plan as specified by the Planning Commission..
Attachments:
1. Vicinity/Location maps
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2428 (revised)
3. Developer's Statement
�ss
Attachment 6 4
Tract No.2428-RevisedVesting Tentative Map(King-TR/PD/ER 98-06) r
Planning Commission Agenda Report K L4Y.d1e^:]{.jyl+PeA�_C.aG+✓o.::n.CJPS
Page 17 -,
4 Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zoning District Required Features and Findings
5. Grading Proposals -comparing the existing to the prior proposal
6. Initial Study(ER 98-06)
7. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
S:\Prcjects\05-914.4\Work ProductTiinal Staff Report to City 5-17-07.doc
Attachment
n,
CIOS40
-1 P
0
-P
- .. ! .Y+ � ".� yr ([�'4 t C•C Yy �'. y0.. C•�:
t �
1 _ '
4 N 1-S S R-2-SP R-3-SF
a
S
1 R-1
R-3-SP
-1-S
0
M4Rf gRRq
R-
R S-SP R-1-SP
R-
R-1-SP
-
R-1-SP
R-1-SP -1-5 R-2-SF
R-2 G S SP O-SP R-2-SP
OSP
VICIrNU Y MAP FloSe N®m 96-06 N
3000 Calle
d 1'
_ Vachmett 6
p 71 t acne, c•
7 - : Dedioafed is the - •;.. .
City of San Luis v�.:1Li3 %.:,r:iI._..•.:.. ^�s�ia_.-i.:
1R 2428 Obispo for Open
Q 19 (King) Space
-2122
23 33 - 39
1 ':118 25/ 128 3 43
13 if 11 120 1211
112 11
1 I1 f18 It.113 / 82 O1 _ 1x17. W
t3 _ b
� � a o' � �I
12 _ 7 HT1 46
6 34\ a7
11 0 0 9 9 � 170'
10 9 % 95� c 1 187, h3 A611 33 `
9 r 8990 94 163184 6 I6 iS 15 ''�`�038 ISB
8 8] 86 91 92 159 15 3 ,'130 137 `
162 181.180 183 1S1 _ 63
7 - 62 S
`` 55
9 4 3 2 1 81 79 78 77 76 75 8 74 73 .72 71 70 9 BH 87 6 60 59 56
O 81
58.
57
34 33 68 104
1 tOS 1
33 '
136 8 39 70 89 f02. 105 1.
�o Q 4 d�al�c�Q '420
j I
29
28 1 67 74 9]
v" 27 1 I 43 --66 I 130
75 961 107 106 I 129 I 1
1 46 SBS. 9S I I 108 f2H 1.
25 Bs 1 94 77
127 I 1
48 - '. - 83 I ' 109 .126' 1 O
� � 0 133 � I X111' 121 I 1
24 4s _ auw)132 123 I 1
1 16 13 IA. 13 12 1 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 l 3, 2 f 82 _ 131 I
23 '. g0 I 1
�1 SD I Br nz ' �� 1 1
17 ---_�_--�r _. 60. 81 ja7
. 1 -_-_ I 51 SB 82 113 . 10
12Le 12
2S262728 1 29 30 31 32 33 22=1 I 51 I>A .1 9'2 41 A03 K ' 87 8M1 I 115., 118 1
9 20
_ A 8C 0 E f 0 N I J 1 95 65 88 '116 117 111
17 16 f5 U 13 12 1T 10 9 8 7 1
O--EP---P a R 1 2- -S 4 -_:S 6 1M11.
C:
� � \
z
p \
n
D
r
I
I
�I I
I
1
I
1
I1
JIM
,
1
I- R
CITY OF SAN LOISORISPO - RI:'161D16 1 I�PROPOS®DBIRIa?I m ANG EERING I�!Ij�H 8 g
TIM YARCARrrA ARRA TE C coNSOLTANTS t�' 4_7
ass
$_ A7ncmornr 2 .i C
CD
�1�I1
IM
'
i 117 ���'IC�IIIII�1 I� ;�ti=' ;! I I •'. �=�'Snn.. ;
inu
,■� �- �. /im � p
�piiiii.� �' ��liiiij° y ` ;A[ � i^' I,�p'•j \\,,. a�� .
z.
■ ■ �.3��,.� -' �PIIIIIIII III�II�i"ic
I. ■ , �- •:� •i i `11;31 �� L.-_. ,r!:[`
irum
.fir,. .I► t,��'��.°�°`�
ILE
�TY�r�y9 Ti'� �l • ��/ V� '��r � .
w
1,�1�ll, �1,s���...- � � >',t . ♦ ire
I Y � �
z �' �r�! bl�::l •iJ
Jill
N1wzj
�v -,
4^r �� � 1 `]i�i11 J� •
V
Alp
ri
-A:.,,
all
� . 1, i�. :•
rz
it
r �xx;n_ .o Sid !�1 � �� i�.4i �, • ,
Its,��; ;L'X�r �- i�'. 1 r� ■ ,. , #i.x.0 Y.
�vc��i�.t�'! ��_"' I - � ; t i� L J .✓ moi#i,4.
,i3:P q 1
pp ao._r
..r • 'iiJ. �D�� r:LF a1� �Il•.:� rr�` �,Sf ���., '^� . :i .
s�yyn I � ,,i• � t ` y+t.� ��i� (♦�t
o;
-T7-
11N-
Hiiacnmeni d
HIM
' Uzo0801
E rf C = U ZIA1 yb9C�'9 g'A F as b mU�� mow.. F,,�
Dp8 C 3�E x
3a Z, W"s3'. e W bg 0< g$
W A nfix
ib W,1.
<rr
OrOA IN E
e
R A_A:.aea CARF9.:aFAOF
a
aac.t aa% sa= - ^aC
9
U2
9999999 949999999999999ffi
E'"
Z 999 99 99999999 9999998
Fas"_e,a----------"asoa"sA°9-s.xa'a
:s
gRS--- ---------- 5_eEEE�
zz x a z � -
� � o Wove
m sFa3^:FRaRaa FRA A: aRaaa:33.a3:8 MGM uAsscQRS FSea
CQ
^
sa:aa=_:aFBeFF aee70gAa:7 "a sffieai883385 Fa^ear
e -Ott zMill
� 9°9999999999999999999 99999 99999
Z} k. F� �J Cw [normo
F z d Q a U Z « `y ;� 99999999 § 9999999999999 999 999999III I
Z E z) z x §=?B 9&
^aa ^
.] m O d .. ........... ..... ...�.a..... . .......... .. .
CL' z a. Z
�C Qi a ^ a4
"as ase__-___ _ aa: Sas. ^r: oss a
10-4 8 ::sla Baas 9:9.aAAAaaa aFRa^ a a9 8aa7 :..
S &88:eaa:S_= 388s a:_aaa _ 3.:as.::eF=2aa :aa
w 9 9§ 999999 994$ $$$$$$ ffiffi8ffi8a 999999999999 9999
EV gggggg
2£2��
99999999999999 999
� � ffiffi8ffiffi
b §6 WMMMsic#^�.ag:sas"s $^ --� °a:;m9 &e^:s�6 :?$:e8
W g 3 W �a3aFFIFaA:as:asFsaes sea sa:aaasa asa::sasa:aa_'
O z M
9Wm = < W =
E WWW
3 9
W s �, d 's „ 3 a $ aaaFF::R'J MIS STIMI
83FaAa3A0a7a:aa:A*it 33AaS:AASSAaA9RASa
i2 � 3 g 3 S b $ e
_a__a_FaaF _
- 888Ssaa8.Ag a888888888889
e �a88
F F F F Z O j � C J W W 3 0 6Kp6KKK C RKKQK66K6¢¢
G Y $ $ $ � m a $ a a '�$$$�$999999f999999999999999999999 999°99994999999 9 9
SUN
to
99999 9999999999 9
W
S
Affachment 6
. i a Prot$ ,
NEW
p 9 n ri ,
s p a
n U ti�
TggB�� gggg s p66 pp@@ o
Q _�•�� 6 �$�� 7 I���� �58 W ,F���'
grr
/ • '�,: ' �� r/��/ i� �. // / //r t'v-�'Jr/1'lln.� �r�
r�Jl �'�
�I I i , f,i : ,
llh� lo
Vol
/ /�l �1 %r'��/� / .nom
J / /
///�/{1
L_
y \\\�\� \ \\ �i 1`I� � � i//:/;.�n���6\L�f� Lir-��'!'•��1/ f/// � _r�
I1
q 1 1? I� f�� �1 �II I / r� /�✓ � ,�Ar .��
N , �'l� l�l�jllll I !rrag Sill �Jr/ • d�,i � rl ,e ' E/i� _ T� /��,j�;� '-, \ • =J1-�
~ l - 3
_ .
�� I•
i �r
lr/I� / 1 /e
3 k /lJi 1. !r Illl.r �r• r l r l..
eti- i A/1
Wh 1
I ILL,
IF
Attachment 6
16
�yW �CF3 g
a rpF4i5e- a g
� 2 ZZ cZ 6 <rN
fzluz
jig
Y
�I '. I I I I atN P 7 "iA 1� i •i � � - �°C
III
6 Z�I�HS SSS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
�i/-,pg�b/
/ / / 1 nm•� "/ � J / - [��7,r_ -�. rF [ [/ / .fit f(
`` \ \\ \• �' \ ��\\� �� tin' � �. � vevm r� � Nn. ( �� I I � .. ^'--.
li
If
IRV 7:
,•,.v� V AI ��' to � Igo vv�v'_"�i :[ 1 y�a -� k p i-lot �-/�
k r 1p
r
/
r
, x. , pct•r ,[ 1 _ .�.�.
11�.N �,1_I' I !I �11f/ ' //�� f �(f `-- • /t / r ,ln, 1 \CI �e+\�;.:-
�I.'I'I• li,l��1$t/ � l a`� /- f=t// �*�� ''y, -3 - 1\ �`.1',�J.
i i � I 1 ! Zl _ at a '•'-A_� -. g
If
YAW It
11 � fI 9, z c � . � •`
(!+'�t ';l'�r� e l� '�, I ! / ' � � '1 / /s)g+°,( � •� j re&a seat, n ..
f r t�li �/ 'y (1 I aya�tii �w
gt�'4'c�l
, , / r✓r a / t
If
93
BIr
, [ "-
4/7
IM Vi
f_ ,,if
t ,.J�f
JJ
t//.
Aftachment a
n
Mr -4Qy00to .,.
as
�-- @ Z a 0,FCb`5�
Q •� v'� 2���g��Ns f
It
21
808® �5s8
III / 1 � E 9
/.j// // /",a/ :;'¢/// r•'+ irk ,r:/'%/ 'r--/ ! i i r L7jC+'!•!:i,'/'///,i/ ////.
iii / / / //;/ /'�' /rrl��„rr/ �'�, /J r ' ///0,/6 //<' // ///� /'<•/�
/.—/ !. � /•i / ,. r� % / ril
17
r — � � /ter✓ :� �,., �/ . ' /ar �/n:
/i.i �/// // r�iijz,eie �ia.i� //"• «c.e � /�(r�.rj� � r /➢"i�i
A) _ !,.. 'mor-// /�* '�/ •/ ,! ""c`m+JS- . %
)LLVZHS EVE "li�
Attachment 6
�g
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII ` �eb��fi §§i
7
irr
�\-�I{`��t�
re, J .
`�./�,r %a�lr'rrJ
^F//i% /iJ/��%iJj jllrflJJ 1,�� (!
/
���/iii flJi� J�r77t//,
/ /
/���/��/
Et; ���,,,rrr///'���^,,,...•may'-, \\.-j"///�1r�lb' / %%J /,1(j � i '!✓��.J'/!
,"�� � yr,v__..� ,—�iy�///ls��il/�1J%;�/� �J�.I jl�l� �t�"�`c/•—���r{"
/®R /
�t3/ ,,.•.--• r'l�J l,// ,r�/ JJ /Id��•�'y` %i��li�
/ir
7 � ✓�- /� r//'--ice- _.-I'•� / /. i . .✓✓�','
/ l I/
�
' if�a� / �� rf/i� ��/ r /` / '� �" r✓tt
* +'1`�"-.,,3
J!'+y5 -r /x... �` >� • (6st � t� f. r�//� r!, /, ''/ •;
•�ji(,/It�,/ •rt �i ��/ r E ..u.�,�'s�. �N.n,/r"'�,ii.. f ] s. : ' , / / 1 r F,- /
/ / ;.-,///J/I/•-'h` l `r�+J,, �j, r ,� r� / r .. ,. /i / '1:
t \V����j ,_.�/"Sl�'.trt� ri FT/ i �/// //J !/•->! yTrF1!// , / V/�. j �i , / /!
�i��. �✓/i/j �//1 r J-- //�„ry _-.�Vvv� tt �\ It It >i} I �J ' ri /% / I�"{ u ,�
AK
ZZ
T."�'. -.�...-/ "lll 1 h//'r.•I--•,v�,. ,'�\\\ta.�,tielle'III:I " � �! t�1. � t//1 � H � '.'r(
.;\ . \ t I ;'rL r.5'- ✓r ..+�... \�\ti p1 Eli' 117 1 i t1101
t�� �i / ir',r.,ll", ✓ ri7 /r-,IY �I i 1d��'�lit � _1 7��7i IIJI i 1 I l 1 � J ^ �/ ...
/ird I / t I!✓: ��// '/ v�74t 717if 'r H"r�I I II'IJ " ` ! ,/ , ._ i
y L �,"til✓.��%1�6r�i{'fir �I/�ri '' � 7r/-./7r I i��t ljJJ ((I'��t1'+�1 .tr �`7 I1 '! r�. 1 %i/ � � y
_ r.7 Ii dJ k ///ysr f/ � I' � Irl ff!?ri r(r !/(!/� R i 1 r tl � '-•' ..
f/�\`' ,� rI "/i/!r`.! ` �/,�/r,=/////lx/r'ir�'I 11 J111/ '�'r rl (•.fl ,lrj /. �\�� rA.
�"� r I� rl i I " �� ° �/��//�yy„"it / /Irt �� !'1 �l e'� r "�• i � ! ..�
!
rrlJJ v ♦ t � v v� ,Y\ w / e%r /d r/v///r /f"' 'i 1 r ' I /; 1/ u
i7. N \4r
Ar��\ "�._� :'� ✓ ♦/�// ♦ I/I i' J! N " r J / J I b .
\\ tt \w J _ 1, •-...__.._.� � i i r /� e �"' 1 / 1 /; J. / / I .
/
',-
Iq/�." J,LL rl/" `/'xrvcoY r.--..�/..�_�urr%.•=._+./ r /� / /.� /( �/a JJ r, , "r r I { 1 II i� Yt :�'4� ��/�'✓
:."r'\i�I� -1.%/.// !�/�f�!!�j�r///i-——i'� _�f%���- ""°"..stn rr•r'I 'uuttoi , >,trm7 s mccw.� -,,
Hnacnment b
a
01 IS
y N X98
b
gg �$ Nlry 2g
P • <Mtl
• $ s NO
ZEM
• ° �! aa8�
o �Waae
` • / \ 0 I UONS;
WUzo
♦� / . \ U
/
wW
1
/ I
I
JR
5
I
I �
_ _ N
dP= U �$
I �
• • I pg SPA
i °
9111 13vaL � �
Hnacrmelnt 6
OR
ZIA
Iff
=i C•
� a¢• r
,
jig
�����sg��%/j'�',� Ii .ail SPI �� �' � '-�` ' 'H/ a'l• .;•�-� ,F/� I ,
1 p�5
rt
Yl
III I r I i /
I)I ' t II III i rI�
F ,
r .1 �� II 11 ° ° •I � t ¢WA
rrl l /
,/ 8r / / +'• i' / __'��' ! 11 � nn
1
/o., i •t. '��� / r �TaagS�C( i —^rte I\�'tl71 =
ISE
�� (r Geyy $
ji/�%/�.// lrf / r'_ 1� 1I' 1 'i li=�l;� ( ('I �I_� ; ,`, I- ♦` r �.. 3� lit
.1:., // I I I s r<i:_ e•_ $�+t} /fi6
W
Attachment 6 is
gg
i � VIII "./���''�%',':�•r,./a 'v-. � �,;j �j;,��Y:�� W =�
\��l•.t`:\}'il`_`� � �� I } \\� \ i.� it E / - -�� "�:a,;.,� .r
_ v� I,p11
lot
—
L},'iI
,
/ l C.
R
Pip
Yj
�/ ///T /T7' } 1 r\dl
J7111
r,—sL
I r i I r ii. I i /� "�/I i /I ..l, ,_]�•^', ;, t II T'`^ / V (I
�\ �V
Attachment 6
1:
/ i �aeb;Sg n a
Ht;g5%! J.
/ 0.sc�,:b3 '
Oq_
� ` 7 UZ66x
Il
� U
1362
� e
1 e
I
i
j
I t.
i I
I i
I
i ¢ y
I 1 I f}
-----------
Ib YF \
' =4
� eq
i I
i
i � I
Attachment 6
♦ E2�C��9��� �xN ZISM
°
a
it �nw 8�
3g
a gs�
e f �z n i9fEf!!flf f! �a
Co
it
DpF
r rii ✓ //a/, s mix>
uS9
A
/ /�\ ,'/
45
l9t11!SE9f!3f I @@
OX
ZP-
Irl: Iaf 1,., � /' ✓at/�/x/ �q// '_7 � .../(. Wi
�• � ., ai �'}..� r'r-' /Y'/1 , � - � 1.
liI:BI 1 I It
Bl ifill,a/i/� �. 3 ~�%� Zvi SII17ill ir[
�t � 1
I t e , r III LIS C
.+rl}r ' /a..® •Irl !f r� � 1 � e/�f I / "il'�1 �^?!,� � � '�' 1 l I II. I i4 '
! h(r lfI / I /Lr ' �rI ,I i ! j/1 II Ilj uFillu
1 f1l ..�� %rr / r-,� Lfl �J r!r % / i �' Irl /1y .• Iii' lgl Il�if O
/ 1• I r° / �( 1 '' 4 f !r� ! / r _.. III�I� IIII 'll
/vr
/.:i��� '/
1 11 lei It
if
r�.ia:;lilTl�i�i b
/ / a�dbbbg6 g 8
ci�ftb Sri
\� \ is •T.� 90 �-. ..
<
'gs ��a ai \ \ off
5 i1ili >Z:D
y /' \ me
5z�x
wc�iii
it
!
! I
6
pp Q \� 1
RE
Cnic Ila
x
I
1
Attachment 6
it
a.'�m
Hlw � C IN
4 b1p{-5j 2
XI
z co
�6
gg e p c!
i�9 qGa b R W V IN,
O�n
' t AR 6 3 L)Q�
$l r ' g 5 `d
R rr �l
ur If � z i S V
r• ),� RON,♦♦ d
411,
OR
40,
S / / : `•.
'
Mlq
If If
ff
, � � i I I r7; f ( a __ • / s ^ I I Y7 t j r�_ I I '�t.
r !1 � / I ✓s / : �- I � / -
%lil� � �l%.�if. r %l / .. ���_• I^ =— __ 3 + I I f OPV!
,
s 1
` )
/ o
- c
Attachment 6
: $ ee yy1b iris rE
�
€ VIMtl+l i l I iT d g4ar
r
d IT
= zap
F
E
go
U Z ry a=
pp
Up0.F
y sS c `g u UQ�
u �i iqqi o V
ffi 6 5
es-
05
T
pit 2A
Irk
-71
,
z L 133HS 3NIl H3lb'W �—
--73
Attachment 6
---------------------
t
I I
If
44
i 11,i rII �' . t ii I III I IIpI I ;In
'd'I II •"
it 1rt
ZZfx
r
r i F
I ' I IIII �,�I I IIi III iI .'; Iil U yCF
if
it
r ry. 1 <S 'll'! ZZuoo
QE-
If
rr I I .II I - iii IiI ! Iii ill I[fill I�
'I'!� I III I I I:
I I
if .iii IJ I!. I� I
' rI LII ! III ii 111 r
F.' I Lrl
IrIi ii : Ir ul
II'I I'I I I i
I r ! Iii I I I,
Ili9Ir I ...ml
I IIr:l! i !i'
r ! Illi I IilI1 I I (I I i '.i I � r I I '.•
I ( 'uI I I ' Ir; f-ppppD I 11
____ '____ I __ _ -=I __ O rI;L!I i I� I!if
I Ir
;iII '
g�9 IIIII g.
PPP34oae�g � t I ii!j
m p I II II!I
V =• S 1` g I I I
ho
o
it
C i 5 I I N
9 ! i.ill 5
iR ._. :••: oo � . II 1 I
Ill Iif I I!III l
"
la _ _ _ _ �`f PEPPPPPPcE III I_ - .
-----------
Attachment 6
t,l
1
V2 ct:
I _ a
I <ar
1
- Vfq eq
a ag
r vzili
-,
53OE
_ •I W
a ? = I -^see-.Rar^ =-
.e.��-�ml I i ;II � IIT I I If IIS
a e � I III I (I I IIII I l II III , i I
^ e ° .'il�'I I III j I VIII IIII I'll' j�Il
^ 11 1 i' I ' I:;�I I VIII II ISI
IIII I IIII) Il 1 IIiI ItI I9 I i I � Ii III ! II.
.lI I Ili LII I il' 7 r I
I it tI) t ll IIII 1 jl
S S III Ijl I ! r it i Ir I it I Ili
r I IIII li jj Ii ! I I III.; I, 1' ! jl.
I r----------
17TI 111- I I I I I I I I ' IIII IJ I
r, :II rl r Ij Iii
II I I�1 'I ` l I III I I i1 IIiI II ', �III ;'I 1 II!
l I I. IIII 'II if ,, II r illij II tl Ii :1�! III.
I I €
r IiI II II I. II � I� 1lit
t t Q ll,l 1 I 11 I t' ' tI ` I
I I Vl it t-I I It t� I,t If LI I li III II �-F Ilrl' :I I� If"h�
i d : III II 1'111 ' L�' ,IIQ IIII Ilii I. 111111' 111111 II ') qI� 'j
' I ' Il� _I'1 1e-t�01I Lill 1 I I I' IIII IjI '' I; IIi (III III
J j t if
I'
gYi'I' � ' !II II II I;IIt 'i III II I Ilr Ij1i, IiI 1 VIII il�
1 -rF 1' LI' II nl fI I (IIII I LII �� 1 i
t � Ii h JI IIII IIII IIII IIi II� �' I Illi I l I I, IIII i � � II I 'll i
1 I II i gg
t ' ' 1111111 ':jII III � II: I I III IIII I I'ji 1 I' I @ II 1�I I i i
' i t i I� ' I �:II''I ILII illj III I l I IIII 1 III � ! ffi III IIII I:� '
Illi II III L. r1, I ' I III III III f I _�I I .F I �
rl I I . „ '.l III I II' O1 n ( II I o Ij .I n •I , w
O�-
d l nI III I' iI II .III II X1111 it jl1 �IlyHillII11 ,iim�� ([i F Ir I zs9�
11 I I tIII W�2> 'I I I I II'; III 1' 11 I I I IIi III ur2 tQ I :I �¢� �
I II ill , ' o�n u t IIII I I IIII ( ( ( III I III I IIII � 1111ILIi IIII �?
1 11' III II :' Nr 'illi !
Hi I 'iiil III ,!IFIL II I �I!i IIII
III t ( l III W I' I II I I I II s I 1 W
I I I fl� QI j I II IIi III I I I � ,
III ' UI- tl W 'I Q ' . IIII l rr'. ,I IIII 'III I I III, u
I I II' I Ili
r II Ill II I t I, I I Ili It�I I IIII II 11 II
1 I 1 III :. �I�1 i- � II III II I It I VIII III
I'I 1 I IIII �� III I j ' III III I IIII I ' III 1 IIII III
Illi I II I i� � IIII 1' II i I r l !' (i
: I II' � ', I II 'I� IIIr I (IIIJTIay I1 ' it�I''; tI III VIII'
Irl I jI II I t: I I I1. 1 I III I ii "� I I II ,LIt it
II _ rl 9Tr
I! !lg' 114 - III IIII
.I IIII j 1I 1 II,; I j:I ,j 1 IiI SII ° III 1111;, ij
I III III III II I % , IL I' IIiI , Ila I I jII i. (if 1I i I I
aITI III .jII l,il II I1 I IiI II11�III ''. II Il III.
