The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/16/2007, PH1 - REVIEW OF A 10-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING: A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED DEVELO council- ' i� V 0 j acEnaa Report �N� 4- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Pirector Prepared By: Jaime Hill,Associate Planner . SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A 10-LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING: A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, (300 LAWRENCE DRIVE,TR/PD/ER 77-07). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a Resolution, approving a vesting tentative tract map, Planned Development rezone, and environmental review for a residential development including nine (9) single-family residential lots, two (2) open space lots, one (1) lot containing common area, and a lot line adjustment of an existing residential lot, on R-1 & C/OS-40 zoned property located at the westerly terminus of Lawrence Drive(Tract 2723)(TR/PD/ER 77-07). REPORT-IN-BRIEF The applicant seeks approval of a vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development (PD) rezone to create a 10 lot residential development, including nine new single-family residential lots and reconfiguring one existing single-family residential lot, with exceptions on a 3.46 acre site at the westerly terminus of Lawrence Drive (Attachment 2). An earlier project on this site including 12 single-family lots was denied by the City Council without prejudice on March 20, 2007. Since then, the applicant has modified the proposal for consistency with the General Plan and Council direction, concentrating development in the central portion of the site, where impacts to known sensitive open space resources in the upper and lower portions of the site can largely be avoided. On September 26, 2007, the Planning Commission determined that the revised project was consistent with the General Plan and prior direction, and recommended to the City Council approval of the project(Attachment 6). The Planning Commission recommendation is consistent with General Plan policies referring to sensitive open space resources and site design, meets PD rezone requirements through the dedication of two open space lots and trail improvements, and provides housing in a manner anticipated by the General Plan. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 300 Lawrence Drive Applicant: Total Development Company Representative: Michael Coss Zoning: R-1 & C/OS-40 (Low Density Residential & Conservation and Open Space with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres) General Plan: Low Density Residential&Open Space 1—f Council Agenda Report—TRIMER 77-07 October 16,2007 Page 2 Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared for the project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on September 11, 2007(ER 77-07,Attachment 7). Background On May 15, 2005, the City received an application for a vesting tentative tract map and environmental review to create 14 single-family lots on the 3.46-acre site. After numerous redesigns and modifications the applicant requested the project be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission despite the project's inconsistencies with City policies and standards. On October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the tentative tract map and rezoning request for compliance with the General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and made a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests. On March 20, 2007, the City Council denied the project without prejudice so as to allow a revised application to be submitted without the need to wait for one year. The Council also provided direction to the applicant on features that should be incorporated into the project to make it consistent with City policies. The Council provided staff and the applicant with the following direction: 1)Development of the site is not appropriate on the upper steeply sloped open space portion of the site; 2) The open space resources located on the lower portion of the site, including the wetlands, Adobe Sanicle, Cambria Morning Glory and Mariposa Lilly shall be preserved with appropriate buffers, and therefore those areas of the lower portion of the site are not appropriate for development; 3) The central portion of the site that has been disturbed and is covered with fill material is an appropriate area for development,and;4)Application fees for a new submittal,where duplicative of fees paid for the current proposal, shall be waived(Attachment 3). On May 16, 2007, a revised project reflecting Council direction was submitted to the City for review. On September 26, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council find the revised project consistent with the General Plan, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Attachment 6). Site Description The vacant, rectangular-shaped site consists of approximately 3.46 acres located on the north facing slope of the South Hills. The site slopes from south to north with an average slope of 20%. The upper portion of the property contains serpentine rock with thin soils and numerous plant species which are restricted to such soils. This includes several species classified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as "List 1 B, Plants of Highest Priority", which are considered rare and endangered in California and elsewhere, and some are listed as "species of local concern"by the City of San Luis Obispo's Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE). The lower portion of the site consists of deeper and more productive soils derived from the serpentine rocks, but capable of supporting a more diverse mix of plants. Two additional species classified by the CNPS as "List 1 B" plants or as "species of local concern" by the COSE are found in this portion of the property. Additional site features include two small wetlands, rock outcroppings, an area of native needlegrass grassland and a variety of native and non-native trees ^o12- _ U Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 77-07 October 16,2007 Page 3 and shrubs, including California Buckeye, Toyon, Coast Live Oak, Pine, Eucalyptus and French Broom. Many years ago, a portion of the property was evidently used for the unengineered dumping of unconsolidated construction debris. This portion of the property occupies about one-half acre located toward the center of the site, and has been colonized by a fairly large and mature stand of California Buckeye, Toyon and Coast Live Oak. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map(Attachment 1). Project Description The project is a 10-lot residential development including: a vesting tentative map and Planned Development (PD) rezone of an existing 3.46-acre site to create 9 single-family residential lots, 2 open space lots offered to the City in fee, 1 lot containing common area,and a lot line adjustment of an existing residential lot at the northeast comer of the site. The residential parcels range in net area from 3,871.1 square feet to 10,553.3 square feet. Because the applicant proposes to sell finished lots for individual design and construction, Architectural Guidelines for the new lots have been provided to set the parameters for individual site development. The Guidelines include building envelopes, setbacks, and design standards to ensure that new development is consistent with adopted Hillside development policies. The Guidelines also provide direction on exterior lighting, building colors & materials, and landscaping, to ensure that development is in harmony with nature and the adjacent development(Architectural Guidelines,Attachment 5). The PD rezone is being requested to allow exceptions to typical property development standards, including: 1) Minimum lot size for sites with slopes greater than 15%; 2) Reduced street yard setbacks from 20 fat to 10 feet; and 3)A 5 foot tall wrought iron fence with 5 foot setback from the street where a 13 foot setback is required. Other components of the subdivision include extensive site grading and the installation of private improvements, including a cul-de-sac with curb,gutter and sidewalk at the end of Lawrence Drive, a private driveway accessing the majority of the residential lots, and wrought iron fencing and entry feature. The private driveway is proposed at the end of the private cul-de-sac to serve lots 2-8. Access to Lots 1 and 9 is off the cul-de-sac, and access to the existing (reconfigured) lot off Meadow Street, Lot 10, is via an existing common driveway easement. The existing 30-foot wide public pedestrian access and utility easement located along the site's northerly boundary is proposed to remain, providing access to a 6-foot wide walking path connecting to the existing South Hills trail system. Similar to other trail access points to the South Hills,no parking or other improvements at the trailhead other than signage are proposed. The pots and other improvements have been laid out to provide a safe and attractive residential cluster. To compensate for the relatively small usable space on the individual lots, the common driveway has been designed to accommodate vehicles and provide an attractive area for residents to gather. Individual driveways are clustered around two circular nodes treated with decorative paving, and a central landscaped divider will provide a boulevard effect. To restrict the number of vehicles on the common driveway and reduce the speed of traffic, the applicant has proposed to place a decorative wrought iron gate across the vehicle entrance to the site. Pedestrian access to the site would remain unfettered along a separate pathway to the north. /-3 Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 77-07 October 16,2007 Page 4 Inclusionary Housing Requirements will be fulfilled through the payment of in-lieu fees. Planning Commission Action On September 26, 2007, the Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote (Christianson and Brodie absent) recommended to the City Council approval of the project. The Planning Commission found that the redesigned project was consistent with the General Plan and applicable development policies. Significant public testimony was received at the hearing, including concerns relating to traffic, access and parking impacts to the site and surrounding neighborhood. Planning Commission discussion focused on the Conservation easement and mitigation, construction operations and neighborhood notification,. and informing future property owners about the restrictions on the new lots. The Commission added four additional conditions of approval related to these matters, which have been included as Mitigation Measure Nos. 4 and 8, and Conditions of Approval Nos. 27 and 28 of the draft resolution for approval (Attachment 8). The Planning Commission staff report and hearing minutes are attached(Attachment 6). Proposal Is Consistent With General Plan The site is designated as "Low Density Residential & Open Space" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and is currently vacant. The General Plan anticipates single-family residences developed in some fashion on the Low Density Residential portion of the site and wildlife and native plant habitat preservation on the Open Space portion. Due to the site's steep topography and presence of protected natural resources, development over the Low Density Residential portion presents significant challenges to site design. The Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE) provides direction on the type of development that is appropriate on land designated as Open Space, and on land with protected natural resources. General Plan conformity is required by law. The City must make a finding that a tentative map is or is not consistent with the General Plan. Based on staff's detailed review, the development proposal is consistent with numerous General Plan policies, and with the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures and conditions of approval, can be found consistent with the General Plan. By following Council's direction to concentrate development in the central portion of the site, the proposed layout of the project protects listed species and species of local concern (General Plan COSE Policies 7.3.1.13 and 7.3.2.C), respects site constraints and incorporates natural site features as amenities (General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.11 and 2.2.8), and provides for mitigation where disruption of sensitive resources is unavoidable (General Plan COSE Policy 8.6:3). Continuation of the adjacent neighborhood pattern in terms of lot size and orientation is not appropriate, while the proposed cluster design respects the site's resources. Site improvements discussed earlier in this report, such as landscaping and decorative fencing will identify this development as a unique enclave. One of the proposed features, a decorative remote-controlled gate controlling vehicle access to the site, is inconsistent with the General Plan, which states that residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods where possible (General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.6). Staff has recommended a condition of approval that the gate be Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 77-07 October 16,2007 Page 5 replaced by a simpler entry feature, such as an archway or monument sign, which would identify the neighborhood without blocking access or isolating the development from the adjacent neighborhood. For the reasons explained above and in greater detail in the General Plan Consistency section of the Planning Commission Report (Attachment 6), the Planning Commission made findings recommending approval of the proposed vesting tentative map. Planned Development Rezone Based on existing R-1 zoning and average slope of the site (200/6),the site has a density value of 10 units. However, due to site's steep slopes, which require larger lot areas based on Table 1 of the Zoning Regulations, and open space resources which must be avoided, the number of standard lots that could be created on the site would be less than 10. For this reason, the applicant has requested a PD rezone for the project to allow an exception to the minimum lot sizes (12,000 square feet) associated with the required reduction of density for lots with steeper cross- slopes. The PD overlay zone is intended to provide for flexibility in the application of zoning standards to proposed development. The purpose is to allow consideration of innovative planning and other aspects of project design, and more effective design responses to site features, land uses on adjoining properties, and environmental impacts than the development standards of the underlying zone would produce without adjustment. The City expects each planned development project to be of significantly higher design quality,including more effective and attractive pedestrian orientation, environmental sensitivity, energy efficiency, and more efficient use of resources, than would be achieved through conventional design practices and standards. Other diversions from zoning standards included in the PD request include reduced street yard setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet and a 5-foot tall decorative wrought iron fence set back 5 feet from the street where a 13-foot setback is required. In order to approve a PD rezone, the project must incorporate a minimum of two of four mandatory project features and the review authority must make all eight required findings. The project proposes to fulfill its mandatory feature requirements by: 1) Preserving a significant natural feature in excess of the '/i acre minimum requirement,through transferring fee title of Lot 11 (12,455.0 square feet) and Lot 12 (35,085.1 square feet) to the City as open space and covering large portions of Lots 1-5 with Open Space easements; and 2) Providing a substantial public amenity by construction of a pedestrian pathway along the northern portion of the site to provide access to the City's adjacent open space property, and providing a $10,000 endowment to provide for the permanent maintenance of that pathway(Attachment 4). In addition to meeting its mandatory feature requirements, the review authority may approve a rezoning to apply the PD overlay zoning district only after first making all eight of the required findings. The findings pertain to the project's consistency with the General Plan, applicable specific plans, primary zoning district, and Design Guidelines, as well as appropriateness of the project design and adequacy of proposed features and facilities. As discussed earlier in this report, the project has been redesigned consistent with previous Council direction and applicable :.S Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 77-07 October 16,2007 Page 6 General Plan policies. The proposed configuration and quality of improvements is highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood. These affirmative findings are included in the draft Resolution(Attachment 8). Environmental Review On September 11, 2007, the Community Development Director recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and on September 26, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the document(Attachment 7). The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, hazardous materials, and recreational facilities. The Mitigated Negative Declaration provides recommendations for mitigation measures that if incorporated into the project would reduce the potential impacts to below the threshold of significance. While many of these mitigation measures would effect the development phase of the project, including provisions for ensuring that air quality, cultural resources and natural resources to be retained are adequately protected, other measures will result in some modification of the project design. These include further refinement and field verification of the landscape and open space plan,the open space boundary, plantings and fencing, as well as fine-tuning of the public improvement plans and other open space improvements. The Planning Commission recommended amending the language of Mitigation Measure No. 8,. regarding the field verification of the boundary of the upper open space lot, and addition of a Mitigation Measure requiring that a Construction Monitoring Plan be provided; these changes have been incorporated into the Mitigation section of the draft Resolution. Additionally, the Natural Resource Manager has expressed that special considerations will be needed where a sewer line is proposed to pass through the freshwater seep on Lot 10, to insure that the line or trough holding the line does not become a conduit or drain and change the drainage pattern or condition there. This likely will require some special backfilling there using clay,or perhaps one or more "collars" or similar structures on or around the sewer pipe itself. This direction has been incorporated into Mitigation No. 13, which already addresses protection of the seep. With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the potential impacts to the environment will be reduced below a level of significance. Conclusion Considerable effort has been made by the applicant to design a project that is consistent with the General Plan, prior City Council direction, and applicable property development standards. The type and density of development has been planned to suit the physical character of the site and address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. With the incorporation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the design of the subdivision and proposed improvements would avoid injury to sensitive open space resources, and provide housing in an area anticipated by the General Plan for development with single family residences. For these reasons, staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts, the vesting tentative tract map and PD rezone. 1-6 Council Agenda Report—TR/PD/ER 77-07 October 16,2007 Page 7 CONCURRENCES The City's Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the development proposal in detail, including the Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment prepared by LFR Inc., and concurs with the analysis,conclusions and the Planning Commission recommendation. The Public Works Department has reviewed the hydrologic and hydraulic report and addendums prepared by Keith Crowe, PE, for the project and finds that with the incorporation of the recommended conditions of approval and mitigation measures the proposed improvements will be in compliance with City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual, and will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or downstream facilities. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Since the project does not propose to change the General Plan designations of the site, it has a neutral fiscal impact ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may continue review of the project. If more information is needed, direction should be given to staff and the applicants. 2. The Council may adopt a resolution denying the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan Policies as specified by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduced copy of project plans 3. March 20,2007 City Council Resolution and meeting minutes 4. Applicant's project description 5. Proposed Architectural Guidelines for Tract 2723 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5492-07,Draft Minutes,and Staff Report 7. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, recommended on September 11,2007 8. Draft Resolution as recommended by the Planning Commission and staff 9. Draft Resolution denying the project Documents provided to Council: 1. Full-size project plans 2. Landscape Plan and Open Space Mitigation Plan J:Tawrence Drive\CC report 77-07(Lawrence Drive).doc // / r 7 ILI oil Iloilo ANN googol MINj & 01111.11111: ;1��11 1i 711111111� ��NI Willi VICINITY .MAP File No. 77=07 11111111111111111111 tlttaGF11ment 2 lzo a9'JAa`Citaca�a°tea Q H n V e `ala G .a 9 i x g�$z '� W C 2 F F Bn:S D o oc i 1'alot S 21 \ W IWO LA WRE I CE'°e11 ; `�"lac. DRI i a E "s 6 p I �_�' I ° '• > �� e a 13 1 W m � ,��9pp ----'j---��--------------- --- — --- -- ai 'i8 .� ml of �� Q 0 2 �e L 0 d d Jl )I '?J v d I N 0 I .Lal S O 4 X p "i Attachment 2 Li �I 6 1 a Cd FA { �• 20, R r` . a o ry ri IV MIAit! HIM 1 ° I ell r n3 "a �a9 0 Rif r Ik"! lis ° pit AL ; � e 11 e ! / I ols ♦ 7 LI �' t: a: i fi sr3 d v 'yam`< t �s- ti - J - _e - � --- ��y� o e - s rL if �§ O 99 <a It @ I S C t itIt � is sa a � :x 110 t /•; �; �8 a a a1p • /-l0 Attachment I xs� h-°,\\��J`\�C�� \�NN\��\\�\��0 'fit- IYme T v Mit � 1 I \1 \ �g� / rrbi � w• IA . r fall --_--_ _-_ - i d�lj _--4-_-- -- - --- --- - / M VV M011180V18 i / � -� - Attachment 2 a fl O Lot 10, -- .� o, .e Lot,12, Q l I Plant Communities i / buckeye/eucalyptus dominated omamentornamental W French broom m C - dominated ornamental C W other ornamental © ® W ruderal - ��Jy LO_'6. Lot`7� LOt m �Y C3 non-native grassland w native needlegrass c � ��. � I Lot 9 �, r1� W serpentine plant association I� C:3 freshwater seep brown headed rush _ "�_ �1 Trees California buckeye 1 Eucalyptus L 5 m 4 Acacia Coast live oak _ E i�� 1 E I . _ Peruvian pepper tree I - m LOtA Rare Plants (Approximate locations) L'ot-3...... ! C:3 Cambria morning glory x �� I W � '---__�_ Lot ;;;;; San Luis Obispo dudleya and Palmer's spineflower -.- Adobe sanicle mi ••�••••••••• "• "'--' f+ San Luis Obispo mariposa filly Lot 11 j ............. .............. � •••••••••••••••• •• � Drainage a i "' i .,.; - -- Disturbance Line ........... .......... J ...... ......... ........ N O m m L _V Existing Plant Communities and (Rare Plants U s Michael Coss/Lawrence Street, SLO m lL m 0 35 70 140 6 Feet (�Pa� R Figure 2 u u l-�a �i�Yt.l • a.rn lY P � 4 r r i(fr•..,. PIK. m. gti AY i 1 \ I �i .❖ A� H, ......... ... ••iiiiii0•• •• .•iiiii ❖.❖.❖ .. .......... .......... .......... .. ......... ... ........ ...... ..... ....... _ .❖.❖.❖.❖.❖. ❖.❖o.•.o•.o•. ' • •.••• • • ♦♦ •iiiii. •••iii%i%i�Ji '. ' •��.�i�.��%��i��Y�Y�'s��a•�.•��y •iiiiiii •iiiiiii ♦•• •i��0�� I - I •iiiiiiiiiii0•iiiii•Oiii•, 0.0000 ••000• ••OOQ�p• • OOOOONO.•O.•0000.4.••pp •• ♦...ii•.000Oip = •` � E x , f,l � li I Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO.9888(2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A VESTING TENATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 300 LAWRENCE DRIVE(TR/PD/ER 82.05;TRACT 2723) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 25, 2006, and recommended denial of Application TR/PD/ER 82-05, a request to create twelve single- family residential lots with exceptions;and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California, on March 20,2007,for the purpose of considering Application TR/PD/ER 82-05 and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission,testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findines. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The design and improvements of the vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone are not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 2.2.8 and 2.2.11, and Conservation and Open Space Policies 7.21.1.13, 8.22.2, 8.25.1, 8.25:3 and 8.25.3.A because the project proposes grading and development over nearly all of the open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site, which does not respect the site's existing constraints, adequately preserve or incorporate as amenities natural site features, adequately protect listed species or species of local concern, preserve significant trees and native grasslands,mitigate for the loss of natural resources,or incorporate buffer zones around resources requiring protection. 2. The site is not physically suited for the proposed type and density of development because exceptions to the Zoning Regulations for the required reduction of density for lots with steeper cross-slopes are being requested, and significant open space resources requiring protection are not incorporated into the development plan. 3. The design of the tentative tract map and proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial. environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the project proposes grading and development over wetlands, trees, listed species or species of local concern, and native grasslands. 4. The project is not consistent with the Planned Development rezone requirements of the Zoning Regulations because the project is not consistent with the General Plan, the site is not adequate for the project given existing constraints, and the project does not represent superior design and R 9888 Attachment 3 Resolution No. 9888 (2007 Series) Page 2 innovation,effectively respond to site features,or successfully mitigate environmental impacts. 5. The vesting tentative tract map does not further the public interest and necessity by providing significant additional housing opportunities since the number and type of housing provided will not significantly add to the needed housing supply in the City and the project impacts outweigh the benefits of the provided housing. SECTION 2. Denial. The City Council does hereby deny the vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone for property located at 300 Lawrence Drive (Application TR/PD/ER 82- 05; Tract 2723) without prejudice so as to allow a revised application to be submitted without the need to wait for one year. On motion of Vice Mayor Mulholland, seconded by Council Member Settle, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Brown, Carter, and Settle, Vice Mayor Mulholland and Mayor Romero NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 20''day of March 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hoo City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona Lowell City Attorney /-mss" I Attachment 3 City Council Meeting Page 5 Tuesday, March 20,2007-5:00 p.m. ACTION: Moved by Settle/Brown to approve a request for proposals for Crime Prevention & Community Outreach Marketing Services(Specification No.90627)for fiscal years 2007-2009 and authorize the CAO to award a contract if the proposed contract amount Is less than$55,700; motion carried 5:0. C6. FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 2726-A 168 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM.(CONVERSION)SUBDIVISION 1017 SOUTHWOOD DRIVE. (PARKWOOD CONDOMINIUM.INC-SUBDIVIDER). ACTION: Moved by Settle/Brown to adopt a revised Resolution No.9886(2007 Series)accepting the public Improvements,and reducing the improvement security for private Improvements in conjunction with Tract 2726 per a red file memo(on file In the City Clerk's office); motion carried 5:0. C7. AUTHORIZATION_OF APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(H(;D)FOR FUNDING UNDER THE 2006 WORKFORCE HOUSING REWARD(WFM PROGRAM(PROPOSITION 46). ACTION: Moved,by SettleBrown to adopt Resolution No.9887(2007 Series) authorizing the City Administrative Officer or his designee to complete and submit an application to HCD for the WFH Program and target the WFH funds to match existing City and CDBG funds for the replacement of the Laguna Lake Park Restrooms for ADA compliance;motion carried 5:0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE TO CREATE TWELVE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH EXCEPTIONS(300 LAWRENCE DRIVE TR/RQ"82.05). Community Development Director Mandeville and Associate Planner Corevpresented the agenda report. Mayor Romero opened the public hearing. Michael Coss,developer,discussed the history of the project and the redesigns that were submitted. He explained why he thought that the completion of the environmental review would respond to the neighbor's concerns and would assist staff in providing more direction. Marshall Ochylskl.Attorney and applicant's representative,reviewed the policy Issues contained In his letter dated March 201h(on file in the City Clerk's office). Grea McCown,applicant's representative,reviewed several of the General Plan policies and suggested that Council,as lead agency,can determine the appropriate CEQA document Mr.Coss and staff responded to Council's questions. Deputy Director Community Development Davidson stated,for the record,that the same policies that applied to the 1994 Open Space Element would have applied whether the project was reviewed in 1997 or 2007. The following people spoke in support of the developer and his proposal, and asked Council to make policy decision that would permit development on the project site: - Attachment 3 City Council Meeting — Page 6 Tuesday,March 20,2007-5:00 p.m. Brian Holden. Los Osos Al Hummel San Luis Obispo , Mark Perry.Oceano Barbara Cass.San Luis Obispo Natalie Tartaalla.San Luis Obispo Cirus Banv.San Luis Obispo The following people spoke against the development as proposed and supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Arnold Jonas.San Luis Obispo Dan Caldon.San Luis Obispo Shawn McNabb.San Luis Obispo Dave Hacker.San Luis Obispo Mike Emnke.San Luis Obispo Liz Ellis.San Luis Obispo Jim Eckhart.San Luis Obispo Mayor Romero closed the public hearing. Council recessed from 9:13 to 9:25 p.m.and the meeting reconvened with all members present During the ensuing discussion,Council Members agreed that the tentative map was inconsistent with the General Plan In several respects and does not meet Planned Development(PD)zone requirements. The following Is a summary of their concerns and recommendations: ' Vice Mayor Mulholland pointed out the need for small,low-Income housing rather than a traditional subdivision with large lots and suggested amore Innovative project that will respond to the site's constraints. Council Member Settle suggested that the fill can be removed and trees can be relocated,but that the project should utilize clustered development to preserve other natural resource features. Council Member Brown said he was not concerned with the removal of the California Buckeye trees,but that the proposal contains too many units. Council Member Carter said he wouldn't rule out development,but could not visualize as many as 10 to 12 lots on the site. He expressed concern about drainage,traffic,and privacy Issues. He suggested using speed bumps for traffic control. Mayor Romero supported development on the site,but said the number of units should be less than 12. He preferred a standard cul de sac at the end of Lawrence Drive,thought the fill needs to be replaced,did not have concerns with the removal of the California Buckeye trees, thought the presence of the wetlands and Adobe Sanicleas well as privacy Issues precluded building on the lower three lots,and suggested that the drainage from all of the units should be carried in an underground pipe system. He also suggested that fees should be waived for the re-submittal of an applicatlon. it was moved by Mulholland/Settle to approve the CAO recommendation denying a vesting ' tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone. /-17 Attachment 3 City Council Meeting -_. Page 7 Tuesday,March 20,2007-5:00 pm. Council Member Carter asked that the references to Conservation and Open Space Element policies 7.22.1 (Protection of Significant Trees)and 7.22.4(Preservation of Grassland Communities and Other Habitat Types)In section 1,subsection 1,removed from the resolution denying the application. A discussion followed during which Natural Resources Manager Havlik clarified that the native grassland area includes the Mariposa Lilly,which Is a species of concern. Additionally, City Attorney Lowell clarified that Council may wish to specify if the denial is without prejudice to allow the applicant to resubmit an application without having to wait the requisite one-year period. Vice Mayor Mulholland and Council Member Settle concurred to amend the motion as Indicated below. Vice Mayor Mulholland stated for the record that she would support the amended motion,but disagreed with the reason for removing the policies as requested by Council Member Carter. Mayor Romero reiterated that he would consider the development acceptable with less than 12 units,that Lawrence Drive should terminate in a standard cul de sac,that the fill should be eliminated,and that no development should be permitted on the lower three lots. Council Member Carter expressed concern regarding precluding all development on the lower portion of the site. Community Development Director Mandeville clarified that the Mariposa Lilly is afforded the same protection by the General Plan as other species In the lower portion of the site,which may preclude a lot in that area. He added that preserving and properly mitigating other Impacts in that area did not require that Council preclude development in the entire lower third of the site. Instead,protecting the resources with buffer areas as described In the General Plan would be sufficient,and may be an option for the applicant to obtain one of the findings required in the PD zone. ACTION: Moved by Mulholland/Settle to adopt Resolution No.9888(20(Y7 Series), denying a vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone to create twelve single-family residential lots with exceptions(TRIPD/ER 82-05). The motion Included the following revisions to the resolution: 1)deleting the references to Conservation and Open Space Element policies 7.22.1 (Protection of Significant Trees)and 7.22A(Preservation of Grassland Communities and Other Habitat Types)in section 1,subsection 1,and 2)adding language In section 2 denying the project without prejudice sous to allow a revised application to be submitted without the need to wait for one year. Motion canted 5:0. ACTION: Moved by Settle/Brown to provide staff and developer with the following direction: 1)Development of the site Is not appropriate on the upper steeply sloped open space portion of the site,2)The open space resources located on the lower portion of the site, including the wetlands,Adobe Sanicle,Cambria Morning Glory and Mariposa Lilly shall be preserved with appropriate buffers,and therefore those areas of the lower portion of the site are not appropriate for development 3)The central portion of the site that has been disturbed and is covered with fill material is an appropriate area for development. 4)Application fees for a new submittal, where duplicative of fees paid for the current proposal,shall be waived. Motion carried 4:1 (Mulholland opposed). Attachment 3 City Council Meeting Page 8 Tuesday, March 20,2007-5:00 p.m. CAO Hamplan made closing remarks which Included, In part,the need to focus on City policies and the Council's direction at this meeting for a future submittal, He also noted that he and Community Development Director Mandeville will take Into consideration comments regarding staff assignments for future submittals,and urged the applicant to consider adding a professional planner to his team with experience working with challenging and complex projects like this one. The Agenda was reordered to consider Council Liaison Reports at this time. \ COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Mayor Romero reported on his attendance at the March 7'"SLO Council of Governments meeting. (His report is on file In the City Clerk's office.) Council Membe\SetNe reported on his attendance at a meeting of the Performing Arts Center (PAC)Facilities Co ittee and submitted Information on the capital improvement programs pending for the PAC Vice Mayor Mulholland rgl!erted on her attendance at the March 7t'County Water Resources Advisory Committee meeting. She also reported on her attendance at the March le Integrated Waste Managemen Board meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Vice Mayor Mulholland said she atten the Ahwhanee Conference over the weekend and will provide further Information on the co erence In the future. TUDY ESSI N 3. UPDATE N ACTIVITIES OF THE NATU RESOURCES PROTECTION PROGRAM IN 2006. Assistant CAO Stanwvck Introduced this Item,following hlch Natural Resources Manager Havlik,and the City Biologist Vie,presented a report on t activities of the Natural Resources Protection Program In 2006 and the outlook for 2 . At the end of the presentation,City Biologist Otte displayed a video of steeihead ut spawning in SLO Creek taken on March 6th at the site of a silt removal project. Mayor Romero called for public comments at this time. Patricia Wllmom SLO Chamber of Commerce,acknowledged the success o e City's Natural Resources Program and expressed appreciation to staff for their acco Ishments. ACTION: Council received the report No action was taken. There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Romero adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m.to Tuesday,April 3,2007, In the Council Chamber,990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Audrfy Hooper eAPPROVED BY COUNCIL: 04103/07 City Clark Attachment 4` Project description Location This site is located at the end of Lawrence Street and within the city limits. It is bordered by open space on two sides and residential on the other two with a density of approximately 7 units per acre. Current Zoning and Density The site consists of 2.65 acres of R-1 and .8 acres of private open space. The slope of the property using the slope average calculation method is 19.48%. This allows for 4 units per acre. Design History Original design on this project started in June of 2004. Direction by the staff at that time was to design an R-1 subdivision that looked like the existing neighborhood and would still provide for the maximum number of housing stock within the city limits. The first design was submitted one year later but deemed incomplete over environmental and design issues. Over the course of the next two years and several redesigns project was submitted to the city as a Planned Development and is currently under review. Planned Development This project has been submitted as a Planned Development. It was determined that a standard R-1 subdivision was not in character with the size, location and physical constraints of the property. More creative design was desired to provide a unique neighborhood within a neighborhood. Specific site constraints, neighborhood needs and environmental resources have been blended into this project preserving the existing feel of the neighborhood while the uniqueness of a planned development. 1. While there was already open space on the site, new open space has been added and of that over one acre has been dedicated to the city. 2. There are several species of plants that are considered plants of high priority to the city or state. Of these all will be saved and most within the open space provided without any disturbance. 3. Pathways and signage will be provided to allow access to the larger open space and help educate people on the natural resources. 4. The private drive is designed to promote neighborhood gatherings and addition usable area. Large circular areas.are located at the midpoint and end of the drive. These are landscaped and benches are provided to promote neighbors to gather and meet for play for children or BBQ, s. The gates located at the entrance keep car traffic to a minimum and safety for the kids.There is an opening in the gate that allows for unobstructed pedestrian access. Natural Resources There are four plants of highest priority on the property. All will be preserved in there place they are with the exception of two small areas totaling less than one thousand square feet. The plants in those areas will be moved to open space and also preserved. The property has approximately 20 buckeye trees that are not local, indigenous or protected. These will be removed but a replacement program that consists of largely oaks, toyons and some buckeyes will take place in designated open space areas. Also within the open space approximately three thousand five hundred square feet of California Native Grass has been preserved. Attachment E ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES TRACT 2723 Intent: The intent of these architectural guidelines is to provide the prospective buyer, builder, or designer with a set of site development, architectural and landscape design parameters to be used as a guide in the design of all proposed homes. This design guideline is not intended to replace or be used in lieu of any subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's); and To provide the City of San Luis Obispo with a document that will facilitate and expedite the review and subsequent approval of custom homes in the tract. Review Process: Designers of homes within the tract will be required to undertake a design review process with the following required submittals: 1. A site plan to scale identifying all setbacks, yard space, driveway aprons, and building footprint. 2. An elevation of each side of the building, including materials and color information with body color samples, accent color samples, and window and door specifications. 3. A landscape plan including a list of proposed plant material, location of proposed plant material, and statement of the proposed irrigation system. City Approval: The architectural design of homes within the tract will be approved in accordance with the following approval process. 1. Staff will review these submittals and will return it to the applicant with comments and direction for modifications to be included in the final construction document package. All homes proposed for the tract must undergo a thorough review by City staff. City staff will use an established checklist to review all home plans. Should there be a difference of opinion between City staff and the applicant during this review, the design concept package may be forwarded to the City's Architectural Review Commission for an in-depth review and recommendations. 2. After approval of the design concept, construction documents, including all drawings, designs, and materials must be accurately completed and submitted to the City Building Department. May 16, 2007 /��/ A+tact trient 5 Architectural Guidelines Tract 2723 3. If any substantial changes occur to the building or landscape design due to Building Department review, the Planning staff will be notified and provide a second review for consistency with the Guidelines. 4. After payment of all applicable fees and compliance with applicable City policies, a building permit will be issued. Site Design Guidelines: The following design guidelines set the parameters for site development, including building envelopes and setbacks. Each specific site design shall respond to the size, shape and slope characteristics of each individual lot. Building Envelopes and Setbacks. Building envelopes and setbacks .are intended to create architectural variety, interest, and individuality while respecting natural site conditions and constraints. 1. Street yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the closest adjacent edge of the dedicated right-of-way or common driveway access easement. 2. Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 5 feet from building to property line. Excepting that the setbacks for Lots 5 and 6 shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the adjacent City owned open space with no structural elements allowed within that setback. 3. Rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 15 feet from building to property line. Architectural Design Guidelines: These architectural design guidelines are intended to establish general parameters and direction that encourage creative and appropriate building design solutions without severely restricting the design process. General Considerations. The following considerations shall form the basis for the architectural design of each of the individual homes: 1. The architectural design and siting of each of the individual homes shall vary from each other in architectural character, size, and massing. 2. Existing site features, such as healthy existing vegetation and natural rock formations, shall be incorporated into the site plan if these existing features can be used to improve site appearance or enhance its proposed use. July 30, 2007 -2 _ //�� Architectural Guidelines - Attachment 5 Tract 2723 3. Large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns shall be avoided. 4. Materials, colors, and textures shall be used which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high contrasts. Form and Massing. 1. Homes shall be designed-to follow the topography using split pads, stepped footings, and grade separations to allow dwellings to step up or down the slope. 2. The exteriors shall be broken into a variety of planes, intended to create visually interesting shadow lines. 3. Structures and decks shall be oriented to maximize views while preserving privacy of surrounding neighbors. 4. Decks shall be integrated into the architecture of the house to the maximum extent feasible, not appearing as being tacked on to the primary building mass. 5. Windows and other openings shall be located away from the windows and openings of adjoining homes to insure privacy. 6. Mechanical equipment may be placed on rooftops or below a deck only if the equipment is not visible from off the site, except for unobtrusive solar collectors that are compatible with the roof line and architecturally integrated with the structure. Exterior Walls. 1. The apparent size of exterior wall surfaces visible from off the site shall be minimized through the use of setbacks, overhangs, roof pitches, and/or other means of horizontal and vertical articulation to create shade and shadow, and break up otherwise massive forms. 2. Large flat building planes shall be avoided, the spatial arrangement of the building, including roof overhangs, shall be used to achieve alternating light and dark building surfaces that will blend with similar contrasts found in the homes located in the adjoining neighborhoods. Roofs. 1. Roof pitches shall generally be oriented to follow the angle of the hillside slope, but with variations to minimize a monotonous un-natural appearance. July 30, 2007 - 3 - /�23 • '�_ , � ' Architectural Guidelines Attachment 5 Tract 2723 2. Flat roofs shall only be developed as decks or gardens serving nearby living space. Materials and Colors. 1. A mixture of materials and color shall be used to blend structures with the natural appearance of the hillside. 2. Natural and natural-appearing materials such as stone, brick and other masonry, and wood shall be emphasized, with fire retardant materials used where appropriate. Exterior finishes shall be primarily of materials with uneven textures (wood, stone. etc.). 3. Reflective materials shall be avoided. 4. The exterior colors of each structure shall emphasize dark earth tones on north- facing slopes, and medium earth tones on south-facing slopes. 5. Preference shall be given to earth tone colors such as brown, beige, ocher,sienna, grey, and grey-green. 6. Warm colors may be used in small areas for either accessory treatment, or as a design counterpoint. Retaining Walls. 1. Retaining walls and fences shall not exceed 6 feet in height. The preferred design is to have a series of 3-foot tall walls, separated by landscaped terraces. 2. Parallel walls and fences must be separated by a minimum planting area of 5 feet. 3. All retaining walls shall be constructed of earth tone split face block. Exterior Lighting. Development shall minimize the impacts of exterior lighting in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. The number and intensity of exterior lighting fixtures shall be minimized. 2. Each exterior light fixture shall be directed downward, and shall incorporate shielding to prevent light spilling onto adjacent properties, and otherwise prevent any glare visible to neighbors, so that no exterior light interferes with views of the night sky and the hillside. July 30, 2007 -4 - �-2� Architectural Guidelines Attachment 5 Tract 2723 Landscape Design Guidelines: The objective of these landscape design guidelines is to create harmony with nature and the adjacent neighborhood. General Considerations. The following considerations shall form the basis for the landscape design of each of the individual home sites: I. Landscape shall be used to blend built elements such as structures and grading cuts and fills into the natural neighborhood setting. 2. Contrived, non-native landscaping located on visible slopes, and the planting of long tree rows or formal hedges visible from a public right-of-way shall be avoided. Plant Materials. Plant materials selected for use in landscaping the homes shall conform to the following guidelines:. 1. Plant materials shall consist primarily of native, drought tolerant, and non- combustive species. 2. Plant materials shall be compatible with the existing natural vegetation on the site in terms of height and color. Hardscape. The design of the hardscape shall conform to the following guidelines: 1. Enhance the building design and integrate with the architecture of the building, and follow all the same principles of these guidelines applicable to other aspects of project design, including minimizing grading while providing for adequate, but controlled drainage. 2. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slope. 3. Use materials and colors that blend with the building. 4. Provide for outdoor living spaces that are designed to be sensitive to the privacy of neighbors. July 30, 2007 - 5 - / Attachment 5 }Architectural Guidelines Tract 2723 Fencing. The design of the site fencing shall conform to the following guidelines: 1. Fencing shall be limited to the developable portions of hillside lots, which is typically defined by the parameters of the allowable building envelope. 2. Perimeter fencing that is visible from off-site vantages shall be of a semi- transparent, rather than solid design. Examples of appropriate materials for semi- transparent fencing include black or green vinyl-coated chain link, wrought iron, split rail, and 4-inch square welded wire. 3. The use of solid, opaque fencing shall be limited to the side yards between living areas on adjacent lots. The preference is for a more naturalistic approach to screening in the side yards, with semi-transparent fencing combined with landscaping, or landscaping alone. Erosion Control. 1. All graded slopes shall be immediately planted and irrigated with an automatic system. Graded slopes in excess of 6 vertical feet in height and 1-1/2:1 slope shall be treated with erosion control matting in addition to planting. 2. Erosion control planting design shall provide both short and long term slope stability through a plant palette including short lived, fast growing slope stabilizing groundcover, long lived groundcover and shrubs and long lived trees and shrubs. 3. Building downspouts shall be tight lined to the closest paved driveway and/or site drain pipe network. Irrigation. 1. All planted areas shall be irrigated with a water efficient automatic system. The use of microspray, drip systems or other efficient methods is required. Automatic controllers are necessary to avoid over-watering and to efficiently control the application of water. July 30, 2007 - 6 - /_�� J Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. 5492-07 A RESOLU'T'ION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR-A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF LAWRENCE DRIVE(300 LAWRENCE DRIVE); TR/PD/ER 77-07 (TRACT 2723) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 26, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/PD/ER 77-07, a request to allow Planned Development Rezoning and a tentative tract map fora residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: -SECTION 1. Planned Development Rezone Findings. 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Airport Land Use Plan, and the proposed residential land use is allowed within the primary zoning district (R-1). 2. The project complies with all applicable provision of the Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning, which include: clustering of units within lots smaller than otherwise allowed, reduced street yards, and alternative fencing standards and requirements. 3. The approved modifications to the development standards of the Zoning Regulations, listed in Finding No. 2, are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project, its compatibility with adjacent land uses, and its successful mitigation of environmental impacts. 4. The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines and establishes additional parameters to ensure development is in harmony with nature and the adjacent neighborhood. / /_/n r7 Attachm, ent S TR,PD and ER 77-07 Planning Commission Resolution 300 Lawrence Drive Page 2 5. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. 6. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. 7. The, site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use. 8. With the incorporation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. SECTION 2. Subdivision Findings. 1. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and Airport Land Use Plan, including compatibility with with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. 2. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. 3. As conditioned, the subdivider will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attach set aside, void or annul an approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff concerning a subdivision. 4. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, including Land Use Element Policies 2.2.6, 2.2.8 and 2.2.11, and Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 7.3.1.1), 7.5.1, 7.5.4, 8.6.3 and 8.3.2.A, because the subdivision will provide residential development anticipated by the General Plan and preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features and sensitive natural resources. 5. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because the project has been designed to utilize available residential density while protecting open space resources. 6. With the incorporation of the recommended conditions and mitigation measures, the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the project will adequately protect in-place,relocate, or replace open space resources. Attachment 6 TR,PD and ER 77-07 Planning Commission Resolution 300 Lawrence Drive Page 3 7. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems because the type of improvements are appropriate for the location will be-designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 8. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because such easements will be maintained. 9. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on September 12, 2007. