Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/03/1990, 1 - A.) TRACT 1750: A SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 245 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 88 MEDIUM-DENSITY AIRSPACE CONDOMIN 44VIN00111111 City of San LUIS OBISPO 'EE3TING0arE: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUM FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner SUBJECT: a.) Tract 1750: A subdivision to create 245 single-family lots, 88 medium-density airspace condominiums, a neighborhood park and a small "historical" park, in five phases; b. ) PD 1449-B: A planned development rezoning to allow exceptions to lot sizes, yards, and density. The proposals affect property on the east side of the railroad tracks in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area. CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Review additional information requested by councilmembers on the June 6, 1990 meeting; and. 2. Direct staff to prepare an addendum and a supplement to the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan to address minor changes to the specific plan and impacts of the proposed development on the Western Pond Turtles and other animals on site, and to return to Council for action on the project application after this work is complete. Report-in-brief The council first discussed this large 6-phase subdivision on June 6, 1990. The council continued discussion to allow staff and the applicant to respond to concerns raised by public testimony and individual councilmembers. Since that hearing, staff has continued investigations into the appropriate method for addressing concerns about the existence on the site of a candidate animal species for threatened or endangered status. While the staff continues to support the desirability of an extended (two-year) study of the Western Pond Turtle's population and habits, the immediate goal is to satisfy the state's Environmental Guidelines. Staff now feels that a supplement to the EIR would address the turtle's (and red-legged frog and two-striped garter snake's) heightened status and provide mitigation measures that would include additional protection for them, beyond what was envisioned in the original EIR. Staff has completed additional investigations into areas requested by council members: The tract map has been reviewed and found acceptable from a transit standpoint by the Transit Manager. Funding sources have been preliminarily identified for restoration of the Rodriguez adobe. Detention basin calculations are being reviewed by the consulting engineer who did the original review for the specific plan, although the size of the basin appears to Engineering staff to be adequate. The possibility of using the detention basin(s) for recreational purposes is discussed. A separate attachment outlines how the project was determined to be consistent with the specific plan. H 411111W§ city of san tuts oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 2 Staff is recommending the council resolve the environmental issue by requiring either a supplement or an addendum to the EIR to be prepared, to address effects of the development on the turtle, frog, and snake populations in the area. DISCUSSION Background Situation/previous review The applicants want to develop the remainder of their property on the "Islay Hill" side of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area. They are asking for approval of a master vesting tentative subdivision map and a planned development rezoning. Final maps would be submitted for each of six phases, consistent with the approved tentative map. The Planning Commission reviewed this request in a study session on January 3, 1990, and held public hearings on February 28 and March 28, 1990. On March 28, the commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the tentative map to the council. The Architectural Review Commission reviewed plans for the condominium and apartment sites on April 16, and May 14, 1990, and granted schematic approval to those designs. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Rodriguez Park site in June, 1989; and the trail proposal for Islay Hill on March 7, 1990, and recommended that no trails be installed as part of this development. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) visited the adobe site and discussed the use of the adobe. That committee reviewed the proposed adobe park site on April 23, 1990, and recommended approval with a stipulation that houses surrounding the adobe site be reviewed by the CHC to assure compatibility with the adobe and maintenance of views. The City Council first heard this item on June 6, 1990, but limited the review to public testimony and requests for further information from individual council members. A concurrent parcel map application by the previous owners of the subject property, which would have created the open space parcel on Islay Hill in advance of Tract 1750, was denied by the Planning Commission as premature and inconsistent with the specific plan. That action has been appealed and will be heard by the council at the next available hearing. Data summary Address: 1107 Tank Farm Road Applicant/property owner: Pacifica Corporation (Stuart Greene, project director) Zoning: R-1-SP, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40-SP Moll city of san Luis oBispo COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 3 General plan: Low-density residential Environmental status: EIR certified for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan in 1982 Project action deadline: October 7, 1990 (90-day time extension granted by applicant) if council determines no further study needed; January 9, 1991 if council determines a supplement to the EIR is needed. Site description The site is a large (139 acres) , irregular-shaped parcel of varying topography. A creek cuts across the property from north to south, starting near the intersection of Orcutt Road with Tank Farm Road. A portion of Islay Hill takes up about a third of the area. An adobe dating from the 1850's is the only building on the site. The site surrounds (on three sides) the first development on this side of the tracks, Tract 1376 ("The Arbors") . The 131 homes in Tract 1376 are complete. Project description The applicants propose a subdivision and planned development to create: 1.) 134 single-family lots ranging from 4,100 to 8,600 square feet, averaging 5,500 square feet in area; 2.) 88 air-space condominiums on 6.6 acres, including a program. to provide 23 units to low- and moderate-income families (administered by the Housing Authority) ; 3.) A 1.8-acre site to be made available for sale to the Housing Authority, adequate in size for twenty apartments (as required by the specific plan) ; 4.) 111 large "custom" lots, averaging 9,900 square feet; 5. ) An easement, to be dedicated to the city, over 75 acres of open space (Islay Hill) , with a contribution for trail construction; 6.) A combined city and linear park, totalling over 13 acres, to be dedicated to the city; 7.) A one-acre "mini-park" to be dedicated to the city, containing a _ rehabilitated Rodriguez adobe (restoration partially funded by developer) ; -5 QRQMllU city of san lues oBispo oft III - COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 4 8. ) A 400,000-gallon water tank to serve a portion of the development (water from the Edna Saddle and Terrace Hill reservoirs, along with the new water tank, will adequately serve the entire Edna Islay area) . SMUATION 1. Environmental status. During the Planning Commission's hearings, public testimony included information that the Western Pond Turtle, known to exist at the site, has been listed as a candidate species for threatened or endangered status. Some citizens voiced concern over the effect of the proposed development on the species, given recent information that it has been extirpated from .much of its former habitat. Since that time, staff has been consulting with environmental consultants, reviewing the state's environmental guidelines, and reviewing the situation with the City Attorney. On June 5, 1990" the day before the previous council hearing on this item, staff received a letter from Dan Holland, professor of biology at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, and a recognized turtle expert, expressing concern about the effects of the proposed development on three animal species: the Western Pond Turtle, the California Red-legged frog, and the Two-striped garter snake. Mr. Holland notes that the turtle is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a candidate for threatened or endangered status, that the frog is under review for listing by the California Department of Fish and Game, and that the snake exists in a limited habitat, which is becoming smaller. When the original EIR was adopted, the above animals were known or thought to exist at the site. However, they have subsequently been considered for elevated status for protection. Additional information received by staff indicates that the turtles were listed in approximately 1986, four years after the adoption of the EIR. EIR Guidelines state that after an EIR has been certified for a residential specific plan, no further environmental study is needed for individual projects which are consistent with the specific plan. The guidelines indicate, however, that this exemption from further environmental review does not apply if certain events occur. Section 15162 of the Environmental Guidelines (attached) , which defines these changes, is summarized below, along with staff's analysis of the project and the above information about the turtle with respect to these guidelines: i city of san tuts osispo WOrge COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 5 Guidelines Analysis Changes in project require The project proposal includes a "important revisions of previous bike path that enters the "creek EIR" because of "new significant preservation area", now also known environmental impacts not as an important part of the considered in a previous EIR". turtle's habitat. The developer is willing to remove the path from this location, but its removal raises additional questions which need evaluation. "Substantial changes occur with The change of status of the respect to the circumstances under turtles and frogs may be which the project is undertaken, considered a "change of such as a substantial circumstance". deterioration in the air quality. . . which will require important revisions in the previous EIR. . .due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR. . ." "New information. . . becomes The previous EIR identified the a v a i l a b l e , a n d t h e three species discussed above as information. . .could not have been species which are compatible with known at the time the previous EIR development. Creekside buffers was certified. . . , and the new were required to mitigate the information shows any of the worst impacts of proposed following: 1.) the project will development, but special measures have one or more significant to protect the turtles, frogs, or effects not discussed previously snakes were not recommended. in the EIR; 2.) Significant effects previously examined will The current listing and potential be substantially more severe than listing of the three species could shown in the EIR; . . .4.) constitute "new information", Mitigation measures or along with evidence that existing alternatives which were not colonies of turtles in other areas previously considered in the EIR are not cohabiting well with would substantially lessen one or humans, but instead are failing to more significant effects on the reproduce. environment." It appears from the above that some additional environmental work is appropriate prior to a final decision on the project application. That 1' ����i ►u�tliIII�Ii� ll city of san tins oBispo IIIINGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT` Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 6 additional work could occur within two different alternatives provided for in the guidelines. a. Addendum alternatives The guidelines discuss when an addendum to the EIR would be adequate to address changed circumstances. An addendum can be prepared by the lead agency (the city) and does not require separate circulation for public review. Therefore, it can be completed quickly and attached to the original EIR for action along with the project. The guidelines say that an addendum will suffice if: "1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162. . .have occurred; "2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and "3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise. important new issues about the significant effects on the environment." An argument can be made that an addendum would be sufficient, and staff has previously supported this approach. First, the listing of any species as a "candidate" for threatened or endangered status does not in itself confer on a species any special protection. The degree of protection considered necessary is a determination for each jurisdiction to make. Second, the three animals of concern in this case were all considered in the original EIR, and mitigation measures to protect their habitat were required. Finally, there is information available on the Western Pond Turtle that may be sufficient to make an informed decision on the impacts of the development on them. A letter from the Department of Fish and Game lists conditions that would make the project acceptable to that agency. Also, information from Meredith, Boli & Associates, .Scientific and Regulatory Consultants, is attached. This analysis, commissioned by the applicants, concludes that a supplement is not required. Staff is currently preparing an addendum to the EIR that addresses the minor changes to the specific plan map proposed by the developer. If the council feels that an addendum would be sufficient to address the impacts on the turtle population, then staff is prepared to incorporate the available information on the animals in question into the addendum. b. EIR supplement alternative: As discussed above, if certain events occur,. a supplement should be required. A supplement receives the Mgp,xlf� city of san tuts oBispo WhiGe COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 7 same circulation and review as the original EIR, and therefore staff anticipates it would take several months to complete. Staff believes that some of the conditions described in Section 15162, which describes those events requiring a supplement, have occurred: specifically, a) new information has been received about the turtle's status and habits, b) changes in the bike path routing (whether in the creek preservation area or removed entirely) may have environmental implications, and c) original. mitigation measures may not be adequate. The council should also consider, in determining the appropriate action, the degree of interest and concern expressed by citizens for the listed species. The amount of "public controversy" by itself may be sufficient to require a supplement, notwithstanding the determination of significance or insignificance of the "new information". The guidelines say, "If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR." It is staff's opinion that an EIR addendum is the appropriate document to discuss the minor changes to the specific plan proposed, but that a supplement is required to evaluate impacts on the animals. 