Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/1990, 7 - TRACT 1750: A SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 245 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 88 MEDIUM-DENSITY AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUMS MEETING DATE: city of San Luis OBlspo 9- ►a-90 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT �"'NUMBER: FROM: Arnold JonaszCommunity Development Dir ctor PREPARED BY: Judith utner, Associate Plannez' 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 six phases; b. ) PD 1449-B: . A planned development rezoning to allow exceptions to lot sizes 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 the Environmental Impact Report addendum prepared in response to council direction and adopt it through inclusion of language in the resolution for Tract 1750; and 2. Introduce an ordinance to print, amending the zoning map for the property from R-1-SP, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40-SP to R-l-SP-PD, R-2-SP- PD, and C/OS-40-SP-PD; and 3. Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map for Tract 1750, with findings and conditions. Report-in-brief The council reviewed this project on two occasions, and continued it with no discussion at the third, at the applicants' request. i At the last meeting, the council received a letter from the Citizens' Planning Alliance, which contended that many issues had not been resolved with respect to this subdivision. The letter addressed several issues which have been discussed in staff reports, at .public hearings, and in the addendum. The present staff report repeats much of that discussion, addressing specific points. raised in the letter. After reviewing the letter and staff response, the council should review the previous staff report's discussion on issues to be resolved, and take an action on the project. 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. 74 A���lli city of San US OBISpo COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 2 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 heard this item on June 6, and on July 3, 1990, and directed staff to prepare an addendum to the previously certified EIR to address the additional protection of certain animal species on site and the minor changes to the specific plan that had been approved by the director. The City Council continued the subdivision again on August 21, at the applicants' request. 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 General plan: Low-density residential and Conservation/open space Environmental status: EIR certified for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan in 1982; addendum under review concurrently with map Project action deadline: October 7, 1990 (90-day time extension granted by applicant) 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 sid of the tracks, Tract 1376 ("The Arbors") . The 131 homes in Tract 137 . are complete. n l"Vt 2111 city of San LUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 3 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 the rehabilitated Rodriguez adobe (restoration partially funded by developer) ; 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) . EVALUATION 1. EIR Addendum. Per council direction, staff prepared an addendum to the EIR to address the following issues: creek habitat changes, street alignment changes, detention basin design, replacement of private recreation area with public park, design of medium-density areas, and the railroad buffer design. Copies of the addendum were included in the council's packet for the August 21 .meeting. Additional copies are available from the Community Development Department on request. 2. Response to citizen letter. A letter from the "Citizens' Planning Alliance" (CPA) was delivered to the council shortly before the August 21 meeting. This letter asks the council to not approve the subdivision until "serious procedural errors" are corrected. The CPA raises several issues, all of which have been raised and LAIM1181i1 city of San 1UIS OBISPO - MWMW COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 - PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road. Page 4 discussed at prior hearings, either at the City Council or the Planning Commission level. The following is a summary of the resolution of each of the issues raised in the letter: Approval of minor amendments. The CPA states that "major" changes were approved as "minor", and that there is no documentation of the actions taken. The determination of what is minor and what is major is left to the Community Development Director, with guidance from the specific plan. The former director made the determination that all of the changes were minor. while no separate document was issued, the changes were documented and the determinations explained in staff reports overseen by that director. The specific plan does not specify the method of documenting minor specific plan changes, and in fact other minor changes have been approved in a similar manner starting with the first phase of development (on the Edna side) . Many chancres remain unacknowledged or partially-acknowledged. Every issue in the CAP letter has been discussed in staff reports or at public hearings. Staff is unaware of any changes that have not been reviewed. The CAP concern appears to be that some issues were not considered significant enough to be considered in discussion of specific plan changes. These issues will be evaluated as part of each discussion item below: Intrusion of bicycle path into creek preservation area. One bicycle path enters a creek preservation area. The CAP letter incorrectly states that two paths enter this area. A review of the tract map will show that the second path is within a creek improvement area. The CAP letter further says that the change is major because it would significantly increase environmental impacts. Review of the proposed path by the Department of Fish and Game and the former director found that it would not increase environmental impacts, if properly placed and buffered. There is no evidence in the CAP letter to the contrary. This issue is discussed in the addendum. The CAP says "this change would not even have been proposed had the city seen to it that the previous adjacent tract was built with the bike/pedestrian path located where both the Planning Commission and City Council conditioned its location - along the westerly side of the creeks, outside the creek preservation area, as shown on the Edna-Islay Specific Plan map." Staff reports and the addendum have noted that the design of the path in this area was a result of minor changes to the street layout 1010(1fP°�111I city of San LUIS OBISPO - ORNMe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 5 of Tract 1376, as well as the need to cross the creek with a sewer line, which resulted in a creek crossing farther south than originally designed. There was no intent to alter the specific plan design. Further, the conditions of the map do include the option of not installing the portion of the path that enters the creek preservation area, if the turtle monitoring program indicates its installation would be detrimental to the turtles. Railroad buffers. The CPA contends that the railroad buffers are intended for noise, dust mitigation, landscape value, wildlife habitat, open space, and separation of incompatible uses, and that the proposed buffers provide noise mitigation only. The addendum addresses this issue, although it is not technically a specific plan change. For further explanation, the following is offered: The specific plan says (page 23) : "Railroad buffers - A 50 to 100 foot minimum open space buffer of dense vegetation is required along the railroad right-of-way to help reduce noise and provide landscape screening." (Italics added.) Page 31 of the specific plan, which outlines the standards for the noise buffers, describes five "concepts", one of which is visual screening only, where noise mitigation is not needed. The depth of the buffer in these areas is not specified, but is shown as approximately the width of a single line of trees on the map. The proposed buffers are not as wide as the specific plan buffers in all cases, but they all include dense landscaping. The noise study completed for the project concludes that the buffers provide adequate noise mitigation. The specific plan says (page 31) that "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." Therefore, the railroad buffer design is not a specific plan change, either major or minor. It is an alternative which is allowed by the specific plan as written. The decision of whether the buffer is adequate and visually acceptable is left to the council. Housing and roads higher on Islay Hill: houses provide edge of develor)ment. The CAP notes that housing is shown higher up the hill than on the specific plan map. This issue is discussed in the addendum. In sum, the total open space provided on the hillside is greater than shown on the specific plan map, and housing on the the more sensitive hillside area (the southwestern portion of the map) is farther down the slope. ►111Q011111 city of san tins oai spo WM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 6 Public access has been provided on the tract map from every street closest to the hillside. The CAP argues that "psychological access" has been eliminated. The Planning Commission, in its recommendation of approval of the map, preferred the design as shown on the tract map. Improved visual access from the street would result from that street framing the edge of development. If the council agrees that the road should be the edge of development in this area, it should specifically include this requirement as a condition of the approval. Residential densities. The CAP says that density is exceeded in some areas. The specific plan places an overall density limit on all development, and provides for density bonuses. Page 17 of the specific plan says, "The City Council may approve a density bonus of up to 25% more housing units per acre. This provision may apply to all low and medium density housing areas except the lower slopes _ of Islay hill south of the seasonal waterway." The CAP says the density increase request is a major change. The increase request is not a change, major or minor. The request is allowed, with r planned development application (included as part of the request) . Detention basin sizing. The CAP says that the detention basin is smaller than required, and that the specific plan called for multiple use of detention basins, which are not provided. This issue is discussed in the addendum, except for the multiple-use concept. The basins were analysed by the hydraulic engineer who originally reviewed the design and found to be consistent with specific plan standards. Further, the specific plan does = say that detention basins are to be used recreationally as well as for storm water. However, the present design of the basin does not prohibit multiple use. The specific plan did not call out exactly where detention basins were to be located, but only showed areas that needed to drain to detention basins. Detention basins in the Edna area have also been sized smaller than the specific plan called for, after being approved by the same engineer. There is no specific plan change involved. Piaster subdivision map. The CAP says that the specific plan allows for processing of only two phases at a time. The specific plan - actually says "creation of residential subdivision or development" is not permitted until at least 50% of the improvements and units required in the previous phase are complete. Some of the previous subdivisions (on both sides of the tracks) were approved when ' "creation of subdivision!' was interpreted as filing of a tentativ map. That interpretation was changed with Tract 1360, the master tentative map approved on the Edna side, since lots are not actually created until a final map is approved. 7-4 1111111111IIIIm4111l city of san Luis o8ispo MMbMe COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 7 Optional equestrian center. private recreation area. The optional equestrian center has been replaced by residences. The specific plan allows for this change. Optional means optional, not required. The CAP asserts that this design forces an equestrian center on the hill. An equestrian center on Islay Hill may be built only if the Planning Commission approves a use permit. The CAP fails to note that the private recreation area has been replaced by a public park, which also provides recreational opportunities. Change in medium-density layout. The CAP notes that the medium- density areas have changed in location and type. The CAP is concerned about the housing mix, affordability, and increased grading resulting from the small lot subdivision as opposed to a standard apartment or condominium type development. This issue has been discussed in previous reports and at hearings. The overall land use has not changed. It is still residential. The density is slightly greater than R-1, and therefore is considered medium-density. The mix of housing types in the Islay area includes a mix of low-density homes on 7,000-square foot average lots, two- bedroom condominiums, including 23 affordable units, a mix of smaller homes on 5,000-square-foot average lots, and custom homes on larger hillside lots. The mix of housing types on the other side (Edna) of the tracks includes a mix of low-density homes on average 6, 000-square-foot lots, and a mix of condominiums. Both sides include Housing Authority apartments, as required by the specific plan. Affordability is an issue that is city-wide. This is the first subdivision to include units for sale to low- and moderate-income. buyers. The specific plan encourages a mix of housing types. The concept of having some medium-density homes on individual lots is consistent with this direction. The rental market in this city also includes rental of single-family homes. Throughout the city, these homes are rented as frequently as apartments, and in fact are preferred by families and many students. It is true that a large apartment complex on a single lot can be designed to limit grading of sensitive areas. The development of single-family lots will involve grading of the entire site, although the site design generally follows existing contours. The site included in the small-lot subdivisions contains no significant vegetation or waterways, and is therefore not considered sensitive from a grading standpoint. It is unlikely that an apartment subdivision would have involved a significantly smaller amount of grading. olqq?Am jlll city of San tins OBISPO MIGO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 8 Environmental„process. The CAP says that the environmental review process has been inadequate and "flaunts the law". The CAP letter repeatedly refers to "endangered species" found on the site. There are no endangered species on the site. Two of the species discussed in the letter (the turtle and the frog) are candidates for listing, the third (the snake) is not listed anywhere that staff or environmental consultants could find. Nowhere in state or federal law is additional protection required for candidate species. Nevertheless, in the interest of protecting these species and others on site, the riparian area has been expanded considerably from the specific plan design. Nowhere is it smaller than required, and in most locations it is much larger. The CAP letter notes that the turtle is only referred to in one sentence in the original EIR and the other species are not discussed at all. A review of the appendix indicates that all three were expected to be found at the site, and the EIR notes that they are species that can co-exist with humans. The EIR recommends planting of native vegetation to improve the habitat value. The CAP says that the addendum does not discuss the "real issue" of the bicycle/pedestrian path entering a creek preservation area. The addendum does just that, and concludes that no significant impacts will occur from this change, provided adequate buffering is also provided. The CAP wonders how the path and sewer line beneath it can be built without destroying the pond and its inhabitants. EIR's are intended to limit impacts to a level of insignificance, not to protect every individual animal found at the site. With the protective buffering and requirement for a monitoring program, the turtles and frogs are expected to survive installation of a path and prefabricated bridge with no significant effects. Addendum versus Supplement. A supplement would likely have resulted in no new information about the turtles or frogs beyond that included in the addendum. The supplement's information could have come from a field survey, research of the literature, and contacts with experts, just as with the addendum. In other words, we would not be likely to know where nesting sites are located after preparation of a supplement, any more than we do now. Recommendations would be based on existing knowledge of turtle and frog habits. Public hearings. The CAP letter notes that "no public hearings were- held" on various issues. If a specific plan amendment applicatic had been filed for changes to the specific plan, that application would have been processed concurrently with the subdivision map. No additional hearings would be held. The director's determination city of san iais oBispo IONGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 9 that the various changes were minor did not preclude discussion of the issues or prevent denial of any of the changes. 3. Other issues. In the August 21 staff report, some areas of disagreement between staff and the subdividers were listed. Staff suggests the council review the previous report for information on those issues, which included Planning Commission review of final maps, money for trails on Islay Hill and for future fees, and sideyard exceptions. One other issue, discussed above, is the creation of lots above the easterly street on Islay Hill. RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and adopt the Environmental Impact Report addendum prepared in response to council direction; and 2. Introduce an ordinance to print, amending the zoning map for the property from R-1-SP, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40-SP to R-1-SP-PD, R-2-SP- PD, and C/OS-40-SP-PD; and 3. Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map for Tract 1750, with findings and conditions. Attached: Draft resolutions and ordinance Citizenls Planning Alliance Letter dated 8/24/20 9/4/90 response from John Wallace & Associates August 21 agenda report Letters from Roger Picquet Minutes EIR Addendum CHC, ARC and City Council Minutes -9 ® 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 Committee's recommendation, the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations, and 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 subdivisionand 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 for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan in 1982 and has considered ® that EIR and the addendum prepared to incorporate minor modifications between. Tract 1750 and the .specific plan, and finds that those two documents in combination are 7-10 _ J Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 2 sufficient to assess any environmental impacts which would result from project approval, and that the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support determination that the minor modifications to the project approved by the Community Development Department are not so substantial as to require major modifications to the EIR and that the preparation of an addendum is sufficient. 7. This subdivision map approval requires the subdivider to expend in excess of the amount specified in Government Code section 66452.b(a) for public improvements outside the property. 8. The increase in population near Islay Hill created by the development of Tract 1750, and the granting of an easement over the open space portions of Islay Hill within the boundaries of Tract 1750, allowing public use of the hillside, will lead to greater recreational use of the hillside. This increased use may need to be supported by physical improvements on the hillside in the form of trails, fencing, signing, or other improvements to increase public enjoyment of the recreational use. It is reasonable for the developer of Tract 1750, therefore, to pay to the city the cost of installing trails on the hillside, to be used for the purpose of providing physical improvements as described above. 9. The proposed use of sound walls perform equally or better than the concept shown in the specificplan, and the walls are visually acceptable. 10. The various approval and reporting requirements established by either existing city processes or specific conditions of approval satisfy any applicable mitigation monitoring program requirements and reduce the project's environmental impacts to an acceptable level. 