I 1 Jp
IIII I' la w I '1 I ('IIII I ' III rr i' I, IiI ' '
5;1' It 1'Ij'I .It ` I-ff
II=IIII j I -11111 tl 'I I 1 IIII I ( illll
pI :. I 1. II
I 1 �1 (IIII �.', �rl II i I I U I IIII IIII , 1 Cl� t ;.IIII IIII (
jtt IIII II 1 'i '1" I III ',I' I I I i I I 1' III It ; TIk IIII'. III .
111 Ir II III III I IIII 1j I III II III III ISI III II1 .I ' I �I 1111 111111 J
y 1
I a,l j lIl'II; IIIsI Y 111111.'1 IIi III IQI j ISI I I'jlll I _________
ill III II -1!I I 9- it l�ic�.�I'� ii'�r 1-1111111 /
�- ---."- ---- SSS ---
/J
P
A r ) Attachment 6
V E N TJURS
December 23, 2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
Re: "DEVELOPER's STATEMENT" for VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP#2428;
MARGARITA ANNEXATION and SPECIFIC PLAN AREA,
San Luis Obispo, California
DEVELOPER'S STATEMENT
Subdivision Objectives
It is the owner's/subdivider's objective to create a multiple-product, Planned
Development neighborhood in the Margarita area consisting of predominantly
detached single family residential units on 165 lots on the subject site. Also
proposed is a higher density, attached housing project consisting of 32
condominium units, 26 of which are proposed as described below for"affordable
housing" and another 6 open market units. This results in a total density of 197
residences on 20.26 acres, and an overall averaged density of 9.7 units/acre.
The density request presented is based on the October, 2004, adopted
Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP). An analysis of permitted density and
proposed consistency is provided in the following table.
Land Use Acres 7 du*/acre 9 du/ac 8 du/ac 16 du/ac VTTM 2428
Low Density 2.02 1 14.1 18.2 — — 14 du's
Detached Med
Density 1.79 - - 14.3 28.6 13 du's
Med Density 15.05 -- -- 120.4 240.9 138 du's
subtotals 18.86 low range= 149 du's high range= 288 du's 165 du's
Affordable** 1.4 -- - 11.2 22.3 32***
Totals 20.26 low range= 160 4u's high rane.= 310 du's 197 du's
Table Notes:
• du=dwelling units
•* Affordable site includes 26 affordable Housing Authority units and 6 open market Subdivider units(all attached condominiums)
•'* Additional units applied through density bonus provisions of the Specific Plan
Minimum density for the non-affordable sites is shown to be 149 units, in order to
comply with Speck Plan land use regulations in effect as of October, 2004.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map#2428
"Developer's Statement"
King Ventures 285 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544-4444 805 544-5637 FAX 1__760
12/232006 Attachment 6
Page 2
Subdivision Objectives (continued)
At this time, processing of the subdivision only is proposed. Future applications
for unit designs for the lots would be pursued independently. Schematic design
plans have been submitted for the Planned Development Cluster, including the
affordable housing development, as well as the unrestricted open market units of
the project, in order to present a context for the PD site planning and
architectural styles to be pursued for the project. These plans are illustrative
only, and will be subject to ARC Final Design Review approval prior to
construction.
Proposed Improvements
The subdivision would include development of supporting infrastructure including
streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, access pathways, storm drainage systems
above and below ground, wastewater collection and transmission lines, water
distribution systems, and underground wire utility systems.
In addition to on-site improvements for the tract, significant off-site public
infrastructure anticipated for the project include participation in a regional storm
drainage basin for the Western Enclave of the Margarita Specific Plan Area and
the engineering and/or construction of the Prado Road extension to Broad
Street.
Open Space and Common Recreation Area Improvements
Tract 2428 includes a central "PW or Planned Development neighborhood that
is designed primarily for detached single family dwellings (85 lots; numbered
Lots 86-170), but also includes a 32 unit condominium site (numbered Lots
171-177). The Vesting Tentative Tract Map provides for the subdivision of the 85
SF lots into separate parcels. The VTTM also divides the 32 units of
condominiums into seven (7) distinct parcels, to allow some flexibility in financing
and constructing the condominiums in phases over several years. Each of the
seven condominium lots includes densities that range from 2 units to 14 units, for
a total of 32 units in 7 parcels. Five of the seven parcels in the condominium
area are the subject of the dedication to the SLO Housing Authority to comply
with the affordable housing requirements of the city, as detailed below.
For both the condos and the SF lots of the Central PD Neighborhood, the
concept is to provide shared driveways (as common area and as easements) to
access all units. It is also planned that perimeter lot fencing will be prohibited
throughout the Central PD Neighborhood. This will allow the yard setbacks and
portions of the SF lots that are not occupied by homes and private patios to be
"consolidated" within bands of open space that will run between and throughout
Yestmg Tentative Tract Map#2428
"Developer's Statement"
1--77
11=3=06
Page 3 Attachment 6
•
units in this Neighborhood. In this manner, common access and unified
landscape maintenance throughout these bands of open spaces can be
managed by the PD HOA.
Individual homes will be permitted to construct exterior patios within their lots that
comply with the PD regulations described herein, but the fencing around those
patios will be restricted to 42" in height, and will be of the same materials as the
residence, or may be wrought iron, masonry or a picket fencing detail to be
established under ARC Design Review and enforced through tract CC&R's.
Opportunities For Use of Reclaimed Water
Because of the availability of reclaimed water from the City, use within the
common areas and open space of the Tract 2428 PD Neighborhood is
encouraged. The following analysis describes the total area encompassed by the
PD development, and those portions of the PD development in open landscaping
areas available for use of reclaimed water.
PD Neighborhood Project Features Area in Sq. Ft. Area in Acres
Driveways 77,102 sf 1.77 acres
Estimated Home Footprints 134,600 sf 3.09 acres
Creek Parcels 52,272 sf 1.20 acres
Open Landscape Areas 174,676 sf 4.01 acres
Totals 438,650 sf 10.07 acres
Assuming that a portion of the "open landscape areas" identified above are
groundcovers and shrubs (say about 600sf/lat or 54,600 sf= 31.25% of the
area), the remaining 120,076 sf will be open lawn and grass slopes. The
irrigation demand estimates for these two types of landscaping can be further
broken down into the following projected irrigation demands:
• Lawns = 120,076 sf or 2.76 acres
XVs 1.0 acre foot of water per acre
= 2.76 AFY irrigation demand
• Groundcover= 54,600 sf or 1.25 acres
x7s 0.5 acre foot of water per acre
= 0.63 AFY irrigation demand
or say approximately 3.4 AFY of irrigation demand
within the central core PD Neighborhood.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map#2428
11D,W1O,W1S skvwta 11
7r
1--
s
Oage4 Attachment 6
Page 4
Project Phasing and Multiple Final Maps
At this time the owner's/subdivider's anticipate that the processing of the tract
application will involve on-going discussions over the phasing of development,
consistent with City growth management regulations. Future construction of
infrastructure to serve the tract, as well as off-site infrastructure such as Prado
Road that is desired by the City, will rely on decisions by the City Council
regarding the pace of new residential construction in the Margarita area. At the
time of submittal of this application the rate of growth assigned to the Margarita
area was under review by the City. For these reasons, we do not presently have
a final phasing plan, but we do anticipate the possible need to file multiple final
maps for the approved subdivision, to meet phasing and growth management
requirements. These decisions will be made in consultation with city staff so that
the required infrastructure to support each phase of the subdivision is completed
in a timely manner.
Offers of Dedication
Lot 178 is an open space parcel, including the upper elevations of the subject
site up to the top of the South Street Hills ridgeline. This site has/will be
dedicated to permanent open space vis-a-vis a conservation easement. At a
future date, following final mapping of the tract, a parcel will be created to
facilitate a fee title transfer of this site to the City for open space, conservation
and limited public access purposes. See attached letter to Mayor Romero dated
19 January 2006.
CC&R's For The Subdivision
We do not anticipate unusual or a-typical requirements. We will include CC&R's
for the final subdivision, including any specific requirements the City may require
with the project, such as maintenance of fire greenbreaks, storm drainage
facilities and common area landscaping.
Three (3) Homeowners' Associations (HOA) are contemplated on Tract 2428. A
85-unit HOA is planned to address Lots 86-170 (as to HOA-maintained
landscaping) and a 2nd HOA for Lots 171 thru 177 (a total of 32 units on these 7
parcels for the Affordable and Condominium units) within the PD central area of
the site. For the first 85 lots of the tract, the HOA would be solely responsible for
maintaining the landscaping outside individual homes around Lots 86-170. A
second Condominium HOA will also be responsible for the traditional common
area interest features of the 32-unit condominium buildings, including building
shells, grounds and driveway/parking areas. The Condo HOA will be covering
the 26 affordable Housing Authority sites described below, and the 6 open
market condo units.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map#2428
"Developer's Statement"
12123r2OO6
Page 5 Attachment 6
Participation in a 3rd HOA by all lots in Tract 2428 is planned that is actually the
Master HOA conceived for the overall Margarita Specific Plan area. The initial
tract developed within Margarita will establish a HOA to manage the common
affairs (to our knowledge this is only storm drainage within Tract 2428) of the
collective tracts throughout the Specific Plan Area. The first tract will establish
the HOA, and subsequent tracts are anticipated to merge or annex into the
Master HOA. This concept is consistent with City requirements for earlier
approved Tracts 2342 and 2353.
Affordable Housing Compliance
Our proposed project includes 165 single family lots and six attached units. By
our calculations, 171 open market lots x's 15% = 25.65 or 26 affordable housing
units. During the processing of Tracts 2342 and 2353, a program was accepted
that allowed improved land to be dedicated to the SLO Housing Authority for the
purposes of meeting this requirement.
Tract 2428 proposes to dedicate the 26 units of land, fully improved, to the
SLOHA and allow them to construct these units for renters and/or buyers. The
subdivider will assist the SLOHA in processing plans for ARC approval that
reflect the design standards of the Margarita Specific Plan and the developer's
design criteria. Construction of these units will be governed by the availability of
funding and priorities set by the SLOHA.
Locations of Trees on the Subdivision
There are no trees within the developable portions of the subject site.
Potentially Dangerous Areas
We are not aware of any potentially dangerous areas within the developable
portions of the proposed subdivision.
Street Names
At this time, preferred street names have not been identified. We will do so prior
to processing of the final tract map(s).
Utility Department Issues
It is the developers intention to establish screening for trash enclosures, utility
boxes and services, backflow devices and other utility installations consistent
Vesting Tentative Tract Map#2428
"Developer's Statement
12/23/2006
Page 6
Attachment 6
with the architectural design of the subdivision. Details for these plans will be
processed with ARC Final Design plans.
Meandering Sidewalks
Meandering sidewalks are proposed to provide interest and variety to the street
scene within Tract 2428. We have complied with concerns over minimum 2' wide
parkways for landscaping. Sheet 11 of the VTTMap application package
describes these plans.
Exceptions To City Development Regulations
No exceptions to city development standards as defined in the Margarita Area
Speck Plan are anticipated or proposed at this time for Lots 1-80 (all detached
single family lots).
Interior (PD overlay proposed) Lots 85-170 and the 32 unit attached/affordable
units are presented to be included within a Planned Development Overlay
Zoning District. This PD zoning would facilitate the following exceptions to the
City's Zoning Ordinance and Margarita Specific Plan development standards:
1. Public Street Yard Setbacks: Minimum 10' to the residence. Minimum 20' to
a garage that has direct access to the public street.
2. Rear Yard Setbacks for Lots Adjoining Existing Chumash and Margarita
Neighborhoods: Minimum 20 .
3. Interior Private PD Street Yard Setbacks: Minimum 5' to the residence.
Minimum 20' measured from the garage to the centerline of the private street
for Lots 117 thru 137. For all other lots, minimum 15' measured from garages
to the centerline of the private street.
4. PD Side and Rear Yard Setbacks: Minimum 5 .
5. Minimum PD Lot Size: 3,600 square feet.
6. Lot Coverage: Maximum 75% of Lot Area for all structures excluding
garages and carports, patios, decks and roof overhangs.
7. Upper Floor Building Setbacks: No additional upper floor setbacks will be
required from property lines in the PD neighborhood.
8. Maximum Exterior Private Patio Area: One or more patios per residence
shall not total more than 500 square feet.
9. Patio Fence Heights: Maximum 42".
All other MASP zoning and development standards would remain in full force
and effect unless specifically noted above.
&VUUnr**n904C16V5b"
Vesting Tentative Tract Map k1418
"Developer's Statement/
A ) Attachment 6
i
V E N T U R E S
December 23, 2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
Re: Updated Proposed Findings for PD Overlay Zoning and Creek Setback
Encroachments
for VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP#2428;
MARGARITA ANNEXATION and SPECIFIC PLAN AREA,
San Luis Obispo, California
Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zoning District
Required Features and Findings
Mandatory PD Project Features Under City Zoning Regulations
17.62.045.A.3 ... "The project will preserve, enhance and/or create a significant natural
feature with a minimum area of one-half acre".
It is the owner's/subdivider's objective to create a single family residential
subdivision surrounded by existing community on two sides, and a permanent
open space buffer (South Street Hills) on the tract's large northern boundary.
The 90+ acres of open space, compared to about 27 acres of developed lots and
streets, is almost 4 x's the area of the project. This area will be preserved as
permanent open space, and will be enhanced through the careful maintenance
of wildland fire greeenbreaks, controlled public access and connection of these
accessways to established city street and pathway systems, improving
accessibility to the South Street Hills Open Space.
17.62.045.A.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.'
The subdivision will include development of accessways, public streets, public
parking, habitat enhancement and open space/wildland fuel management as a
part of the construction and on-going operations of the residential project. These
benefits will include preservation of natural creek and storm water runoff
channels presently on the site in their natural forms, and the introduction of
Vesting.Tentative Tract Map#2428
"PD Overlay District and Creek Encroachment Findings
King Ventures 285 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544-4444 805 544-5637 FAX ! ��
�1 O12t=006
Page 2 A taChment 6
M
access paths and trails to allow public access to these areas, while also serving
the important benefit of allowing access and management of these waterways by
the Homeowners' Association for the tract.
Required PD Findings For Approval
17.62.045.B.1 ... "The proposed 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."
The Margarita Area Specific Plan was adopted by the City in October, 2004. The
MASP includes land uses and development standards consistent with the
desires of the City of San Luis Obispo, as articulated in the General Plan.
As the definitive guide to development in the Margarita area, the MASP calls for
exclusively residential land uses on the subject Tract 2428 property. The
underlying land uses for the site provide for low and medium density residential
development. The proposed tract includes 197 residential units to be consistent
with the land use standards of the Speck Plan.
17.62.045.B.2 ... "The project complies with all applicable provisions of[the CiVs]
Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning."
The portions of the PD project covered by this Overlay Zone (PD Lots 86-177 for
a total of 85 detached units and 32 condominiums, or 117 units) will meet all
Margarita Area Specific Plan development regulations for the applicable low and
medium density districts, with the exception of the following modified standards:
1. Public Street Yard Setbacks: Minimum 10'to the residence. Minimum 20'to a garage that
has direct access to the public street.
2. Rear Yard Setbacks for Lots Adjoining Existing Chumash and Margarita Neighborhoods:
Minimum 20'.
3. Interior Private PD Street Yard Setbacks: Minimum 5'to the residence. Minimum 20'
measured from the garage to the centerline of the private street for Lots 117 thru 137. For all
other lots, minimum 15' measured from garages to the centerline of the private street
4. PD Side and Rear Yard Setbacks: Minimum 5'.
5. Minimum PD Lot Size: 3,600 square feet.
6. Lot Coverage: Maximum 75%of Lot Area for all structures excluding garages and carports,
patios, decks and roof overhangs.
7. Upper Floor Building Setbacks: No additional upper floor setbacks will be required from
property lines in the PD neighborhood.
8. Maximum Exterior Private Patio Area: One or more patios per residence shall not total more
than 500 square feet.
9. Patio Fence Heights: Maximum 42".
Vesting Tentative Tract Map#2428
"PD Overlay District and Creek Encroachment Findings/
f
....... ....
12/2312006
Page 3 Attachment ti
17.62.045.B.3 ... 'The approved modifications to the development standards of[the
City's]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."
Among other goals of the MASP, one important feature is the location and
placement of new residential uses in Tract 2428 adjoining established residential
developments at the Chumash Village and Margarita neighborhoods. To ensure
larger lots and less density adjoining these established neighborhoods, it is
necessary to concentrate more units in less area away from these established
neighborhoods in order to maintain the higher overall levels of density required
by the MASP. To do this, while respecting steeper slopes, creek preservation
and limited grading and landform modifications, the subdivider of Tract 2428 has
concentrated higher densities in the form of detached and attached units within
the central portions of the property in the PD neighborhood proposed. Another
natural constraint of the property that has been retained in its natural state and
designed around are the three (3) creek/storm water channels that run through
the site. The MASP allows these channels to be relocated, but these channels
have been retained in their natural state to maximize their open space and
habitat values. The irregular size and direction of these channels presents
uneven and awkward angles to design to, and would result in wasted acreage if
not for additional design flexibility available under the PD zoning. Shared private
driveways are used to lessen the amount of land otherwise dedicated to public
streets, and a series of clustered smaller lots are used to maintain higher levels
of density. These smaller lots are tied together by common open space areas,
creek corridors, trail networks and neighborhood green spaces for use of
residents.
17.62.045.B.4 ... "The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines.
The proposed PD District includes detached and attached single family
construction that follows the MASP Design Guidelines, including use of shared
driveways, craftsman architecture utilizing wood and stucco exteriors, one and
two story buildings, front and back porches, side and rear-loaded garages facing
away from public streets, and common landscaping designs. The developments
within Tract 2428 will be subject to Architectural Review Commission
applications, wherein the MASP Design Guidelines will be used as a basis for
project reviews.
17.62.045.B.5... "All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to
serve the proposed project.
Vesting Tentanve Tract Map 42428
"PD Overlay District and Creek Encroachment Findings"
1_0011r
12f=2006 -
Page4 Attachment 6
During previous City processing of adjoining Tracts 2342 and 2353, public
facilities services and utilities were examined for these tracts and Tract 2428. At
that time these features were found to be adequate to service the proposed
tracts. The CEQA determination for Tract 2428 further delineates these findings
for this proposed tract.
17.62.045.B.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."
The proposed lots and development projects described for Tract 2428 have been
designed to be respectful of adjoining, established neighborhoods by placing
fewer and larger lots next to these neighborhoods. Additional setbacks along
adjoining property lines are provided at 20', and grades have been modified
along the Tract 2428 parcels so that the new buildings do not "tower" over the
established neighbors. The deepening of lots adjoining the Chumash and
Margarita neighborhoods to accommodate these larger setbacks pushes the
balance of the project further into the center of the applicant's property. Because
the existing neighborhoods are exclusively single family structures, over 83% of
Tract 2428 has been proposed to reflect this design choice for compatibility.
17.62.045.8.7... "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."
Tract 2428 is located at the northerly-most portions of the Margarita Area
Specific Plan. The site is also located nearest the large open space areas of the
South Street Hills. This location includes residences that will be built on slopes
up to 30%. Due to slope constraints and the need to produce residences that are
compatible with surrounding areas, the project has been designed predominantly
as a single family detached-style project.
Access streets at Calle Malva and future connections to Margarita and Prado
Roads are planned for the western enclave of the MASP. The circulation system
is entirely consistent with the MASP Circulation Chapter, and the EIR completed
for the MASP defined these circulation connections as adequate to serve the
subject tract.
17.62.045.8.8 ... "The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed
project will not, in the circumstances of[Tract 2428], be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of persons residing or wonting in the vicinity of the proposed
Vesting Tentative Tract Map#2428
"PD Overlay District and Creek Encroadment Findings" Q�
!_(J��
----- -
12/23r2006 ----
Page 5
Attachment 6
use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to
the general welfare of the City."
The project, once completed, will be a logical and appropriate expansion of the
residential neighborhoods of the community, and is entirely consistent with the
City's General Plan and MASP.
Creek Setback Encroachments
Required Findings
The Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) provides guidance in Chapters 1 and 5
concerning the establishment of small creek corridors running through Tract 2428.
These 3 corridors provide channels for storm water runoff from the subject tract, and
more particularly the South Street Hills above the proposed subdivision.
The MASP calls for these corridors to be about 15 meters (50 feet) in width, generally
centered on the natural flow line of the channel. The Tract 2428 plans provide for this,
and also identify the horizontal width of the channel by designating the 'lop of bank"
locations on the tract maps. Predominantly, the width of the channel in which water
flows is about 10' to 20' wide. This leaves widths ranging from 10'to as much as 20'
outside the channel and to the edge of the corridor buffer.
Tract 2428 generally calls for a 12'wide combined pedestrian and bike path along
these creek channels, consistent with the MASP details on Figure 13 and Chapter 5.2.
These paths could be as narrow as 8' subject to Natural Resources Manager approvals.
These pathways are on at least one side and in some cases on both sides of the 3
creeks designated on the Tract 2428 site. Bridge crossings are also planned to tie the
trails into the surrounding residential neighborhoods. "Neighborhood Greens" (small
areas for picnic benches and/or park benches) and also planned in areas along these
trails. Because of the PD-style design, and based on the absence of perimeter lot
fencing, it will be possible to augment the "perceived"width of these creek paths
through integrating the landscaping of common or shared areas within private lots
adjoining these corridors.
Placement of the combined trails within the 15 meter corridors, and providing flexibility
to allow paths as narrow as 8' given site and creek-specific considerations, require
special findings.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 02428
"PD Overlay District and Creek Encroachment Findings"
I—Alo
12123/2006
Page 6
Attachment 6
Mandatory Findings To Permit Exceptions for Trails Located Within Creek Corridor
Features of the Margarita Area Specific Plan Under City Zoning Regulations
17.16.020.G.4.d... Discretionary Exceptions
i. The location and design of the trails and creek crossings will be constructed to
promote pedestrian and bicycle access to the creek environs, provide for passive
use and enjoyment of the corridor as a tract amenity, and establish accessways
to provide for management and monitoring of the natural and enhanced habitat
in the area of the corridors. These trails an crossings will also facilitate
movement of localized habitat of the site and general area.
ii. The trails and crossings will be constructed outside of the established floodway
and top of banks and will not impede flood waters or planned storm water
management improvements and maintenance required for the tract.
iii. No adverse environmental impacts have been identified as a result of the
placement and design of the proposed trails and crossings.
iv. Because the channels (3 in all) separate areas of the site from one another, the
interconnections and creek crossings provide access between all units of the PD
neighborhood, as well as options to connect into the perimeter pedestrian and
bike systems planned for Tract 2428 and the overall Margarita Area Specific
Plan. Because the channels run at odd angles and traverse the site diagonally,
this produces remnant areas that are inefficient and would reduce overall
densities if the efficiency of the encroachments were not permitted. Rather than
relocate the channels as permitted by the Specific Plan, the subdivider has
elected to maintain the corridors in their present configuration, preserving the
established habitat values and runoff patterns while seeking modest exceptions
to regain efficiencies in land planning and overall project design.
V. The exceptions will not be a grant of special privilege because the subdivider will
augment the proposed trail networks with additional private lands that will
increase the "perceived" width of the overall natural corridors.
vi. The exceptions will not impact the collection and flow of flood waters, nor will
they impede the planned improvements to the tract storm drainage system.
Therefore the exceptions will not result in damage to surrounding properties or
be detrimental to the general public health and welfare.
vii. Redesign of the project to accommodate trails outside the corridors is possible,
but at the expense of density and ultimately would compromise the "affordability
by design" objectives of the MASP.
dewing Ten=we Tract Map#2428
"PD Over*Dis&xI and Creek Encroachment Fuifts"
1--97
12/=006
Page 7
Aftachrnent 6
I.
viii. The minimum density threshold of the MASP for the subject site calls for no less
than 149 units (not including affordable housing requirements). A potential
redesign could affect at least 37 lots/units, and potentially more as the changes
domino through the tract. This would potentially impact a finding of consistency
with density required for the project, compromising the ability to develop the
property as planned.
MAR8rvW*hV02PdWirW
Vesting Tentative Tract Map#2428
"PD Overlay Diso7a and Creek Encroachment Findings"
/'0 0
a
Attachment 6
V E N T U R E S
May 15, 2007
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of;San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
Re: Clarifications Concerning Guest Parking and Open Space
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP#2428;
VMGARITA ANNEXATION and SPECIFIC PLAN AREA,
San Luis Obispo, California
PD and Overall Open Space
Open Space— Common Areas and Private Patio Improvements
'Tract 2428 includes a central"PD" or Planned Development neighborhood that
is designed primarily for detached single family dwellings (85 lots; numbered
Lots 86-170), but also includes a 32 unit condominium site (numbered Lots
.:171-177). The Vesting Tentative Tract Map divides the 32 units of condominiums
into seven (7) distinct parcels, to allow some flexibility in financing and
:.constructing the condominiums in phases over several years.