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identifies that there is no foreseeable potential for significant environmental impacts by the proposed project. SECTION 3. Action. The Commission hereby recommends approval of the Planned Development Rezone, vesting tentative tract map, and adoption of said Mitigated Negative Declaration (TR/PD/ER 77-07), with incorporation of the following project conditions: 1. All mitigation measures included in ER 77-07 are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Mitigation Measure No. 8 shall be revised to state: The appropriate boundary of the upper open space lot shall be subject to modification by the City Natural Resource Manager, following an in the field inspection, in order to ensure sufficient protection of the spineflower within the upper open space lot. 3. The conditions of approval, architectural guidelines, mitigation measures and all easements shall be recorded on-title with the individual lots. 4. A rock crushing operation plan shall be provided to and approved by the Community Development Department establishing hours and duration of rock crushing operations prior to the commencement of work. 5. A construction monitoring plan consistent with APCD standards shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved by the APCD prior to the issuance of public improvement or construction permits. 6. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal, shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to proceeding to the City Council. The applicant shall provide an assessment of average square footage of the 10 lots in order to determine what the in lieu fee calculation will be so that the City and developer can agree on the amount due. 7. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. Attachment G TR,PD and ER 77-07 Planning Commission Resolution 300 Lawrence Drive Page 4 S. The entry gate shall be eliminated or replaced with an entry feature that does not impede access into the site. 9. 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. 10. The proposed cul-de-sac at the termination of Lawrence Drive, including the entire area with rolled curb transitioning to a flush sidewalk and a total radius of 34 feet clear, shall be a private street maintained by a homeowners' association with public access and utility easements and maintenance agreements provided to the City as approved by the Public Works Department, Utilities Department, Fire Department and City Attorney. 11. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications. 12. A public improvement plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval. All grades, layout, staking and cut- sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. 13. The developer shall submit a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic report, as required by Section 2.2 of the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual (WWMP-DDM), reflecting the final subdivision design and adequately addressing all of the required report components including as well as, run-off from seeps and springs, and design of the proposed retaining walls. 14. All sewer lines serving the subdivision will be privately maintained by a homeowners' association to the point of connection at a City-approved location. Private sewer mains shall be designed and inspected in accordance with City Standards, Manholes and clean- outs will be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. 15. A clean-out at the end of the sewer line serving Lot 9 shall be provided. An extension of the sewer line to the adjacent property (300 Lawrence) shall be eliminated from the Tract Map. 16. Easements for all public and private utilities shall be clearly designated on the Tract Map. 17. Common driveway and utility agreements are required for the private driveway, to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors, per City standards and regulations. The access road and utility extension plans shall be included as part of the subdivision improvement submittals. 1 \ Affachm, ent O TR,PD and ER 77-07 Planning Commission Resolution 300 Lawrence Drive Page 5 18. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 19. The subdivider shall be responsible for necessary adjustments to existing fire hydrants, public and private utility and drainage services and any other affected facilities, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. 20. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaires, etc.) per City standards, including off-site street lighting along roadways leading to and from the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. 21. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the tract boundary along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. There shall be no increase in the number of poles that presently exist. 22. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 23. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Natural Resource Manager. The City Arborist and Natural Resource Manager shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist. 24. 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 one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre, 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. 25. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the SWRCB shall be included as part of the building permit and/or grading permit plan submittal. The WDID Number issued by the board shall be noted on all plans that involve regulated land disturbing activities. 26. A standard fire service lateral to a double-check detector assembly and a live line up to a City standard hydrant shall be provided in-lieu of the proposed dry standpipe. These facilities shall all be labeled as "Private". /--31 Attachment 6 TR,PD and ER 77-07 Planning Commission Resolution 300 Lawrence Drive Page 6 27. Water meters for individual homes shall be at lease 1" size. The maximum number of 1" meters that can be placed on a single 2" water service lateral is four. Since there are a total of nine water meters at the end of Lawrence Drive, each 2" service lateral shall serve three 1" water meters. This requirement is subject to the Fire Sprinkler Engineer's approval and calculations verifying that this configuration can provide the required flow. 28. A blow-off assembly is required at the end of the public water main in Lawrence Drive, and shall be shown on the map. The fire hydrant on Lot 9 appears to be designed as a public fire hydrant. A public water system easement is required on Lot 9 to provide for this hydrant to be public. 29. The on-site sewer system shall be labeled as "Private" from the manhole at the end of Lawrence Drive and including the sewer across the back of lots 6-9 and through lots 10 and 12. 30. The configuration of the water services at the end of Lawrence Drive is considered schematic for the purposes of the tract map, and will require adjustment to comply with City policies and standards. These corrections will be made after submittal of the public improvement plans. The water meter manifolds may require adjustment, as well. Service lines from the back of the water meters to each of the homes shall be shown and covered by private utility easements wherever private service lines cross one parcel for the benefit of another. 31. The use of private driveways and the cul-de-sac sidewalk for the turning of fire trucks, trash trucks, and Utilities service vehicles causes some concern. The applicant's engineer shall demonstrate that private driveways and the cul-de-sac sidewalk (including the water meter manifold areas) used for the turning of fire trucks, trash trucks, and Utilities service vehicles, will be structurally capable of supporting these loads without breaking down prematurely. The owner's association shall be responsible for repair of any damage to these facilities that may occur over time as a result of the routine activities of these vehicles. Code Requirements: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. 1. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any work or construction staging in the public right-of-way. 2. A traffic control plan and/or pedestrian control plan shall be approved prior to encroachment permit issuance for work in the public right-of-way. r AQtfaC�jMl e nt (j TR,PD and ER 77-07 Planning Commission Resolution 300 Lawrence Drive Page 7 3. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. 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 satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 5. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements, the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans &record drawings, compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF)for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. On motion by Commissioner Ashbaugh, seconded by Commissioner Multari, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Carpenter, Gould-Wells, Ashbaugh, Multari, and Stevenson NOES: none REFRAIN`. none ABSENT: Chairwoman Christianson and Commissioner Brodie The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26`h day of September, 2007. V� Pam Ricc'i,'§&Kior Planner for Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission �- Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment September 26, 2007 Page 2 rren Kraker, San Luis Obispo, did not support additional development adjacent to h pro rty and expressed concerns with potential privacy and overlook impacts fro e projec . There were o further comments made from the public. COMMISSION MMENTS: Comments focused the need to build on vacant land ile meeting the intent of the City's development goa . Commr. Multari asked for larification of th density that would be allowed if the property were sold in the futur On motion by Commr. Ashbau h recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated N ative Declaration aR6 amend theGeneral Plan Land Use Element map to change the land use designaticn of 871 la Street from Medium Density Residential to Medium-High D-ensitv Residential; and Nzone the propeq from R- -2-H to R-3-H: Seconded by Commr. 61d-Wells. AYES: Co rs. Carpenter, Multari, Ashbau , Gould-Wells, and Stevenson NOES: ne RECUSENone ABSE Commrs. Christianson and Brodie T e motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2. 300 Lawrence Drive. TR, PD and ER 77=07; Request for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development zoning creating 10 residential and 2 open space lots, and environmental review; R-1 zone; Total Development Company, applicant. (Jaime Hill) Associate Planner Jaime Hill presented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend the City Council approve the vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone, and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code requirements. Michael Coss, applicant, addressed several of the Commissioners concerns, explaining that the on-site crusher would be a small machine that would operate for approximately 3-5 days and that the easement at the Mitchell Drive extension allows for general access currently. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lisa Myrick, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns about increased traffic, as the street is narrow with non-ADA compliant sidewalks. Attachment 6 Draft Planning Commission MIIJUies September 26, 2007 Page 3 Dan Calden, San Luis Obispo., opposed the extension of Mitchell Drive and voiced concern that Lot 10 would affect his property value. Dave Hacker, San Luis Obispo, noted that the project was much improved, felt there was no public benefit to an entrance gate, that de minimus finding was not appropriate, and that traffic was insufficiently mitigated. Shawn McNab, San Luis Obispo expressed concerns with increased traffic, and was concerned about being advised if hazardous materials were found, light pollution, private views from homes, and safety impacts associated with the proposed trail. Arnold Jonas, San Luis Obispo, thought that the project was significantly improved but pointed out that it was up to the decision makers to determine if full use of the available density was appropriate. He described concerns with protecting natural resources versus providing density, and noted that the potential new owner should be provided with a copy of the requirements for building design. Jeff Lambert, San Luis Obispo, spoke in support of the project because it is consistent with the General Plan, but stated that the neighborhood should be looking into traffic calming options. Richard Stevens, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about on-street parking capacity and asked if Meadow Drive was going to be closed. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Multari asked several questions about the Conservation easement on Lots 2-6, which Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik explained would follow City standards as applied most recently to the Bowden Ranch subdivision. He noted he would like to see signage depicting the route to the open space area which would keep it more accessible to the public. He asked for clarification of Council direction No.2, and stated that he was in favor of the public trail and that in addition to being provided architectural guidelines, the future property owners should be given the conditions of approval, mitigation measures, and Landscape & mitigation plan. Commissioner Ashbaugh questioned the feasibility of 21 replacement of Buckeyes in- kind, and potential interference with the freshwater seep, and Mr. Havlik explained that the final planting plan would include sufficient buffering to protect the seep, lily and needlegrass, and if required plantings exceed the available on-site area, some plantings may occur in other areas as identified in the. South Hills Management Plan. He expressed that the neighbors should be notified if pollutants are found and he felt the design of Lot 10 was greatly improved. Comms. Gould-Wells explained that the APCD notification process regarding pollutants was very successful and expressed that the City should provide off-site signage on Mitchell identifying the public trail. ��35 ( � � Attachment 6 Draft Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2007 Page 4 Commission Stevenson expressed concern about the noise impacts associated with rock crusher operation on the property, noted that there should be images in the architectural guidelines, and that the guidelines needed to be provided to property owners. On motion by Commissioner Ashbaugh to recommend approval of the project to Council with the addition of four conditions of approval* 1)The conditions of approval, architectural guidelines mitigation measures and all easements shall be -recorded on-title with the individual lots; 2) A rock crushing operation Dian shall be provided to and approved.by the Community Development Department establishing hours and duration- of rock crushing operations prior to the commencement of work: 3) A construction monitoring plan consistent with APCD standards shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved by the APCD prior to the issuance of public improvement or construction permit and 4) Mitigation Measure No 8 shall be revised to state: The appropriate boundary of the upper open space-lot-shall be subject to modification by the City Natural Resource Manager, following an in the field inspection, in order to ensure sufficient protection of the spineflower within the upper open space lot. Seconded by Commr. Multari. AYES: Commrs. Carpenter, Multari, Ashbaugh, Gould-Wells, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Christianson, Brodie The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. Staff . Agenda Forecast Deputy Dire r Davidson discussed the open agenda for the next re y scheduled agenda (Octobe 0�') and the upcoming special meeting on Oc r 17U1 on the South Broad Street Com Plan. The Commission decided to the regularly scheduled meeting of October 10 a walking tour of the So road Street area in preparation for the October 17th meetin . Meeting will sta 5:30 at Fire Station #1, the comer of Santa Barbara Street and Broa treet. 4. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no fu r business before the Commission, the eting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. to the re r meeting (field trip) of the Planning Commissi scheduled for Wednesday O er 10, 2007 at 5:30 p.m.; congregating at Fire Stati #1 at Santa Barbara venue and Broad Street -�, Attachment 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 1 BY: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner (781-7165) DATE: September 26, 2007 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director of Community DevelopmentD.D . FILE NUMBER: TR/PD/ER 77-07 (County Tract Map No. 2723) PROJECT ADDRESS: 300 Lawrence Drive SUBJECT: TR/PD/ER 77-07 — Review of a 10-unit residential development including: a vesting tentative tract map, Planned Development rezone, and environmental review for a residential development including nine (9) single-family residential lots, two (2) open space lots, one (1) lot containing common area, and a lot line adjustment of an existing residential lot, on R- 1 &C/OS-40 zoned property located at the westerly terminus of Lawrence Drive(Tract 2723). RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approve the vesting tentative tract map and Planned Development rezone, and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, based on findings, and subject to conditions and code:requirements. BACKGROUND Situation On May 15, 2005, the City received an application for a vesting tentative tract map and environmental review to create 14 single-family lots on the 3.46-acre site. After numerous redesigns and modifications the applicant requested the project be scheduled for a public hearing before the,Planning Commission despite the project's inconsistencies with City policies and standards. On October 25, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the tentative tract map and rezoning request for compliance with the General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision.Regulations and made a recommendation to the City Council to deny the requests. On March 20, 2007, the City Council denied the project without prejudice so as to allow a revised application to be submitted without the need to wait for one year (Attachment 2). On May 16, 2007, a revised project reflecting Council direction was submitted to the City for review. Data Summary Address: 300 Lawrence Drive Applicant: Total Development Company Representative: Michael Coss. Zoning: R-1 & C/OS-40 (Low Density Residential &,Conservation and Open Space with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres) General Plan: Low Density Residential & Open Space Environmental Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended by the Community Development Director on September 11, 2007. TR/PD/ER 77-07 (Total De,elopment Company) Attachment 6 300 Lawrence Drive Page 2 Site Description The vacant, rectangular-shaped site consists of two lots and approximately 3.46 acres located on the north facing slope of the South Hills; 2.65 acres of the site are designated for residential uses (R-1) and the remaining 0.8 acres are designated for conservation and open space (C/OS). The site slopes from south to north with an average slope of 20%. The upper portion of the property contains serpentine rock with thin soils and numerous plant species which are restricted to such soils. This includes several species classified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as "List 1B, Plants of Highest Priority", which are considered rare and endangered in California and elsewhere, or listed as "species of local concern" by the City of San Luis Obispo's Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). The lower portion of the site consists of deeper and more productive soils derived from the serpentine rocks, but capable of supporting a more diverse mix of plants. Two additional species classified by the CNPS as "List 1B" plants or as "species of local concern" by the COSE are found in this portion of the property. Additional site features include two small wetlands, rock outcroppings, an area of native needlegrass grassland and a variety of native and non-native trees and shrubs, including California Buckeye, Toyon, Coast Live Oak,Pine,Eucalyptus and French Broom. Many years ago, a portion of the property was evidently used for the unengineered dumping of unconsolidated construction debris. This portion of the property occupies about one-half acre located toward the center of the site, and it has been colonized by a fairly large and mature stand of California Buckeye, Toyon and Coast Live Oak. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). Proiect Description The project is a 10-unit residential development including: a vesting tentative map and Planned Development (PD) rezone of an existing 3.46-acre site to create 9 single-family residential lots, 2 open space lots offered to the City in fee, 1 lot containing common area, and a lot line adjustment of an existing residential lot. The residential parcels range in net area from 3,871.1 square feet to 10,553.3 square feet. Because the applicant proposes to sell finished lots for individual design and construction, Architectural Guidelines for the new lots have been provided to set the parameters for individual site development. The Guidelines include building. envelopes, setbacks, and design standards to ensure that new development is consistent with adopted Hillside development policies. The Guidelines also provide direction on exterior lighting, building colors & materials, and landscaping, to ensure that development is in harmony with nature and the adjacent development (Architectural Guidelines, Attachment 4). The PD rezone is being requested to allow exceptions to typical property development standards, including: 1)Minimum lot.size for sites with slopes greater than 15%; 2)Reduced street yard setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet; and 3)A 5 foot tall wrought iron fence with 5 foot setback from the street where a 13 foot setback.is required. Other components of the subdivision include extensive site grading and the installation of private improvements, including a cul-de-sac with curb, gutter and sidewalk at the end of Lawrence Drive, a private driveway accessing the residential lots, and wrought iron fencing and entry feature. The private driveway is proposed at the end of the private cul-de-sac to serve lots 1-9. Access to the existing (reconfigured) lot off Meadow Street, Lot 10, is via an existing common driveway /�-38" TR/PD/ER 77-07 (Total L_ .elopment Company) �' Attachment 6 300 Lawrence Drive Page 3 easement. The existing 30-foot wide public pedestrian access and utility easement located along the site's northerly boundary is proposed to remain, providing access to a 6-foot wide walking path connecting to the existing South Hills trail system. The lots and other improvements have been laid out to provide a safe and attractive residential cluster. To compensate for the relatively small usable space on the individual lots, the common driveway has been designed to accommodate vehicles and provide an attractive area for residents to gather. Individual driveways are clustered around two circular nodes treated with decorative paving, and a central landscaped divider will provide a boulevard effect. To restrict the number of vehicles on the common driveway and reduce the speed of traffic, the applicant has proposed to place a decorative wrought iron gate across the vehicle entrance to the site. Pedestrian access to the site would remain unfettered along a separate pathway to the north. Inclusionary Housing Requirements will be fulfilled through the payment of in-lieu fees. EVALUATION As previously mentioned, an earlier project at this site was denied by the City Council due to inconsistencies with the General Plan. At that time, the Council also provided direction to the applicant on features that should be incorporated into the project to make it consistent with City policies. The Council provided staff and the applicant with the following direction: 1) Development of the site is not appropriate on the upper steeply sloped open space portion of the site; 2) The open space resources located on the lower portion of the site, including the wetlands, Adobe Sanicle; Cambria Morning Glory and Mariposa Lilly shall be preserved with appropriate buffers, and therefore those areas of the lower portion of the site are not appropriate for development; 3) The central portion of the site that has been disturbed and is covered with fill material is an appropriate area for development, and; 4) Application fees for a new submittal, where duplicative of fees paid for the current proposal, shall be waived. The following discussion provides an evaluation of the revised project for consistency with prior Council direction and with applicable General Plan Policies and development standards: General Plan Consistencv The site is designated as "Low Density Residential & Open Space" on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and the site is currently undeveloped. The General Plan anticipates single-family residences developed in some fashion on the Low Density Residential portion of the site and wildlife and native plant habitat preservation on the Open Space portion. Due to the site's steep topography and presence of significant natural resources, development over the Low Density Residential portion of the site presents significant challenges to site design. Consistent with General Plan policies and the Councils' direction, the applicant has now defined constraints and developed mitigation measures for project impacts that complies City requirements. General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The City must make a finding that a tentative map is or is not consistent with the General Plan. Based on staff's detailed review, the development proposal can now be found consistent with numerous General Plan /-39 TR/PD/ER 77-07 (Total DtyeAttachment +;lopment Company) L' 300 Lawrence Drive Page 4 policies. Those policies are listed below in order of importance to the project in bold print and staff's analysis follows in italics. 1. General Plan COSE Policies 7.3.1.1) (Protect listed species) and 7.3.2.0 (Species of local concern) state: "The City will protect listed species and species of local concern through its actions on: land-use designations; development standards; development applications..." 2. General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.2.11 (Site Constraints) states: "Residential development shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation, and significant trees". 3. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.8 (Natural Features) states: "Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views,creeks,wetlands, wildlife habitats,and plants". Staff Analysis:: The project is consistent with these policies, and is considered to be an "acceptable" design according to Figure 8 of the COSE because the project has been designed to adequately respect the existing constraints, preserve or incorporate as amenities natural site features, and protect listed species and species of local concern through a combination of dedication of lands containing resources and placement of biological easements over those resources held on private property. As previously discussed, the site contains several plant species that are classified by the CNPS as "List IB, Plants of Highest Priority", which are considered rare and endangered in California and elsewhere or as "species of local concern" by the COSE. The former include the San Luis Obispo Star Tulip, San Luis Obispo Dudleya, Palmer Spineflower, Cambria Morning Glory and Adobe Sanicle, and the latter includes the Clay Mariposa Lily. The Adobe Sanicle is considered "rare" by the State of California, due to evidence that the San Luis Obispo area is the only area where this species still survives. In addition, the site contains two small wetlands, native needlegrass grassland, scenic rock outcroppings and a variety of native and non-native trees and shrubs (California Buckeye, Toyon, Coast Live Oak, Pine, Eucalyptus and French Broom). All of these species and features are considered open space resources as described in Goals 7.2 and 8.2.2 of the COSE. As indicated on the Landscape and Open Space Mitigation plan, proposed grading and development will require only isolated relocation of recognized open space resources located within the R-1 zoned portion of the site. The proposed mitigation plan includes relocation of San Luis Obispo Dudleya and Palmer's Spineflower from Lot 4 to Open Space Lot 1 at the southern end of the site, and replacement plantings in Open Space Lot 12 at the north end of the site. 4. General Plan COSE Goal 7.4 (Trees and other plants) states: "Protect, preserve and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation,particularly native California species". �-y6 TR/PD/ER 77-07 (Tota] D...clopment Company) -- Attact;ment 6 300 Lawrence Drive Page 5 5. General Plan COSE Policy 7.5.1 (Protection of significant trees) states: "Significant trees are those making substantial contributions to the natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. Significant trees, particularly native species, shall be protected. Removal of significant trees shall be subject to the criteria and mitigation requirements in Chapter 8.6.3".. Staff Analysis: Recognizing the open space resources in the northern and southern portions of the site, the Council provided direction that the central portion of the site that has been disturbed and is covered with fill material is an appropriate area for development. Development in this area will require removal of the unengineered fill, thereby necessitating loss of all of the vegetation and trees that have populated this area. Consistent with the above Goals and Policies, the applicant has proposed replacement plantings of California native species in the open space area at the north end of the site, as specified in the Landscape and Open Space Mitigation Plan. The plan identifies the quantity, size, and general area for planting to augment the existing features and provide screening of existing development to the north and the proposed improvements. The existing trees located outside of the unengineered fill area along the easterly property line, which includes two oak trees and pine, and three multi-trunk buckeye trees to the north of Lot 6, will be unaffected by site work and will be retained. The City's Natural Resource Manager has reviewed the proposal and generally found it to be consistent with City policies and standards. Several refinements to the Landscape and Open Space Mitigation Plan have been recommended as mitigation measures to improve compliance with applicable City policies, most notably the requirement to replace Buckeyes' in-kind, rather that replanting with natives suck as Coast Live Oaks as proposed by the applicant. 6. General Plan COSE Policy 7.5.4 .(Preservation of grassland communities and other habitat types) states: "Grassland communities and other habitat types in the Greenbelt and in designated open spaces areas shall be preserved". Staff Analysis: As indicated on sheet 1 of project plans, native grassland (needlegrass) exists towards the northwest corner of the site. Consistent with this General Plan policy, the native grassland is entirely within open space Lot 12. 7. General Plan COSE Goal 8.5.7 (Open space mitigation) states: "The City will avoid the loss of and require mitigation for the loss of open space resources". 8. General Plan COSE Policy 8.6.3 (Required Mitigation) states: "Loss or harm shall be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with this Goal and Policy because the majority of the sensitive resources on the site are being preserved in-place in the two Open Space lots or within biological easements, and where impacts are unavoidable mitigation measures are proposed. The Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment prepared by LFR Inc., together with the Landscape and Open Space Mitigation Plan, provides specific mitigation for the natural resources impacted by the project. Where project impacts are unavoidable, mitigation consists of creating an area at least equal to that of the habitat loss, and of substantially equal quality on Open Space Lots 1 and 12, which are being offered to the City in fee. The submitted report TR/PD/ER 77-07 (Total Dc.,;lopment Company) — Attachment S 300 Lawrence Drive Page 6 describes the site and its important natural resources, identifies direct and indirect impacts of the project, and recommends mitigation for those impacts. The numerous General Plan policies listed in this report clearly address natural resources of the community and their preservation in relation to the development plan. With the modifications to the plan recommended by the Natural Resource Manager and included in the environmental document as mitigation measures, the development of the site will largely avoid impacts to resources and provide sufficient mitigation for the natural features or species impacted. 9. General Plan COSE Policy 8.3.2.A (Open spacebuffers) states: "Buffers shall be. required in the following situations: Between urban development and natural habitats such as wetlands, hillsides and ridgelines, scenic rock outcrops, grassland communities and between new development and scenic resources of the greenbelt, to address view blockage, lighting and noise, and visual transition from urban character to rural character." Staff Analysis: The project is consistent with this General Plan Policy because the open space resources will be within either the Open Space lots that have been offered to the City in fee or within biological easements running across the southern portions of lots 1-5. Resources within these lots will be buffered from the residential development by notable changes in grade, semi- transparent fencing at the rear of the residential sites, and 15-foot rear yard setbacks, which will provide an adequate visual transition from urban character to rural character. 10. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.6 (Neighborhood Pattern) states: "All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible,the new development should create new neighborhoods." Staff Analysis: Because of the sensitive resources located on the site, and the necessary clustering of the residential units, continuation of the adjacent neighborhood pattern in terms of lot size and orientation would not be feasible. Site improvements discussed earlier in this report, such as landscaping and decorative fencing will identify this development as a new neighborhood. However, one of the proposed features, a decorative remote-controlled gate controlling vehicle access to the site, would act as both a physical and psychological barrier, separating the future residents from existing fabric of the community. This is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan, which states that residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods where possible. Staff has recommended a condition of approval that the gate be replaced by a simpler entry feature, such as an archway or monument sign, which would identify the neighborhood without blocking access. Planned Development Rezone The PD overlay zone is intended to provide for flexibility in the application of zoning standards to proposed development. The purpose is to allow consideration of innovation in site planning and other aspects of project design, and more effective design responses to site features, land uses on adjoining properties, and environmental impacts, than the development standards of the underlying zone would produce without adjustment. The City expects each planned development project to be of significantly higher design quality, including more effective and attractive pedestrian orientation, /-yam TR/PD/ER 77-07 (Total De,eiopment Company) AttcrCh(7l@f1t 6 300 Lawrence Drive Page 7 environmental sensitivity, energy efficiency, and more efficient use of resources, than would be achieved through conventional design practices and standards. The applicant has requested a PD rezone for the project primarily to allow an exception to the required reduction of density for lots with steeper cross-slopes. Reduction of density for lots with steeper cross-slopes as described in Table 1 (Maximum Residential Density for Cross-Slope Categories) of the Zoning Regulations is required. The cross-slope categories require increased lot area for lots with steeper slopes (i.e. lots in the R-1 zone with a cross-slope category of 15% or less would need a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet to meet its density requirement; lots in the 16-20% range would need a minimum lot size of 10,500 square feet, and so on). Other diversions from zoning standards include reduced street yard setbacks from 20 feet to 10 feet and a 5 foot tall decorative wrought iron fence setback from the street 5 feet where a 13 foot setback is required. In order to approve a PD rezone, the project must incorporate a minimum of two of four mandatory project features and the review authority must make all eight required findings. Mandatory Project Features The project proposes to fulfill its mandatory feature requirements by: 1) Preserving a significant natural feature in excess of the Vi acre minimum requirement, through transferring fee title of Lot 11 (12,455.0 square feet) and Lot 12 (35,085.1 square feet) to the City as open space and covering large portions of Lots 1-5 with Open Space easements; and 2) Providing a substantial public amenity by construction of a pedestrian pathway along the northern portion of the site to provide access to the City's adjacent open space property, and providing a $10,000 endowment to provide for the permanent maintenance of that pathway. Required Findings In addition to meeting its mandatory feature requirements, the review authority may approve a rezoning to apply the PD overlay zoning district only after first making all eight of the required findings. The findings pertain to the project's consistency with the General Plan, applicable specific plans, primary zoning district, and Design Guidelines, as well as appropriateness of the project design and adequacy of proposed features and facilities. As discussed earlier in this report, the project has been redesigned consistently with previous Council direction and applicable General Plan policies, and the proposed configuration and quality of improvements is highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that all of these findings can now be made, and has recommended language included in the draft Resolution (Attachment 7). Environmental Review On September 11, 2007, the Community Development Director recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Attachment 6). The Initial Study identifies potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, hazardous and hazardous materials, and recreational facilities, and provides recommendations for mitigation measures that if incorporated into the project would reduce the potential impacts to below the threshold of significance. While many of these mitigation measures would effect the development phase of the project, including provisions for ensuring that air quality, cultural resources and natural resources to be retained are adequately protected, other measures will result in some modification of the project design. These include further /-y3 Attachment 6 TR/PD/ER 77-07 (Total D%..,;lopment Company) 300 Lawrence Drive Page 8 refinement and field verification of the landscape and open space plan, the open space boundary, plantings and fencing, as well as fine-tuning of the public improvement plans and other open space improvements. With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the potential impacts to the environment will be reduced below a level of significance. Conclusion Considerable effort has been made by the applicant to design a project that is consistent with the General Plan, prior City Council direction, and applicable property development standards. The type and density of development has been planned to suit the physical character of the site and address the concerns of the adjacent neighbors. With the incorporation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the design of the subdivision and proposed improvements would avoid injury to sensitive open space resources, and provide quality housing in an area anticipated by the General Plan for development with single family residences. For these reasons, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts, the vesting tentative tract map and PD rezone. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may provide direction to the applicant and staff on modifications that should be made to the project design for better consistency with General Plan policies, Design Guidelines, and property development standards.. 2. The Commission may recommend that the City Council deny the vesting tentative tract map and PD rezone, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. March 20, 2007 City Council Resolution and meeting minutes 3. Applicant's project description 4. Proposed Architectural Guidelines for Tract 2723 5. Reduced copy of project plans 6. Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, recommended on September 11, 2007 7. Draft Planning Commission Resolution Enclosed: Full-size project plans Landscape Plan and Open Space Mitigation Plan QUFIillU-awrence Drive(PD.TR.ER 77-07)\TR-PD-ER 82-05(PC report).doc Attachment 7-- a of san hues oBispo Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 77-07 1. Project Title: Planned Development Zoning and Tentative Tract Map TR/PD/ER 77-07 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner (805) 781-7165 4. Project Location: 300 Lawrence Drive City of San Luis Obispo 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Michael Coss Total Development Company P.O. Box 6013 Los Osos, Ca 93412 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential and Conservation/Open Space 7. Zoning: Low-Density Residential (R-1) and Conservation/open Space — 40 acre minimum (C/OS-4O) 8. Description of the Project: Planned Development Rezoning of a 3.46-acre acre site, and; subdivision consisting of nine residential lots, two open spaces lots offered to the City in fee, and one lot containing common area including a private cul-de-sac, and; a lot line adjustment of an existing residential lot. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is at the western terminus of Lawrence Drive and is bordered by single-family residences to the north and east (zoned R-1), and open space to the south and west (zoned C/OS- 40). The vacant, rectangular-shaped site consists of approximately 3.46 acres located on the north facing slope of the South Hills. The site slopes from south to north with an average slope of 20%. The upper portion of the property contains serpentine rock with thin soils and numerous plant species which are restricted to such soils. This includes several species classified by the CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 �EThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. / ` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. /`7/� r. \ Attachment 7 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as "List 1B, Plants of Highest Priority", which are considered rare and endangered in California and elsewhere, or listed as "species of local concem" by the City of San Luis Obispo's Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). The lower portion of the site consists of deeper and more productive soils derived from the serpentine rocks, but capable of supporting a more diverse mix of plants. Two additional species classified by the CNPS as "List 1B" plants or as "species of local concern" by the COSE are found in this portion of the property. Additional site features include two small wetlands, rock outcroppings, an area of native needlegrass grassland and a variety of native and non-native trees and shrubs, including California Buckeye, Toyon, Coast Live Oak, Pine, Eucalyptus and French Broom. Many years ago, a portion of the property was evidently used for the unengineered dumping of unconsolidated construction debris. This portion of the property occupies about one-half acre located toward the center of the site, and it has been colonized by a fairly large and mature stand of California Buckeye, Toyon and Coast Live Oak. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Request for Planned Development Rezoning of a 3.46-acre acre site, and subdivision consisting of nine residential lots, two open spaces lots offered to the City in fee, and one lot containing common area including a private cul-de-sac, and; a lot line adjustment of an existing residential lot. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None CITY OF SAN LUIS OaiSpo 2 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENT LL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 7 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources X Hazards&Hazardous X Recreation Materials X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems X Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources Fish and Game Fees There is no evidence before the Department that the project.will have any potential adverse effects on fish X 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 and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STA'T'E CLEARINGHOUSE I his environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more tate agecies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and ommunityDevelopment). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 5073(a . CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /—�17 --� Attachment 7 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been X made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. C � l« to :Z _ Signat Date Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. `Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more `Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 @ (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,.a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis.Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /_//y Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not 1,11 J limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,7, X the site and its surroundings? 11, 25 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,11, X adversely effect day or nighttime viewsin the area? 25 Evaluation: a),b)The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista or a local or state scenic highway. c) The visual character of the site is derived from the significant trees, native shrubs, rock outcroppings, and open space. The project has been designed to avoid impacting natural site features, such as the rock outcroppings and native plants in the north and south portions of the site. However, site improvements will require the removal of the unconsolidated fill in the center of the site and the vegetation that has establighed itself in the area of non-native fill. To mitigate for the loss of Buckeye and other trees and shrubs,a Landscape and Open Space Mitigation Plan has been proposed as part of the project. With the incorporation of several mitigation measures included in Section 4: Biological Resources, the removal of the unconsolidated fill and associated vegetation will be tnitigated to a level that is less than significant. The subdivision will provide for the development of ten (10) new single family homes and associated infrastructure,and a public trail at the north end of the site, linking up to the existing South Hills Open Space area trail system. As part of the Planned Development zoning, architectural guidelines have been developed to establish the site development,architectural and landscape design parameters to be used as a guide in the design of all proposed homes.This document implements the Community Design Guidelines Hillside Development standards, establishing property development standards and general parameters of appropriate design. Staff has recommended that lots within the Planned Development be subject to architectural review ensure that new development is consistent with these guidelines and is aesthetically compatible with the site and surroundings. e) The architectural guidelines for the project include provisions to minimize the impacts of exterior lighting. Through the architectural review process,staff will ensure that new development will not create substantial light or glare. Mitigation: 1. Homes within the Planned Development shall be subject to architectural review to insure consistency with the Tracts Architectural Guidelines and the Community Design Guidelines Hillside Development Policies. Conclusion: Architectural review of new development within the Planned Development will ensure that the visual character and quality of the site is maintained.No further mitigation is necessary. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 19 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 1, 12 X Williamson AM contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 11 X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a), b), c) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Conclusion:No impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 11,20, X existing or projected air quality violation? 21,30 b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 11,21 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 11 X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 11,20, X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an 21,30 applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? Evaluation a)Removal of the unconsolidated fill area will require multiple truck trips from the site. It is the applicant's intent to use a crusher on-site to recycle and reuse as much of the material as possible.However,assuming that the material is determined to be unusable, approximately 1900 cubic yards of material,or 95 truck loads,will need to be removed,which will likely exceed the APCD's CEQA significance threshold for construction phase emissions.In addition,construction activities can generate fugitive dust,which would be a nuisance to local residents in close proximity. Staff has recommended mitigation measures to insure that APCD standards for dust control are adhered to. This project will also involve the use of numerous pieces of heavy-duty diesel equipment. Diesel particulate matter is listed as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board..The APCD is very concerned with projects that will produce large amounts of diesel exhaust near public use and residential areas. Until it is determined the extent that on-site materials can be reused emission levels cannot be calculated.Once this is determined following required soil testing,the applicant will need to quantify all emissions associated with the construction activities including the proposed hauling and grinding activities to determine the air quality impacts and apply to APCD for necessary permits associated with the use on an on-site crusher. Other impacts associated with these construction-stage vehicle trips are discussed further in Section 15:Transportation. b) Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. The APCD supports the provision of residential development within the City limits with nearby access to commercial services and transit service, where such development is planned for and expected. c) The Air Pollution Control District(APCD)has reporting and monitoring requirements associated with naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). Under the Air Resources Board (ARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities at the site the project proponent must insure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed.If NOA is not present, an exemption must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This and other hazardous materials that may be present on-site are discussed in greater detail,and mitigation measures recommended,in Section 8:Hazardous and Hazardous Materials. d) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project. am CITY OF SAN Luis QBISPo 7 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /-5-1 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMto(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement.The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Mitigation 2.The following APCD standards for dust control shall be adhered to: a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible, b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible' c. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed, d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities, e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established, f All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used, h. Vehicle spped for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site, i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other lose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114, j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site,and, k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. 3.The applicant shall quantify all emissions associated with the construction activities including the proposed hauling and grinding activities to determine the air quality impacts and apply to APCD for necessary permits associated with the use on an on-site crusher. Conclusion: Although the finished residential project will not pose any impacts on air quality, the necessary grading and associated activities does have the potential to generate significant dust and emissions. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures these potential impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance. No further mitigation is necessary. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 6, 11, X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 13,14, candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 26 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 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,Qolicies,or regulations,or by the California Department__ CITY OF SAN Luis OBISpo 8 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /_SZ Arachmen2 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected x wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation a), b) According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are plant species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the project site, as well as riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities.The identified impacts are all to plants and to the general habitat conditions;there appear to be no animal species which are affected in a manner requiring specific mitigations beyond those required for the plants. The sensitive plant species include: Cambria Morning Glory, Native Needle Grass, Adobe Sanicie, San Luis Obispo Dudleya, and Palmer's Spineflower. Other plant species and features of interest on the site include oak trees, toyon, and a freshwater seep. Proposed mitigations include training for site workers, limiting the work area as much as possible, scheduling construction activities outside of the bird nesting season if necessary,and preparation of a restoration plan. A map prepared by Mr. Ai Hummell of Rainscape,Inc., included in the submittal,attempts to do this,and with the incorporation of modifications outlined below, will be consistent with City policies and adequately address potential impacts to biological resources. The project has been designed to largely avoid impacts to species of local concern.The protection/relocation plan includes the following: 1) San Luis Obispo star tulip preserved in the upper open space lot; 2)San Luis Obispo Dudleya will be largely protected in-place with a small portion of the population salvaged.Relocation is possible with a high likelihood of survival. 3)Palmer spineflower will be largely protected in-place with a small portion of the population salvaged. Relocation is possible with a reasonable likelihood of survival. 