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 existing city growth management regulations, not to exceed 94 building permits per year or one phase per year (phases 1 and 2 shall be considered one phase) , 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. I ® Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 3 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 5001 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. 0 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 ,for three Opticom intersection controllers for responding fire apparatus. B. A 201-wide paved access road shall be provided through lots 183, 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 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. Resolution no. (1990 Series) O Tract 1750 Page 4 li. A creek protection and restoration plan must be submitted with phase one improvement plans 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 protection and improvement plan shall include a schedule for implementation. 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. i 13. Fish and Game and Corps of Engineers permits shall be obtained if required, for work within the creek and for crossing the creek near the intersection of A Street and Orcutt Road. 14. A team shall be established to select a consultant and monitor a turtle habitat study. 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 project applicant. The team shall "assist the city in, selecting a qualified consultant to conduct a turtle habitat study. The turtle study should focus on the following goals: a. Identify the essential habitat for the turtles (and by extension, the frogs) . b. Determine the size of the turtle population on - site, age and sex characteristics, and attempt to. . identify nesting areas. C. Identify specific essential habitat preservation areas, if any, within the area designated as lots. 184 through 206 on the tentative map, which should be incorporated into the final project design. Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 5 d. Recommend any additional. habitat protection techniques to be incorporated into the final project design. Funding, not to exceed $10,000, shall be provided by the applicant. The study period will continue for a maximum of 24 months, with a 27-month time limitation for both the study and determination of implementation measures to be required of the developer. The study period is to begin when the consultant is hired and begins work. Where a consensus or majority decision cannot be reached within the study team, the Community Development Director shall make the decision. No work, except for temporary improvements that limit human access to the riparian habitat, shall be conducted within the study area, as defined on the Creek Concepts Plan approved as part of this subdivision, prior to completion of the turtle study. The need for additional environmental review prior to approval of the final maps for phases 5 and 6 is to be determined by the Community Development 0 Director, and is subject to normal appeal procedures. All necessary studies, enhancement 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 recommendations of the turtle 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 Resolution no. (1990 Series) O Tract 1750 Page 6 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. 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 7-l� ® Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 7 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 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 14, 1987 for Tract .1750, and any subsequent soils reports . ® requested by the City Engineer. The grading plan for phases 5 and 6 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 "H" and "G" adjusted accordingly, except that property lines may not extend beyond that shown on the tentative map. 29. Thegrading 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 o - Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 8 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, as determined necessary by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. 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. 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 building sites are not subject to flooding during a "100-year" storm, to the satisfaction of 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 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 in its entirety, without city funding assistance, 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 (approved as part of Tract 1376) , 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 of Tract 1750. The remainder of the park shall be completed in phases, as described in i . O Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 9 the approved park phasing plan, or all in one phase as described in the preceding 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 Recreation Director. This money is to be used solely for physical improvements: 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 O 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 note shall 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, upon demand by the city. 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 a part of the recorded documentation for each lot. 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 Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 10 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 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&RIs without prior approval of the Community Development Director. Affordable housing: 45. Resale controls applying to the 23 affordable housing units shall be administered by the Housing Authority and 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 turnoutsif necessary, to the satisfaction of the Mass Transit Committee, as needed with each phase. Hillside lots: ��9 ® Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page it 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 . Streeiyard 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 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 transportation 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.- 54.' aps:54.' The final maps shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, prior to City Council approval. 55. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, Tract No. 1750, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited ® to environmental review and adoption of ordinance No. _ (PD 1449-B) . C'o�� C _. Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 12 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 , 1990. z O Resolution no. (1990 Series) Tract 1750 Page 12 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: ty dministr tive Of cer t tt ne Community Dev'pjopment Director 1 / -ol 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 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 Committee's recommendation, staff recommendations and reports thereon, 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. SECTION 2. The tentative map for Tract 1750 is hereby denied. Resolution no (1990 Series) Tract 1750 , . Page 2 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. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: it . Adin,In is frative fficer C' y o n Community Develo nt Director jzl:res\trl750no.wp ��� ' 1 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 AI YARDS (PD 1449-B) WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider the planned evelopment request PD 1449-B; and WH the City Council makes the following findings; Findings: 1. The proposed plan d development will not adversely affect the health, safety, or elfare of persons living or working in the vicinity. 2. The planned development is appropriate at the proposed location and will be com�\snwith surrounding land uses. 3. The planned development's ms to the general plan and specific plan for Edna and meets zoning ordinance requirements. 4. The proposed planned .develis onsistent with the Edna- _ Islay Specific Plan,/for wn En onmental. Impact Report was certified by the coun1982. The City Council has considered the EIRand ad yx S. The project provides fas and ame .ties suited to particular occupancy grofamilies wit children, and moderate-income homebuyer6. The project pro;�ides a grange of housin types and costs than would be possible with development ofd 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 Iintent of conventional standards for privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with neighborhood character as well as or better than the standards do. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: � � Ordinance No. (1990 Series,) C1 PD 1449-B Page 2 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. Zero-lot line development schemes are allowed in any phase, provided the separation between buildings is consistent with the zoning regulations. 5. A density bonus, allowing 353 dwellings, including 134 small C-' 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. 6. 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. C, . 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 ATTEST: City Clerk ' APPROVED: City Administrative Officer 1 At r Community Devel ment Director '�, rVILL t 1NU AGENDA DATE 4,_V-f0 ITEM # .� CITIZENSPLANNING ALLIANCE OOF SAN LUIS OBISPO CGUNTY , CALIFORNIA Post Office Box 15247 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 j t•�p:=>-�: Regarding Tract 1750 i August 241 1990 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo T 990 Palm Street ._- San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We believe there are such serious procedural errors in the City's processing of Tract 1750 that you should not approve this tract prior to correcting the errors committed to date. Our concerns center upon two broad areas: 1. That Tract 1750 is not in conformity with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. The Specific Plan contains procedures for its amendment and modification via the -public hearing process, but these procedures C have not been followed. Instead the City is processing plans which are in nonconformity without first modifying the Specific Plan. This is significant since under the Specific Plan's procedures, amendments to the plan are to be considered (and always before now have been so considered) in their own hearings, against a neutral background, prior to presentation of a development plan incorporating the changes, so that the plan's concepts can be carefully evaluated to assess their continuing validity. That this has not been done undercuts the validity and purpose of all the City's General and Specific planning documents by establishing a precedent for disregarding such documents according to the pleasure of the staff/developers/decision-makers of the moment. 2. That the City's analysis of environmental impacts stemming from nonconformity between Tract 1750 and the Specific Plan, as well as impacts due to information that is new since adoption of the Specific Plan's EIR in 1982, is inadequate, is being carried out in an improper manner with the deliberate intent of short-circuiting both the public and the scientific processes, and, indeed, flaunts both the intent and the letter of the California Environmental Quality Act. This letter constitutes a list of the specific issues of which we are aware at this time which justify the above statements. RECEIVED AUG, 2 1 1990 RAAI A line NAICP0.ch 74 7 C • CPA, Page 2 A. Nonconformity between Tract 1150 and the Edna Islay Specific Plan. We find it particularly disturbing that the amendment procedures on Page 81 of the Specific Plan have not been followed. Staff reports gloss over this issue. They justify what has been done by stating that the Community Development Director has determined all the changes are "minor" and therefore can be approved by him. However, there are three problems with this position: First, there are many changes that remain unacknowledged or partially-acknowledged, which have apparently never been subjected to any determination of "major"/"minor" status at all, by anyone; rather, the developer's plans have been processed despite .nonconformity with the Specific Plan. .Apparently the attitude is one of "see no change, speak no change, have no change. " Second, though staff reports have stated that all "changes" to the Specific Plan are "minor, " many of the discrepancies between Tract 1750 and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan concern matters that fall into categories enumerated on Page 81 to be "major" and therefore require public hearings, which have not been held. Third, there are in the City's files, according to the Community Development Director, no written documentary records of how determinations of conformity with the Specific Plan (or of "minor"/"major" status) were made nor of the findings used in reaching such determinations. There is not even a complete record of who made the various determinations, and when. The majority of the "determinations" (if such is the proper word for something that doesn't exist) are unaccounted for as to time, place and person who made them. We find it appalling and improper that such "determinations" can be assumed in any instance by verbal fiat, without any written documentation whatsoever of the thought process and factual considerations involved. Such imperial decision-making is doubly incredible in the present case, where the facts so clearly do not support many of the alleged "determinations". Is it this Council 's intent to sanction such sloppy and improper decision-making procedures? By approving this tract and planned development, the Council would seem to be saying "Yes. " Listed below are areas we believe constitute "major" nonconformities between Tract 1750 and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. 1. Intrusion of bike/pedestrian path into the core of the Creek - Preservation Area. The Specific Plan states that preservation areas are nature preserves planted aggressively so as to keep people out. Planned humanwasusenot to be allowed. Bike/pedestrian paths are nom permitted use. Instead of remaining outside of the creek preservation area, as �. CPA, Page 3 shown on the Specific Plan map, the developer now proposes to C , build two bridges into the preservation habitat and to run the bike path down the center of the peninsula between the two creeks. This area constitutes the core of the preservation area. The violaton of the Specific Plan's preservation intent could not be more flagrant. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change. The change is major because it .significantly alters a planning concept (creek preservation areas) spelled out in the Specific Plan. The change is also major because it alters design standards (creek preservation areas) with the effect of significantly changing the stated intent of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, the change is major because it would significantly increase environmental impacts (riparian plant and animal species, candidate endangered species, wild qualities of the preservation area) . Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. This change would not even have been proposed had the City seen to it that the previous adjacent tract, Tract 1376, was built with the bike/pedestrian path located where both the Planning Commission and City Council conditioned its location -- along the westerly side of the creeks, outside the creek preservation area, as shown on the Edna-Islay Specific Plan map. 2. Railroad buffer zones are reduced in width, overall area and extent. These zones are clearly shown on the Specific. Plan map and constitute one of its key land use concepts. Discussion in the Specific Plan text makes clear this is a land use designation with multiple purposes: noise buffer, dust buffer, landscape value, wildlife habitat, open space, and physical separation of incompatible uses. Portions of the buffer are narrowed, others are entirely eliminated, and the Housing Authority apartments lie practically entirely within the buffer shown on the Specific Plan map. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change. The change is major because it involves a change in the layout. of land uses involving more than one acre of land. It .is also major because it involves changes to design standards (multiple purpose railroad buffers) which significantly change the stated intent of the Specific Plan. It is major, furthermore, because the change significantly affects a planning concept (multiple purpose railroad buffers) spelled out in the Specific Plan. Finally, the change is also major because it could significantly increase environmental impacts (noise, dust, reduction of visual landscape and open space amenity, reduction of wildlife habitat. ) Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. O3. Housing and roads are to be higher on Islay Hill than shown in CPA, Page 4 the Specific Plan. As proposed, development extends above the development limit line on the Specific Plan map. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change. The change is major because it involves changes to the layout of land uses (change from public open space to residential development) involving more than one acre. It is also major because it is a change that could significantly increase environmental impacts (visual, slope stability, fire safety) . Public hearings are required for ma-jor changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. 4. Single family residential lots back onto the Islay Hill open space instead of a public road's forming the urban edge. This deprives the public of the Specific Plan's envisioned direct visual, psychological and physical access to the public open space on the mountainside. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change. The change is major because it alters the Specific Plan's street system so as to significantly alter land use and circulation concepts of the Specific Plan. It is also major because it significantly affects a planning concept (public access to public open space) spelled out in the Specific Plan. Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. 5. Residential densities in multi-family areas along Tank Farm Road exceed maximums called out in the Specific Plan. The Edna-Islay Specific Plan says medium density shall mean a range of - - 6 to 12 units per acre. The condominiums have a density of 13.4 units per acre. The Housing. Authority apartments have a density of 15.3 units per acre (on "free land" taken from the railroad buffer) . To justify this excess density, the developer has requested a 25% density bonus. Even with that bonus, however, the Housing Authority density cannot be justified. It is unclear from the Specific Plan that such exceptions from maximum densities are even permitted. If they were to be permitted, however, they would clearly be major, since they affect fundamental concepts (density, amenities, increases in environmental impact) of the Specific Plan. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change. Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. 6. The storm water detention basin concept has been changed. The Specific Plan had a sophisticated conceptual detention system, which would detain storm flows, and "meter" their release. The developers 'propose a paperwork transfer of storm flow from one drainage basin to another, the effect of which is to reduce the size of the detention basin in Tract 1750. Since the basin was to have provided a dry-season recreational area as well as all-year landscaped buffering along the railroad, this is not simply an issue of hydrological feasibility. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change. The change is major because it I CPA, Page 5 involves changes to planning concepts of the Specific Plan (method of hydrological control, multiple use of detention areas) . It is also major because it involves significant changes to the land use layout (from detention basin/recreation to residential) in excess of one acre. Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on . the change have been conducted. 7. The "master tract" approach of Tract 1750 was found by the previous Community Development Director to be inconsistent with the Specific Plan. This is because the Specific Plan permits processing subdivisions for no more than two phases at a time. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change despite the fact the previous CDD stated one would be necessary. The change is major because it involves changes to planning concepts (phasing, growth management) contained in the Specific Plan. Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. 8. The optional equestrian center has been replaced with residential uses. The Specific Plan shows an optional equestrian center at the foot of Islay Hill by the railroad. In addition to the horse facility itself, this area was to provide railroad buffering and an open space amenity. Most of the area designated equestrian facility is now shown as single-family residential. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change. The change is major because it involves changes in land use in excess of one acre (recreation/open space to residential) . It is also major because it could significantly increase environmental impacts (placing homes nearer railroad and nearer landslide areas on hill; and encouraging a possible equestrian center within the public open space easement higher on Islay Hill) . Furthermore, the change is major because it affects a planning concept (urban equestrian center amenity) . Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change -have been conducted. The above items represent areas of nonconformity with the Specific Plan for which no Specific Plan amendments have been processed. In addition, there are several areas of nonconformity for which the Community Development Director made determinations that the changes were "minor" but which the Specific Plan clearly calls out as "major. " These are the following: 1. A private recreation area of 1.4 acres next to the railroad has been eliminated from Tract 1750's plans. This is major because it involves a change in the layout of land uses (elimination of the category of private recreation, change from recreation to residential) involving more than one acre. Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. 2. Medium density residential areas have been substantially CPA, Page 6 altered in location and type of unit envisioned. The. Specific Plan map shows two separate medium density areas, one along Tank Farm Road, and one along the creek east of the railroad. Tract 1750 changes the latter area to a substandard small lot single family residential subdivision. The change is major because it involves land use layout changes larger than one acre. It is also major because it significantly affects a planning concept of the Specific Plan (housing type mix, renter vs. owner, affordability) . Furthermore, it is major because it will significantly increase environmental impacts due to increased grading required, and due to plans to pad the small single family lots, with vertical grade changes from lot to lot of up to 12 feet. Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. 3. Overall dwelling unit density exceeds that permitted in the Specific Plan. The developer has requested a zone change from R-2 to R-1 for the medium density area near the creek shown in the Specific Plan as a way to obtain greater density than allowed in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan allows 498 equivalent density units in the area covered by Tract 1750. With the zoning designations indicated in the Specific Plan, the density proposed by the developer would be 521 equivalent units, which exceeds the maximum permitted in the Specific Plan by 23 units. However, by rezoning the medium density area to R-1, actual units rather than equivalent units are counted in that area, and Tract 1750's density is reduced on paper to 473 units without in fact altering the true number of units. This rezoning, however, is totally deceptive, for the "single family" lots are as small as 4,100 square feet, which is smaller than the minimum R-1 lot size (6,000 square feet) . The rezoning is being done solely for the purpose of altering the.density calculation to bring it within the Specific Plan's limits. This is a major change because it significantly affects a planning concept of the Specific Plan (density, type of housing, rental opportunities) . It is also a major change because it may significantly increase environmental impacts (grading, greater population in less space, more trips generated, greater environmental stress) . Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted. 4. The resulting substandard small lot R-1 subdivision meets neither the low density nor the medium density standards of the Specific Plan. For example, low density areas are to meet property development standards defined by the City's R-1 standards. On its face, this is impossible for a substandard subdivision. Medium density areas, on the other hand, "should promote a variety of housing types." This substandard subdivision promotes only one housing type-- the free-standing single family house. No Specific Plan Amendment has been processed for this change. The change is major because it involves a fundamental change in important Specific Plan concepts (housing type mix, demographic mix, neighborhood variety, affordability, and development standards) . Public hearings are required for major �-3� CPA, Page 7 changes to the Specific Plan. . No public hearings on this change have been conducted. We believe that all of the above areas of nonconformity should be subjected to the "major" change public hearing amendment process described in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Since no public hearings on these changes have been conducted, the City is in serious violation of its own Specific Plan procedures. B. We remain firm in our belief that the environmental review of this project is inadequate and flaunts the law. The fundamental premise of CEQA is that decision-makers are to have all the relevant environmental facts before them prior to making a project approval so they can use those. facts to shape a project that will minimize adverse environmental impacts. Council by its own action, in approving a project and then requiring a 27-month post-approval turtle habitat study (to determine the project's effects on several candidate endangered species) , admits that it lacks all the facts it needs prior to approving the project. We object to approval of Tract 1750 on the following environmental grounds: 1. The approval, based on clearly incomplete information, flaunts the purpose and intent of CEQA. 2. The City has been presented with ample documentation of the seriousness of the endangered species issue, and has. failed to respond meaningfully. 3. The City has chosen to pay attention to input that helps advance the cause of immediate project approval, while ignoring or discounting input that supports additional study prior to approval. We believe this selective use of input is a political .act and constitutes an abuse of CEQA. 4. By choosing to deal with the endangered species issue by doing an addendum to the original EIR instead of doing the Subsequent or Supplemental EIR recommended by planning staff and requested by. numerous citizens (and, we believe, required by CEQA) , the City has deprived citizens, who have demonstrated their intense interest in the subject, of the opportunity to meaningfully assist in shaping the document, as is required of EIRs and Supplements by CEQA. We believe this deprivation of interested parties of their participatory right is deliberate on the City's part and is improper. 5. Among other reasons, we also believe an Addendum is theimproper vehicle for handling the endangered species issues because it violates Sections 15162, 15163 and 15.164 of the CEQA Regulations. The endangered species are "new information" and Section 15162 7-33 C _ CPA, Page 8 mandates a Subsequent EIR or Supplement for new information, while Section 1.5164 specifically prohibits use of Addenda for circumstances covered by the previous two Sections. That the endangered species are "new information" is evident from the following facts: a. They did not have candidate endangered status when the EIR was done in 1982; b. None of the three species are discussed in any meaningful way in the EIR; c. Only one of the species, the Pacific pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) , is mentioned in the EIR, and here is the sum total of what is said about it: "Species expected to occur in this area would include the. . . Pacific pond turtle. . ." (p. 27) . The EIR's research, in other words, was so superficial that the environmental document could not even state as a fact the existence of the turtle on the site. We do notbelieve such superficial mention supports the City's claim that impacts on the turtle were covered in the EIR. d. We can find no references whatsoever in the EIR to the other two species, the red-legged frog and the two-striped garter snake, under either their common or their Latinate names. Discussion -of these species is therefore totally new information. ,\ 6. The endangered garter snake is addressed in neither the EIR nor -% the Addendum. 7. The Addendum is inaccurate on its face. since it claims the EIR discussed the frogs. 8. The Addendum offers no scientific facts to support its conclusions and recommendations regarding the turtles and frogs. It appears to base its conclusions solely on a letter from the political arm of the Department of Fish and Game, which was solicited in person by the developer and his agent. It totally ignores contradictory written recommendations in the City's possession from expert biologists, including the Department of Fish and Game's own riparian habitat expert and a nationally-recognized Pacific pond turtle expert. 9. The Addendum glosses over the fact that under the Edna-Islay Specific Plan human activity is prohibited within creek preservation areas. The Addendum makes it sound as if the principal issue with the bicycle path traversing the core of the creek preservation area is the new designation of two riparian inhabitants of the perserve as candidate endangered species, when, in fact, it is nonconformity with the explicit directives of the Specific Plan that is the significant issue. The bike path does not belong within the creek perservation area. The Addendum should analyze the "mitigated project alternative" (i.e. , locating the bike path elsewhere) as 9.3�{ CPA, Page 9 well as the "no project" alternative (no bike path) . Both would have less significant environmental impacts. Neither has been studied. 10. The Addendum mis-states the facts in saying, "The proposed bicycle/pedestrian path enters an area. . . which may be suitable habitat for the two species." This area is KNOWN habitat. In fact, plans show the path's easterly bridge going directly over one of the main turtle ponds. How the bridge and the sewer line beneath it can be built without destroying the pond and its inhabitants is not mentioned in the Addendum.. 11 . Nowhere does the Addendum address the issue of turtle nesting habitat, which studies show may be some considerable distance overland from the stream. The Addendum is also mute on how it determined, in advance of doing a habitat and nesting area study, that the only relevant habitat area outside the creek area will be on lots 184 through 206. These are north-facing lots. Existing- turtle research suggests turtles use south-facing slopes as nesting sites. Since this issue is not addressed, the Addendum does not have the opportunity to address the fact that nesting habitat may be obliterated by development being approved as part of Tract 1750. 12. The Addendum fails to identify a principal concern about houses being built higher on Islay Hill than permitted on the Edna-Islay Specific Plan map, with backyard fences rather than a street forming the urban edge, namely: the fact that the hill will become in effect private backyard rather than public open space. . The result is a reduction of the public visual open space amenity, a "chilling effect" on public use and enjoyment of open space areas near private yards, and a corresponding reduction of public access and enjoyment opportunities. No mitigation measures pertaining to this proposed privatization of public open space are included. 13. In its discussion of the houses higher on the hill than permitted in the. Specific Plan, the Addendum should have discussed the "Preserve Islay Hill" alternative project examined in the EIR (Section 4.4) . This is essentially a ,no project" alternative for the entire hill, and it shifts the burden of development off the hill, and also away from the presumed turtle habitat. Again, the Addendum fails to look at alternatives, and instead serves as a further rationalization for development as proposed by the developer. 13. The Addendum fails to deal with the visual and erosion impacts , of a fire break which will have to be maintained behind the back yard fences of homes backing up to Islay Hill. This is a serious environmental impact which can be completely avoided by following the Edna-Islay -Specific Plan, which shows a public street forming the urban edge. 14. The Addendum's discussion of the change from medium-density �. residential shown in the Specific Plan to small lot single family residential fails to mention the major environmental impact of this 7-3� CPA, Page 10 change: the necessity to grade the land heavily to make padded lots with vertical grade elevation changes between the small (51000 square foot average) lots of up to 12 feet. Townhouse or apartment construction would allow mitigation of this environmental impact since larger areas could be contoured more gently, The original land use designation envisioned apartments or townhouses, not single-family houses disguised as medium density development. The Addendum' s conclusion that "no significant environmental effects will result from the change" is therefore totally false and misleading. The Addendum simply chose not to discuss the very obvious significant environmental effects. 15. The Addendum's discussion of the railroad buffer reduction from what is shown in the Specific Plan is inadequate because of the following: a. It fails to mention the impact of building 20 low income apartments almost entirely within the area previously shown as buffer. This reduces natural planted area, and also has effects on residents due to noise, vibration, diesel exhaust and dirt. b. It assumes the buffer's only function is for sound attenuation, whereas the Specific Plan makes clear the buffer is a multi-use concept: sound attenuation, dust control, visual relief, physical separation of incompatible uses, and wildlife habitat area. The Specific Plan Technical Appendix contains a letter from the Department of Fish and Game which points out the buffer's importance if planted densely with species useful for wildlife food and cover, to help mitigate for loss of bird and animal habitat in built-over areas. The Addendum does not address the environmental impact on wildlife of substantially reducing the size of the buffer area. c. The Addendum fails to provide technical analysis to prove its contention that small segments of soundwalls near houses (far from the railroad) "perform equally or better than the concept shown in the specific plan." In fact, it is a well-known noise control principle that the nearer to the source noise is controlled, the more effective the control. The walls by houses may adequately control railroad sounds in adjacent bedrooms, but they will do nothing for the neighborhood as a whole. The original Specific Plan concept of a continuous sound wall or berm at the railroad right of way, on the other hand, has been shown from long experience to be a correct solution for the entire neighborhood. A continuous sound wall's appearance will be mitigated by the dense buffer plantings called for in the Specific Plan, and can be turned into a community visual asset by planting drought tolerant vines (native clematis, bougainvillea, etc. ) along the wail. 16. The Addendum is is a poorly fabricated document. It is nothing more than a political rationalization for proceeding immediately with the project without meaningful environmental analysis. We believe it should be totally rejected as inadequate. �3� CPA, Page 11 17. Among the environmentalissues that remain unexamined is the need for analysis of the health effects of building homes close to high power transmission lines such •3s the major feeder line that traverses part of Tract 1750 . The 100-foot wide easement called out in the conditions .is simply a restatement of the minimum requirement of the Specific Plan. There is much new information on this subject since the EIR of 1982, which doesn't even mention the issue. Houses may be within 50 feet of this line. Does the City have any evidence that inhabitants will not be exposed to the undue health risks that have been so widely discussed in recent literature on the subject? What happens to residents 50 feet from one of these lines if a wire snaps or arcs? What sort of radio and television reception will neighbors have? Since the proposed Tract 1750 shows more houses near the lines than the Edna-Islay Specific Plan would have allowed, why was this issue not analyzed as one of the areas of nonconformity between the tract and the Specific Plan? why has it not been analyzed as new information since the original EIR? No mitigations are proposed because the issues presented by the powerlines have not been examined. We believe the Addendum is a very poor document. Its main function is not to shed light on environmental issues, but to pay lip service in as quick a way as possible to the legal requirement for environmental study. It appears to our..organization that. He Addendum's actual function is to rationalize development as proposed by the developer. The continual refusal of those who completed the document to look at alternatives C other than those proposed by the developer proves this. point beyond a reasonable doubt. It is an affront to the intelligence and concerns of the citizens of San Luis Obispo. The Adendum should be rejected out of hand as inadequate to deal with the problems presented by Tract 1750. Again, we urge the City Council not to approve this project until the proper and complete procedures -- both the major Specific Plan amendments via public hearings and a Supplemental EIR that will place ALL relevant environmental information on the table PRIOR TO PROJECT APPROVAL -- have been completed. Since y, / Fred Frank President �-37 JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 1 September 4, 1990 DATE PATE- 9_ Mayor Dunin and City Council MembersP.C24DA1Yc'd11 - City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 �/' CO!,% I?r'C^DD',- �� San Luis Obispo,, California 93403-8100 E G�' 13 FN.U= ! p CYC,rroF� ❑ rv.�' t II I.kl C.40 ❑ UYIL DIM, Subject: Tract 1750 - Islay Hill cLuuce.;s. 1P'T Honorable Mayor and Council Members: This letter is a brief response to a letter submitted to the Council by the Citizens Planning Alliance (CPA) , dated August 24, 1990. We believe the CPA letter to be a lengthy restatement of issues regarding Tract 1750 which it claims are not being resolved or properly handled via the public hearing process. All of the issues raised in the CPA letter have been the subject of extensive documentation previously submitted to the City, and discussed at approximately fifteen public hearings, including the recent Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings. We feel that these hearings were advertised very well and it is unfortunate that the CPA did not choose to address the respective bodies at any of the numerous public hearings. We understand that the Council will be presented with a staff response through the current staff report. We have also responded to the specific items in the CPA letter in our letter to Staff of. September 4, 1990, and we would be pleased to discuss it, if needed, at the Council Meeting on September 18, 1990. We believe strongly that proper public hearing processes have been followed in the pending approval of Tract 1750. The fact that significant project refinements have already occurred in response to the issues raised in the CPA letter confirms the validity of the process. We believe that Tract 1750 has met all requirements for final Council approval on September 18, 1990, and we respectfully urge the Council to do so. Sincerely, L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES L. Gl1�Qu.� L. Wallace Principal �R C jD jf � CAC:rmb/110-3 SLN 4199 QTVOP ' C 110/alliresp.ltr. SAN10M1pW00cA 1458 HIGUERA STREET• SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 • (805)5444011 • FAX(805)544-4294 MEETING DATE: city or San -WIS OBISPO - O Malmo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMB R: FROM: Arnold Jonas, Commun' y Development Director PREPARED BY: Judith Lautner, ssociate Planner SUBJECT: a. ) Tract 1750: A subdivision to create 245 single-family lots, ss medium-density airspace condominiums, a neighborhood park and a small "historical" park, in six 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 the Environmental Impact Report addendum prepared in response to council. direction and adopt it through inclusion of language in the resolution for Tract 1750; and 2. Introduce an ordinance to print, amending the zoning map for the property from R-1-SP, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40-SP to R-1-SP-PD, R-2-SP- PD, and C/OS-40-SP-PD; and 3. Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map for Tract 1750, with findings and conditions. Report-.in-brief The council reviewed this project on two occasions, and continued it at the last hearing, with direction to staff to prepare an addendum to the i Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , addressing the various changes to and interpretations of the specific plan approved by the previous director. Councilmembers also asked for additional information. In response to that direction, staff has prepared an addendum, which is attached to this report. The addendum contains, among other information, confirmation that the detention basin designs are adequate.; A letter has been sent to the school district, asking for information about the district's plans to accomodate this and other future development, and offering any help the city can provide. The applicants are objecting to some of the recommended conditions of approval of this map: One condition, recommended by the Planning Commission, requires Planning Commission review of the final maps. The applicants feel the requirement is time-consuming and unnecessary. The Planning Commission also recommended that no sideyard exceptions be allowed for buildings on the small lots (phases 3 and 4) . The applicants want to be able to apply for minor exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The applicants object to conditions 52 and 53, which require transportation impact and storm drainage fees, which are fees not yet adopted by the council. They feel it is inappropriate to impose not- yet-adopted fees on a vesting map. This objection is contained in a letter attached to this report, along with a memorandum on the subject crty of san lues oBi spo WIGn COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 2 from the same attorney (while acting as City Attorney) , dated August 5, 1988. Since the public hearing was closed at the previous meeting, the applicants are preparing written objections for the council to consider. Once these issues are resolved, the council should approve the map and planned development, adopting the addendum as part of the action. 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 o January 3, 1990, and held public hearings on February 28 and March 28,, - 1990. 8,1990. 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 heard this item on June 6, and on July 3, 1990, and directed staff to prepare an addendum to the previously certified .EIR to address the additional protection of certain animal species on site and the minor changes to the specific plan that had been approved by the director. 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 General plan: Low-density residential Environmental status: EIR certified for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan in 1982; addendum under review concurrently with map �►, ��hu��Inq�i��l city of san tuts oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 3 Project action deadline: October 7, 1990 (90-day time extension granted by applicant) 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 the rehabilitated Rodriguez adobe (restoration partially funded by developer) ; 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) . .1 (11111110lljpll,� city of San Luis OBI SPO A MMhMa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 4 EVALUATION 1. EIR Addendum. Per council direction, staff prepared an addendum to the EIR to address the following issues: creek habitat changes, street alignment changes, detention basin design, replacement of private recreation area with public park, design- of medium-density areas, and the railroad buffer design. Copies of the addendum have been included in the council's packet for review. 2. Impacts on Schools. Councilmembers expressed concern over the impact of this and nearby future projects on schools in the area. The council directed staff to prepare a letter to the school district, asking about the district's plans to serve the additional housing and offering assistance. This letter has been sent, with copies to the City Council. State law limits the assistance the city can provide to school districts: Government code: Section 65995 says that public agencies canno require any fees, charges, dedications, or other requirement of a - development project, for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Section 65996 says that a public agency must not deny a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. CEOA Guidelines: Section 15091(a) (2) says that a public agency must rely on the school district to provide mitigation for significant impacts on schools. The city may recommend specific mitigation measures to the district. 3. Planning Commission review of final maps. The Planning Commission, in its recommendation of approval of the subdivision, attached a condition saying that all final maps for the project are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission (condition 154) . The commission attached this condition because of concerns that the normal review may not be adequate. (See discussion in commission minutes. ) The applicants are opposed to this condition. Final maps are not required, either by the city's subdivision regulations or by state law, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicants object to the condition because of the additional work and time involved, and their belief that no useful purpose would be serve by the process. If the council prefers that the Planning Commissio,. not review the final maps, then condition no. 54 should be eliminated. 01IIIII%P�jjI city of San LUIS OBispo NOMMe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 5 4. Trails on Islay Hill. The Parks and Recreation Commission (P&R) reviewed the Islay Hill trails system proposal on March 7, 1990. After hearing testimony on the fragility of soils on the hill, that commission recommended to the council that the hill be left in its natural condition, but that the developer fund the cost of construction of the proposed trails. (See P&R minutes for discussion. ) The commission wanted the city to have the money available to build trails later, if usage indicated the need. Government code (Section 66000 et seq - AB 1600) says that if certain required development fees are not "spent or committed" to the use for which they were required, within five years, then the city must make certain findings to retain the fees or must refund them. The fees recommended above fall into this category. It may be several years before the council decides that hillside trails or some alternative improvements are necessary. If the money is refunded after five years, it would not be available later. `- The council, if it follows the P&R commission's recommendation to require the developer to fund the cost of construction trails, should commit those funds to physical improvements or maintenance of Islay Hill. That commitment, to meet the intent of state law, has to show a relationship between the amount of the fee and the type of development. Recommended finding no. 8 and condition no. 38 meet that requirement for commitment. By making a commitment of this type, the city will not be required to -refund the money after five years, if it is not used. 5. sideyard exceptions. The subdividers originally requested sideyard exceptions for a small number of lots in the "small-lot" phases of development. The Planning Commission suggested the subdividers look at alternative techniques for increasing yard areas on the small lots, including "zero-lot-line" designs. The commission recommends that no sideyard exceptions be allowed on the small lots, to assure that they are not overbuilt. This restriction has been made a condition of the planned development approval ordinance. (no. 2) The subdividers have since withdrawn the home designs submitted with the original map, saying that they would prefer to wait to redesign until. water is available, so their designs can more closely match what the market demands at that time. The subdividers are considering zero-lot-line configurations, among others. A condition (no. 4) of the planned development rezoning allows this flexibility in lot design. The representatives have asked, however, that the council allow review of exceptions on a 0111o10ppi1;N city of San 1Ue s OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA DEPORT Tract 1750 PD 1449-B 1107 Tank Farm Road Page 6 case-by-case basis, to allow minor intrusions into yard areas, where the site design justifies an exception. If the council agrees with the subdividers' request, condition no. 2 should be eliminated or modified accordingly. 6. Park funding. The Parks and Recreation Element says that the cost of new parks in new subdivisions should be divided among the city, the residents, and the subdivider. Condition no. 35 spells out the cost obligations of the homebuyers and the subdivider, consistent with the funding schedule approved as part of Tract 1376 (the first subdivision in this area) . Residents and the Planning Commission have recommended that the. developer install the hardscape features in the city park in the. first phase of project construction. Staff and the developer have. no problem with this modification to the phasing schedule for the park. In fact, the developer has indicated a preference to complete the park as soon as possible, including landscaping when water is available. The homeowners' cost of construction would then be reimbursed as park fees are collected from homeowners. 7. Local street connection with Orcutt Road. Councilmembers asked for an analysis of the design of the intersection of Street A with orcutt Road. The present design was chosen over the specific plan design to lessen grading, visual, and safety concerns. The Engineering Division finds the proposed design superior to the specific plan intersection, especially in concert with the more rounded alignment of Orcutt Road southeast of the intersection. The original EIR analysis of the specific plan intersection offered the proposed intersection design as a superior alternative. RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and adopt the Environmental Impact Report addendum prepared in response to council direction; and 2. Introduce an ordinance to print, amending the zoning map for the property from R-1-SP, R-2-SP, _and C/OS-40-SP to R-1-SP-PD, R-2-SP- PD, and C/OS-40-SP-PD; and 3. Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map for Tract 1750, with findings and conditions. Attached: 10 W letters from Roger Picquet, minutes, addendum (appendix separate) LAW OeFICES • LyONo & PIp QUET T[L[P,ION[ PALM ROGER LYON ET (805) 541.2560 C ROGER PICOUET POST OFFICE BOX 922 TELECORI[R TIMOTMY U.CARMEL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 (606)543.3857 ��fir.COM•0��.1M, August 9, 1990 SAND DELIVERED RECEIVED AUG 91990 Arnold Jonas C11y 0I SN1 LUIS Ob,=0 Ci"mumy Doelmlle I Community Development Dizector City of. San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Res Proposed Conditions of Approval for Tract 1750 Dear Mr. Jonas: Pacifica has asked that we set forth the specific legal grounds for its objections to several 'proposed conditions for the above- referenced subdivision. Specifically, Conditions No. 52 and 53 would obligate Pacifica to pay tansportation impact and storm drainage fees anticipated to be adopted by Council in approximately two years (July 1992) . It is our opinion that such requirements may not be legally imposed. The processing of subdivision applications is regulated by the State of California by the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) , Government Code Sections 66410 et seq. Section 66474.2 provides that a city may impose only those conditions which are already in effect at the time the application for the tentative map (whither vesting or not) has been determined to be complete. That section reads as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or (c) , in determining whether to approve or disapprove ar application for a tentative map, the 16cal agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code. (b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to a local agency which, before it has determined *an application for a tentative map to be complete pursuant to Section 65943, has done both of the following. C �_ys Arnold Jonas Tract 1750 Pacifica August 9, 1990 Page 2 (1) Initiated proceedings by way of ordinance, resolution or motion. (2) Published notice in the manner prescribed in subdivision (a) of Section 65090 containing a description sufficient to notify the public of the nature of the proposed change in the applicable general or specific plans, or zoning or subdivision ordinances. A local agency which has complied with this subdivision may apply any ordinances, policies, or standards enacted or instituted as a result of those proceedings which are in effect on the date the local agency approves or disapproves the tentative map. . . . As you can see, in very limited circumstances, provided that the. City has taken explicit formal steps to initiate changes to its standards and requirements, it is possible to require compliance. with the new requirements. In the present situation, the application was, determined to be complete on January 3, 1990. As of that date, the City had not formally initiated proceedings to adopt the fees in questionnor published the requisite notices. We have been unable to discover any other facts or circumstances which would bring the subject fees within the exception. Accordingly, we formally protest the proposed conditions. We note further that the provisions of Section 66483 (enabling authority for drainage or sewer facilities) imposes even more restrictive conditions on the imposition of storm drainage fees (e.g. , the ordinance imposing the fee must have been in effect at least thirty (30) days prior to the filing of a tentative map) . We have done exhaustive research and are aware of no case law abrogating the clear meaning of Section 66474.2 that only those conditions (including fees) in effect at the time the application. is determined to be complete may be applied; nor is it necessary to analyze the effects created by the fact that this is a vesting tentative map. Suffice to say "the private sector should be able to rely upon an approved vesting tentative map prior to expending resources and incurring liabilities without the risk of having the project frustrated by subsequent action" by the City. (Government Code Section 66498.9 (b) . ) It would render the lawful benefits Arnold Jonas C Tract 1750/Pacifica August 9, 1990 Page 3 obtainable through a vesting tentative map impossible to secure if a city could merely "anticipate" future fees or conditions. We request that Conditions 52 and 53 be deleted as inappropriate and unauthorized under the law. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, LYON & PICQU Roge Picqu tl RP:ar cc: Pacifica Corporation O Jeff Jorgensen City .Attorney John Dunn City Manager City Council O 47 Cly of� san x,115 OBISPO . m� 990 Paim Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 (805) 549-7140 (, August 5, 1988 MEMORANDUM To: Judy Lautner, Associate Planner From: Roger Picquet. City Attorney Subject: Vesting Tentative Map Questions To close the loop on this subject, I forward the answers to your questions given by Dan Curtin's associate. Michael 2ischke: Question 1: It appears that a moratorium based on water or sewer deficiencies would affect both standards and vesting tentative maps equally. True? Answer 1: Yes, provided statutory findings set forth in Section 66498(c)(1) are made. Question 2: If we feel new fees (new types of fees) will be Initiated within 12 to 24 months, that equitably should be paid by all as they affect the city's ability to provide adequate resources, can we make findings to deny a vesting tentative map? Would it be in the public Interest to do so? What findings have other communities used to deny vesting maps? Are there any limitations on cities denying these maps? Answer 2: A city could not deny a final map based on the existence of new fees adopted since approval of the tentative map: A city could attach conditions on tentative maps to reflect yet-to-be adopted fees. (Should be as specific as possible; e.g. . "subdivider shall pay water conservation and development fees to be considered and adopted by the Council in (month. year).") Question 3: Can a health or safety reason be used to prevent approval of a final map based on a vesting tentative map. if water or sewer deficiencies will prevent development of the lots (at least temporarily)? In other words. can the creation of the lots (and their, transfer to others) be avoided in this situation? What might be a strategy for achieving this objective? Answer 3: No. not unless specific findings relating to "dangerous conditions" (see Code) . Call me if you have any questions. It was ironic to find myself pushing p rtlrfin\C nerine Iw- . -man,a rww.n ► bw wr.r 1.wr,r ..w rr /ww/ -n/• -� 4 Cl P.C. Minutes February 28, 1990 Page 8. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Karleskint, Kourakis, Crotser, Hoffman, Schmidt and Duerk. / NOES - None. ABSENT - None. The moti XHerin --------- ----:-------------------------- ----------- Item 7. rin Use Permit U1474. Re at to allow a museum for lO Nipomo Street; PF-S zo pending; Children ' s Museum is -ispo, applicant . Judith Lasented th staff rep . and recommended approval of the use permit to findin s and c ditions. Chairperson Duerk opened the publ hearing and closed it, after determining there was no one to peak to this item. Commr. Kourakis moved to ap.p' ve the use 'permit, subject to findings and conditions. Commr. Schmidt second.e he motion, Resolution No. 5007-90. Chairperson Duerk -f t exterior art should go through the public art review process.. VOTING: AY - Commrs. Kouraki.s., Schmidt, Crotser, .Hoffman, Karleskint and Duerk.. i OES - None. ABSENT - None. Th otion passed. ----------------------9---------------------------------------------- Item 5. Public Hearin z Tract 1750. Consideration of a vesting tentative tract map creating a 251-lot residential subdivision and 90 residential air.-space condominium withins the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area; 1107 Tank Farm Road; R-1-SP zones; the Pacifica Corporation, subdivider. �J P.C. Minutes February 28, 1990 Page 9. Judith Lautner presented the staff report and recommended the commission recommend approval of the tentative map and the PD to city council, subject to findings and conditions, amending conditions 5, 7, and 21 and adding conditions regarding street paving requirements and Fish & Game Dept. approval of creek culverts. She noted the receipt . of letters of opposition to the project , concerned with resource, economical, and environmental issues. Commr. Schmidt was concerned about not having the soils and geology report to determine conformity with the Edna/Islay Specific Plan. He was also concerned with the creek preservation area and the bike path layout. He felt there was a general lack of creek information available in the subdivision maps. He was concerned about deviations in creek preservation and the protection of open space and public rights-of-way as outlined in the Specific Plan. He was concerned with the high density calculations of the condominiums and the Housing Authority area. He had a general concern with the interpretation of the Specific Plan and what constituted minor and major amendments and whether that procedure had been followed. Erwin Willis noted that the flag lots did not appear to meet the fire code. Mayne Peterson stated he preferred 12 ' lanes and that street rights-of-way remain consistent. Chairperson Duerk opened the public hearing. John Wallace, 1458 Higuera, applicant ' s representative, discussed the project in terms 'of a housing opportunity resource. He discussed changes to the Specific Plan and on-going staff involvement -and approval of the steps of this project. He discussed amenities proposed, such as the new city park, the historical adobe preservation and park area, types of housing, the unique trail system and access, and public parking available for amenity enjoyment. He discussed changes specific to the areas of the Housing Authority site, reordering the phasing plan, park and well irrigation plans, pedestrian paths, detention basin use, lot reconfigurations, creek buffers, creeks entrances and crosses, bike plan, circulation plan, and parking management. He stated that the city had reviewed the geological study and felt the lots were in conformance and 10 ' streetways were proposed to city standards. He stated the Specific Plan map was originally an approximation and that the new map more clearly presented current information and density calculations and allowances. Craig Campbell, 1458 Higuera, applicant ' s representative, discussed the bike lane location in terms of creek preservation and improvement areas. Michael Cripe, 1.458 Higuera, applicant ' s representative, discussed determinations of creek buffers and boundaries and the cross-over section. Commrs. Kourskis and Duerk felt the lower square footage of the open space was unacceptable. • 1 �-so P.C. Minutes February 28 , 1990 Cge 10. . ' Commr. Duerk stated she was against the fence system, felt the adobe should be used as a community resource, asked about proposed street widths, and stated that lots 120 and 122 had grading problems. Herb Gottesman, 4058 Edna, was concerned about preserving Islay Hill against the intense development and trail system proposed. Adelle Stern, 4444 Orcutt, stated she wanted the developer' to stay specific to the Specific Plan map and that the suggested buffer street be between the hillside and houses to protect against wildfires. She was concerned about the concept of "vesting" . Robert Stern, 4444 Orcutt, was concerned about Islay Hill erosion and asked that the Specific Plan be reviewed concerning density bonuses, perking, and narrowing of street. He felt the well drilling concept was futile and suggested the water tank be screened. Edward Callahan, 353 Shell Beach Road, suggested that the proposed recreation area have a basketball court, which wouldn' t require any watering and wouldn' t disturb the hillside. John Wallace responded. to public comments. Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing. '--. ommr. Crotser was concerned with the numerous requested exceptions and felt square footage limitations should be set and condominium standards should be met in their entirety. He wanted to see more geological and slope information and also felt the adobe could be developed as e neighborhood park. Commr. Hoffman did not feel the 20' street setback exceptions were warranted and was concerned with the amount of guest parking in the condominium area and the amount of private open spaceand street widths. Commr. Schmidt was concerned that the hill would slide and felt the developer should bear erosion costs. He felt the grading had problems and that padding of lots should be minimized. He felt the creek setback should be a minimum of 20' and that the adobe park should have unlimited public access. He was concerned with extensive culverting, resale control of affordable housing, higher elevations of buildings, hillside development standards , and the specifics of the topography. Chairperson Duerk moved to continue the item to the next available meeting. Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Duerk, Karleskint, Crotser, Hoffman, Kourskis and Schmidt. NOES — None. CABSENT - None. P.C. Minutes February. 28 , 1990 Page 11. The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. to the next regular meeting of March 14, , 1990. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Woske Recording Secretary 1� MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION City of San Luis Obispo, California March 28 , 1990 Regular Meeting PRESENT: Commrs. Charles Crotser, Gilbert Hoffman, Barry Karleskint, Richard 'Schmidt, and Chairperson Donna Duerk. (One vacancy) ABSENT: Commr. Janet Kourakis. OTHERS PRESENT: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner; Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; Erwin Willis, Fire Dept. ; Wayne Pederson, Engineering; Randy Rossi, Open Space Planner, and Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary. The minutes of the meeting were March 3 and March 7, 1990 special meeting: were approved as submitted. There were no changes to the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS Frank Ricceri, 2655 Grell , Oceano , SLOCO Housing representative, requester that the city investigate converting more land to R-3 zoning to allow their coalition to have some land available upon which to build viable, affordable housing. Item 1. Public Hearing. Tract 1750. Consideration of a vesting tentative map creating a 251-lot residential subdivision and a 90-unit residential air-space condominium within the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area; 1107 Tank Farm Road; R-1-0, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40 SP zones; The Pacifica Corporation, subdivider. (Continued from February 289 1990) Judith Lautner presented the staff report and noted the receipt of a parce map involving the dedicated open space. She also discussed the impact of population increase from Tract 1750 on school site placement, and the new parcel map specifics concerning the open space easement and proposed equestrian center, streetyard reductions, power line placement, and detention basin capacity. Randy Rossi discussed the Edna-Islay Specific Plan interpretations he made while Interim Community Development Director, regarding minor changes in the number of units proposed, phasing schedule, private recreation area, housing mix, and street layout and design. Commrs. Schmidt, Hoffman, Crotser, and Karl eskint stated they had spoken with applicant representatives.. 7-,S3 C P.C. Minutes March 28, 1990 - Page 2. Commr. Schmidt was concerned with the park and bike path placed in the creek protection area, the .lack of an adequate railroad buffer area, development on the higher hillside, lots backing onto the open space area, and the residential density of the Housing Authority area. Mr. Rossi discussed the final bike path placement and supported the integrated bike path system. He felt the proposed design was the best solution in terms of environmental and legal issues and could be mitigated to protect the creek. He felt the proposed solution to the railroad buffe would achieve noise attenuation, and incorporate water conservation efforts, and would be immediately effective without lois of views. He fel the hillside development proposed ultimately offered more open space acreage. Commr. Schmidt contended these were major changes to the Specific Plan and should not be handled at. staff level . Commr. Karleskint felt there was interpretation flexibility within the Specific Plan. Commr. Schmidt was also concerned with the actual grading of the city , easement. He noted that rare turtles had been found on site and quest.. ne whether the existing EIR was adequate. He was concerned with approving a vesting map when development might not commence for several years . Mayne Peterson discussed the detention basin system and slide areas . Chairperson Duerk noted four letters were received ,from John Chesnut , outlining concerns with the tract development. Staff discussed the submitted list of modified conditions. Chairperson Duerk opened the public hearing. John Wallace, 1358 Higuera, applicant 's representative, discussed the changes made in response to previous commission concerns and outlined the public facilities and enhancements provided by this project. He discussed reasons why he felt this plan was superior to the original submittal. He stated there were 470 dwellings in the project. He did not agree with condition 27 realigning "A" Street, as it required more grading and would be too steep. He felt drainage solutions were adequate. He stated Lot 21` was buildable. He discussed creek setbacks and habitat restoration, including a proposal to add ten feet to the creek bank. He noted that "zero—lot line" designs had been considered for the small lots , but had been rejected. Craig Campbell, 4384 wavertree, applicant 's representative, .discussed. a creek alignment on Lot 215 and the sewer maintenance access road. �-sy CP.C. Minutes March 28 , 1990 Page 3. Commr. Schmidt reiterated his concern about the need for a new creek crossing. Chairperson Duerk was concerned with the use of walls. Mr. Wallace .discussed the need for sound attentuation and noted the final design phase would be reviewed. Ms. Duerk asked about a connection from "A" Street to "C" Street. Mr. Campbell responded, saying it would be too steep. He discussed the requested sideyard exceptions of 2 feet less then standard. Chairperson Duerk asked about the type of bridge to be placed over the creek. Mr. Rossi stated it would be prefabricated, of glulam construction built off-site. She asked about the low and moderate income housing effort. George Moylan, 2684 Johnson, Housing Authority representative, felt the project was offering them a fair deal and that negotiations with applicant were going well . He felt the housing was attractive and not isolated from the rest of the project. He discussed the structure of buying and selling these units. Commr. Crotser was concerned with the mixed/multi-use faci.l.ities. Mr. Wallace discussed the homeowners' vs. city liabilities. CJohn Chesnut, 314 Higuera, was concerned about the flood control adequacy of the project. He was also concerned that the grade of the bikepath made it infeasible to use in some areas. Brigett Todd, 1126 Wisteria, was concerned about the increased number of children and where they would go to school, as local schools were already impacted. Staff responded that the School District would make those site decisions. Mr. Wallace noted that the development would pay school fees. Lisa Dylan, 4623 Wevertree, was concerned about the extended bike path possibly being located along the rear yard of her property. Judy Neuhauser, Urban Creek Council representative, presented a slide report concerned with aspects of creek preservation and the inadequacy of creek improvements and revegetation already performed. She was concerned with the potential change in the bike path's location and wanted to see thi path fenced to ensure creek protection. She requested habitat enhancement: be made and that the permit should be reviewed by the Dept. of Fish & Game biologists, as well as their administrators. She was concerned about the smell size of the railroad culvert, felt the development should be clustered in the flood plain, and advised against moving the creek. She was also concerned about driveways located under the electrical power transmission line due to possible health hazards. Mark Moore, 1328 Ironbark, felt Tract 1376 residents were already adversely impacting the creek and felt hard surface recre.ation areas should be provided in the proposed park to mitigate creek use. P.C. Minutes March 28, 1990 Page 4. Susan Graves, 1435 Ironbark, agreed that the creek was- being damaged by resident use and agreed that hard surface park areas should be built. She stated people were already hiking on Islay Hili and that the trail system should be put on hold until the usage was studied. Adele Stern, 4444 Orcutt, clarified square footage calculations for the railroad buffer, side yard, and backyard areas. She did not feel anyone should be within 50 to 100 feet of the railroad. Herbert Gottesman, 4058 Edna, was concerned with the preservation and protection of Islay Hill. He felt the trail system should be deferred or eliminated, mountain bikes should be banned, water tanks should be screened, and no power lines should be visible against the hill . Robert Stern, 4444 Orcutt, noted that the power lines have broken in the past and created fires and he thought houses should not be near them. He felt the original Specific Plan map was more effective and suggested eliminating the lots on the hillside to avoid potential problems. Stuart Greene, 867 Pacific, applicant 's representative, discussed the timely manner of mitigating problems prior to development, and agreed to provide hard surface recreation areas and revegetate the creek and areas of Tract 1376. He discussed the easement covenant . Don Smith, Vista Lego, felt there were too many questions with the proposed map and felt the project had been downgraded. He felt there should be an updated EIR and Specific Plan .for council review. Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing. Commr. Crotser felt the project met the intent of the Specific Plan. He felt the bike path should remain in the present configuration with performance standards regarding the vertical separation and landscaping of the preservation area and bike path. He felt the hillside lots needed design standards for rear lot fencing, and there should be a 50 foot setback from slide area boundaries. He was concerned with large houses being on small sites and wanted design standards regarding yard setbacks and floor areas. He felt the .railroad buffer area should be mixed use and opened up and was concerned about health factors related to the power transmission lines. He agreed with the need for ear-ly provision of hard surface areas in the park and did not think trails should be placed on Islay Hill until a need is determined. He wanted to see the buffer areas, widened. Commr. Hoffman agreed, stating he wanted to also see a hard edge against We hillside and elimination of lots on "L" Street. He'- felt the bike path should remain on the west side of the creek; a 100 foot easement should exist under power Lines; Phases 3 and 4 small lots needed as much usable space as possible, and wanted a 100 year flood and slide area study performed before the lot layout was approved. IJ P.C. Minutes March 28 , 1990. Page 5. Commr. Karleskint did not agree with connecting streets "A" and "L" . He agreed with the development of hillside lots and was concerned about people using the hill without trails. He agreed with the need for hardscapes and wanted .a well installed for landscaping. He did not want any lots under power lines. Commr. Schmidt was concerned with the disparities of what had been approved on Tract 1376 and what had finally been built. He felt those conditions had been violated and should be rectified. He felt this final map should come back for Commission review. ' He also felt that the culverting of Islay Hill swales should be prohibited; affordable housing should be sold only to owner-occupants; the lower lot padding should be uniform; the adjacent hillside development should have a 100' power line easement; the public road should run along the hill; disclaimers should be included on deeds concerning land slides end power transmission dangers; bike path bridges should be free span, and existing improved areas should be revegetated. He discussed correcting the language of condition 9 regarding PD rezoning; added Dept. of Fish & Came biologist approval requirements to condition 11 , and discussed conditions 38 and 39 regarding hillside standards of the Specific Plan. Commr. Crotser moved to approve the vesting tentative tract map, subject to findings and conditions, amended conditions 3, 9, 11 , 2.3, 35, 38 and 41 , and added conditions concerning the revegetation of Tract 1376, having a minimum 100' powerline easement, having park hardscape installed immediately, deferring installation of trails on Islay Hill , requiring a minimum 20 ' setback from top of bank for lot lines , and to have the final map come back for Commission review. Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion. Commr. Hoffman felt there were too many questions regarding the open space, noise buffers, and flooding to approve a subdivision at this time. Commr. Schmidt stated he could not make the findings because of lack of conformity with the Specific Plan. VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Crotser, Karleskint, and Duerk. NOES - Commrs. Hoffman and Schmidt. ABSENT - Commr. Kourakis. The motion passed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item 2. Public Hearing: Tract 1841. Consideration of a tentative tract map creating a 10-unit residential air-space condominium conversion; 415 North Chorro Street; R-4 zone; Stephen Nelson, subdivider. -------- ------------------- -- ------ --------------------- ADDENDUM TO THE EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Aucgnst 1990 i� EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM. G I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Environmental status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. SPECIFIC PLAN CHANGES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . 2 A. Creek habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Bike path relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Riparian animal species of concern . . . . . . . . 3 Creek enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. Street alignment . 6 C. Detention basin modifications D. Replacement of arivate recreation area with public RAKk CE. . Medium-density areas . 8 F. Railroad•buffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 IV. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . i APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ADDENDUM C; TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN August 1990 I. INTRODUCTION Background The original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan was certified as complete by the City of San Luis Obispo on February S. 1982. Since then, the owners of the Edna side have submitted six subdivision maps, constructed about 400 dwellings,and have almost completed development of their land west of the railroad. A subdivision for the first phase of development in the Islay area was approved in 1987, and 131 homes have been built. Tract 1750, a master tentative subdivision map, subdivides the remainder of the property on the Islay side. This map divides the development into six phases, and allows construction of 333 additional homes. k The adopted specific plan includes provisions that recognize that when subdivisions within the planning area are submitted, it is likely that some changes to the specific plan will be requested. Provisions .on pages 81 and 82 describe what constitutes a "minor" change versus a "major" change, and authorizes the Community Development Director to make these determinations. Throughout the subdivision of the Edna-Islay area the director has approved minor changes - including phasing changes in both the Edna and Islay areas. Tract . 1750 includes several minor changes and interpretations of the specific plan. Environmental .status The California Environmental Quality Act exempts specific-planned residential projects from additional environmental review, except where changes have taken place that may not have been considered in the original EIR. An addendum to an EIR is required when "minor technical changes or additions" will make the EIR adequate under CEQA. Since the original EIR was adopted, some changes have been made to the specific plan and additional information is known about animal species on site. The City Council, on July 3, 1990, required. that an addendum be prepared to address these changes. This addendum also includes discussion of the railroad buffer design, although the design did not technically involve a change to the specific plan. 7-10 II. SCOPE This addendum addresses impacts of changes to the specific plan map And text, as indicated on the tentative tract map .for Tract 1750, that were determined to be minor by the Community Development Director. These changes include (and are indicated on the attached maps) : Creek habitat changes * Changes to the bicycle path route * Riparian animal species of concern * Planting of creek bank buffer areas Street alignment changes The road alignment adjacent to Islay Hill Flooding concerns * Size of detention basins Replacement of private recreation area with public park * Restoration of the Rodriguez adobe Design of medium-density areas * Condominiums and small lots Railroad buffer design * Size and design of railroad buffers III. SPECIFIC PLAN CHANGES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. Creek habitat Eike path relocation: Proposed change: The specific plan calls for different treatments for "creek preservation" and "creek improvement" areas, as the preservation areas, because of underground springs and other natural features, have greater wildlife. habitat value than the improvement areas. The specific plan says that bike paths near creeks in "creek preservation areas" must be set back .a minimum of EIR Addendum Page 2 26 feet from the top of bank (figure 19 -specific plan) . The proposed neighborhood park plan (off Tank. Farm Road, at the Orcutt Road intersection, between the two tributaries of the creek) shows a bicycle/pedestrian 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. The path crosses the creek farther south than shown on the specific plan map (see exhibits A and B) .. The southerly portion of the path intrudes into a "creek preservation area". An adjustment in the street alignment within Tract 1376, the previous subdivision in this area, led to the need to cross the creek farther south than shown on the specific plan map. To strengthen the original mitigation measures in the vicinity of the path, the project description has been revised to include additional fencing and planting, to further buffer the creek habitat from the path. The ultimate alignment of the path may be dictated by specific recommendations coming from a "turtle habitat study", discussed below: Riparian animal species of concern: When the original EIR was adopted, there were no rare or endangered species identified within the project site. To date, no species at the site have been listed as rare or endangered. However, the n EIR listed two animal species as expected to live at the site which are undergoing closer study by experts and state and federal � officials. The Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) and the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytoni) have since been listed as class 2 Candidate species for "threatened or endangered" status, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and as "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) . Evidence of these species has been found at the site. The number of turtles and frogs at the site is unknown. However, it is expected that the two species essentially share the same habitat. Environmental effects: The proposed bicycle/pedestrian path enters an area near where Western Pond Turtles and the Red-legged Frogs have been observed, and which may be suitable habitat for the two . species. Human intrusion and domestic animal predation in this area could have a detrimental effect on these and other sensitive species' :nesting and foraging activities. Because of these concerns, the project description has been modified to include funding for a turtle habitat study and subsequent modifications to the map, including removal of the EIR Addendum Page 3 ,�Co� I bicycle/pedestrian path in this area, if necessary. The DFG has reviewed the amended project and its potential effects on the riparian animal species noted above and is recommending approval of the map, with the added study, provided three conditions are incorporated into map approval. The recommended project conditions now include the DFG recommendations as part of the conditions requiring the turtle study (see letter from DFG, incorporated in this report as Exhibit C) : * A team shall be established to select a consultant and monitor a turtle habitat study. 