:For both the condos and the SF lots of the Central PD Neighborhood, the
concept is to provide shared driveways (as common area and as easements) to
,Access all units. It is also planned that perimeter lot fencing wilt be prohibited
,throughout the Central PD Neighborhood. This will allow the yard setbacks and
;portions of the SF lots that are not occupied by homes and private patios to be
"consolidated"within bands of open space that will run between and throughout
..units in this Neighborhood, accessible to all as common open space.
;;Individual homes will be permitted to construct exterior private patios within their
`lots, but the fencing around those patios will be restricted to 42" in height.
Minimum private patio areas will be 250 sf per city regulations, and a maximum
'of 500 sf of private patio will be permitted per PD residence_
.:The following analysis describes the total area encompassed by the 117 unit PD
`:development, and those portions of the PD development in common landscaping
V949WT"AM W Aad Map#2428
"Open Space and Gazer Pariti�g G7as+"
King Ventures 285 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544-4444 805.544-5637 FAX
1 � ' ter*'•-._aC6",Y.f T.�^^.-.,-..;.�.,..- '
Margaritas''pact 2428(fling) f J -
611sr2w Attachment 6
Page 2
ereas. Maximum private patio areas are deducted from the total PD•site, and the
71 acre hill top open space dedication is factored back in to reflect total open
space within proposed Tract 2428.
'i Tract 2428 PD Neighborhood Area in .Area in Percent
and Overall Pm'ect Featm'es Sq.Ft. Acnes
i
Driveways 77,102 sf 1.77 acres 17.6%
Esfim; ed Rome Footpirints 134,600 sf 3.09 acres 30.7%
Creek Parcels 52,272 sf 1.20 acres 11.9%
,ni.t,=Common Open Space 16176 sf 2-67 acres 26.50/a
j Max Private Open S (Patios) 58,500 sf 134 acres 133%
ji
438,650 sf 10.07 acres 1000/6
3:1018U.iW.hpi�
r
.::..::
-lager
Wrtt �omu�arr:: .
Meek Pce1s'Ohitside.
3"D.�ea">: ;:7.�'- °s�:; ''tf3=•aaies`.. ;yD'3%o_�.
Total Common Open Space 74.3 acres 80'/6
:.,..:
s'4'U=[5
Guest Parking
Guest Parking —Areas Within PD Neighborhood
Tract 2428 includes a central "PD" or Planned Development neighborhood that
`includes a total of 117 units (85 single family+32 condominiums). 3t of the tots
are accessed from proposed "N Street' along the upper portion of the PD
Veighborhood (Lots 112-142). These lots involve shaied driveways aiid off-Weet
:guest parking described on Sheets 2, 7 and S of the VTTMap submittal.A total
0 24 guest parking areas are described for these 31 lots; a ratio of'I'guest
;space for every 1.3 units.
:The remaining areas of the PD Neighborhood (some 54 sfngie family kits and
. fie 32 condos)are generally divided into 3 distinct areas separated by the creek
cFiannels designated by Lots 82 and 83.
:Lots 88-111 in the western 1/3rd of the PD Neighborhood include 13 guest
;bfP-street parking spaces.These 26 lots have a ratio of 1 guest space for every 2
units.
resftTewalf wbaa Map#2428
,i
"Opert,�ar a?d Gr�rPaiHr�.Clra>rs"
Mwgm to Traci 242E(Kang)
5115) W
Papa : Attachment 6
.Lots 159-170 in the central 113rd of the PD Neighborhood accessed from
�iroposed"S Street" include 7 guest off-street parking spaces. These 12 lots
have a ratio of 1 guest space for every 1.7 units.
.,Lots 143-158 in the eastern 1/3rd of the PD Neighborhood include,11 guest
off-street parking spaces. These 16 lots have a ratio of 1 guest space for every
1.5 units.
Not including the condominium area (Lots 171-177), which will provide its own
guest parking when final pians are developed for ARC review, off-street guest
parking for the 85 lot PD Neighborhood totals 55 spaces; or a ratio of about'l'
guest space for every 1.5 residential units.
13eyond these off-street numbers, significant on-street parking Will be available to
;the PD Neighborhood as we have endeavored to minimize perimeter curb.cuts,
Which maximizes street-side parking for guests. Estimates include about 1,960
;lineal fleet around the PD Neighborhood,which divided by 25 Pineal feet per car
space,.yield another 78 on-street parking spaces.
I
orating rumoOm 1hWAA7#2428
-OR=-110=WdGWO A V C W O=
Q
.i
Attachnncant a
a
Pi
� d �
C10
CV
COLLJ
wL.1. -{ it, ✓ ::,I,. _
�\ N
an
cn a w O d
� _ a . .a o �•l O - n
q CL
Q7
a _
tt
Q
r ,
Oaa� < 7 O 4 cr—
41
i �
�i�lhl�lnlll�hl IIII������������IillIIIIIII ���
i .Attachment 6
City Of SAn ktis OBISpo
aw Community Development Department• 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#98-06
1. Project Title:
Planned Development Rezoning and Revised Vesting Tentative Map#2428(King)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner Mary Beatie, Senior Planner(Contract Planner)
City of San Luis Obispo TPG Consulting, Inc.
805-781-7168 222 N. Garden Street, Suite#100
Visalia, CA 93291
559-739-8072
4. Project Location:
3000 Calle Malva, San Luis Obispo, consisting of approximately 99 acres. (Please refer to
Attachment 1 "Western Enclave Projects Vicinity Map".)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Owner: John E. and Carole E. King
290 Pismo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Applicant: John D. & Carole E. King
6. General Plan Designation:
The Land Use Element of the City General Plan designates the site for.-
Low
or.Low Density Residential
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1'�Vin,, ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C-D+CUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TG CITY 5-1-07.DOC
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 4
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. /—z;;
ttac-,mant
Medium Density Residential
Open Space-Riparian
Open Space-Hills
The Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), which supersedes the Land Use Element. designates
the site for the following land uses:
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential SF(detached)
Open Space—Riparian
Open Space—Hills
7. Zoning:
The site contains several zoning districts to implement the MASP land use designations, as
follows:
Applies to
Land Use Designation Zoning VTM Lot#s
Low Density Residential R-1-SP(Low-Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) 1-5, 72-80
Medium Density Residential R-2-SP(Medium Density Residential-Specific Plan Overlay) 6-55, 58-71,
and MDR—SF Detached 86-177
Medium High Density Resi- R-3-SP(Medium High Density Res.-Specific Plan Overlay) 56&57
dential
Open Space-Riparian CIOS-Sp(Conservation/Open Space-Specific Plan Overlay) 81-85
Open Space- Hills CYOS-40-SP(Conservation/Open Space-40-acre min.) 178
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project consists of requests for two entitlements:
AJ A Change of Zone from "R-2-SP" and "C/OS-SP" to "R-2-SP-PD" (adding Planned
Development Overlay)and "C/OS-SP-PD" (adding Planned Development Overlay) over
the roughly 11-acre central portion of the property.
B.) Revised Vesting Tentative Map #2428 to create a 178-lot subdivision on a roughly 99-acre
property.
The objective of these two entitlement requests is to enable achievement of a higher density of
development as envisioned by and consistent with the MASP than what would have been
achieved by the prior VTM #2428 submittal. (For further information regarding the prior
submittal, please reference file no. TR-ER #65-06 at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department.)
The proposed Revised VTM #2428, also proposes to maintain coordination with two adjacent
CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SE'17V4GS\sLousERkLocAL SETnNGs\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILESOLK20TINAL INITIAL STUDY TO QTY 5-1-07.Doc.
,k
g
Attachment u
vesting tentative maps, already approved, as described below, in order to�etter ac"piieve? "
objective and requirements of the MASP:
• VTM #2342 (Cowan/French) proposing 67 lots on approximately 15 acres; located
immediately south of the existing El Camino Estates residential subdivision along Margarita
Avenue and*east of the Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, generally northeast of the
current easterly terminus of the City maintained portion of Prado Road, east of South
Higuera Street.
• VTM #2353 (Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) proposing 133 lots on approximately 30 acres;
located immediately east of VTM #2342, adjacent to and east of the single-family
development along Margarita Avenue, and south of proposed VTM #2428 (King), subject
map-
Collectively these three tract map proposals are referred to as the "Western Enclave" (of the
MASP.)
The proposed revised vesting tentative map VTM#2428 shows a total of 178 lots designated for
uses in accordance with the overlaying land use designations of the MASP, and assuming the
approval of the requested Planned Development overlay zone, as follows:
• 165 lots for single family residential development(Lots 1-80, 86-170)
• 7 lots designated for condominium development (Lots 171-177); within which 26 required
Affordable Housing Program units will be provided on 5 of these lots (this represents the
previously agreed pro-rata share of the overall Affordable Housing component for the
Western Enclave; the balance of the required units will be provided within VTM #2353
(Sierra Gardens/DeBlauw) and 6 "market rate" condominium units on the remaining 2 lots
(Lots 176 & 177);for a total of 32 Condominium units.
• 5 lots for "Open Space-Riparian"for permanent biological protection and drainage purposes
under common ownership by a Home Owners Association (Lots 81-85), and
• 1 lot for "Open Space-Hills" to be dedicated to the City for permanent public access(Lot
178.)
Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right"to develop in substantial compliance
with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application was determined
complete on April 2, 2007, per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting Tentative Maps) of the City's Municipal
Code and Sections 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the California Government Code (Subdivision Map
Act).
In order to obtain public road access, and as required by the MASP, Prado Road needs to be
extended from its current easterly terminus (as a public roadway) from approximately the
southeast corner of Rancho San Luis Mobile Home Park, east to Broad Street. A priority goal of
the MASP is to establish the east-west connection of Prado Road between Broad Street and
South Higuera Street at the earliest possible stage of development. Because the three proposed
tract maps represent the first phase of proposed development in the MASP area, they are
required to design and construct Prado Road to a minimum cross-section as agreed upon by the
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C.\D000MENTS AND SETTLNGASLOUSERV--CAL SETTLNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET RLES\01-K20TINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
9s
Attarvler
ntp
it id
City Public Works Director, to provide the desired connection. According to the MASP, one
option to finance the connection is that the City will credit (or pro-rate) the design and
construction costs of the agreed-upon minimum cross section against all Margarita Area impact
fees to be collected with each respective development until the amount of fees equals the amount
of construction costs. If the costs of the roadway exceed fee amounts, another financing
mechanism, such as a facilities financing district, may be necessary to complete the project.
Revised VTM#2428 map proposes primary access to the site from South Higuera Street through
the existing El Camino Estates subdivision adjacent to the south via the planned extension of
Calle Malva from Margarita Avenue. Alternate access is proposed to Prado Road through
planned street connections within the two proposed adjacent developments of the Western
Enclave (VTM#2342-Cowan and#2353-DeBlauw). The location of these accesses to the site as
well as other proposed streets to complete circulation internal to the subject subdivision, are all
located in accordance with the Circulation Plan of the adopted MASP.
Also proposed are 12' Class 1 shared pedestrian bicycle paths within Open Space Lots 82 and 83
with roadway crossings at `N' Street for connection to the Open Space Lot 178 and its
established trail system along the South Hills. These bikeways may be narrowed in specified
locations based upon recommendations by the City Natural Resource Manager in order to
accommodate protection of or avoidance of interference with special concern species, in
accordance with the stipulations of Biological Mitigation Program for compliance with
MASPIAASP EIR mitigation.
Five open space lots are also proposed for the multiple purposes of biological and drainage
mitigation. These lots are sized so as to accommodate the natural drainage swale and
appurtenant set-backs for buffer protection.
As specified in the MASP, the Affordable Housing objectives of the plan are to be achieved by
two separate parcels within the Western Enclave in order to provide a total of 47 units; Lots
171-175 of the subject map are proposed to provide 26 of these required 47 units. These lots are
proposed for dedication to the San Luis Obispo County Housing Authority or equivalent entity
once the units are built. Approved VTM#2353 (DeBlauw) will accommodate the balance of the
required units in similar fashion, on a lot or lots to be dedicated to the Housing Authority or
equivalent once the units are built.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site, 3000 Calle Malva, is located generally in the southern pan of San Luis Obispo.
The site is situated north of the northerly termini of Calle Malva and Calle Jazmin extending
from El Camino Estates, the existing single family development along Margarita Avenue off
South Higuera Street. The subject site also lies adjacent to and immediately east of the Chumash
Village Mobile Home Park which also fronts on South Higuera Street. A variety of low intensity
commercial uses front South Higuera Street and along the south side of Prado Road west of the
Western Enclave frontage. The currently vacant site lies generally along the lower, shallower
slopes of the South Street Hills within an area designated in the MASPIAASP EIR as primarily
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:\D000MENTS AND SMINGASLOUSER\LOCAL SE TlNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FU_ES\OLK20\FtNAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-O7.DOC
Attachment 6
"Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland" (in the upper slopes) with some smaller areas of "Annual
Grassland" and "Perennial Grassland with patches of Valley Needlegrass Grassland" plant
communities in the lower areas of the site. The site transmits area runoff through three channels
or swales fairly well-enough defined as to be designated by the MASP as "Open Space-
Riparian" and proposed for preservation in their natural state within the subdivision. These
drainages also contain habitat for several special plant and animal species and will be preserved
in "open space" lots so as to contribute to a "regional drainage plan" and "biological
mitigation program" devised for this and two other Western Enclave developments proposed in
coordination with the subject project. Lands to the east and south also lie within the MASP and
are currently used agriculturally or are undeveloped.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
-Approval of Requested Change of Zone from "R-2-SP" & "C-OS-SP" to "R-2-SP-PD" & "C-
OS-SP-PD" (on roughly 11 acres)
-Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Map VTM#2428
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Air Pollution Control District(Permit to Construct, Permit to Operate)
Water Quality Control Board(NPDES permit-including Phase II&SWPPP)
California Department of Fish and Game
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTSANDSETTLNGS\SLOUSER\L.OCALSiT,mNGSUEmpORARYINTEKNETFILES\OLK2O\FWALLNITIALSTUDY TOCITY S-I-O7.DOC
/—e9I7
I: Attachment d
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ..`:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics Geolo /Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources X Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic
X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
X and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
State Clearinghouse Review not required based upon the statement below:
Pursuant to provisions of CEQA Guidelines 15073.5, this environmental document does not need to be
submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review. A prior Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original
VTM was circulated to the SCH for review by one or more State agencies on or about December, 2006.
The views of those agencies as indicated in response letters received were then and still are incorporated
into this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The revisions to the project herein do not result in any
modifications that substantially alter any environmental circumstances affecting those views. Given these
circumstances the SCH has opined that recirculation of this Mitigated Negative Declaration through the
SCH is not necessary.
CITU OF SAN LUIS OBIspo 6 INITIAL STuoY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:\D000MENTS AND SETT1NGS\SL0USER\L.0CAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FM\OLK20\FIN.AL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.Doc
/^
r---------^ 111
Atta.,t;mant u
DETERMINATION: Tt
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL RvIPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that. although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signat&e Date
Doug Davidson,AICP,Deputy Director,Development Review For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CAD000MENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\LACAL SETTINGsUEMPORARY INTERNET FILFs\OLK20TINAL INITIAL STUDY To CITY 5-1-07.DOC
I ��G'�t"a6PT�....M•
iiAtia��.r„ ^
i 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ; y'- = .. 3..�
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well.as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures listed below),"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced.
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequatelyanalyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (Section 15063 (c)(3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations.) Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 18 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
000CUMENTS AND.SETriNGS\SLOUSER\LOCAL SETTINGs\TEMPORARY INTERNET Fn.ES\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
1-146
Atta r+�w,.. y 3 U I
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,formation Sources Sources Potenn__j Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac6
ER#98 06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2, X
3, 8,9
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,2, X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 3,8,9
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,2, X
the site and its surroundings? 3, 8,9
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,2, X
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 3,8,9
Evaluation
a) The primary scenic value from within and around the Western Enclave area is the view to the north and northeast of the
South Hills. The prior MASP/AASP EIR determined that the implementation of the Specific Plan would result inevitably in a
change of character of the plan areas from a generally semi-rural to an urban developed setting. Urban development will
cause irreversible changes in the visual character from that of undeveloped and low density semi-rural area to a more intensely
developed, suburban area. The project site is situated alongside a portion of the south face of the South Hills, the upper
elevations of which,together with the natural drainage ways out of the hills,are designated for"Open Space"by the MASP in
order to protect these more significant visual (and associated biological) resources. The revised project complies with
aesthetic-related stipulations of the MASP affecting scenic resources by designating 71±acres of the upper elevations of the
tract map site (proposed Lot 178) as a single open space lot to be dedicated to the City for permanent preservation in open
space. The subject project further designates 5 other lots (Lots 81-85) alongside the drainage ways as open space lots for
protection in their natural state for drainage, biological and aesthetic/passive recreation purposes and will be owned and
maintained by a Home Owners Association also as stipulated by the MASP. Adopted zoning requirements will further ensure
compliance with existing design standards set by the City to protect the visual resource that is the South Hills. Thus, the
impact is less than significant as a result of the proposed project design.
b)See discussion in a)above. There are no historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway in the project vicinity that
will be impacted by the proposed development. Thus, this impact is less than significant as result of the proposed project
design.
c) The existing visual character and quality of the site will change from semi-rural to urban developed as a result of
urbanization of the area pursuant to and consistent with the objectives of the MASP. The revised VTM project is required to
be consistent with the lay-out and distribution of land uses and design standards stated in the MASP to ensure that the
appearance of the development is acceptable and that no new buildings block scenic views of the upper South Hills. The
project as now currently proposed, together with conditions of approval, is consistent with the MASP and in this regard is
self-mitigating. Through Conditions of Approval the project will be further required to comply with City codes and standards
some of which impact aesthetics. Ultimately the design of proposed housing will require the review and approval of the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to ensure consistency with the City's Community Design Guidelines as well as the
MASP. Thus,the proiect impact is less than significant.
d) The prior MASP/AASP EIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the MASP will introduce new sources of
light, glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the
MASP/AASP EIR determined that such light and glare impacts (LU-7) can be mitigated to less than significant at the site
specific project stage through compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the MASP and with other adopted
standards as may be applicable by other City regulations. The new light source subject to mitigation will not adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the urbanized area. Therefore impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than
significant with mitigation LU-7.1 as specified in the MASP/AASP ETR to be implemented through comDliance with the
MASP Community Design standard of Section 3.3-Lighting and accompanying conditions of approval.
CITY Of SAN Luis OBispo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:kD000,YtENTs AND SETTLNGs\SLOUSER\LocAL SE nNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILEs\OLK20\F1NAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
/-/a/
� 7
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,rormation Sources Sources Poteni._ Pote i le-,4 Tbai� - No i
Significant Significant• Signifm3p act i
ER#98-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 11 X
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 6 X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 1,2,6 X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation:
a) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the Margarita Area(including the Western Enclave area) does not contain any
lands in the stated categories as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, consequently, the project can not result in conversion of such lands to non-agricultural uses.
Therefore,there is no impact.
b) There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site. Therefore there is no impact.
c) No lands within the Western Enclave (and thereby within the subject site) have been actively farmed recently, so this
project will not result in any direct loss of productive farmland. Other lands in the vicinity of the project site are either
already developed or if within the Margarita Area Specific Plan and in agricultural use (farmland/grazing or open space),are
already slated by the Plan for eventual non-agricultural use whether this project proceeds or not; therefore there is no direct
correlation from this project to any further planned conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The impacts of
conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses have already been evaluated both in the environmental documents for the
City's Land Use and Circulation Elements and the MASP as significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be
mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted(Resolution No.9615 (2004 Series)pursuant to
CEQA. Nonetheless,policies of the Land Use Element were adopted to help compensate for,and thereby reduce the impacts
from, productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses. Specifically, city policy requires direct
dedication of open space areas or payment of in-lieu fees. As noted above,the subject project proposes Lot 178 as a 71±acre
open space lot to be dedicated to the City for protection as permanent open space and Lots 81-85 as open space lots to be
owned and maintained by the proposed Home Owners Association,pursuant to the requirements of.the MASP. Therefore.the
Proiect is self-mitigating and thus,the proiect impact is less than significant.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,3 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,3 X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,3 X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,3 X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,3 X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozoneprecursors)?
Evaluation
a-e) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, project construction will generate short-term emissions of air pollutants.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENv1RONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SETTLNGS\SLOUSERU.ACAL SE nNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK20\FIN.AL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
/�
Attachment S
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..dormation Sources Sources PatenL_y Potentiauy Less Than No i
Significant Signifi4arit,
ER #98-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Construction-related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion
emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a potentially short-term
significant impact on air quality that could lead to exceedances of established state and federal thresholds for regional or local
air quality or otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or program. In addition, the project site is situated
near existing residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The
MASP/AASP EIR also noted long-term("operation") air quality impacts would result from on-going emissions generated by
the project-related vehicular trips and development resulting in additional natural gas combustion for space and water heating
and additional fuel combustion at power plants for electricity consumption.
The MASP/AASP EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan, with mitigation measures AIR-1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 2.1 set
forth in the EIR brought forward to apply to individual projects, is consistent with the local Clean Air Plan. The EIR also
determined that with adoption of the MASP and its accompanying EIR mitigation measures, further delays in attainment of
state and federal air quality standards would not be expected and thus,air quality impacts resulting from build-out of the Plan
were insignificant. The mitigation measures set forth in the prior MASP/AASP EIR were determined would reduce all the
following impact areas to less than significant: 1) short-term construction-related vehicle emissions and fugitive dust(PMIo),
and 2.) Long-tens operation emissions, including increased vehicle trips resulting from new residential and commercial
development in the MASP.
During Early Consultation for the prior VTM#2428 project, the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) of San Luis Obispo
County commented in a letter dated August 2, 2005 that they support the in-fill nature of the proposed development noting
that such development makes walking,bicycling and public transportation more viable,decreasing dependence on driving and
therefore reducing emissions from motor vehicles. The letter states further that such development is consistent with the land
use goals and policies of the District's Clean Air Plan,consistent with the finding of the MASP/AASP EIR.
The SLO County APCD reiterated in its letter the site mitigations as set forth in MASP/AASP EIR for dust control,
construction vehicle emission control, construction activity pollution controls, and on-gong project operation emission
controls, and noted these measures be incorporated into the project in order to maintain project-related impacts to less than
significant. These requirements will be enforced by the APCD through required Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate
permits and by recommended conditions of approval.
The proposed revised VTM project is self-mitigating in these regards because the applicant has asserted his commitment by
way of notation on the preliminary grading plans submitted for the project which states: "All provisions of the APCD letter
dated 8/02/05 shall be implemented." This component of the applicant's project description/proposal together with
Conditions of Approval assure mitigation measures set forth in the prior EIR are brought forward to this project. Thus, the
revised project is still self-mitigating and the impact is less than significant
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 1,3, X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 12, 13
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 1,3, X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 12, 13
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,3, X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or 12, 13
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 1,3, X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native 12, 13
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
CITY OF SAN LUIS OnlSpo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FiLEs\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY To CITY 5-1-07.Doc
/—/A9
Attact men u:
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,formation Sources Sources Patent.-_, Ntenti ??x_ 51►��.: .W N�_.
Significant s;gn;fioant:: ..s;gn;rcant. :L,Impact :
ER #98-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Wildlife nursery.sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitai-Conservation. 1,3, X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or,oiher approved 12, 13
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a"substantial adverse effect on Federally protected 1,3, X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 12, 13
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,.filling,hydrological interruption,;or
other-means?
Evaluation:
c)There are no significant specimen or heritage trees on the property.Thus there is no impact from this project.
d) The Margarita Area does not contain any waterways known to be important to viable fisheries, therefore there is not
expected to be any effect on fish species. Due to the relatively poor soils,simple vegetation type(grassland),and general lack
of vegetation diversity,the Western Enclave developments of MASP are not rich in wildlife species and do not form any kind
of nursery or ref lgium for wildlife species. Therefore it is not expected that the development would interfere substantially
with the movement of any native wildlife species.
e) The City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan established in the City of San Luis Obispo.Thus there is no impact from this
rp oject.
a) b), f) The prior EIR prepared for the MASP & AASP conducted extensive biological resource impact analyses and
determined 19 areas of potential significant impact. Of these 19 impacts,6 (BIO- 3,4, 10, 15, 18,& 19)were determined to
not be significant and thereby, not requiring mitigation. BIO-9 was ruled out as an impact for the MASP territory, and
therefore is not an impact for the three Western Enclave project sites. The balance of 12 Impacts(BIO-1,2,5,6,7,8, 11, 12,
13, 14, 16 & 17) were subject to MASP/AASP EIR mitigation requiring further site specific surveys and mapping to
determine if the specie of concern identified in the respective enumerated impacts might occur on the site. Mitigation
Measure BIO-1.1 stated the performance criteria that if such specie was not found to exist then no further mitigation would be
necessary, but if the specie was found or determined to exist then Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1 outlining the performance
criteria to avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant irripacts on those resources as specified by the site specific
biological surveys would be required for affected projects.
