HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-2013 ph1 vesting tentative map tract 3044
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (TRACT 3044) TO CREATE 80 LOTS, A
MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE THREE UNDERLYING PARCELS, AND AN INITIAL
STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AT 3725 ORCUTT ROAD (CITY FILE NOS.
MS/TR/ER 137-11).
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 11), which approves the Vesting Tentative map, based on
findings, and subject to conditions; and
2. Consistent with Public Resources Code §21080.7, determine that no additional
environmental review is required as the tentative map is in a urbanized area, and the project
involves the construction of housing or neighborhood commercial facilities that is consistent
with a specific plan that has a certified EIR and that has been adopted not more than five
years prior and the initial study prepared for the project identified no new impacts.
SITE DATA
Applicant Wingate Holdings, LLC
Representative Orton Engineers
Zoning R-2-SP, Medium-Density
Residential; and R-3-SP, Medium-
High Density Residential (all with
the Specific Plan overlay)
General Plan Medium-Density and Medium-
High Density Residential
Site Area 10 acres
Environmental
Status
An initial study of environmental
impact was prepared to
document the project’s
consistency with the certified EIR
for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
(OASP).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant is proposing to develop a 10-acre site in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan with a
residential development that provides for a variety of housing types and neighborhood amenities. A
total of 142 individual residential units are proposed including 45 single-family homes, 33 single-
Meeting Date
Item Number October 1, 2013
PH1 - 1
Council Agenda Report – Vesting Tentative Map No. 3044; 3725 Orcutt Road
Page 2
family attached terrace homes, 12 loft-style apartments, and 52 senior flats. The submitted Vesting
Tentative Map (VTM) 3044 includes a total of 80 lots with individual lots for all of the single-
family product types (78 total), a single lot for the 64 multiple family units, and a single lot for the
public park. This is the first development proposal to move forward through the City review
process since the Orcutt Area was annexed to the City on November 16, 2011.
The applicant is providing a significant contribution toward the City’s affordable housing supply by
including 30 units within the project that will meet affordability standards for moderate, low or very
low income households. The project is eligible for a 33% density bonus, which enables the project
to include the proposed 142 units. The affordable units within the project are being funded
privately without assistance from the City’s affordable housing fund or tax credit financing.
City s taff has worked over the last two years with the project applicant team to refine the proposal,
including the proposed street network and infrastructure, to provide a quality design and meet City
standards. The applicant has demonstrated a commitment to create a new sustainable community
with a site plan that includes pedestrian connections, a one-acre park, and residential services such
as a day care center and convenience store. The development also has incorporated energy
conservation features including photo-voltaic solar panels and rain barrels for units.
On August 28, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and has forwarded a
recommendation for VTM approval to the City Council based on its compliance with OASP
guidance and other City standards. The Planning Commission staff report has been attached to
provide background on the OASP, an expanded project description, and detailed information on
density, affordable housing, and development standard waivers, as well as subdivision features such
as grading, drainage, streets and utilities (Attachment 4). This report provides a summary of the
project review by advisory bodies as well as a more detailed update on the main issues raised with
discussion of the project at hearings.
DISCUSSION
Project Review
The project application process started shortly after the Orcutt Area was officially annexed to the
City in November 2011 with the applicant’s request for a pre-application review. Official project
applications for entitlements, including environmental review, the vesting tentative map, and
architectural review were submitted about a year later in November of 2012.
On May 6, 2013, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) received an introduction to the
overall project design. The ARC’s discussion of the project focused on pedestrian access, parking
& architectural styles. The ARC did not take any formal action on the project, but the meeting
follow-up letter and minutes which include the Commission’s preliminary comments are attached
(Attachment 7).
On August 1, 2013, an informational meeting was held with property owners in the OASP to allow
staff to provide background on the project components and describe the review process.
On August 28, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the project. The main issues discussed
PH1 - 2
Council Agenda Report – Vesting Tentative Map No. 3044; 3725 Orcutt Road
Page 3
were:
1) Affordable Housing - The timing of development for the affordable units and
guarantees for their eventual completion; and
2) Street Designs – Conditions were added to increase the street sections to include more
on-street parking and sidewalks.
With modifications to findings and conditions to respond to these main issues, the Planning
Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the parcel map and VTM
(see Attachment 6). The Commission found that the initial study of environmental impact
adequately evaluated the project’s consistency with the OASP and appropriately tiered off of the
OASP EIR. In addition, the Commission made a second motion recommending that the ARC, with
their review of the overall project design, look for opportunities for shared driveways and pay
attention to the streetscape of the row house units.
On September 4, 2013, the Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed the proposed park
development within the project (see Attachment 8) and discussed its proposed use as a City park.
The PRC supported the design of the park, however, providing credits as a public park could not be
made and the PRC did not find it consistent with section 2.3.4a of the Specific Plan. The PRC was
concerned that the City was bearing the cost of the amenities that benefit the homeowners in the
development, rather than the community as a whole.
Affordable Housing Density Bonus & Incentives
On August 20, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1591 which provided various changes
and updates to the Zoning Regulations. Through this ordinance, Section 17.90.060 which outlines
incentives for affordable housing projects was updated to be consistent with provisions of State law.
Based on the level of affordability provided within the project and the inclusion of an early
education and care facility (children’s day care center), the applicant is eligible for a 33% density
bonus and three incentives.
The August 28, 2013 Planning Commission report (Attachment 4) provides a detailed discussion of
the project density, proposed density bonus and property development waivers. In summary, the
site which is zoned both R-2 and R-3 has an allowable density of 102 units which is based on the
net acreage excluding streets and the proposed park. The applicant’s 33% density bonus was
achieved by the inclusion of the senior apartments (20% bonus) plus the project’s percentage of
moderate for-sale affordable units (13% bonus). The density bonus brings the project’s allowed
density to 136 density units. The applicant is proposing a total of 132 density units with the variety
of housing types included in the project. This number of units is below the 136 density units
allowed with the density bonus.
The applicant’s affordable housing plan for the project is included as Attachment 9. The three
requested incentives are:
1) Deferral of payment of all Citywide and OASP impact fees until the Certificate of
Occupancy for each residential unit.
2) Waiver of application and development review processing fees for all affordable units.
3) Waiver of any parkland requirements or fees beyond the provision of the fully improved one
acre pocket park within the project.
PH1 - 3
Council Agenda Report – Vesting Tentative Map No. 3044; 3725 Orcutt Road
Page 4
The requested incentives are consistent with the examples of eligible alternative incentive proposals
for affordable housing projects listed in Section 17.90.060 of the City’s Zoning Regulations. The
first incentive request is to defer payment of applicable impact fees until the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for all units in the project. Typically impact fees are collected with the
issuance of building permits for individual units. As mentioned, the project is privately financed,
including the affordable housing units, without the assistance of the City. Deferring the impact fees
assists the developer with upfront costs for construction of both market rate and affordable units.
The deferral of payment will take more staff oversight and programming to accomplish
successfully, but is something that is a reasonable request as the fees will ultimately be paid, just at
a later time. The Housing Programs Manager will need to assist the Building Division in setting up
a system prompt when the final inspection request is made to alert the developer that the Certificate
of Occupancy will not be issued until the required fees are paid.
On August 20, 2013, the City reduced wastewater and water impact fees approximately 40% which
has a significant impact on the financing of the project. The recent change to reduce wastewater
and water impact fees is an overall benefit for the project. Staff supports deferring impact fees for
all affordable units and that the details regarding the scope of fee deferrals are determined through
the Affordable Housing Agreement. Condition No. 1 in Section 4 of the Draft Resolution stipulates
that: “The specific terms for the deferral of Citywide and OASP impact fees and the range of units
that will benefit from this deferral shall be to the review and mutual agreement of the City’s
Community Development, Utilities, and Public Works Directors and incorporated into the project’s
Affordable Housing Agreement (Condition No. 53 in Section 3).”
The second incentive request for the waiver of application and development review processing fees
is consistent with City Council Resolution No. 8415 (1995 Series), which exempts development
review processing fees for very low and low income units. The aforementioned Condition No. 1 in
Section 4 of the Draft Resolution also notes that the specific details and terms for the waiver of
processing fees be included in the project’s Affordable Housing Agreement.
The third incentive to completely waive parkland requirements or fees is a more complex request.
The applicant’s proposal is to dedicate the one-acre park site within the development to the City as a
public park with the completed improvements and to enter into a long term joint use agreement
between the City and the Developer for maintenance and operation costs of the park. With their
review of the applicant’s park proposal on September 4, 2013, the Parks & Recreation Commission
found that the proposed pocket park did not meet the requirements included in OASP Program
2.3.4a to qualify as a City facility.
Community Development staff continues to see a benefit to the project to include the park as a
community amenity. While the Parks & Recreation Commission did not recommend that the
proposed park be accepted as a public facility, there is guidance in the City’s Subdivision
Regulations for inclusion of private recreation facilities in projects to offset parkland obligations.
Section 16.22.070 of the Subdivision Regulations allows for up to one-half of a parkland dedication
or in-lieu fees otherwise required to be waived for a private recreation facility approved as part of a
project which provides permanent open space and facilities comparable to those customarily found
PH1 - 4
Council Agenda Report – Vesting Tentative Map No. 3044; 3725 Orcutt Road
Page 5
in local parks. Staff finds that this code provision has application to the subject proposal in that it
provides an option for the park to move forward as a private facility and still legitimately reduce the
applicant’s obligation to pay park-in-lieu fees. The reduction of the park-in-lieu fees for providing
a private recreation facility is consistent with an existing code provision and also satisfies the
applicant’s request of an allowable incentive. Since at least 50% of the park-in-lieu fees would still
be collected under this provision, the project would still be contributing to area-wide park
amenities.
OASP Table A-2 estimates the development potential for ownerships in the OASP area. A range of
91-96 was estimated for the project site. With the proposed 33% density bonus, the project is
providing a total of 142 units. Therefore, parkland fees for the site will be increased from what was
originally estimated in the OASP. This circumstance supports the applicant’s request to reduce
their parkland obligation through an allowed incentive. Condition 3 in Section 4 stipulates that the
specific terms of the incentive shall be to the approval of the City’s Community Development,
Parks & Recreation, and Public Works Directors in consultation with the Parks and Recreation
Commission during the review of the final design of the project.
Section 2 of the Draft Resolution includes references in Findings 1 and 5 to the development
standard waivers, density bonus, and incentives being “reasonably necessary to facilitate the
production of affordable housing units.” Section 4 of the Draft Resolution provides a separate
section approving the proposed density bonus and incentives, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
The Planning Commission reviewed and considered a number of minor development standard
waivers related to lot standards of the OASP and Subdivision Regulations to accommodate the
project’s proposed mix of housing. The request is for a 47-foot building height for the proposed
mixed-use Atelier Building, as shown on Sheet 10 of the project packet and in Table 4 included in
the Planning Commission staff report on Page 9 (Attachment 4). State and City affordable housing
statutes indicate that these development standard waivers shall be supported by the City to enable
the development of the project unless there are specific health and safety issues created and that
they shall neither reduce nor increase the number of incentives to which an applicant is entitled.
The Commission concluded that these requested waivers were appropriate and included the
aforementioned Findings 1 and 5 in Section 2 of the Draft resolution supporting their approval.
Project Streets – Sidewalks & Parking
The ARC with their introduction to the project on May 6, 2013 expressed concern that there was not
sufficient parking within the project for guests, specifically for the attached row houses with their
clustered design and the lack of available on-street parking. The Planning Commission also made
the topic of the street sections within the project a focus of their discussion in terms of the desire to
add more on-street parking and additional sidewalks.
Several of the project streets are narrower that typical City standards and therefore are shown as
private, rather than public streets, While the Planning Commissions recognized the desire to
minimize the areas dedicated to streets and hardscape with the project, they also were concerned
that the project provide adequate parking amenities in the development for both guests and
residents.
PH1 - 5
Council Agenda Report – Vesting Tentative Map No. 3044; 3725 Orcutt Road
Page 6
To address the concerns, Condition 13 is included in the Draft Resolution (Attachment 11) which
directs that final map and subdivision improvement plans show changes to project street sections to
allow for parking and/or sidewalks on at least one side of the street.
Citizen Participation
Two letters were received during the course of the public review hearings that are included as part
of Attachment 10. The first letter indicates concern with development of this site and others in the
area related to traffic generation and congestion.
Staff’s Response: The project was determined to be developed compliant with density requirements
and infrastructure consistent with the OASP. Therefore, the traffic impacts were fully evaluated
with the OASP EIR. Consistent with the OASP, Condition 4 in Section 2 of the Draft Resolution
requires that the applicant install a center left turn lane and transitions on Orcutt Road with the first
phase of development.
The second letter is from Cannon Associates, representing the owners of the property directly to the
north of the project site. The letter indicates their overall support for the project, but also requests
that street and pedestrian connections between the project site and their property take into
consideration their planned lot and street layout.
Staff’s Response: Staff noted to the Planning Commission that the letter from the neighbors had
been submitted the day of the hearing and that the project had not been submitted yet for City
review. Therefore, the Commission noted, as reflected in the minutes, that the project would not be
conditioned to make changes to accommodate the neighbors’ as yet non-vetted plan. However, the
Commission did add Finding No. 6 in Section 2 of the Draft Resolution, which reads: “With review
of the final map, minor adjustments to the pedestrian system to align better with the property to the
north may be made with the approval of the Community Development and Public Works Directors.”
CONCURRENCES
This item was distributed to various City departments and comments received have been included
as conditions and code requirements where appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found
that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may deny the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency with the
General Plan and/or the Orcutt Area Specific Plan as specified by the Council.
PH1 - 6
Council Agenda Report – Vesting Tentative Map No. 3044; 3725 Orcutt Road
Page 7
2. The Council may continue review of the project, if more information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicants.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Project Plans
Attachment 3: Initial Study (ER 137-11)
Attachment 4: 8-28-13 Planning Commission report
Attachment 5: Director’s Specific Plan Adjustment letter regarding sewer service dated 6-6-13
Attachment 6: 8-28-13 Planning Commission follow-up letter, Resolution 5585-13 & draft
minutes
Attachment 7: 5-6-13 ARC follow-up letter & minutes
Attachment 8: 9-4-13 Parks & Recreation Commission draft minutes
Attachment 9: Applicant’s Affordable Housing Plan
Attachment 10: Correspondences (Dia Hurd & John Evans)
Attachment 11: Draft Resolution
Distributed to Council: 11” x 17” project plans
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-10-01\Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3725 Orcutt (Johnson-Ricci)\Council Agenda Report 10-1-13.docx
PH1 - 7
PH1 - 8
Attachment 2
PH1 - 9
Attachment 2
PH1 - 10
Attachment 2
PH1 - 11
Attachment 2
PH1 - 12
Attachment 2
PH1 - 13
Attachment 2
PH1 - 14
Attachment 2
PH1 - 15
Attachment 2
PH1 - 16
Attachment 2
PH1 - 17
Attachment 2
PH1 - 18
Attachment 2
PH1 - 19
Attachment 2
PH1 - 20
Attachment 2
PH1 - 21
Attachment 2
PH1 - 22
Attachment 2
PH1 - 23
Attachment 2
PH1 - 24
Attachment 2
PH1 - 25
Attachment 2
PH1 - 26
Attachment 2
PH1 - 27
Attachment 2
PH1 - 28
Attachment 2
PH1 - 29
Attachment 2
PH1 - 30
Attachment 2
PH1 - 31
Attachment 2
PH1 - 32
Attachment 2
PH1 - 33
Attachment 2
PH1 - 34
Attachment 3
1
City of San Luis Obispo
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # 137-11
1. Project Title:
Atelier Residential development plans including Vesting Tentative Map #3044
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
805-781-7168
4. Project Location:
3725 Orcutt Road
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Wingate Holdings LLC c/o Orton Engineers
1686 Ramona #F
Grover Beach, CA 93433
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium & Medium-High Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Medium & Medium-High Density Residential with the Specific Plan overlay (R-2-SP & R-3-SP)
8. Description of the Project:
The project proposes a variety of housing product types including, single family detached, duplex
units, single-family attached row houses, loft style apartment units and apartment style senior
housing units. 30% of the allowable density in the project is proposed affordable units and 42%
of the allowable density in the project is proposed special needs senior housing. The affordable
PH1 - 35
Attachment 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 2
units are distributed throughout the development in a non-distinguishable manner and include
affordable units in all residential product types proposed within the project. Affordable units will
include homes for moderate, lower and very low-income non-senior and senior households.
The R-3 portion of the site includes an expanded convenience store, an early education and care
facility adjoining a public park all of which provide pedestrian oriented services and open space
to the subject development and surrounding areas. Both convenience store and daycare uses are
allowable in the R-3 zone.