4)Clay mariposa lily will largely be preserved in the lower open space lot.4)Adobe Sanicle preserved in the lower open space lot. The majority of the sensitive populations will be retained in-place, in either the lots dedicated to the City as open space or by deed restriction on portions of Lots 2-6. Project plans indicate that a significant portion of the Palmer spineflower will be within privately-owned deed-restricted lots. The appropriate boundary of the upper open space lot should be modified as determined by the City Natural Resource Manager in the field,and adjusted to include a larger proportion of the spineflower within the upper open space lot. Portions of Lots 2-6 within the Conservation/Open Space area will be required to be deed- restricted with Biological open space easements to protect the sensitive resources residing there. This area should be completely separated from the remainder of the privately-owned lots to insure protection of the resources. The native grassland and clay mariposa lily area in the northwestern portion of the property is proposed for conservation as part of the project. The area should not be used for other mitigations such as tree planting which would be in conflict with trying to preserve the grassland and mariposa lilies. c) Removal of the fill slope on the property will result in the loss of a substantial number of mature buckeye trees, and a smaller number of toyon and coast live oaks, plus several eucalyptus trees. The loss of these resources requires mitigation. The project proposes to replace the lost plants with primarily coast live oak, toyon, and some buckeyes.However,the City's preferred method of mitigation is to mitigate-in-kind; therefore, it is recommended that the new plantings proposed for the lower open-space lot be revised to utilize buckeyes as the main replacement,using a minimum 5 gallon size,with toyon and oaks included to fill in some areas.Mitigation shall be in a manner approved by the City;this should include size minimum 5 Crry OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 _53 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation - Inc orated gallon), ratio (minimum 2:1 for California natives), and location (lower open space lot except for the maintenance access easement area and other areas to be preserved within that lot).This will require a counting of the trees and shrubs expected to be lost,and developing a planting density appropriate to the size of the mature plants. Several buckeyes outside the fill area are proposed to be retained. To insure that this is accomplished physical barriers should be installed to prevent inadvertent damage during the removal of the fill and subsequent construction. Likewise, other trees called out for preservation in the plan should have physical protection. Several mitigation measures have been recommended to assure that this aspect of the project is clear. d) The property is bordered by urban development to the north and east, and City-owned open space to the south and west. The division of the property includes dedication of two open space lots to the City at the northern and.southern extents of the property which will be utilized as extensions to the existing open space. These extensions of the open space will insure that the proposed extension of Lawrence Drive and development of residential lots will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or with a migratory wildlife corridor. e) With the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined below, the proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan. f) The majority of the freshwater seep in the northwest portion of the site is located within the open space lot proposed for dedication to the City, with a minor portion remaining on a privately-owned residential parcel. The schematic footprint for this property (Lot 10)clearly shows that reasonable use of the site can be accomplished without impact of the seep.To insure that development of this site will avoid impacts to the seep a mitigation measure has been recommended.With incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure the project will have no adverse effect on wetlands. Mitigation 4. Proposed mitigation measures included in the plan, as outlined in the LFR report dated May 3, 2007,.and as modified by mitigation measures adopted as part of this report and other entitlements, shall be incorporated into the final tract design and construction documents. 5. Trees and shrubs expected to be lost shall be counted and those counts utilized to develop a planting affix and density appropriate to the size of the mature plants. 6. New plantings proposed for the lower open-space lot shall be revised to utilize buckeyes as the main replacement, with toyon and oaks included to fill in some areas. Mitigation shall be in a manner approved by the City; this including size (minimum 5 gallon), ratio (minimum 2:1 for California natives), and location (lower open space lot except for the maintenance access easement area and other areas to be preserved within that lot). This mitigation shall be subject to the approval of the Natural Resource Manager. 7. Physical barriers should be installed around trees proposed to be retained to prevent inadvertent damage during the removal of the fill and subsequent construction. Barrier type and installation shall be verified in the field by the Natural Resource Manager prior to the commencement of grading activities. 8. The appropriate boundary of the upper open space lot shall be modified as determined by the City Natural Resource Manager in the field,and adjusted to include a larger proportion of the spineflower within the upper open space lot. 9. A biological open space easement shall be placed over those portions of Lots 2-6 which extend into the open space zone, exclusive of the deck areas. This easement shall include protections for the rare Palmer spineflower and its habitat within those lots. 10.The area held within a biological open space easement placed over those portions of Lots 2-6 which extend into the open space zone,exclusive of the deck areas, shall be completely fenced in to adequately protect the sensitive resources.Location and design of the fencing shall be approved by the Natural Resource Manager and Community Development Planning Department prior to installation. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /-�/ kmammernt 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 77-07 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11. The area occupied by native grassland and clay mariposa lily in the northwestern portion of the property is proposed for conservation and should not be used for other mitigations such as tree planting which would be in conflict with trying to preserve these resources. 12. Development of Lot 10 shall avoid modification or impact of the existing freshwater seep. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include adequate information to insure that the area is protected during construction. Conclusion: The project site contains several important natural resources which will be both directly and indirectly impacted by the project. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation plan, and as modified by mitigation measures adopted as part of this report and other entitlements, the potential impacts of this project on biological resources will be reduced below the threshold of significance. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project- a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 11,12, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 15, 17,27 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 11,12, X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 16,18, 27 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 6, 11, X or site or unique geologic feature? 12,27 d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 18,27 X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a),b)Based on review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System,the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. The results of research found that no significant resources were present in the project area. One location contained a chert outcrop that may have been used as a prehistoric quarry location. Surface visibility made determination of archaeological remains at that location extremely difficult, and if vegetation is cleared in this area the location should be reinspected. The central portion of the property also may contain archaeological resources,but could not be inspected due to extensive areas of fill. In this area also,when the fill is removed the area should be inspected for archaeological resources to insure that none exist. Finally, in the event that buried cultural material bearing deposits are exposed during any future construction,all work should cease in the immediate area(within 50 meters) until the materials can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and, if prehistoric, a recognized representative of the Chumash Nation. c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. d)The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. Mitigation 13. If vegetation is cleared in the area surrounding the chert outcrop in the northern portion of the site, the area should be reinspected,thus allowing effective surface reconnaissance. 14. After the unconsolidated fill material is removed from the central portion of the site the area should be reinspected, thus allowing effective surface reconnaissance. 15. In the event that buried cultural material bearing deposits are exposed during any future construction, all work should cease in the immediate area (within 50 meters) until the materials can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and, if prehistoric,a recognized representative of the Chumtash Nation. CITY OF SAN Luis 09ISPo I 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2007 i ss Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion: Evaluation of City records and the results of additional research and site inspections indicates that it is unlikely that cultural resources are present on the site. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will ensure that any resources that are present but currently are not visible will be identified and properly treated. No further mitigation is necessary. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the protlect. a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1,3,6 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 14 X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 29 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation a),b) The project is consistent with the City's General Plan which encourages concentrations of residences close to existing infrastructure. c) No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. Conclusion:No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 22,29 X most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 9 issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? H. .Strong seismic ground shaking? X M. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X li) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 11, X 14,29 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 5,29 X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 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 S of the X Uniform.Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? Evaluation a), c) San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line,near CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1-5-6 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which rums in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. b),c)The project will not result in the loss of topsoil as most of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces or planted with vegetation. A soils engineering report including specific recommendations to insure that foundations are designed to withstand settlement will be required with development applications of the individual lots. d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001). Conclusion:Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: ay, Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 25 X dough the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 25 X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving therelease of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 25 X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter' mile of an existing or proposed school? .d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 11,14, X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 25,29 substances,or waste? e} Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 12 X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 23 X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 5,25 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized.areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 PA7 Iach!eri L 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 77 07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a) The project is a planned development for a residential subdivision that will not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. b), c) The project is a planned development for a residential subdivision, which will not release hazardous materials into the environment. d) Development of the site will require the removal of the unconsolidated fill material at the center of the site. Because the origins of the fill is unknown,there is the potential that hazardous materials, substances or waste may be present. Testing of soil will require significant grading and removal of vegetation, which itself is subject to environmental review and mitigation. Therefore, it would not be prudent to do the sampling prior approval of the mitigation package and project entitlement. However, soil sampling for total lead and asbestos in the concrete/rubble/fill area must be completed prior to site grading or inception of other work. Mitigation measures have been recommended to insure that this work is completed according to adopted City standards,and that if any noxious substances they will be appropriately handled. e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§ 65962.5. f) The project site is within Airport Land Use Plan Safety Area S-2, which allows for residential development at the proposed density. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Miti ag tion 16. A soil sampling plan for the concrete/rubble/fill area shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department for review and approval. The work shall then be completed prior to site grading or inception of other work. Soil samples will be analyzed for Total Lead and Asbestos. 17. In the event that soil sampling identifies the presence of hazardous contaminants, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) as necessary to insure the proper removal and handling of materials consistent with local and state standards. If Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD; If NOA is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM Conclusion: The project is a residential planned development to accommodate a cluster of residential development and preservation of open space areas. Because the origins of the unconsolidated fill that will be removed from the site is unknown at this time it is necessary to test the material for contaminants prior to grading or other work on the site. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures neither people or structures will be exposed to any existing sources of hazardous emissions,materials,substances,or waste. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 8, 11, X requirements? 14,28 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /I00 Attacnmen, A Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? b) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation a),b),h),i)The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residents will be served by the City's sewer system and run-off is required to be directed to an approved point of disposal. A detailed hydrologic and hydraulic report has been prepared for the project which adequately addresses all of the project components, which will be modified to reflect the final subdivision design at the time of final map submittal. The project will be served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or negatively effect water quality. c), d), e) Future development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces and affect the absorption rate, drainage patterns, and amount and rate of surface runoff. To assure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a level of insignificance, any future development of the site will be required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes, including City grading and drainage standards. The System Capacity Study of the Existing Drainage Infrastructure prepared by Keith V. Crowe, PE dated October 24, 2006 and revised June 21, 2007 contained recommendations to mitigate the projected increase in runoff in the Lawrence Drive/Meadow Street drainage toward Meadow Creek to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. The improvements recommended in the Crowe Study have not been approved as the final design solution; instead, staff has recommended the following alternative improvements. The public improvement plans submitted with the final map must address handling of drainage between Lawrence Drive and the Meadow Street cul- de-sac in the public right of way known as the "Meadow Street alley." Proposed improvements in this area will need to consider alternatives including the possible need for an underground storm drain with inlet and outlet structures. At a ininimum, the potential erosion between Lawrence and the Meadow Drive cul-de-sac must be controlled and inlet (at Lawrence and the alley) and outlet (at the Meadow Street cul-de-sac) structures provided. Provision of a curb return as shown will not adequately address the downstream problems. In addition, the improvement plans will be required to show the construction of a new inlet at Meadow Street near Meadow Creek designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. The final project design will also need to mitigate the projected increase in runoff in the Lawrence Drive/Meadow Street drainage toward Meadow Creek to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. All requirements/recommendations of the Geologic Appraisal by Cleath and Associates dated 2/16/5 and the Geotechnical Report dated 11/2/04 and updated June 19,2007 shall be incorporated into the project design. Include mitigation measures for spring water and a collection system for subsurface water from utility trenches and future development. Any subsurface drainage system shall outlet to the existing easterly drainage swale. CITY OF SAN Luis OsisPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attac I.I lei It / Issues, Discussion and Supporting , iformation Sources sources Potemi, y Potentially Less Than No Significant significant significant Impact ER#77-07 issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f), g) Although the site is outside the 100 year flood elevation, on-site improvements should be designed to have sufficient capacity to accommodate upstream runoff in larger storm events.A mitigation measure has been recommended to ensure that on-site drainage facilities will be designed for the 100-year event and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Mitigation Measures 18.The public improvement plans submitted with the final map shall address handling of drainage between Lawrence Drive and the Meadow Street cul-de-sac in the public right of way known as the "Meadow Street alley." Proposed improvements in this area shall consider alternatives including the possible need for an underground storm drain with inlet and outlet structures. At a minimum, the potential erosion between Lawrence and the Meadow Drive cul-de-sac must be controlled and inlet(at Lawrence and the alley)and outlet(at the Meadow Street cul-de-sac)structures provided. 19.Improvement plans shall show the construction of a new inlet at Meadow Street near Meadow Creek designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. 20.The final project design shall mitigate the projected increase in runoff in the Lawrence Drive/Meadow Street drainage toward Meadow Creek to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. 21.All requirements/recommendations of the Geologic Appraisal by Cleath and Associates dated 2/16/5 and the Geotechnical Report dated 11/2/04 and updated June 19, 2007 shall be incorporated into the project design. Include mitigation measures for spring water and a collection system for subsurface water from utility trenches and future development. Any subsurface drainage system shall outlet to the existing easterly drainage swale. 22.On-site drainage facilities shall be designed for the 100-year event and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Conclusion:Future development of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces and affect the absorption rate, drainage patterns,and amount and rate of surface runoff. However, with the incorporation of the recommended modifications,the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1, 13, X an agency.with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 25 purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 12,13, X 25 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 6, 14, X community conservationplans? 26 CnY OF SAN Luis OBispo 16 INrrtAL STUDY EWRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /-z 6 Attach mnent 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting oformation Sources Sources Potenu�y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated Evaluation a) The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use and Conservation and Open Space Elements that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning of the 3.46-acre acre site, subdivision consisting of nine residential lots, two open spaces lots offered to the City in fee, and one lot containing common area including a private cul-de-sac, and lot line adjustment of an existing residential lot has been designed to avoid impacting sensitive resources or mitigating where loss is unavoidable, as discussed in detail in Section 4: Biological Resources. The exceptions to property development standards requested as part of the Planned Development zoning include exceptions to lot size and setbacks to create a cluster development, and do not affect the project's ability to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed lots will meet all other subdivision requirements. b) The project would extend residential development to the west of the existing neighborhood. The proposed improvements include terminating Lawrence Drive with a public cul-de-sac, and a private drive which would access nine residential lots. A pedestrian access pathway would remain unfettered from the public sidewalk, identified by a change in pavement texture or color,while vehicle access would be controlled by a decorative remote-controlled gate. The proposed gate would act as both a physical and psychological barrier, separating the future residents from existing fabric of the community. This is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan, which states that residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods where possible. Despite this, the proposed subdivision layout or design would not create any effects on the environment,alter pedestrian or vehicular circulation,or otherwise have adverse effects on the environment. c) The project is designed in consistency with the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and with the recommendations of the Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment study prepared for the site. With the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4: Biological Resources,the project is consistent with applicable conservation plans and policies. Conclusion:Less than significant impact. The project has been designed to largely avoid impacts to existing resources and the established community. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 4 g 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 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 23 X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a) The planned development zoning, land division, and future housing will not generate unacceptable noise levels. The City's Noise Element and Noise Guidebook does not identify Traffic Noise Exposure Calculations for Lawrence Drive as it is a residential collector street. b), c) The development of the site with residential uses will marginally raise ambient noise levels in the project vicinity as the site is occupied. However, the noise associated with residential uses in considered minor, and compatible with other residential uses. CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 17 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2007 /—L/ Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources sources Potmua,ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact ER #77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) The project is within Airport Land Use Plan area S-2, which is a widespread area which is not considered to result in exposure of people to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations. Conclusion:Less than significant impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the ro'ect: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 1 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 12 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation a) The project would result in the creation of nine additional developable parcels,which could each be developed with single family homes. This amount of new housing, in combination with the existing (reconfigured) lot and other known separate residential projects, is not considered substantial population growth, and is consistent with growth rates contained in the City's General Plan. b) The site is currently vacant and would not result in the displacement of any residents. Applicant will be required to either provide 1 affordable unit on site(0.5 is the requirement for a 10 tint development) or pay affordable housing in lieu fees. If fees are paid,prior to recordation of the final map the applicant will need to provide an assessment of average square footage of the 10 lots in order to determine what the in lieu fee calculation will be so that the City and developer can agree on the amount due. Conclusion: 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? 11,14 X b) Police protection? X C) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f) The characteristics of the project do not present situations or conditions that would create potentially significant impacts to services for fire, police, schools, parks, or roads or other public facilities. The project has been evaluated by the City's Fire Marshall, Chief Building Official, and Public Works Department, and no resource deficiencies have been identified. f) Trash collection off of the private driveway will require that collection vehicles utilize individual lots' driveways in order to turn around.In addition to the 4-foot access easement shown on the map for this purpose,to insure that vehicle circulation is not inhibited,parking within this easement or elsewhere in the private driveway will need to be prohibited. Mitieation Measures CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /-/�,qZ Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting-.reformation Sources Sources PotenaAlly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 23. The homeowner's association CC&R's shall restrict parking anywhere in the private driveway or on the individual lots' driveways within the area covered by access easement. Conclusion: With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measure acceptable levels of public services will be maintained.No further mitigation is required. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 7, 14, X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical 25 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) The project includes construction of a public access to open space resources through the northern open space lot. This access will supplement other existing access points in the area,and is not anticipated to substantially increase the use of the open space area. Residents of the project will likely use the South Hills open space area and Meadow Park recreation facilities for their park and recreation needs. The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities.However,given the size of the project and the expected number of residents,no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of this site. Additionally,park in-lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space,maintenance or equipment in the vicinity.These fees are set at a level to offset the effect of the additional demand. b) The project includes the construction of a public access to open space resources through the northern open space lot, accessed through the Common Driveway Easement. Although the access has been aligned to avoid impacting sensitive resources, the specific alignment, width, and tread and substrate material of the trial should be agreed upon in the field, to insure that the trail moves away from the lower property line as quickly as possible.In addition,final design and details of the trail connection to Meadow Drive, informational signage, and site furniture such as the"community viewing bench" should be reviewed and approved by staff.With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Mitigation 24. The specific alignment, width, and tread and substrate material of the public access trial shall be determined in the field by the City's Natural Resource Manager and Planning Department, to insure that the trail moves away from the lower property line as quickly as possible. 