The MASP/AASP EIR-required site specific surveys were conducted for the Western Enclave properties during the winter,
spring,and summer of 2005. As a result of these surveys,EIR Impacts BIO-1, 14,& 16 were determined to not be significant
impacts requiring mitigation for the Western Enclave properties. The remaining impacts (BIO-2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, & 17)
were determined to be applicable to the Western Enclave properties, and in particular, with respect to the subject revised
VTM #2428, that upper portion of the site lying along the toe of the South Hills and the three drainage ways traversing the
site. Consequently the site is subject to the performance standards to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the impact as set
forth in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.
In compliance with one of the performance standards of this mitigation,the Western Enclave applicants have already prepared
and submitted as part of their project proposal a "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" that is applicable to all three of the
Western Enclave sites (as opposed to three individual plans). By integrating all three projects as if they were one, impacts
were able to be addressed by selectively applying mitigation where a beneficial habitat exists naturally and could thereby be
dealt with on one site to the benefit of the other two, garnering a more holistic, rather than piecemeal, solution. Key to the
avoidance criteria, all three of the Western Enclave applicants propose to retain all existing natural drainage ways in their
current locations and in their natural state, as required by the MASP. In addition, the applicants have already been in
communication with the agencies of jurisdiction(California Department of Fish and Game,U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service,US
Army Corps of Engineers) regarding acquiring necessary permits for the mitigation of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands,
(Section 404, etc.)and conditions of approval are recommended(for the subject revised ma )and approved for VTM#2342
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\I.00AL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FIt.Es\OLK20\FIN.AL INITIAL STUDY To CITY 5-1-07.Doc
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..Armation Sources Sources Potei,—, Potentiallg - 1�xvs,�haa-_:.:A ;—:
Significant Significant, =�Signifioenty Im}mGtQ •- .�u«
ER#98-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
&. VTM #2353to assure compliance. The wetlands and drainages are afforded further protection as stipulated by the EIR
performance criteria,by providing necessary buffer zones around the features to be protected/preserved.
The findings and recommendations of the "Comprehensive Mitigation Program" as reviewed and modified by City staff are
summarized below:
Biological impacts fall into several categories: wetland impacts; impacts to other sensitive habitats, and impacts to sensitive
species. These are discussed in more detail below for the site specific map:
Wetland Imnacts. All three subdivisions have some impacts to wetlands. Efforts have been made, especially in the King
subdivision VTM #2428, to minimize these through redesign of the lot layout, but there will still be impacts that cannot be
avoided if the project is to proceed as called for in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. The DeBlauw and Cowan subdivisions
also have wetland impacts but these appear to be of a different nature, impacting wetlands that have resulted from grade and
drainage changes caused by human activities in the past. The developers are working on a mitigation program for wetland
impacts that would utilize a nearby property and would meet City,State,and federal mitigation requirements.
Impacts to Creek Habitats. Impacts to creek habitats are minor,following the realignment of the project to try to minimize
such impacts. There will be some impacts as a result of creek crossings;however,these will be minor and mitigation will be
dictated by Corps and DFG requirements.
Impacts to Serpentine Grassland Habitat. The project lot design results in approximately 1.75 acres of loss of serpentine
bunchgrass habitat. To significantly reduce or avoid this impact would require substantial changes to the project's layout
which would frustrate another important community goal, specifically housing development in this area. It is important to
note that this community extends well onto the hill at the northern boundary of the project for some distance,thus the habitat
will be reduced but not lost. There will in fact be a significant area of serpentine bunchgrass habitat that will be conserved as
part of the project.
Impacts to.Sensitive Species. Several species of concern will be impacted by the project:these are mostly plant species,but
also include one potentially affected animal species. These-are discussed individually below.
Palmer Spineflower (Chorizanthe pahneri). This species is found throughout the South Hills. A small portion of the
population will be lost through development;however,the open space dedication of the project will secure a much larger area
of occupied habitat.
Brewer Spinef lower(Chorizanthe breweri). The situation for this species is the same as for the above.
Obispo Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis). In 2005 this species was found in large numbers both
within the Margarita area (including the open space lot) and on the Unocal Tank Farm property nearby. Hoover reports this
subspecies as occurring from about Ragged Point on the northern boundary of San Luis Obispo County to the San Luis
Obispo area. It is not certain whether the subspecies was observed in the more northerly areas or not, but it is reasonable to
assume so, as conditions in the North County area have not changed much in the 35 years since publication of the Vascular
Plants of San Luis Obispo County.
Miles Milkvetch (Astragalus didymocarpus var. n ilesianus). This rare variety is reported from locations in coastal San Luis
Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Hoover reports it as found in clay soils, usually derived from serpentine, from Morro
Bay to San Luis Obispo. The approximately 25 individuals found in the survey were observed within the project development
envelope.
Obispo dudleya(Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina). There are eight individuals of this species that will be lost to development.
The species has considerable habitat in the South Hills.
Obispo Mariposa Lily (Calochortus simulans). Approximately 25 individuals of this species will be lost to development.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 13 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CAD000MENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER`-0CAL SFTnNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.boc
z�
Attad!;mpnt 6 1
Y:C!
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,formation Sources Sources Potence_; Potentialj . L:.�Tban No,_.:
Significant Significant:.:,,:SigpiAqw[. ..�I�p_act,. .
ER#98-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The species has additional occupied habitat in the South Hills. The open space dedication of the project will secure much of
that habitat(some is already secured). The bulbs may be hard to find,could be damaged while being searched for,and could
be time-consuming to replant. The relocation of these individuals may be considered and undertaken if it can be
accomplished at low cost.
Adobe Sanicle.(Sanicula maritima). Approximately 500 individuals of this species have been found within the project area
and they would be lost due to the development. This species is considered very rare and San Luis Obispo may be the only
area where it is found,according to the Jepson Manual. A small population is known from a seep in Laguna Lake Park within
the City.
Congdon Tarplant(Hemizonia parryi ssp congdoni). Up to several hundred individuals have been observed in disturbed,wet
ground paralleling Prado Road on the Cowan and DeBlauw properties. This species is concentrated in the San Luis Obispo
area in vernally wet areas that are routinely disturbed, such as by agricultural operations or livestock activities,and in vernal
pools.
Loggerhead Shrike(Lanus ludovicianus). One active loggerhead shrike nest was found in the myoportim tree which occurs
in the project area. State law prohibits the destruction of nests in which young are being fledged. There is ample suitable
habitat for loggerhead shrikes in the area, including the South Hills, and the loss of a nest site should not be a significant
impact. In order to obviate the utilization of the nest next season, the myoporum should be cut to eliminate the nest at this
time when it is unoccupied.
Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. It is possible that construction activities during the nesting season could impact nesting
buds,including inadvertent harassment of nesting pairs and destruction of nests.
Mitigation Program.
Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on-and off-site mitigation,
approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the subject VTM#2342
(Cowan) proposes the creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space-Riparian" for the express
purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well as preservation of related
biological habitat benefits.
Mitigation for Impacts to Creek Habitats. Mitigation for impacts creek habitats will be through a combination of on- and
off-site mitigation,approved by the City,the DFG and the Corps.
Mitigation for Impacts to Serpentine Bunchgrass Habitat. A mitigation program involving restoration of serpentine
bunchgrass habitat at an identified area in the so-called "saddle" in the King property's open space parcel, is required. This
area occupies between one-half and three-quarters of an acre. The program would at a minimum,replace the existing non-
native grassland in that area with a grassland containing a majority of native bunchgrass species including purple needlegrass,
meadow barley,and California brome. In addition,a program for additional protection for the open space lands of the project
will be developed.. The goal of this program will be to provide protection for remaining areas of serpentine bunchgrass
habitat and species within that habitat in the South Hills open space parcel, through mechanisms such as fencing, trail
realignments,and drainage improvements on the access road to the communication site on neighboring property. Finally,the
project sponsors propose to donate fee title to the open space lot 146 to the City of San Luis Obispo as permanent open space
as part of the project.
Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish. City staff will
work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Mitigation for impacts to five plant species of concern
is required as follows:
Palmer Spineflower. None required.
Brewers ineflower. None required.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGASLOUSERUACAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FOES\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY To CITY 5-1-07.DOC
/-146
1'
AttacHment 8
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,formation Sources Sources PO[eRL. > Potendllyi_
Significant Significan'�'.—�S�guificma�nt. .,;Impact,__
ER#98-06 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
Obispo Indlinn Paintbrush. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site.
Miles Milkvetch. Collect.seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site.
Obispo dudleya. Due to the very small number of impacted individuals and the ease of transplanting, transplant
these individuals to suitable sites within the project open space.
Obispo Mariposa Lily. None required.
Adobe Sanicle. Relocate some individuals to a suitable site within the project open space;consider transplanting the
balance to a suitable site in Laguna Lake Park or other suitable off-site location approved by the City,or consider lot
adjustments to protect the major portion near lots 121, 122, and adjacent multifamily lot. On Sept. 5, 2006, the SLO
City Council authorized, as mitigation discussed herein, the use of several areas within Laguna Lake Park for
relocation of adobe sanicle occasioned by the proposed revised VTM #2428 residential development proposal
within the Margarita Area Specific Plan. In its action, the Council found that Laguna Lake Park offers the best site
for relocation of the adobe sanicle because Laguna Lake Park has a fairly large area of habitat suitable for the
adobe sancle. Further, the adobe sanicle already occurs there naturally.
Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. On Sept. 5,
2006, the SLO City Council authorized, as mitigation discussed herein, the use of several areas within Laguna Lake
Park for relocation of Congdon tarplant occasioned by the proposed revised VTM#2428 residential development
proposal within the Margarita Area Specific Plan. In its action, the Council found that Laguna Lake Park offers the
best site for relocation of the Congdon tarplant because the City has already successfully conducted mitigation
efforts at Laguna Lake Park for the Congdon tarplant. Further, the Congdon tarplant already occurs there
naturally.
Loggerhead Shrike. Remove myoporum tree before nesting season.
Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities; avoid
construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged.
Off Sue Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the applicant's
proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by
the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal) is a
low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable habitat for certain special concern and
R-T-E(rare,threatened,and endangered) species,and thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off
has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to the currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural
drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for
open space use by the MASP and utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre-and post-
Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater
project-generated and pre-project rum-off flows,and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be
held and maintained by a.Master Home Owners Association(MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and
perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
As noted, the three Western Enclave developments have been designed so as to avoid any disturbance to the natural drainage
channels. In order to accommodate this, a storm drainage system is proposed to capture all surface flow from the
improvements and convey it on through the watershed. Naturally occurring drainage from the upper reaches of the watershed
will be allowed to continue to flow through the developments via the existing natural drainage channels [proposed to be
preserved in Open Space,particularly Lots 142-146& 148 in the subject maps. However,development-generated run-off will
be conveyed via separate installed infrastructure & treatment facilities required for the subdivisions, and transported to the
proposed off-site sub-regional drainage basin.] A small amount of development-generated run off may be diverted to the
easterly—most drainage swale as necessary to enhance year round hydrology of the swale to be beneficial to better sustain
the sensitive habitat. This will be accomplished only at the direction of USFWS/ ACOE and/or the City Natural Resource
Manager.
The proposed off-site detention basin and drainages (preserved in common by a MHOA as open channels) will be vegetated
with local native,suitable grasses and other plant material,and with the assistance of composite turf reinforcement fabric,will
allow for the formation of additional seasonal wetlands. As the channels and basin are lined with the turf reinforcement
CRY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:0000MENTS AND SETTNGSLSL0USFRU_0CAL SEITWGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILFs\0LK20\FiNAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOc
/-/D 7
Issues, Discussion and Supportirt6 dormation Sources Sources PotenL. ., Potentially LessTtan No
Significant Significant 'Significant Impact-
ER#98-06 Issues Unless Ympict
Mitigation
Incorporated
fabric, any additional bank stabilization that will be needed should be achieved. Additionally,outlets into the basin will have
substantial energy dissipation structures, as required to remove any erosion and sedimentation potential. Once the wetlands
within the channels and basin have been allowed to fully establish themselves,it is anticipated that some of the wildlife,which
will take seasonal refuge within these wetlands,will assist with keeping growth of the vegetation under control.
Inclusion of the above mitigations reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant.
Further,in compliance with the MASP,the subject map proposes the 71-acre Lot 178 as an Open Space lot to be dedicated to
the City, and Lots 81-85, as lots to be owned and maintained by a Master Home Owners Association all for the multiple
purposes of achieving the required biological mitigation and the functioning components of the proposed sub-regional
drainage plan and pedestrian/bicycle trail system.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,3, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 10, 18
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,3, X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 10, 18
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,3, X
or site or unique geologic feature? 10, 18
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 1,3'
,3, X
formal cemeteries? 10, 18
Evaluation
a-b) The MASP and MASP/AASP EIR determined that further on-site surface surveys be done in conjunction with each site
specific development proposal. Such further survey was conducted by a Heritage Discoveries, Inc, of San Luis Obispo, CA
for the entire Western Enclave area and a written report, dated May 31,2005, was submitted to the City. The report found,
and completed a site record for,a small archaeological site of unspecified significance within the survey area. The site found
is not adjacent to or within the boundaries of this VTM#2428. A Phase II subsurface test is required for this off-site find,but
such survey will not affect and therefore does not impact the subject project. Thus,the proiect impact is less than significant.
c-d)The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known unique
paleontological resources. The project area has been part of two general cultural resource field surveys. As a result of these
field surveys, there are no known historical or archaeological resources that are associated with the project site. Therefore
there is no impact.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,2,3 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 1,2,3 X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,2,3 X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Evaluation:
a-b) The project as revised will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans nor will it promote the use of non-
renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The future development of the site must comply with the policies
contained in the General Plan Energy Element that states: "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of
conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation,
including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The project will also be subject to Architectural Review that will
ensure consistency with City energy conservation goals,policies,and regulations. This impact is less than significant.
CrrY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:\D000MFNTS AND SETTINGS\SLousER\LOCAL SFrnNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK20\FIN.AL INITIAL STUDY To CITY 5-1-07.DOC
1-ion'
Aftaelt;ent 3
Issues, Discussion and Supportin .,iformation Sources Sources Poten'L _y Potentially Less Than:,- No
Significant Significant- Significant . . Impact
ER#98-06 issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.
Thus,there is no impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOE S. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 1,2,3 X
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: 5,7, 17
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 1,2,3'
,2,3, X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 5,7, 17
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
IL Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2,3, X
5,7, 17
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 1,2,3, X
5,7, 17
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 1,2,3, X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 5,7, 17 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 1,2,3, X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 5,7, 17
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1,2,3, X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life 5,7, 17
or property?
Evaluation:
a)-d):The initial study prepared for the MASP/AASP projects found that all the above-stated effects from implementation of
both plans would be less than significant and therefore the MASP/AASP EIR conducted no further evaluations. There is no
new evidence to suggest there would be any site specific impacts that were not adequately anticipated or evaluated in the prior
environmental documents. The preliminary grading plan prepared for the subdivision is consistent with City code. The final
grading plan of the proposed subdivision will be in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations and the
California Building Code adopted by the City and modified by City regulations. Thus, the project impact is less than
significant.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1,3, X
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous 14
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 1,3, X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 14
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 1,3, X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 14
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 1,3, X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 14
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 1,3, X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 14
65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to
_ _the public or the environment?
CITY OF SAN Luis Oetspo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADocuMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\LOCAL SEITiNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET Fu.Es\0LK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.Doc
1-le 9
S.
• , . ��� Attachment 6 `
Issues, Discussion and Supporting formation Sources sources rotent:: y Pofential}y _
Significant Significant" `Significant•:„Imps-
ER#98-06 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I f) Fora project located within an airportland'use plan,or within1,2, X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result ima safety 3, 14
hazard.for the people residing or working in,the project area?
g) '.Impair itnplementatioti of,or physically interfere With.-the. . 1,2, X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency'evacuation 3, 14
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of:lose,injury; 1,2, X
or death,involving wildland fires,including,where wildlandsare: 3, 14
-adjacent to urbanized_areas or where resideiits are intermixed
with:wildlands7
Evaluation
a),b),d):The prior EIR determined that historical agricultural activities and surrounding industrial activities of the Margarita
Area may have released hazardous materials into the environment. Hazardous materials releases may have involved leaking
underground or aboveground storage tanks; or similar events from other nearby properties that store or handle hazardous or
toxic materials. Construction-related and ground disturbing activities may involve the use of materials that could contaminate
nearby soils and water resources in the project area. Existence of such potential hazards could cause construction workers
and other people to be exposed to dust or emissions containing such hazardous materials or to organic pesticides,herbicides,
and other hazardous materials. The prior MASP/AASP EIR further determined impacts related to development of allowed
business park land uses could result in operations-related exposures to hazardous materials and short-term surface water
quality degradation from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction; areas of concern within the Margarita
Area included mention of Acacia Creek. The prior MASP/AASP EIR required the following mitigation measures that would
reduce such impacts to less than significant:
HAZ-1.1:Implement a construction-related hazardous materials management plan
HAZ-1.2:If presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities,
conduct a Phase I and possibly Phase H Environmental Site Assessment to determine soil or
ground water contamination.
HAZ-2.1: Implement an operations-related hazardous materials management plan.
With respect to required mitigation measure HAZ-1.1, the applicant already prepared and submitted the results of Phase I
ESA for the subject site. Said Assessment, dated June 27, 2005, was prepared by Geo-Solutions, Inc., a firm qualified to
prepare such assessments. The Assessment found that there are no recognized environmental conditions at the site or in
connection with the site that could be affected by roadway or utility alignments, and in the author's expert judgment, no
further inquiry regarding potential or recognized environmental conditions is required for past uses of the site (No Phase II
ESA,required.).
Since the subject revised project involves only development of residential uses there is no potential for the stated potential
impacts related to business park office development or uses that would involve the handling or disposal of materials used
onsite,or the delivery,use,manufacture and/or storage of various chemicals necessary to perform manufacturing and business
park activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 above is therefore not applicable to the subject project and therefore is not
required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. Thus,there is no impact.
Although Acacia Creek does not lie within the Western Enclave area of the MASP, there are other natural drainage ways
within this and the two other related Western Enclave development sites that contain biological resource values required by
the MASP to be protected and preserved. Therefore,there is still potential for on-site construction of roadways,infrastructure
and building sites to involve handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products,
concrete, and sanitary waste that have the potential to adversely impact these drainages if proper precautions are not
implemented. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1 above is applicable to the subject site and is therefore required to be
brought forward as a condition of approval. According to the MASP/AASP EIR, said Construction-Related Hazardous
Materials Management Plan is required to outline specific protocol to identify health risks associated with presence and
handling of chemical compounds and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers in the work area to
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:0000MENTS AND SETnNGs\sLOUSERU.oCAL SErrINGS\T VIPDRARY INTERNET FiLEs\OLK20\FIN.v.INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.Doc
r Attachrrenf 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting,nformation Sources sources PoteuL_.y Poren1 y Less Than No ;
Significant Significa`uP `Si '75can�
ER #98-06 Issues Unless Wuf
Mitigation
Incorporated
prevent or avoid improper release or accidental disposals that would result in soil and/or groundwater contamination. By
incorporating the stated mitigation HAZ-1.1 above as condition of approval,this impact will remain less than significant with
mitigation.
c)The project site is not located within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus,there is no impact.
e) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Thus there is no impact.
f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County
Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP). In its adoption of the MASP,the City Council already found the MASP to be consistent with
the ALUP. It follows, therefore, that because the subject project and proposed residential uses and densities are compliant
with the MASP,the project is also compatible with the policies and objectives of the Airport Land Use Plan. Thus there is no
impact.
g) The revised project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall who has
recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted firelemergency-related codes. The Fire
Marshall has provided no expert evidence that said proposal will impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus,the impact is less than significant.
h)The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,2, X
requirements? 3, 16
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1,2, X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be 3, 16
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing Land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 1,2, X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or 3, 16
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2, X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 3, 16
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 1,2, X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding 3, 16
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a I00-year flood hazard area as mapped on 1,2 X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 3, 16
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 1,2, X
would impede or redirect flood flows? 3, 16
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 1,2, X
ground or surface waters? _ 3, 16
CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 19 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SETTI.NGS\SLOUSER\L.00AL SET [NGs\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK20\FtNAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting „lkrmation•Sources sources Poten J Potentia y
Significant Significant._..SigpiScatlr` act__
ER#98 06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, 1,2, X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? 3, 16
Evaluation:
a)The project as revised will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. According to the prior
MASP/AASP EIR, development associated with the site will require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity
storm water permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this permit process would ensure that construction-related
discharges are limited or adequately accommodated by properly engineered infrastructure design. Thus, the impact is
considered less than significant.
b) The project will be served by the City's sewer and water systems and will not use or deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level.
c),e)According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR,construction on the site of the proposed residential development as part of the
urbanization of the Western Enclave Area would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and
amount of surface water runoff to increase. However, the project is subject to the revised City Storm Drain Master
Plan/Waterways Management Plan that discusses the necessary improvements that would ensure adequate transmission and
detention of storm water flow created by any new development and thus potential impacts resulting from increased
development-related run-off was determined by the MASP/AASP EIR to be less than significant, and no mitigation required.
To ensure that runoff levels will be equal to or less than existing levels,all storm water runoff will be contained in detention
basins and drained at a rate not to exceed the 2-year undeveloped flow rate. In addition,according to the MASP a series of
basins will be constructed to detain storm water runoff within the area. In this instance the Western Enclave developers
propose one off-site detention basin to accept development-generated run-off from all three subdivisions, together with
existing area run-off that historically creates flooding at the concrete box culvert under Prado Road that is insufficient to
accept and transmit existing area run-off. The design, location,and maintenance of the detention basins will be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer. In the event such off-site basin cannot be achieved,then, alternately,each subdivision will be
responsible for providing its own on-site basin to the approval of.the City Engineer as stipulated in the MASP. Thus, the
impact of the orciect is less than significant.
f),g)The project does not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map nor will it impede or redirect water flows that will cause a
flood hazard to surrounding areas.Thus,there is no impact.
h), i) According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the project could potentially introduce typical storm water pollutants into
ground or surface waters during construction activities and as a result of ongoing use of the project area. As a result, the
development would require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity permit by the Central Coast RWQCB.
Completion of this permit process would ensure that construction-related discharges were limited. Because ongoing use of
the project area for residential uses would also increase the potential for discharge of household chemicals,oils and fuels,and
waste into projected waterways, the requirement for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be
established to reduce the potential for unwanted runoff. Therefore, implementation of the BMPs on the project will reduce
impact to less than significant level.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1,2,3 X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,3 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,2,3 X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
CITY OF SAN LUIS OSISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CAEWUMENTS AND SETTI,NGs\SLousER\L.00AL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FuEs\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY To CITY 5-1-07.Doc
1_11.2-
Aftachment S
Issues, Discussion and Supporting formation Sources sources Potent Poten�iau, Less Tan _No
:a
Significant Significant nt Tm�act
ER#98-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) The project is located in an area designated by the MASP for low density residential,medium density residential and open
space-hill and riparian. The layout and intensity of residential development and open space lots proposed with revised VTM
#2428 complies with the land use plan and density requirements of the MASP. The City's Open Space Element requires
developments to include buffer areas next to wetlands and creeks to protect riparian habitat. The project proposes that the
three drainage ways traversing the property,as well us the 71-acre open space lot of the South Hills along the northern band
of the site, remain in their natural state, and as such are afforded the requisite protection by including them within separate
lots designated for open space, and, in the case of the drainage ways, include the minimum required setbacks. These lots are
proposed to be owned and maintained either by the City (the 71-acre parcel) or in common by a Home Owners Association.
The subdivision of the property into low and medium density residential units does not conflict with any plan or policy
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect the proposed development is in furtherance of
achieving land use density called for by the MASP and the proposal for affordable(condominium)housing within Lots 171-
175 and for market rate condominiums on Lots 176& 177 is also consistent with inclusionary and affordable housing policies
of the City.To this extent the project is self-mitigating. Thus,there is no impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4.