The project includes pedestrian ways, covered bicycle staging area, a bus turnout with covered
staging area and traffic calming features to promote the pedestrian friendly environment
envisioned by the OASP and the subject community. The approximately one-acre park,
envisioned as the “hub” of the community, achieves multi-purpose/multi use functions including
biological enhancement and drainage mitigation, play/turf area, open space, public art, seating
areas, paths and plaza space for community events, thereby providing both active and passive
recreation amenities for the future residents of the subdivision and the overall community as a
whole.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site consists of about 10 acres of grassland that has historically been used for grazing
and suburban residential uses. Within VTM 4033, there are three detached single-family
residences with access to Orcutt Road via a private roadway. The existing homes on the site,
which are serviced by septic and well systems, along with the accessory structures will be
demolished to accommodate development of VTM 4033.
Immediately to the west of VTM 4033 are two R-3-SP zoned sites within the OASP that are
currently used for suburban residential and intermittent grazing purposes. To the north and south
of VTM 4033 properties immediately adjacent are zoned R-2-SP and are additionally located
within the OASP and used for suburban residential and/or intermittent grazing purposes. To the
east, a growing garden and low-density residential uses are located within the jurisdiction of the
County of San Luis Obispo.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
Air Pollution Control District – grading permits
PH1 - 36
Attachment 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife,
or habitat (see attached determination).
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
PH1 - 37
PH1 - 38
Attachment 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 5
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
PH1 - 39
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 6
Attachment 3
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 --X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
1 --X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1 --X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1, 2 --X--
Evaluation
a) The primary scenic value from within and around the subject site is the view to the east and south including Righetti Hill.
The project site is situated within the relatively flat lower valley areas of the OASP. With the proposed scale and height o f
planned development and its distance from the main scenic corridors, the project will not create a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista.
b) It is part of the main objective of the OASP EIR to protect natural habitats, including creeks, hills, wetlands, and corri dors
between these habitats. The subject site is currently used for low density residential uses and in the past has accommodated
animal grazing. The site is mostly sloping grassland and does not contain any unique scenic resources that will be
compromised or lost with development. Therefore, the impact is less than significant for this project.
c) The existing visual character or quality of the site will change from semi-rural to an urbanized area pursuant to and
consistent with the objectives of the OASP. The project is required to be consistent with the distribution of land uses and
design standards stated in the OASP to ensure that the appearance of the development is acceptable and that no new buildings
block scenic views. Therefore, the project as proposed is consistent with the OASP and in this regard is self-mitigating.
Through conditions of approval the project will be further required to comply with City codes and standards some of which
impact aesthetics. Ultimately the design will require the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commi ssion (ARC)
to ensure consistency with the City’s Community Design Guidelines as well as the OASP. Regardless, the proposed
development would contribute to the project wide effect on the aesthetic character of the site vicinity through alteration of
view-sheds from Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads. The OASP EIR considered this a cumulative significant and unavoidable
impact and considered and approved overriding considerations.
d) The prior OASP EIR acknowledges that future development pursuant to the OASP will introduce new sources of light,
glare and nighttime illumination, as is typical with residential and commercial development. However, the OASP EIR
determined that such light and glare impacts can be mitigated to less than significant at the site specifi c project stage through
compliance with lighting design standards set forth in the OASP and with other adopted standards as may be applicable by
other City regulations. The new light source subject to mitigation will not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
urbanized area. Therefore impacts from new sources of light or glare will be less than significant with mitigation AES -3(a) as
specified in the OASP EIR to be implemented through compliance with the OASP Community Design standard of Section 4 -
16-Lighting and accompanying conditions of approval. Building and parking lot lighting for the project will also be reviewed
and approved by the ARC in compliance with the aforementioned standards of the OASP and Chapter 17.23 of the City’s
Zoning Regulations (Night Sky Preservation Ordinance).
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program o f
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1 --X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
--X--
PH1 - 40
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 7
Attachment 3
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
3 --X--
Evaluation
a) Although the proposed project would permanently convert soils that have been defined by the City as prime agriculture
lands, the value of the Orcutt Area’s agricultural land resources, as measured by the LESA Model, is not considered
significant. Therefore there is no impact.
b) There is no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect on the subject site.
c) The project site has not been actively farmed in decades, but rather has been used for grazing and low density residential.
Therefore, this project will not result in any direct loss of productive farmland. Other lands in the vicinity of the projec t site
are either already developed, or if within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and in agricultural use, are slated by the Plan for
eventual non-agricultural use whether this project proceeds or not. Therefore, this project has no direct correlation to any
planned conversions of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses
was evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements and the OASP as
significant, irreversible, adverse impacts that could not be mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding
Considerations were adopted by Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, policies of the Land
Use Element were adopted to help compensate for, and thereby reduce the impacts from prod uctivity lost as a result of the
conversions to non-agricultural uses. This project complies with said policies by being consistent with approved land use
designations for the site. Thus the impact is less than significant.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
1 --X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
--X--
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
--X--
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
--X--
Evaluation
a-e) According to the prior OASP EIR, project construction will generate short -term emissions of air pollutants.
Construction-related emissions would primarily be dust (particulates) generated from soil disturbance and combustion
emissions generated by construction equipment. Such dust generation was determined to be a potentially short -term
significant impact on air quality that could exceed established state and federal thresholds for regional or local air quality or
otherwise conflict with City and County air quality plans or programs. In addition, the project site is situated near existi ng
residential units thereby potentially exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The OASP EIR also
noted long-term (“operation”) air quality impacts would result from on-going emissions generated by the project-related
vehicular trips, as well as additional natural gas combustion for sp ace and water heating and additional fuel combustion at
power plants for electricity consumption.
The OASP EIR concluded that implementation of the Plan, with mitigation measures AQ - 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 3(a,
3(b), 3(c) and 3 (d) would reduce the dependence on automobiles and improve energy efficiency decreasing emissions.
PH1 - 41
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 8
Attachment 3
The proposed project is self-mitigating in these regards because the applicant has asserted commitment to compliance with the
mitigation measures prescribed and has additionally provided non-car-centric design elements to encourage pedestrian
circulation exceeding the requirements of the OASP. Additionally, the project has made further commitment to exceeding
Title 24 requirements by 30% and approximately 40% of the power needs of the development are provided by solar
assistance. This component of the applicant’s project description/proposal together with conditions of approval assure
mitigation measures set forth in the prior EIR are brought forward to this project. Th us, the project is self-mitigating and the
impact is less than significant.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1 --X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
--X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
--X--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3 --X--
Evaluation
a), b), f) The EIR prepared for the OASP conducted biological resource impact analyses and d id not identify adverse impacts
for the subject site which contains no riparian habitat, wetlands or sensitive habitats.
c) There are no significant specimen or heritage trees on the property. Thus there is no impact from this project.
d) The project site does not contain any waterways; therefore, there would not be any effect on fish species. Due to the
relatively poor soils, simple vegetation type (non-native grassland), and general lack of vegetative diversity, the subject site
does not have high habitat value for wildlife species. Therefore, it is not expected that the development would interfere
substantially with the movement of any native wildlife species.
e) The project will not result in the removal of heritage trees or adversely affect sensitive resources. Therefore, the
development is consistent with City General Plan policies and the OASP.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
1 --X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
--X--
PH1 - 42
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 9
Attachment 3
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
--X--
Evaluation
(a-b) The OASP EIR included an on-site survey of the subject project area and no historic or archeological resources were
identified. Development of the site will be subject to course of development and construction mitigation monitoring
requirements contained in the OASP and OASP EIR to address any unknown subsurface resources which may be discovered
during grading operation of the site. Thus, the project impact is less than significant.
c-d) The project site is located in an area that does not contain any unique geological feature and possesses no known unique
paleontological resources. The project area has been part of two general cultural resource field surveys. As a result of these
field surveys, there are no known historical or archaeological resources that are associated with the project site. Therefor e
there is no impact.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
1 --X--
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X--
IV. Landslides? --X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
4, 11 --X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
--X--
Evaluation
a)- d): The OASP EIR found that all the above-stated effects from implementation of both plans would be less than significant
and therefore the OASP EIR conducted no further evaluations. There is no new evidence to suggest there would be any site -
specific impacts that were not adequately anticipated or evaluated in the prior environmental documents. The preliminary
grading plan proposes balanced cut and fill, minimizes the need for tall retaining walls, ad generally respects site contours ,
The final grading plan of the proposed subdivision will be in accordance with the Geotechnical Engineer’s recommendations
and the California Building Code adopted by the City and modified by City regulations. Thus, the project impact is less than
significant.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1 --X--
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
5, 14 --X--
Evaluation
PH1 - 43
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 10
Attachment 3
In addition to the analysis regarding Air Quality impacts, the OASP EIR also included a discussion of strategies for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and provided a project-specific emissions inventory. The City does not have specific
adopted project thresholds for GHGs, but did recently adopt a Climate Action Plan (CAP), which like the aforementioned
OASP EIR section on GHGs, provides guidance on project desi gn and other sustainable practices to reduce emissions. The
applicant completed a CAP compliance checklist which outlines the many design features of the project that constitute a
qualified GHG reduction strategy. Therefore, the project is consistent with EIR guidance on reducing GHGs as well as the
CAP; therefore, the impact is less than significant.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1 --X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
--X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
6 --X--
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), d): The OASP EIR determined no hazardous materials, substances or waste exist on the subject site. Thus there is no
impact.
c) The project site is not located within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus there is no impact.
e) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Thus, there is no impact.
f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). In its adoption of the OASP, the City Council found the OASP to be consistent with the
ALUP, and ultimately received the endorsement of the Airport Land Use Commission. The OASP includes performance
standards for avigation easements for tracts (3.5.2g) and real estate disclosures to potential owners and renters. The tract map
approval includes these requirements as conditions of approval. T herefore, because the subject project and proposed uses and
PH1 - 44
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 11
Attachment 3
densities are compliant with the OASP, and the project will be conditioned per the OASP performance standards; there is not
a significant impact.
g) The OASP project and its proposed circulation and land use plan has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who has
recommended conditions of approval which will assure compliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. The project
as designed will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plans of the City. Thus there is no impact.
h) The project site is not in an area identified as subject to wildland fire hazards. Thus there is no impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
1 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site?
7 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
7, 12 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
7 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
8 --X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
8 --X--
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 3 --X--
Evaluation
a) f) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. According to the prior OASP
EIR, development associated with the project will require issuance of an NPDES general construction activity storm water
permit by the Central Coast RWQCB. Completion of this project would ensure tha t construction-related discharges are
limited or adequately accommodated by properly engineered infrastructure design. Thus, the impact is considered less than
significant.
Because ongoing use of the project area for residential and commercial uses would also increase the potential for discharge of
chemicals, oils and fuels, and waste into projected waterways; the requirement for the implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) must be established to greatly reduce the potential for unwanted runoff. Therefore, implementation of the
PH1 - 45
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 12
Attachment 3
BMPs on the project will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not use or deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level. Thus, there is no impact.
c), d), e) According to the prior OASP EIR, construction of the proposed project as part of the OASP would result in an
increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and amount of surface water runoff to increase. However, the
project is subject to the revised City Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan that discusses the necessary
improvements that would ensure adequate transmission and detention of storm water flow created by any new development
and thus potential impacts resulting from increased development–related run-off was determined by the OASP EIR to be less
than significant, and no mitigation required. To ensure that runoff levels will be equal to or less than existing levels, all sto rm
water runoff will be contained in detention facilities and basins within the subdivision and drained at a rate not to exceed the
2-year undeveloped flow rate. The design, location, and maintenance of the detention facilities and basins will be subject to
the approval of the City Engineer. Thus, the impact of the project is less than significant.
g), h), i), j) The project does not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or other flood hazard
delineation map or may impede or redirect water flows that will cause a flood hazard to surrounding areas. The subject site is
not in a location where it would be susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Thus there is no impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1 --X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
3 --X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
--X--
Evaluation
a) The project will create a variety of new residential units in accordance with the OASP. Therefore, the project will not
physically divide an established community because it is a logical and orderly extension of the planned land uses per the
OASP and is compatible with established development within the surrounding area. Thus there is no impact.
b) The project is planned and designed to coincide with the OASP land use designations on the site for Medium Density
Residential and Medium-High Density Residential. The distribution of units across the site and the lot designs proposed with
the subdivision are consistent with the applicable land use designations. The specific boundaries of the R-2SP and R-3SP
zones will be determined by the subdivision submittal in conformance with the Specific Plan. Thus, there is no impact.
c) The project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Thus, there is no
impact. (See related discussion above under Part 4. Biological Resources.)
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
1, 5 --X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
--X--
Evaluation
PH1 - 46
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 13
Attachment 3
a-b) The project will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans nor will it promote the use of non-renewable
resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The future development of the site must comply with the policies contained in
the General Plan Energy Element that states: “New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the
provision and protection of solar exposure.” The project exceeds these requirements through inclusion of a 30% increase
above Title 24 requirements for all structure, approximately 40% of the power needs being provided by solar assistance and
incorporation of many “Cal Green” recommendations. A full overview of these features is provided in the project application.
The project will also be subject to Architectural Review that will ensure consistency with City energy conservation goals,
policies, and regulations. This impact is less than significant.
c) There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the Sta te.
There is no impact.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
1, 3 --X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
6 --X--
--X--
Evaluation
a) According to the OASP EIR, the proposed project is located in an area zoned for residential land uses that are predicted t o
be exposed to traffic noise levels that exceed the Noise Element standard of 60 decibels (dB). This is particularly true for
lots adjacent to Orcutt Road which functions as a major north-south arterial, connecting Johnson Avenue and Tank Farm
Road and carries large volumes of traffic. Consequently, to reduce the effects of such traffic related noise to sensitive
residential receptors, the OASP established goals, policies and programs to reduce noise exposure of new sensitive receptors
within the Orcutt Area to meet City Standards. The Specific Plan includes a spe cific program to contribute to mitigating
cumulative impacts. Implementation of the program must occur prior to home occupancy for development pursuant to the
Specific Plan. Regardless, noise impacts were determined significant and unavoidable impact in the OASP EIR and
corresponding Overriding Considerations were considered and approved.
b) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive ground -borne noise levels or vibrations. Thus, there is no
impact.
c) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels, but not to significant levels, since by operation of
mitigation requirements set forth in a) above, noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to threshol ds
determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Therefore, impacts to permanent ambient noise levels are less than
significant.
d) Project construction or other temporary or periodic noise generation may result in temporary increases (spikes) in ambient
PH1 - 47
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 14
Attachment 3
noise levels. Since there is no way to predict the origin or duration of these types of noise sources for this development, it can
only be regulated if found to be a nuisance by the City’s Noise Ordinance. The project by reference acknowledges that it wil l
comply with Mitigation Measure N-1 (a) which references the City’s Noise Ordinance in terms of construction hours and
techniques to reduce noise levels. Thus, the impact is less than significant.
e) The project is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and is subject to the County Airport
Land Use Plan. According to the prior OASP EIR, the project is not within the 60 or 65 dBA -CNEL contour line. The OASP
EIR and Plan finds the impact is adverse, but less than significant.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
--X--
--X--
Evaluation:
a) The added population growth caused by this project is within the General Plan’s projection and will not result in population
exceeding local and regional growth projections. Therefore, the impact of inducing substantial population growth to the
planning area would be less than significant.
b) c) The project site is currently contains three market rate month-to-month rented dwelling units. Tenants will be provided
90-day notice, in lieu of required 30-day notice, to assist in relocation. City of San Luis Obispo has sufficient rental housing
stock available for relocation. Thus, there is no impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the co nstruction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1 --X--
b) Police protection? --X--
c) Schools? 1, 9 --X--
d) Parks? --X--
e) Other public facilities? --X--
Evaluation
a), b), d), e) The OASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the OASP will not result in any significant
impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to offset service needs through the City’s Development
Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in the OASP;
therefore, the conclusion was that no further mitigation was necessary. Since the project has been designed consistent with
the OASP, development will not result in any adverse impacts to these services. The project will not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for , new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which might have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the OASP, the
project is subject to City and OASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of
development projects to offset costs associated with increases in demand of public services. Thus, the impact is less than
significant.
c) The State has the authority to collect fees at the time of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition
and school construction, and said fees, when collected by local school districts, are deemed by State law to provide adequate
mitigation for school facility requirements. Section 65955 of the G overnment Code prohibits the City from denying a
PH1 - 48
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 15
Attachment 3
subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district to mitigate effects associated with inadequat e
school facilities. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the p roject are considered to be mitigated by the
district’s collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance for each residence and commercial building. Thu s,
there is no impact.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1 --X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1 --X--
Evaluation:
a) & b) The build-out of the project will add to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. The OASP has
anticipated this demand by designating certain sites within the Plan area for a “Neighborhood Park” for active recreational use
and other areas for “Open Space” for more passive recreation/aesthetic amenities (e.g. walking or bicycling paths and trails)
intended more for use by adjacent or nearby residents.