2. Rodrigues adobe. Councilmember Rappa asked for information on the availability of grant matching funds for restoration of the adobe. An early estimate of the cost of restoration was $260,000. It is now expected that it will be higher, because of seismic engineering costs. * The developers of Tract 1750 have offered to fund half the restoration costs, up to $100,000. They may be willing to increase their contribution. Informally, they have suggested a willingness to provide design services for the park. * The city applied for a grant of $260,000 for Proposition 70 funds in 1988, but the application was denied. The city can apply for these funds again. Other funds are available, and will be pursued. The previous open space planner developed a list of contacts and funding sources, which will be used in identifying appropriate grants available for such projects. ,0111 I1 !pIll city of San lues OBispo COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 8 * ' Publicity about the adobe has generated considerable community interest. The Rodriquez family is interested and may be willing to form a "Friends of the Rodriguez" group to raise funds. The group that voluntarily weatherproofed the structure in 1988, E. Clampus Vitus, has also expressed an interest in assisting with the restoration. * The Community Development Department is in the process of creating and sending out Requests for Proposals for design, restoration, and engineering services. The requested product is to be a report that documents the existing condition of the adobe, evaluates different potential uses, makes recommendations on the appropriate techniques for its restoration, and includes cost estimates of the work required for the restoration. With this information, the council should be able to determine how the adobe is to be used and specifically what grants should be pursued. 3. Detention basin analysis. Councilmember Rappa asked for an analysis of the proposed detention basin's capacity. The Engineering Division has received the developer's engineer's report and has sent it to the original Edna-Islay engineer. Preliminary review by the Engineering Division indicates that the proposed basin is adequate. All detention basins in the Edna-Islay area have been required to meet specific plan standards. Basins on the other side of the tracks (French) have been analyzed by the original engineer (Jim Schaff) who did the calculations for Nolte Associates, and were determined to be adequate. These basins are smaller than indicated in the specific plan, primarily because the original recommendations included an unusually large margin of safety. Actual size and configuration of detention basins is subjected to design review during the review of improvement plans for subdivisions. 3. Transit. Councilmember Pinard asked that the Transit Manager review the proposed street design and determine if it provides adequate access for future transit use. The Transit Manager has reviewed the map and determined that it provides adequate access. He has recommended a turnout be installed within the project site, as- shown on the attached map. The project applicants are prepared to comply with this request. 4. Specific plan consistency. Councilmember Roalman asked for a reevaluation of the specific plan amendment criteria in relation to the changes requested. The former (interim) Community Development Director determined that the proposal is consistent with the plan, and approved minor changes to the plan, based on the finding that changes to the layout of land 11II1�W1111 city Of San Luis oBispo niis COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT _ Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 9 use do not significantly affect a planning concept spelled out in the specific plan. A detailed description of the changes and how they were determined consistent is attached. 5. Dual use of detention basin. Councilmember Pinard preferred to see the proposed detention basin designated for recreational use when not flooded. Many other cities do allow or require this type of dual-use. The detention basins in the Edna-Islay area are the first to be required in this city, and the city's experience with them is limited. The council has discussed the option of recreational use of detention basins with each one that has been developed, and because of liability concerns both for homeowners (who will own and maintain the basins) and the city, has not required such uses. The city has not, however, prohibited recreational use of these facilities. If the council wants to evaluate the actual liability potential of recreational use of detention basins, the city's risk manager could work with the developers' insurance carriers to develop an analysis. -' ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to have a supplement and addendum to the EIR prepared, to address the minor changes to the specific plan and the project's impacts on animal species in the area. This action would require staff to hire a consultant, at the applicant's expense, to write the supplement, to evaluate the impacts of the project on the riparian animal species. The addendum would be prepared by staff. Action should not be taken on the project application until the environmental analysis is complete. 2. Direct staff to prepare an addendum to the EIR, to address the minor changes to the specific plan, plus to evaluate the project's impacts on the animal populations. The project should be continued until the addendum is complete. 3. Approve the project by: 1) Adopting a resolution approving the tentative map, with conditions; and 2) Passing to print an ordinance approving the planned development rezoning. (attached) 4. Deny the project by adopting a resolution, . finding the project inconsistent with the specific plan. (attached) 5. Continue consideration. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. �- 9 111111111 p f jl city of san Luis ostspo Mm COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 ; PD 1449-B - 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 10 FIBCAL IMPACT An approval of the map would include city acceptance of ownership and maintenance of the creek areas and the parks. The Parks Department estimates the cost of maintenance of these areas to be approximately $70,000 per year. The cost of a supplement to the EIR would be borne by the developer, in accordance with city environmental regulations. RECOMM30MATION 1. Review additional information requested by councilmembers on the June 6, 1990 meeting; and 2. Direct staff to prepare an addendum and a supplement to the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan to address minor changes to the specific plan and impacts of the proposed. development on the Western Pond Turtles and other animals on site. Attachments Draft Resolutions and Ordinance (includes minor amendments to previous submittal) Environmental guidelines - Sections 15162 - 15164 Tract map showing transit turnouts Letter from Department of Fish and Game Letter from Meredith/Boli & Asociates, Inc. Summary of specific plan consistency issues /-/O ORDINANCE NO. (1990 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO DESIGNATE AN AREA ON TANK FARM ROAD, EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, AS R-1-SP-PD AND R-2-SP-PD, ALLOWING SOME EXCEPTIONS TO DENSITY AND YARDS (PD 1449-B) WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider the planned development request PD 1449-B; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings; Findincs: 1. The proposed planned development will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity. 2. The planned development is appropriate at the ,proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The planned development conforms to the general plan and specific plan for Edna Islay and meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed planned development is consistent with the Edna- Islay Specific Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report was certified by the council in 1982. . No further environmental study is necessary. 5. The project provides facilities and amenities suited to particular occupancy groups: families with children, and moderate-income homebuyers. 6. The project provides a greater range of housing types and costs than would be possible with development of uniform dwellings throughout the project site or neighborhood. 7. Features of the particular design, including common open space areas, provision of a large play area in the apartment complex, narrower right-of-way widths, small lots, design of the Rodriguez Adobe Park, creek setbacks and bicycle paths, achieve the intent of conventional standards for privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with neighborhood character as well as or better than the standards do. Ordinance No. (1990 Series) PD 1449-B Page 2 BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The Planned Development PD 1449-B is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. A reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the Housing Authority lot only is hereby approved. Up to 25% of the required spaces may be eliminated, provided that they are replaced by an expanded play/picnic area. 2. No sideyard exceptions are allowed for the lots in .phases 3 and 4 (small lots) . 3. Smaller than normal lot sizes are hereby approved, but in no case shall a lot size be smaller than 4,000 square feet. 4. A density bonus, allowing 353 dwellings, including 134 small lots, 88 two-bedroom condominium units, 111 large single- family lots, and 20 two-and three-bedroom Housing Authority apartments, on the lots as shown on the preliminary plan, is hereby granted. 5. The applicant shall submit a precise plan, consistent with the zoning regulations requirements for precise plans, to the Community Development Director for approval. Such precise plan may be incorporated in the improvement plans for Tract 1750. SECTION 2. This ordinance, together with the names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. i 7 Ordinance No. (1990 Series) PD 1449-B Page 3 INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of _ 1990, on motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor i ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Officer I[-41 �rr2�r.•nan,� -4,+ tj �j L°�/iriP rd City Attorney J Community Deve went Director l•Af i RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 1750, CREATING 245 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 88 CONDOMINIUMS, TWO PUBLIC PARKS, AND A LOT TO BE SOLD TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, ON TANK FARM ROAD, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS (TRACT 1750) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request Tract 1750, the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Architectural Review Commission's action, the Cultural Heritage Co�mittee's recommendation, the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan and specific plan for the Edna-Islay area. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an R-1-PD-SP and an R-2-PD-SP zone. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of the property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed subdivision is substantially in compliance with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. 6. The City Council certified an environmental impact report in 1982 and has considered the EIR and the addendum. Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 2 SECTION 2. The tentative map for Tract 1750 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Multiple final maps must be filed, in accordance with the phases shown on the approved tentative map. Development of the project is subject to city growth management regulations., .not to exceed 94 dwellings per year or one phase per year, whichever is more restrictive. Time extensions for final map approval may be granted by the city, up to the limits imposed by the Subdivision Map Act. 2. Development of the subdivision must be in accordance with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, except as specifically shown on the tentative maps approved by the council on (date) or as conditioned herein. Fire Department requirements 3. Fire protection facilities required by the fire department �. are to be installed by the developer. Such facilities, including all access roads, shall be .installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of building construction. 4. Hydrants are to be spaced at 500' maximum intervals. 5. The subdivider shall pay $60,000 to the city for a fast response vehicle with off-road capability, to serve this area. Payment of $60,000, adjusted for inflation between tentative map approval and time of payment, shall be made prior to approval of the final map for phase 6. 6. All structures will require an approved, automatic fire- sprinkler system, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Minimum water services shall be one-inch diameter. 7. The developer shall fund $10,000 for their share of the cost of a device that lets Fire Station 3 know when railroad tracks are blocked by a train at Orcutt Road, or three Opticom intersection controllers for responding fire apparatus. 8. A 20'-wide paved access road shall be provided through lots 1830, 184, and 185 to provide access to the open space area, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and City Engineer. 9. Emergency access to the Islay Hill open space shall be /_Ar Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 3 provided to the approval of the Fire Department. Creek and detention basin requirements: 10. A minimum setback of 201 from the creek top of bank is required for rear property lines or any improvements, except for setbacks in a 320'-wide section shown on the Creek Treatment Concepts Plan, approved as part of the tentative map, which shall -be a minimum of 101 . No part. of the ten-foot buffer area is within the creek protection area. 11. A creek protection and restoration plan must be submitted to the approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director, along with improvement plans, consistent with the approved Creek Concepts Plan. Such plan must show improvements to the creek area included in the creek maintenance easement or extending from;the rear lot lines to the lot lines across the creek, whichever is greater. Plans shall show all landscaping and erosion protection methods. The top-of-bank buffer improvements adjacent to the turtle habitat shall be installed as soon as possible to provide Immediate protection for the existing turtle population. 12. The creek crossing methods proposed for the bicycle/pedestrian paths and for Orcutt Road must be within the guidelines established in the Flood Management Policy adopted by the city, unless an alternative is specifically approved by the council. 13. Fish and Game and Corps of Engineers permits are required for all work within the creek, and for crossing the creek. near the intersection of A Street and Orcutt Road. 14. A study team shall be established to monitor the Western Pond Turtle and Red-legged Frog colonies. The team shall be made up of representatives of the Department of Fish and Game, the San Luis Obispo Urban Creeks Council, the Community Development Department, and the developer. Funding, not to exceed $10,000, shall be provided by the applicant. The purpose of the study will be to inventory the -population, identify the extent of existing habitat, and identify impacts to the colonies, and to identify mitigation measures, if any, which the developer will be required to provide. The study period will continue for 24 months, to begin when the consultant is hired and begins work. Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 4 No work, except for mitigation of the impacts of the human population in the area on the turtle and frog colonies, shall be done within the turtle and frog study area, as defined on the Creek Concepts Plan approved as part of this subdivision, prior to completion of the study and identification of mitigation measures. Further environmental study and review may be required prior to approval of the final maps for phases 5 and 6, and all necessary studies, mitigation measures, and site changes shall be identified prior to the recordation of final maps for phases 5 and 6. The site design of lots 184 through 206 and the adjacent streets will be adjusted in conformance with the results of the turtle and frog study and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the California Department of Fish and Game.. 15. The design of the bicycle path within the creek preservation area at the southerly end of the public park must be in accordance with Fish and Game recommendations, as shown on the Creek Treatment Concepts plan, approved as part of this map, to minimize disturbance of the creek preservation area. 16. The creek banks adjacent to Tract 1376 shall be revegetated in accordance with the Creek Treatment Concepts Plan approved as part of the tentative map. Work shall be completed prior to acceptance by the city of maintenance of the area, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 17. The detention basin must be designed per standards established by the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The basin shall be installed with the third phase of development shown on the tentative map. The detention basin may be fenced, at the developer's option, and must be owned and maintained by the tract homeowners' association. • A maintenance schedule and reporting procedure shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The schedule shall include periodic reports to the city on the condition of the basin. 18. Creek preservation and improvement areas shall be dedicated to the city -in fee, as specified in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. 1-17 Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 5 Public Works requirements: 19. Orcutt Road shall be widened and improved along the entire frontage as part of phase 4. Orcutt Road shall meet City and county design standards with respect to super elevation, vertical, and horizontal stopping sight distance (55 mph design speed) , and shall include a bicycle path within the roadway on' the westerly side. Sight distance at the proposed Orcutt Road/A Street intersection must be evaluated as to adequacy. Existing road may require regrading. 20. Modifications to sewage lift-stations and related improvements may be required in accordance with the specific plan. The developer may be required to contribute towards these improvements in .lieu of actual construction, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. 21. The water tank proposed in the easterly portion of the open space area, to supplement domestic water service, must be installed and operating prior to the issuance of building permits for phase 3. 22. Water acreage fees and sewer lift station charges are required to be paid prior to recordation of the Final Map. 23. All lots must be served by individual water, sewer, and utilities. 24. The construction of public streets shall comply with the city's Engineering Standard Details/Specifications,, the Pavement Management Plan, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Street structural sections shall provide for the ultimate design-life upon acceptance of the street by the city. Phased construction of housing will require the phasing of street construction or an increase in the street structural section to compensate for the reduction in the life of the street, prior to acceptance, from construction traffic. 25. The developer must dedicate vehicular access rights to the city, along all lots adjacent to Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 26. Phasing of this tract and utilities may require off-site utility extensions within subsequent phases, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 27. At the time of development of phase 5, an emergency and !-18 - Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 6 construction access road must be provided that continues A Street to Orcutt Road, to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Department. 28. All grading and development improvements shall be done as approved by the City Engineer and in accordance with the recommendations per the soils report prepared by Pacific Geoscience, Inc. , dated July 5, 1989 and the Geotechnical Update and Plan Review by Gorian and Associates dated July 148 1987 for Tract 1750, and any subsequent soils reports requested by the City Engineer. The grading plan must be approved by a registered soils engineer and the City Engineer. The grading shall be inspected and certified by the soils engineer prior to installation of any subdivision improvements or issuance of building permits. The northwesterly limit of the landslide denoted as Qls 1 shall be determined precisely in the field prior to final map approval of the respective phase. The nearest lot line shall be at least 50 feet from that boundary and the adjacent lots shall be adjusted or deleted and Courts "E" and "G" adjusted accordingly, except that property lines may not extend beyond that shown on the tentative map. 29. The grading plans for phases 5 and 6 shall include such facilities and preparation so that individual lots will not require offsite construction. 30. Individual. lots on phases 5 and 6 shall have the foundation design approved by a registered soils engineer. A notice shall be recorded concurrently with the final map notifying any purchaser of these lots of this requirement. 31. Additional soil investigations shall be done to ascertain that the proposed water tank site and lots and streets above and below Street "A" (phases 5 and 6) are stable and suitable for development, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final map approval. If evidence is found that indicates any instability, mitigation measures must be taken to remedy the instability, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, or the respective final map shall be modified accordingly. If these sites are required to be excavated and filled and recompacted, the fill and recompaction should closely match the original terrain, as determined by the Community Development Director and Engineering Division staff. Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 7 32. Any existing mines encountered shall be abandoned in accordance with State of California and local regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 33. Any slope instability observed during grading operations and subdivision construction shall be evaluated by a soils engineer and repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to final acceptance of the respective phases.. The final maps or separate recorded instruments shall note that (T)the city reserves the right to withhold building permits on any lot which appears to be threatened by slope instability. 34. The subdivider shall submit a report by a registered civil engineer certifying that all lots are not subject to flooding during a "100-year" storm, to the satisfaction fo the City Engineer. Parks and open space: 35. The neighborhood park may be completed in one phase by the developer. The subdivider shall record a lien or j alternative approved by the Community Development Director, equal to $750 per unit for park improvements, to become due and payable to a special fund, maintained by the city, upon transfer of the lots or dwelling units. If the developer chooses to develop the park to the satisfaction of the Community Development, Public Works, and Recreation Departments, the.city shall refund the amounts accumulated in the park improvement fund to the developer after completion of each. phase as described on the approved park phasing plan, on a quarterly basis, until all fees have been collected. 36. The hardscape areas in the neighborhood park shall be installed in the first phase. The remainder of the park shall be completed in phases, as described in the approved park phasing plan, or all in one phase as described in the preceeding condition. 37. The developer is responsible for securing access and improvement rights, including maintenance by the city, for the bicycle path under the railroad. 38. The Islay Hill open space shall be dedicated to the city as part of the final map for phase 6 or earlier. Prior to approval of the final map for phase 1, the developer shall pay to the city an amount adequate to install the - proposed trail system, the amount to be determined by estimates for the work and as approved by the Parks and Resolution no Tract 1750 (1990 Series) Page 8 Recreation Director. This money is to be used solely for the trail construction, maintenance, or improvement of the Islay Hill open space, as needed. The Parks and Recreation Commission will periodically review how the hillside is being used, and make recommendations to the council on the disposition of the money. 39. Public pedestrian access to the Islay Hill open space shall be provided directly from all streets adjacent to the open space area, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 40. The open space beneath the existing power transmission lines shall. be a minimum of 100' wide. No structures shall be allowed. within this 100' area. A noteshall be recorded for each of the lots adjacent to this open space area, informing lot owners of the proximity of the power lines. 41. The Rodriguez Adobe park shall be dedicated to the city for public park purposes, in or prior to phase 4. The Rodriguez Adobe will be restored by the city. The developer shall contribute to its restoration by paying one-half the restoration cost, up to a maximum of $100,000, at that time. Water: 42. The subdivider shall inform future lot buyers of the possibility of building permit delay based on the city's water shortage. Such notification shall be made by recording a document simultaneously with the final map. No final map shall be recorded without a confirmed water allocation. Archeology: 43. Grading plans must note that if grading or other operations unearth archeological resources, construction activities shall cease. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified archeologist, the cost of which shall be paid by the developer. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. Homeowners, Association: 44. The subdivider shall establish covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the regulation of land use, control of nuisances and architectural control of all buildings and facilities. These CC&R's shall be approved by the Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 9 Community Development Director and administered by the homeowners' association. The subdivider shall include the following provisions in the CC&R's for the tract: a. Maintenance of .linear park, railroad buffer areas, and all storm water detention basins shall be by the homeowners' association in conformance with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. b. There shall be no change in city-regulated provisions of the CC&R's without prior approval of the Community Development Director. Affordable housing: 45. Resale controls applying to the 23 affordable housing units shall remain in perpetuity. All affordable units shall be required to be owner-occupied. 46. Development of homes on the small lots (phases 3 and 4) shall be limited to approximately the square footage - proposed as part of the planned development preliminary plan. Remodelling and additions to these homes in. the future shall be in accordance with the limitations in the zoning regulations. Transit system equipment: 47. The subdivider shall provide for street furniture and signs for transit systems, as well as bus turnouts if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Mass Transit Committee, as needed with each phase. Hillside lots: 48. Architectural review is required for all lots east of the creek. 49. Except as shown on the tentative map, the maximum streetyard allowed on lots adjacent to the hillside open. space is 201 . Streetyard exceptions, to reduce the amount of grading required for location of residences, will be encouraged where no safety concerns are involved. 50. No solid fences shall be allowed at the rear of any lots abutting the Islay hill or creek open space. Design standards for fencing shall be developed, to be approved Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 10 by the Community Development Director and the Architectural Review Commission. Noise: 51. Noise walls on the single-family lots adjacent to the railroad buffer area shall be set back at least 10' from the property line, and the area between the wall and the street landscaped with drought-tolerant shrubs and groundcover by the developer, to the approval of the Community Development Director. Fees: 52. The subdivider shall pay any applicable tranportation impact fees adopted by the City Council, which are anticipated to be adopted on or about July, 1992.- 53. The subdivider shall pay any applicable storm drainage fees adopted by the City council, which are anticipated to be adopted on or about July, 1992. Final maps: 55. The final maps shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, prior to City Council approval. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1989. 1-,25 Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 11 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: ditYjkchlffiisi6v"fficer i A orn (i&�� (\ Community Deve o went Director JL1:res\tr1750.wp RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 1750, ON TANK FARM ROAD, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS (TRACT 1750) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui- Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request Tract 1750, the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Architectural Review Commission's action, the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation, staff recommendations and reports thereom, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not consistent with the general plan and specific plan for the Edna-islay area. 2. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 3. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed subdivision is not in compliance with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and that further environmental study is needed. denied. SECTION 2. The tentative map for Tract 1750 is hereby 1 Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 2 On motion of seconded b , Y , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1989.. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Cit Adminis ativ fficer aMG1%6 i A rnity 41 1 Community Developm1ot Director jzl:res\trl750no.wp /. (c) An EIR prepared for an. earlier.project may also be used as part of an Initial Study to document a finding that a later project will not have a significant effect. In this situation a Negative Declaration will be prepared. (d) An EIR prepared for an earlier project shall not be used as the EIR for a later project if any of the condi- tions described in Section 15162 would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21100, 211519 and 21165, Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15068. Discussion: The purpose of this section is to grant Lead Agencies clear authority to use an EIR prepared for one project over again for a second project which is essentially the same as the project for which the EIR was originally prepared. The section places necessary conditions on the use of a prior EIR to avoid abuse of this approach. Where two projects are essentially the same in terms of environmental impact, there is little reason to require preparation of a separate EIR for the second project, Subsection (b) prescribes the procedures for an agency to use in implementing this authority. Use of a Negative Declaration is not appropriate. Although a Negative Declaration does state than an EIR will not be prepared, the reason for preparing a Negative Declaration is that the project will not have a significant effect. An EIR is needed if the project may have a significant effect al- though under some circumstances a previously prepared EIR may be used as the basis for review. The procedures prescribed in subsection (b) should reduce the confusion that has often been experienced in this situation. This section is different from tiering in that this process does not involve a series of approvals moving from the general to the specific with EIRs omitting issues fully addressed at the earlier stages. The use of a previously prepared EIR is most appropriate where an EIR was prepared earlier for a project very similar to the one currently being examined by the Lead Agency. Article 11. Types \ of EIRs General 15160. This article describes a number of examples of variations in EIRs as the documents are tailored to different situa- tions and intended uses. These variations are not exclusive. Lead Agencies may use other variations consis- tent with the Guidelines to meet the needs of other 157 /r V circumstances. All EMs must meet the content requirements discussed in Article 9 beginning with Section 15120. r;:.. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087 , Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section describes the contents of this article and explains that the types of EIRs described here are not the only possibilities. Project EIR , 15161. The most common type of EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environ- ment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21100, and 21151, Public Resources Code. Discussion: This section is necessary for the clarity and completeness of this article and to show how this type of EIR differs from the other types discussed in this article. Subsequent EIR 15162. (a) Where an EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared, no additional EIR .need be prepared unless: (1) Subsequent changes are proposed in the project which will require important revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration on the project; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, such as a substantial deterioration in the air quality where the project will be located, which will require important revisions in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or (3) New information of substantial importance to the project becomes available, and �1f� �uiC����►�es 158 p 1,2v (A) The information Was not known and could not have been ]moan at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, and (B) The new information shows any of the following: 1. The project will have one`or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR; 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more sig- nificant effects of the project; or 4. Mitigation. measures or alternatives which were not previously considered in the EIR would sub- stantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. (b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed but the project has not yet been approved, the Lead Agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared the subsequent EIR before approving the project. (c) Ii the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the conditions described in subsection (a), the subsequent EIR shall be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an ap- proval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been completed. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087 , Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15067. Discussion: This section implements the requirements in Section 21166 of CE$A which limit preparation of a subsequent EIR to certain situations. This section provides interpretation of the three situations in which the statute requires preparation of a subsequent EIR. These interpretations are necessary to add certainty to the process. Subsections (b) and (c) explain which agency would have responsibility for preparing a subsequent EIR under dif- ferent circumstances. A subs of course, subsequent EIR must receive the same circulation and review as the previous EIR. 159 /-�l supplement 15163.. to an EIR (a) The Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. (b) The supplement to the EIR need contain only the infor- mation necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. . (c) A supplement to an EIR shall be given the same kind of notice and public review as is given to a draft EIR under Section 15087. (d) A supplement to an EIR may be circulated by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR. (e) When the agency decides whether to approve the project, the decision-making body shall consider -the pre- vious EIR as revised by the supplemental EIR. A finding under Section 15091 shall be made for each significant effect shown in the previous EIR as revised. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code. Formerly Section 15067.5. Discussion: This section provides a short form method adhere only minor additions or changes would be necessary in the previous EIR to make that EIR apply in the changed situation. The section also provides essential interpretations of how to handle public notice, public review, and circulation of the supplement. Addendum 15164. to an EIR (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and 160 - O (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects t on the environment: (b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. (c) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code: Discussion: This section is designed to provide clear authority for an addendum as a way of making minor corrections in EIRs without recirculating the EIR. The addendum is the other side of the coin from the supplement to an EIR. Multiple and 15165. Phased Projects Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the bead i" Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the Lead Agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the scope of the larger project. Where one project is one of several similar projects of a public agency, but is not deemed apart of a larger undertaking or a larger project, the agency may prepare one EIR for all projects, or one for each project, but shall in either case comment upon the cumulative effect. Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21061, 21100, and 21151 , Public Resources Code; Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d OT-7 Foimerly Section 1359F.- Discussion: This section follows the principle that the EIR on a project must show the big picture of what is involved. If the approval of one particular activity could be expected to lead to many other activities being approved in the same general area, the BIR should examine the expected effects of the ultimate environmental changes. This section is ? consistent with the Whitman decision cited in the note interpreting CEQA. 161 /�� � x its �f: m % � 4 "moi I I i •>j - rr'',, t ; 1 . R \1 ` J604 w 7u •ao•:1 .-N... ..—�� ;TATE Or CALIFORNIA-Thl RESOURCES AOENLY 011MIX MKMUTAK Cv w 1 3EpARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME " no Am o June 4, 1990 •c.- AUL CAURMPOA 94S99 7I 944-SM Craig e I Mr. Cr g Cempb 11 John L. Wallace 6 Associates 1458 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Campbell : The Arbors at Islay Hill Vesting Tentative Map No. 1750 City of San Luis Obispo We have reviewed the propossed Tentative Tract 1750 "Creek Treatment Concept Plan" and your comments regarding the protection of the Southwestern Pond Turtle and Red Legged Frog colonies which the plan addresses. The Department of Fish and Game approves of the "Creek Treatment Concept Plan, " provided the following are incorporated into the conditions of approval of the tentative map. I. The site design of lots 184 through 206 and the adjacent streets will be adjusted in conformance with the results of the south western pond turtle study and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the California Department of Fish and Game. 2. All necessary studies, mitigation measures, and site changes shall be identified prior to the recordation of final maps for phases 5 and 6. 3. The top-of-bank buffer improvements adjacent to the turtle habitat shall be installed as soon as possible to provide Immediate protection for the existing turtle population. The final wording of the above conditions of approval of the tentative map shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game prior to approval of the map by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Theodore Wooster, Environmental Services Supervisor, at ( 707) 944-5524. Sincerely, Brian Hunter Regional Manager Region 3 f r I 0 SCIENTIFIC and REGULATORY CONSULTANTS 6701 Center Drive West,Suite goo Los Angeles,California 90045.1535 (213)670-Mi 22 June 1990 Mr. Arnold Jonas JUNG 5 SO Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO n,of sm Loa ooist 990 Palm Street -'"`Dev� San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: "Preservation Corridor" for the Southwestern Pond Turtle (SPT) at the Islay Hili Development (Tract 1750), San Luis Obispo, California Dear Mr. Jonas: Meredith/Boli do Associates, Inc. (M/B&A) has scrutinized the various research and engineering/planning data concerning the Islay Hill Development (IHD), and has conducted telephone interviews with, and reviewed research literature by, recognized scientific scholars concerning the SPT at the request of the project applicant, The Pacifica Corporation. The following are the preliminary findings concerning the above-referenced "preservation corridor." Attachment A hereto is a list of references cited in the discussions that follow. 1) Range cattle grazing is repeatedly cited in the research literature (WESPEC, 1982; Holland, 1985; by telephone Sam Sweet, Ph.D. 6/13/90) as being a significant, adverse impact upon SPT habitat. Cattle grazing on the IHD site, for the better part of the 20th century (WESTEC, 1982; by telephone Craig Campbell 6/12/90), has been (will be) eliminated by existing and proposed residential land use at the project site, and thereby augmentation of the habitat to the immediate benefit of the SPT and other aquatic species has occurred. 2) The SPT was submitted as a "candidate" for Federal endangered species listing in approximately 1986, due to researchers' records of population decline in the State of California, particularly in Southern California (i.e., Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties) (By telephone Dan Holland, Ph.D., 6/14/90). Recent research reports (Brattstrom, 1988; by telephone Dan Holland Ph.D. 6/14/90) concerning relative species abundance indicate that SPT populations in San Luis Obispo County are "abundant" and "stable." The mere "candidacy" of the SPT does not define, or in any way demand, habitat improvements at the IHD beyond the proposed "preservation corridor" (see Items 3 and 4 herein). 3) To date, no researcher has described the specific habitat requirements, habitat "carrying capacity," habitat composition (wetland to upland l`ri� ratio), or habitat preservation plans for the SPT. However, draft SPT impact and mitigation procedures by Dr. Bayard H. Brattstrom of California State University Fullerton (Brattstrom, 1990) have been submitted ,to the California Department of Fish and Game for adoption (see Attachment B hereto). The draft procedures' most conservative . specification is to "avoid disruption or destruction of (SPT) habitat" The IND plan fully accommodates this most conservative mitigation procedure by providing a "preservation corridor" along the creek and ponds that traverse the project site where SPT have been identified. The "preservation corridor" will stabilize the present ecological setting for SPT and other aquatic species onsite by providing a planted screen of specified vegetation that will be setback from the creek and ponds: The screen of vegetation will limit/divert existing pedestrian/recrea- tional (and pet) traffic that adversely impacts the SPT habitat, while leaving the creek and ponds unimpacted and allowing unrestricted SPT movement along the length of the corridor and environs up- and downstream. 4) Several scientific investigations have described field situations where SPT have been identified at various distances (in upland areas) from wetland creeks and ponds that are known to be an essential part of the aquatic turtle's habitat. SPT have been identified at upland locations ranging from 35 feet (Storer, 1930), 656 feet (Holland, 1985), 1,320 feet (Storer, 1930), and 1 mile (Bury, 1989) from wetland habitat. There is no consensus among the experts as to how or why the turtles sought upland areas, nor is there conclusive evidence that the turtles moved to these upland areas voluntarily as an essential habitat -. requirement. There is consensus among the scientific investigators that the SPT moves to upland habitat for reasons such as thermoregulation, hiberna- tion, to escape flood waters, and for nesting. However, no Investi- gators in available literature dating back to the. 1800s (Storer, 1930), or in recent interviews, provides specific guidance on the essential habitat requirements of the SPT. A distinguished contemporary investigator at the University of California at Santa Barbara has recommended that a reasonable balance between wetland and upland habitats should be provided for the STP, and that uplands should be above the 100-year flood elevation in the subject stream (By telephone Sam Sweet, Ph.D. 6/13/90). The 9-acre "preservation corridor" proposed in the IHD is designed to provide a balanced 1:1 ratio of wetland to upland habitat along the creek and ponds that traverse the project site were STP have been Identified. The upland area within the "preservation corridor" provides approximately 4.5 acres above the 100-year flood elevation, thus leaving approximately 4.5 acres of wetland area below the 100-year flood elevation (By telephone John L. Wallace 6/21/90). The "preser- vation corridor" would become a "condition of approval" of the IIID subdivision case filing, and would be accessed only by scientific research Investigators under the approval of the Urban Creeks Council of San Luis Obispo. 