Biological Resources.)
b) The project will not physically divide an established community,because by implementation of the MASP the project is a
logical and orderly extension of the planned land uses and development that are already established and planned within the
surrounding area. Thus,there is no impact.
c) The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thus there is no
impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4.Biological Resources.)
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 1,2,3 X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 1,2,3 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 1,2,3 X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 1,2,3 X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
According to the MASP/AASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are
predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels resulting from new roadways within the development. Such traffic-related noise
levels are expected to exceed the maximum exterior noise planning standard of 60 L&/CNEL dB (day-night average sound
level;or 24-hour average community noise equivalent level,in decibels)or to exceed allowable thresholds of stationary noise
sources as set forth in Table 2 of the Noise Element. However, the EIR concludes that this impact is less-than-significant
since in order for a subdivision map to be approved it must be fully compliant with the entirety of the City's General Plan. As
such, the project is required to be consistent with the Specific Plan standards for road noise mitigation and outdoor noise
reduction as well as subject to mitigation measures listed and already adopted in the City's General Plan Noise Element. The
applicable mitigation measures are any or all of those listed in Policy 8 of the Noise Element which, based upon the
conclusions of a site specific noise measurement, are shown by a qualified expert performing said study are necessary to
achieve the 60 Ldn/CNEL dB standard within the outdoor activity exposure area. Conditions of approval require that
measures contained in the City's Noise Guidebook and as deemed necessary by the qualified acoustic consultant shall be
incorporated into the design of the buildings to ensure that noise impacts are reduced to achieve the performance thresholds
set forth herein and in the City Noise Element. Implementation of this condition will assure the impact remains less-than-
CRY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SETT1NGS\SL0USER\L.0CAL SET INGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET F(LEs\0LK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.Doc
r-/r.3
. 1 A a '
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..Iformation Sources Sources Potent. Potentially I Iess'Ihan No.
Significant Significant, Significant Impact
ER# 98-06 Issues Unless impact -
Mitigation
Incorporated
significant.
b) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of
mitigation requirements set forth in a)above,noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to thresholds
determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Therefore, impacts to permanent ambient noise levels are less than
significant.
Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases (spikes) in ambient
noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development,it can
only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City's Noise Ordinance. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance
thresholds,the property owner would be subject to possible citations and corrective actions to eliminate or reduce such noise
to non-nuisance levels. The significance of this impact is too speculative to determine;compliance with the Noise Ordinance
is presumed to adequately abate the periodic nuisance noise. Thus,there is no impact.
c) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibrations.Thus,there is no
impact.
d)The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport,and is subject to the County Airport
Land Use Plan. According to the prior MASP/AASP EIR, the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA-CNEL contour line.
However, due to projected future aircraft over flight, the project is required by the MASP/AASP EIR and MASP to
implement design features to ensure compatibility with the Airport and thereby control indoor noise levels. Design features
must control for indoor noise to not exceed 45 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level, and a 60 dB maximum for aircraft
single events. Ininlementation of mitigation as specified in the MASP/AASP EIR and Plan will result in the impact being
less-than-significant.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1,2,3 X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 1,2,3 X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation:
a)The added population growth caused by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not result in population
exceeding local and regional growth projections. Therefore, the impact of inducing substantial Ropulation growth to the
planning area would be less than significant.
b)The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped land; therefore, housing or people will not be displaced as a result of
the project. Thus,there is no impact.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,2,3 X
b) Police protection? 1,2,3 X
C) Schools? 1,2,3 X
d) Parks? 1,2,3 X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,2,3- X
CIrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\L.00AL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\0LK20\FIN.AL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
MV,
Issues, Discussion and Supporting .Information Sources Soft= PotenL.y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#98-06 Issues Un7e—s�' - —Impacr -
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Other public facilities? 1,2, 3 X
Evaluation
a), b), d), e), & f) The MASP/RASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any
significant impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to off-set service needs through the City's
Development Impact Fee programs established via the City General Plan and augmented by the MASP and concluded that no
further mitigation was necessary. There is no new evidence that the subject project, proposed to carry out the development
intended by the MASP as evaluated by the MASP/AASP EIR will result in any adverse impacts to these services. And
further,the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for,new or
physically altered government facilities,the construction of which might have the potential to cause significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with the MASP,the project is subject to City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that
are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with increases in demand of
public services. Thus,there is no impact.
c)The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of building permits to offset the costs to finance
school site acquisition and school construction, and said fees, when collected by local school districts, are deemed by State
law constitute adequate mitigation for all school facility requirements. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the
City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district to mitigate effects
associated with inadequate school facilities. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are
considered to be mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance for each
residence. Thus,there is no impact.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation:
a) & b) The build-out of the project will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. The MASP has
anticipated this demand by designating certain lands within the Plan area for "Sports Fields" (already built) and
"Neighborhood Park"for active recreational use and other areas for"Open Space-Hills"or"Open Space-Riparian"for more
passive recreation/aesthetic amenities (e.g. walking or bicycling paths and trails) intended more for use by adjacent or nearby
residents. No portions of the subject site are designated by the MASP for either of the active recreation land use designations.
The project is consistent with MASP insofar as said plan does designate a 71-acre-portion of the subject site (Lot 178) for
"Open Space-Hills"(to be dedicated to the City for public use)and five other lots alongside natural drainage ways for"Open
Space-Riparian" (Lots 81-85). Proposed Class I pedestrian/bicycle paths through Lots 82-85 are integral features for more
passive recreation use. The MASP/RASP EIR determined that while build-out of the MASP will generate increased demand
for recreational facilities,the impact is less than significant due to the adoption through the MASP of 533 acres of additional
parks and open space land use designations(lying outside the Western Enclave development area.)
The MASP also specifies that developers will contribute to the construction of public park facilities through the payment of
City-,as well as,MASP-adopted Park Improvement Fees to offset costs associated with increases in demand and services as it
relates to maintaining City-wide public park areas. Thus, the construction of the proiect will have a less than significant
impact on parks or other recreational facilities.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,2, X
existingtraffic load and capacity of the street§ystem? 3,4
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBKsPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMEWS AND SEITINGSSLOUSERU.00AL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET Fa.ES\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
Atiach;ment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supportin (formation Sources Sources Pot�y Potentially Less _;No..-; .
Significant Significant-• Si:; cant..JOV2t.,_,.
ER#98-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 1,2, X
standard established by the county congestion management 3;4
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazardsdue to design features(e.g.sharp 1,2, X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. 3,4
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?. 1,2,3 X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 1,2,3 X
fy . Conflict with adopted policies supporting`alternative 1,2,3 X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 1,2, 3 X
UsePlan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a change in aii trafficpatterns?_
Evaluation:
a),b) As noted in the prior Initial Study for the original VTM#2428 design,that project as proposed, in accordance with the
MASP and AASP and the City General Plan,would have increased traffic in the area,but not beyond the load and capacity of
project area streets, existing or as projected currently, nor would it have increased traffic exceeding established acceptable
levels of service (LOS) thresholds adopted at LOS "D" by the City General Plan) for San Luis Obispo as discussed in the
MASP/AASP EIR,except for the Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection. Regarding the subject Revised VTM#2428,
an increase of 30 dwellings is proposed which equates to about 300 ADT (average daily trips) based on the 2003 ITE Trip
Generation Handbook. According to the City Public Works and Engineering Dept. this translates to about 30 peak trips per
day. Distributing these trips across the two access streets(Calle Malva and"D"Street) would suggest a potential increase at
peak periods of about 15 additional trips (read: cars)on each street per day, a very negligible increase The Circulation.Plan
of the MASP (as well as the Circulation Plan of the AASP and Circulation Element of the City General Plan) identifies the
essential primary road system that will be needed to accommodate development within the plan area and surrounding growth
areas of the City at this threshold. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that the circulation plans of these planning documents
are for the most part self-mitigating in that 1.)Roadway alignments,road extensions,and new intersections are designed and
will be built in response to traffic projected at build-out and,2.)Development projects in the Airport and Margarita Specific
Plan areas will also contribute their fair share either through adopted Traffic Impact Fees,MASP development impact fees,
assessments or dedications to specified roadway improvements(EIR page 3D-29).Further the traffic model used in the prior
EIR assumed a"totaP worst case maximum number of dwelling units in the Margarita area based upon projected zoning and
allowed land use densities and therefore the small "bump" in the proposed number of dwelling units from for this subject
revised VTM will not have a significant impact on the conclusions or analysis of the document The primary self-mitigating
traffic feature of the MASP is the Plan's requirement that Prado Road be extended easterly,from its current terminus just east
of South Higuera Street, all the way to Broad Street, thus providing a major new divided 4-lane east-west cross town arterial
connector in the southerly area of San Luis Obispo. Conditions of approval are recommended that would require
improvements to Prado Road as stipulated by the MASP and MASP/AASP EIR. The project will be conditioned to provide
build-out of Prado Road commensurate with the development of the subject site together with the other two developments
within the Western Enclave,as required by the MASP and as recommended by the City Public Works Dept. In addition,the
subject proposal's proposed street system internal to the subdivision conforms to the MASP Circulation Plan.
The extension of Prado Road, as a designated "highway/regional route", together with Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
required roadway improvements(particularly Tank Farm Road)will accommodate cumulative traffic increases in the area and
will mostly maintain at the acceptable LOS of"D"or better,except as noted above regarding the intersection of Prado Road
and South Higuera Street. At the time of adoption of the AASP (Ref. Resolution 9726-2205 Series) adopted by the City
Council August 23, 2005, almost a year after the adoption of the MASP, it was determined potential and proposed
development circumstances had changed sufficiently in the Airport Area since the adoption of the MASP, such that Level of
Service (LOS) at the intersection of Prado Road and South Higuera Street would decline from LOS "D" (as found in the
MASP/AASP EIR) to LOS "E". As•a result, the City Council Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series) found that additional
mitigation T-2.1 was necessary to lessen the effects of the significant impact at this intersection. This mitigation requires that
the threshold for Transportation Demand Management(TDM)requirements shall be reduced to apply to employers with 25 or
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSFRkLocAL SE MNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET Fu.FS\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.Doc
/+
Armco-^'ent J
Issues, Discussion and Supporting _formation Sources Sources Poten�__1 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant' hnpact
ER#98-06 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
more employees. It is appropriate, therefore, that this mitigation measure applies to commercial development within the
MASP to cumulatively contribute to the mitigation. However, since the subject Revised VTM #2428 does not propose any
commercial development,this requirement is not directly applicable to this subdivision.
Nonetheless, the proposed project would contribute cumulatively with the other two subdivisions within the Western Enclave
area,to vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site. These streets with the given improvements
specified in the City's adopted planning documents and with the addition of new TDM requirements on commercial
businesses within the other two traps(VTM#2342-Cowan/French and VTM#2353-DeBlauw,will serve to accommodate the
added vehicular traffic. Thus,the impact from this project is less than significant.
c) d) The Margarita Area Specific Plan will require that the project provides roadways that are designed and developed in
accordance with adopted city standards thereby assuring predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and
provide adequate emergency access. In addition, the subject VTM proposes a number of traffic calming devices be
incorporated into the subdivision streets in furtherance of MASP requirements for street cross sections and designs that
encourage and maintain safe traffic speeds in the small neighborhood/community settings. A Condition of Approval to is
recommended requiring that the final design, location, and number of traffic calming measures including bulb-outs, choke-
downs, table-tops, roundabouts, neck-downs, etc. shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director to assure
maximize compliance and effective conformity with the MASP. Thus,there is no impact as result of the proiect.
e) The project is subject to the City's parking requirements as it is outlined in the Margarita Area Specific Plan for each
varying land use. The project build-out is required to fulfill all necessary parking requirements and therefore there is no
evidence of inability to comply with onsite or offsite parking standards. Thus,there is no impact.
f) The MASP/AASP EIR identified certain secondary impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists that could result from road
improvements needed to achieve vehicular flow at intersections noted in Table 3D-10 (namely, with respect to the Western
Enclave developments,the intersections of Prado Road/South Higuera Street and Prado Road/Broad Street). Such secondary
impacts relate to increased crossing distances from road widening at intersections and introducing conflicts at intersections
with multiple turning lanes. The MASP/RASP EIR notes such impacts can be adequately avoided by implementation of
Mitigations Measures T-1.1 Design Features which,in summary,incorporate the following:
1. Sidewalks along both sides of all newly constructed streets and reconstructed streets,
2. Crosswalks (pursuant to the City's adopted "Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines-2000") at new and reconstructed
intersections,
3. Pedestrian signals at all new and reconstructed signalized intersections,and
4. Class 11 bike lanes on all new and reconstructed streets per the City Bicycle Transportation Plan and MASP.
The three Westem Enclave development projects are not directly responsible for the construction of the above described off-
site intersections except through payment of City's Traffic and Development Impact Fees which contribute their respective
calculated fair share of the cost. This funding source will contribute to the construction of said intersection improvements at a
later time to be determined by the City. Thus,this impact is less than significant.
g) The MASP has already been found to not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).
Therefore, as the subject project complies with the pertinent requirements of the MASP regarding allowed land uses and
development densities and standards,the project is not in conflict with the ALUP. Thus,there is no impact from this project.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,2,3 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 1,2,3 X
treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm
drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 1,2,3 X
CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SETTLNGS\SL0USER\1.0CAL SE-MNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET Fazs\0LK20\FIN.AL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DDC
it J
Issues, Discussion and Supportik ,formation Sources Sources Poten— Potentially LmsThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#98-06 Issues Unless' Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 1,2,3 X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,2,3 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 1,2,3 X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation:
a) b) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP will not result in any significant
impacts related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainagetretention and
concluded that such impacts related to build-out of the MASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed
necessary. The build-out under the MASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The
subject project proposes to provide all water, sewer and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject
project, including distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the MASP facility master plan and
the City's Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan. There is no new evidence that the subject project, as
intended by the MASP will result in any adverse impacts to these service systems nor result in any exceedances of RWQCB
wastewater treatment requirements. In addition to the on-site utility service infrastructure required with the development, the
project is subject to City and MASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of
development projects to offset costs associated with off-site city-wide utility system impacts related to needed periodic
tnainienance and upgrades. Thus,there is no impact.
c) Provisions in the City General Plan and MASP ensure that an adequate quantity of water will exist before any development
is allowed. Moreover, the City has adopted the Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new
development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. Section 17.89.030 of the Water
Allocation Regulation states that a water allocation shall be required to obtain a.connection to the city water system for a
structure or facility not previously connected. This project is also subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure
that new development pays its share of constructing additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities. More
specifically, the project is subject to both the citywide water impact fees and the MASP-specific water add-on fees. Thus,
compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that impacts related to water supplies are less than
significant.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed sewer lines in the vicinity and within the project site have
sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on-site sewer facilities according to
the Uniform Plumbing Code standards. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity at
the City's Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set to offset potential impacts associated with increases in demand and
use by each new residential unit in the project. Thus,there is no impact.
e) Solid waste collection within the City will be provided by a private operator under a City franchise and disposal is
expected to continue at Cold Canyon Landfill until 2018. The project must be consistent with the City's Source Reduction
and Recycling Element which requires that recycling facilities be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste
reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The
project is also required by the ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project.
Thus,there is no impact.
f) The project will fully comply with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus,
there is no impact.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
CnY OF SAN LUIS OsisPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIs-r
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:00CU.MENTS AND SET7INGS\SL0USER\L0CAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\0LK20\ANAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-I-07.DOC
/-11r
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..formation Sources Sources Poten"4 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 98-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 1,2,3, X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 12, 13
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehist ?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but 1,2,3, X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means 4
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,the
effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future
projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause 1,2,3, X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or 4
indirectly?
CITY OF SAN LUIS 09ispo 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C.\DOCUNIENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\0LK20\FtNAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
1-114?
Issues, Discussion and Supportir% ..Aormation Sources Sources Potent Potentially t.ess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER #98-06 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
In orated
I&EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
In 2004 the City of San Luis Obispo certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Margarita Area Specific Plan(MASP),
the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and the related Facilities Master Plan. The subject proposed VTM #2428 property
lies within the boundaries of the MASP. Therefore, this prior MASP/AASP EIR evaluation considered impacts and
mitigation related generally to potential development of the subject site and others pursuant to the MASP and related
Facilities Master Plan. The prior EIR, certified by the City Council along with the adoption of the MASP, AASP, and
Facilities Master Plan on October 12,2004,by Resolution No.9615(2004 Series)contained a variety of mitigation measures
to be incorporated as discrete components of the MASP or as policies or development standards to be implemented through
site specific development proposals. Further on August 23,2005,by Resolution No. 9726(2005 Series),the City Council re-
certified,with additional mitigation,the MASP/AASP EIR for the Airport Area Specific Plan(AASP),and adopted the Plan.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Lead Agencies (the City) to use the analysis of general matters
contained in a broader EIR, such as for a general or specific plan, with later EIRs or Negative Declarations on narrower
projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the later EIR or
Negative Declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. The environmental assessment approach is refereed to
as"tiering".
The environmental analyses above for VTM#2428 take into account the environmental conclusions of the prior EIR as they
are applicable to the proposed site specific project. As such,mitigation measures adopted in the prior EIR that are applicable
to the subject site-specific project, and therefore must be incorporated into the proposed project to effectively mitigate the
prior identified impacts, are listed below. Some of these mitigation measures are verbatim from the prior EIR, others have
been refined to more specifically clarify how they are applicable to the site specific project by way of Conditions of Approval,
in order to be properly implemented. Lastly many of the applicable mitigation measures required by provisions of the MASP
have been incorporated by the applicant into the actual project subdivision design, making the project "self-mitigating" in
these instances.
The Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plan Final Program EIR is
available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo,CA 93402-3249.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
The MASP/AASP EIR (prior EIR), (which included the sites of the three proposed subdivisions within the Western Enclave
area,) was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004, thereby determining that the EIR adequately analyzed the
impacts listed in Column No. 1 and that mitigation was required for certain identified impacts,as noted. (If a potential impact
was found by the MASP to not be significant, or has been found by the above-stated analyses to not be significant for the
subject project, it is noted with strikethrough text. One impact/mitigation originating from the Certified EIR for the AASP—
Impact T-2 regarding Transportation Demand Management for exceeding LOS"D",is also applicable to the MASP. Column
No. 2 indicates whether mitigations were required due to the impact being significant. Column No. 3 indicates status of
impact after mitigation specified in the prior EIR. Column No. 4 indicates if there is a specific provision of the MASP that
serves to implement or achieve the required mitigation. Column No.5 reflects whether the site specific VTM,as designed or
proposed,complies with the MASP mitigation("complies")or whether a Condition of Approval("COA")is required to bring
arequired mitigation forward through the project approval or subsequentpermits:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(MM#2428-King)
C:\D000MENTS AND SErnNGSLSLOUSER\LOCAL SERINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
/-/Ow
Issues, Discussion and Supporting_..Armation Sources Sources Poten.__� Potenti"y__ Less Than No
Significant Signifitant u
ER#98-06 Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
MASP/AASP EIR-Identified Mitigation Impact after
Areas of Potential Impact Required? Mitigation MASP Provision? Site Specific?
1.)Land Use and Aesthetics
-LU-6 Change in Views "none feasible" SU Open Space&Parks complies
-LU-7 Increased light&glare yes L-T-S Lighting Stnd.3.3 COA
2.)Hydrology and Water Quality
-H-4 Changes in course or "none feasible" SU Drainage 7.3 complies,COA
direction of water move-
ment
3.)Biological Resources
-BIO-2 Valley Needlegrass yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA
-BIO-5 Open Water Habitat yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA
-BIO-6 Freshwater Marsh yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA
-BIO-7 Seasonal Wetlands yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA
-BIO-11 Special-Status Plants yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA
-BIO-12 Non-listed Special-Status yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA
Wildlife
-BIO-13 Calif.red-legged frog yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA
-BIO-17 Southwestern pond turtle yes L-T-S Open Space&Parks complies,COA
4.)Hazardous Materials
-HAZ-1 Construction Related yes L-T-S not specified COA
-HAZ-3 Accidental Releases yes L-T-S not specified COA
Notes:SU=Significant,Unavoidable(Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted),L-T-S=Less than Significant
Each of these impacts listed is also relative to the subject project. No new impacts for the subject project have been identified
and no new mitigation measures are needed.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Margarita Area Specific Plan/Airport Area Specific Plan,and Final EIR
2. The City of San Luis Obispo 2004 General Plan/EIR and all its adopted Elements
3. City Council Resolution#9615,2004 Series
4. City Council Resolution#9726,2005 Series
5. SLO Municipal Code
6. SLO Zoning Ordinance,2004
7. SLO Construction Codes,2002
8. SLO Community Design Guidelines,2003
9. SLO Subdivision Regulations, 1985, 1993,2006
10. SLO Archaeological Resources Preservation Guidelines, 1995
11. Farland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency
12. Biological Assessment for Kine Vesting Tentative Tract May No 2428 APN•076-331-015 City of San Luis
Obi o San Luis Obispo Coun California,Althouse&Meade,Inc.,July,2005
13. Wetland Declination for King Vesting Tract May No 2428 APN•076-331-015 City of San Luis Obispo San
Luis Obispo Cognty California,Althouse&Meade,Inc.,July,2005.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
CADOCUMENTS AND SETTLNGS\SLOUSER\LocAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET Fn.Es`OLK20\FWAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-I-07.Doc
1_12-/
� i Attachment 6
_ -
issues, Discussion and Supporting.. ormation Sources Sources Poten.--_' Potentially _ Less Than No
Significant Significant 3iicantlraot'
Issues Unless impact
ER#98-06
Mitigation
Incorporated
14. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment APN:053-022-016 San Luis Obispo,California.Proiect No. SL04955-1,
GeoSolutions,Inc.,June 27,2005.
15. Affordable:Housing Proiect:Margarita Annexation and Specific Plan Area,San Luis Obispo,California,Dave
Watson,AICP,June,2005
16. Addendum and Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area,San Luis Obispo
County,TEC Civil Engineering Consultants,October,2005 and August 22,2006 update letter to Rob Livick,P.E.
Cily of San Luis Obisgo from Mike Britton P.E.TEC Civil En 'neerin Consultants.
17. Soils Engineering Report,Tract 2428 Margarita Avenue Area,APN:076-331-015,San Luis Obispo,California.
Project.SL02258-1,GeoSolutions,Inc.,June 11,2005.
18. An ArchaeologicalSurveyfor the Margarita Area Specific Plan,Western Enclave.Area,San Luis Obispo,San
Luis Obis o Coun California,Heritage Discoveries,Inc.,May 31,2005
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.2428(City File No.TR 98-06)
Attachment 3: Letter from TEC,Civil Engineering Consultants,August 22,2006 regarding update to: Addendum and
Update to Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report for the Margarita Area,San.Luis Obispo County,
TEC,Civil Engineering Consultants,October 20,2005(Technical Appendices available for inspection at
City Hall, Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA)
Other source documents listed above which are not included as attachments are available upon request from or may be viewed
at City Hall,Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA,93401
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
1. Reduction of Light and Glare
In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to be carried through to lot-
specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with Community Design Section 3.3
Lighting requirements of the MASP shall be submitted with other required plans for the project for the review and
approval by the Architectural Review Commission(ARC). The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit
the amount of light trespass associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional
lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent property lines.
• Monitoring Program:
The ARC will review development plans for the project. City staff, including Planning and other departments, will
review plans to assure that all the ARC's requirements related to lighting and compliant with the MASP provisions
have been incorporated into working drawings. City building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all
lighting is installed and maintained pursuant to the approved lighting plan..
2. Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program„
Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a combination of on- and off-site
mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps. Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, the
adjacent approved VTM #2342 (Cowan) provides a lot in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space-
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:\D000MENTS AND SETTINGS\SL0USER\1_0CAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET F[LEs\OLK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
/—/.2
AffacP g
Issues, Discussion and Supporting . I&ITIation Sources sources Potence;- Potentially' Less Than No
Significant signifirtanf:- SigLiifieAnt;
IFFZER#98-06 Issues Unless . -Impact,,.
Mitigation
in orated
Riparian"for the express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area, as well
as preservation of related biological habitat benefits.
Mitigation for Impacts to Creek Habitats. Mitigation for impacts creek habitats will be through a combination of on-
and off-site mitigation,approved by the City,the DFG and the Corps.