Figure 2.4 in the OASP shows the overall Open Space and Parks Plan. This plan designates the option for local parkland
dedication on the project site for consideration in meeting the park needs of the project. OASP P olicy 2.3.4 states: “Provide
property owners within the Orcutt Area that want to provide parkland on their properties an opportunity to do so through the
subdivision review process.” Consistent with the aforementioned plan and policy, the applicant is proposing an approximately
one-acre park in the western portion of the project site. The subdivision additionally proposes internal pedestrian paths and a
bicycle staging area. Given that this is the first subdivision to move forward in the OASP, these featur es were incorporated to
provide subdivision residents pedestrian oriented access to parkland and paths during build -out of the overall specific plan.
With these on-site amenities, future residents are not dependent on build-out of other parcels for providing nearby park
facilities. The OASP EIR determined that while build-out of the OASP will generate increased demand for recreational
facilities, the impact is less than significant with the development of additional parks and open space per the OASP. Thus, the
construction of the project will have a less than significant impact on parks or other recreational facilities.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1 --X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
--X--
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
--X--
PH1 - 49
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 16
Attachment 3
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Evaluation
a), b) The subject project, as well as all other development that occurs in the future pursuant to t he OASP and the City
General Plan will increase traffic in the area. Based on the traffic study prepared for the Program EIR, development of the
Orcutt Area is expected to add 628 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to Orcutt Road between Johnson Avenue and Tank Fa rm
Road at build-out. The project is estimated to ultimately generate approximately 741 Daily Trips, 61 AM Peak Trips and 65
PM Trips that will utilize the adjacent (and future) roadways. Because the project is being constructed early on in the
development life of the OASP area, traffic patterns from the project will be different initially than long term since the internal
street system of collector roads will not be connected until other projects occur. This will cause higher volumes
(approximately 21%) on Orcutt Road and Johnson initially because of the limited access points from the subdivision. Using
this adjustment, initial trips that will be assigned to the roadway networks will be approximately 900 ADT, 73 AM Peak and
91 PM Peak hour trips. Levels of service on Orcutt Road will not change and no additional through traffic lanes on Orcutt
Road between Johnson and Tank Farm are anticipated .
Because the project is being developed sooner rather than later in the phasing of the OASP (OASP shows as Phas e III area)
the project proposes to construct an additional temporary access point to Orcutt Road for egress and Ingress since other
internal roads have yet to be constructed. Although this could be considered an additional access point not identified in t he
OASP document, staff has reviewed the proposal and has determined the temporary access is appropriate until such time as
alternative access roads are completed to the project. At that time the project will be responsible for closing the access to
Orcutt and converting it to an emergency access point only with bicycle and pedestrian connections. The project will install an
additional turn lane on Orcutt Road to separate turning traffic from through vehicles for this interim access point...
The Circulation Plan of the OASP (as well as the Circulation Element of the City General Plan) identifies the essential
primary road system that will be needed to accommodate development within the plan area and surrounding growth areas of
the City. The OASP EIR determined that the roadway plans of these planning documents are for the most part self-mitigating
in that 1.) Roadway alignments, road extensions, and new intersections are designed and will be built in response to traffic
projected at build-out and, 2.) Development projects in the OASP areas will also contribute their fair share either through
adopted Traffic Impact Fees, OASP development impact fees, assessments or dedications to specified roadway
improvements.
In summary, the proposed project would add vehicular trips to streets that serve as entry/exit routes to the project site. These
streets with the given improvements specified in the City’s adopted planning documents and with the addition of new
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for the project will serve to accommodate the added vehicular
traffic. Thus, the impact from this project is less than significant.
c), d) The Orcutt Area Specific Plan will require that the project provides roadways that are designed and developed in
accordance with adopted City standards thereby assuring predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and
provide adequate emergency access. Thus, there is no impact as result of the project.
e) The project is subject to the City’s parking requirements as it is outlined in the OASP for each land use. The project build-
out is required to fulfill all necessary parking requirements. Thus, there is no impact.
f) The project provides improvements to implement the City adopted policies to encourage alternative means of
transportation. The project includes pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and staging area and a mass transit bus stop with cover ed
seating. These path system, bicycle staging area and bus stop meet or exceed the requirements called for in the OASP. Thus,
there is no impact.
g) The OASP has already been found to not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).
Therefore, as the subject project complies with the pertinent requirements of the OASP regarding allo wed land uses and
development densities and standards, the project is not in conflict with the ALUP. Thus, there is no impact from this projec t.
PH1 - 50
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 17
Attachment 3
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1 --X--
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1 --X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
1 --X--
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
1, 10,
13
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
--X--
Evaluation
a), b), c) The OASP EIR determined that implementation and build -out of the OASP will not result in any significant impacts
related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and concluded
that such impacts related to build-out of the OASP were less than significant and no mitigation was deemed necessary. The
build-out under the OASP will be similar to that anticipated and projected in the City General Plan. The subject project
proposes to provide all water, sewer, and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject project, including
distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the OASP facility master plan and the City’s Storm
Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan. There is no new evidence that the subject project, as intended by the OASP
will result in any adverse impacts to these service systems nor exceed RWQCB wastewater treatment requirements. In
addition to the on-site utility service infrastructure required with the development, the project is subject to City and OASP
established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs
associated with off-site city-wide utility system impacts related to needed periodic maintenance and upgrades. Thus, there is
no impact.
d) Provisions in the City General Plan, specifically the Water and Wastewater M anagement Element, and OASP to insure that
increased water use by new development will not cause inadequate water service to existing and future customers. This
project is also subject to water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its share of constructing
additional infrastructure needed to support additional facilities. More specifically, the project is subject to the citywide water
impact fees. Thus, compliance with the City and State standards and requirements will assure that impacts related to water
supplies are less than significant.
e) The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed sewer lines in the vicinity and within the project site have
sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be required to construct on-site sewer facilities according to
the Uniform Plumbing Code standards. The project proposal includes an alternate connection to the wastewater collection
system which is allowable within the OASP subject to specific criteria. The proposal for sewer service shows that the sewer
main would extend down the south side of the project site then continue along the south side of the adjacent property to the
west to Bullock Lane. This alignment parallels the “B” street main shown on the OASP Wastewater Plan (Figure 6.2) which
is located on the south side of the adjacent property to the south of the project site. After submittal of a detailed sewer
analysis and numerous meetings and consultations with City Utilities Department staff, the submitted proposal to provide
PH1 - 51
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 137-11 (VTM 3044; Atelier)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2010 18
Attachment 3
sewer service for the project and possible connections for other nearby property owners was supported. The Community
Development Director issued a letter approving a Specific Plan Adjustment approving the alternate ali gnment for the sewer
line. The MASP defines an adjustment as “minor changes to specific features of the OASP that do not significantly alter the
development type and still meet the intent of the Plan.”
The alternate sewer proposal meets the criteria for a Specific Plan Adjustment and does not result in any impacts to existing
service. An added benefit of the sewer proposal is that a wastewater line in need of deferred maintenance will be replaced
with the development of the project with installation of a new sleeve and line between Bullock Lane and Capitolio Way under
the Southern Pacific Railroad. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the
City’s Water Reclamation Facility. The fees are set to offset potential impacts associated with increases in demand and use
by each new residential unit in the project. Thus, there is no impact.
f) Solid waste collection within the City will be provided by a private operator under a City franchise and disposal is expec ted
to continue at Cold Canyon Landfill until 2018. The project must be consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and
Recycling Element which requires that recycling facilities be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction
plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project is
also required by the ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project. Thus,
there is no impact.
g) The project will fully comply with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Th us,
there is no impact.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
--X--
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
--X--
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
PH1 - 52
Attachment 3
19
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
In 2010 the City of San Luis Obispo certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
(OASP). The subject proposed VTM #3044 property lies within the boundaries of the OASP. Theref ore, this prior OASP
EIR evaluation considered impacts and mitigation related generally to potential development of the subject site and others
pursuant to the OASP. The prior OASP EIR, certified by the City Council along with the adoption of the OASP on March 2,
2010, by Resolution No. 10154 (2010 Series), contained a variety of mitigation measures to be incorporated as discrete
components of the OASP or as policies or development standards to be implemented through site-specific development
proposals. Appendix C of the OASP list the require mitigation measures for projects.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Lead Agencies (the City) to use the analysis of general matters
contained in a broader EIR, such as for a general or specific p lan, with later environmental documents incorporating by
reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the initial study discussion solely on the issues
specific to the later project. The environmental assessment approach is referred to as “tiering”.
The environmental analyses above for VTM #3044 take into account the environmental conclusions of the prior EIR as they
are applicable to the proposed site-specific project. As such, mitigation measures adopted in the prior EIR that are applicable
to the subject site-specific project, and therefore must be incorporated into the proposed project to effectively mitigate the
prior identified impacts, are listed below. Many of the applicable mitigation measures required by provisions of the OASP
have been incorporated by the applicant into the actual project subdivision design, making the project “self -mitigating” in
these instances.
The Orcutt Area Specific Plan and Final Program EIR is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 and is also on the City’s website.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorp orated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific
conditions of the project.
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION
Operational Phase Mitigation
AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is required by
Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The following energy-
conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant demonstrates their infeasibility to the
satisfaction of City Planning and Building Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation
beyond Title 24 requirements; orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade
trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material with a
solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection Agency/Department of Energy Energy
Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use
energy efficient interior lighting; use solar water heaters; and use double-paned windows.
AQ-1(b) Transit. Bus turnouts and shelter improvements with direct pedestrian access shall be installed at all
PH1 - 53
Attachment 3
20
bus stops.
AQ-1(c) Shade Trees. All parking lots shall include shade trees within the parking area. There shall be at
least one shade tree for every six vehicle parking spaces.
AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed with internal
wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and telelearning to occur simultaneously
in at least three locations in each home.
AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by pathways to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with operational phase mitigation measures will be reviewed with the subdivision plans and
accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings.
Construction Phase Mitigation
AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction related
equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce combustion emissions from
construction equipment where a project will have an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre.
Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development Department and
Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan showing the area to be disturbed and a
description of construction equipment that will be used and pollution reduction measures that will
be implemented. Upon confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD,
appropriate CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features shall occur prior
to Specific Plan construction.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction equipment and portable
engines are properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer's specifications.
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off-road and portable diesel powered
equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes,
generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor
vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed off-road diesel is acceptable).
Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on each of the two
pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Installations must be prepared
according to manufacturer's specifications.
AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during all
Specific Plan construction:
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever wind speeds exceed 15
miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible.
All dirt-stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.
Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan revegetation
and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil
disturbing activities.
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
PH1 - 54
Attachment 3
21
grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established.
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with CVC Section 23114.
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks
and equipment leaving the site.
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible.
AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil
stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to
prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin.
AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1 acre, the contractor
or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order
increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall include
holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
• Monitoring Program:
These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant will also be required to
secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD) before the onset of grading or demolition
activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring
Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance
of a grading or building permit from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone
number of the person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and
Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by the
requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but not be
limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing
around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for
trees removed including replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall prepare a
brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners Association (HOA)
members about the impacts associated with non- native animals, especially cats and dogs, to
PH1 - 55
Attachment 3
22
the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform potential homebuyers and all HOA
members of the potential for coyotes to prey on domestic animals.
B-6(c) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce invasive
non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final landscaping plan shall be
reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-
IPC) maintains several lists of the most important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be
used when creating a plant palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not
used. The following plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans
pursuant to development under the Specific Plan:
• African sumac (Rhus lancea)
• Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata)
• Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
• California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius)
• Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula)
• Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus)
• Edible fig (Ficus carica)
• Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum)
• French broom (Genista monspessulana)
• Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis)
• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)
• Myoporum (Myoporum spp.)
• Olive (Olea europaea)
• Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata)
• Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia)
• Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus)
• Spanish broom (Spartium junceum)
• Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T. ramosissima)
• Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
• Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla)
Monitoring Program:
Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping plans as part of the architectural review
submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction drawings.
CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project construction,
an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for construction workers associated
with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing
unexpected archaeological resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is
encountered.
An archaeologist shall monitor construction grading within 50 meters (164 feet) of the two isolated
PH1 - 56
Attachment 3
23
finds. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are exposed during project
construction, all earth disturbing work within 50 meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily
suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find.
After the find has been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc.), work in the
area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to monitor any field
work associated with Native American cultural material.
If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Monitoring Program:
Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and
construction.
NOISE MITIGATION
N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall be compliant
with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section 9.12.050(6)]. Methods to
reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to, the following:
Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can be shielded
with a barrier.
Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors and equipped
with factory-recommended mufflers.
Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air compressors and
similar power tools.
Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment.
Monitoring Program:
Requirements for construction noice mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and
construction.
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. Orcutt Area Specific Plan (March 2010), and Final EIR (December 2009)
2. City of SLO Zoning Regulations (August 2012)
3. City of SLO Unified General Plan
4. 2010 California Building Code including City’s 2010 Construction Code Amendments
5. City of SLO Climate Action Plan (August 2012)
6. Airport Land Use Plan amended May 2005
7. City Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan
8. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
9. Section 65955 of the Government Code (State school fees)
10. Letter to Terrence Orton from Derek Johnson dated 6-6-13
11. Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. dated 1-16-13.
12. Preliminary drainage report dated January 2013 by Orton Engineering, Inc.
13. Sewerage Calculations dated January 2013 by Orton Engineering, Inc.
14. CAP compliance checklist for project
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-10-01\Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3725 Orcutt (Johnson-Ricci)\ER 137-11 Initial Study final version 8-22-13 with PW Dev Rev edits.doc
PH1 - 57
Attachment 4
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a Vesting Tentative Map (Tract 3044) to create 80 lots, a minor subdivision
to create three underlying parcels, and an initial study of environmental impact.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3725 Orcutt Road BY: Pam Ricci,Senior Planner
Phone Number: 781-7168
E-mail: priccii@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: MS/TR/ER 137-11 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), which recommends approval
of the project to the City Council, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant Wingate Holdings, LLC
Representative Orton Engineers
Zoning R-2-SP, Medium-Density
Residential; and R-3-SP, Medium-
High Density Residential (all with
the Specific Plan overlay)
General Plan Medium-Density and Medium-
High Density Residential
Site Area 10 acres
Environmental
Status
An initial study of environmental
impact was prepared to
document the project’s
consistency with the certified EIR
for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
(OASP).
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to develop a 10-acre site in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan with a
residential development that provides for a variety of housing types and neighborhood amenities. A
total of 142 individual residential units are proposed including 45 single-family homes, 33 single-
family attached terrace homes, 12 loft-style apartments, and 52 senior flats. The submitted Vesting
Tentative Map (VTM) 3044 includes a total of 80 lots with individual lots for all of the single-
family product types (78 total), a single lot for the 64 multiple family units, and a single lot for the
public park. This is the first development proposal to move forward through the City review
process since the Orcutt Area was annexed to the City on November 16, 2011.
Meeting Date: August 28, 2013
Item Number: 1
PH1 - 58
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 2
The project application process started shortly after the Orcutt Area was officially annexed to the
City in November 2011 with the applicant’s request for a pre-application review. Official project
applications for entitlements including environmental review, the vesting tentative map, and
architectural review were submitted about a year later in November of 2012. On May 8, 2013, the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) received an introduction to the overall project design.
The ARC’s discussion of the project focused on pedestrian access, parking & architectural styles.
The ARC did not take any formal action on the project, but the meeting follow-up letter and
minutes which include the Commission’s preliminary comments are attached (Attachment 6). On
August 1, 2013, an informational meeting was held with property owners in the OASP to allow staff
to provide background on the project components and describe the review process.
City staff has worked over the last two years with the project applicant team to refine the proposal,
including the proposed street network and infrastructure, to provide a quality design and meet City
standards. This report provides a summary of the project and includes as attachments more detailed
documentation of the affordable housing program and other features. Staff is recommending that
the Planning Commission adopt the attached draft resolution which recommends approval of the
proposed parcel map and VTM to the City Council based on its compliance with OASP guidance
and other City standards.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The applicant is requesting approval of the VTM 3044 to create 80 lots which will enable the
individual sale of the single-family detached and attached homes. Approval of a vesting tentative
map confers a "vested right" to develop in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and
standards in effect when the application was determined complete per Chapter 16.34 (Vesting
Tentative Map) of the City’s Municipal Code and Sections 65920, 66474.2 and 66498.1 of the
California Government Code.