2 M£REDITHIBOLI&ASSOCIATES, INC 5) The environmental record for the IHD subdivision case filing recog- nized and documented the SPT in the project area as early as 1977 (WESTEC, 1982). The Final Environmental Impact Report and associ- ated studies analyzed the potential impacts of the IHD upon the SPT and other aquatic habitat, and identified no significant adverse effect. that warranted mitigation measures beyond those that have been designed into the present project proposal. The "candidacy" of the SPT does not merit or require further environmental review of the proposed project for subdivision approval. We trust that you find the foregoing preliminary findings to be credible, and of practical use in your evaluations of the Islay Hill Development. Please contact me with any questions or comments concerning this matter. Sincer y, \l 4- Paul D. Taylor California Registered Environmental Assessor (REA No. 00850) Attachments: PDT:ydv cc: Jeffery Jorgensen, Esq. -- City Attorney, San Luis Obispo James H. Ring—The Pacifica Corporation Lisa Carlson — The Pacifica Corporation Linda Bozung, Esq. — Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue John L. Wallace —John L. Wallace do Associates Craig Campbell — John L. Wallace & Associates MB-1990-92 File 3 MEREDITH/BOLI& ASSOCIATES, INC ATTACHMENT A REFERENCES 1. Brattstrom, B. H. et al. 1988. Current. Status of the Southwestern Pond Turtle in Southern California. California State University Fullerton, Department of Biological Science. Fullerton, California. 2. Brattstrom, B. H. 1990. Draft: Southwestern Pacific Pond Turtle Impact and Mitigation Procedures. California State University Fullerton, Depart- ment of Biological Science. Fullerton, California. 3. Storer, T. L 1930. Notes on the Range and Life-History of the Pacific Fresh-Water Turtle, Clemmys marmorata. University of California, Berkeley Press. Berkeley, California. 4. Bury, R. B. 1989. Turtle of the Mouth - Clemmys marmorata - A True Western Turtle. Tortuga Gazette, February 1989. Fort Collins, Colorado. 5. Holland, D. C. 1985. Masters Thesis - An Ecological and Quantitative Study of Western Pond Turtle in San Luis Obispo County, California. August 1985. California State University, Department of Biology. Fresno, California. 6. WESTEC Services, Inc. 1982. Final Environmental Impact Report, Edna- Islay Specific Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo, Department of Community Development. San Luis Obispo, California. MEREDITH/BOLI&ASSOCIATES, INC From : WINTRMS 248'-8205 Jun. 12 IM 64:49 Rf Pe? v ATTACHMENT B DRAM swTsmTERN PACI!'IC POND TQRTLE$ auggo pALuk v J ; IMPACT AND MITIGATION PROCSEDURES Bayard H. Drattstrom IMPACTS !here will be significant impacts to pond turtles it the estimated total population is greater than S individuals and it the habitat is of high quality. MITIOATICK MEASURES Is Avoid disruption or distruction of habitat. It this is not possible''" 2.A.Collect and maintain alive (in plastid swimming pools$ filtered water Gowv, r-00.01 MaiIJ doc fWO f rooks or wood for basking$ adequate food) all turtles Collected for the time of project development. Be Recreate on the site proper turtle habitat. 0. Return turtles to new habitat on site. If this mitigation measure is not possible$ thew 3• Transfer turtles to another site. A. Turtles should be marked$ so as to be identified from.tbe population from which they came (shell Clipping). Numbers and markings should be sent tot ?? MDDB? Betsy Bolster? Bayard Drattetrom (ithen toDD) Be Mitigation site should have the following characteristicet a. No bass or introduced turtles (sliders$ especially) be gave basking and egg laying altos os Preforrably have some rooks and logs for basking B hiding d. Dave one length greeter than 100*$ preferably greater than 300' e. Have a depth somewhere greater than 3$$ preferably greater than 8$ t. Preferably be away from disturbance by people and cattle. g. Ee a site of some potential for psraanence. �. In an M# the choice at mitigation measures rejected or taken should be indicated and explained. It alternative 3 is chosen$ several possible sites and their characteristics should is provided. Actual transfer w♦ ♦r9..6100 •A 4-hoof 044-0 W411 'la Aana*IArMA lorgo" the 1.Dnrnval O*t 149 SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTENCY 1. Railroad buffer areas. The specific plan calls for several different treatments of the railroad, depending on the elevation of the ground and the location of buildings. Figure 12 in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP) shows what type is required where. In general, the railroad buffers are required to be wider than are shown on Tract 1750. Specifically: Adjacent to Housing Authority site: The specific plan calls for "noise concept plan 2", which is a 100' wide dense landscape barrier. The proposal instead shows a 61 high sound wall, with a parking lot and landscaping between the wall and the Housing Authority apartments. Adjacent to "Orcutt Ridge!' (hilly area) : The specific plan calls for "noise concept 3", which is visual screening only, in areas where noise mitigation barriers are not required. It also stipulates that structures are to be one-story only, and a minimum of 30' from the railroad right-of-way. The proposal is for a 34 '-wide landscaped buffer plus a 52 ' wide street. Sound walls (6.51) are shown on lots starting at Sawleaf Court. Required street yards (201) would result in a total distance of 106' from the railroad right-of-way to the homes. This portion of the plan meets the original standards, except that homes are not proposed to be one-story. Southerly from Orcutt Ridge to the detention basin: The specific plan calls for "noise concept 111, which includes a 10' wall/berm plus a 100' dense landscape barrier. Homes are assumed to be 201 from the buffer edge. The project proposal calls for a continuation of the 341 landscape buffer, widening up to 1001 where it meets the detention basin, plus the 52 ' wide street, resulting in a total minimum distance of 86' from the right-of-way to the lots, or 106' to the homes. Soundwalls are shown on lots adjacent to the street. Detention basin: The specific plan shows this area as "private recreation", and calls for "noise concept 3" again - the visual buffer where noise barriers are not required. Homes are expected to be 325' from the right-of-way. The proposal calls for a detention basin that is 100' wide, landscaped on its slopes, plus the 52 ' wide street, resulting in a total distance of 152 ' from the right-of-way to the lot lines, or 172' to the homes. Sound walls are shown on lots adjacent to the street. Un "G" Court: The specific plan calls for "noise concept 2" and "noise concept 1" - either a 100' dense landscaped barrier or a 100' barrier plus a 10' wall/berm. The project shows a Q m ur ty DWA*PM it InrbTwd-Am I= x-39 Specific plan consistency - Page 2 48' wide planted buffer plus G Court, which is 52' wide, resulting in 1001distance from the right-of-way to the lot lines or 120' to the homes. No sound walls are planned. Conclusion: The project's railroad buffer design differs from the specific plan standards. The specific plan (page 31) says, "other combinations of barriers may also be built as long as they are equal to or better than those described above and are visually acceptable to the city." Based on this wording, the Interim Community Development Director determined the railroad buffers proposed are consistent with the specific plan. The council must determine, however, if they are "visually acceptable". 2. Lots against the hill. The specific plan calls for a street to define the open space area on the east side of Islay Hill, whereas the developer wants to place lots in this location. Also, the lots are higher in elevation than the road as shown on the specific plan map. The Interim Director found this proposed change consistent with the specific plan, based on the overall design, which places lots on the west side of the hill lower down, more than balancing the total open space to be dedicated to the city, while respecting the overall guideline requiring development below the 320' elevation. It was the Interim Director's determination at the time that the visual impact of the homes in this location would not be significant. 3. Bike path in creek preservation area. The current neighborhood park plan (off Tank Farm Road, at the Orcutt Road intersection, between the two tributaries of the creek) shows a bike path entering the neighborhood park, meandering south for about 1,000 feet, then crossing the creek westerly to continue along the rear of existing lots. A portion of the path intrudes into the creek preservation area. The specific plan calls for different treatments for "creek preservation" and "creek improvement" areas, as the preservation areas have wildlife habitat value. The specific plan says that bike paths near creeks must be set back a minimum of 26 feet from the top of bank in creek preservation areas (see figure 19) . The southerly portion of the path in the park, then, intrudes in the preservation area farther than the specific plan allows. The Interim Community Development Director approved a "minor Owwwnw*-din.1=0 , - In Specific plan consistency - Page 3 change" to the specific plan, allowing this change, upon finding that as conditioned, the change would not significantly increase environmental impacts. The recommended condition was to require a study of the habits of the potentially endangered Western Pond Turtle population in the creek, and to determine the effect of the bike path and other development upon the turtle. The study was to recommend mitigation measures of any significant adverse impacts, which would be required to be implemented by the developer. If this condition were required, the Interim Community Development Director determined that no significant impacts would result from the changed bike path. 4. Change from private recreation area to public park. The specific plan BIR says that the Rodriguez adobe should be looked at more carefully at the time of subdivision, to determine its historical value. The specific plan itself does not address the adobe at all. The adobe has now been determined to be historically significant, and worthy of restoration. The applicant is proposing an offer of a one- acre park containing the adobe, in lieu of an approximately 1.8-acre private recreation area located approximately where the detention basin is shown on the tract map. Both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Cultural Heritage Committee have looked at the proposal and support it, with conditions. The Interim Director approved a minor change to the plan, finding that the change from a private recreation area to a public park containing the adobe would allow greater public access to this recreational area and to the adobe itself. That director determined that this change would not significantly affect a planning. concept spelled out in the specific plan, as it would still be a recreational area in the same general vicinity. 5. Change in medium-density areas*. The applicants have shown a medium-density development near Tank Farm Road, near the railroad tracks, as called for in the specific plan. However, instead of the second medium-density area shown on the specific plan map southeasterly of the first, the applicants are showing a larger area to be developed as R-1-PD, with smaller lots than are normally required in the R-1 zone. The Interim Director found this change consistent with the plan, in that the area is still residential, and the density is between the R-1 and R-2 areas it replaces. Oxm=ffft Owdwn m Deprdnon--do ism _7/3/90 1 1. EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN (JONAS/410) (Report not recei-ed by agenda close. To be distributed under separate cover. ) 's ' ' Denotes ac'k•yn cry l.e2G Ferscn �! _ R pond l MEETING AGENDA Q CIAO i T �= _ ITEM rye„o DATE 9� # Lr�;ry Atty. =00� 7lark-ong. a .z, 7 -.f JUNit iG::i f-i i June 6, 1990 CITIZENS' S PLANNING ALLIANCE Saarr,y CLERK iurc OF 06;spc. c;; SAN LUIS OBI SPO COUNTY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ; SUBJECT; VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 1750 Citizen' s Planning Alliance of San Luis Obispo County is a non- profit citizen' s organization concerned with land use and resource issues in San Luis Obispo County. We have studied the materials on Tract 1750 and offer the following comments; 1 . Vesting this tract map is inappropriate at this time because of the long term- phased nature of this project and the city' s water constraints. Additionally, this action would limit the flexibility of the city should it become necessary to make any changes to the tract map. 2 . Significant changes have been made in the specific plan and new enviornmental information has come to light which require that a supplemental Enviornmental Impact Report be done PRIOR to any approvals of this tract map. Three candidate endangered species have been found to inhabit this area which were unknown at the time of the original E. I.R. . The proposed changes in the specific plan will directly and adversely impact these species . Also there are major significant changes now being proposed for the subdivision which of course were not evaluated in the original E. I .R. and were not part of the original intent of th specific plan , Namely , houses are being placed higher on Islay Hill above the street ; a major reduction in the landscape buffe along the railroad; and the routing of the bicycle path through the creek preservation area which was to be an area of habitat protection not one which encouraged humam use. 3 . The original intent of the Edna Islay Specific Plan appears to be going through a gradual undermining. The definition of "major changes” is clearly spelled out in the specifiCplan and a process by which any major changes to this plan must be made . Major changes must go through the formal ammendment procedures with full public review and comment . -This has not been happen- ing. Even the council conditions are not being effectuated, i . e see resolutions on Tract 1376 regarding the bike path . We would strongly urge the Council not to rush into any decision on this matter this evening, but rather schedule study sessions to review all of these problems before going into another phase of this plan . The highest priority in the public' s mind as reflected in the results of the City' s own survey is to preserve the creeks and peaks . The original Specific Plan did just that . We are concerned that the letter and spirit of that Plan may not be carried out . For these reasons , we again ask you to put this matter over to a special study session to analyze what has happened to the city' s processes to date regarding this plan and how the final aspects of the plan can be carried out for the greater community benefit . Sincerely , Fred Frank President , Citizen' s Planning Alliance of San Luis Obispo County AGENDA DATE 7-3 fo ITEM Melanie C. Billig 7.,00p Fourteen-SLrty Mill Street San Luis Obispo. California 93401 June 15, 1990 Dear Mayor and City council: As a former member of the City Council who was intimately involved in the development of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, I would like to offer some comments and observations regarding the proposed Tract Map 1750 and the effectuation to date of the overall Specific Plan. The following are many of the comments that I would have made at the last Council meeting, had there been more time for public comment. I thank the Council for continuing this matter until July and I thought these comments would be beneficial to you and staff prior to that meeting. First, the vesting of this map is premature and eliminates the City's flexibility to respond to future changes or circumstances respecting resources, services and community needs. Secondly, there are some major changes being proposed in this map, as well as new information available which requires further environmental review. 