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 project applicant. The team shall assist the city in selecting a qualified consultant to conduct a turtle habitat study. The turtle study should focus,,on the following goals: a. Identify the essential habitat for the turtles (and by extension, the frogs) . b. Determine the sizes of the turtle populations on site, age and sex characteristics, and attempt to. identify nesting areas. C. Identify specific essential habitat preservation areas, if any, within the area designated as lots 184 through 206 on the tentative map, which should be incorporated into the final project design. d. Recommend any additional habitat protection techniques to be incorporated into the final project design. Funding, not to exceed $10,000, shall be provided by the applicant. The study period will continue for a maximum of 24 months, with a 27-month time limitation for both the study and determination of implementation measures to be required of the developer. The study period is to begin when the consultant is hired and begins work. Where a consensus or majority decision cannot be reached within the study team, the Community Development Director shall make the decision. No work, except for temporary improvements that limit human access to the riparian habitat, shall be conducted within the study area, as defined on the. Creek Concepts Plan approved as part of this subdivision, prior to completion of the turtle habitat study. Any need for additional environmental review prior to approval of the final maps for phases 5 and 6 is to EIR Addendum Page 4 7-G 3 be determined by the Community Development Director, and is C� subject to normal appeal procedures. All necessary studies, enhancement measures, and site changes shall :be identified prior to the recordation of final maps for phases 5 and 6. The site design of lots 184through 206 and the adjacent streets will be adjusted in conformance with the recommendations of the turtle habitat study and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the California Department of Fish and Game. * The top-of-bank buffer improvements adjacent to the turtle habitat shall be installed as soon as possible to . provide immediate protection of the existing riparian habitat. Original Mitigation Measures: The original EIR recognized the possible impacts on riparian animal species and recommended, in addition to the twenty-foot-wide buffer area proposed in the specific plan, two mitigation measures relating to the riparian areas: * Areas of the southern tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek should be revegetated with native riparian species including willow, sycamore, and elderberry. * Stream crossings should be accomplished via bridges rather C! than culverts. These mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design. To strengthen themeasures, the following is recommended: Mitigation measure enhancement: 1. No significant deviation from the original mitigation measures to protect the on-site creek shall be allowed, unless specifically identified in this addendum or in the recommendations of the turtle habitat study, as approved by the Community Development Director. Creek enhancement PrOROsed. .chanae: The specific plan calls for different minimum buffers for creek improvement and creek preservation areas. The creek improvement areas are required to be regraded (as necessary) ' and replanted with indigenous species. The creek preservation areas, on the other hand, are required to be planted only between the top of bank and the adjacent residential yards, park, or pathways. Planting was to be done at the time each phase including a creek was developed. EIR Addendum Page S The proposed planting, shown on the "Creek Concepts Plan", which is a part of Tract 1750, includes planting preservation area banks . as well as improvement area banks, to maintain their habitat value. The plan also calls for completion of the planting with the first phase of development, to allow earlier establishment of plants. All buffer dimensions required in the specific plan are met or exceeded. Some buffer areas include non-planted strips, up to 100 feet wide, in addition to the 20'-wide planted areas. The non- planted areas serve as uphill open spaces, to be available for nesting sites for the turtles and general wildlife foraging. Environmental effects: The proposed changes exceed the minimum standards for protection of wildlife specified in the specific plan. No adverse environmental effects are expected from these changes. H. street alignment The specific plan calls for 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. Environmental effects Landslide potential: A soils and geology report was completed for the proposed development. This report identifies no landslides in the vicinity of these lots. Visual impacts: The homes built on these lots will be visible by both short- and long-range viewers. Visual impacts should be considered in comparison with those expected from implementation of the specific plan map. The change would result in homes farther up the northeasterly hillside, and farther down the northwesterly . hillside than the specific plan map shows. The amount of hillside area left as open space. would be slightly greater than shown on the specific plan map. The original EIR identified visual impacts as an impact of homes against the hillside. Short-range viewers: Recreational viewers on the nearest public street to the hillside would be affected by the view of homes, landscaping, and fencing that would interfere with open views of the hillside. Long-range viewers: The visual impacts from a distance are expected to be insignificant, as the degree of development on the hillside will remain approximately the same as called for in the EIR Addendum Page 6 O specific plan originally. Mitigation of impacts The specific plan includes, standards for all development on hillsides. These standards closely resemble the city's hillside standards, which are incorporated into the Land Use Element. In addition to these standards, the following is recommended:. Mitigation measure enhancement: 2. Homes adjacent to the Islay Hill open space shall be built close to the street. Streetyard exceptions will .be encouraged where no safety concerns result. No solid fencing shall be allowed in the rear yards, beyond 20' from the rear of the homes. C. Detention basin modifications Proposed change: The proposed detention basins are smaller in total capacity than the specific plan requires. The original FISP hydrology study called for two basins totalling 29 acre-feet (AF) in the Islay side of the Edna-Islay area. After adoption of the specific plan, the original engineer developed more precise calculations, resulting O in a total storage volume requirement of. 14 AF, with the larger basin .being located on the southeasterly portion of the site. The proposed two basins contain a total capacity of 25 AF. The arrangement and design of the basins has been analysed in accordance with specific plan design criteria, and found to be adequate by the project engineer. Environmental effects:. If the basins are smaller than needed, the surrounding area will flood in heavy rains, resulting .in damage to homes and temporary loss of wildlife habitat. The design of the proposed detention basins has been reviewed by the original hydraulic engineer for the specific plan, under contract with the city. This review found that the proposed detention basins are adequate. No additional mitigation is required. D. Replacement of private recreation area with Public_park The specific plan EIR says that the Rodriguez adobe should be looked at more carefully at the time of subdivision, to determine EIR Addendum O Page 7 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. The private recreation area was included in the specific plan as a means to utilize a low area, and to provide distance between the railroad tracks and homes, alleviating noise concerns. The. recreation area was expected to be a tennis club or similar private activity, available to residents of the area. The area would provide recreational opportunities to the neighborhood, in addition to the neighborhood park and trails system. The adobe park, as proposed, would be a small public park, available to all citizens but designed primarily for use by the neighborhood. It would provide a building suitable .for a variety of activities, the range of which would be limited by the size of the building and grounds, availability of parking, and the degree to which the adobe can be restored. Environmental effects: Noise: The change results in placement of a detention basin in the general area of the private recreation area. The detention basin is smaller than the private recreation area, and therefore - ,,,—, homes will be placed closer to the tracks than shown in the specific plan. Noise from the railroad could have a detrimental effect on these homes, if unprotected. Noise impacts are mitigated in conformance with specific plan standards. . No significant impacts are expected to result from this change. (See also discussion on railroad buffer area. ) Recreational opportunities: The replacement of a private recreational area with a public recreational area still affords recreational opportunities for the neighborhood. Since the adobe park is to be public, it will be available to all citizens at no cost. The subdivision also includes a private recreation area within the condominium development, which includes a pool and recreation building. The combination of public park and private recreational facilities is equal in area to the specific-planned private recreation area. Therefore, there will be no deficit. E. Medium-density areas The specific plan shows two distinct medium-density areas: one near the railroad tracks and Tank Farm Road, the other southeasterly of the first. The proposal includes two adjacent medium-density areas: a condominium development near Tank Farm EIR Addendum Page a Road, and a larger medium-density area extending southerly from the CI first, proposed to be rezoned R-1-PD. The second area is composed of smaller lots than are normally required in the R-1 zone. Environmental effects: The density proposed for the "small lot" subdivision is slightly higher than R-1 density, and therefore qualifies as medium- density. This proposal differs from the. standard lots developed as part of Tract .1376, as well as from the condominium proposal that is part of Tract 1750. The smaller lots will provide adequate area for small yards (the average lot is approximately 5,000 square feet) and homes smaller than the average in Tract 1376. Because of their smaller size, the homes on these lots should appeal to a different market than the Tract 1376 homes - retired couples, small families, buyers of "first" homes. The overall density resulting from the small lots is approximately the same as anticipated in the specific plan. The proposal to provide this type of housing, in addition to the standard-size lots, the condominiums, the apartments, and the larger custom lots, is consistent with the specific plan's goal to provide a variety of housing, approximating the city as a whole. No significant environmental effects will result from the change from standard single-family lots plus medium-density clustered housing, to smaller lots. P. Railroad buffer The specific plan guidelines for the railroad buffer provide several "concepts" of noise and visual buffers. Different concepts are to be used in different locations, depending on topography and distance of homes from the railroad. Tract 1750 provides noise attenuation primarily through the use of sound walls, up to 6.5' high, on residential lots closest to the railroad. Portions of the proposed buffer are narrower than called for in the specific plan. However, 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. " This alternative design, then, is not a change to the specific plan. It is included in this addendum for completeness. EIR Addendum ^ Page 9 Environmental effects: Noise: A noise study has been completed that identifies no significant noise impacts from the railroad buffer as proposed. Visual impacts: The proposal includes planting of heavy vegetation in the buffer areas, similar to the specific plan guidelines. The primary difference is in the depth of planting. The difference is not judged to be significant. Recommendation 3 . To assure consistency with the. specific plan, the City Council should find, in its action approving Tract 1750, that the proposed use of sound walls perform equally or better than the concept shown in the specific plan, and that the wall is visually acceptable. IV. CONCLUSION The changes to the certified EIR discussed above do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. The following recommendations assure consistency with the goals of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan: 1. No significant deviation from the original mitigation measures . to protect the on-site creek shall be allowed, unless specifically identified in this addendum or in the recommendations of the turtle habitat study, as approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Homes adjacent to the Islay Hill open space shall be built close to the street. Streetyard exceptions will be encouraged where no safety concerns result. No solid fencing shall be allowed in the rear yards, beyond 20' from the rear of the homes: 3 . To assure consistency with the specific plan, the City Council should find, in its action approving Tract 1750, that the proposed use of sound walls perform equally or better than the concept shown in the specific plan, and that the wall is visually acceptable. EIR Addendum Page 10 i 7-69 EXHIBITS CA. Original Specific Plan map B. Tentative Tract 1750 map C. Letter from Department of Fish and Game EIR Addendum Page i 7.70 r •�r i2 r,��2 t'y�r,2r•'f i'', J/ )s r a�,,cc y. J�* •r air r;Y-� :, I ROME y� r7 � qir �•\•--i•A: �^.�'�TS:.`�•�Y' +BJH',-�.�;ic_•� b � 7S... Y Yi�pq�k"'�1..p�TL\f\��_�,��1�"+� n�n..tL.'tY'��f��i+•r Ak I• \ t Lel' 1" �������`. K��)tr n •Y , r �.� � ' _ e .: �Z• ����e�lY f �1� ,:Vis:_y.�. •�, i • Y. Na Now bell dOWAM Ir oelc �10 JLHI U-+ 7U 10-OU 1VU1+- 11. STATE OF CALMNIA-TNE RESOMCE,S_AOENV OEOROE DH MUZAK Gammm DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME POST OFM Box n June 41 19901 YOUNTIAUL CAUFORNIA U399 (70� 91f3300 Mr. Craig Campbell John L. Wallace & Associates 1458 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Campbell : The Arbors at Islay Kill Vesting Tentative Map No. 1750 City of San Luis Obispo We have reviewed the propossed Tentative Tract 1750 "Creek Treatment Concept. Flan" 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. 1. 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 �-�3 t OAPPENDIX CEQA Sections 15162 - 15164: Subsequent EIR, supplement to an EIR, and addendum requirements Specific plan excerpts: Figure 18 (Creek improvement area standards) Figure 19 (Creek preservation area standards) Hillside development standards Land Use Element excerpts: Hillside standards Noise study Excerpt from Federal. Register showing listing of frog and turtle as candidate species Letter from Dan Holland, 5 June 1990 C ARC Minutes April 16, 1990 Page 9 Commr. Cooper seconded the motion. AYES: Chatham, Cooper, Bradford, Gates,. Underwood, Phillips, Morris. NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion passes. 5. ARC 89-76: 1105 Tank Farm Road; new 88-unit residential air-space condominium project and 20-unit apartment project; R-2-SP-PD zoning pending. Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending schematic approval- Craig Campbell, representative, responded to the staff report and explained the project, including the affordable housing component. He indicated he had tried for a single-family look.for the units. He displayed a view from Tank Farm Road and indicated he had maintained the general slope. Michael Cripe, landscape designer, explained how the walkways were proposed and indicated he could create walkways into the project near the driveways. Larry Robbins, architect, suggested relocating the bathroom to have the den in the center of the unit. He felt the roofs corners could be clipped. He described the apartment concept. Craig Campbell indicated he could provide three more parking spaces for the apartments but it would be difficult to do the same for the condominiums since the site was sloped and hard to fit. He pointed out how plentiful street parking was. George Moylan, Housing Authority, felt lots of open space was provided in the design and felt the applicant was in effect donating between.13 to 1.5 million dollars to the city. He briefly explained how the 23 affordable units would be used by the Housing Authority. Commr. Gates liked the general design of the project but felt it was similar to the Margarita condominiums, which she felt seemed tight.. She was concerned there may " not be enough light entering the units. She questioned why a traffic barrier was proposed and preferred that it not be used as it could be confusing. She felt parking 7'7S ARC Minutes April 16, 1990 Page 10 needed to be dispersed bursed more evenly through the project. She felt the tot lot needed a bathroom. She suggested adding a powder room on the living room level of the apartments. She preferred a duplex design. Commr. Chatham generally supported the project and liked the appearance of the units from the street. He thought there were a lot of sidewalks but wasn't sure what to do differently. He supported schematic approval. Commr. Phillips was concerned with the garages but did not have a solution to the problem. She was concerned there would be too many people navigating out of garages at the same time and felt there needed to be some focused big spaces proposed. She supported providing low cost housing. Commr. Underwood also supported the low-cost housing aspect of the project. He was concerned about the proposed fencing between the apartments and the condos. He felt turning the houses towards the green was a good idea but would not work in this case. He felt proposed parking would result in an alley of cars. He thought the scale of the buildings was too large and that parking needed to be scattered with pockets of landscaping provided. Commr. Cooper felt the project looked similar to a two-story version of Los Verdes Park. He had mixed feelings about the parking and could almost support parking being viewed from the Ironbark area He suggested the possibility of staggering the buildings to create view corridors and did not want the buildings to look like the Alta Vista.Park condos. He felt a model would be helpful to explain the project. He suggested varying the colors and detailing and using duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Commr. Bradford felt the units should'have been built closer to the'park. She felt the project was totally oriented for cars and that the proposed units were not the same scale as the homes. She thought there should be a pedestrian walkways over the entire project including from Ironbark Street and to the pool area and additional parking was needed on both sides of the project. She wanted the traffic barrier eliminated. She suggested adding storage areas to the apartments and adding meaningful private open space that could include patios, clotheslines, and garden areas. She also wanted bike lockers installed. She wanted the dens reduced in size so a small deck could be added. She was concerned that the roof decks looked out onto the driveway. Commr. Morris was concerned about the alley having no proposed landscaping and the decks looking into the alley. He felt the units could possibly be turned around to eliminate this concern. He also thought the apartments couldbe broken up into duplexes and triplexes. He liked the proposed tree choices, but noted that at the ARC Minutes April 16, 1990 Page 11 beginning only the wall would be visible. He thought that parking needed to be distributed better. He liked the architectural style. Larry Robins indicated he would prefer to keep the traffic blockades. He also suggested a change to the garages. Craig Campbell felt it was possible to provided pedestrian access and stagger the buildings. Michael Cripe preferred not to break up the units any more than they.were now proposed. He felt larger planting areas would be difficult to provide by having duplexes. He said the fence between the apartments and condos is to limit maintenance and ownership concern. Commr. Bradford suggested bringing the buildings together in the middle of the site. Commr. Morris felt the representative had made a nice presentation but suggested he- walk through the Margarita condos. He wanted to see a model of the section. Commr. Bradford moved to continue consideration of the project with direction to provide alternative arrangements of the buildings on the site, larger open space areas, adding several amenities to the apartments, provision of pedestrian access from Ironbark Street, and for parking spaces to be distributed more evenly throughout the complex. Commr. Phillips seconded the motion. AYES: Bradford, Phillips, Gates. Chatham, Morris, Underwood, Cooper NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion passes. SIGNS: A. SA4173: 894 Monterey Street; signing for Kinko's Copies; C-C-H zone. Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the Monterey Street awning with canvas instead of plastic material and elimination } of the internal illumination. i ARC Minutes May 14, 1990 Page 11 The motion passes. Commr. Morris returned to the meeting. 9. ARC 89-76: 1107 Tank Farm Road; new 88-unit residential air-space condominium; R-2-SP-PD zoning pending; schematic review. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending schematic approval. Craig Campbell, Larry Robbins, and Michael Cripe, representatives, responded to the staff report and explained the project, requesting final approval. George Moylen, Housing Authority, stated that 1.1 to 12 car parking spaces per unit were proposed, not 1.5 spaces as indicated. He felt this would be adequate. He was opposed to providing outdoor bathrooms and clotheslines. He had no strong feelings Cabout the fence between the two projects. Commr. Underwood liked the revised project better but noted his main concern was still with the alleyway. He felt the architecture looked good. He suggested shifting the garages facing Ironbark so that garage pairs alternate by rows. Commr. Gates was concerned with safety due to poor sight distance at the intersection of the alleys and driveways. She wanted triolexes used instead of four- flexes, She felt the project was too dense and that more landscaping was needed in the Housing Authority parking lot. Commr. Phillips supported the project as is but with more pedestrian lighting in the Housing Authority parking area. Commr. Cooper wanted a strong directory signage program developed, possibly tied to the color scheme. He also wanted a noise buffer developed around the recreation room and pool area. He wanted to see a rain.shelter provided at the entries or transition from garage. He agreed with reducing the parking for the Housing Authority project from 13 to 1.1 and suggested staggering the garages by a half-bay horizontally. Commr. Chatham wanted sold fencing installed adjacent to the apartments and suggested omitting the outside bathroom. He wanted textured paving used in the driveway. Ci 7.0 ARC Minutes May 14, 1990 Page 12 Commr. Morris agreed with Commr. Underwood's suggestion of.alternating the garages. He wanted the planting palette individualized in each quad or court and omitting the fearing around the project which he felt would be incompatible with the - neighborhood. He suggested adding canopy planting in the parking lot. He supported reducing the parking to 1.1 parking spaces. Commr. Cooper moved to grant schematic approval with direction to increase open space, reduce amount of fencing, improve pedestrian access, and to relive the visual monotony of long rows of garages facing the central private driveway. Commr. Chatham seconded the motion. AYES: Cooper, Chatham, Morris, Phillips, Underwood NOES: Gates ABSENT: Bradford The motion passes. 10. ARC 90-39: 864 Santa Rosa Street; remodel city recreation building; PF zone; final review. Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending final approval. Don West, representative, responded to the staff report and explained the project. He noted there were no changes proposed since the last time the commission approved the project. Commr. Phillips supported the project. Commr. Gates wanted the base color 2 omitted and base color 1 used as the body color. She also wanted the other colors used as accents. She was concerned that the apricot color be selected so that it was not too bright. Commr. Cooper felt the colors should be simplified to unify the building's design. He suggested widening the chimney. Commrs. Chatham and Underwood supported final approval, .: Commr. Morris agreed with Commr. Gates on colors. He wanted to see a landscaping plan more in keeping with the architectural period of the building. MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of April 23, 1990 Meeting convened at 630 p.m. Present: Chairperson Jerry Michael, Gloria Heinz, Priscilla Graham, Mark Hall-Patton, Wendy Waldron, Leo Pinard, Bruce Sievertson, Dan Krieger. Absent: None Staff: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner Others: Loal Lorenzen, Lesa Carlsen, Craig Campbell, Carol Florence On motion of Hall-Patton, seconded by Graham, and on a unanimous voice vote, the minutes of March 26, 1990 were approved as amended. ACTION ITEMS 1. Election of Officers By unanimous voice vote, the CHC elected Bruce Sievertson as Chairperson and Jerry Michael as Vice-Chairperson. 2. Continued Ranking of Historic Properties The CHC completed its ranking of properties listed on pages 7 through 9 of the tally sheets. Mark Hall-Patton reported that he had looked at the house at 2959 Broad street and determined that it was "not significant." 3. Comment on Preservation Strategy of the Rodriguez Adobe. Terry Sanville introduced the project. Representatives of.Pacifica Corporation and their engineers and landscape architects were present to answer questions and respond to CHC concerns. After discussion, on motion by Jerry Michael, seconded by Mark Hall-Patton, the CHC moved to forward the following recommendations on to the City Council: 1. Prior to any grading or installation of subdivision improvements in the area, a historic archaeologist should be hired to evaluate the Rodriquez Adobe site,research and identify any historic archaeological resources in the area. 2. Prior to any grading or the installation of subdivision improvements, the developer should take"archival quality"photographs of the Rodriquez Adobe(minus ' the chain link fence) and make them available to the city. ?meg( Page 2 — CHC Minutes: April 23, 1990 The purpose of the photographs is to record thepre-restoration condition of the structure as well as capture its historic rural "pre-development" setting. 3. Prior to construction, the design of the dwellings that front the local loop street bordering the park should be reviewed by the CHC. This review is to address the concern that bulky two-story dwellings, as a backdrop to the adobe, may overpower the historic building and adversely affect its historic character and setting. 4. The RFP for future consultant services should be changed (re Introduction section, second paragraph) to "require" that the consultants be experts in the restoration of historic adobes. (The RFP currently indicates that this expertise is "highly desirable.") 5. The landscaping of the adobe should be in keeping with its historic character and importance. 6. The developer should be required to provide alternative water supplies to use for the landscaping of the adobe grounds and park. (Motioned Passed 7 to 1.) 4. Annual Report By general consent, the CHC approved the draft of the CHC Annual Report with the including a suggestion by Priscilla.Graham that the report note that the city is distributing copies of the Old House Journal and Historic Preservation to the City/County Library. S. Subcommittee Reports A. Historic Plaque Subcommittee Mark Hall-Patton reported on the meeting of the subcommittee to discuss the administration of the program. The subcommittee scheduled a meeting on Monday, May 79 1990 at 10:00 a.m. at the County Museum to iron out the administrative details. B. Archaeological Subcommittee Terry Sanville reported that the City Administrative Officer had signed the contract with Betsy Bertrando and that the archaelogical resource inventory study was underway. Page 3 — CHC Minutes: April 23, 1990 City Council Minutes Page 5 CWednesday, June 6, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. / C-17 PIIBLIC ART SELECTION (File No. 477) . ' Council considered the public art selection for the Marsh Street parking . structure at the corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets. Roved by Roalman/Pinard (5-0) the selection of ceramic medallions created by Michelle Griffoul confirmed and CAO authorised to enter into a contract (A49- 90-CC) with Ms.- Giffoul in an amount not to exceed $9,000.00 as recommended. C-18 RECYCLING SILL (File-No. 481) Council considerState Assembly Bill 4298 which proposes to relieve beverage container maanYacturers from paying processing fee provision of the state s beverage.etintainer recycling and litter reduction act. ed by RoalmanlPinard (5-0) Resolution No. 6818 adopted opposing Assembly Bill 4298 as recommended. PMMIC BEARINGS 1. TENTATIVE NAP - EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN (File No. 410) council held a public hearing to consider a vesting tentative map for Tract 1750 creating a 251-lot residential subdivision and an 88-unit residential airspace condominium within the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area; 1107 Tank Farm Road; R-1-SP, and C/OS-40; Pacifica Corporation, subdivider (continued from 5/1/90). Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, briefly reviewed the agenda. report with the recommendation that Council open the public hearing, take public testimony for a couple of hours, and continue the hearing to the July 3, 1990 Council meeting, with direction for clarifying any specific issues or concerns identified this evening. The recommended action at that time would be to adopt the resolution with amended conditions, if any, and introduce an ordinance to print approving the planned develpment rezoning. Councilwoman Pinard felt that the proposal should go through the Transit Manager to look at layout and accessibility for bus transportation. Councilman Roalman expressed a concern whether the Specific Plan should have been amended when the bikeway path issue was changed. Major.Dunin declared the public hearing open. Mr. Ed Lorenzo, Pacifica Corporation, reviewed the history of the project and the plans for the proposal emphasising it provide more affordable housing than required, restoration of the historical adobe, creek restoration, considerable open space, and 9.8 acres of park. John Wallace, Wallace 8 Associates, representing the Pacifica Corporation, provided a slide presentation of the project. Beverly Raves, representing Payak, Inc., read a letter into the record dated June 6, 1990, stating that the environmental impact report prepared for the original Edna-Islay Specific Plan, was not adequate for the proposed. City /N I Council Minutes Page 6 Wednesday, June 61 1990 - 7:00 p.m. development. A subsequent or expanded EIR should be prepared before project approval. She felt that a significant change to the project was the proposed routing of a bicycle and pedestrian pathway through a natural preserve, which included sensitive riparian habitat. Further,there were three candidate endangered species on the site, that of the Pacific Pond Turtle, Red Legged Frog and Two-striped Garter Snake. Judy Newhauser submitted a letter into the record on behalf of the Urban Creeks Council urging requirement of an amendment to the environmental impact report prepared for the .Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Richie Ray Walker, 28 La Entrada, was opposed to the project, particularly in light of drought. Adele Stern, 4444 Orcutt Road, was concerned about where the houses were to be built on the east side of Islay Hill, the drainage basin, the open space easement on Islay Kill, and the exception for the buffer sone to provide mitigation of noise. Mr. John Chestnut, 314 Higuera, spoke to the credibility of the turtle study offer. Robert Stern, 4444 Orcutt Road, supported the staff recommendation, but was concerned that any buildings not occur any higher on the Islay hillside than originally proposed. Peter Miller, attorney representing Northland's N.T., took exception to some comments made by Mr. Chestnut. Brett Cross, 1217 Nariner's Cove, spoke in opposition of the project, felt it would hurt air quality and traffic circulation. He felt the project should have an environmental impact report. Melanie Eillia, former Councilmember, felt that another meeting to discuss this project was in order, that there was too much information still not available. George Movian, Housing Authority, supported the project. Mayor Dunin closed the public portion of the meeting. Councilwoman RaDva suggested that staff look at CEQA compliance, new detention basins, and prepare an analysis for matching fund grants for the adobe prior to this item coming back to the Council. Councilman Roalman asked staff to report back on whether the Specific Plan changes should have required public hearings. After discussion, moved by Raova/Reiss (5-0) to continue the public hearing to date certain July 31 1990. 9:20 p.m., Mayor Dunin declared a recess; 9:30 p.m., City Council reconvened, all Councilmembers present. I G Connc Minutes Page 3 Tuesday, my 3, 1990 - 7s00 p.m. oversized ve 'cles, and conversion of loading sones to short term parking when possible. Coun 1 ::on language in the plan to require additional analysis be conducted prio to committing the Council to selecting a third parking site in the southern end the City. (lotion carried. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS L.R.1 - Councilwoman Raooa eviewed the survey results prepared for the SLO Area Coordinating Council by wnsend & Company, J. Moore Methods, and D.J. Smith Associates on voter opin s is San Luis Obispo County. Item received and filed. L.R.2 - Councilwoman Raooa requested Coun reaffirm the establishment of a Citizen's Advisory Committee to review and mak recommendations for a Downtown Revitalization Master Plan. Moved by Ravna/Dunin (5-0) that the City Administrative fiver be directed to recommend a list of qualified applicants to the Council fo appointment to a newly established C.A.C. by August 1, 1990. Z PUBLIC BEARINOS 1. EDNA-ISLAM SPECIFIC PLAA (File No. 410) J Council considered its continued public hearing to approve a vesting tentative map for Tract 1750, creating a 251-lot residential subdivision and an 88-unit residential air-space condominium within the Edna-Islay Specific plan area; 1107 Tank Farm Road; R-1-SP and C/OS-40 sones; Pacifica Corporation, subdivider (continued from 5/1/90, 6/6/90, and 6/18/90). Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, reviewed the agenda report and made the following recommendations: 1) review additional information requested by Councilmembers on the 6/6/90 meeting; and 2) direct staff to prepare an addendum and/or 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 return to Council for action. on the project application after work is completed. Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open. Loal Lorenzen, Pacifica Corporation, reviewed the project, addressed a variety of mitigation efforts, and urged support. John Wallace, Wallace and Associates, reviewed the items for which Council had previously requested additional information, and provided argument for use of an addendum to the EIR rather than a supplement. Roger P-iccust, Attorney representing the applicant, 1104 Palm Street, urged against. Council requiring a supplement to the EIR as he felt it would be City Council Minutes Page 4 Tuesday, July 31 1990 - 7:00 p.m. \I redundant. He supported the use of an addendum to update the.previously certified EIR. Ritchie Ray Walker, 28 La Entrada, was concerned that the project not go ahead due to the drought. Enrico Songio, also opposed the project at this time. Adele Stern, 4444 Orcutt Road, seas concerned about density issues and development on Islay Hill. Cheryl Hoffman, 887 Capistrano, was concerned that no approval be granted until all mitigation measures were taken. She urged denial of the tract map. George Moylan of the Housing Authority, spoke in support of the project and the benefits it would provide for low income housing. Phil Ashiv, expressed concerns about the bikelanes, would like a better playing field for the children and, urged mitigation to protect the wildlife on Islay Hill. Charlie Waldewain, Woodside Drive, urged the Council to study the turtle habitat prior to allowing approval of the project. Paul Taylor, biologist for Pacifica Corporation, spoke to the concerns raised about the turtle habitat. Robert Stern, 4444 Orcutt, stated that the ecosystem of the "site is of concern. Mayor Dunin closed the public hearing. 9:35 p.m., Mayor-Dunin declared a recess. 9:40 p.m., City Council reconvened, all Councilmembers present. Councilwoman Pinard did not think the project fits the character of San Luis Obispo. Prior vegetation had not been maintained as required and, the walls proposed for the project also were not in keeping with the City•s character and her visions for what the project should look like. Councilwoman Randa felt that an addendum should be provided for the EIR, specifically: the issue of the bike path, road alignment on the upper hillside, habitat, and detention basins be confirmed by the engineer on the project. She reminded the Council that the changes made to Tract 1376 were made by the City. She felt that preservation of the adobe on-site is important, and that the Edna area includes a housing mixture that works. Councilman Roalman felt that, although the project offered many excellant amenities, enough issues had been raised to support an expanded Environmental Impact Report. He commented that environmental concerns outweighed housing �w j concerns in this case. 7490 ti City council Minutes Page 5 Tuesday, July 3, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. i Councilman Reiss still had concerns regarding the creek habitat. He would like to seethe developers start on the remedial activities as soon as practical and, would require an addendum but not a supplement. He felt that the affordable housing that the project would provide was extremely critical. Mayor Dunin spoke in support of the project. He would support pulling of the bike path plan portion for additional review if it was necessary. Islay Hill should be used in a passive manner rather than active. After discussion, moved by Ranoa/Reiss, (3-2, Councilmembers Pinard and Roalman voting no) to direct staff to prepare an addendum to the -Environmental Impact Report for Tract 1750 for Council approval, and include necessary findings and mitigation measures to identify previous and proposed changes to the specific plan, to include but not be limited to the creek preservation area, the bike plan which now encroaches into the area, the habitat and respective species as well as mitigation necessary to protect those species; road alignments as proposed by the applicant and a confirmation of the detention basins by the original engineer; and that theaddendum return to the Council with the necessary findings. Motion carried. Councilwoman Pinard urged that staff include in the addendum a review of the access onto Orcutt Road as it relates to safety. Moved by Roalman/Pinard (2-3, Councilmembers Reiss, Rappa and Dunin voting no) `i that the addendum include water availability, air quality and solid waste. Motion failed. Councilwoman RA2pa also requested that some temporary fencing be installed. Upon general concensus Mayor Ounin authorised to write letter to the School District requesting status and time frame of new school site on Orcutt Road. 2. &PEAL-PLANNING COMISSION - DEL NORTE WAY (File No. 407) Council held a c hearing to consider as appeal by Martin & Steele of a. Planning Commission a n to deny a request to allow reduced street - yard setback from 20 feet to 1 feet for a carport at 132 Del Norte Way; Howard and Shirley walker, applicants ntinued from 6/6/90): Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dire reviewed the agenda report with the recommendation that Council adopt a reso-i ipn which would deny the appeal and uphold the decisions of the Planning Commission the Hearing Officer to deny the request for the reduced streetyard setback bas n findings indicated in the report. Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open. Shirley Walker spoke in support of her appeal. Mayor Dunin declared the .public hearing closed. • R E C E I V E L � - MEETING AGENDA ;y 112 Broad Street DATE /(f-90 M # l SEP 1 8 1990 San Luis Obispo CALIFORNIA 93405 CITYCLERKCLERK September 18, 19 SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA p,_s7T Re : Tract 1750 , Sept . 