The VTM will also set the official zoning boundary between the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts on the
site. The Commission with their review of the VTM will be examining the lotting pattern, street
network, infrastructure, and density of the proposed project. In conjunction with the VTM, the
applicant has also submitted a parcel map to create three parcels for financing purposes. The
Commission will also be reviewing the initial study of environmental impact which documents the
project’s consistency with the OASP and the EIR prepared to analyze the development of the
Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission with the review of the parcel map and VTM will provide a
recommendation to the City Council which takes final action on the maps.
2.0 SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND
On March 2, 2010 the City Council certified the Final EIR for and approved the OASP. This action
by the City Council included approval of both text and map amendments to the City’s General Plan,
and rezoning the subject site to R-2-SP and R-3-SP (Medium-Density & High-Density Residential
with the Specific Plan Overlay). On November 16, 2011 the OASP area was annexed into the City
of San Luis Obispo.
PH1 - 59
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 3
The overall goals of the Specific Plan are to:
Develop a new residential neighborhood to meet the City’s housing needs.
Provide a variety of housing types and costs to meet the needs of renters and buyers with a
variety of income-levels, including affordable housing for residents with low and very-low
income levels.
Protect and enhance Righetti Hill, creek/wetland habitats, and visual resources in open space
areas.
Provide a variety of park and recreational facilities for residents of the Orcutt Area.
Phase the proposed development so that public facilities are developed concurrently with
each new phase in a rational and cost effective fashion.
Encourage the use of bicycles and walking within the Plan Area by incorporating
bicycle/pedestrian paths and lanes along the roads and through the parks and open space
areas.
Protect the new residents from railroad noise by including a buffer between the railroad and
the new residential areas. The buffer area will include a regional detention system consisting
of floodable terraces and will provide recreational opportunities with a landscaped
bicycle/pedestrian path system; and to identify a visual and noise setback for new residents
on Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road by incorporating a landscape buffer with a pedestrian
path along these road frontages.
Provide goals and identify mitigation and related Environmental Impact Studies.
Some of the tenets of the OASP are to: integrate with existing surrounding development in terms of
use and scale, provide open space, protect sensitive natural resources, create a pedestrian friendly
environment, and provide a new source of housing affordable and diversified housing within the
City of San Luis Obispo. The OASP sets the land use and development parameters for future
development and the tract maps set the infrastructure, circulation, and lotting patterns.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site consists of about 10 acres of grassland that has historically been used for grazing
and suburban residential uses. Within VTM 4033, there are three detached single-family residences
with access to Orcutt Road via a private roadway. The existing homes on the site, which are
serviced by septic and well systems, along with the accessory structures will be demolished to
accommodate development of VTM 4033.
Immediately to the west of VTM 4033 are two R-3-SP zoned sites within the OASP that are
currently used for suburban residential and intermittent grazing purposes. To the north and south of
VTM 4033 properties immediately adjacent are zoned R-2-SP and are additionally located within
the OASP and used for suburban residential and/or intermittent grazing purposes. To the east, a
growing garden and low-density residential uses are located within the jurisdiction of the County of
San Luis Obispo.
PH1 - 60
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 4
3.2 Project Description
As the first development in the OASP in the center of the planning area, the provision of street
access and utilities was carefully thought out and planned for. Proposed development is planned to
occur in phases with detached single-family homes closer to Orcutt Road (R-2 zoning) preceding
the smaller, denser housing types at the back of the site (R-3 zoning).
The project proposes a variety of housing product types including, single family detached, duplex
units, single-family attached row houses, loft style apartment units and apartment style senior
housing units. 30% of the allowable density in the project is proposed affordable units and 42% of
the allowable density in the project is proposed special needs senior housing. The affordable units
are distributed throughout the development in a non-distinguishable manner and include affordable
units in all residential product types proposed within the project. Affordable units will include
homes for moderate, lower and very low-income non-senior and senior households.
Figure 1 – Overall Project Site Plan
The project includes pedestrian ways, covered bicycle staging area, and a bus turnout with covered
staging area to promote the pedestrian friendly environment envisioned by the OASP and the
subject community. The approximately one-acre park, envisioned as the “hub” of the community,
achieves multi-purpose/multi use functions including biological enhancement and drainage
mitigation, play/turf area, open space, public art, seating areas, paths and plaza space for community
events, thereby providing both active and passive recreation amenities for the future residents of the
subdivision and the overall community as a whole.
R-2 Zoning - Single Family Homes
Forty-five, one- and two-story, single-family homes are proposed in the northeastern portion of the
project within the R-2 zoning district. Forty-one are detached and four will be duplex homes. The
homes range in size from approximately 1,500 square feet to over 2,900 square feet. While garages
are front-loaded, the variation of setbacks, highly distinguished architectural statements, building
forms, varying front wall planes, material selections, window articulation, distinctive roof designs,
PH1 - 61
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 5
overhangs and deeply set garage doors reduce the predominance of the garages on the street scene.
R-3 Zoning
The R-3 portion of the site includes an expanded convenience store, an early education and care
facility adjoining a public park all of which provide pedestrian oriented services and open space to
the subject development and surrounding areas. Both convenience store and daycare uses are
allowable in the R-3 zone.
Row Houses
Thirty-three single-family row houses are proposed in the western portion of the project
surrounding the park. Each home includes a private back yard; the units abutting single family
homes are located on split pads to minimize the amount of grading and need for retaining walls, and
allow for an at grade, level rear yard immediately accessed from the living area. The three and four
bedroom homes range in size from approximately 1,300 to 1,800 square feet and include two car
garages in either a side-by-side or tandem configuration as well as three and four car tandem
configurations.
Atelier Building
The Atelier mixed-use building is proposed to be completed in the final construction phase of the
project. Specific plans for the building design like those for other housing prototypes would need
to be approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The building is planned in a
podium style with below grade parking. The largest portion of the building with four stories would
be located in the southwestern corner of the site. This part of the building would include the
neighborhood convenience store and the children’s day care center with the 52 senior apartments
(flats) on upper floors. The northern portion of the building will include a total of 12 two-story to
three-story loft homes with individual garages beneath.
To provide visual relief and pedestrian connectivity between the two portions of the building, a
promenade level landscaped pedestrian path will be provided (above the below grade garage)
between the townhouses and multi-use building. This promenade will provide a physical and visual
connection between the park, Roadway A, and public transit. The building will read as three
separate structures with complementary, yet distinguished, architectural facades. The building
interfaces with the park both visually and functionally and also provides an anchor and entry to the
project from Roadway A.
The northern lofts will be configured with individual entries facing Roadway A, garages under with
access from the rear. 10 of the 12 loft units will be physically connected to the promenade deck of
the four story building and the remaining two units will be located along Roadway A and the
northern perimeter of the property. Each unit will be provided private outdoor use area.
Uses within the 4 story portion of the Atelier buildings(s) include:
• 52 senior apartments are provided on floors two through fourof the building. The flat style
units may be either studio or one and two bedroom configurations and will range in size
from approximately 500 square feet to approximately 1,000 square feet. The adjacent park,
PH1 - 62
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 6
bicycle staging area, trail connections and bus turnout will provide residents quick and
convenient access to recreation, daily convenience needs and “non-car-centric”
transportation modes. All units will be provided exterior terraces or balconies.
• The Early Education and Care Facility will accommodate approximately 84 children and
is proposed on the first floor of the Atelier Building. The 5,000 square-foot facility will
include four to six rooms and provide early education and care services to children of all
economic sectors. The facility’s location provides immediate access to the trail system, park
and mass transit to encourage alternative transportation opportunities. However, a joint use
turnout on Roadway A will provide a convenient drop off/pick up location for parents. This
facility will be offered with a long-term lease and completed tenant improvements to a
successful operator with a proven track record of providing quality daycare and early
education services. Non-profit operators will be given priority in the selection criteria.
• The General Store/Convenience Commercial will occupy approximately 5,000 square feet
of space and provide residents of the community with a small coffee house and deli and
direct access to daily convenience needs, limited groceries, and packaged and/or prepared
foods. Given the direct orientation onto the park plaza, a joint use agreement will be
established between the operator and the City for the placement of seats tables and benches
on the plaza.
The applicant is requesting that the building be allowed to exceed the 35-foot maximum height
threshold for the R-3 zone. The specific request is that a building height of up to 47 feet above
natural grade be allowed consistent with previously approved market rate and affordable projects
within the City. Staff’s evaluation of this request is discussed in Section 4.4 of this report.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS (Environmental & Land Use)
4.1 Environmental Review
Section 65457 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that once the EIR has
been certified and the specific plan adopted, any residential development project, including any
subdivision or zone change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with the specific plan
is exempt from additional CEQA review. The OASP Final EIR contained numerous mitigation
measures which are required to be brought forward and incorporated into the tiered environmental
assessment prepared for site-specific projects. An initial study of environmental impact was
prepared for the proposed project to document its consistency with the OASP and to identify the
required mitigation measures from the EIR that applied to this development site.
With the preparation of the OASP, the project site was not identified as having any unique or
sensitive habitats, its average cross slope is under 10% and it does not contain any creeks or wetland
areas. The Initial Study (CAR Attachment 3) did not identify any significant environmental impacts
associated with the project that would require the preparation of a subsequent environmental
document. The Community Development Director with his review of the initial study
acknowledged that a new environmental document was not required because any significant effects
had been analyzed adequately in the OASP EIR and avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR.
PH1 - 63
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 7
4.2 Density
Figure 13 of the OASP shows that most of the site has been designated as R-2, Medium Density
Residential, and that the western portion of the site that borders “A” street is designated as R -3,
Medium-High Density Residential. OASP Section 9.3 notes that the boundaries between
designated land uses may need to be adjusted through the subdivision map review to reflect the lot
pattern in the development. In the case of the subject project, the boundary between R-2 and R-3
zoning is shown on the VTM and follows the lot lines between the single-family attached row-
houses and the single-family, mostly detached homes.
Chapter 16.18 of the City’s Subdivision Regulations states that the design of lots shall be based on
intended use and that lot lines be contiguous with zoning boundaries. Consistent with this guidance,
the proposed boundary between the R-2 and R-3 zoning for this site which places the principally
single-family detached homes in the R-2 zoning category and the attached row houses in the R-3
zoning is a logical location. OASP Policy 3.2.8 states that “the majority of medium-density
residential should be comprised of detached and attached single-family homes.” The proposed row
houses that are located in the proposed R-3 zone are consistent with OASP Policy 3.2.13 that states:
“Multiplex dwelling units may consist of attached units with a maximum of eight units per building
(either rental or for-sale units).” The proposed row houses will have 5-7 units per building and
will have small ground lots and be individual for-sale units.
The 10-acre project site includes about 6.25 gross acres of R-2 and 3.75 gross acres of R-3 zoning.
Deducting for streets, and in the case of the R-3 parcel, the park, the net acreage of R-2 is 5.4 and
R-3 is 2.05. While the gross acreage of R-3 is larger than that depicted in Figure 13 of the OASP,
the net acreage is consistent with the land uses allocation shown in the OASP taking into
consideration the area dedicated to the park. The resultant allowable density numbers for the R-2
zoning is 65 for the R-2 and 37 for the R-3 for a total allowable density of 102.
Table 1 - Site Density Calculations
Site Density Calculation
Gross OASP Net Units/ Allowable
Zoning Acres Streets/Parks Acres Acre Density
R-2 6.25 0.85 5.4 12 65
R-3 3.75 1.7 2.05 18 37
Total Allowable Density before Bonus
102
As described in further detail in the following section, the applicant is including 30 affordable units
within the project. This allows the applicant a 33% density bonus which brings the project’s
allowed density to 136 density units. OASP Policy 3.1.b notes that density calculations are
simplified from typical Zoning Regulations standards in that any dwelling with two or more
bedrooms counts as 1.0 density unit (as opposed to the 1.5 for three bedrooms or 2.0 for four
bedrooms). Policy 3.1.c states that density is calculated based on the net site area prior to
subdivision rather than a lot-by-lot basis to accommodate the smaller lots allowed within the Orcutt
Area.
PH1 - 64
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 8
The applicant is proposing a total of 132 density units with the variety of housing types included in
the project. This number of units is below the 136 density units allowed with the density bonus.
4.3 Affordable Housing
Policy 3.3.2 requires that: “Each development within the Orcutt Area shall construct a minimum 10
percent of moderate income affordable dwelling units (ADU) and 5% low income ADUs at the time
of development, or dedicate land for affordable housing.” The applicant has committed to including
ADUs within the project and the proposal exceeds these minimum requirements.
Table 2 below summarizes the proposed housing in the project by dwellings or total individual units
in the project by type.
Table 2. Project Housing Distribution (Dwellings)
TRACT 3044 PROPOSED HOUSING DISTRIBUTION
Unit Type Size Bedrooms Market Moderate Lower Very Low Total
SFD 1500-2500 3 to 5 43 2
45
Row Houses 1400-1600 3 to 4 29 4
33
Lofts 1100-1500 2 to 3 8 2 2
12
Senior 500-1100 1 to 2 32 12 6 2 52
Totals
112 20 8 2 142
Since most of the proposed 142 individual units in the project have two or three bedrooms, they
count as 1.0 unit as noted from the earlier citation of OASP Policy 3.1.b. However, there are some
one-bedroom senior apartments that have a lower equivalent density value of 0.66; therefore, the
total number of project density units is 132. The details are shown in Table 3 below. As discussed
in the previous section, this proposed density is under the allowed threshold of 136 units.
Table 3. Project Housing Distribution (City Density Units)
TRACT 3044 PROPOSED HOUSING DISTRIBUTION
Density on Bedroom Counts
(Studio .5du, 1Br .66du, 2Br 1 du)
Unit Type Size Bedrooms Market Moderate Lower Very Low Total
SFD 1500-2500 3 to 5 43 2 0
45
Row Houses 1400-1600 3 29 4 0
33
Lofts 500-1200 2 to 3 8 2 2 0 12
Senior 500-1100 1 to 2 22 12 6 2 42
Totals
102 20 8 2 132
Affordable percentages*
20% 8% 2% 30%
The applicant’s 33% density bonus was achieved by the inclusion of the senior apartments (20%
bonus) plus the project’s percentage of moderate for-sale affordable units (13% bonus). The project
because of its proposed affordability levels and features such as child day care center and senior
apartments qualifies for up to three concessions or incentives. Chapter 17.90 of the City’s Zoning
Regulations includes the City’s Affordable Housing Incentives. This Chapter was recently
modified to comply with State law and approved by the City Council.
Specific development standard waivers are discussed in this report. Other incentive requests
PH1 - 65
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 9
discussed with the applicant relate to the timing and applicability of various development and
impact fees. A more specific analysis of these requests will be reviewed by the City Council with
their review of the project.
4.4 Development Standard Reductions/Waivers
The applicant is requesting minor modifications to lot standards of the OASP and Subdivision
Regulations to accommodate the project’s proposed mix of housing, along with a request for a 47-
foot building height for the proposed mixed-use Altelier Building, as shown on Sheet 10 of the
project packet and in Table 4 below:
Table 4. Development Standard Reductions/Waivers
ZONE
LOTS
AFFECTED OASP STANDARD REQUIRED
MODIFICATION
REQUESTED RATIONALE
R-2SP 27, 38, 45 Corner lot width 50 ft min. 46 ft min Plan adjusted to accommodate pedestrian path.
Required adjustment to maintain density and
affordability
R-2SP 1,7-19,22,26 Max. Lot Size 5,000 sq ft 7,223 sq ft max Needed to support unit mix which supports
affordability as proposed. Also needed to
accommodate site configuration and site development
R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Min. Lot Size 5,000 sq ft 972 to 2,072 sq ft Needed to support the density for the affordability and
to accommodate the traditional row house concept
R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Coverage 60% 65% Needed to support the density for the affordability and
to accommodate the traditional row house concept
R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Depth 80 ft 54 feet Needed to support the density for the affordability and
to accommodate the traditional row house concept
R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Width 50 ft 18 to 37 ft Needed to support the density for the affordability and
to accommodate the traditional row house concept
R-3 SP Lot 79 Max. Height 35 ft 47 ft Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot
sufficient land for public park
R-3 SP Lot 79 Lot Coverage 60% 80% Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot
sufficient land for public park
R-3 SP Lot 79 Rear Yard 15' 0 to 15 ft varies Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot
sufficient land for public park Setback additionally
needed for proper interface of park with building
Note: most homes access off of private ways versus public streets thus 6' setbacks to private ways for lots 44 thru 76 are not considered to
require a waiver of setback requirements as well as minimum 10' garage door setbacks on lots 5 and 8. These are determined t o be conforming
due to being on private ways and front yard setbacks are measured from public streets.