Mitigation for Impacts to Serpentine Bunchgrass Habitat. A mitigation program involving restoration of serpentine
bunchgaass habitat at an identified area in the so-called "saddle" in the King property's open space parcel, shall be
required. This area occupies between one-half and three-quarters of an acre. The program would at a minimum,
replace the existing non-native grassland in that area with a grassland containing a majority of native bunchgrass
species including purple needlegrass, meadow barley, and California brome. In addition, a program for additional
protection for the open space lands of the project will be developed. The goal of this program will be to provide
protection for remaining areas of serpentine bunchgrass habitat and species within that habitat in the South Hills open
space parcel (Lot 178) through mechanisms such as fencing, trail realignments, and drainage improvements on the
access road to the communication site on neighboring property. Finally, the project sponsors propose to donate fee
title to the open space Lot 178 to the City of San Luis Obispo as permanent open space as part of the project.
Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be difficult to establish.City staff
will work with the project sponsors in developing the details of the effort. Mitigation for impacts to five plant species
of concern shall be required as follows:
Palmer Spineflower. None required.
Brewer Spineflower. None required.
Obispo Indian Paintbrush. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site.
Miles Milkvetch. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot enhancement site.
Obispo dudleya. Due to the very small number of impacted individuals and the ease of transplanting, transplant
these individuals to suitable sites within the project open space.
Obispo Mariposi Lily. None required.
Adobe Sanicle. Relocate some individuals to a suitable site within the project open space;consider transplanting the
balance to a suitable site in Laguna Lake Park or other suitable off-site location approved by the City,or consider lot
adjustments to protect the major portion near lots 121, 122, and adjacent multifamily lot. On Sept. 5, 2006, the SLO
City Council authorized as mitigation discussed herein, the use of several areas within Laguna Lake Park for
relocation of adobe sanicle occasioned by the proposed revised VTM#2428 residential development proposal within
the Margarita Area Specific Plan. In its action, the Council found that Laguna Lake Park offers the best site for
relocation of the adobe sanicle because Laguna Lake Park has a fairly large area of habitat suitable for the adobe
sancle. Further, the adobe sanicle already occurs there naturally.
Congdon Tarplant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved by the City. On Sept. 5,
2006, the SLA City Council authorized, as mitigation discussed herein, the use of several areas within Laguna Lake
Park for relocation of Congdon tarplant occasioned by the proposed revised VTM#2428 residential development
proposal within the Margarita Area Specific Plan. In its action, the Council found that Laguna Lake Park offers the
best site for relocation of the Congdon tarplant because the City has already successfully conducted mitigation
efforts at Laguna Lake Park for the Congdon tarplant. Further, the Congdon tarplant already occurs there naturally.
Loggerhead Shrike. Remove myoporum tree before nesting season.
-Note: See discussion above under checklist Discussion Item No. 4. "Biological Resources"for information related
to partial completion of this mitigation measure regarding the adobe sanicle and Congdon tarplant.
Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of construction activities;avoid
construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites until after young have fledged.
Off Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation program is the
applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands outside the bounds of the Western
Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:\DOCLI.MENTS AND SETTINGS\SLOUSER\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\0LK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TG CITY 5-1-07.DOC
Atta!; jment g
I
Issues, Discussion and Supporting ormation Sources Sources Potent.�y PotcntigD lxss_Than No
Significant Signific==ant-
-Ail, 'S ca}it'' `' ach ` -'
ER#98-06 Issues Unless Impact*`
Mitigation
Inco orated
Road and owned by Unocal)is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable
habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and thus is beneficial to
retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they
currently deficient collection/distribution system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western
Enclave applicants propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and utilize it
beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-Western Enclave development
generated run-off. Itis proposed that this basin be enhanced to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-
project run-off flows, and to increase its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and
maintained by a Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave area, and
perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
• Monitoring Program:
Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the City Natural Resource Manager for review and
approval of the final lot and street design to assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the
greatest extent required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and MASP/AASP
EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent to this Tentative Map from State Dept.
of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to any site preparation or construction activities,the applicant
shall also initiate and complete for approval by the City pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and adhere to
performance standard specified in the mitigation.Provisions for required off-site mitigation shall be coordinated with
and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to recordation of the Final Map.Periodic field inspections
by City Staff during construction will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and
conditions of approval.
3. Preparation and Implementation of a"Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management
Plan"
As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are known, siteldevelopment-
specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before
construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of
materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also
outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil
and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If
the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project
proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states:
"The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each
proposed public facility(e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site
assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or
adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed.
The following Phase II environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil
andlor groundwater contamination.
a. Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include
soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil
contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department
(SLOFD)will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove
contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved.
Cmr OF SAN Luis Ostspo 32 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
C:\DocumE'TS AND SETTLNGS\SLOUSERU.00AL SETnNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET RLFS\0LK20\FINAL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.Doc
/-`.2y
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting-.,..or kation Sources Sources Potent..,. Potentially LessThw No
Significant Significant"' 'SignificantA1_Impact
Issues Unless' `6np5M"` • • –
ER#9&06 -
N itigation
Ino orated
b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase 11 assessment
may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated
contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is
expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be
notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in
agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB.
• Monitoring Program:
The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan" will be required to be submitted to the City
Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation
or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before
said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be
subject to"Stop Work"(cease and desist)orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire Department.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 33 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ER 98-06(VTTM#2428-King)
000CUMENTS AND SETTINGS�SLOUSERVLOCAL SErnNGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES%0LK20\FIN.AL INITIAL STUDY TO CITY 5-1-07.DOC
/-11Z—r
I
!I.
AtiarcJ!vpnt u s
r�d h1M
�� .Y.Y.Y.^`.S.i.:"S'FGC.HnL•uv. �!.:rS_-..�-� V
GOS-40
1P
d' O
., o,_ ro Pk,r• �.i o
_P
�� 3r •_ cQ �-d' 3 - a fl -'
-
� .ws�w, ,$a°n o;�^�Mal�-R o'd[•,�o`� �;r��� yS�,
e>eC" 44 �tT� gd�� F`bn 4�Pyel.�r �'
o we
< o a d•'. ee d _ ye � s-y„ - y_,"fie o g ��,;,w , `b
• �o .'.�y+,� c^ a "o" ,alba
y a P 3 yr 0 0
e"}�VP yA
s •,a py ; .p �" >fS,�t' give
b
h8� �<w�'- - o �•L t tlw '�'r ge s�a°. tw F° g e'&d���, O`t e�. B° 5, .p
m e .
e
:9°..� e
1 � g tl SOT' sn5 k�a aC dGary� � �"e
B-
ALL N R-2-SP R-3-SF
a
S
1 R-1
1 S R-3-SP
414RITq 0
RS-SP
R R-1-SP
R-1
AZ
R-1 SP R-1-SP -1-S R-2-SF
R-2 C/ S SP O-SP R-2-SP
O-SP
Oo
3000 caa ME
WE
Attachment J
�I
$ a .... Im
Owo a
g `elWi
f
s .
' ,,, �--/ ! /✓ / 111 f /�� J///, //
;
On)
'/�, _�✓'f/{"�!,
111 v �-�-'"��-_�✓i^''�• i O / A
/ ��Ifl' /7" �%ram / J ,�/./. if /• !, io//.
o l`ad�y���✓/�a 5 •J'� -Pl�/'� / / '� T /, 4r '',�JI •
r
'✓//r k / s/vii i �� J^ ?� V'• Y �/�/,;�(
71
��. '��// r/✓./� '!'�/�/ I - rte-- _ v/ ? ./ /
{� I`u � � /� �i�/'!✓/' + I .�', � .�/ �4 ��� i/ � •v A%'mac% .
'•,� .rte ---� V� r„, �/' /g'/ �''� � �, ��, /� /�, -
0 .
e �
IBYI ILII 1 .•/� / U, i ``, // if��-` I i;l I It }p
_
/i,
- {',��, ;rllllfi ;'i�' IIl111 ' ,' I. �' '-; ;/ Ivi •.$I;
• % I/1 % l� I I: /)°. r / iv ,(•,'.. � L'.� ,
/ 11
(
r ll�
:JIppt f°/tai/"l ' ij�/�%' Iv, !
,-•-=- 1 r /i/ p_/v✓d ///i l� / � 1 (y JL4 �'
I �1 ;
e' r
CIVIL Water Rights/Water-ResourGes'
ENGINEERING Land Use Planning
CONSULTANTS Surveying
August 99, 2006
Rob Livick, P.E.
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Mr. Livick:
TEC Civil Engineering Consultants has analyzed the changes in the quantity of runoff due to the
densification of Tract 2428 and how it will affect the proposed conveyance and detention facilities.
In its undeveloped state the peak flow from the King Parcel is 271 cfs. The predicted runoff for a
100-year storm for the original development plan is approximately 301 cfs and 315 ds for newly
proposed development plan. These results are summarized in Table 1, and a map showing the
tributary areas is shown in Figure 1.
The original development plan would require a retention basin capable of storing 203,656 ft3.
Under the newly proposed qosed development plan the basin requirements would be 238,207 fe, an
increase of 34,551 ft . These results are summarized in Tables 3—4. All volumes were
calculated as the difference between inflow and outflow hydrographs. Table 5 shows a
comparison of required storage volumes for the original and newly proposed development plans.
The existing storm drain for-Tract 400 is shown in Figure 2, and the analysis is shown in Table 2.
In order to handle the increased flows from the densified development plan, Pipe A would have to
be replaced with a 48"pipe., All of the other improvements proposed in the original development
plan will adequately handle the increased flows from the newly proposed plan.
Regards,
�OQFtOFN.
Michael N. Britton, P.E.
0
LU
C66
EXP.
clvl\.
4115 South Broad Street B-1,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 • PH (805)481-1964- FX(805)481-9146
t
I �
4 ,J
.,F a. t �� y ✓ s,�#•
pq
„� 'I
1 11
+r b� k Ji Iv'/D w .rJli lli�v
r� 1 rJ' l Sr /4lt�iNth Ili .)iiii��y,y� �Aw�
x/ ^H_I ) 'IFl J �^>t I�•r i 4 _ ..'iyF.tf vl T t L
owns ■ ■ '�
�
111 +'� ■>✓'a {a 1F : � yV{f� �� b'r' -�'I�;r i�+I '^ ?�+ 1� r� it
l,/ ��t.IMC 71� t iJ`fl trt li`r 4'rs a�J n
e s �K x 1Y ,tiM p T:�(' � yy
1'
Sleg '/21Y77Ii,
Fp Rilr et .t !{' I a r it�
�• i {K-(x91 J�'.!L�'v4��fW'}<r ,y {:rye tk.+.d i i I!< � � � .,,,+t�}c'? ,�{�"
(l v r—aus- ^-�-sr•1' ie xi 1-]tTaxt dF K "t ix�'`� -•• li. � `F
` �'V�N ar 7^''a+W..aJ'9I+i�+'�y^�Jcs�� '1s..a� k '.4'^' `f♦p_k^'€'s "'��F � 1 ,`
� �+f .li ,yrl <`y? ..spy'�l x 1 �� .Y .r a s,��1.`�'��1� � �-,� ■ � �:��
� .s J;''l�pfi� a'^'¢"•{A1 1"..�',�`�✓� f a�.:i� x r � "`r fila '?� ItAr.
'� ��� d11 1, � �'' ��� 'A"6'n`�v���f:.'. V+I-'+i'a"�t,.r,:�'y • �
Attachment 6
" � IN ERI G=••:.. -•.-�-<a:`accu:0
CONSULTANTS
King—Tract 2428
145.10 INV
139.00 INV p. / 4 OO --
.INy
Pipe A --- — --- Pipe B
i V.
A II GALLE I :LUPITA J .
— Pipe C
rl -ear
War
rME TR 400'
1 rm; '990.9a INY
.. _ a,
! I I
' a2 ca wv
— —
s
DeBlauw—Tract 2353
I?010 WY
Pipe D
MargaFL
rita
yer.II' 139:!0 OIV V '.r ME
1 119.41 INV �� ' New
,•
Pipe F I � I + ! .� ".•�.: Pipe E
ArZi
--_ -- 1
`_.PAM I
o 90 Wv Pipe E
Cowan —Tract 2342
Figure 2. Existing Stone Drain System of Tract 400
Attachr-nent 6
Storm Pre-0 (cfs) Post-Q(cfs) AQ(cfs) Post-Q (cfs) AQ(cfs) Increase in
Event Original Proposed Q (cfs)
2-year 34.47 46.93 12.46 53.21 18.74 6.28
10-year 78.81 100.80 21.99 108.34 29.53 7.54
25-year 114.42 131.79 17.37 139.54 25.12 7.75
50-year 135.82 153.60 17.78 161.39 25.57 7.79
100-year 157.42 175.44 18.02 183.21 25.79 7.77
..... .... ..
Storm Pre-0 (cfs) Post-0 (cfs) AQ(cfs) Post-Q (cfs) AQ(cfs) Increase in
Event Original Proposed Q (cfs)
2-year 11.11 15.05 3.94 16.85 5.74 1.80
10-year 22.89 32.18 9.29 34.17 1128 1.99
25-year 36.57 42.01 5.44 43.96 7.39 1.95
50-year 43.37 48.93 5.56 50.81 7.44 1.88
100-year 50.22 55.86 5.64 57.65 7.43 1.79
Storm Pre-0 (cfs) Post-0(cfs) LAQ(cfs) Post-Q (cfs) AQ(cfs) Increase in
Event Original Proposed Q (cfs)
2-par 11.66 14.72 3.06 17.77 6.11 3.05
10-year 28.39 32.44 4.05 36.04 7.65 3.60
25-year 38.40 42.71 4.31 46.37 7.97 3.66
50-year 45.53 49.96 4.43 53.6 8.07 3.64
100-year 52.73 57.23 4.50 60.81 8.08 3.58
----------- ---------- ....
Storm Pre-0 (cfs) Post-0 (cfs) AQ(cfs) Post-Q (cfs) �Q(cfs) Increase in
Event Original Proposed Q (CIS)
2-year 2.54 3.20 0.66 3.93 1.39 0.73
10-year 6.18 7.06 0.88 7.96 1.78 0.90
25-year 8.36 9.30 0.94 10.24 1.88 0.94
50-year 9.91 10.88 0.97 11.84 1.93 0.96
100-year 11.48 12.46 0.98 13.43 1.95 0.97
R
Storm Pre-0 (cfs) Post-0(cfs) AQ(cfs) Post-Q (cfs) -/M(cfs) increase in
Event Original Proposed a (cfs)
2-year 59.78 79.9 20.12 91.76 31.98 11.86
10-year 136.27 172.48 36.21 186.51 50.24 14.03
25-year 197.75 225.81 28.06 240.11 42.36 14.3
50-year 234.63 263.37 28.74 277.64 43.01 14.27
100-year 271.85 300.199 29.14 315.10 43.25 14.11
Table 1. Pre-and Post-developed flows for original development plan and
densified development plan.
1-131
----- ----- --
, Attachm ,ent 6
L
_ Tract 400.Existing Storm Drain S em
Size Slope µ Tributary Flow Rate Depth Percent Full Capacity
(in) Area (cfs) of Flow in Full (cfs)
Pipe A 36 2.39% Al 78.81 21.07 58.53% 89.36
Pie B 30 2.36% A2 .22.89 13.54 45.13% 54.61
Pi e C 30 1.59% A3+A4 .29.27 17.74 59.13% 44.82
Pipe D 42 2.29% 1 Pie B+ Pi e C 52.16 18.19 43-31% 133.95
_EtLE E 42 _0.30%1 Pipe D+A8a 1 66.9 1 Pipe Undersized 47.75
Pipe F 42 0.40% Pipe A+AM+Al2 1 104.52 1 Pipe Undersized 55.14
Size Slope Tributary Flow Rate Depth Percent Full Capacity
(in) Area (cfs) of Flow(in) Full (cfs).
Pipe A 1 36 12.39% Al 100.80 24.97 69.36% 89.36
Pipe B 36 2.36% A2+A3 64.62 22.78 6328% 88.80
Pipe C 30 1.59% A4 7.06 8.07 26.90% 44.82
Pipe D 42 2.29% Pipe B+ Pipe C 71.68 22.06 52.52% 133.95
Pipe E 42 0.30% Pipe D+AM 1 89.42. Pipe Diverted 47.75
Pi e F 48 1.50% Pi e_A+A8b+Al2 1 126.51 1 33.37 1 69.52% 152.47
Tributary Flow Rate Depth Percent Full Capacity
Size Slope
(in) Area (cfs) of Flow (in) Full (cfs)
Pipe A 48 12.39% Al 108.34 25.76 53.67% 192.45
Pipe B 36 12.36% A2+A3 70.21 24.04 66.78% 89.36
_EtLL C 30- 1.59% A4 7.96 8.56 28.53% 44.82
Pipe D 42 2.29% 1 Pie B+ Pi e-C 78.17 23.26 55.38% 133.95
Pipe E 42 0.30% .Pipe D+A8a 1 95.91 1 Pipe Diverted 47.75
Pipe F 48 1.50%1 Pipe A+Aft+Al2 1 134.05 1 34.92 r 72.75% 152.47
Table 2. Pre-and Post-Developed Evaluation of Tract 400 Storm Drain System
for a 10-YearStorm.
}t � � Attachment 6
r
ftWMWMW9N 711
W.
:. OW401
Qz 259.11 . 323.63 64.52 174,782 252-
Q10 570.10 634.44 64.34 203,656 569
L±754.83 813.02 58.19 184,091 753
886.05 938.37 52.32 180,001 885
018.17 1063.73 45.56 180,932 1011
Table 3. Pre-and Post-Developed Flows and Storage Requirements for the
Entire Margarita-Area Original Development Plan.
Pry- ' .e 1. r • a.� -`„� `"'tapeY�' .
02 259.11 332.91 73.8 172,213 256
Qio 570.10 647.58 77.48 207,186 567
Q2Z5 754.83 826.36 71.53 238,2_07 745
050 886.05 951.66 65.61 189,557 870
Qtoo 1018.17 1076.86 58.69 207,457 1014
Table 4. Pre-and Post-Developed Flows and Storage Requirements for the
Entire Margarita Area New Proposed Density Development Plan.
*Differences calculated by subtracting the pre-developed flow from the post-developed flow for
each stone event(i.e. 10-year post-developed flow- 10-year pre-developed flow
"Required storage calculated as the area between the inflow and outflow basin hydrro7graphs
lr 311;4
Q2 174,782 175,986 1,204
Q10 203,656 207,186 3,530
025 184,091 238,207 54,116
Q50 180,001 189,557 9,556
Q100 180,932 207,457 26,525
-`max 203,656 238,207 34,551
Table 5. Comparison of Post-Developed Storage Requirements for the Entire
Margarita Area for the Original and Newly Proposed Density
Development Plans.
Attachment 7 9
ORDINANCE NO. XXX (2007 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-2-SP and C/OS-
SP TO R-2-SP-PD AND C/OS-SP-PD, ON APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES AT 3000
CALLE MALVA, MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
(PD 98-06; KING VENTURES)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2007, and
recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amendment to the site's
Zoning as shown on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearing on July 3, 2007 and has considered
testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action,
and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the
General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration
of environmental impact; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the applicable Margarita Area Specific
Plan, and the proposed land uses are allowed within the applicable primary zoning districts,
both existing and proposed. The project provides exclusively residential and open space land
uses on the subject site as required by the General Plan, MASP, and applicable zoning
districts, accommodating the prescribed residential density ranges for Low, Medium and
Medium-High Density land use designations, along with a pro-rata share of Affordable
Housing required for the Western Enclave area of the MASP, and preservation of open space
as prescribed by the MASP.
2. The project complies with all applicable provisions of these Zoning Regulations including
those modifications as authorized herein by utilization of the PD Overlay rezoning.
3. The approved modifications to the development standards of Zoning Regulations through the
PD Overlay 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, because doing so enables concentrating more units within the central
portion of the site to achieve higher densities prescribed by the MASP while maintaining larger
lots and maximum setbacks in perimeter lots for privacy protection to adjacent developed areas
Attachment 7
Ordinance No. (2007 Series) ° +"
Page 2 ��.x,..u�.z•:+...�..--..,:,.,,<<.....>.���,..
and allowing the open space lots to be centered on the alignment of the three drainage ways in
their natural state without relocation.
4. As conditioned, the project complies with all the applicable City Design Guidelines. Further,
the PD rezoning areas includes detached and attached single family construction that follows
the MASP Design Guidelines, including use of shared driveways, Craftsman architecture
utilizing wood and stucco exteriors, one and two-story buildings, front and back porches, side
and rear-loaded garages facing away from public streets, and common landscaping designs.
5. As conditioned all affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the
proposed project, particularly as relates to other already approved subdivisions within the
Western Enclave of the MASP, for which the utility, services and infrastructure needs were
designed comprehensively and in coordinated manner.
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 and Margarita Area Specific Plan
because the subdivision design is respectful of adjoining, established neighborhoods by
placing fewer and larger lots next to these developments and accommodating the minimum
required rear yards prescribed in the MASP. Grade elevations have also been modified by the
revised subdivision design so that new buildings do not "tower" over established
neighborhoods.
7. The site is suitable 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, since the
sloping constraints of the site have been designed predominantly as a single- family,
detached-style development. Access streets to the subdivision and connections to adjacent
existing and approved development are entirely consistent with the MASP Circulation
Element requirements and prior EIR conclusions with respect to location and capacity,
including provisions for construction of the Prado Road extension to Broad Street.
8. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project, as conditioned, 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 because, once completed, the project will be a logical and appropriate expansion of the
desired design and character of the residential neighborhoods of the community as prescribed
by the General Plan and MASP.
9. The project incorporates a minimum of two of four mandatory features to qualify for PD
Overlay Zoning as follows:
��3s
p:
Ordinance No. (2007 Series) Attachment 7
Page 3
a. The project will preserve, enhance, and/or create a significant natural feature with a
minimum area of one-half acre. The project proposes the creation of 6 lots that will
encompass a total of 73 acres (about 73% of the total site) for open space use pursuant to
the requirements of the MASP. A donation of one such lot, Lot 178, comprising 71 acres
along the south face of the South Hills, has already been offered to and accepted by the
City as a conservation easement and ultimately, fee title. This lot will be preserved as a
permanent open space, the use of which will be enhanced through maintenance of
wildland fire green-breaks, controlled public access and connection to other linear open
space lots, centered on the site's three existing drainage ways, via a system of trails/paths
connecting to and through adjacent existing and approved subdivisions consistent with
requirements of the MASP.
b. 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. The project includes
development of trails, public streets, public parking, habitat enhancement and open
space/wildland fuel management as a part of the construction and on-going operation of
the residential/planned development project. Public benefits will accrue from the
project's preservation of natural creek channels largely in their natural form and location,
and a carefully integrated parallel storm water runoff collection system (serving the entire
Western Enclave development), and introduction of paths and trails to allow public
access to these areas, while also accommodating the public benefit of access to and
management of these waterways by the proposed Homeowners' Association for the tract.
and Western Enclave.
SECTION 2. The Zoning Map Amendment is hereby approved and thecentral
approximately 11 acres of the property rezoned to Planned Development (R-2-SP-PD and C/OS-
SP-PD) as shown on the attached Exhibit A subject to the following conditions and conditions of
approval as set forth in Resolution No. XXX(2007 series) approving related VTM No. 2428.
1. Minimum lot widths in the R-2-PD zone shall be 35 feet.
2. Public street side yard setbacks shall be no less than 10 feet to the residence from edge of
right-of-way and no less than 20 feet to the garage that has access to the public street.
3. Street-side setbacks on private streets shall be no less than 5 feet to the residence and no
less than 20 feet to the garage from centerline of the private street for lots 117 through 137;
for all other lots, no less than 15 feet from garages to the centerline of the private street and
no less than 5 feet for all other non-street fronting side and rear yard setbacks.
4. Except for driveways in front of garages or where guest parking is provided, all yard
setback areas shall be landscaped.
/36
Attachment 7
Ordinance No. (2007 Series)
Page 4
5. Lot coverage by structures shall be no more than 75% of total net lot areas, excluding
garages and carports, patios, decks and roof overhangs.
6. Upper floor setbacks from property lines need not be more than as required for the ground
floor portion of the structure.
7. All patio areas exterior to the residence may not exceed an aggregate total area of 500
square feet.
8. No exterior patio fence/wall heights may exceed a maximum height of 42 inches (3-1/2
feet).
9. Driveway depths for garages facing private streets shall be designed to accommodate a
parking space in front of a garage that prevents the parked vehicle from encroaching into the
travel lane of the common area portion of the drive or street. Variations of design to meet
this performance standard will be subject to approval of the Community Development
Director and final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the ARC.