1. RAILROAD BUFFER - There is a major reduction in the size of the buffer. The proposal for noise attenuation walls is totally contrary to the intent of the original Specific Plan. The buffer was to serve a variety of purposes, namely, a visual screen, open area, habitat and noise mitigation. The buffer was not to have walls Southern California or Cal Trans style. There was to be no housing in this area and now we find Housing Authority Units there! Perhaps these units are the excuse for the wall. The developer should be told to incorporate these units elsewhere in the project. 2 . SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT R2PD FROM R2 - This zoning change is strictly for the developer's benefit, not the community's . It's a clever utilization of the zoning ordinance to add more homes and greater profit to him while diminishing the Specific Plan and its intent to provide a proper housing mix and respond to varying income levels . In order to achieve this Rl proposal, major grading will have to",be done and postage size lots, with extremely steep slopes ��A.,,many cases, will be necessary. J0 15 ;:;i-Y.Coil::C.IJ�1 T Mayor and City Council June 15, 1990 Page Two 3. HOMES ABOVE THE STREET ON THE. NE SLOPE - These homes are higher than originally planned and provided for in the Specific Plan. If approved, this will allow private yards and activities to intrude into public open space. (The street also appears to be higher than originally planned. ) I am very opposed to this concession (gift) to the developer. To allow him these additional high priced houses will result in massive grading and a terrible visual scar on the hill that will outrage the community. 4 . ELIMINATION OF THE PRIVATE RECREATION AREA - The original intent of the Council in establishing this recreation area was to rectify some of the significant long standing hydrology problems while also requiring a certain level of private amenities for future owners. I would urge the Council not to change this aspect of the Specific Plan. The preservation of the adobe is an excellent idea, and it might warrant a reevaluation of the Council 's policy not to foster "pocket parks" , but it should not be a trade-off for the proper resolution of the drainage problem in this area. 5 . BIKE PATH IN THE CREEK PRESERVATION AREA - The Council's original intent which is reflected in the Specific Plan was to preserve this creek area in a pristine state and a bike path is definitely not compatible with preservation of important riparian habitat. The Council that approved Tract 1376 stated that the bike path was to remain in the locations designated on the Specific Plan. This obviously has not been carried out by staff. There were "minor changes" to the street alignment, as well as a proposed "minor change" in the location of the sewer line which now appears to be the driving rationale for the relocation of the bike path. I would strongly urge the Council to locate the sewer line to a more southerly crossing point to avoid this important creek area. It is perplexing to me why the staff would have changed the sewer alignment and elect to cross the creek at all, when pipe crossings in other City locations have been maintenance problems and hazards during heavy storms. Mayor and City Council June 15, 1990 Page Three 6 . CREEK PLANTINGS AND BUFFER - The consultants discussion of the plantings at the Council meeting amazed me. The selection of species does not seem to be appropriate for riparian habitat. I would question how staff could approve this. Further, it appears that the creek plantings are very sparse and the developer should be required to make more substantial plantings on both sides of the creek since riparian vegetation must provide a canopy for the area.f?lantings on one side of the creek only can never achieve proper canopy for protection of habitat. The now recognized presence of three candidate endangered species would surely seem to also necessitate environmental review and sensitive mitigation in the, creek and project area. 7 . OPEN SPACE - I would strongly urge the Council not to support any subdivision of the designated open space area. I question the necessity and benefit to the City from such a subdivision and recognize that certain legal problems could arise from such a subdivision which preclude the City from ultimately obtaining this open space. I would like to ask the Council to consider the staff proposal discussed in the staff report, a method utilized in other open space preservation resulting from previous tract maps in other areas of the City, to seek outright dedication to the City, not an easement for this open space. This would give the City ultimate control of this area and insure that it remains an area of public benefit. This approach would give the owners an enormous tax advantage. I would hope that the Council would also oppose any equestrian center and trails in the open space area. They are inconsistent with trying to prevent further hydrological and geological problems on the hill . Further, a nuisance problem will be created due to conflicts in use between this kind of facility and single-family residences . In conclusion, I would again urge the City Council to support a supplemental Environmental Impact Report because of the major changes being proposed to the Specific Plan, as well as the acknowledgment of three endangered species now found to be present in the area which were not considered at the time of the original EIR. Also, it is not legal to proceed with a project before mitigating "new significant environmental impacts" have been addressed. i Mayor and City Council June 15, 1990 Page Four I would also urge the Council to give clear direction to staff regarding the interpretation of changes to the Specific Plan as being "minor" . As I have tried to show, "minor changes" made by staff are now showing up to require major changes in the Specific Plan itself. Pursuant to the Specific Plan (p. 81) , these major changes cannot take place without going through the proper public hearing procedures . I would certainly hope that the changes to the Specific Plan have not been interpreted as "minor" simply to avoid public (or even Council) comment, and to avoid delays . The accumulation of seemingly minor changes can alter the intent and look of the project. Sincerely, MELhNIE C. BILLIG 1�z. and 4-u. Aav& 56. Zg lfw, 1423dfaJvw%z ,St. RECEIVED .-San 1'u1a do ki#o, ddifo=ia 93401 JUN P. 8 1990 CITY CLERK a[ti ( �,r.t. t , ,l4 mY, r r �tom, SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA t Aj- vi ✓... /�[4Ke.n ct:� � . tcV r dj,( 7- _,a•: a YJLt'.,j ✓_r ,!i%iL.'C-YICJ i:�y /Lli �.:�La ! 1_- 7 r!Y'rlrc. �'lia� ...rl.t.C��b � ,/'S �-j'�.�1('" t•/C.- a1.-,';r ti�-.-! .../cam- : _��%F :". . II. f)tom. G[.:.•Y!..t(-,[[v"lJc+ Sc'� ��a:[�f c /.[•Lc�- • L Q•;:�[P� �OE?:`��' 1.v�er.� �-�...� G a.y�c/ a%.0 cc..::.t- L-lav/ a C.a 1•r.T �yC.c !.i�.t1 ,,p Gr/tee$ 1�T3' (v'� „L'.. .� ;•moi./• �Y. - 11 •I f'd�C.. /--< �.I\/.1> .]��.Y.- i�.(�j'../, s'i0� L �'F:�[''')i�. 7t� /.�.+L.. i.r•i . t;'.<wd.� .) lei. (r):-.i '')9'.>� /Lr•l�tc-c.. a-/✓('�'ta [l/.0 ✓/a i0u<•� lry G4i u':' it�.. .zi 4< .�_ :�L•r:....�.t. f j'/.. <, J "'�y 'ti.<. <:,y,.� �[1�`.K� �v'l:.a. [-`"•- rc -i-i1.'lr r� Il-c'-"[-t.<a_.(,y -Y �w' [LLL.• c4-.r-�,�a•�•! iaC44 YG.4..� [L /� tf.L�: lLt. �+��. _.u��N--S l'�C �'�.a ' / ( 1Y` LZ4L( C•ii Olaf . :i L:1i25 r•:.!'D"Dy Ltl2G P27SDD • 1 - ;//•!ty �W AIMMS 17/ v r. 6z. and Au. Aa4 -rbrz . SQfo 1423 c=4:Lw%z eS•E. eS•ars l{.is. 09&#c?, eaLi f omia 93.401 _;....( i. �r-K.t.., �/.iy ✓�aL•�• /). _..+y' ..�':'''re:%1'.-, ut1 t.l `yam c..'La.�- .i_. t•{.Vrrir:r.-rrat-s r(-e-ti d._..�.p � f �')'. //lJ{-ir� �-lc..i�e: Cci ✓'S /Ii'l.lw-� !/ 1.314!.l�•'v�l iv i�.ar'•��[[_/ /is«7t�r�L. /.L+t.Kttl�.+.qf� t /'Q�r(ii:r ti� fr-ES-r.{ ✓aQ�l�)/fvsv �., dtt,•,_, _ (c-•,r.�..1'" • �wL,L_.j .v'{' �C•!/;•71y... G�/�-- ..Ci%.L,.. c.0'u!L.IQ,��.CT�..Gt��J �,� Gk-e. k.a�' .+�al-c`C�t.e,,,7F iu•�.c,c.�.•(.cc .{.. ' 9�0 .S.t,�P�iv2.�- - 7'li.c.� ��-t<>•�C..(.'f'. //�-.•Y� AIMS C•Z:7/CY..a:� !�'Y�•�Lt/Gt��C.. ,!.J'.0-:J 2.< .(•-('Z,;} ct�tTC ic'LCt+ ;/i a--• Ci AI S!�. .L-a C-L P� .,..C.tJr�V �'Q".L'Q Cii..L•�-GQ� Cc lo / • �/ -�f--- /-0 '/A ham,�... ' / LC.P..+:r ✓tc7a-LFA `I ,, n �.i�A`LL'vL6G c:ct'/T- C:i v""�"r•�vu /n q J .J ( J ��_��-��^���yyy��' '� fj-L.c. v �4. .�GL'GC.L Cr• ;'•U-..{-G•iil :✓•:� �:: ,iC-c7?�.�.%`•'�L.4.:L<.-.•:n-c- r� �1�,/ TLi. 7�n�:_ • 6%. and 4amk Irb. cS ton 1423 z4JVWW -St. -ZU14 ddijomia 93401 L.4--*I V—A-.-k7"/l L.7 .01 tx, cz, A 7�t _. O OMA 7 ffie-t�- t7 0 Q-v rq -J'o u f�o Lo&-LA. L:•l�AlkAi AA4 r (14,c • �z. and dYj�. Aa4 cSPA., 1423 oq&wae cf. 'San 2"& QSila#o, eatifo=la 93401 a", : V�^rL, (dg.cu�;•zyc� Cfy(rc,� ��G.e.�'. �v a-,'., a1 -- s` (L t. 0.s'`e� i�''y Y\. C.:'iVC.•Q�V)'Ll�Fr A.CA t�f V�At•i a$'.. 01.7 LJ T !EqNG n F I AGENDA LAW OFFICES # TER C.M[LLER* MILLER & WALTER Cable Address WILLIAM S.WALTER* A Partnership including Professional Corporations PROPLAW JEFFREY EHRUCH 679 MONTEREY MEET NORA QUINN SAN LUIS OBISPO,,CAUFORNIA 93401 7fW"T't;S ac10n by Lead Poi&on I Telefax *Professional Corporation TELEPHONE(805)541-6601 ResDk,-n0 by. (805)541-5766 co-.;ncil Atty. : V June 29, 1990 cob Die . V 7r 7-- L-2 F1 LG" Honorable City Council HAND DELIVERY City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 990 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 Re: Islay Hill Open Space I Property Owner Agreements Dear Mayor Dunin and Council Members: This letter is written in response to the request of Council Member Peg Pinard that I do so, made at your Council's meeting on June 6, 1990. The suggestion was put forward after I mentioned that I have extensive knowledge regarding the history of the relationships over the years between the owners of the Islay property ("Islay") and the La Lomita Ranch ("La Lomita"). I was in attendance on behalf of my client Northwinds NV (dba La Lomita Ranch). I do not represent the Pacifica Corporation ("Pacifical. My comments were made following the submission of a letter and the making of certain oral remarks, both by Mr. John Chestnut, which I claimed to be completely misleading and untrue. I While I am happy to respond to your request for this historical detail, my real hope is that my providing it to you will serve to focus the Council's attention on two facts: 1. The City is not entitled to receive the fee title to Islay Hill as part of the implementation of the Specific Plan. On the contrary, the right to receive the fee title belongs to Northwinds, NV. 2. Through Pacific's present application, the City has the opportunity to now gain its open space easement required to be dedicated to it under the Edna-Islay Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"), which it would not otherwise obtain until the last phase of the project. Pacifica has the present ability to grant the easement. While there is some uncertainty as to whether this ability extends to granting such an easement over the area shown for the Equestrian Center, Northwinds, NV is willing to allow the easement to cover that area also, provided the easement does not dilute the rights to the development of the Equestrian Center which are provided in the Specific Plan. PT San Luis Obispo City Council June 29, 1990 Page 2 The present situation evolved as follows: A. The Specific Plan was adopted on February 8, 1982. B. Shortly thereafter, Pacific Ventures ("Ventures') acquired an option to purchase Islay. The option was later exercised. In early 1986 Ventures and Pacifica decided that Ventures would sell to Pacifica only the residential development portion of Islay. Ventures would retain the portion of Islay which would be developed into an equestrian center and the portion which would eventually be dedicated in an open space easement pursuant to the Specific Plan. Pacifica would receive the right to require the dedication of the open space easement and any necessary utility and similar easements over the portion retained by Ventures which were required in order to develop the residential area and implement the Specific Plan. C. The exact locations of the areas designated by the Specific Plan for the residential development, the equestrian center, and the open space easement were not yet known at the time that the sales agreement was reached in 1986. D. Under the California Subdivision Map Act, it was necessary that a parcel be legally created before it could be sold, leased or financed as a separate parcel. Parcels are legally created by the processing of either parcel or subdivision maps. E. At the time that the sales agreement was reached the residential development portion of Islay was not a legal parcel separate and apart from the rest of the Islay property. F. Also, at the time that the sales agreement was reached it was not known when it would be possible to define the residential development area, nor how long thereafter it would take to process a map to completion which would create the residential development area as a separate parcel so that it could be sold to Pacifica independently from the rest of the Islay property. Ventures was to process the map, but after the residential development area could be defined by Pacifica. G. So as to avoid delay in completing the sale in the event that the residential development area was not yet, as of the date escrow was to close, created as a separate legal parcel capable of being conveyed apart from the rest of Islay, the sales agreement was drafted to also contain an alternative manner of proceeding. Under this alternative, the entire Islay property would be conveyed to Islay and the map separating the residential development parcel would be processed by Ventures after close of escrow. When the residential development area was thus created, the balance of Islay, i.e., the - San Luis Obispo City Council June 29, 1990 Page 3 equestrian center and open space areas, would be conveyed back to Ventures, or to its successors in interest. H. Under the alternative, while Pacifica held title it was to have the right to create the easements described in B, above, which were necessary to implement the Specific Plan and develop the residential area. I. The objective was to end up in the same ultimate position regardless of whether the residential development area was created as a separate legal parcel before or after close of the sales escrow. That is, Pacifica would end up with fee title to the residential development area plus have the right to create the specified easements over the balance of the Islay property which were necessary to develop that residential are and implement the Specific Plan. Ventures would end up with the right to develop the Equestrian Center and would hold fee title to the Equestrian Center area and the area which would be subject to the open space easement. Northwinds NV has since acquired the rights of Ventures in this regard. Mr. Rob Rossi has since acquired the interest of Ventures in the