State and City affordable housing statutes indicate that these development standard waivers be
supported by the City to enable the development of the project unless there are specific health and
safety issues created. The various waiver requests are discussed in the following paragraphs:
Single-Family Detached Lots
The waiver related to the single-family detached lots is to have some lots that are larger in area than
PH1 - 66
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 10
the maximum standards in the OASP. The largest lot at 7,223 square feet is not unusually large in
size and the exceptions are generally requests for sites that border other adjacent properties or are
situated where the additional size is beneficial (i.e. adjacent to where future street improvements are
planned or edge of the development).
Row Houses (Lots 46-78)
The majority of the exceptions are proposed to allow the row houses on Lots 46-78 to be
individually owned with their own ground lots rather than as a condominium. The “postage stamp”
lots range in size from 972 to 2,072 square feet and the requested waivers are for overall lot size, lot
dimensions and coverage. The Chief Building Official confirmed that this type of development is
acceptable and meets health and safety codes with appropriate construction techniques to have one-
hour fire walls between units. This type of attached housing in the configurations shown on the site
plan is consistent with the type of development called for with R-3 zoning in the OASP.
Atelier Building Height
The applicant is requesting that the building be allowed to exceed the 35-foot maximum height
threshold for the R-3 zone. The specific request is that the building be allowed to reach a height of
up to 47 feet above natural grade consistent with previously approved market rate and affordable
projects within the City.
City policies do support allowing some variance to height standards when the added height is
enabling the development of affordable housing which is the case with the subject request. The
City’s Mixed Use zone specifically includes the reference to allowing a higher height limit to
accommodate housing. Two recent residential projects with affordable units were allowed higher
buildings; Laurel Creek was granted a building height of 47 feet and the ROEM Project at the
Village at Broad was granted a building height of 45 feet.
Staff finds that the proposed height of 47 feet can be supported because:
1) It is consistent with the height standard applied to other recently approved affordable
housing projects in the City.
2) The added height accommodates the production of needed senior housing on the upper
floors of the building.
3) The building is located along the arterial Roadway A.
4) The building is located so that it is set back from the park which provides physical and
visual separation from surrounding land uses.
5) The building design is planned to take into account site elevation changes to minimize its
scale.
6) The building does not adversely impact views or affect solar shading to surrounding
properties.
7) The ultimate design will require the review and approval of the ARC who will carefully
review its bulk, scale, architectural style, and detailing.
4.5 Parking
PH1 - 67
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 11
Sheet 7 of the development packet includes a description of the parking provided for the different
housing types and the mixed-use Atelier Building. With their initial review of the project, the ARC
recommended that the applicant explore ways to provide guest parking near the row houses in the
R-3 portion of the site that are located on relatively narrow streets without on-street parking. The
parking plan shows that a minimum of 18 parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the park.
4.6 Open Space/Recreation
Figure 2.4 in the OASP, the Open Space and Parks Plan, identifies the subject property as one
suitable for a local parkland dedication. Consistent with OASP Policy 2.3.4 which indicates that
property owners may propose parkland dedications through the subdivision review process, Lot 78
is proposed to be improved by the developer and dedicated to the City of San Luis Obispo as an
approximately one-acre fully improved public park which will act as the central “Hub” of the
project.
The park will include a naturalized detention/retention area, large public plaza, walking paths,
bicycle path trail head and covered staging area, restrooms, turf area, central fountain and covered
seating area. Given it is intended that the convenience commercial use(s) will utilize portions of the
plaza and the day care will utilize one of the quads of the park green for their operations, long term
arrangement for this joint use will be established between the City and the Developer for
maintenance and operation costs of the park. Public Restrooms will be provided internal to the
Mixed Use building with direct access to the park plaza.
Per Program 2.3.4a, the request for development of parkland on the site will require the review and
support of the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission. This review has been scheduled for
Wednesday, September 4th.
4.7 Convenience Store
Plans indicated that a 5,000 square-foot convenience store is proposed in the Atelier mixed-use
building. A convenience store is an allowed use in the R-3 zone, but is limited in the Zoning
regulations to 4,500 square feet. Condition No. 46 is recommended which limits the store in the
project to that square footage and notes that the coffee house/deli uses are allowable if small in scale
and incidental to the main convenience store use.
5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS (Subdivision Design)
A parcel map has been submitted as a companion to the VTM. This map is specifically for
financing purposes. The proposed parcel line between Parcel 1 & Parcel 2 is coterminous with the
rear lot boundaries for groups of homes shown on the VTM. The proposed parcel line between
Parcel 2 & Parcel 3 is located between Lots 79 & 80 and the side lot lines of row houses. As final
map phases are recorded, the underlying parcel lines will essentially be eliminated. Findings for
and conditions for approval of the parcel map are included in Section 1 of the draft resolution.
Conditions 1-3 provide guidance on the role of the parcel map and how it is utilized in the map
recording process.
5.1 VTM Design
PH1 - 68
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 12
Lots 1-26 are more traditional lots ranging in size from 3,915 to 7,223 square feet and are proposed
to accommodate detached single-family homes. Lots 27-45 include mostly detached single-family
homes, but there are also two duplexes. These lots range in size from 3,280 to 4,970 square feet.
Lots 1-45 are included in the R-2 zoning category.
Table 3.1 of the OASP provides unique residential lot standards for the R-1 & R-2 zones and
indicates that the R-3 & R-4 zones would follow typical City standards. The lot area standards for
R-2 lots are 3,000 square feet, 5,000 square feet maximum, and 4,500 square feet average. The lot
standard waivers for the proposed row houses on Lots 46-78 were previously discussed and
analyzed in Section 4.4 of this report.
5.2 Grading
The subject site has an average cross slope of less than 10% which slopes downward from Orcutt
Road to the back (west side) of the site. The preliminary grading plan respects the natural slope of
the site and proposed cuts or fills do not exceed eight feet. Total grading, balanced on site, is
estimated to be approximately 25,000 cubic yards. The grading concept has been designed to
follow the natural southwestern descending contours of the land and achieve maximum solar and
view access for individual lots. At grade access is provided to adjoining properties. Maximum
retaining wall heights are estimated to be six feet in limited locations. To minimize the amount of
grading and need for retaining walls, portions of the row house units and single-family homes have
been designed with a split pad design; this provides garages under living spaces, but creates the
convenience of an at grade, level rear yard immediately accessed from the living area.
5.3 Site Circulation
The project site currently has access to Orcutt Road. Given that it is the first project within the
OASP, the future connection of inner-tract roadways and connection points to adjacent properties
have been considered (Attached Figure 5.1 – OASP Circulation Plan). A second access will be
provided through a half-street on the south side of the property that will continue along the
neighboring property to the west that ultimately intersects Bullock Lane. Orcutt Road access from
the site will be in place until a third point of access is created with the development of adjacent
properties. In the interim, there will be a 40-foot wide roadway serving the development directly
from Orcutt Road. At a future time, the private street labeled “Le Jardin” on the site plan will be
finished with a cul-de-sac eliminating general vehicular access to Orcutt Road and a 20-foot
emergency access way and pedestrian corridor will be provided beyond the cul-de-sac.
Inner-tract roadways are designed to provide efficient access within the subdivision while
considering the natural contours of the land, solar access, safety, speed reduction, maximization of
views within the subdivision as well as future inner-tract connections to the adjoining future
development parcels. Inner tract circulation is provided through both public and private streets.
The developer is responsible for all improvements and costs for its inner-tract roadways and private
streets located on their property.
OASP Policy 5.1.a states that “Existing arterial roadways should be improved where necessary in
order to provide safe, adequate circulation.” In the case of the project, OASP Program 5.1.1 notes
PH1 - 69
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 13
that Orcutt Road shall be improved to include a continuous two-way left-turn lane, Class II bicycle
lane, and curb and gutter between Johnson Avenue and Tank Farm Road. Condition No. 4 indicates
that the improvements to Orcutt Road per the OASP requirements need to be completed in the
project’s first phase.
5.4 Pedestrian and Bike Paths
The OASP delineates an onsite Class 1 bicycle path trailhead terminating on the subject site. The
project design incorporated and actually exceeds this requirement through inclusion of a covered
bicycle staging area located adjacent to the public park “hub” of the site. Enhanced parkways with
pedestrian paths, off road inner-tract pedestrian paths, inner tract path connections to adjacent
parcels and internal park paths and seating are provided to encourage a “non -car-centric” lifestyle.
The maximum distance any resident of the community will have to travel to gain access to a bicycle
path is approximately 500 feet with a majority of the homes within 200 feet of a bicycle path.
Since the ARC’s review of the project, the footprint for the Atelier Building has been divided to
accommodate a centrally located promenade within the project linking the park to Roadway A.
5.4 Project Phasing
Project phases are shown on the tentative map and a series of eight sheets details the units proposed
and improvements with Phases 1-8. Each phase is designed as a complete block, able to function
independently with required access, utilities landscaping and improvements. The phasing plan
implementation is designed to ensure a minimum of construction traffic and activity impacts to
completed phases of the project.
The project will include a master home owner’s association that will be responsible for maintenance
of all common area landscaping, all private roadways and applicable infrastructure improvements,
all fences and walls, all private drainage infrastructure on individual lots and within the park and all
private street lighting (see Condition 47). Additionally, the homeowners association will be
responsible for enforcement of the Rules and Regulations. Rules and Regulations will be designed
to protect the long-term integrity of the community as well as provide necessary protections for
rights to quiet enjoyment for all residents and protect residents from visual nuisances.
5.5 Sewer Service
The City wastewater treatment plant and existing and proposed sewer lines in the vicinity and
within the project site have sufficient capacity to serve the project site. The developer will be
required to construct on-site sewer facilities according to the Uniform Plumbing Code standards.
The project proposal includes an alternate connection to the wastewater collection system which is
allowable within the OASP subject to specific criteria.
The proposal for sewer service shows that the sewer main would extend down the south side of the
project site then continue along the south side of the adjacent property to the west to Bullock Lane
(see Figure 2 on the following page). This alignment parallels the “B” street main shown on the
OASP Wastewater Plan (Figure 6.2) which is located on the south side of the adjacent property to
the south of the project site. After submittal of a detailed sewer analysis and numerous meetings
PH1 - 70
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 14
and consultations with City Utilities Department staff, the submitted proposal to provide sewer
service for the project and possible connections for other nearby property owners was supported.
The Community Development Director issued a letter approving a Specific Plan Adjustment
approving the alternate alignment for the sewer line (CAR Attachment 5). The MASP defines an
adjustment as “minor changes to specific features of the OASP that do not significantly alter the
development type and still meet the intent of the Plan.”
Figure 2. Sewer Plan
The alternate sewer proposal meets the criteria for a Specific Plan Adjustment and does not result in
any impacts to existing service. An added benefit of the sewer proposal is that a wastewater line in
need of deferred maintenance will be replaced with the development of the project with installation
of a new sleeve and line between Bullock Lane and Capitolio Way under the Southern Pacific
Railroad. Impact fees are also collected when building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the
City’s Water Reclamation Facility. Condition No. 33 requires that the installation of the sewer line
shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 30th residneital unit.
5.6 Drainage
The project will be provided a state of the art drainage system. The primary goal is to achieve the
net effect of no increased run off from the site after build out. The drainage system includes the
following key features:
All single-family units will be equipped with rain barrels to retain and reuse gutter runoff
All single-family lots will be provided subterranean retention connected to the gutter system
and on lot drains which connect to the master storm-water system.
The Public Park will be equipped with both subterranean and above grade
retention/detention connected to the master storm-water system. The above grade
PH1 - 71
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 15
retention/detention will be improved as a dry creek complete with compatible landscaping,
grading and rock outcropping features to provide a visual and functional feature to the
development.
Naturalized bio swales will be incorporated into the landscape and grading plan to provide
both naturalized drainage and landscape enhancement including a cross lot naturalized bio
swale behind lots 44 thru 57.
The Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintenance of all on lot drainage systems as
well as the retention/detention systems developed in the park. Conditions 34-41 outline drainage
requirements and Condition No. 47 states the maintenance responsibilities of the HOA.
6.0 CONCLUSION
This hearing is the culmination of nearly two years of coordination between the City and the
applicant to further refine the project design to create a new neighborhood with many amenities that
respects the natural setting and topography. The project application is consistent with the stated
goals in the OASP and provides a new neighborhood with many admirable components and
features, including, but not limited to:
1. A range of different housing types to appeal to households of varied income levels and
needs.
2. It provides a sizable affordable component that is distributed throughout the site.
3. A commitment to quality and energy efficient construction.
4. A new sustainable neighborhood with internal pedestrian connections and provision for
future linkages to adjoining sites.
5. Community amenities including a park, public art, day care center, bicycle staging area, trail
connections, convenience store, and bus turnout.
6. Balanced site grading that respects the existing site topography.
7. Providing a catalyst for development of the overall area as envisioned by the OASP.
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Public Works and Utilities Departments have reviewed the project and have provided
comments that are incorporated into the resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.3 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the OASP, General Plan, or
Subdivision Regulations.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution (not attached)
2. Vicinity Map (CAR Attachment 1)
3. Figure 5.1 – OASP Circulation Plan (attached to this report)
4. Project Plans (CAR Attachment 2)
5. Initial Study (ER 137-11) (CAR Attachment 3)
6. ARC follow-up letter & minutes (CAR Attachment 7)
PH1 - 72
MS/ER/TR 137-11 (3725 Orcutt Road) Attachment 4
Page 16
7. Director’s Specific Plan Adjustment letter regarding sewer service dated 6-6-13 (CAR
Attachment 5)
G:\CD-PLAN\PRICCI\Wingate Development 137-11\Staff Reports
PH1 - 73
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
Attachment 4
PH1 - 74
Attachment 5
PH1 - 75
Attachment 5
PH1 - 76
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
Wi
n
g
a
t
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
w
e
r
Wi
n
g
a
t
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
w
e
r
Attachment 5
PH1 - 77
Attachment 6
PH1 - 78
Attachment 6
PH1 - 79
Attachment 6
PH1 - 80
Attachment 6
PH1 - 81
Attachment 6
PH1 - 82
Attachment 6
PH1 - 83
Attachment 6
PH1 - 84
Attachment 6
PH1 - 85
Attachment 6
PH1 - 86
Attachment 6
PH1 - 87
Attachment 6
PH1 - 88
Attachment 6
PH1 - 89
Attachment 6
PH1 - 90
Attachment 6
PH1 - 91
Attachment 6
PH1 - 92
Attachment 6
PH1 - 93
Attachment 6
PH1 - 94
Attachment 6
PH1 - 95
Attachment 6
PH1 - 96
Attachment 6
PH1 - 97
Attachment 6
PH1 - 98
Attachment 6
PH1 - 99
Attachment 6
PH1 - 100
Attachment 6
PH1 - 101
Attachment 6
PH1 - 102
PH1 - 103
PH1 - 104
PH1 - 105
PH1 - 106
PH1 - 107
DRAFT Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – September 4, 2013
Page 2 of 4
1-2
4. Presentation: Righetti Ranch Park Concept – Applicant Team/Chris Dufour
Applicant design team members were introduced to Commissioners as follows: Chris Dufour with
RRM Design Group, Andy Rowe with Cannon Associates, Dante Anselmo and Travis Fuentez with
Ambient Communities. The team gave a brief presentation of the Righetti Ranch Regional Park
Concept as part of the Specific Plan and asked Commissioners for feedback. The concept includes a
large and small soccer field, onsite parking, and group picnic area. Director Stanwyck explained this as
an orientation meeting for feedback and that the Specific Plan requires Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC) input, the PRC will also have the opportunity to view the proposed park concept in
the future.
Commissioners clarified acreage of park and development; discussed traffic circle, bike routes,
possible alternate bike trails, surfacing on basketball court and possible skate use, skateable area
including metal rails and benches, disc golf possibilities, lighted tennis courts and proximity to bike
path, combination courts (basketball/tennis), soccer field/Lacrosse possibilities, and addressing
possible overnight visitors.
Public Comment
Gary Havas, San Luis Obispo, inquired about bridge crossing (class 2) and stated he would like to
see big enough for a class 1 bridge across property. Also inquired if there would be an area where
slackliners could participate in their sport until trees become mature enough to use. (The team
responded pointing out an area of mature eucalyptus trees that could be used).
End of Public Comment.
Commissioners were in agreement that they are excited about a new park.
5. Wingate Pocket Park Proposal – Ricci
Senior Planner Pam Ricci gave Commissioners a PowerPoint presentation on a proposed pocket park
with the Wingate Development in the Orcutt Area and distributed a reference map that was not
included in the agenda packet. Project review was given on the pocket park as the Orcutt Area Specific
Plan requires PRC review and support if a subdivision proposes an onsite park instead of paying the
parkland development fee. Ricci introduced Terry Ordin, Project Engineer.