25. Final design and details of the trail connection to Meadow Drive, informational signage, and site furniture such as the "community viewing bench"shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Conclusion: The project includes development of a public access trail from Meadow Drive to open space that will be dedicated to the City, which is which is adjacent to and will provide access to existing City-owned open space (The South Hills). This access will supplement other existing access points in the area, and is not anticipated to substantially increase the use of the open space area. With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures,the potential impacts related to the proposed access will be reduced to below a level of significance. 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,14, X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 25 b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency-for desiled roads and highways? ____ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Gee, .., �. Issues, Discussion and Supporting-_formation Sources Sources Poten"�y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless Impact MItiption Incorporated c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9, 10, X 11 f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2, 11 X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 23,25 g Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise,or a change in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation a), b) The land division will not substantially increase traffic on Lawrence Drive nor exceed the level of service standards established by the County congestion management agency for nearby streets and highways because the project will facilitate the development of only nine additional single-family dwellings, an incremental increase that is considered negligible. To insure that construction traffic won't impact the entire neighborhood, construction traffic should be restricted to the use of Lawrence Drive and Broad Street. c) There are no hazards which the project would be subject to or create. d) The proposed private driveway and easement areas have been designed to meet the minimum maneuvering requirements of the Fire Department.To insure that this area is kept free of parked vehicles,the private cul-de-sac will need to be signed for no parking. The proposed entry gates would include hardware to insure unfettered access to emergency service providers. With compliance with this standard code requirement and the recommended mitigation measure,the project complies with all requirements for emergency access. e) City parking standards for deep lot subdivisions apply to all new construction proposed on the resulting parcels. This includes provision of three parking stalls on each parcel, rather than the two that are generally required for single family homes. The third parking stall will serve guests,reducing the impact on on-street parking in the adjacent neighborhood.The three parking stalls must be designed to allow free egress unless necessary discretionary approvals are gained to allow for tandem parking. f) The project does not conflict with alternative transportation policies in that the project does not impede any existing or proposed bike baths,transit stops,etc. g) The project is within Airport Land Use Plan area S-2, which while subject to some noise due to over-flight,is appropriate for residential uses. Because no change to the General Plan is necessary for the development of the property with residential uses,the proposed project would not conflict with the Plan or result in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise or a change in air traffic patterns. Mitigation Measures 26. All construction traffic shall be restricted to the use of Lawrence Drive and Broad Street so construction traffic won't impact the rest of the neighborhood. 27.The private cul-de-sac shall be signed for no parking to accommodate emergency vehicles. Conclusion: Recommended mitigation measures will ensure that the project does not create significant impacts on the adjacent neighborhood during either the construction phase or when fully developed and occupied. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: 4) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 11, 14 1 g CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBispo 20 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 �� y -, Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting,,.Iformation Sources Sources eotent..ty potentially Less n -No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of newwater. X treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which couldcause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? 'd) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 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 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? Evaluation a),b)The project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department staff.The project is subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City Water&Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000 people.Because the proposed project includes a total residential density anticipated in the general plan,the planned development zoning and subdivision would not exceed the anticipated build out of the site at the time the W WME was adopted. The actual water demand increase for the site will be minimal. d) The wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have adequate capacity to serve this development. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility.The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. e),f)Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90%of this waste goes to landfills,posing a threat to groundwater,air quality,and public health.Cold Canyon landfill is expected to reach its capacity in 2018.The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000.To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded materials is required to be submitted with the building permit application.The project will also include facilities for both interior and exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Conclusion: No impact. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered-plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major-periods of California history or prehistory? CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBIspo 21 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 I—1 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting formation Sources Sources Potent.-..y Potentially I Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #77-07 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in the biological section of this study,there are several species identified as sensitive or special status species on or near the project site, in addition to other sensitive natural communities. In Section 4: Biological Resources, several mitigation measures have been recommended to insure that resources identified as being protected in place are not impacted, and that adequate replacement plantings are made where resource losses are unavoidable. b) noes the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cu mulatively'considerable" means that the increment tal effects of a pf0ject are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) The proposed project's cumulative impacts are insignificant because of the site's unique resources and the character of the existing area,which includes both well-established neighborhoods and City-owned open space. c) Does theproject have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on bum an beings,either directly or indirectly? There are no environmental effects identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. IS.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the dering,program EIR or other CEQA process,one or more effects have I adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section-15063 m (3) (D). In this case a discussion `sbo_uld identify the following items; Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier anal ses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) .Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects, fiorq the above cbecklist were within the scope of and adequately analyied in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressedby. rrt tigitionmeasures based odlhe earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures For effects that are"Less than Significant`with MitigationIncocporated"describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier docuutent and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. _ N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994(revised Aril 2006) 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994(revised April 2006) 3. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element,March 2004(revised April 2006) 4. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 5. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 6. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,April 2006 7. City of SLO General Plan Parks t&Recreation Element,April 2001 8. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,February 1987(revised April 2006) 9. City of SLO Subdivision Standards,March 2006 10. City of SLO Parking t&Driveway Standards 11. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 13. Site Visit 14. Comments from City Departments CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 22 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /-61z Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporti%_,dormation SOUece-s sources Potent wy Potentially Loss Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorpotated 15. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 16. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Develo went Department 17. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 18. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 19. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: ht ://www.consrv.ca. ov/dl /FMMP/ 20. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo Count ,Aer Pollution Control District,2001 21. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 22. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 _ 23. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 24. City of San Luis Obispo Conummity Design Guidelines 25. Tentative Tract Map and Project Description 26. Sensitive Species and Habitat Assessment;prepared by LFR,dated May 3,2007 27. Cultural Resource Invento re ared by Bertrando&Bertrando Research Consultants,November 2005 28. The System Capacity Study of the Existing Drainage Infrastructure prepared by Keith V.Crowe,PE dated October 24,2006 and revised June 21,2007 29. Geologic Appraisal by Cleath and Associates.dated 2/16/5 and-the Geotechnical Report dated 11/2/04 and updated June 19,2007 30. I Air Pollution Control District letter,prepared by Melissa Guise,dated August 21,2007 Mitigation and Monitoring Program: I. Mitigation Measure: Aesthetic Resources Homes within the Planned Development shall be subject to architectural review to insure consistency with the Tracts Architectural Guidelines and the Community Design Guidelines Hillside Development Policies. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review by the Community Development Department staff. 2. Mitigation Measure: Air Quality Resources The following APCD standards for dust control shall be.adhered to: a.Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible, b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non- potable)water should be used whenever possible' c. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed, d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities, e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established, f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL.STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ��17 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources Sources Poteutrmly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used, h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site, i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand,soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance with CVC Section 23114, j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;and, k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. ➢ Monitoring Program: All dust control measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished grading of the area. 3. Mitigation Measure: Air Quality Resources The applicant shall quantify all emissions associated with the construction activities including the proposed hauling activities to determine the air quality impacts and apply to APCD for necessary permits associated with the use on an on-site crusher. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map,improvement plans,and building permits by the Community Development.Department. 4. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources Proposed mitigation measures included in the plan, as outlined in the LFR report dated May 3, 2007, and as modified by mitigation measures adopted as part of this report and other entitlements, shall be incorporated into the final tract design and construction documents. ➢ Monitoring Program. Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map,improvement plans,and building permits by the Community Development Department and Public Works staff;and the Natural Resource Manager. 5. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources Trees and shrubs expected to be lost shall be counted and those counts utilized to develop a planting mix and density appropriate to the size of the mature plants. ➢ Monitoring Program: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /!4�o r Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting �tomiation Sources Sources Potem.. y Potentially Less7bai. No Significant Significant Significant impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated 'Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review and approval of detailed plans and associated materials submitted with or prior to review of the final tract map and improvement plans by the Community Development Department and the Natural Resource Manager. 6. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources New plantings proposed for the lower open-space lot shall be revised to utilize buckeyes as the main replacement,with toyon and oaks included to fill in some areas.Mitigation shall be in a manner approved by the City; this including size(minimum 5 gallon), ratio (minimum 2:1 for California natives), and location (lower open space lot except for the maintenance access easement area and other areas to be preserved within that lot). This mitigation shall be subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review and approval of detailed plans and associated materials submitted with or prior to review of the final tract map and improvement plans by the Community Development Department and the Natural Resource Manager. 7. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources Physical barriers should be installed around trees proposed to be retained to prevent inadvertent damage during the removal of the fill and.subsequent construction. ➢ Monitoring Program: Barrier type and installation shall be verified in the field by the Natural Resource Manager prior to the commencement of grading activities. 8. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources The appropriate boundary of the upper open space lot shall be modified as determined by the City Natural Resource Manager in the field, and adjusted to include a larger proportion of the spineflower within the upper open space lot. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review and approval of detailed plans and associated materials submitted the final tract map and improvement plans by the Community Development Department and the Natural Resource Manager. 9. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources A biological open space easement shall be placed over those portions of Lots 2-6 which extend into the open space zone,exclusive of the deck areas. This easement shall include protections for the rare Palmer spineflower and its habitat within those lots. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map and common improvement by the Community Development Department staff and Natural Resource Manager. am CITY OF SAN LUIS owsPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENvIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 /-4e� �? Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ..,formation Sources source; Potent� Potendarany Lass'Than Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources The area held within a biological open space easement placed over those portions of Lots 2-6 which extend into the open space zone, exclusive of the deck areas, shall be completely fenced in to adequately protect the sensitive resources. Location and design of the fencing shall be approved by the Natural.Resource Manager and Community Development Planning Department prior to installation. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map and common improvement plan by the Community Development Department staff and Natural Resource Manager and field verified prior to installation. 11. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources The area occupied by native grassland and clay mariposa lily in the northwestern portion of the property is proposed for conservation and should not be used for other mitigations such as tree planting which would be in conflict with trying to preserve these resources. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map and common improvements by the Community Development Department staff and Natural Resource Manager. 12. Mitigation Measure: Biological Resources Development of Lot 10 shall avoid modification or impact of the existing freshwater seep. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include adequate information to insure that the area is protected during construction. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review by the Community Development Department staff and Natural Resource Manager. 13. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources If vegetation is cleared in the area surrounding the chert outcrop in the northern portion of the site, the area should be reinspected,thus allowing effective surface reconnaissance. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review by the Community Development Department staff. 14. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources After the unconsolidated fill material is removed from the central portion of the site the area should be reinspected,thus allowing effective surface reconnaissance. ➢ Monitoring Program: CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1- 70 Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Souirm Pote,uiavy Potentially Less Than No Sigaificant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless impact ER # 77-07 Mitigation Incorporated Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review by the Community Development Department staff. 15. Mitigation Measure: Cultural Resources In the event that buried cultural material bearing deposits are exposed during any future construction, all work should cease in the immediate area (within 50 meters) until the materials can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and, if prehistoric,a recognized representative of the Chumash Nation. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for architectural review by the Community Development Department staff. 16. Mitigation Measure: Hazardous and Hazardous Materials A soil sampling plan for the concrete/rubble/fill area shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department for review and approval. The work shall then be completed prior to site grading or inception of other work, and submitted to both the Fire Department and APCD for review and approval. Additional requirements and/or permits may by applied as determined by the results of testing. Soil samples will be analyzed for Total Lead and Asbestos. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review and approval of grading plans by the Public Works and Fire Departments. Soil sampling findings shall be shown on grading and improvement plans or provided as attachments. 17. Mitigation Measure: Hazardous and Hazardous Materials In the event that soil sampling identifies the presence of hazardous contaminants, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) as necessary to insure the proper removal and handling of materials consistent with local and state standards. If Naturally Occurring Asbestos(NOA) is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD; If NOA is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review and approval of grading plans by the Public Works and Fire Departments. 18. Mitigation Measure: Hydrology and Water Quality The public improvement plans submitted with the final map shall address handling of drainage between Lawrence Drive and the Meadow Street cul-de-sac in the public right of way known as the "Meadow Street alley." Proposed improvements in this area shall consider alternatives including the possible need for an underground storm drain with inlet and. outlet structures. At a minimum, the potential erosion between Lawrence and the Meadow Drive cul-de-sac must be controlled and inlet(at Lawrence and the alley)and outlet (at the Meadow Street cul-de-sac)structures provided. ➢ Monitoring Program: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1J-*7/ �. Attachment Issues, Discussion and Supporting rnforMatidri Sources Sources Potentur y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map,improvement plans,and building permits by the Public Works Department. 19. Mitigation Measure: Hydrology and Water Quality Improvement plans shall show the construction of a new inlet at Meadow Street near Meadow Creek designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map,improvement plans,and building permits by the Public Works Department. 20. Mitigation Measure: Hydrology and Water Quality The final project design shall mitigate the projected increase in runoff in the Lawrence Drive/Meadow Street drainage toward Meadow Creek to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map,improvement plans,and building permits by the Public Works Department. 21. Mitigation Measure: Hydrology and Water Quality All requirements/recommendations of the Geologic Appraisal by Cleath and Associates dated 2/16/5 and the Geotechnical Report dated 11/2/04 and updated June 19, 2007 shall be incorporated into the project design. Include mitigation measures for spring water and a collection system for subsurface water from utility trenches and future development. Any subsurface drainage system shall outlet to the existing easterly drainage swale. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map,improvement plans,and building permits by the Public Works Department. 22. Mitigation Measure: Hydrology and Water Quality On-site drainage facilities shall be designed for the 100-year event and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map,improvement plans,and building permits by the Public Works Department. 23. Mitigation Measure: Public.Services The homeowner's association CC&R's shall restrict parking anywhere in the private driveway or on the individual lots'driveways within the area covered by access easement. ➢ Monitoring Program: CITY OF SAN Luis OBISpo 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2007 i-7a- Attachment 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting ,,rformation Sources sources Potenti Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#77-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for individual building permits by the Community Development Department and Transportation Division. 24. Mitigation Measure: Recreation The specific alignment, width, and tread and substrate material of the public access trial shall be determined in the field by the City's Natural Resource Manager and Planning Division. ➢ Monitoring Program: The specific alignment,width,and tread and substrate material of the public access trial shall be verified in the field by the Natural Resource Manager and reflected on improvement plans prior to the approval and issuance of permits. 25. Mitigation Measure: Recreation Final design and details of the trail connection to Meadow Drive, informational signage, and site furniture such as the"community viewing bench"shall be reviewed and approved by staff. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map, improvement plans, and building permits by the Community Development Department and Natural Resource Manager. 26. Mitigation Measure: Transportation/Traffic All construction traffic shall be restricted to the use of Lawrence Drive and Broad Street so construction traffic won't impact the rest of the neighborhood. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through periodic site inspections by the Public Works and Building Departments during project construction. 27. Mitigation Measure: Transportation/Traffic The private cul-de-sac shall be signed for no parking to accommodate emergency vehicles. ➢ Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans submitted for the final tract map,improvement plans,and building permits by the Public Works Department. CITY OF SAN Luis 08isp0 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 Attachment 8 Draft Resolution of Approval RESOLUTION NO. XXXX(2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF LAWRENCE DRIVE; TR/PD/ER 77-07(TRACT 2723) WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 26, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/PD/ER 77-07, a request to allow Planned Development rezoning and a vesting tentative tract map for a residential subdivision; 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 October 16,2007,for the purpose of considering Application TR/PD/ER 77-07;and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission,testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Planned Development Rezone Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Airport Land Use Plan, and the proposed residential land use is allowed within the primary zoning district(R-1). 2. The project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations other than those modified by the PD rezoning, which include: clustering of units within lots smaller than otherwise allowed, reduced street yards, and alternative fencing standards and requirements. 3. The approved modifications to the development standards of the Zoning Regulations, listed in Finding No. 2, are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project, its compatibility with adjacent land uses, and its successful mitigation of environmental impacts. 4. The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines and establishes additional parameters to ensure development is in harmony with nature and the adjacent neighborhood. 5. All necessary public facilities, services, and utilities are available and adequate to serve the Proposed project. (� Attachment 8 Resolution No. ? XXX(2007 Series) Page 2 6. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the character of the site, and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. 7. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration topography, and other applicable features, and has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use. 8. With the incorporation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. SECTION 2. Subdivision Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed subdivision,together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan and Airport Land Use Plan, including compatibility with the objectives,policies,general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. 2. The design of the subdivision provides,to the extent feasible,for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. 3. As conditioned, the subdivider will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees to attach set aside, void or annul an approval of the City Council,Planning Commission,or City Staff concerning a subdivision. 4. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, including Land Use Element Policies 2.2.6, 2.2.8 and 2.2.11, and Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 7.3.LD, 7.5.1, 7.5.4, 8.6.3 and 8.3.2.A, because the subdivision will provide residential development anticipated by the General Plan and preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features and sensitive natural resources. 5. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development because the project has been designed to utilize available residential density while protecting open space resources. 6. With the incorporation of the recommended conditions and mitigation measures, the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the project will adequately protect in-place, relocate, or replace open space resources. Resolution No. XXXX (200,/-8eries) Page 3 7. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems because the type of improvements are appropriate for the location and will be designed to meet existing building and safety codes. 8. The design of the subdivision, or the type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision because such easements will be maintained. 9. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on September 12, 2007. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately identifies that there is no foreseeable potential for significant environmental impacts by the proposed project as conditioned. SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby approve the vesting tentative tract map, Planned Development rezone, and adoption of said Negative Declaration for property located at 300 Lawrence Drive (Application TR/PD/ER 77-07; Tract 2723), with incorporation of the following project conditions and code requirements: Conditions: 1. An affordable housing agreement consistent with the draft affordable housing proposal shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to recordation of the final map. The applicant shall provide an assessment of average square footage of the 10 lots in order to determine what the in lieu fee calculation will be so that the City and developer can agree on the amount due. 2. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080. 3. The entry gate shall be eliminated or replaced with an entry feature that does not impede access into the site. 4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 5. The proposed cul-de-sac at the termination of Lawrence Drive, including the entire area with rolled curb transitioning to a flush sidewalk and a total radius of 34 feet clear, shall be a private street maintained by a homeowners' association with public access .and utility easements and maintenance agreements provided to the City as approved by the Public Works Department, Utilities Department, Fire Department and City Attorney. Resolution No. XXXX(200' Series) Page 4 6. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications. 7. A public improvement plan, prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Director for review and approval.. All grades, layout, staking and cut- sheets necessary for the construction of street paving and frontage improvements shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. 8. The developer shall submit a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic report, as required by Section 2.2 of the City's Waterways Management Plan - Drainage Design Manual (WWMP-DDM), reflecting the final subdivision design and adequately addressing all of the required report components, including run-off from seeps and springs, and design of the proposed retaining walls. 9. All sewer lines serving the subdivision will be privately maintained by a homeowners' association to the point of connection at a City-approved location. Private sewer mains shall be designed and inspected in accordance with City Standards. Manholes and clean- outs will be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Building Official. 10. A clean-out at the end of the sewer line serving Lot 9 shall be provided. An extension of the sewer line to the adjacent property (300 Lawrence) shall be eliminated from the Tract Map. 11. Easements for all public and private utilities shall be clearly designated on the Tract Map. 12. Common driveway and utility agreements are required for the private driveway, to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Directors, per City standards and regulations. The access road and utility extension plans shall be included as part of the subdivision improvement submittals. 13. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. 14. The subdivider shall be responsible for necessary adjustments to existing fire hydrants, public and private utility and drainage services and any other affected facilities, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utilities Directors. 15. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaires, etc.) per City standards, including off-site street lighting along roadways leading to and from the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. 16. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities adjacent to the tract boundary along the public street frontage(s), to the satisfaction of the Public Works �7 Attachment Resolution No. ��(2007 Series) Attac $ Page 5 Director and utility companies. There shall be no increase in the number of poles that presently exist. 17. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 18. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Natural Resource Manager. The City Arborist and Natural Resource Manager shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist. 19. EPA RNuirement: 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 one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre, 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. 20. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the SWRCB shall be included as part of the building permit and/or grading permit plan submittal. The WDID Number issued by the board shall be noted on all plans that involve regulated land disturbing activities. 21. A standard fire service lateral to a double-check detector assembly and a live line up to a City standard hydrant shall be provided in-lieu of the proposed dry standpipe. These facilities shall all be labeled as"Private". 22. Water meters for individual homes shall be at lease 1" size. The maximum number of l" meters that can be placed on a single 2" water service lateral is four. Since there are a total of nine water meters at the end of Lawrence Drive, each 2" service lateral shall serve three 1"water meters. This requirement is subject to the Fire Sprinkler Engineer's approval and calculations verifying that this configuration can provide the required flow. 23. A blow-off assembly is required at the end of the public water main in Lawrence Drive, and shall be shown on the map. The fire hydrant on Lot 9 appears to be designed as a public fire hydrant. A public water system easement is required on Lot 9 to provide for this hydrant to be public. 24. The on-site sewer system shall be labeled as "Private" from the manhole at the end of Lawrence Drive and including the sewer across the back of lots 6-9 and through lots 10 and 12. 25. The configuration of the water services at the end of Lawrence Drive is considered schematic for the purposes of the tract map, and will require adjustment to comply with � Attachment 8 Resolution No. XXXX(2007 Series) Page 6 City policies and standards. These corrections will be made after submittal of the public improvement plans. The water meter manifolds may require adjustment, as well. Service lines from the back of the water meters to each of the homes shall be shown and covered by private utility easements wherever private service lines cross one parcel for the benefit of another. 26. The use of private driveways and the cul-de-sac sidewalk for the turning of fire trucks, trash trucks, and Utilities service vehicles causes some concern. The applicant's engineer shall demonstrate that private driveways and the cul-de-sac sidewalk(including the water meter manifold areas)used for the turning of fire trucks,trash trucks, and Utilities service vehicles, will be structurally capable of supporting these loads without breaking down prematurely. The owner's association shall be responsible for repair of any damage to these facilities that may occur over time as a result of the routine activities of these vehicles. 27. The conditions of approval, architectural guidelines, and all easements shall be recorded on-title with the individual lots. 28. A rock crushing operation plan shall be provided to and approved by the Community Development Department establishing hours and duration of rock crushing operations prior to the commencement of work. Mitigation Measures Aesthetic Resources 1. Homes within the Planned Development shall be subject to architectural review to insure consistency with the Tracts Architectural Guidelines and the Community Design Guidelines Hillside Development Policies. Air Quality Resources 2. The following APCD standards for dust control shall be adhered to: a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible; b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed(non-potable)water should be used whenever possible; c. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed; d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities; Attachment 8 Resolution No. XXXX(2007 Series) Page 7 e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; £ All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114, j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site,and, k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. 3. The applicant shall quantify all emissions associated with the construction activities including the proposed hauling activities to determine the air quality impacts and apply to APCD for necessary permits associated with the use on an on-site crusher. 4. A construction monitoring plan consistent with APCD standards shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and approved by the APCD prior to the issuance of public improvement or construction permits. Biological Resources 5. Proposed mitigation measures included in the plan, as outlined in the LFR report dated May 3, 2007, and as modified by mitigation measures adopted as part of this report and other entitlements, shall be incorporated into the final tract design and construction documents. 6. Trees and shrubs expected to be lost shall be counted and those counts utilized to develop a planting mix and density appropriate to the size of the mature plants. 7. New plantings proposed for the lower open-space lot shall be revised to utilize buckeyes as the main replacement, with toyon and oaks included to fill in some areas. Mitigation shall be in a manner approved by the City; this including size (minimum 5 gallon), ratio (minimum 2:1 for California natives), and location (lower open space lot except for the Resolution No. �{(2007 Series) -�' Attachment 8 Page 8 maintenance access easement area and other areas to be preserved within that lot). This mitigation shall be subject to the approval of the Natural Resources Manager. 8. Physical barriers should be installed around trees proposed to be retained to prevent inadvertent damage during the removal of the fill and subsequent construction. 9. The appropriate boundary of the upper open space lot shall be subject to modification by the City Natural Resource Manager, following an in the field inspection, in order to ensure sufficient protection of the spineflower within the upper open space lot. 10. A biological open space easement shall be placed over those portions of Lots 2-6 which extend into the open space zone, exclusive of the deck areas. This easement shall include protections for the rare Palmer spineflower and its habitat within those lots. 11. The area held within a biological open space easement placed over those portions of Lots 2-6 which extend into the open space zone, exclusive of the deck areas, shall be completely fenced in to adequately protect the sensitive resources. Location and design of the fencing shall be approved by the Natural Resource Manager and Community Development Planning Department prior to installation. 12. The area occupied by native grassland and clay mariposa lily in the northwestern portion of the property is proposed for conservation and should not be used for other mitigations such as tree planting which would be in conflict with trying to preserve these resources. 13. Development of Lot 10 shall avoid modification or impact of the existing freshwater seep. To insure that the line or trough holding the sewer line passing through the freshwater seep does not become a conduit or drain and change the drainage pattern or condition there special design consideration shall be made. This could include some special backfilling there using clay, use of one or more "collars" or similar structures on or around the sewer pipe itself, or equivalent provisions as determined adequate by the Public Works Department and Natural Resource Manager. Plans submitted for architectural review shall include adequate information to insure that the area is also protected during construction. Cultural Resources 14. If vegetation is cleared in the area surrounding the chert outcrop in the northern portion of the site,the area should be reinspected,thus allowing effective surface reconnaissance. 15. After the unconsolidated fill material is removed from the central portion of the site the area should be reinspected,thus allowing effective surface reconnaissance. 16. In the event that buried cultural material bearing deposits are exposed during any future construction, all work should cease in the immediate area (within 50 meters) untilthe materials can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and, if prehistoric, a recognized representative of the Chumash Nation. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials 17. A soil samplino plan for the concrete/rubble/fill area shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Fine Department for review and approval. The work shall then be completed Attachment 8 Resolution No. XXXX(2007 Series) Page 9 prior to site grading or inception of other work, and submitted to both the Fire Department and APCD for review and approval. Additional requirements and/or permits may by applied as determined by the results of testing. Soil samples will be analyzed for Total Lead and Asbestos. 18. In the event that soil sampling identifies the presence of hazardous contaminants, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) as necessary to insure the proper removal and handling of materials consistent with local and state standards. If Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD; If NOA is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. Hydrology and Water Quality 19. The public improvement plans submitted with the final map shall address handling of drainage between Lawrence Drive and the Meadow Street cul-de-sac in the public right of way known as the "Meadow Street alley." Proposed improvements in this area shall consider alternatives including the possible need for an underground storm drain with inlet and outlet structures. At a minimum, the potential erosion between Lawrence and the Meadow Drive cul-de-sac must be controlled and inlet (at Lawrence and the alley) and outlet(at the Meadow Street cul-de-sac) structures provided. 20. Improvement plans shall show the construction of a new inlet at Meadow Street near Meadow Creek designed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. 21. The final project design shall mitigate the projected increase in runoff in the Lawrence Drive/Meadow Street drainage toward Meadow Creek to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and City Engineer. 22. Alluirements/recommendations of the Geologic Appraisal by Cleath and Associates dated/16/5 and the Geotechnical Report dated 11/2/04 and updated June 19, 2007 shall be incorporated into the project design. Include mitigation measures for spring water and a collection system for subsurface water from utility trenches and future development. Any subsurface drainage system shall outlet to the existing easterly drainage swale. 23. On-site drainage facilities shall be designed for the 100-year event and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Public Services 24. The homeowner's association CC&R's shall restrict parking anywhere in the private driveway or on the individual lots' driveways within the area covered by access easement. Recreation 25. The specific alignment, width, and tread and substrate material of the public access trial shall be deternuned m the field by the City's Natural Resource Manager and Planning Division. Attachment 8 Resolution No. XXXX(2007 Series) Page 10 26. Final design and details of the trail connection to Meadow Drive, informational signage, and site furniture such as the "community viewing bench" shall be reviewed and approved by staff. Transportation/Traffic 27. All construction traffic shall be restricted to the use of Lawrence Drive and Broad Street so construction traffic won't impact the rest of the neighborhood. 28. The private cul-de-sac shall be signed for no parking to accommodate emergency vehicles. Code requirements: The following code requirements are included for information purposes only. They serve to give the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check process. 1. An encroachment permit will be required from the Public Works Department for any work or construction staging in the public right-of-way. 2. A traffic control plan and/or pedestrian control plan shall be approved prior to encroachment permit issuance for work in the public right-of-way. 3. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb,gutter&sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. 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 satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 5. Prior to acceptance by the City of public improvements,the developer's engineer shall submit a digital version of all public improvement plans&record drawings, compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format,DXF)for Geographic Information System (GIS)purposes,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Attachment 8 Resolution No. XXXX (2007 Series) Page 11 On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16m day of October, 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona well, City Attomey Attachment 9 Draft Resolution of Denial RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE WESTERLY TERMINUS OF LAWRENCE DRIVE; TR/PD/ER 77-07 (TRACT 2723) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 26, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/PD/ER 77-07, a request to allow Planned Development rezoning and a vesting tentative tract map for a residential subdivision; 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 October 16, 2007, for the purpose of considering Application TR/PD/ER 77-07; and WHEREAS, the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. That this Council, after consideration the requests for planned development rezoning, vesting tentative tract map, and environmental review, and considering the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: [Council specifies findings related to Planned Development Rezoning or subdivision] SECTION 2. Denial. The City Council does hereby deny the vesting tentative tract map, Planned Development rezone, and Negative Declaration for property located at 300 Lawrence Drive (Application TR/PD/ER 77-07; Tract 2723. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16`s day of October, 2007. Resolution No. XXXX (206, oeries) i Attachment 9 Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney 1-eL Page 1 of 1 From: Paul Marcotte rpaul93401@yahoo.com] Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 5:06 PM To: Cc: -- Subject: Lawrence Drive Hearing Attachments: Councilman Allen Settle: Councilwoman Christine Mulholland: As residents of Meadow Park area,we strongly oppose the proposed Lawrence Drive development. We feel it is not acceptable with regard to the General Plan as there will be significant drainage problems for the homeowners immediately below this site. Having resided in this area since 1981,we have first-hand knowledge of heavy rain runoff as occurred in the mid-90's. The City will be liable for damages to homes downside from this proposed development. We urge that you vote against the development going forward. Paul G. &Jean B. Marcotte 2445 Cumbre Ct. San Luis Obispo https://mai 1.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/Lawrence%2ODri ve%2OHearing.EML?C... 10/16/2007 Oct 16 07 04: 47p Mil-lholland & Associates 907 348-8550 p. l October 16, 2007 Andrew Carter, Council Member 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Councilman Carter, Last Saturday morning I met you on the County-owned property below Sunny Acres. We laughed a bit about how inclement weather is relative—you being from New England and I from Alaska- a cold day here is summertime elsewhere! Today I am writing in regards to the four Johnson Avenue area annexations which will be considered on October 23`d. I have been trying to get my mind around these proposals, but none of them makes good sense to me. Why would the city to vote to annex and rezone these properties when they all have numerous, serious exceptions to the General Plan, the most far reaching being moving the Urban Reserve Line to higher elevation? This is setting a precedent for all hillsides in San Luis Obispo—leaving the door open for others to do the same. Sort of like your kid conning to you saying"Weil Johnny-Joe did it, so I should be able to do it too." And I wonder if it is really in the city's best interest to annex these four properties and be responsible for providing public utilities? Does the benefit justify the cost to the city, its taxpayers? In the case of the County-owned property;which has three land elements—zoned R-1 within the city and below the URL; zoned Open Space within the city but.ABOVE the URL; and proposed Open Space in land outside the city limits- I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's denial,uphold the currently zoned Open Space designation within the city limit above the URL, and redirect the applicant to submit a proposal for the R-I zoned parcel that is below the URL and within the city limits. For the other three properties, King, Filiponi/Twissleman, and Brown(Harmony), I encourage you to pursue a development transfer, as defined in the General Plan Land Use Element-2.3.4,to other property in town and use the entire area as open space dedication. Thanks for listening! I'll see you next Tuesday evening. Sincerely yours, Madelyn Milch' Hand Page 1 of 1 From: Hjclende@aol.com [Hjclende@aol.com] Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 3:50 PM To: Settle,Allen; Mulholland,Christine; Romero, Dave;jewan@slocity.org; Brown, Paul; bndwms@sbcglobal.net Cc: Subject: Objection to South St. project Attachments: We would very much like to the attend the public comment portion of tonight's City Council meeting,but due to health problems,are not able to do so. We would like to express our strong support for Dodie William's alternative which she will present tonight. As we have stated previously via e-mail,we are vehemently opposed to the current plan to narrow South St.to two lanes with a median in the middle. Thank you for including our protest in tonight's comment period. John and Harriet Clendenen 472 Corrida Dr. SLO See what's new at http://www.aol.com https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/Objection%20to%2OSouth%2OSt.%2Oproi... 10/16/2007 Page 1 of 2 U tQ This message was sent with high importance. From: ] Killian []Killian@sanluisprintandcopy.comj Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 10:16 AM To: Carter,Andrew; Brown, Paul; Romero, Dave; Settle,Allen; mulholland@slocity.org Cc: bndwms@sbcglobal.net Subject: South Street Project Attachments: Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: As a business owner on South Street, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed South Street project. I am very concerned that this project is not only ill advised, premature and expensive but that, if completed, it will actually make South Street more congested and less safe. I'm not the only business owner that feels this way. Every business that I have spoken with in the Southwind Center knew nothing about this project and they share these same concerns. This project started as a neighborhood effort to make South Street safer for pedestrians and was driven by the Halloween accident that claimed the life of a child. Over the course of four "focus group" meetings it was determined that there was not enough pedestrian traffic on South Street to warrant stop signs,traffic signals, or a midblock pedestrian signal. Nor did the area of the accident qualify fora school crossing zone or safety lighting improvements. There is not enough pedestrian traffic to warrant any of the proposed safety measures yet somehow this neighborhood effort has morphed into a road diet plan to reduce South Street from four to two lanes, a proposal that will affect the entire city. This plan was recommended to you as the most appropriate way to address the high speeds of traffic along the corridor without significantly affecting corridor operations. A key reason given for the feasibility of the project was that Prado Road would divert traffic from South Street. Additionally you were told that there would be no cost to the City for this project. This plan is critically flawed. South Street is currently the only reasonable way to get across town from LOVR and Highway 101. Prado Road is not open and is probably five to ten years away from being open. To reduce the number of traffic lanes without reducing the amount of traffic or providing feasible alternative traffic routes makes little sense. The traffic does not go away, it just becomes more congested and less safe. Combine this with the fact that the speed limit will not be reduced and you will have traffic moving at between 45 and 49 miles per hour in less space. Tell me how this makes South Street safer for pedestrians or, for that matter, for cars that are trying to enter South Street from the residential neighborhoods. Finally, the project will cost the city a significant amount of money. In addition to the reported$10 million cost to the State, it is my understanding that the project will cost the city at least$500,000 to landscape and maintain the medians. Caltrans and city staff support this plan. My question is what hard data exist to support such a plan?Where are the EIR or CEQA documents that lay out the impacts of such a plan?This is a massive project that will be very disruptive and very costly to complete. It is a project that will not only impact the South Street corridor but the entire city. Where are the hard facts to support it? There was little public notification regarding the input meetings and inadequate notification for public review and discussion of the final plan before it was brought before the council. Before this project goes forward, this matter needs to be reopened for adequate public hearing and discussion. Here are just a few questons that need to be answered: - Why isn't implementation of the project being done in concert with the Prado Road project so that traffic can actually be diverted? https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/%2OSouth%2OStreet%2OProject.EML?C... 10/16/2007 Page 2 of 2 Why can't the city and state work together to modify the vehicle codes or get a mitigation to reduce the speed limit on South Street to 30-35 MPH? Currently Broad Street, at 40 MPH, has a lower speed limit than South, and Santa Rosa has a 30 MPH limit with traffic lights at every corner. - Why not just stripe South Street like Pismo and Johnson Avenue rather than build medians?This would be an inexpensive way to see if the concept actually works. If it works, medians could be put in when Prado opens. If it doesn't work, you could convert back to 4 lanes for a lot less expense. In closing, I urge you to reconsider your support of this project. If you pull back your support it is unlikely that Caltrans will proceed as currently planned. And if the project is delayed, hopefully a plan can be developed to make South Street really safe not only for pedestrians and bicyclists but also for the people who drive it every day and for the customers that come into the businesses in the area. Sincerely, James L Killian President San Luis Print and Copy https://mai l.