10. In no event will a floor plan for a lot be allowed that provides more bedrooms than allowed
by the MASP for the size of the lot.
11. Development within the central Planned Development overlay area shall be developed
consistent with plans dated January 2007 on file at the City Community Development
Department, except as otherwise required by mitigations and conditions set forth herein and
by Conditions of Approval required in Resolution No. XXX approving the Vesting
Tentative Map No. 2428.
SECTION 3 A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five(5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of the thirty (30) days after its final passage or upon final approval of the
annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission, whichever occurs later.
INTRODUCED on the _ day of 2007, AND FINALLY ADOPTED
by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of
1 2001, on a motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Ordinance No. (2007 Series)
Page 5 Attachment 7
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ci*LAtro'mey Jonathan P. Lowell
G:/CD-PL-AN/Ddavidson/Council/CCOrdKingVenmres7-3-07
Existing - . .
. • -
' R- SPD and _
C/OS SP-PD' '
r
. s
Proposed � - .
i
Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX 2007 Series
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVING VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2428 (MODIFIED) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3000 CALLE MALVA
(TR, PD, and ER 98-06)
WHEREAS, the City Council of San Luis Obispo on May 15, 2007, by Resolution No.
9897, accepted a conservation easement, and ultimately fee title, to the 71-acre open space lot
(Lot 178) donated to the City of San Luis Obispo by the project applicants, John E. and Carole
D. King, as an integral part of their project; and
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 May 23, 2007, and recommended, by Resolution No. 5481-07, approval of
Application TR/PD/ER 98-06, a request to change the zoning district on the central
approximately 1 I acres of the site from R-2-SP and C/OS-SP to R-2-SP-PD and C/OS-SP-PD,
and subdivide a 99-acre site into 178 lots; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo; California, on July 3,
2007, for the purpose of considering Applications TR, PD and ER 98-06; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the
recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation
and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings in support of approving the proposed project:
Subdivision Map Findings
1. As conditioned, the design of the vesting tentative tract map is consistent with the General
Plan because the proposed project respects existing site constraints (slope, creeks,
wetlands, significant trees), will incrementally add to the City's needed residential housing
inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards, and will be consistent with the
density and lot sizes established by the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
i-IY6
I Attachment 8
Resolution No. XXX (2007-�ieries)
Page 2
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-I-SP,
R-2-SP, R-3-SP, and the requested R-2-SP-PD residential areas as well as the C-OS-SP, C-
OS-40-SP, and requested C-OS-SP-PD open space zones because the site contains slopes
that are less than 30% in the areas to be developed, has suitable and appropriate access via
existing and planned streets consistent with the MASP, and preserves and provides for
long-term maintenance of areas of important or sensitive habitats via lots designated for
open space.
3. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property within, the
proposed subdivision because all such easements have been accommodated by the
proposed design of the subdivision and location of improvements..
4. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public
health problems because the type of improvements are residential and development is a
similar scale to existing development already adjoining the site to the south and west and
approved development adjacent to the south of the site. Additionally, new construction
will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes.
5. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitats subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004 together with the mitigation
monitoring program adopted with said EIR approval, because all said applicable mitigation
measures and monitoring program are incorporated into the project as recommended
below.
6. The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by the Community Development Department
on May 1, 2007 adequately identifies and evaluates the potential impacts associated with
this project and where impacts are potentially significant, mitigation measures are provided
to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The Planning Commission finds and
determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the
potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, as modified,
determining there is no substantial evidence of new or further significant impacts not
already identified either in the prior certified Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
Margarita Specific Plan or in the subsequent Initial Study prepared for this site specific
project.
7. The offer of donation of a conservation easement and ultimately, fee title, to the 71-acre
open space lot proposed in the subdivision map is consistent also with the General Plan of
the City of San Luis Obispo.
Creek Setback Exception Findings
8. The location and design of the exceptions proposed respecting pedestrian trails within and
crossings over the creek corridors will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality,
and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement,
because the location and design of the trails and creek crossings will be constructed outside
of the established floodway and will not impede flood waters or planned storm water
-/y/
Resolution No. XXX(2007 Series) -� ;' Attachment 8
Page 3
management improvements and maintenance required for the tract. Further these features
provide for desired passive use and enjoyment of the creek corridors as a tract amenity, and
established access ways provide for management and monitoring of the natural and
enhanced habitat in the area of the corridors, and facilitate movement of localized habitat of
the site and general area.
9. The exceptions proposed herein will not limit the city's design options for providing flood
control measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies, as no adverse
environmental impacts have been identified as a result of the placement and design of the
proposed trails and crossings. Furthermore, the retention of the creeks in their natural
location, together with the parallel storm water runoff collection system, will ameliorate
historical flooding occurrences at the existing Prado Road culvert..
10. The exceptions proposed herein will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans,
nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans. No adverse
environmental impacts have been identified as a result of the placement and design of the
proposed trails and crossings. Special construction techniques will be used to minimize the
potential for urban runoff to alter the flow regime in the creeks, thus protecting them from
"flash" flows and urban pollutants.
11. The exceptions proposed herein will not be a grant of special privilege because the
proposed trail networks are consistent with requirements of the adopted MASP to
accommodate special site features not occurring on other lands of similar zoning in the
vicinity and will be augmented with devotion of additional private lands to increase the
functional width of the overall natural corridors to benefit multiple purposes of preserving
natural habitat, enhancing the aesthetic and passive recreation quality of the subdivision
and facilitating maintenance of natural drainage flows and pattern. Further the channels (3
in all) separate development areas of the site from one another, the interconnections and
creek crossings provide access between all units of the PD neighborhood, as well as options
to connect into the perimeter pedestrian and bike systems planned for this subdivision and
the overall Western Enclave and Margarita Area Specific Plan.. Because the channels run
at odd angles and traverse the site diagonally, this produces remnant areas that are
inefficient and would reduce overall densities if the efficiency of the encroachments were
not permitted. Rather than relocate the channels as permitted by the MASP, the creek
corridors will be maintained in their present configuration, preserving, therefore in a
largely undisturbed manner, the established habitat values and runoff patterns while
seeking modest exceptions to regain efficiencies in land planning and overall project
design.
12. The exceptions proposed herein will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property in the area of the project or downstream, because the collection and flow of
flood waters will not be impeded, nor will the trails and crossings impede the planned
improvements to the tract storm drainage system.
13. Site development cannot be accomplished with a materially different redesign of the
project because redesign of the project to accommodate trails outside the corridors, while
possible, would be at the expense of achieving densities desired by the MASP and
ultimately would compromise the"affordability by design" objectives of that Plan.
Resolution No. XXX (2007 6eries) _
Page 4AttaChMent 8 l;
14. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property in
that the minimum density threshold of the MASP for the subject site calls for no less than
149 units (not including affordable housing requirements.) A potential redesign could
affect at least 37 lots/units, and potentially more as the changes could"domino"throughout
the tract. This would potentially impact a finding of consistency with density required for
the project by the MASP, compromising the ability to develop the property as planned.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the
project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the
following mitigation measures and monitoring programs into the project:
Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitorin and nd Reporting Program:
Reduction of Light and Glare
1. In order for MASP/AASP EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 as implemented by the MASP to
be carried through to lot-specific development stage, a lighting plan that demonstrates
compliance with Community Design Section 3.3 Lighting requirements of the MASP shall
be submitted with other required plans for both the residential and commercial components
of the project to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
The lighting plan shall propose specific measures to limit the amount of light trespass
associated with development within the project area including shielding and/or directional
lighting methods to ensure that spillover light does not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at adjacent
property lines.
Monitoring Program: The ARC will review development plans for both the residential and
commercial components of the project. City staff, including Planning and other departments,
will review plans to assure that all of the ARC's requirements related to lighting and
compliant with the MASP provisions have been incorporated into working drawings. City
building inspectors will be responsible for assuring that all lighting is installed pursuant to
the approved lighting plan.
Preparation and Implementation of"Comprehensive Biological Mitigation Program"
2. Mitigation for wetland impacts. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be through a
combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the Corps.
Further, in compliance with the MASP/AASP EIR, VTM #2342 (Cowan) proposes the
creation of Lot Z in an area designated by the MASP for "Open Space-Riparian" for the
express purposes of achieving some of the necessary wetlands replacement mitigation area,
as well as preservation of related biological habitat benefits.
3. Mitigation for Impacts to Creek Habitats Mitigation for impacts to creek habitats will be
through a combination of on- and off-site mitigation, approved by the City, the DFG and the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Resolution No. XXX (2007 Series) _ Attachment 8
Page 5
the King propertys open space parcel, shall be required. This area occupies between one-
half and three-quarters of an acre. The program would at a minimum, replace the existing
non-native grassland in that area with a grassland containing a majority of native bunchgrass
species including purple needlegrass, meadow barley, and California brome. In addition, a
program for additional protection for the open space lands of the project will be developed.
The goal of this program will be to provide protection for remaining areas of serpentine
bunchgrass habitat and species within that habitat in the South Hills open space parcel
through mechanisms such as fencing, trail realignments, and drainage improvements on the
access road to the communication site on neighboring property. Finally, the project
sponsors propose to donate fee title to the open space lot 178 to the City of San Luis Obispo
as permanent open space as part of the project.
5. Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Species. None of these species are expected to be
difficult to establish. City staff will work with the project sponsors in developing the details
of the effort. Mitigation for impacts to five plant species of concern shall be required as
follows:
Palmer Spineflower. None required.
Brewer Spineflower. None required.
Obispo Indian Paintbrush. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot
enhancement site.
Miles Milkvetch. Collect seed or seed/soil mix for relocation to open space lot
enhancement site.
Obispo Dudleya. Due to the very small number of impacted individuals and the ease of
transplanting, transplant these individuals to suitable sites within the project open
space.
Obispo Mariposa lily. None required.
Adobe Sanicle. Relocate some individuals to a suitable site within the project open
space; consider transplanting the balance to a suitable site in Laguna Lake Park or other
suitable off-site location approved by the City, or consider lot adjustments to protect the
major portion near lots 82, and adjacent multifamily lot. On Sept. 5, 2006, the SLO
City council authorized, as mitigation discussed herein, the use of several areas within
Laguna Lake Park for relocation of adobe sanicle occasioned by the proposed revised
VTM #2428 residential development proposal within the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
In its action, the Council found that Laguna Lake Park offers the best habitat suitable
for the adobe sanicle. Further, the adobe sanicle already occurs there naturally.
Congdon TaMlant. Create compensating habitat in a suitable off-site location approved
by the City. On Sept. 5, 2006, the SLO City council authorized, as mitigation discussed
herein, the use of several areas within Laguna Lake Park for relocation of Congdon
tarplant occasioned by the proposed revised VTM #2428 residential development
proposal within the Margarita Area Specific Plan. In its action, the Council found that
Laguna Lake Park offers the best habitat suitable for the Congdon tarplant. Further, the
Congdon tarplant already occurs there naturally.
Loggerhead Shrike. Remove myoporum tree before nesting season.
6. Mitigation for Impacts to Other Nesting Birds. Undertake surveys prior to initiation of
construction activities; avoid construction activities within 100 feet of active nest sites, or
300 feet from raptor nests, until after young have fledged.
-/yy
IQ-
Resolution No. XXX (2007 Series) Attachment 8
Page 6
7. Qff Site Mitigation for Wetland Impacts. A further component of the biological mitigation
program is the applicant's proposal to acquire (by fee, easement, or eminent domain) lands
outside the bounds of the Western Enclave (designated by the MASP as "Open Space-
Riparian" lands). The targeted property (lying south of Prado Road and owned by Unocal)
is a low lying area that already naturally collects some area run-off and provides valuable
habitat for certain special concern and R-T-E (rare, threatened, and endangered) species, and
thus is beneficial to retain in its natural state. Pre-development run-off has resulted in
seasonal flooding of Prado Road due to they currently deficient collection/distribution
system to this natural drainage area south of Prado Road. The Western Enclave applicants
propose to acquire this off-site property designated for open space use by the MASP and
utilize it beneficially for biological mitigation as well as a detention basin for pre- and post-
Western Enclave development generated run-off. It is proposed that this basin be enhanced
to accommodate the greater project-generated and pre-project run-off flows, and to increase
its habitat value in the long term. The basin is proposed to be held and maintained by a
Master Home Owners Association (MHOA) established initially for the Western Enclave
area, and perhaps ultimately for the entire MASP as stipulated be done by the MASP.
➢ Monitoring Program: Prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall contact the
City Natural Resource Manager for review and approval of the final lot and street design to
assure that on-site natural resources are protected and preserved to the greatest extent
required by the mitigation measures and consistent with requirements of the MASP and
MASP/AASP EIR. Said design shall also be consistent with approvals required subsequent
to this Tentative Map from State Dept. of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers.
Prior to any site preparation or construction activities, the applicant shall also initiate and
complete for approval by the City pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and adhere to
performance standard specified in the mitigation. Provisions for required off-site mitigation
shall be coordinated with and approved by the City Natural Resource Manager prior to
recordation of the Final Map. Periodic field inspections by City Staff during construction
will be necessary to assure site development conforms to mitigation measures and
conditions of approval.
Preparation and Implementation of a "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials
Management Plan"
8. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, this would be a plan identifying, when they are
known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous
materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve
hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or
produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will
also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of
chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective
measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous
materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project
proponent will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1.2 states:
"The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each
proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site
assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or
1-7�T
Resolution No. XXX (2007 Series)
Attachment 8
Page 7
adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed.
The following Phase 11 environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil
and/or groundwater contamination.
a. Soil Contamination. For. soil contamination, the Phase 1I site assessment will
include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If
soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire
Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and
possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved.
b. Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase 11
assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and
analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated
by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering,
the SLOFD and the Central Coast R WQCB will be notified. A contingency plan
to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the
SLOFD and Central Coast R WQCB.
➢ Monitoring Program: The "Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan"
will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire
Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work
involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence
before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City
approval of said Plan will be subject to "Stop Work" (cease and desist) orders as may be
issued under the authority of the City Fire Department.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve Application TR/PD/ER 98-06 with
incorporation of the following conditions and code requirements into the project:
Conditions:
Streets:
1. Prior to recordation of the vesting final map, or any phase thereof, the subdivider shall
present a detailed schedule and delivery "Plan", to be approved by the Public Works
Director, for the improvement of Prado Road between its eastern terminus at the current City
boundary and Broad Street. For the purposes of this condition, the Prado Road Extension
(PRE) shall be referenced in two segments. The first segment shall be the new roadway from
the present easterly terminus (City boundary) of Prado Road extending easterly to the
intersection of proposed "M" Street on Tract 2353 (the "Sierra Gardens (DeBlauw) property
as shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP)). This first segment shall be referred
to as the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE). The second
segment shall be from the Prado Road/"M" Street intersection on Tract 2353, easterly, to
Broad Street. This second segment shall be referred to as the "Prado Road Extension - "M"
Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB).
At a minimum, the Plan shall address the following milestones for Right-of-Way acquisition,
design and construction-
1_1y4
Resolution No. XXX (2007 series) Attachment 8
Page 8
a. At the time of submittal of any plans for final map and/or improvement plan checking:
The subdivider shall submit construction drawings and specifications for the full width
improvement of the "Prado Road Extension - Western Enclave" segment (PRE-WE), and
shall submit schematic plans for the full width improvement of the "Prado Road
Extension - "M" Street to Broad" segment (PRE-MB). The final map and improvement
plans will follow approximately 6 months after the date of the approval of the Tentative
Map. During this time the City as well as area property owners will be involved in the
review of updated drafts and the selection of the proper engineering company as well as
overseeing the design. Following Tentative Map approval, the Western Enclave Property
Owners (WEPO) and the City will establish a Stakeholder Group comprised of MASP
property owners and public utility companies, etc. to augment/expedite the conceptual
design of the PRE-MB component of the Roadway.
b. The PRE-WE plans shall include 4 travel lanes, bike paths and lanes; sidewalks, utilities,
storm drainage, landscaping, center median improvements and other necessary street
appurtenances or as otherwise approved by the Director of Public Works.
c. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is necessary to facilitate
the construction of Prado Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to
acquire said public right-of-way dedication.. In the event the subdivider is unable to
acquire said property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of
condemnation to acquire the off-site right-of-way dedication, including any necessary
slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required, the subdivider shall agree to
pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition (including attorney and
court costs). The subdivider is responsible for construction of the necessary street
improvements and striping, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
d. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall complete
construction of the PRE-WE segment prior to occupancy of the 50th unit within the
subdivision. If right-of-way is not available at the time of approval of the final map, the
subdivider may submit a plan for providing interim, secondary access to the WEPO
properties that is subject to approval by the Public Works Director. This secondary access
shall be completed prior to granting of occupancy permits and may be required to be
removed at a later time when additional access is provided from adjacent properties.
e. At the time of recording the final map, the subdivider shall bond for the completion of the
engineering plans and specifications, environmental review, if necessary, and associated
construction permits for the PRE-MB segment. The subdivider shall complete the
construction drawings and specifications for the PRE-MB segment on or before the 100th
unit is occupied in the Western Enclave (approx. I year after Tentative Map Approval).
If, at the time of Final Map approval, a detailed engineered cost estimate for the PRE-MB
section of roadway has not yet been completed, the City may require that the developer
(property owners) sign a waiver not opposing the possible future formation of a
community facilities district or other such financing mechanism, that would fund any
final project costs for the construction of PRE-MB that are not contained in the Margarita
Area Specific Plan Impact Fee estimates.
/-/y7
Resolution No. XXX (2007-Series)
Attachment 8
Page 9
f. Subject to the availability of necessary right-of-way, the subdivider shall, at a minimum:
(1) initiate the construction of the northern half, or some modified section of the roadway
subject to approval by the Director of Public Works, of the PRE-MB segment prior to
occupancy of the 200th residential unit in the Western Enclave (approx. 3 years after
Tentative Map Approval) , and (2) complete construction of the northern half of the PRE-
MB segment prior to occupancy of the 300th residential unit in the Western Enclave
(approx. 5 years after Tentative Map Approval). If right-of-way is not available at the
time of requests for occupancy, the City will determine if public acquisition of said right-
of-way is necessary or the subdivider will be required to submit an interim plan for
providing secondary access the Western Enclave that shall be approved by the Public
Works Director.
g. As a part of the submittal of the plan for improvements to Prado Road, the subdivider
shall submit a reimbursement proposal and schedule for the costs associated with the
environmental, engineering and construction of Prado Road in its entirety, as established
by the MASP. Subject to final approval of the City, the proposal may include fee credits
and/or other appropriate mechanisms that may be applied against non-TIF city-wide and
MASP impact fees as development occurs, to facilitate completion of the Prado Road
extension.
h. A second access off Prado to service VTTM 2353 (DeBlauw) can be incorporated on an
interim basis at the time of construction of PRE-WE and will remain in place until PRE-
MB is completed and an additional access point is provided at an adopted MASP
location.
2. Margarita Area Specific Plan Impact Fees, as adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, shall
be paid prior to issuance of each building permit, subject to condition I.g. above.
3. The public improvement plans for VTTM 2353, VTTM 2428 (Revised) and VTTM 2342
shall consider the proposed or required phasing to be completed by the combined
development known as Margarita Area Specific Plan Western Enclave. The public
improvement plans for each subdivision shall include any offsite improvements as
considered necessary by the Director of Public Works to provide a reasonable transition
between the subdivisions in the case that one project is developed before another. The scope
of required improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
4. The final subdivision design and improvements shall comply with the Margarita Area
Specific Plan and all other City of San Luis Obispo Design Standards, Engineering Standards
and Standard Plans and Specifications, except as to any design deviations permitted herein.
5. Prior to final map approval, the final design, location, and number of traffic calming
measures including bulb-outs, choke-downs, tabletops, roundabouts, neck-downs, etc. shall
be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. Choke-downs adjacent to open
space corridors shall be lengthened to include the entire length of the open space corridor.
Plans submitted for review shall include a turning diagram demonstrating a fire, garbage or
other large city or delivery multi-axel truck's ability to negotiate the traffic calming features.
Additional or alternative traffic control measures such as raised tabletops may be required to
comply with the MASP objective to "foster traffic volumes and speeds that will be
compatible with the neighborhood."
/_/W
j
Resolution No. XXX (2007 zieries)
Page 10 Attachment 8 `-
compatible with the neighborhood."
6. Pursuant to the Margarita Area Specific Plan, traffic volume and speeds shall be monitored
after development. The subdivider shall retain a qualified traffic consultant to conduct
traffic counts throughout the subdivision at locations approved by the Public Works
Director. If traffic speeds or volumes exceed City standards during counts taken by the
subdivider one year after final occupancy of complete build-out of the subdivision or
acceptance of public improvements whichever occurs later, the subdivider shall be
responsible for installing additional traffic calming measures to the approval of the Public
Works Director to reduce volume and speeds to comply with City standards.
7. The subdivision design shall include directional curb ramps wherever possible. The
inclusion of bulb-outs at directional curb ramp locations is encouraged to decrease the
roadway width to be crossed by a pedestrian.
8. Prior to approval of improvement plans, alternative paving materials proposed within the
public right-of-way shall be approved by the Public Works Director. Alternative paving
materials shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
9. Except for the 71-acre lot donated to the City, project common areas including, but not
limited to, landscaped parkways and Class I pathways (other than Prado Road) shall be
owned and maintained in perpetuity for public use by the Master Homeowner's
Association. Water meters for common landscape areas including but not limited to
parkways, medians, roundabouts and pathway corridors are subject to water impact and
water meter installation fees and shall be paid for by the subdivider.
10. The final locations of multi-use path connections to public streets shall be reviewed and
approved by the Natural Resources Manager and City Traffic Engineer. Where multi-use
paths intersect public streets, the roadway shall be narrowed and the crossing designed
perpendicular to the roadway.
11. The final design and location of private streets and fire access ways, and the approaches
thereto onto public streets, shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director
and Fire Department. Plans submitted for review shall include a turning diagram
demonstrating a fire, garbage or other large city or delivery multi-axel truck's ability to
negotiate into and within the private streets and access ways within the proposed "PD" and
Lot 178 portions of the site.
12. The proposed street bulb-outs shall be designed with minimum inside and outside radii of
20' and 10' respectively.
13. Analysis of the street drainage design shall be provided with the submittal of complete
public improvement plans. Streets designed with a quarter crown shall justify the curb
capacities in accordance with city standards. Some areas may require that the bulb-outs be
reduced in depth or removed completely to accommodate the drainage along the high side
of the street.
14. Bulb-outs at T-intersections may need to be replaced with standard curb returns of a
smaller radius to achieve the desired traffic calming goals and to accommodate street
drainage.
/-/�l9
P
Resolution No. XXX (2007 Series) i Attachment 8
Page 11 _
15. The number and location of catch basin shall consider city standard spacing and drainage
design requirements. The number of catch basins shall be limited to those required by code
and/or design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
16. The transition between Street N and Street W shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Moving of the quarter crown section from one side of the street to the
opposite side shall not be completed with a super-elevated section unless all drainage issues
are addressed.
17. Street intersections shall be provided with directional curb ramps in accordance with city
and ADA standards or guidelines. T-intersections shall include receiving ramps on the
through street.
On & Off-Site Improvements:
18. With respect to all off-.site improvements; prior to filing of the Final Map, the Subdivider(s)
shall either:
a. Clearly demonstrate their right to construct the improvements by showing title or
interest in the property in a form acceptable to the City Engineer; or
b. Request in writing that the subdivider has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire
interest to the subject property and that the City assist in acquiring the property
required for the construction of such improvements and exercise its power of eminent
domain in accordance with Government Code Section 66462.5 to do so, if necessary.
Subdivider shall also enter into an agreement with the City to pay all costs of such
acquisition, including, but not limited to, all costs associated with condemnation.
Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer and the City
Attorney. If condemnation proceedings are required; the Subdivider shall, no later
that 90 days prior to recordation of the Final Map (final Parcel Map), submit, in a
form acceptable to the City Engineer, the following documents regarding the property
to be acquired:
i. Property legal description and sketch stamped and signed by a Licensed Land
Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying in the State of
California.
ii. Preliminary title report including chain of title and litigation guarantee;
iii. Appraisal of the property by a City approved appraiser. In the course of
obtaining such appraisal, the property owner(s) must be given an opportunity to
accompany the appraiser during any inspection of the property or acknowledge
in writing that they knowingly waived the right to do so.
iv. Copies of all written correspondence with off-site property owners including
purchase summary of formal offers and counter offers to purchase at the
appraised price.