Commissioners inquired about affordable housing and density figures, maintenance responsibilities of
Home Owner’s Association (HOA), drainage area and plaza design, zoning and mixed use areas and
easement information.
In general Commissioners were in agreement that the design does not meet the needs of the
community as stated in Program section 2.3.4a. Ricci explained the intent of the park is to be an
amenity for those living in the surrounding area rather than a community attraction.
Public Comment
Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo, feels park will not lower density but rather the development gets higher
Attachment 8
PH1 - 108
DRAFT Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes – September 4, 2013
Page 3 of 4
1-3
by 30% when affordable housing enters picture as affordable housing equals higher density. As
someone who will live next to the area, she is concerned with circulation and traffic. Does not feel this
is a park but rather a retention basin and walkways masquerading as a park without quality. Stated
would like to see a “real park” of more acreage. Posed question as to tot park proximity to basin and
controlling access risks to children. Asked that corners not be cut in the design process and to help
SLO remain beautiful.
Gary Havas, San Luis Obispo, referenced Program 2.3.4a and inquired what this park provides that
other parks do not. Not sure if sees enough of parkland need not otherwise seen in community. As a
cyclist, thinks there would need to be a big draw such as an outstanding restaurant to bring cyclists
through.
End of Public Comment
Ricci informed Commissioners the 10-acre development has small site density as possibility for
providing parkland and that most developers don’t propose spaces like this. The park is located on
what will become an arterial street in the future with higher traffic/use. Ricci explained the easement
with property owner and HOA responsibility for ongoing maintenance.
Commissioners clarified acreage and park in lieu fees and entered into more discussion with the project
engineer.
MOTION: (Whitener/Parolini) The PRC does not find the Wingate pocket park to be consistent with
2.3.4a of the Specific Plan as proposed, and, although the PRC liked the design of the park, are
concerned the City would bear the cost of maintenance of amenities that benefit the homeowners not
the community.
Approved: 4 yes: 0 no: 3 absent (Kincaid, Updegrove, Regier)
6. Director’s Report – Stanwyck
Director Stanwyck reported to the Commissioners on the following:
Bike Rodeo this weekend at Hawthorne School
9/11 Ceremony will be at the Laguna Lake Golf Course at 10 a.m.
September 21 is Creek Clean Up Day
October 8 will be the Volunteer Appreciation Dinner. Greg Bettencourt will be honored
with the Wes Conner Award
November 16 is Trailworks Day at Irish Hills
Pool maintenance is underway. Therapy Pool opens again on Monday
Jr. High School Sports happening
Currently into week three of Adult Softball
7. Committee Reports
Commissioners provided the following reports:
Attachment 8
PH1 - 109
Attachment 9
AFFORDABILITY OFFERING OVERVIEW- TRACT 3044
The following affordable housing offering is based upon the project as submitted: an affordable housing development targeted
at a vast array of market sectors incorporating sustainable, energy efficient, non car-centric, low impact, smart planning
concepts. The project is reliant upon utilizing Spanish and California Modern architecture in a high quality execution. Both
styles selected were market driven and can clearly be demonstrated to evoke the essence of the SLO built environment as
required by the OASP. We ask that the City Council affirm both styles for the project.
The project concept is to privately provide a built environment creating lifestyle and living needs addressing today’s
diversified housing needs in an urban platform as called for in the OASP. The architecture, park, site planning, diversification
of uses, timely approval, execution, amongst other factors, are critical to the feasibility of the project both in terms of
affordability and operational success. Substantial deviations from the project as proposed may directly result in a reduction of
this offering and/or a request for affordable housing incentive. The project proposal balances many development factors in the
best of ways, all the while maintaining compliance with the OASP versus requesting by right deviations per Affordable
Housing Statutes. The project upfront funding of many improvements that may benefit surrounding development, however,
the project simply cannot absorb surrounding developments obligations being reapportioned, required of, and/or conditioned
upon this project. Allowing such to occur is contrary to the State affordable housing mission and statutes. Specific
protections of such are reasonably requested so as to avoid any such future project delay, expense or conflict resulting from
any such ambiguities that could impact project viability or feasibility.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Land uses within Atelier were determined, located and sized in accordance with the provisions of the OASP, applicable City
of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance including the Affordable Housing Ordinance. Density Calculations demonstrate that
102 density units are allowed. A summary of the project is provided below:
Site Location 3725 Orcutt Road, San Luis Obispo, California
Approximate Site Ares 10 acres
Site Zoning R-2 SP, R-3 SP
Allowable Density 102 Density Units (before earned density bonus)
Affordable Density 30 Density Units (30% of maximum allowed density)
Workforce Density 4 Density Units (4% of maximum allowed density)
Density Bonus Requested Minimum 30% (30 density units) per 65915 of the California Density Bonus Law
Density Bonus Earned 33% (3% unused) or 136 Density Units total
Total Requested Density 132 Density Units (142 “door fronts”)
Senior Density: 42 Density Units (42% of maximum allowed density, 52 door fronts)
Early Education Approximate 5,000 sq. ft facility to accommodate approximately 84 children
Convenience Commercial: Approximate 4,500 sq. ft space for daily convenience of residents
Park/Open Space: 1 +/- acre park plus pedestrian paths and expanded naturalized Orcutt Rd. parkway
Pedestrian Trails: Extensive and functional internal trail system provided
Transit: Bus turn out and covered seating provided
Bicycle Staging: Covered staging area provided at designated trailhead
Public Art: Public art fountain provided in public park
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFFERING
Unit Type/Contribution Required* Offering
Moderate Units 10 20
Lower Units 5 8
Excess Very Low Units 0 2
Designated 62 plus 52 52
65915 Compliant Daycare 0 84 seats
Charitable Contributions 0 $25,000
Affordable Housing Tran. Tax 0 Lots 1-78
Total
*Inclusionary
PH1 - 110
Attachment 9
AFFORDABLE UNITS Atelier proposes 30% (30 density units) as affordable units. The project proposal and affordable
offering is based upon the project as designed and presented and the allowable, required and/or earned incentives, density
bonus, and development standard waivers/reductions, protections and rights provided through local, state and federal
ordinance and/or statute are necessary for the project to be feasible.
SENIOR HOUSING 42% of the overall allowable site density or 52 door fronts are proposed in the multi use “Atelier”
building. The Senior facility is designed to provide a managed living environment with direct and immediate pedestrian access
to open space, convenience commercial and bus service in an “active” environment for active and independent seniors within a
diverse residential community. The Facility will be provided common area space for private use such as a TV room and
library with catering facilities for use by the residents. Building Management will provide a variety of concierge level services
for additional fee including house cleaning, laundry, dog walking, grocery and dry cleaning services to offer daily assistance to
the residents on an as requested/as needed basis. This special needs housing provides a valued contribution towards the
Housing Element RHNA projections in addition to the affordable units being offered.
EARLY EDUCATION AND CARE FACILITY A four to six room Early Education and Care Facility is proposed on the
first floor of the Atelier Building. The facility will provide early education and care services to children of all economic
sectors in a mix equal to the affordable housing mix within the residential component of the project. The facility will be
designed to accommodate approximately 84 Children and total approximately 5,000 square feet. This facility will be offered
with all tenant improvements complete to developer’s specifications in accordance with applicable state standards for such
facility for the long-term lease to the successful operator with a proven track record of providing quality daycare and early
education services. The Developer will make the space available to qualified operators thru a competitive process with a
priority in selection criteria given to non-profit operators demonstrating a high quality, proven early education and care
program and will rely upon a joint use agreement for exclusive use of the park tot lot from 7am to 2 pm weekdays.
EMERGENCY SHELTER CONTRIBUTION While the project as proposed exceeds the minimum thresholds necessary to
achieve its density bonus, incentive and waivers/reduction of development standards, the applicant is committed to the
affordable housing movement and has determined that they will additionally provide a charitable contribution of $25,000
towards emergency shelter housing. The applicant will select the successful provider to receive this donation based upon the
applicants determination of where the funds may be best used towards directly improving emergency shelter housing within
the community in real time. The contribution will be paid as follows: $10,000 at closing of the first home sale, and $1,000
per unit at the closing of the next15 home sales. The applicant considers this a “pay it forward” concept and necessary
component of their project concept of providing meaningful contribution to many sectors of affordability.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRANSFER TAX Several States and Municipalities throughout the Country require a variety
of affordable housing transfer taxes on the resale of units within new developments as a means to provide permanent funding
sources for future affordable housing. The State of California is currently considering AB1220. This bill, under consideration
with the legislature will impose a $75 fee on the recordation of each real-estate document, in order to permanently fund the
Housing Opportunity and Market Stabilization (HOMeS) Trust Fund that will support the development, acquisition,
rehabilitation, and preservation of homes affordable to low- and moderate-income households, including emergency shelters,
transitional and permanent rental housing, foreclosure mitigation, and homeownership opportunities. In keeping with the
spirit of this national trend and the “pay it forward” concept of the subject project towards affordable housing, the project
includes an affordable housing transfer tax, which will be placed in the deeds of lots 1 thru 76. A permanent flat rate
affordable housing transfer tax of $750 for all re-sales of lots 1-43 and $500 for lots 44-76 will be established. The transfer
tax will be to the benefit of the City of SLO Affordable Housing Fund and shall be used towards the creation of affordable
housing within the community. Given the transfer tax will be identified in the deed, little administration time will be required
of the City beyond signing the demand and lien release, collecting the check and putting the funds to good use as the closing
agent of the subject will collect the funds at time of closing along with release of lien from the City of SLO and forward th e
check to the City upon completion and recording of the Sale. This provision result s in the project providing contribution
towards affordable housing to the community in perpetuity. Initial developer sales and sales/transfers between related family
members and domestic partners will be exempt from said transfer tax.
PARK We request that staff recommend to Council to accept the pocket park as a public park. The park is the nucleus of the
project, exceeding the needs of a typical pocket park and providing community wide amenities not provided elsewhere such as
the bark-park, tot lot, public plaza and riparian habitat area (a mini mission plaza in a neighborhood setting with extra
amenities) and added bonus of reasonable, effective long-term maintenance proposals. The park also is a hub for non-
vehicular transportation modes and is located in a high-density area with a demonstrated need with orientation and immediate
access connections to surrounding future development. A Pocket Park location is identified on the subject site. Other pocket
parks devoid of the level of population and density immediately served, community amenity and non car centric connection of
the proposed pocket park exist within the City including Eto Park, Laguna Shores, Duval Ranch, Righetti Hill, etc . Pocket
Parks are a basis of smart, sustainable, non-carcentric development, encouraged by LEED, CalGreen, EPA, California Air
Resource Board and the likes. The Park and Recreation recommendation of denial seemed to conflict with these factors or PH1 - 111
Attachment 9
recognize the importance and purpose of pocket parks both for recreation smart planning, environmental and air quality, and
sustainability. It clearly seems contradictory to deny a pocket park in a high density affordable community that provides
community wide benefit as well, especially when other pocket parks have been routinely approved through the years affording
predominantly move up and luxury developments the benefit of such amenity.
DENSITY BONUS REQUEST
A 33% density bonus (34 density units) is hereby requested for the subject project in accordance with California Government
Code Sections 65915-65918. The project uniquely provides density bonus qualified affordable housing in all four identified
categories: Moderate, Lower, Very Low and Senior while not required to earn the requested density bonus.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD WAIVER AND PARKING REQUEST
The following requested development standard waivers/reductions are necessary to avoid the effect of physically precluding
the construction of the subject development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by California
Government Code Sections 65915-65918. The requested waivers/reductions of development standards proposed do not pose
any specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, the
physical environment. Granting of the development standard waivers/reductions is additionally not contrary to state or
federal law. Granting of waiver/reduction of development standards shall neither reduce nor increase the number of
incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65915-
65918. The requested waivers/reductions are consistent with other waivers/reductions of development standards previously
approved for other projects within the City of San Luis Obispo.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD REDUCTIONS/WAIVERS
REQUESTED
LOTS OASP MODIFICATION
ZONE AFFECTED STANDARD REQUIRED REQUESTED RATIONALE
R-2SP 27, 37, 47 Corner lot width 50 ft min. 46 ft min Plan adjusted to accommodate pedestrian path
Required adjustment to maintain density and affordability
R-2SP
1,7,8-
19,22,26- 24 Max. Lot Size 5,000 sq ft 7,250 sq ft max Needed to support unit mix which supports affordability
as proposed. Also needed to accommodate site
configuration and site development
R-2SP 8 thru 14 Rear Yard Setback 20 ft 10 ft Needed to provide excess parking request of P.C.
R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Min. Lot Size 5,000 sq ft 972 to 2,072 sq ft Needed to support the density for the affordability and to
accommodate the traditional row house concept
R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Coverage 60% 65% Needed to support the density for the affordability and to
accommodate the traditional row house concept
R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Depth 80 ft 54 feet Needed to support the density for the affordability and to
accommodate the traditional row house concept
R-3 SP 46 thru 78 Lot Width 50 ft 18 to 37 ft Needed to support the density for the affordability and to
accommodate the traditional row house concept
R-3 SP Lot 79 Max. Height 35 ft 45 to 54 ft Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot
sufficient land for public park
R-3 SP Lot 79 Lot Coverage 60% 80% Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot
sufficient land for public park
R-3 SP Lot 79 Rear Yard 15' 0 to 15 ft varies Needed to support density for affordability and to a lot
sufficient land for public park
Setback additionally needed for proper interface of park
with building
Note: most homes access off of private ways versus public streets thus 6' setbacks to private ways for lots 44 thru 76 are n ot considered
to require a waiver of setback requirements as well as minimum 10' garage door setbacks on lots 5 and 8. These are determined t o be
conforming due to being on private ways and front yard setbacks are measured from public streets.
The project parking as currently proposed exceeds the allowable minimum parking requirements established through the PH1 - 112
Attachment 9
Density Bonus Law for affordable projects and as such, we are requesting that this fact be acknowledged. While we recognize
importance of parking within a community, we also recognize that smart planning discourages planning a development around
the car as it acts as a discouragement to utilizing alternative means of transportation, carpooling and so on.
INCENTIVE REQUESTS
The project, as proposed, earns three (3) incentives as prescribed in California Government Code Sections 65915-65918, two
(2) for the quantity and type of affordable units and one (1) for the inclusion of the Early Education and Care Facility. Th e
applicant and staff have worked creatively to develop an incentive package which will provide meaningful incentive to the
development to provide meaningful off-set to the costs of providing the significant contribution of affordable units along with
the common goal of minimizing impacts to the quality of the proposed project and minimizing adverse impacts to the City
associated with this affordable project and its feasibility.
Provided below are the THREE (two of which are recommended incentives via the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance)
earned incentives hereby requested:
Incentive One - A Request that all Citywide and OASP Impact Fees be deferred for payment to the Certificate of
Occupancy for each residential unit.
Incentive Two – Request of waiver of application and development review processing fees for all affordable units.
Incentive Three – A Request of waiver of any parkland requirements or fees beyond the provision of the fully
improved one plus acre pocket park within the project.
The applicant is requesting a fraction of Incentive in an extremely low impact package (of which 2 incentives are suggested b y
the City Density Bonus Ordinance), especially when compared to other comparable past affordable projects and the incentive
packages granted. All affordability components (including but not limited to loss of profit resulting from below market return)
and improvements incorporated into the entire scope of the affordable offering in excess of the minimum requirement required
of an affordable project (including increase of offered affordable or workforce units) to qualify for the incentives and density
bonus are soley being proposed and offered as charitable contributions and will need to be recognized as such by the City of
SLO.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE
It is requested that project approval, implementation, requirements, conditions and subsequent applications related to the
project be executed in compliance within the parameters of applicable provisions of all applicable Federal, State and Local
Statutes, Ordinances and/or Resolutions.
PH1 - 113
Attachment 10
PH1 - 114
Attachment 10
PH1 - 115
Attachment 10
PH1 - 116
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO APPROVING A PARCEL MAP CREATING
3 UNDERLYING PARCELS AND
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3044 CREATING 80 LOTS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3725 ORCUTT ROAD
(MS/TR/ER 137-11; TRACT 3044)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing on August 28, 2013, and recommended approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October
1, 2013, for the purpose of considering MS/TR/ER 137-11, a vesting tentative tract map
subdividing an approximately 10-acre site into 80 lots; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the initial study of environmental
impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at
said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Parcel Map Approval with Findings & Conditions. The City Council does
hereby approve application MS 137-11 (SLO 10-0086), a parcel map to create three underlying
parcels for financing purposes, based on the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions:
Findings:
1. As conditioned, the design of the tentative map is consistent with the General Plan and the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan, which promote the development of projects consistent with the
Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2-SP
and R-3-SP zones through the proposed Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 3044 (TR 137-11) and
the proposed parcels shown on this Minor Subdivision are a companion to the VTM for
financing purposes.