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/%2OS outh%2OS treet%2OProj ect.EML?C... 10/16/2007 October 16, 2007 Dear Mayor Romero and Council Members: You have already heard from me regarding the planned modifications to South Street, but I want to reiterate my position before tonight's meeting. South Street, which is also State Highway 227, is the most important east-west conduit for residents from the east side of San Luis Obispo to access major shopping areas, Highway 101 and points south. With the new commercial and residential construction that has already occurred, as well as that in progress, South Street is bound to become even busier. To narrow this street prior to the completion of another arterial such as Prado Road, will cause worse traffic build-ups than we currently experience in this area. From my research, Prado Road will not be ready for use for another 5-7 years at best. The catalyst for this change is the accident that occurred in 2005, which was not the fault of the driver, but of the adults in charge of the children. The entire group could have been hit, with significantly more injuries, had she not been a good driver. Granted, it was a tragedy, but it wasn't the fault of South Street, as some seem to feel. I do not believe the proposed "road diet" - with raised medians - is the best approach to solving the South Street issue. I would have no problem with lanes and turn pockets striped in the same configuration that would be used for the project, while eliminating the raised medians. If this approach was used, we could experience the effect of the calming effort on a state highway without such a disruptive and expensive project. An added benefit is that the City would not have to plant and maintain medians. The safety aspect of the medians escapes me, as running across one lane of traffic and stopping on the median with traffic rushing past at more than 45 mph, strikes me as frightening. I can't imagine a young mother with two children —one in a stroller—trying to cross South Street this way. In reality, the only safe way for pedestrians to cross is with a traffic signal that could be actuated by the pedestrian. Tim Bochum has referred to various "road diets" or"traffic calming" efforts throughout the City. They include Foothill, Pismo and lower Johnson, where striping was done to delineate turn pockets, lane changes, etc. I note that there is not one raised median among them. The traffic calming done on Johnson Avenue in the 90s has worked well without medians, and I can't see why it wouldn't work just as well on South Street. Please give this some consideration. Sincerely, Dodie Williams RED FILE RECEIVED MEETING AGENDA nrT 10 NOI October 10, 2007 DATE !V STEM # SLO CITY CFRK City of San Luis Obispo Honorable Mayer Dave Romero and all Council Members 990Palm Street San LUIS Obispo, CA 934017org-ATTORNEY IL CDD DIR FIN DIR V FIRE CHIEF Regarding: Proposed Development at 300 Lawrence Street Report from OASIS Landscape and Planning, Inc. Ma WPWDIR 'POLICE CHF DEPT HEADS REC DIR !/3 UTIL Respondents: Dan and Linda Caldon DIR 7_ Bum r HR DIR 2463 Ladera Court, San Luis Obispo Dear Mayor Romero and All Council Members, My home is located at 2463 Ladera Court, San Luis Obispo. My wife and I live at the end of the Ladera Court cul-de-sac. Our property is directly adjacent to the northern boundary of the 300 Lawrence Street proposed development. It should be noted that both my wife and I support a land owners right to develop their property in a reasonable and legal manner.... However, once again my wife, Linda and I must go on record as being "adamantly opposed"to the current 300 Lawrence Street planned development by Mr Michael Coss. My objections and concerns of the 300 Lawrence Street Proposed Developments include serious issues previously address in past letters to the SLO Planning Commission and to the SLO City Council. Our concerns of the proposed"Upper and Lower" 300 Lawrence Street Developments include but are not limited to the following issues : Environmental, Life and Fire Safety, Privacy, Water Drainage, Asbestos Removal/Contamination, Property Devaluation and the Property Lot Line Adjustment now known as Lot Number 10. With the above issues in mind my wife and I understand that there is a real possibility the 300 Lawrence Street Proposed Development may be approved by the SLO City Council..._ Therefore, for that reason we must now solely concern ourselves with conditions of approval, mitigation measures and design guidelines that effect our home as well as the neighboring homes on Ladera and Cima Courts. We have retained the firm of OASIS LANDSCAPE AND PLANNING, INC. for representation and assistance on the 300 Lawrence Proposed Development. Attached to this Ietter please find a report.from Oasis.Associates,.Inc. The report was prepared by Mr. Michael L Cripe, ASLA. October 10. 2007 Page#2 The October 9, 2007 report from Mr Cripe of Oasis Associates, Inc. lists six key issues in an attempt to mitigate the negative impact that the 300 Lawrence Project has on my home as well as other affected homes on Ladera and Cima Courts-In short,the mitigating measures include the following key points: 1. Construction of a 6 foot high decorative block wall 2. Design and plant a solid evergreen screen 3. Maintenance of the proposed planting and irrigation system 4. Establishment of a landscape easement and monitoring program 5. Provisions for post development run-off from Track 2723 that will not impact my property 6. Architectural Review Commission (as outlined in the report) Please note Item# 1 above... The proposed 6 foot high decorative block wall of Mr. Cripe's report currently ends at the west property line of my residence. The SLO City Staff has advised me that the 300 Lawrence Proposed Pedestrian Walkway directly behind my home has been revised and is now changed I am requesting that the"privacy" concrete block wall and planted area only extend past the proposed pedestrian walkway. This change can be short of my homes west property line and an alteration to the Oasis Associates, Inc. report. We the undersigned are requesting that the SLO City Council consider and approve the October 9, 2007 OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. Report by Mr. Michael L. Cripe as a condition of approval for the 300 Lawrence Street Proposed Development..... Furthermore,we personally invite SLO City Council Members and or City Staff (individually or as a group)to visit our residence at 2463 Ladera Court. It is our hope that an on site inspection by Council Members and Staff will clearly point out our concerns as well as justification for the Oasis Associates, Inc. Report and the recommended mitigation measures. Respectfully Submitted, C.� Dan and Linda Caldon / 2463 Ladera Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel. 805 541-9123 � 1 O A 5 1 5 LAND5CAPE ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING 09 October 2007 Mr. & Mrs. Dan Caldon 2463 Ladera Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Proposed Tentative Tract 2723, 300 Lawrence Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA TR/PD/ER 77-07 Dear Dan & Linda, Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the proposed subdivision plans, conditions of approval and mitigation measures. In addition, we have conducted an on-site reconnaissance to determine the impacts of Lot 10 on your property. Our analysis also included the pedestrian path proposed to gain access to the open space lot. While the conditions of approval, mitigation measures and design guidelines may offer adequate protection for the balance of the subdivision, they do not adequately address your site specific concerns for privacy, visual resource protection and drainage. The following represent our recommendations to provide appropriate mitigation for the noted concerns. These should be incorporated into the final conditions of approval and apply solely to the development of Lot 10, as well as to a portion of the adjacent open space Lot 12. See attached exhibit. 1. Construct a solid 6-foot high decorative block wall located directly adjacent to the proposed pedestrian path and private access drive to Lot 10, extending onto the open space parcel Lot 12, and to the end of the west property line of your property at 2463 Ladera Court. The wall shall be located on the southerly edge of the proposed 10-foot wide landscape easement. 2. Design and plant a solid evergreen screen to include a mixture of 15-gallon trees and 5-gallon shrubs within the proposed 10-foot wide landscape easement area. All trees and shrubs shall be automatically irrigated and shall be connected to the common area irrigation system. 3. Maintenance of the proposed planting and irrigation system within the 10-foot wide landscape easement shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association or other responsible entity in perpetuity. 4. Planting and irrigation within the landscape easement shall have an established monitoring program to ensure the establishment and continued health of the landscape screening for a minimum period of five years. The landscape screening 805.541.4509 FAX 805.546.0525 3427 MIGUELITO CT SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93401 mn aaa•cwre.wi OASIS ASSOCIATES,INC. 09 October 2007 Caldon/Tract2723 Page 2 of 2 shall provide a minimum of 50%visual screen within 3 years and a 75% screening within 5 years. 5. In addition to Planning Commission Resolution Section 3, condition nos. 9 and 18,the required hydrologic and hydraulic report should specifically address maintenance of existing drainage structures on your property and provisions for post development run-off from Tract 2723 that will not impact your property. 6. Lastly, to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned conditions of approval, the Architectural Review Commission shall review all architecture, landscape architecture and miscellaneous project related plans for any proposed development of Lot 10, including the common area decorative wall and landscape screening We believe that with the addition of these conditions to the project, and their subsequent implementation, your concerns will be adequately addressed. Please contact us should you have any additional questions or concerns. We trust that the Community Development Department staff, and ultimately the City Council, will find that your requested revisions to the project are reasonable and with merit. Respectfully, OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. & L. e, ASLA Attachment c: 07-0079 IlOasis_se"erloasis_datalCafdon.Dan&LindalCorrespondenc6Ladera Court.doc �A TA O 000 4� fLFLFg P O 9 1 T 1 O N P A R K A C T B O B r--------------$a� few��C"--1-----�C-._ i.r.�..,�.._�w _ __Y - •,— �— ---- IL �. E � Ie1 a'• � � cy' a.ar3�a �� I� � � S �o@�i r� i IN Kit � 93 wilt I I ""� l'• � � —.— —'.�_, —MI— '_�—� 65 ,"gig: 9� ,g Lp Iryci e Omz �. r , If • ry 00 ma z mO 2: x P 0 5 1 'r 1 0 Iq P A R K A c IF z Ir c all RW Of ie 7----- ------f.. T toll— r > NNIt i Y'I, le JJJ� .�'�' d•ds' d�s+8 �• III / � / PN *Nv I RIB I flu 44 "IWO, it PH Hal Alt ell\ 0 It 21 00 gg 0 Im A4 -11- m j G) M Z m C> Rio, z M r. > T -rim, RED FILE MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED DATE� 6 ITEM #�_ October 16, 2407 OCT 1 6 2007 City of Sav Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK Honorable Mayor Dave Romero and all City Council Members 990 Palm Street COUNCIL iR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CAO I$CDD IVFIN DIRIR ACAO FIRE CHIEF Regarding: The Proposed 300 Lawrence Street"Upper and Lowes"Deve A NEY PW DIRORIG POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS REC Dip Respondent: Daniel L. Caldon, 2463 Ladera Court, San Lids Obispo F UTIL DIR ADDENDUM to my October 10, 2007 Letter and Report P HR DIR Request For City Council DENIAL of The Proposed Development ?- d 40 Dear Mayor Romero and All San Luis Obispo..City Council Members, C�" - With respect to the proposed 300 Lawrence Street Development Please Consider the following Negative Issues and Concerns at this evenings City Council Meeting.: I. A Cluster of Homes on the Side of the South Hills with Prevailing Winds 2. Water Drainage, Environmental Issues and Asbestos Contamination Fears and Concerns 3. A Proposed Narrow"Substandard Width" Lawrence Street and Cul-De-Sac with One Way In and One Way Out for All Vehicle Traffic is a Potential Fire Trap. 4. Emergency Vehicles, Delivery and Service Vehicles that will all have to Drive Over The Curb and Sidewalk just to Turn Around 5. Additional Traffic Congestion and &king Issues for Residents on Lawrence Street 6. A requested Lot Line Adjustment of an existing"small" city lot, Lot Size to be Substantially Increased and the Lot Relocated on top of another Environmentally Sensitive Area Directly Behind two Ladera Court Residences. San Luis Obispo City Council Members, Is it any wonder that the Proposed 300 Lawrence Street Development has created such an outcry from the neighboring community residents. As a Retired Fire Captain I am very concerned about The Proposed 300 Lawrence Street "Upper and Lower"Developments,LIFE and FIRE SAFETY ISSUES and the Potential for City Liability. My wife,Linda and I feel that the 300 Lawrence Street Proposed Development is A Bad Design for such a Rare and Pristine Area Within the City of San Luis Obispo. Once Again, we are asking for a DENIAL of this Proposed Development. Respectfully Submitted, Daniel L. Caldon �� Page 1 of 1 From: D. &E. Dollar[ddollar@pacbell.net] Sent: Sun 10/14/2007 8:33 PM To: Romero, Dave; Settle,Allen; Mulholland,Christine; Carter,Andrew; Brown, Paul Cc: Mandeville,John Subject: 300 Lawrence Attachments: RECEIVED Mayor and City Council, OU 1 j 200' Re: 300(Lawrence SLO CITY CLERK I am concerned about this proposal. I do not think it should be approved as submitted. • Drainage-Listen to the locals that live in the neighborhood,especially just downhill on Cima, Ladera and Woodbridge. Drainage is a significant problem.The slopes are too steep, and the.soil is not conducive to home building.Take time and walk around the neighborhood just below this proposal and look at all the drainage pipes that people have coming off the hill and out of their yards. Listen to what neighbors have to say about drainage problems. • Density- Keep low density and do not rezone to put in more houses with a PD. Slopes are too steep. • Housing needs-The city does not need more subdivision style homes, need low income housing, but only what can realistically work in any given location. Sincerely, Don Dollar SILO COUNCIL �-C'.DD DIR 781.0118 CAO T-FIN DIR R ACAO .FIRE CHIEF RED FILE ATTORNEY r PW DIR MEETING AGENDA CLERK/ORIG lj�POLICE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS iii�REC DIR DATE lb vITEM # PH �UTIL DIR j.HR DIR sr- ecIZZ-2ec >4 Of*4 https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/300%2OLawrence.ENM?Cmd=open 10/15/2007 RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Honorable May,or Dave Romero and Council Members DATE b 61 ITEM #_0 City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. RECEIVED 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo. Ca. 93401 OCT 15 2007 Concerning proposed 300 Lawrence Street Development SLO CITY CLERK Gentlemen: We are residents in 2468 Ladera Court which abuts abandoned Mitchell Street. one access to the city's green belt portion of the hill behind us. According to the latest developer's plan the one of the proposed homes accessed behind our properties will be reached in that manner. The lot for that home has now bee enlarged and is partly in the wetland area of the General Plan. This appears to be contrary to the same objections made by the Planning Commission and the City Council on prior occasion in that respect. The sewer line from the project's other homes is routed underground apparently the same way. The plan does not detail drainage from the development,which is one of our concerns since we have a drainage swale through our property,to Ladera Ct. emptying onto the street surface. What are those provisions which are clearly of utmost importance to all of us living below the slope of the development2. Other concerns are the seemingly inadequate turnaround space in the cul-de-sac for homes on the hill slope above us for emergency vehicles, especially fire trucks. Are you. as the Council, certain that all city specifications in this regard have been followed precisely for safety and city liability reasons as well as for our safety as property owners below the hillside?. Finally, to the issue of privacy of those of us who back up to the fence line now demarcating the developer's property,. We see no mention in the plan as to previously discussed planting or walling off of some kind and the continued maintenance of such efforts in perpetuity by someone, either the city or a home owners association. That responsibility must be clearly stated,we believe. The developer may finally have presented a plan which almost meets the requirement this Council demanded at the last, prior attempt for approval by Mr. Coss. We hope that you,gentlemen.Nvill now make every effort to be certain that all guide lines of the General Plan and concerns for the safety of existing and new residents of this hillside development will be fully addressed. Most respectfully. 7iL& G OPD DIR =1N DIR zl�L�_ FIRE CHIEF PWZIR Co ette and Mike Gunkel POLICE CHF 2468 Ladera Ct. � ��7 REC DIR San Luis Obispo, Ca 3401 / ' 5! UTIL DIR 805 7829246 HR DIR a X C,4a k C4*0,I00t. RECEIVED RED FILE q rACAO NCIL 2-nD DIFi-- MEETING AGENDA OCT 12 L�UI , 'FIN DIR DATEID ITEM # SLO CITY CLERK FIRE CHIEF RNEY .f'�PW DIROctober l1, 2007 K/ORIG �POLICECHFTo: San Luis Obispo City Council HEADS -e`i REC DIR . Re: 300 Lawrence Drive proposal 'U716 DIR b�SIR Once again,Mr Coss has proposed a plan that is not consistent with the current zoning and general plan guidelines. In fact, over objections of the surrounding residents, this council actually encouraged him to develop outside the tenants of the zoning and general plan guidelines. I am not opposed to any development on the property. I am however opposed to allowing Mr. Coss and his developer to be granted the numerous exceptions to the General Plan policies and zoning laws. The following issues should be addressed before any development is allowed on the site: 1. Why was a plan never submitted, suggested or proposed that would meet all the tenants of the General Plan, zoning laws and environmental restrictions that did and currently exist on the property? Why can't Mr. Coss use the property in a way consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, natural resources and General Plan policies as they exist now? It is certain he can not unduly restricted from using the property as he sees fit, however, he also should not be allowed to deviate from the development guidelines in place at the time of purchase simply to realize a larger return on his investment. Simply put, he should be required to prove that he can not use the property as he intended because of a condition of use changed after his purchase to the extent that the change will now deny him a use originally allowed. This is especially true when this deviation can be construed as the taking of value from the surrounding neighborhood. In effect, by allowing the exceptions you would be denying my neighbors and myself our right to enjoy our properties as originally allowed and intended. Thus, I am calling for a clear explanation as to why the owner can not enjoy the property under the currently existing zoning and General Plan policy guidelines and how he feels his use is being unfairly impinged by conditions beyond his control that occurred after the fact of his purchase. Who and what is denying him fair use of the property such that he must request and be granted these exceptions to mitigate? 2. There is no guarantee that the open space easements will be honored by the future owners and developers. In fact, by allowing a variance from policies at this time, you are setting a precedence that can be used by the future buyers to request their own set of exceptions. Further, the easements are already planned to be encroached upon by balconies and other structural features. The chances of the areas directly below the balconies remaining purely open space are virtually nil. Anyone owning one of the properties is going to, at the minimum, use the space for storage ultimately destroying the features the easement was designed to protect. 3. His development plan will require the use of a rock crusher and heavy construction equipment in the middle of a well established residential area. This alone is enough to warrant the restructuring or reduction of his plan. Even one day with a rock crusher is too many and takes value from my neighbors and myself. Our property would be less than 600 feet from the proposed heavy construction site. My wife, a local physician works nights and sleeps during the day. I have young children that 1 of 3 October 11, 2007 nap in the afternoon and subject to the noise pollution generated.'fhis is one of the reasons we purchased in a well established neighborhood. While it was known the property above could be developed, it was also understood that the General Plan, zoning and other environmental regulations would limit that development to a reasonable size and scope. By granting the PD, you are in effect throwing these protections out the window and reducing my value. Had the property been zoned PD prior to our purchase and a candidate for heavy construction, we likely would not have bought the home. So how exactly does this project intend to compensate for my loss? 4. The plan calls for an entrance and eventual path through the open space that formerly provided a barrier to the properties below. In effect, you are creating a new parkway where one did not exist when the homes were built. I can not put up a large fence to protect my privacy now as it would (ironically) itself require a policy exception. This would be an effect of the PD and plan as proposed simply because you are allowing Mr. Coss to circumvent the General Plan policies to suit his purpose. Yet again taking value from us (the current existing property owners) and transferring that value to him. 5. There is no possible way that he will be able to remove the fill without affecting the air quality within and around my home. As the father of two young children I am extremely concerned and do not at all believe that the mitigation plans proposed are adequate enough to protect the health and safety of my family. We are located down wind and below the property. Further, it is very likely that the fill will contain known carcinogens and asbestos and no amount of watering is going to eliminate all contaminants from becoming airborne. The only safe solution is to leave a vast majority (if not all) of the fill safely entombed and sealed under the earth. Further, the plan itself admits that the level of construction required will produce more pollutants than allowed by the APCD (as explained on page 7 of the initial environmental study). So, why would this even be considered in the light of the ability to scale down construction and avoid the problem all together? 6. He has not proven that he can not use the property without the need for mitigation and exceptions to the General Plan policies. The zoning (R1) and General Plan polices were well established at the time the property was purchased. No change was effected after the fact which would have negatively impacted his usage rights. Thus there seems no other reason to grant the exceptions except to allow him to realize a windfall. The increase in affordable housing stock is negligible and red herring. The dedication of open space would occur regardless of the rezoning as the General Plan policies would require he adhere to property easements to protect the natural resources upon the site. No new restrictions are being placed upon Mr. Coss after the fact of his purchase. Thus, no exceptions should be granted in the property use. 7. The surrounding open space was recently designated as a Natural Reserve. Crisscrossing it with a trail system is not consistent with preservation of the natural beauty and expanse the area provides. As discussed in the study addressing the 2of3 1 October 11, 2007 South Hills, an adequate trail system already exists. There are no viewpoints or destinations available along the lower northern slope. Addition of more trails would only serve further partition the open space and invade the naturally existing beauty and privacy enjoyed by the surrounding residents with little to no real benefit to anyone other than Mr. Coss. We all live with rules and regulations. As a resident of this city I should have some confidence that the rules in place will be reasonably upheld in an effort to promote fairness and also to protect everyone's interest. I purchased my property believing the building guidelines would be upheld equally for all surrounding properties. However, it appears that Council and the Planning Commission are easily swayed and willing to not only bend the rules but totally rewrite them at the behest of Mr. Coss and his developer. How is that fair and equitable to myself and the current residents of the area? The site was designated as R1 and contained significant restrictions for building. Had it been designated as anything other, We would have not chosen to purchase our home nearby. I truly believe a win-win situation can be reached. Mr. Coss can easily enjoy his property and not require any zoning or general plan exceptions. He may not see a huge profit or return on his investment by doing so, but he was not guaranteed that return when purchasing the property. The General Plan and Zoning regulations are in place to guarantee the existing community protection from just this kind of development scheme. By granting the PD and policy exceptions you would be changing the conditions under which I and my neighbors purchased after the fact and would be taking real value from us transferring it to another party for profit. In conclusion, it is in the best interest of and fairness to the surrounding homes and properties as well as the city of San Luis Obispo that the rezoning of the property to PD status as well as the granting of exceptions to the General Plan policies be denied. The owner cannot demonstrate that more restrictive policies are being imposed after his purchase that clearly and substantially diminish his ability to use the property. It would be most unfortunate for the city to set precedence otherwise, allowing him and other developers the misguided notion that they can manipulate city regulations and policies in place to protect the community in favor of their own financial gain. Simply put, further proposals for development should be crafted within the zoning designation, environmental restrictions and General Plan policy guidelines that did and currently etast for the lot. The property can easily be developed and enjoyed, in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods, open space and contained natural elements as it stands. This action is the only logical, fair and appropriate resolution. To rule otherwise would smack of favoritism and consitute taking value from current residents like myself and giving that value to another party for his own private gain. Sincerely, �J NC Gw Shawn and McNabb 2438 Cumbre Ct. SLO 3of3