Resolution No. XXX(20077-Scries)
Attachment a
Page 12 R
V. Prior to submittal of the aforementioned documents for City Engineer approval,
the Subdivider shall deposit with the City all or a portion of the anticipated
costs, as determined by the City Attorney, of the condemnation proceedings.
The City does not and cannot guarantee that the necessary property rights can be
acquired or will, in fact, be acquired. All necessary procedures of law would
apply and would have to be followed.
19. Should the final design for the stormwater detention basin require the installation of a
stormwater pumping station in order to provide an outlet for the detention basin, the final
pump station design shall be in accordance with Section 8 of the WWMP-DDM and the
following"
a. The pump station shall be a triplex design.
b. The pump station shall be designed to discharge at the 100 year pre-developed rate with
all three pumps running, the 10 year pre-developed rate with two pumps running and
the 2 year pre-developed rate with only one pump in operation. At no time shall the
pump discharge rate exceed that of the pre-development flow rates for each of the
design storms. Or the pump station shall consist for a variable speed drive that matches
the required discharge regime.
c. The pump discharge shall be designed such that no erosion damage will occur.
d. The pump shall discharge into a natural waterway or into an easement to which the
subdividers, their heirs and/or assigns have rights to.
20. The final subdivision design shall incorporate stormwater quality BMPs with the January
2005 edition of the Engineering Standards, shall be designed to treat the stormwater runoff
from all developed surfaces excluding rooftops but including all private and public streets,
and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
21. The final design of any stormwater detention or treatment facilities shall incorporate all
recommendations from the final geotechnical report into the design of said facilities. The
final geotechnical report shall address the effect, if any, of detaining stormwater in close
proximity to the existing soil contamination.
22. The final design of the proposed off-site stormwater detention facilities shall also take into
consideration the effects on 100 year floodplain (as identified as an undesignated "A
Zone") on the FEMA FIRM Panel (as modified by the LOMR dated August 23, 2003) for
San Luis Obispo County, from the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo
Creek and shall establish the base flood elevation, process a CLOMR or CLOMR-F with
FEMA prior to approval of any plans for ground disturbing activities; then process the final
documents once Grading is complete. The design of any stormwater facilities shall be in
compliance with the WWMP-DDM requirement for construction within a Special
Floodplain Management Zone; i.e. no significant net loss of floodplain storage.
23. The subdivider shall secure the rights for the regional stormwater detention basin prior to
or concurrently with the final subdivision maps. Should the subdividers be unsuccessful in
acquiring off-site property for the construction of the stormwater facilities, the subdivider
shall either: a) revise the maps to reflect appropriately sized on-site detention of
I
Resolution No. XXX (2007 Series) Attachment 8 i}
A
Page 13 a
stormwater pursuant to the City's Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual
or, b) request in writing that the City assist in securing the property following procedures as
outlined above. All costs associated with securing said rights including the eminent
domain process shall be borne by the subdividers.
24. Prior to the approval of the public improvement plans the subdivider(s) shall have received
an approved grading permit from the County of San Luis Obispo a written waiver for the
construction of any facilities outside the City's corporate limits. Should San Luis Obispo
County defer to the City for the processing of the grading permits for property outside the
City corporate boundary, the subdivider(s) shall process the grading permit with the City
Public Works Department concurrently with the improvements plans and pay all fees
associated said grading in accordance with the Public Works Department Fee schedule for
plan checking and inspection in effect at the time of permit processing.
25. To the degree feasible, shared driveways shall be utilized to reduce the number of driveway
curb cuts in the subdivision and increase the provision of on-street parking. Prior to
hearing by ARC, the applicant shall provide plans to the Public Works Department with
additional detail adequate to show locations of all proposed shared driveways.
26. Where a Class 1 bicycle path provides access across a public street, raised decorative
paving, choke-downs, curb ramps and signage shall be provided and the street crossing
shall be designed to direct pedestrians across the roadway in a perpendicular manner,
consistent with the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
27. The subdivider shall install private street lighting along the private internal streets per City
standards, public street lighting along public streets interior to the subdivision, and off-site
public street lighting along Prado Road leading to and from the development, as
determined by the Director of Public Works. All public and private street lighting installed
by the developer shall include the luminaires as well as all wiring and conduit necessary to
energize the light standards from PG& E's point of service.
28. For lots abutting the existing developed Margarita and Chumash Village projects, the
slopes and drainage structures proposed in those rear lots shall be maintained by the
property owners, with an additional slope and maintenance easement to the HOA so that
the HOA can maintain these slopes if the property owners fail to do so in a satisfactory
manner. A deed restriction shall be placed on all lots with this situation so that a 6-foot
high privacy fence shall be installed and maintained at the top of the slope. Details on the
level of maintenance shall be provided in the draft CC&R's and reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Director.
Water, Sewer, Solid Waste & Utilities:
29. The subdivider's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation
calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting
infrastructure. If it is discovered that an off-site deficiency exists, the owner will be
required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project.
30. Water meters shall be grouped in manifold pairs wherever possible, to the satisfaction of
the Utilities Engineer.
Attachment 8
Resolution No. XXX (20073eries)
Page 14
31. The water mains, sewer mains, and sewer force mains when attached or included with a
bridge, shall be sleeved and encased within the bridge structure or located above the lowest
point so as to protect the pipelines from the high water flow.
32. Sewer backwater valves may be required on some lots. The subdivider's engineer shall
apply the City's criteria to the design to determine which lots will need backwater valves on
the sewer laterals, per City and UPC standards.
33. In areas where the pressure in the water system exceeds 80 psi, the service line shall
include a pressure regulator downstream of the water meter, Where the water service enters
the building.
34. The sewer and water mains should be located approximately 6 feet on either side of the
street centerline. All final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm
drains (including service laterals and meters) are subject to modifications to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer.
35. The subdivision layout and preliminary utility plans shall include provisions for irrigating
common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas with recycled
water. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be designed and constructed from
the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If other use areas exist beyond the
proposed subdivision, the mains shall be appropriately sized to provide for future use areas
and extended to the boundary of the tract. If reclaimed water is not available at the time the
recycled water is needed, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water
standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the
anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system.
36. Prior to hearing before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), the applicant shall
add additional detail to the plans adequate to show the locations of all red curbs, fire
hydrants, water meters, backflow preventers, solid waste storage areas (for the detached
lots), the solid waste collection vehicle's ability to safely maneuver and access containers
on the private roads in the PD portion of the development), to the satisfaction of the
Utilities Department. Said details shall also indicate appropriate screening for backflow
preventers, and shall clearly indicate any requested deviations from City standards.
37. Prior to hearing before the ARC, the applicant shall provide a landscape and irrigation plan
that indicates how any parkway areas associated with detached and/or meandering
sidewalks can be irrigated efficiently without overspray, in compliance with Chapter 13.20
of the Municipal Code, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. Parkways shall be a
minimum of 6-feet in width to allow the planting of street trees.
38. Recycled water will be required to be used throughout the development to the maximum
extent feasible. Recycled water use areas will include any landscape or turf areas that are
under common ownership or control, and for which the maintenance will be by contract.
39. Prior to hearing before the ARC, the applicant shall provide detailed plans adequate to
show the width, grade, structural cross-section and turning radii of all I fire access roads and
connections with public or private roads within the subdivision and within the 71-acre open
space lot are suitable for travel by City fire trucks.
1-4�3
Resolution No. XXX (2007 aeries)
Page 15 Attachment 8
Grading& Drainage:
40. The final grading plan shall include provisions to comply with the soils engineer's
recommendations, including mitigating cut slopes, debris flows uphill of the lots and truck
access. The soils engineer shall supervise all grading operations and certify the stability of
the slopes prior to acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of building permits.
41. Clearing of any portion of the existing creek and drainage channels, including any required
tree removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to done the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. Certain trees
may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist as determined by the City Arborist.
42. The developer of VTM #2428 shall begin grading operations related to site preparation and
infrastructure construction near the westerly edge of the property in order to reduce the
potential for short term impacts of"herding" rodents and other small animals toward the
adjacent mobile home park..
43. Any required grading for storm flow collection features behind Lots 19-57 shall be done to
the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager, Fire Dept. and Public Works Director.
44. All driveways shall comply with City Engineering Standards #2130 and #2140 for down-
sloping and uu-sloping driveways.
45. With regard to down-sloping and up-sloping driveways, common driveways shall be
considered throughout the subdivision at the time of review by the Architectural Review
Commission, particularly for Lots 30/31, 32/33, 37/38, 39/40, 41/42, 44/45, 50/51, 52/53,
54/55 & 56/57, such that driveway slopes do not exceed 20%.
46. The final pad grading and certification shall be in accordance with the approved plans,
grading ordinance, and final soils engineer recommendations. The public improvement
plans shall be reviewed by the project soils engineer. The soils engineer shall provide
written notification to the city indicating that the plans have been reviewed and are in
general conformance with the report recommendations.
47. Depending on the timing of subdivision grading and/or building permit applications, the
2007 California Building Code, based on the 2006 International Building Code may be in
effect. The provisions of the new CBC/IBC may differ from those of the current
regulations. The soils engineer shall provide an appropriate response regarding the current
grading recommendations in comparison to the new codes to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Building Official.
48. Expansion index testing or other soils analysis may be required on a lot-by-lot basis for all
graded pads and for in-situ soils on natural lots where deemed necessary by the City
Engineer or Building Official.
49. Final pad certifications shall include the certification of pad construction and elevations..
The soils engineer shall certify all grading prior to acceptance of the publicimprovements
and/or prior to building permit issuance. The certification shall indicate that the graded
pads are suitable for their intended use.
/-/UITY
Attachment 8
Resolution No. XXX (2007 series)
Page 16 -
50. Cut and fill slopes shall be protected as recommended by the soils engineer. Brow ditches,
drainage collection devices, and drainage piping may be required. The public improvement
plans and final map shall reflect any additional improvements and easements necessary for
slope protection and maintenance.
51. Downstream and/or offsite drainage improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of
the city prior to commencing with public improvements or subdivision grading. If off-site
improvements are not complete, a phasing plan and on-site detention may be required.
52. The width of all public or private drainage easements shall be approved to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. Drainage easements requiring subsurface piping systems shall not be
less than 15' in width. Surface drainage improvements located along the westerly and
southerly tract boundaries shall be located in easements not less than 10' in width.
53. The interceptor drainage ditch located along Lots 75 — 80 shall be constructed with an
approved outlet to the existing drainage channels or to an approved off-site drainage
easement.
54. The new section of pedestrian/bike path proposed on Lot 178 shall be located upslope of
the HOA maintained interceptor ditch unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and
Natural Resource Manager.
55. The interceptor ditch shall be designed to accommodate any improved or diverted runoff
from the existing or proposed trail improvements.
56. The public improvement plans and final drainage report shall include additional analysis of
the runoff from the existing and proposed trails or access roads. The proposed interceptor
ditch shall be extended to protect Lots 52— 57 if necessary.
57. The abandoned access road crossing Lots 44 — 51 shall be likewise evaluated. The road
drainage shall be clearly defined and drainage improvements and easements shall be
provided if necessary. The road may be re-graded to eliminate any cross lot drainage if
applicable.
58. The presence of springs within the development area has been identified by the soils
engineer as one of the primary geotechnical concerns. All areas of known or observed
seeps and springs shall be specifically addressed by the soils engineer. General
recommendations shall be provided for all lot areas, roadways, and for the installation of
utilities.
59. Drainage systems designed to collect spring water or other sub-surface waters shall be
directed to the natural drainage channels to the maximum extent feasible. Subsurface
drainages shall not be directed to the surface of the public streets unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
60. Utility trenches shall be protected with trench dams based on recommendations by the soils
engineer. Trenches to individual Lots shall be likewise protected to avoid the collection
and deposition of sub-surface drainage to under-floor or under-slab areas. Relief drains
shall outlet to a location approved by the City Engineer.
l-ass
Resolution No. XXX (2007 Series) ( Attachment 8
Page 17
�"te ;e:____ c
� ,
61. If nuisance spring water is expected or encountered with the subdivision improvements
and/or home construction, a separate French drain system may be required with storm drain
extensions to individual lots or areas of concern.
Homeowners' Association:
62. The subdivider shall submit CC&R's with the Final Map that established a "Margarita Area
Master Homeowner's Association' (Master HOA). The Master HOA shall include the
subdivider's tract, and provide for the automatic annexation of all subsequent potential
tracts within the Margarita Specific Plan area. The subsequent tracts may, at their sole
discretion, annex to the Master HOA, or demonstrate to the city's satisfaction how many
they may form their own, independent HOA, to manage their common area improvements.
The Master HOA, and any and all subsequent HOA's not a part of the Master HOA, shall
provide for maintenance of all common area drainage channels, on-site and/or sub-regional
drainage basins and conveyance improvements and the Margarita median landscaping and
trail network. The Master HOA shall also annually maintain a 30' wide wildland fuel
reduction zone along all open space lots abutting developments within the MASP. The
CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the Final Map, or
any phase thereof."
63. The Master Homeowners' Association (MHOA) shall own and maintain all that portion of
the lots designated as "Open Space" or"Wetlands Mitigation' (except for the 71-acre lot of
the King map, which is proposed for donation to the City). Those open space areas that
accommodate trails intended for public use shall be maintained for public access in
perpetuity. Maintenance responsibilities shall also include maintenance of any cut or fill
slopes required to make the swale and berm. The storm drainage system within private
streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the MHOA (to be included in CC&
R's).
64. The MHOA shall be responsible for maintaining any required red curbing and fire lane
signage approved within the subdivision.
65. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved
by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval.
CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots:
a. Creation of a master homeowners' association if none exists or annexation into an
existing MHOA, if one exists.
b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
c. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council
approval.
d. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions
herein.
e. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements for those lots with shared
access including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community
Development Director at the time of final map approval.
/-s4
a
Resolution No. XXX (2007-series) Attachment 8 i
Page 18
f. The MOHA shall be responsible for maintenance of the drainage Swale running along
and behind Lots 19-57 (i.e. all lots backing onto the 71-acre open space lot), as depicted
on sheet 2 of the Vesting Tentative Map.
g. Drainage swales along the west and south tract boundaries shall be maintained, repaired
and/or replaced by individual lot owners and ..,.,.essible to two MHOA in such a
way as to allow clear and unobstructed storm water flows. No storage, alterations,
construction and/or landscaping may be permitted in or around these swales in a
manner that interferes with accessibility to, the design,and function of the overall tract
storm drainage system. In the event that individual lot owners do not properly maintain,
repair and/or replace the drainage improvements, the MHOA shall have the right under
the CC&R's to enter said lot owner's property, effect such maintenance, repair and/or
replacement, and bill said owner for costs related thereto. In the event MHOA is
unwilling or unable to manage the storm system within the any portion of the tract
(including the PD Zone as noted below), the City shall have the right to enter said
property and maintain, make repairs and/or replace storm drainage system features and
bill the MHOA for said work. MHOA and City access will be established through
storm drainage easements recorded with the final map.
66. With respect to that portion of the subdivision within the PD Zone (Lots 86-177), the
CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions, in addition to the above:
a. Creation of a homeowners' association to enforce the CC&Rs and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common areas including private driveways,
drainage swales and storm drainage improvements, on-site sewer facilities, parking lot
areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping lying outside of private building
b. Grant to the City the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association
fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and
the right of the City to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of
CC&Rs and final map are being met.
c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked
in unauthorized places.
e. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motor homes, or trailers nor long-term storage of
inoperable vehicles.
f. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
g. No change in City-required provisions of the CC&Rs without prior City Council
approval.
h. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all
officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of the
association.
Resolution No. XXX(2007 Series) Affach
Page 19 _
i. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as
required by the City Fire Department.
j. CC&Rs shall not prohibit location of solar clothes drying facilities in private yards
which are substantially screened from view.
k. All garages must be available for parking a vehicle at all times,to be enforced by the
homeowners association and the City.
1. No change in City-required provisions for trash collection without prior approval by the
Community Development Director.
Paths/Open Space:
67. The multi-use paths should be 12 feet in width as called for in the Specific Plan, however the
Natural Resource Manager and Public Works Director may approve a narrower path in
locations that will be used by pedestrians only or where environmental conditions warrant a
narrower path based on consideration of in-the-field found conditions.
68. Final design (including materials, location, width, bridging and lighting) of pathways shall
be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Manager and Public Works Director:
69. Class I path crossings at "N" St. should be perpendicular to the street. A cross section
should be developed to show transition of path up to the roadway crossing. A raised table-
top design with decorative pavement, choke-downs, and signage shall be provided and
crossing shall be designed to direct pedestrians to cross the roadway in a direct
perpendicular manner, consistent with the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
70. Pathway extending from Open Space lot to "N" St. should be shown to cross "N" St, to
"D" St. as indicated by MASP.
71. A Class I trail system shall be provided from Street "S" through Lot 84 providing a
physical connection to the terminus of Calle Jazmin.
72. The mid-block crossing of"S" Street shall be eliminated due to its close proximity to Calle
Malva.
73. The proposed bridge crossings shall provide an accessible path-of-travel in accordance with
the current codes.
Air Quality:
74. All activities associated with construction and operation for the subdivision map shall comply
at all times with all current APCD Rules and Regulations as applicable, including but not
limited to PM-10, NOx emissions, Best Available Control Technologies, construction activity
management plans, and phasing techniques.
Housing Programs:
75. Lots 171-175 of the "condominium" lots on the revised map, to be reserved for the
development of 26 affordable housing units, shall be dedicated to the Housing Authority prior
/—/oo'ro
Resolution No. XXX(2007 Series) Attachment 8 i
Page 20
to, or in conjunction with, recording the first phase of Tentative Tract 2428. Lots 176 & 177
are reserved for development of six (6)"open market"-rate condominium units. Improvement
plans for Phase 1 of Tentative Tract 2428 shall include complete access and infrastructure
(roads, water, sewer, and utilities)to serve the Housing Authority site. Additional affordable
housing requirements will be required if the average residential unit size of the entire
Tentative Tract 2428 exceeds 2,000 square feet as per Table 2A of the City Housing Element.
Planning Requirements:
76. Bulb outs at "T" intersections need to be added to the straight leg `-`crossing the 'T"' and
elongated such that pedestrian crossings are at 90 degrees to the opposing bulb out
transitions for the intersecting street leg.
77. City Standard driveway approaches shall be provided at alley private access points to
public streets to and provide adequate line of sight where red curbing would otherwise be
needed.
78. All lighting within the subdivision shall comply with the lighting standards contained in the
San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines and as further stipulated in the Mitigation
Measures listed above.
79. Guest parking spaces shall be designed so motorists can enter and exit the public street in a
forward motion, in no more than 2 movements.
80. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and
County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for
the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo
and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the
recordation of the final map.
81. In the event archaeological resources are discovered in conjunction with a construction
project, all activities shall cease and the Community Development Department shall be
notified so that the procedures required by state law may be applied..
82. New development shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating and illumination by means of proper
design and orientation,including the provision and protection of solar exposure.
83. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside,
void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto,
including but not limited to environmental review.
84. Proposed hillside Lots 19-57, which back up to the large open space parcel, are hereby
designated sensitive sites and must comply with the Community Design Guidelines for
hillside development. Individual lot development shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Planning staff may make the
determination upon submittal of complete plans if the minor or incidental architectural
review process is appropriate.
/_ /.l-9
I
L
Resolution No: XXX(2007 series) � Attachment 8
Page 21 {
85. Proposed hillside Lots 19-57 are located within a wildland/urban interface area and shall
comply with all applicable local and state fire code requirements, subject to the approval of
the Fire Marshal. A final fire management plan outlining fuel minimization and maintenance
proposals shall be submitted along with subdivision improvement plans to the approval of the
Natural Resources Manager and the Fire Department.
86. Where the finished pad elevation for a lot along the westerly and southerly boundary of this
subdivision is four or more feet higher than the highest pad elevation of the lots adjacent to
it within the Chumash Mobile Home Park, El Camino Estates, or approved TM 2353,
development of said higher lot within VTM 2428 shall be limited to a single story
structure. In no instance shall rear yard setbacks for lots adjoining existing Chumash Village
Mobile Home Park, EI Camino Estates or approved TM#2353 be less than 20 feet.
87. Except as required above, the following additional conditions of approval relate to requested
exceptions to standard City requirements and will apply only within the area rezoned for"PD"
Planned Development Overlay:
a. Public street side yard setbacks shall be no less than 10 feet to the residence from edge
of right-of-way and no less than 20 feet to the garage that has access to the public street.
b. Street-side setbacks on private streets shall be no less than 5 feet to the residence and no
less than 20 feet to the garage from the centerline of the private street for Lots 117 through
137; for all other lots, no less than 15 feet from garages to the centerline of the private
street and no less than 5 feet for all other non-street fronting side and rear yard setbacks.
c. Lot coverage by structures shall be no more than 75% of total net lot area, excluding
garages and carports,patios, decks and roof overhangs.
d. Upper floor setbacks from property lines need not be more than as required for the ground
floor portion of the structure.
e. All patio areas exterior to the residence may not exceed an aggregate total area of 500
square feet.
f. No exterior patio fence/wall heights may exceed a maximum height of 42 inches (3-1/2
feet.)
g. Driveway depths for garages facing private streets shall be designed to accommodate a
parking space in front of a garage that prevents the parked vehicle from encroaching into
the travel lane of the common area portion of the drive or street. Variations of design to
meet this performance standard will be subject to approval of the Community
Development Director and final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the ARC.
h. In no event will a floor plan for a lot be allowed that provides more bedrooms than
allowed by the MASP for the size of the lot. (Ref. Section 2.2.2 of the MASP.)
88. Notice of the onset of clearing or grading activities (or other activities likely to cause dust,
noise or animal movements) shall be given to all owners and occupants of residential or
commercial properties within 100 feet of such activity and all residents and owners within the
Chumash Village Mobile Home Park. Such notice shall inform neighbors at least two weeks
Resolution No. XXX (2007 Series) Attachment 8
Page 227.
prior to commencement of activities such as clearing or grading which may result in dust,
noise, or animal movements, that such activity is about to take place and advising that certain
precautions may be taken to reduce or minimize any effects there from.
89. Prior to review by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant shall provide specific
scaled illustrations showing precise dimensions, area and locations of both private and
common open space together with complete tabulations demonstrating compliance with open
space requirements of Section 16.17.030. B. of the City Subdivision Ordinance.
90. Prior to review by the Architectural Review Commission, the applicant shall provide
tabulations of and specific scaled site plans showing precise dimensions for all guest parking
facilities within the single-family portion of the Planned Development component. Without
unduly adding hardscape to the site,the amount of guest parking spaces shall be maximized to
prevent overspill onto adjacent public streets and more closely meet expected demand.
91. Within the affordable housing component of the project, parking spaces shall be provided that
are nearby and convenient to all units.
92. All fireplaces within the development shall be gas-supplied,rather than wood-burning.
Code Requirements:
1. Traffic impact fees and water and wastewater impact fees shall be paid as a condition of
issuance of building permits.
2. The property is tributary to the Laguna Sewer Lift Station. Appropriate Lift Station Fees
shall be paid prior to the final map approval.
3. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water
system if the property includes an active well.
4. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all
stone water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and
excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less
than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also
require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by
a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity
occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to
the State Water Board.
5. The subdivision design shall comply with the City's grading.ordinance.
6. Street trees shall be planted along the private street per City Standards (the number of trees
is determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage).
7. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and
a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital
Resolution No. XXX2007 6eries _ 1
( ) Attachment 8 ,
Page 23
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
8. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final
map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units,
metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer.
9. Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code(CFC). Access roads
shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical
clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide
all-weather driving capabilities. All cul-de-sacs shall be minimum 40 foot radius.
10. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum
of 5"high x %"stroke and be on a contrasting background. [UFC 901.4.4]
11. Water Supplies and fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with applicable articles of
the CFC. An approved water supply capable of providing the required fire flow for fire
protection is required. The fire flow shall be determined using applicable Appendices of the
CFC.
12. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California
Building Code. An approved NFPA system will be required for this project.
13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced per SLO-FD Guidelines (placement with Fire Department
approval) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows.
On motion of seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:.
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this3`d day of July , 2007.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
/_A:01 ,
Resolution No. XXX(2007 Series)
Page 24 E Attachment 8 '`
p
f
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
an Lowell, City Attorney
G:/CD-P LAN/Ddavidson/Council/CCResoKing V entures7-3-07