3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
PH1 - 117
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 2
serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since further development or redevelopment of the
proposed parcels will occur consistent with VTM 3044 and the required architectural review
process, which will allow for detailed review of development plans to assure compliance
with City plans, policies, and standards.
4. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access
through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision.
5. The tentative map is exempt from environmental review (Class 15, Minor Land Divisions,
Section 15315. of CEQA Guidelines) because: no variances or exceptions are required; all
services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards will be provided with VTM
3044; the parcel was not involved is a division of a larger parcel within the previous two
years; and the parcel does not have an average cross slope of greater than 20%.
Conditions:
1. All easements including but not limited to those required for access, utility extensions,
grading, and drainage to serve all three parcels of the minor subdivision shall be shown and
noted on the map. The easements offered on the map should coincide with the ultimate
development proposal as shown on Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) 3044.
2. VTM 3044 shall be approved prior to recordation of the Parcel Map.
3. If necessary, as determined by the Public Works and Community Development Directors, a
notice of requirements or other agreement acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo shall be
recorded in conjunction with the Parcel Map to clarify development restrictions, conditions
of development, and reference to any pertinent conditions of approval related to VTM 3044.
Section 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following
findings in support of the Vesting Tentative Map 137-11 (Tract No. 3044):
1. As conditioned and with the development standard reductions supported by affordable
housing statutes, the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General
Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally
add to the City’s residential housing inventory, result in parcels that meet density standards,
and will be consistent with the density, lot sizes and project amenities established by the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-2-SP and
R-3-SP zones.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of
property within) the proposed subdivision.
4. The design of the vesting tentative tract map and proposed improvements are not likely to
cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks
or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife.
PH1 - 118
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 3
5. The proposed project will provide quality affordable housing consistent with the intent of
California Government Code §65915, and the requested density bonus, incentives and
concessions are reasonably necessary to facilitate the production of affordable housing units.
6. With review of the final map, minor adjustments to the pedestrian system to align better with
the property to the north may be made with the approval of the Community Development and
Public Works Directors.
7. Public Resources Code §21080.7 provides that in urbanized areas, no additional EIR or
negative declaration is required for "any project involving the construction of housing or
neighborhood commercial facilities" when: (1) the project is consistent with a specific plan
that has a certified EIR and that has been adopted not more than five years prior to making
the required findings under this section. The tentative map is generally consistent with the
street layout and lot configuration and the density and distribution of housing as shown in the
specific plan and no impacts have been identified in the initial study prepared for the project
which were not identified in the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Orcutt Area
Specific Plan.
8. No further environmental analysis is required based on the conclusions of the initial study of
environmental impact prepared for the project which concludes that all potentially significant
effects were analyzed adequately in Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, subject to the following mitigation measures,
mitigation measures being incorporated into the project, and the mitigation monitoring
program being followed:
AIR QUALITY MITIGATION
Operational Phase Mitigation
AQ-1(a) Energy Efficiency. The building energy efficiency rating shall be 10% above what is
required by Title 24 requirements for all buildings within the Specific Plan Area. The
following energy-conserving techniques shall be incorporated unless the applicant
demonstrates their infeasibility to the satisfaction of City Planning and Building
Department staff: increase walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements;
orient buildings to maximize natural heating and cooling; plant shade trees along
southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; use roof material
with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental Protection
Agency/Department of Energy Star rating; build in energy efficient appliances; use
low energy street lighting and traffic signals; use energy efficient interior lighting; use
solar water heaters; and use double-paned windows.
AQ-1(b) Transit. Bus turnouts and shelter improvements with direct pedestrian access shall be
installed at all bus stops.
AQ-1(c) Shade Trees. All parking lots shall include shade trees within the parking area. There
shall be at least one shade tree for every six vehicle parking spaces.
PH1 - 119
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 4
AQ-1(d) Telecommuting. All new homes within the Specific Plan area shall be constructed
with internal wiring/cabling that allows telecommuting, teleconferencing, and
telelearning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations in each home.
AQ-1(e) Pathways. Where feasible, all cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets shall be links by
pathways to encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.
• Monitoring Program:
Compliance with operational phase mitigation measures will be reviewed with the subdivision
plans and accompanying architectural review plans and ultimately shown on improvement plans
and construction drawings.
Construction Phase Mitigation
AQ-3(a) Application of CBACT (Best Available Control Technology for construction
related equipment). The following measures shall be implemented to reduce
combustion emissions from construction equipment where a project will have an area
of disturbance greater than 1 acre.
• Specific Plan applicants shall submit for review by the Community Development
Department and Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff a grading plan
showing the area to be disturbed and a description of construction equipment that
will be used and pollution reduction measures that will be implemented. Upon
confirmation by the Community Development Department and APCD,
appropriate CBACT features shall be applied. The application of these features
shall occur prior to Specific Plan construction.
• Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that all construction
equipment and portable engines are properly maintained and tuned according to
manufacturer's specifications.
• Specific Plan applicants shall be required to ensure that off-road and portable
diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders,
cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power
units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed
off-road diesel is acceptable).
• Specific Plan applicants shall be required to install a diesel oxidation catalyst on
each of the two pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions.
Installations must be prepared according to manufacturer's specifications.
AQ-3(b) Dust Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10
emissions during all Specific Plan construction:
• Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
• Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne
dust from leaving the site. Water shall be applied as soon as possible whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be
used whenever possible.
• All dirt-stock-pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed.
• Permanent dust control measures shall be identified in the approved Specific Plan
revegetation and landscape plans and implemented as soon as possible following
completion of any soil disturbing activities.
PH1 - 120
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 5
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed
and watered until vegetation is established.
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the APCD.
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc., to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials shall be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of
load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
• Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or
wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where
feasible.
AQ-3(c) Cover Stockpiled Soils. If importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is
involved, soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall
be tarped from the point of origin.
AQ-3(d) Dust Control Monitor. On all projects with an area of disturbance greater than 1
acre, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
control program and to order increased watering as necessary to prevent transport of
dust off-site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may
not be in progress.
• Monitoring Program:
These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and building plans. The applicant will also
be required to secure necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control Board (APCD) before the
onset of grading or demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control
measures, evaluation for Naturally Occurring Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence of a
plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit
from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the
person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and
Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
B-3(a) Construction Requirements. Development under the Specific Plan shall abide by
the requirements of the City Arborist for construction. Requirements shall include but
not be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees;
construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required;
PH1 - 121
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 6
and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 1:1
ratio.
B-6(c) Educational Pet Brochure. Any development pursuant to the Specific Plan shall
prepare a brochure that informs prospective homebuyers and Home Owners
Association (HOA) members about the impacts associated with non- native animals,
especially cats and dogs, to the project site; similarly, the brochure must inform
potential homebuyers and all HOA members of the potential for coyotes to prey on
domestic animals.
B-6(c) Landscaping Plan Review. To ensure that project landscaping does not introduce
invasive non-native plant and tree species to the region of the site, the final
landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified biologist. The
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) maintains several lists of the most
important invasive plants to avoid. The lists shall be used when creating a plant
palette for landscaping to ensure that plants on the lists are not used. The following
plants shall not be allowed as part of potential landscaping plans pursuant to
development under the Specific Plan:
• African sumac (Rhus lancea)
• Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata)
• Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
• California pepper (Schinus molle) and Brazilian pepper (S. terebinthifolius)
• Cape weed (Arctotheca calendula)
• Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosus), (C. lacteus)
• Edible fig (Ficus carica)
• Fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum)
• French broom (Genista monspessulana)
• Ice plant, sea fig (Carpobrotus edulis)
• Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)
• Myoporum (Myoporum spp.)
• Olive (Olea europaea)
• Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and Andean pampas grass (C. jubata)
• Russian olive (Elaeagnus angusticifolia)
• Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and striated broom (C. striatus)
• Spanish broom (Spartium junceum)
• Tamarix, salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis), (T. gallica), (T. parviflora), (T.
ramosissima)
• Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
• Athel tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla)
• Monitoring Program:
Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with landscaping plans as part of the
architectural review submittal and ultimately shown on improvement plans and construction
drawings.
PH1 - 122
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 7
CULTURAL RESOURCES MITIGATION
CR-1(d) Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. At the commencement of project
construction, an orientation meeting shall be conducted by an archaeologist for
construction workers associated with earth disturbing procedures. The orientation
meeting shall describe the possibility of exposing unexpected archaeological
resources and directions as to what steps are to be taken if such a find is encountered.
An archaeologist shall monitor construction grading within 50 meters (164 feet) of
the two isolated finds. In the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological
resources are exposed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within 50
meters (164 feet) of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an
archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has
been appropriately mitigated (e.g., curation, preservation in place, etc.), work in the
area may resume. The City should consider retaining a Chumash representative to
monitor any field work associated with Native American cultural material.
If human remains are exposed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires
that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98.
• Monitoring Program:
Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project
grading and construction.
NOISE MITIGATION
N-1(a) Compliance with City Noise Ordinance. Construction hours and noise levels shall
be compliant with the City Noise Ordinance [Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Section
9.12.050(6)]. Methods to reduce construction noise can include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• Equipment Shielding. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise can
be shielded with a barrier.
• Diesel Equipment. All diesel equipment can be operated with closed engine doors
and equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
• Electrical Power. Whenever feasible, electrical power can be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools.
• Sound Blankets. The use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment.
• Monitoring Program:
Requirements for construction noise mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project
grading and construction.
Section 3. Recommendation. The City Council does hereby approve application Vesting
Tentative Map TR 137-11 (Tract Map No. 3044) with incorporation of the following conditions
PH1 - 123
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 8
into the project:
Streets
1. Off-site easements are required to facilitate a through street and public sewer main extension
from the westerly tract boundary at Street “A” to the existing sewer and street easements
along Bullock Lane. A public sewer easement is required for the proposed public sewer
main. A private easement may be proposed for the required through street until development
within the Orcutt Area would indicate that a public street is warranted.
2. The final map and improvement plans shall include the required right-of-way and all details
of the required bus turnout to accommodate a future bus stop along Public Street “A”
adjacent to Lot 79 per City Engineering Standards and the OASP.
3. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Orcutt Road except at approved driveway
locations as shown on the tentative map.
4. The public improvement plans shall include complete details for the Orcutt Road access
improvements including a center turn lane in accordance with the tentative map, OASP, City
Engineering Standards, and the Cal Trans Highway Design Manual. The Orcutt Road plans
and access way shall include all phases of construction including the ultimate abandonment
of the public vehicle access. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes
may be required to facilitate the Orcutt Road improvements. The required center turn lane
and transitions on Orcutt shall be constructed with the first phase of development.
5. The subdivider shall install public street lighting and all associated facilities including but not
limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires along all public streets
including Orcutt Road per City Engineering Standards. The current interim standard for
LED lighting is required within this subdivision.
6. Private street lighting shall be provided along the private streets per City Engineering
Standards and/or as approved in conjunction with the final ARC approvals.
7. The final street sections shall be approved in conjunction with the review and approval of the
final project drainage report. The private street sections show center crown, center v-gutter,
and super-elevated designs. The final design shall consider drainage, transitions, and
accessibility.
8. Future Public Street #3 (Sponza Drive) shall show and label the future centerline for
reference. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, the street should be
designed for a build-out width with a center crown. The final street section for Public Street
#3 shall consider the final drainage strategy and may need to include an AC curb rather than
a shoulder. Non-standard public street sections shall conform to a San Luis Obispo County
rural road or Cal Trans standard to the approval of the City Engineer.
9. All future public streets shall conform to City Engineering Standards including curb, gutter,
and sidewalk, driveway approaches, and curb ramps. Traffic calming improvements may be
required at select locations within in the subdivision. Improvements may include bulb-outs,
elevated sidewalks/speed tables, or alternate paving materials to the satisfaction of the Public
PH1 - 124
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 9
Works Department and Fire Department.
10. Traffic calming improvements should be considered along public streets #2 and #3 and at the
intersection of Public Street “A” and Public Street #3 (Sponza Drive) in accordance with the
OASP. The calming device along Public Street #3 at Private Street #1 (Parc Atelier) should
include an elevated sidewalk or other improvements directly related to the Class I bike path
terminus. Deferral of any traffic calming improvements shall be approved by Public Works
Department. If deferred, the developer shall provide a surety to cover the future construction
of the improvements upon request of the city.
11. The proposed future Public Street “A”, Public Street #2 (Monte Azure), and Public Street #3
(Sponza Drive) are temporarily landlocked and will not be accepted for public maintenance
until such time that a continuous public street connection is provided within the OASP. A
street condition report shall be prepared by the developer or HOA and shall include any
required street maintenance or construction of traffic calming devices. Any required work
shall be completed prior to acceptance of the street for public maintenance. The proposed
public water and sewer mains located within these streets will be accepted for City
maintenance upon acceptance of the initial subdivision improvements.
12. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Street trees shall generally be
planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage.
13. The final map and subdivision improvement plans shall show the following changes to
project street sections:
a. Mondrian Plaza shall be increased from 26 feet to 28 feet to allow for parking on one side
of the street. A sidewalk shall be provided along one side of the street.
b. Terrasse Plaza shall be increased from 26 feet to 28 feet to allow for parking where
feasible.
c. Le Jardin shall be increased from 26 feet to 28 feet to allow for parking on one side of the
street.
d. Parc Atelier shall include a sidewalk in addition to the parking shown on one side of the
street.
14. Shared driveways shall be considered to better accommodate more on-street parking.
Easements
15. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and public utility easement
(P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous
with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
16. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
water, sewer, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, and
maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately
prior to map recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total
as blanket easements.
17. The final map and public improvement plan submittal shall clarify the intent and purpose for
the proposed 15’ access and utility easement across Lot 18. The map offer or separate
PH1 - 125
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 10
easement document shall clarify whether the easement is for public or private purposes. The
map offer should include reference to the dominant tenement for this easement. The plans
shall clarify whether any utility connections or improvements for future connections are
proposed.
18. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement for a public water system over all private streets or
driveways, parking areas (including planters and raised medians) and common areas to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Engineer. The subdivider shall
dedicate an easement for a public sewer system over the proposed future public streets.
On & Off-Site Improvements
19. Improvement plans for the entire subdivision, including any off-site improvements shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Utilities Department, and Fire
Department prior to map recordation. Off-site improvements shall include the sewer main
extension, off-site access roadway, the water main extension, and Orcutt Road
improvements.
20. The improvement plans shall clearly show all existing structures, site improvements, utilities,
water wells, septic tanks, leach fields, gas and wire services, etc. The plan shall include any
pertinent off-site water well and private waste disposal systems that are located within
regulated distances to the proposed drainage and utility improvements. The plan shall
include the proposed disposition of the improvements and any proposed phasing of the
removal and demolition. All structures and utilities affected by the proposed lot lines shall
be removed and receive final inspection approvals prior to map recordation.
21. The parking lot design shall comply with the parking and driveway standards and
Engineering Standard Section 2010.E.7. All parking spaces must be designed so that
vehicles can enter in one maneuver. Furthermore, all spaces shall be designed so that
vehicles can exit to the adjoining street in a forward direction in not more than two
maneuvers.
Water, Sewer & Utilities
22. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be
served to each lot to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and serving utility
companies. All public and private sewer mains shall be shown on the public improvement
plans and shall be constructed per City Engineering Standards unless a waiver or alternate
standard is otherwise approved by the City.
23. Underground wiring is required for all new residences. The requirement for undergrounding
shall be achieved with no net increase in the number of utility poles within the public right-
of-way.
24. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer and storm drains shall
be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Department. The
final location, configuration, and sizing of service laterals and meters shall be approved in
conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public
improvement plans.
PH1 - 126
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 11
25. Specialized street pavement in the area of public water mains may create
maintenance/replacement concerns and additional costs. The final pavement sections shall
be reviewed and approved in conjunction with the ARC approvals and public improvement
plan review. A separate agreement may be required to clarify that the HOA will have final
street maintenance responsibility in areas of specialized pavement where said pavement is
damaged or removed in conjunction with public improvements or maintenance of said public
water mains.
26. Recycled water main improvements (dry pipe) shall be installed per City Engineering
Standards and to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. The extent and limits of the
recycled water main shall be approved by the Utilities Director prior to completing and
submitting the public improvement plans to the Public Works Department. The main
extension along future Public Roads #3 and #2 may not be necessary to serve the OASP
zoned R-1 and R-2 areas.
27. A final sewer report (report) and supporting documentation for the OASP “adjusted” public
sewer main location shall be approved by the Utilities Department prior to approval of the
public improvement plans.