purchase money promissory note which constituted part of the purchase price in the sale from Ventures to Pacifica. J. The escrow closed in August of 1986. The precise location of the residential development area has still not been determined. Northwinds NV has nevertheless filed a parcel map, in an application unrelated to the present tentative map application of Pacifica, to create the residential development area as a separate legal parcel and the Equestrian Center area together with the open space easement area as another separate legal parcel (the Subdivision Map Act does not require that an easement cover an entire legal parcel) in compliance with its rights and obligations under the sales agreement. The Northwinds application was denied by the Planning Commission and will soon come before your Council on appeal. My knowledge of the foregoing is a result of my acting in the capacity of attorney for Ventures in this transaction. In confirmation of my recollection, I enclose a copy of a letter which I wrote to Pacific Ventures dated February 12, 1986, which was early in the formulation of the transaction, and a letter to me from attorney Richard M. Rosin, who represented Pacifica in the transaction. The materials are supplied to you in order to ease your stated concerns by showing that the intent of the parties has been constant over the years. These materials are provided to you without waiver of client-attorney confidentiality as to any other item. The enclosed copy of my February 12, 1986 letter gives some indication of the complexities in the documentation of the Ventures sale to Pacifica relating to such issues San Luis Obispo City Council June 29, 1990 Page 4 as the coordination of releases of portions of the property from each of the two deeds of trust encumbering portions of the Islay property. I had been the attorney who had formed Ventures and who had represented it in its purchase of the Islay property from the previous owners, Islay Hill Partnership and Dr. and Mrs. John DeVincenzo. In addition, I had represented Eastwinds NV, Roadrunner limited partnership, Rob Rossi and Robert Takken (arid others) relating to Islay, and Northwinds NV relating to its ownership of the La Lomita Ranch, which it purchased in 1976. To say the least, I was knowledgeable regarding these transactions. In contrast, Mr. Chestnut's June 5, 1990 letter and June 6, 1990 remarks demonstrated either a thorough lack of understanding of real estate documentation, and the documentation regarding these properties in particular, or a determined effort to distort the meaning of the recorded documents affecting the Islay property and the La Lomita Ranch property. It is important that you realize the truth, contrary to the assertions and insinuations of Mr. Chestnut, that: 1. Pacifica and Pacific Ventures (while their names may be similar) have always been totally separate entities and have always had totally separate ownerships. That is to say that no one who has ever had an ownership interest in one has also ever had an ownership interest in the other. 2. Neither Northwinds NV, Eastwinds NV, Rob Rossi, Doug Murdock, Roadrunner, Robert Takken, Dr. or Mrs. John DeVincenzo, Islay Hill Partnership, nor John or Charles French have ever owned any portion of Pacifica. 3. Neither Dr. John DeVincenzo nor John or Charles French have ever had any ownership interest in Ventures, Roadrunner, Eastwinds NV or Northwinds NV. 4. Neither John nor Charles French have owned any interest in the portion of Islay Hill which is either to be developed into an equestrian center or which is to be dedicated to the City in open space easement. 5. Since the beginning of my efforts regarding these two properties, I do not believe there has been any ownership involvement in either of them by any entity known as either Southwinds NV or Westwinds NV. Mr. Chestnut's letter and remarks contained numerous other mistakes of fact which can be disputed at another time if necessary. However, what I would like to emphasize at this time is that, regardless of Mr. Chestnut's assertions, Pacifica is not "holding back" i - San Luis Obispo City Council June 29, 1990 Page 5 on its obligations regarding the open space. Pacifica does not have the ability to dedicate the Islay Hill area in fee title - it never has had that ability. Pacifica does have the ability to dedicate an open space easement. While Pacifica and Northwinds may not concur as to whether this ability extends to the Equestrian Center area, this should be of absolutely no consequence because, as long as the open space easement to be dedicated does not diminish the development potential of the Equestrian Center i.e., the provisions of the Specific Plan are not changed in this way), then Northwinds, NV will agree that the open space easement may include the Equestrian Center area. 1 will be away from California on July 3, 1990, when this matter comes on for further public hearing before your Council and I will therefor be unable to attend. It is my hope that this letter will put an end to unfounded suspicions which have occurred regarding these topics. Very truly yours, MILLER & WALTER T4 &C% ((/ Peter C. Miller PCM:ms Enclosures cc: Northwinds NV Roger Picquet, Esq.. Mr. John Wallace Robert E. Duffy, Esq. \N0283\ISLAY6.LTR f LAW OFFICES :TER C. MILLER' MILLER & WALTER WILLIAM S.WALTER' A PartnarsNo or Professional Corporations Cable Address 'Professional Corporation THE PROMONTORY PROPLAW or cow+sm: 412 1-IIGUERA STREET Telex LEE BROSHEARS 497-1170 SAN LUIS OBISPO• CALIFORNIA 93401 r TELEPHONE(805)541.6601 February 12, 1906 Pacific ventures c/o Rossi King Organization 414 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attention : tor. Rob Rossi Re : Pacifica Corporation Option, Draft Dated 01/03/06 Dear Rob: Below are my comments following the discussions with you and following my review of the captioned document. Because of the nature of the comments, I have organized them by subject matter, '. rather than by- going through the document line by line. Subject Real Property Consistent with your concept of the transaction as expressed to me, the Pacifica Corporation ("Pacifica") document does not call for transfer of the 65± acre portion ("Dedication Parcel") to Pacifica . However , it does call for the conveyance of this entire portion to the City of San Luis Obispo upon the closing of escrow. My understanding is that the 65± acre portion is not yet a legal parcel capable of being segregated, whether by conveyance or by reservation , from other portions of the property. I also understand that it is your intention for Pacific Ventures to donate to an appropriate entity, not necessarily the City of San Luis Obispo , a commitment that approximately 56 acres of this 65± acre portion be left in perpetual open space and that you retain the balance of it for development as an equestrian center. It is not clear yet whether the commitment will be by grant of fee or easement. It also appears necessary that the Buyer have the abil.ity• t-o install, operate and maintain on the 56± acre portion various improvements which will be required in order for the Buyer to comply with the Specific Plan or which will otherwise be required of Buyer in Buyer ' s development efforts . Pacific Ventures February 12 , 1986 Page Two Therefor it seems that the agreement should provide that Pacific ventures seek, during the option and escrow periods , to legally establish the 65± acre piece as either a single parcel or as a 56± acre parcel plus a 9± acre parcel, both for retention by Seller. Seller should agree that prior to any other conveyance of easements over , or fee of , these parcel (s) the specific rights needed to .protect the development rights of Buyer will first be conveyed to Buyer . This conveyance to Buyer could be made at close of escrow. If, .prior to close of escrow, Seller is unable to establish legal parcel (s) of the 65± acres , the Agreement should provide that the entire 202± acres be conveyed in fee to Buyer and that an agreement be recorded at close of escrow that, subject to compliance with land subdivision law, the Buyer agrees to re-convey the 65± acres to Seller for no additional consideration at such time that Seller; with Buyer' s. cooperation, is able to establish the 65± acres as one or more legal parcels . Any such re-conveyance, of course, would retain the specific rights in Buyer which are referred to above. Buyer would be allowed to exercise those rights during the time between the close of escrow and the creation of the parcel (s) . An appropri- ate mechanism should be included to ensure that the commitment of �- the 56± acre portion to open space use is actually made. Purchase Money Deed of Trust It is your desire that the existing financing remain in place and that Pacific Venture ' s security for the purchase money promissory note be in the form of an "all-inclusive" or "wrap- around" second deed of' trust. It is also your desire that no portion of the property (other than , perhaps, the 65± acre * portion as described above) be conveyed free and clear, or be reconveyed from the deed of trust, until the down payment is made and the extension of Tank Farm Road and railroad crossing per the existing Nolte Engineering plans and specifications are either completed or bonded for completion to the satisfaction of the railroad and the City of San Luis Obispo. The agreement and attendant documents need to reflect this. Releases of parcels from Pacific Venture' s deed of trust require some coordination with the releases of parcels from the underlying deed of trust. The new deed of trust should state that partial releases shall only be made of legal parcels. According to Parcel Map SL 84-083 , the : subject property now consists of only 3 legal parcels, one of which (Parcel 1) has been reconveyed to Pacific Ventures from the lien of the underlying deed of trust and the second of which (Parcel 3) has been paid for and is now in the process of being reconveyed. Pacific Ventures has paid for additional land which can be reconveyed when the appropriate legal parcels are created from a Pacific Ventures February 12, 1986 Page Three division of Parcel 2. If Buyer can live with the scheme for partial releases which is set forth in the underlying deed of trust, then the language of the rider to the new deed of trust should be changed to parallel that scheme . The proposed rider to the new deed of trust presently does not set forth a particular order for release of the "Phases" . If the Buyer has an order of release in mind which differs from or conflicts with that set forth in the underlying deed of trust, you should be so informed so that appropriate arrangements can be made with the holder of the underlying deed of trust. Because Buyer will be in control of the property when partial releases need to be made , it should be stated in the documentation that it will be Buyer ' s obligation to create the legal parcels , with Seller ' s reasonable approval as to order and configuration, for the purpose of the sequential partial releases. Because Buyer apparently intends to seek a change in the Specific Plan , the Phases of the Specific Plan as it now exists may not serve as a rational basis for determining the cost of partial releases of the various portions of the property from the lien of your deed of trust. You may wish to consider a different formula, such as a straight per acre or per dwelling unit cost. Payment It is your desire that the Option Payment of $250, 000. 00 be deposited in cash, rather than as a letter of credit, into escrow upon execution of the agreement; and that it be released to you from escrow upon the "Review Date" unless Buyer sooner terminates the agreement , which "Review Date" can become March 1, 1986 instead of February 15 , 1986 . Of course , if escrow should fail to close through no fault of Buyer, you would be required to promptly refund the money to Buyer. Expiration Date of the option would remain August 1.5 , 1986 and Close of Escrow would be within 45 days after Seller ' s receipt of Buyer' s written notice of exercise of the option . The $250 , 000 . 00 Option Payment would be credited against the down payment due at Close of Escrow. Momentum of Transaction/Approvals My experience has been that a pending transaction will tend to go forward more rapidly if matters for approval by one party are deemed to be approved if they are not disapproved within the allotted time , rather than if they are deemed disapproved if they are not approved within that time. I would therefor prefer to see the more positive approach taken to the approval of title matters as discussed on Page 6 of the agreement. The same should apply to the review process described in Section 4 . 3. It is my understanding that Buyer ' s Investment Committee of its Board of Pacific Ventures February 12, 1986 Page Four Directors has already given its approval to the purchase and therefore this approval should be dropped as a topic of the agreement.. Representations and warranties Section 4 , 2 provides that Buyer be entitled to receive all studies,,, architectural plans , engineering plans, re- ports, permits , deposits, authorizations and development work product applicable to the Property that is owned by Seller . . . " . In Section 4 . 5 (i) Seller is to represent to Buyer that "Vo representation or warranty made by Seller or in any material furnished by Seller contains , or will contain , any untrue state- ment of a material fact or omit, or will omit, a material fact necessary to make the statements contained herein or therein not misleading. " I strongly advise against making such a 'representa- tion or warranty. Over a long period of time large volumes of material have been generated with regard to this property.. Much of it is necessarily internally conflicting because of the changes of direction which have taken place. You could safely represent and warrant that there is no intentional misrepresentation or con- cealment. A better provision would be that Buyer is making a full and independent examination on its own and is not relying in any way upon any statement, document or material supplied by Seller and that Seller expressly makes no representation or warranties with regard thereto. Notices The language in Section 8 implies that only mail deposited in Los Angeles County stands a chance of reaching its destination. while I won' t vouch for the delivery of mail which is deposited in San Luis Obispo County, I have to believe it is on a par with that deposited in L.A. County . I see no reason to differentiate between the two. Again , I have arranged my comments by subject matter and have dealt with the topics in a rather general manner. It appears that some organic changes are needed in the option document ,if it is to suit the needs which you have expressed to me. It seems that these organic changes can and should more appropriately be made by Buyer in its offer. It therefor seemed impractical for me to deal with specific language changes at this point. Also, ' I have dealt only with the relatively .major matters. I am sure that any minor- matters of wording can be Pacific Ventures Febtuary 12, 1986 Page Five treated at a later date. Please let me know what I can do to assist in consummating this transaction. Very truly yours, M LE & WALTER V Peter C. Miller PCM:dc 114/j - Aug 08, 86 15 : 43 PEPPER, HAM ILTON, & SCHEET3 L. A. ,CA. P. 02 .