18, 1990 agenda ❑__%� sAaion [Q F. City Council �aL�J Gqp - 0mDDAt ❑ FAV.DM City of San Luis Obispo CAO ❑ FVtEQMF City Hal lTrORNEY 11FINDIR. 990 Palm St . O amuc/am p pOLKEcE MCWSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 0 RRPADFU� �� DSL Dear Council Members: ,., It is with great sadness that I see the staff's advocacy of this controversial project boil down to the sort of dust-scattering, nit-picking report submitted to you tonight . I urge you to keep firmly in mind the major issue -- that the public procedural and participatory process leading to tonight's meeting has been shortchanged in two ways: 1 . The Specific Plan amendment process has not been followed; and 2. The EIR process has been shortchanged. These points have been amply made elsewhere , and need no elaboration here . I am also saddened to see the continued factual distortions by staff , the applicants and their consultants which confuse the issues. Again , it is pointless to refute point-by-point the hysterical staff and applicant presentations, but I must point-out - four significant areas of on-going misrepresentation : 1 . The staff report again says the red-legged frog and the two-striped garter snake are covered in the previous EIR or its Appendix . This is FALSE. They are NOT mentioned, let along discussed. Under separate cover I have asked Arnold Jonas to retract this oft-repeated misinformation . The crux of this fact is that all asumptions of adequacy of the previous EIR regarding the species have been erased. This also means the present Addendum, which assumes previous discussion , is now clearly inadequate . 2. The staff report states of the three species in question: ' the EIR notes that they are species that can co-exist with humans. ' There is no such .statement in the EIR: I have asked Mr . Jonas to retract this assertion . It is, in fact , contradicted by all the scientific evidence that has been introduced: these species are at imminent danger from development , human activity and domestic pets. 3. The Addendum relies on a single letter from the Department of ^ Fish and Game's Brian Hunter to justify its endorsement of �\ Pacifica's development plans. While this letter does state the minimum conditions under which Fish and Game will grant its construction permits, no action by Fish and Game absolves the City from its responsibilities as CEGA Lead Agency to diligently perform its own envi .__nmental studies according' --, state law. There are substantial problems with relyingon this single letter as credible scientific evidence , not the least being that its permissive tone stands alone among Fish and Game letters going back to the 1970s, to cite but a few: C I . Letter of Karen Worcester, Fishery Biologist , DF&G, May 29, 1990 , calling for complete habitat studies before approval . II . Letter of Brian Hunter , Regional Manager , DF&G, Aug. 9, 1989, saying bike trail should be kept out of creek preservation area. III . Letter of E. C. Fullerton , Director , DF&G, March 7, 19809 stating " Increased human activity in the streamside habitat will result in the displacement of various species which will not tolerate interruption, " and recommending bike paths not be built near creeks. ( Included in EIR. ) .Clearly an Addendum whose conclusions are based on .such. one-sided and unique " testimony" cannot be considered adequate protection of the environental interests at stake , nor can it be expected to withstand leoal scrutiny. The Addendum's shallowness and bias make a mockery of the City's CEGA responsibilities. 4. The staff report states of the discrepancies between Tract 1750 and the Specific Pian that the former interim director determined °all of the changes were minor .' This is untrue , and the evidence exists in the staff reports for and on the tapes of the Feb. 28 and Mar. 28, 1990 , Planning Commission meetings. At the first meeting, staff mentioned a handful of Specific Plan deviations, and I pointed out many others. Staff was totally flat-footed when I did so. If there had been determinations on these issues, why wouldn' t staff simply have said so at that time? Instead, at the second meeting, Randy Rossi (no longer ICDD) made a statement about his determinations on the issues already mentioned by staff, but when pressed by me , admitted no determinations had been made on the other discrepancies. Now, however , staff claims those determinations, which Rossi publicly denied having made , were made by him. We therefore have a factual problem with staff's latest story justifying Tract 1750's Specific. Plan non-conformities. It saddens me to see our public staff reduced to permforming this sort of shoddy advocacy work for developers rather than protecting the. public interest . They seem to have lost all sense of public purpose . It is clear from the handling of Tract 1750 that there are performance problems at the staff level , as well as oversight and supervision problems at higher levels. It is also clear that the City Council has not been fed gourmet fare by the staff , and should bear in mind the abundance conflicting evidence concerning Tract 1750 which has simply been ignored, covered up , or distorted in presentations to the Council . Sincerely, �Z�� - i C L4--- Richard Schmidt C 1 � pear City Council Members'. --' �, l • This letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of'-th,6 north and easterly section of Islay Island Hill . The north portion of Islay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill faces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens for overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on the north or east baseline areas . There will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion of the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base Eine. This crucial area will not only be an important green belt, but will set future precedents for the development within the. city of San Luis Obispo. If this vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of development, they will have established a model . Individuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill and the surrounding base line, can write, phone or attend city council meetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 . 1 ) . Name . � 7 ) . Name [ :�,✓1J 'J^ ; Addres s1sYo 0 Address 2 ) . NameAli 1� � 8 ) . Name /� A310 6 c Ajc:e, wduvut /Cc� CA Address' Mf jl.,: bv,-" X7(o Address U AV)c4 6&q-e_14 3 ) . Name MAQ�ro I G 1-I/�02 10 ) . Name �y� Address Address Lo � C¢ � � �✓ 51-o, CA L7340 / ( . f 4 ) . NameS- D S 11 ) . Name j/•te,t( 114< ,N..N.V 1 � Address 2L .R f i �C ✓�S t b Address C C �� ' C( � r G R���� o �✓ w,vd � CA. 43c/ZC 5 ) . Name 12 ) . Nam C J lid /Z Address rJK- / Adcfresa 6 ) . Name ✓��,�. t vLoe, 13) . N 35ov 3u t Iu&,�4 #d C� I'3N0 ¢ Z l�a�t Sup,CA, 7o� Addreess�6b�bts Address 1 Doar City Council Members: - ..Phis letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the north and easterly section of Islay Island Hill . The north portion of Islay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of 'Islay hill faces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens for overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on the north or east baseline areas. There will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion of the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line. This crucial area will not only be an important green belt, — but will set future precedents for the development within the city of San Luis Obispo. If this vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of development, they will have established a model. Individuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill and the surrounding base line, can write, phone or attend city council meetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 1 ) . Name 7 ) . Name Address,Z�?,3 ! '�0It/{O Address 2) . Name pyJ 81 • NameC% 3 9 93 3' /4)Wd'& =r's-e, �9 Address Address � L-O��i L-4. 3$x`3 3 ) . Name 5,4n Lei Q L!slo1U`► 731101 10 ) . Name Address 3991 ;70/0-4" �17 Address Jy 7 ,L� ��1Z%- `.q,,� 4) . Name � _ 11 ) . Na me Addresst- Address C -A 9j ✓� 5 ) . Name `�`-' 4 ""� � L67 12) . Name Address Address ,�L77 SL- 6 ) . Name 1 �G '''�� 13) . Name q �ZTLy (,/A Address l��l/�.x-�� Addresses Dear City Council Members: This letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the north and easterlysection of Islay Island Hill . The north portion of Islay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill faces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens for overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on the north or east baseline areas. There will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion of the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line. This crucial area will not only be an important green belt, but will set future precedents for the development within the city,- of San Luis Obispo. If this vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of development , they will have established a model . Individuals concerned with the proposed "development of Islay Island Hill and the surrounding base line, can write , phone or attend city council meetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of .City Council Members City Council Phone Council MembeTs f 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 1 ) . Name fv,�z�7 4,ejow/�O 7 ) . Name (> Addrebs/ 74/ XIA " Address /1/17 Q,f/0C)OPd i= fI�� 2 ) ,Name Z4} e. /`7 U 8 ) . Name . rW Jc 16 �-Addres$ y �' / oiit l� i�c. S"f , Address 1/ ro rip F', M, Sctn Gcri'J ObiJ� Gam/ --)AtiS 3 ) . Name N�r....�4, Fic L L E/,f 10) . Name ' E C-l.� S`/"Yl i •. > Address 'S�"- '��'-r� �,LPo Address C f�U LC Ck- 4 ) . Name (,�� C ,q ,, 11 ) . Name 14S,3 14S tfV&W z.c ST Address LO Address d' /0 / 5) . Name. 12) . Name �- Address Address �-'>>`� 6 6 ) . Name �j�`}-)'t �+��^^ES 13) . Name Addreas mora`. ' Glo Address q a/� SLo ) C/a q3Yo Dear City Council Members: This letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the north and easterly section of Islay Island Hill . The north portion of Islay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill faces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens for overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on the north or east baseline areas. There will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion of the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line. This crucial area will not only be an important green belt, but will set future precedents for the development within the city of San Luis Obispo. If this vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of development, they will have established a model . Individuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill and the surrounding baseline, can write, phone or attend city council meetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 1 ) . Name h` �Ct_�� 7 ) . Name Address �3�(L7 .�U�V.�dVc�(s 2.i� Address Slo , �3�a 1 2) . Name 8 ) . Name Address ��/ 3 �ti �l�Li Address 5L0 X13/0 / 3 ) . Name qjr�'4 10 ) . Name Lki Address SL O C {9- R3 yv� Address 4) . Name 11 ) . Name Address Address 5 ) . Name 12) . Name Address Address 6 ) . Name 13 ) . Name Address Address Dear City Council Members: This letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the north and easterly section of Islay Island Hill. The north portion of Islay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill faces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens for overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on the north or east baseline areas. There will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion of the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line. This crucial area will not only be an important green belt, but will _ set future precedents for the development within the city of San Luis Obispo. If this vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of development, they will have established a model. Individuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill and the surrounding base line, can write, phone or attend city council meetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Sox 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 1 ) . Name M1c � —Ikv C4 I\e1 7 ) . Name 1e J Address `{�S5 Wa& Address SLO 2 ) . Name ,(1 f � &Li 8 ) . Name "1 3�0 Q Address S Address 3 ) • Name UN k &Ibi 10) . Name Address . Address 4 ) . Name 11 ) . Name Address Address 5 ) . Name 12) . Name Address Address 6 ) . Name 13 ) . Name + Address Address Dear City Council Members , _ This letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the north and easterly section of Islay Island Hill . The north portion of Islay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill faces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens for overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on the north or east baseline areas. There will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion of the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line. This crucial area will not only be an important green belt, but will set future precedents for the development within the city of San Luis Obispo. If this vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of development, they will have established a model . Individuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill and the surrounding base line, can write , phone or attend city council meetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 1 ) . Name Y� M���'., v 7 ) . Name" Cay � Scum 'hews AddressAddress 1 {13 F- SVA ys35 c,�Jc.�.a- 1-reg, 2 ) . Name 8 ) . Name G / : ' V21`Z/ j/ V"/w ✓ 115L" Y C�� �Atre.Y-frC L' Address Address 3) . Name UAt 10 ) . Name C V4pO1 Address /`4U /'�,S'I�►�OtG. Address 4 ) . Name rj Luh Dial 1.1 ) . Name �v Address' Address 5 ) . Name ����� 12) . Name Address Address 6 ) . Name 13 ame ,t.)( �CcMCc.. n ` ys35 Address Address Dear City Council Members: i Phis letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the north and easterly section of Islay Island Hill. The north portion of Islay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill faces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens for overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on the north or east baseline areas . There will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion of the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line. This crucial area will not only be an important green belt, but will set future precedents for the development within the city of San Luis Obispo. If this vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of development, they will have established a model. Individuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill and the surrounding base line, can write, phone or attend city council meetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 i l 1 ) . Name_ 7 ) . Name t L Address �`� '��` Address 2 ) . Name /�, 8 ) . Name Address c171 �a�iciC. LJ Address c/3� zr Liu ( JA ' 3 ) . Name _ �L 'L � 10) . Name Address 1!51 1zPRL(06A L Address �sC� � e���� 4t 4 ) . Name 1 l ) . NamN �k w e.,�����,AA V�'l Address ((,l G, �G� Address 1,6 �CL)64 5 ) . Name �> / 12) . Name Address �J.Z '7`�//Cf:� �IJ�zG Address/ Il 6 ) . Name J&PL nn�„j,.�s�y,, 13 ) . Name Address 9i III�C /�� )� j/ Address s � Dear City Council Members: - Phis letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the north and easterly section of Islay Island Hill. The north portion of Islay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill faces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens for overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on the north or east baseline areas . There will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion of the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line.. This crucial area will not only be an important green belt, but will set future precedents for the development within the city of San Luis Obispo. If this vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of development, they will have established a model . Individuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill and the surrounding base line, can write, phone or attend city council meetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 Q- n C� 1 ) . Name �T���`�--' 7 ) . Nam47V-711 C-e—e-41J. Address Address lav-t'l,►&O^e i oZ I() L) �- SL-Uj UA. (I4-61 a 2 ) . Name 8 ) . Name ;w C� � yv'S aEgAa A. 82rAKedluj� LY Address Address 1%9 13102 PO 13dX �-� s,.o 93Y06 cSayzLuis O,b�sP�. Q 3 ) . Name �, j��/ �P�j � 10 ) . Name / )4xa. AL Address 4(35"1' l.ii9'✓6ZPW Address /4035 5 L-0 q ND/ S L- D 4 ) . Names ��� ,,,pVyR 11 ) . Name Address (e 8 (-W4 S¢,rvk% iDr• Address 5) . Name �i. 12) . Name ; y AuILI Address Fik/M ST Address q*a6a Wai�2te cC� `� 6 ) . Name 13) . Name Address 2$;�l Lt4kM+/� U&Y ` ✓": Address ear City Council Members:{ his letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the orth and easterly_ section of Islay Island Hill . The north portion of slay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill aces the developed section of Wavertree. Lane. The concerned citizens or overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment plan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on .he north or east baseline areas. 'here will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion )f the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line. This crucial area rill not only be an important green belt, but will set future. )recedents for the development within the city of San Luis Obispo. If :his vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members ►long with planners will not have to look for new standards of ievelopment, they will have established a model . [ndividuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill ind the. surrounding base line, can write, phone or attend city council neetinga. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 1 ) . Name ��. IJ r� C56 v 7 ) . Name /�, I/ � Address 1 Address 1 ' ' �) 2 WGUt'✓�✓ee S. L13`01 2 ) • Name---- 8 ) . Name 'L13L(� WAUrF-Z tFF-&.1 Address' Cn ' Ci 3y Address 3) . Name 10) . Name /,/ --V/ . Address Address 5/,f 310 60,4VeXr erd�T s7zo 0-0, 919140/ 4 ) . Name l _ 11 ) . Name `1 . I Address Address ''x.3)6 L4-)c_wC14YC9- 5`F. S�> cA 5) . Name O C 12) . Name Address Address 3.110 �I.t/arrvv�.�.e .•d� . Ca . 13 1-10 � 6) . Nam 13) . Name Address Address y300 i,. ULs77-T su).)e -- C13` V) 10 -ear City Council Members : - ,his letter, along with a petition, concerns the development of the .orth and easterly section of Islay Island Hill . The north portion of .slay hill faces Tank Farm Road and the easterly section of Islay hill aces the developed section of Wavertree Lane. The concerned citizens or overdevlopment of vital green belt areas , call for a redevelopment )lan for the Islay Island Hill area. We ask that no homes be built on :he north or east baseline areas. 'here will not be a second chance to set aside the south eastern portion )f the Islay Island Hill and surrounding base line. This crucial area ;ill not only be an important green belt, but will set future )recedents for the development within the city of San Luis Obispo. If :his vital hill and base land is set aside now, future council members along with planners will not have to look for new standards of ievelopment, they will have established a model . [ndividuals concerned with the proposed development of Islay Island Hill ind the surrounding base line, can write, phone or attend city council neetings. All three of the above methods are equally important if the Islay Island area is going to be set aside as a greenbelt area. Address of City Council Members City Council Phone Council Members 549-7111 P.O. Box 81 San Luis Obispo 93403 1 ) . Name ��1"lv1 L1�rL.Q/��i 7 ) . Name Address ` � G �LGe�?.P1 Address 2 ) . Name 8 ) . Na `a, -,0-,. AddressAddress � Z A- A � 3 ) . Name �/j/� �/��J 10 } . Name. U. Address • J f4CL Addressk/ � � : � r �6wh0�. 11 ) . Name 4 ) . Name C �� � Address 'L 1 I q C kv- fhtAl-5� . 5L-() Address No GtLavJ�F� n 5) . Name � � 12) . Name l ,e�" / Address Address / / /� ��•, (/C�� / 441� 6) . Name 1► 13) . Name Address r� Address September 17, 1990 TO: City Council FROM: Bill Roalman RE: Tract 1750 Tract 1750 does not conform to the Edna-Islay Specific Plan in several Important aspects and should be denied. Specific "major" deviations Include: 1. Routing the bikeway through the creek protection area. 2. Houses at higher elevations than called for in the Specific Plan. Also, the Specific Plan calls for the roadway to be the urban edge along the base of Islay Hill. The proposed plan has houses forming the urban edge. 3. The railroad buffer has been reduced significantly. Before these changes are approved, there should be an application to amend the Specific Plan and public hearings. I feel the project's environmental impacts on landfill capacity, municipal water supplies, and riparian habitat necessitate a Supplemental EIR. Approving..this project without allowing the public to comment on the adequacy of the addendum defeats the purpose of open government.