(jEPPFR, IIAMILTON & SCHEE.CZ nT7 r ST•rr T• 1:3 GOVT.0. -0 STRICT A7TORNEYG AI LAW C0.TAG N.NDTO...nr..:DOOS 04MADCLMN.A.PA ICON TWIN iIETN iLUbw i4J'A..l MQD 7q.•wJ444 CITY 14ATIMIAL"ANA OUI60ING IAO ALNAIGGANL'L CLNT/R N AT"ITN NAA•GT D"NAAG 000 SOUT11 ni IVE STRGG I DLTn01T. r6•A4aAUA0.PA 171U. LOS A,IGC�CO.CALIr QnN1A 00019•I043 y.SS5O4uy 1.7•625•1155 213-617-6141 •AA-AA•LT STRICT a G..6A1 VALL6T TE6000.,LN l6.p Af J.A-n&2'SAGG NUN..QTr.".Dc 16001 YALV<NN.MIY 19i ♦yi•O 6[•JV.�T Lla'�aI•D,,, August 0, 19H6 49835.)1 SENT BY TELECOPIER r Peter C. Miller, Esq. The Promontory 412 Higuera Strcet San Luis ObisPO, california 93401 He: Isle Hill Dear Petet Per our earlier conversation, we have prephred, and :Inclose, a suggested Estoppel Certificate to be executed by the existing first trust deed holders as part of our closing documents. As diecusead, the all inclusive decd of trust will make reference to paragraph 2.4 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement to place of rel:r+rd Paeifiea's obligation to reconvey t:o your clients the "Seller's Parcel" as defined in paragraph 2.4 thereof. I hC,vc enclosed the suggested change. Pont closing, after the seller's Parcel has 1,r_cn legally created, the deed convelate the same from our client to yours will contain appropriate reference to paragraph 2.4 of ti,a Agreement to place of r•acord our client's reservation of certain rights as col',(.emplated by the Agreement. By a copy of this letter to Pacifica, i. am sending Bill the original note and deed of trust, for execution and delivery to Kathy Barnett at FNcrow Serviocs for use in the closing. we'll be in touch. S1nc ly, Richard M. Rosin RKR:jd Enclosure cc: Jon liedberg (w/encl. ) Bill Coghlan (w/enol. ) r ' w^ +.••:3tN� t7Y:I+1t,Ktll1 I h t7UL1 N55UC:. L-7b 1 G71"I1I G130'. _ _J1Gy 1 Cl'15 '44 4'L74:Fi L MEETING A ENDA / DATE AV REM # SCIENTIFIC and REGULAMRY CONSULTANTS 6701 Center Drive West,Suite 900 Los Angeles,Callfa nia 90045.1535 (213)670-9221 k Deuxes adon by Lead Person Respond by: 2 July 1990 2 until AO Atty lark-0tlg. Mr. Arnold Jonas [J(,7,6,b 4/4— Community Development Director &ACRO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 r•T 990 Palm Street Gid San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Res Response to Staff Report by the Community Development Department for City Council Hearing an S July 1990 Concerning the Islay Hill Deve op- meat (Tract 1750); San Luis Obispo, California _. Dear Mrs Jonas: The Pacifica Corporation (TPC), applicant for the Islay Hill Develop nt (IHD), has received and evaluated the above-referenced Staff Re rt. Meredith/Ball dl: AssoMates, Ino. (M/B&A), on behalf of TPC, provides he following item-by-Item responses to the Staff Report In order to co t, clarify, and complete the environmental record for the subject subdivision filing In the City of San Luis Oblspo. L Staff Comment(Dade Is narearaah as lines 1 through 6k "Since that hearing staff has continued investigations into the appropri ite method for addressing concerns about the existence on the site of a candidate animal species for threatened or endangered status. While the staff continues to support the desirability of an extended (two-y4 ar) study of the Western Pond Turtle's population and habits, the Immedi ite goal is to satisfy the state's Environmental Guidelines." Re ffies . The "candidate animal species for threatened or endangered status," by virtue of their candidacy, do not require any additional study under e California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA). The Southwes rn Pond Turtle. (SPT) and Red-Legged Frog (R-LF) are listed as "eategmy 2" candidates In the Federal Register dated 6 January 1989 (50 CFR art 17). 50 CFR Part 17 states "Category 2 comprises taxa (species) for w ioh information now in possession of the Service (US Fish and Wild ife Service) indicates that proposing to list as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vu r- ability and threat are not currently available to support proposed rues. The Service emphasizes that there are not specific plans for sich proposals for listinr by this notice ...• and it is likely that many (spec es) will be found not to warrant listing. The Service emphasizes that this notice (Federal Register, 8 January 1989, 50 CFR Part 17) is nct a proposal for such addition and that the Involved taxa (species) do not receive substantive or procedural protection pursuant to the Endangered Species Act ..P In addition, none of the species identified at the IHD are Federal-listed or California-listed endangered or threatened species on the "Listing of State and Federal Endangered and Threatened in California" dated January 1990, Moreover, the current status with respect to relative species abuncUnce of SPT (see M/B&A letter dated 22 June 1990, Item 2 therein) indic ites that they are "abundant" and "stable" in San Luis Obispo County. G van their abundance, It Is likely that the SPT would not be a candidate al all based upon their existing San Luis Obispo County populations. 2. Staff Comment (page 1, paraMph 3, lines 6 through 10): "Staff now feels that a supplement to the EIR would address -the tur e's (and red-legged frog and two-striped garter snake's) heightened st itus and provide mitigation measures that would include additional protection for them, beyond what was envisioned in the original EIR."" Res�ofises CSQA does fiat &Meat or require that the City (as lead agency) address the "heightened status" (candidacy) of any biological resource. It i9 the regulatory respot:siblUty of the US Department of Interior, Fish and WII&Ife Service to address candidate statuses under the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.). CEQA would require analysis of impacts upon biological resources onl I If a finding of "significant effect on the. environment," meaning a subs an- tial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment based on substantial evidence in the record (California Public Resources C ode Sections 21068 and 21082.2). The record, from the FInal SIR In 1981, to date, contains no substantial evidence that the IHD causes, orhas the Potential to cause, a significant adverse effect upon the on-site s am habitat where candidate species have been Identified. Therefore, no additional protection or .mitigation beyond that which was envisione in the original EIR is warranted. 3. Staff Comment {pane 4Lparalf M 2, lines 1 through U "During the Planning Commission's hearings, ,public testimony Included information that the Western Pond Turtle, known to exist at the site, has been listed as a candidate species for threatened or endangered status. Some citizens voiced concern over the effect of the proposed development on the speeiess given recent Information that it has been extirpated from much of its former habitat." Responses No evidence of a significant adverse effect of the IHD upon the sp ies In the on-site stream habitat exists in the subdivision record. The re rd 2 btlV l Z =rr_=V I I P7 DUL1 H5.7U1.. (- G-7G 1%Jln'I :I J0' T?Ie� 1 OCD 044 4074:A 4 -- does not indicate that the SPT has been "extirpated" from its habits in San Luis Obispo County (see Response 1 herein, and 22 June 1990 MMA letter, item 2 therein).. Citizens voicing concern (1.e.9 the existence of public controversy) ever the environmental effects of a project 'do not require preparation of an environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environm nt. CEQA Section 21082.2 states: "The lead agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial -evidence In the record. The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of a environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment." 4. Staff Comment (rigs 4. paragraph 89 lines 3 through 14}: "On June 5, 1990, the day before the previous council hearing on Vs Item, staff received a letter from Dan Holland, professor of biology at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, and a recognized turtle rt, expressing concern about . the effects of the proposed development on three animal species: the Western Pond Turtle, the California Red-iee led -- frog, and .the Two-striped garter snake. Mr. Holland notes that the tu ,tle Is listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a candidate for at- ened or endangered status, that the frog is under review for listing by the California Department of Fish and (lame, and that the snake existi in a limited habitat, which is becoming smaller." See Response 1 herein. 5. $teff Comment (page 4, 4■lines 1 through 5k "When the original EIB was adopted, •the above animals were known or thought to exist at the site. However, they have subsequently k een considered for elevated status for protection. Additional informs ion received by staff Indicates that the turtles were listed in approxima ely 19869 four years after the adoption of the EIR:' Responses The SPT and R-LF were listed as "category 2 candidate" species pr1o4 to 1985 (By telephone Mr. Gail Kobetich, U9 Fish and Wildlife Servic 2 July 1990). Their candidacy does not change the requirements for env on- mental review in accordance with CEQA, nor does the candidacy chi nge the IHD plan which has, since Its adoption in 1882, provided no deve op- ment in the on-site stream habitat that would result in a signifb ant adverse environmental effect. 3 SENT BY:MEREDITH BOLI ASSOC. - 2-90 1:31PM 2136 512-) 1 505 544 4294;9 b 6. Staff Comment (page 4, paragraph 5. lines 1 through 7h "EIR Guidelines state that after an EIR has been .certified for a rest n- tial specific pian, no further environmental study, is needed for indivi lual projects which are consistent with the specific plan. The guide] nes Indicate, however, that this exemption . from further environmental rei low does not apply if certain events occur, Section 15162 of the Env on- mental Guidelines (attached), which defines these changes »: Responses The 11113 is consistent with the Specific Plan with respect to preserva ion of the on-site stream and associated habitat. The now-candidate spe es were identified on-site In a wildlife evaluation dated 8 February 1977 ee technical Appendix for Edna/Way Specific Plans Appendix A the i� Neither the development Ins or proximate to# the on-site stream hab tat were ever proposed for the IHD, Thuss no significant adverse effect n the stream habitat was identified or specific mitigation required. An analysis of the hydrologic effects on , the stream habitat has en prepared by the IIID engineer-of-record (John A. Wallace , Assccia es, received 25 June 1990). The analysis indicates that the present dra e flows in the on-site stream will increase by only 2.2% (under 100 car flood criteria) upon development of the proposed project. This Inereas in stream flow is not a significant effect, and further supports the on- elusion that the hydrologic regime for aquatic habitat in the stream gill be unchanged by the IHD. The present proposal reflects only detailed refinement of the origin y- proposed buffer areas to form a "preservation corridor" along the stream habitat where candidate species have been Identified on site. This ref ne- ment is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and does not coast!l ute either a "change In the project" (CEQA Section 15168), or any adverse environmental effect that would prompt further environmental st ady (CEQA Section 21066)0 7, Staff.Comment (page 5, column B, paragraph 2, linea 1 through 4k "The change of status of the turtles and frogs may be considers a 'change of circumstances'." Response: The change in the status of the now-candidate species in no way reb tes to a change in the IHD plan, any adverse environmental effect therefr m, or circumstances at the project site. Only changes of circumstance where adverse environmental effects to the physical environment or commu 'ty services have been Identified warrant additional study under CEQA. S. Staff Comment (page 5, column B, para¢raDh 4, lines 1 through U '"The current listing and potential listing of the three species ci uld constitute 'new information." 4 'SENT BY:MEREDITH BOLI PSSOC. 7- 2-90 1:44PM : 2136'._-512-) 1 SeS 544 4294;# 2 $88pOttSe: The Final EIR (and Appendixes thereto) identifies the three species as probably being on the IRD site. Only two of :the three species are ftow candidate species (see Response 1 herein). No significant adverse effect upon the now-candidate species was identified in the Final EIR, and tone has since been identified. Therefore, there is no "new information or bases for assuming that new adverse effects occur due to candidacy. 8. Staff Comment (Daae 52 last paragraph): "It appears from the above (guidelines/analysis) that some additional environmental work Is appropriate prior to a final decision on the pro ect application: Response: Given the extant record of environmental disclosure for the IHD and the CEQA regulatory criteria, the guidelines/analysis section on page 5 do-A-s not support the conclusion that any "changes In the project," "Chwpd circumstances," or "new information" has occurred since the Final ME to warrant any "additional environmental work" (see Responses 6, 7, an 1 8 herein). 10. Staff Comment (page gLparagraDh 9. linea 1 through 4h "Tile council should also consider, In determining the appropriate act Ions the degree of interest and concern expressed by citizens for the 1 ted speales. The amount of "public controversy" by itself may be sufficien to require a supplement .." Ramp The amount of "public controversy" Is not a basis for requiring a sup e- ment or any further environmental study according to CEQA ee Response 3 herein). IL Staff Comment (nage 7 paragraph 4, lines-3 and 4k "... a supplement Is required to evaluate impacts on the animals (candic ate species)." Response: No substantial evidence before the lead agency (City of Ban Luis Obispo) that the IIID may have a significant effect on the candidate species, or their habitat, exists. No changes in the project, circumstances or ilew Information have occurred, since the Final EIR, with respect to phys cal Impacts upon biota at the project site. No further study of the Candi to species, or the stream habitat on-site in which they have been identif ed, is required under CEQA. 5 SENT BY:MEREDITH BOLI ASSOC. 7- 2-90 1:33PM : 2136--j5124 1 SOS 544 4294;# 7 We trust that the ..Community Development Department will consider this and other substantiated evidence in the subdivision records, and conclude that no further study, by addendum or supplement, is warranted by the IHD accor ing to CEQA. Please contact me with any . questions or comments concerning this matter. Sincerely, /too Paul D. Taylor 7 California Registered Environmental Assessor (REA No. 00850) PDT:ydv cc: Jeffery Jorgensen, Esq. -- City Attorney, San Luis Obispo James IL Ring —The Pacifica Corporation ' Lisa Carlson — The Pacifica Corporation Roger Piequet, Esq. -- Lyon do Picquet -_ Linda Bozung, Esq. -- Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue John L. Wallace --John L. Wallace do Associates Craig Campbell --John L. Wallace & Associates MB-1990-92 File • 8 MP RTANT ME 1GE MEETING A�''=`�' A FOR SATE ' ITEM # -�- DATEr71,3M. TI E � P.M. M COP ❑' Action i Y! OF nal C21 ODIR ,� ❑ F.N.DIR. PHONE vCLERK/09.7r, ❑ FiPECI�F EY ( j fav DIR.L7 DULICECH. ❑ Iv1=„LIT.TEf,.&I F] P.EC DIR. CAMEMSEEYOU WILL CALL AC,AW ❑ , ' FIL= LJ ' DR WANTSMSEEYMJ Rl l RETURNED YOUR CALLf J�jJ SPELYALATT 3mm M r a r SIGNED LM409NUJ3A. TOPS If FORM 30025 . �1