28. The final report shall discuss and present additional information and assumptions on the
system elevations and grades that will allow other OASP parcels to utilize the proposed re-
aligned public sewer main. The applicant shall submit an analysis of a backbone system that
shows the elevations and grades that serve the adjacent parcels described in the study. The
City will have the final discretion on the extent and limits of the study if additional properties
could benefit from the proposed re-alignment.
29. The depth of the off-site and on-site sewer mains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Utilities Director. The depth analysis shall consider the balance between the possible extent
of the gravity sewer basin needed to serve the other OASP properties and the long-term
public maintenance requirements related to sewer depth.
30. The final report shall include any additional vacant or underdeveloped properties with the
OASP area and/or downstream properties that could affect the down-stream condition
analysis to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. The report shall be expanded to
include the downstream impacts analysis and main replacement schedule and strategy from
Capitolio to Broad Street.
31. A reimbursement request, if proposed, shall include all pertinent details and analysis in
accordance with City and State codes and ordinances and shall be presented separately to the
City Council.
32. The existing sewer main located within the UPRR right-of-way at the Bullock Lane/Capitolio
crossing shall be upgraded/replaced from Bullock Lane to the manhole in Capitolio as a
condition of development. The applicant and engineer of record shall coordinate a field
meeting with Utilities Department staff prior to development of the plan and submittals to the
respective agencies.
PH1 - 127
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 12
33. The developer shall submit an application and design for the sewer to the City and UPRR in
conjunction with the first phase of development and initial public improvement plan
submittal. The installation shall be completed and final inspection approvals granted prior to
issuance of the building permit for the 30th residential unit.
Grading & Drainage
34. The final grading and drainage plan and drainage report shall comply with all City Codes,
Standards, and Ordinances. The final drainage report shall comply with the City Engineering
Standards, Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, and Orcutt Area Specific
Plan requirements, whichever pertinent sections are more restrictive.
35. The drainage report and public improvement plans shall include a comprehensive review of
the existing historic upslope drainage tributary to and from this development. The historic
and proposed run-on and run-off should consider the existing swales and berms located along
the historically grazed fence lines and their relationship to the adjoining property lines. The
project drainage analysis may require a detailed review of the sub-watersheds located within
the tract boundary.
36. The proposed surface runoff and drainage from the detention basin(s) shall include a non-
erosive outlet to an approved point of disposal. The outlet(s) design and location should
replicate the historic drainage. Any off-site detention basin, temporary basin, or other
drainage improvements shall be approved by the City. Any required or proposed off-site
grading or drainage improvements shall be completed within recorded easements or under an
appropriate license or other private agreement.
37. Tier 3 interim low impact development standards as described and shown on the preliminary
plans shall be incorporated into the drainage report and final development plans.
38. The project soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans and Low Impact
Development (LID) improvements. The soils report shall include specific recommendations
related to site development, utility, and building pad/foundation construction related to the
proposed LID improvements. The project soils engineering report shall be referenced on the
final map in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations and City Engineering Standards.
39. The final plans and drainage report shall show and note compliance with City Engineering
Standard 1010.B for spring or perched groundwater management and for water quality
treatment of run-off from impervious streets, drive aisles, and parking areas.
40. A SWPPP is required in accordance with State and local regulations. A hard copy of the
SWPPP shall be provided to the City in conjunction with the Public Improvement Plan
submittal and subsequent building plan submittals. The WDID number shall be included by
reference on all construction plans sets. An erosion control plan shall be included with the
improvement plans and all building plan submittals for demolitions, grading, and new
construction.
41. A Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals for the proposed stormwater system improvements. A separate Operation and
Maintenance Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the development plans.
PH1 - 128
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 13
42. A separate demolition permit will be required from the Building Division for the removal of
the existing structures and related infrastructure. The building removals are subject to the
Building Demolition Regulations including the additional notification and timing
requirements for any structure over 50-years old.
Fire
43. The project shall provide a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision from an
existing public way wherever there are 30 or more housing units. Emergency Vehicle Access
points will NOT be accepted in lieu of full access.
44. When the public access from Orcutt Road to Private Road #4 is abandoned, a minimum of a
20- foot wide paved Fire Department emergency vehicle access/egress road shall be
maintained in lieu of a Fire Code Standard turn-around. The Access Road shall have a 20-
foot wide gate secured with a lock. The developer will be required to install a “KNOX
BOX” that is keyed to both San Luis Obispo City Fire and San Luis Obispo County Fire
keys. A permanent sign shall be placed on either side of the gate “FIRE ACCESS ROAD –
DO NOT BLOCK”. The access road shall be posted “NO PARKING-FIRE LANE” CVC
22500.1”. A maintenance provision for this EVA shall be included in the CC&Rs and
approved by the Fire Marshal. Once closed, the EVA shall not be considered one of the 2
required points of access for the subdivision.
45. All streets that are less than 28 feet in width shall be posted “No Parking – Fire Lane” on
both sides. Streets less than 36 feet in width shall be posted on one side only.
46. The project shall provide water mains and city-standard fire hydrants to provide a minimum
needed fire flow of 1500 GPM for 2 hours to within 300 feet of the exterior walls of all
proposed structures. Fire hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet.
Homeowners’ Association
47. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by
the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval that
establishes a “Master Homeowner’s Association” (Master HOA). CC&R's shall contain the
following provisions that pertain to all lots:
a. All private improvements shall be owned and maintained by the individual property
owners or the Homeowner’s Association as applicable. Private improvements include
but are not limited to streets, sidewalks, pedestrian and bike paths, sewer mains, drainage
systems, detention basin(s), street lighting, landscape, landscape irrigation, common
areas, & the plaza improvements.
b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common areas if the homeowners' association fails
to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the
right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of
CC&R's and final map are being met.
c. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
PH1 - 129
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 14
d. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long-term storage of
inoperable vehicles.
e. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
f. The responsibility for the placement of the trash and recycling containers at the street on
collection days will be the responsibility of the property owner’s association. The
property owner’s association shall coordinate with San Luis Garbage Company regarding
the collection time and preferred location for the placement of trash and recycling
containers to minimize the obstruction of project streets
g. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council
approval.
h. Provision for all of the maintenance responsibilities outlined in various conditions.
Planning Requirements
48. The proposed convenience store shall be limited in size to 4,500 square feet consistent with
the City’s Zoning regulations and the deli/coffee house component shall be small in scale and
incidental to the main store use as determined by the Community Development Director.
49. In order to be consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and County
Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit
and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San
Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of
the final map.
50. All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential
occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate disclosure
concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to
entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property
or properties within the airport area.
51. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective
refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and
functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the final design.
Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner’s/Property Owner’s
Association and shall be included in the CCR’s or other property maintenance agreement
accordingly. The solid waste solutions shall be shown and noted on the submittal(s) for
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approvals.
52. In addition to building designs and landscaping plans for the different housing types proposed in
the project, the Architectural Review Commission shall review and approve perimeter and
common area landscaping, any proposed signage, site and building lighting, mailbox kiosks, and
the park design and improvements.
53. Prior to the recording of any phase of the map, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable
Housing Agreement with the City that details approved project incentives and how they are
PH1 - 130
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 15
specifically incorporated into the project, and specifies the timing of construction of affordable
units and contains provisions for failure to complete any or all of the affordable housing units
such as collecting affordable housing in-lieu fees, establishing a threshold for number of units
that can be constructed before some affordable housing units are provided, and providing a letter
of credit, bond or other financial guarantee to assure compliance. The goal of the condition is
to have the affordable housing constructed as early as possible.
54. Specific plans for the development of the park shall be reviewed by the City’s Parks &
Recreation Commission with a recommendation to the Architectural Review Commission who
will be responsible for the final design approval of the park.
55. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior
to the issuance of the first building permit.
56. The project applicant shall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval
by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted prior
to the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings and/or a phase of buildings.
In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
Construction Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone
numbers. The Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and
requirements:
a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips
and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, directional
signs for construction vehicles, and designated construction access routes.
b. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding
when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring,
c. Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for
materials, equipment, and vehicles.
d. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize
impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and noise impacts to
surrounding neighbors.
e. The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following noise
reducing measures:
1) Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday.
2) All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided by
the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un-muffled exhaust pipes; and
3) Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or
other measures shall be incorporated to the extent possible.
f. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
g. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
h. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity.
i. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris
attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected.
j. Designated location(s) for construction worker parking.
57. Pursuant to Government Code §66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold
PH1 - 131
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 16
harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void
or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto,
including but not limited to environmental review.
Section 4. Density Bonus & Affordable Housing Incentives. The City Council
approves a 33% density bonus and requested incentives for: 1) Deferred impacts fees with the
certificate of occupancy for individual units; 2) Waiver of development review fees; and 3)
Exemption for parkland in-lieu fees for dedication and development of a one-acre pocket park
within the development, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. The proposed project will provide quality affordable housing consistent with the intent of
California Government Code 65915, and the requested density bonus, incentives and
concessions are reasonably necessary to facilitate the production of affordable housing
units.
2. As conditioned, the request incentives are consistent with the intent of policies and
programs contained in the OASP and affordable housing incentives outlined in Section
17.90.060 of the City’s Zoning Regulations.
Conditions:
1. The specific details and terms of the deferral of applicable Citywide and OASP impact
fees for project units until the Certificate of Occupancy, and the waiver of application and
development review processing fees for all affordable units, shall be part of the
Affordable Housing Agreement identified in Condition No. 53. The specific terms for
the deferral of Citywide and OASP impact fees and the number of units to benefit from
this deferral shall be subject to the review and mutual agreement of the City’s
Community Development, Utilities, and Public Works Directors and incorporated into
the project’s Affordable Housing Agreement to be approved by the City Attorney.
2. The specific terms of the incentive for waiver of some or the entire project’s required
parkland fee obligation shall be determined by the mutual agreement and review of
specific development plans for the park to the approval of the City’s Community
Development, Parks & Recreation, and Public Works Directors. The City’s Parks &
Recreation Director shall consult with the Parks & Recreation Commission in advance of
finalizing the specific terms of the waiver with the other Directors.
PH1 - 132
Resolution No. XXXX (2013 Series)
Page 17
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 , 2013.
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
Sheryll Schroeder, MMC
Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-10-01\Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3725 Orcutt (Johnson-Ricci)\TR-ER 137-11 CC Resolution (Wingate
10-1-13).docx
PH1 - 133
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH1 - 134
RECEIVED
Goodwin, Heather OCT 0 2 2013
From: Ricci, Pam Si.C3 9ITY CERf{
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 1:22 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather AGENDA
Subject: FW: Wingate Homes 'CORRESPONDENCE
Date '0/ I `3 Item __ PP
Hi Heather,
I am forwarding the email I received yesterday for Vesting Tentative Map No. 3044 (Wingate) which was Public Hearing
# 1.
Thanks. Pam
Pamela A. Ricci, AICP
Senior Planner
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781 -7168
pricci @slocity.org
From: Jeanne Anderson [mailto Jandema32C&gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Ricci, Pam
Subject: Wingate Homes
Dear Pam Ricci
My family and I have owned and lived on Bullock Lane since 1954. As my family grew up, they found that they could not
afford the high rents, or the high price of buying and owning property in San Luis Obispo. All of my children have moved
from San Luis Obispo and moved to states where they have bought homes. I have Grandchildren that I will never get to
know or watch grow up. I myself have moved out of San Luis Obispo to Oregon to be able to live by two of my daughters
and their families.
Wingate will provide affordable homes. San Luis Obispo needs this project.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Anderson
a3 9-6 1-3
",7*
3 7
LIP.
Ma Y or Jan Marks, Vice Mayor Kathy Smith, Council Members Dan Carpenter, Carlyn
Christianson, and, John Ashbaugh 22 September 2013
I am writing concerning the VTM No. 3044, to be reviewed on 1 Oct 2013 at the
City Council Meeting regarding the Wingate Property, 3725 Orcutt Road, San Luis Obispo.
This past week we received our notice of this meeting with the city planner, Pam
Ricci, going forth with requesting the VTM for this property.
As I spoke to you at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, 17 September 2013, the
Parks and Rec commission did not agree that the proposed pocket park the applicant
established in the plat constituted a PARK, as defined in the GASP. This is a significant
development. As I told you at the meeting, the applicant is accomplishing important
measures by having this "park" officially designated as such. This "park" allows them to
provide "green space" on site. The creation of this "park" allows the applicant to avoid
payment of the required fee to aid establishment and maintenance of the regional park at
Righetti Hill. Additionally, there is no other green space in the whole project from what I
see on the map. This 1 acre "park" was it, a combo of drainage ditch, required by the
slope of the property, and a private plot of grass for tots that becomes public only during
7 AM and 4 PM.
I wish to say I misspoke at the City Council meeting on 17 September when I said
that the park would allow the applicant greater density for the project. The park, as I read
the GASP, only allows him to avoid payment of the regional park ongoing( ?) fee. It is the
quantity of affordable housing which is purported to be over requirements that allows the
applicant greater density.
I reported to you on the 17th that I attended the Parks and Rec meeting on the 4
September 2013, at which the vote was 4 -0 denying that this area was indeed a "park ". .
It was not considered a park under code of the OASP. I have been waiting and trying to
get the minutes of the 4 Sep Parks and Rec meeting to get the code. I did not know what
the next step was. I was stunned to see the notice in my mail today which essentially
ignores that vote and sends the project to you for the vesting process without any
apparent correction being accomplished to the plat.
This is putting the cart before the horse. I was unable to attend the Planning
commission meeting on this project due to a lack of communication, but watched it on
television. It was very disheartening to hear the summary of the commissioners
comments how little it truly adheres to the OASP in spirit and in fact. The chair even had
a bit of a hard time trying to get anyone to make a motion to even consider a vote on the
project. The plans did not include a true green pedestrian area, there were no alleyways,
,nd hence all vehicles were going directly into the garage, on the main thoroughfare,
both contrary to the spirit of the GASP. Residents will be required to walk down the
middle of the street to get to most other parts of the project, east to west, including the
retail and /or business end of the property. There are few sidewalks in the whole 10-
acre development. The planning commission even directed the staff planner to come up
with some of the changes they were directing be made so that the project came more
under the requirements and the spirit of the GASP. I feel they should have sent the whole
project back to the applicant as I heard far too many "problems" voiced by commissioners
in their public deliberation, with the project. I urge you to please view the last 30 minutes
of the tape of this 18 August meeting. The minutes of the vote portion of that meeting
does not contain their comments. I was stunned when they voted 5 -0 to approve the
project with "changes" that they directed Pam Ricci, the senior planner, to make.
Stunned. Their main defence of their vote was their desire to move this project along
because they knew the applicant had been working on this for a couple of years, and they
basically wanted to see this development proceed.
We are neighbors to the immediate north, northeast of this project. We and our
neighbors will be severely impacted by this plot of houses. By their own design, this
project will take approximately 7 years to build out. The required low cost housing,
which allows them a significantly greater density, was not scheduled until year 4 of the
buildout. After listening to the applicant in a few meetings, I would wonder if that
housing should be put in first and the project be built out from west to east (east being
Orcutt road boundary). As we and our neighbors live off the intersection of Orcutt Road
and Johnson Avenue, we have very limited ability to bypass this development. It is further
our understanding that this is the template property of this whole OASP development.
There will be 930 homes in this segment of Orcutt from Johnson to Tank Farm.
As this is the "official" template for all the other properties that come after it, the
applicant is already off to a bad start in my opinion by trying to ease his responsibility of
doing this project correctly. SLO is a unique city. We do not wish to see this
development become the first project as is; it needs to be done beautifully, with open
spaces, areas to walk, meet with neighbors in green areas and rest to view the beauty of
the surrounding area. There should be a true park, or an easy way to get to the regional
park. Instead, much of the housing style doesn't meet the OASP, per the discussion in
the May 6 Architectural Review Commission. There is grossly inadequate provision for
guest parking. In fact, every meeting I attended or watched on television proved to be
lukewarm promotion of this property. You could easily surmise that there was very little
"right" with the project as planned.
The words of recommendation contained in the ARC meeting of 6 May 2013,
discusses changes as moved by the commissioners to "explore the possibility," "work with
adjacent property owners," "recommend digital model..." None of these suggestions
requires firm compliance. We fear there is no recourse should the applicant not wish to
accommodate the recommendations.
It is not honoring the unique residents of this city to allow this deficient property to
proceed as is. It seems to me, the two plus years our planning department has been
working on this has not achieved the desired outcome of the OASP for these properties.
Our other concern and it is really the biggest, is the ONE entrance into the property
at the beginning. There is one 40' entrance driveway on Orcutt Road just south of the
Johnson /Orcutt intersection. I have read in the project proposal that some other road,
which does not currently exist, will be built prior to the construction. I do not believe this
for one minute. First this road needs the permission of 3 other property owners to be
built, again the cart before the horse. Next, as the most expensive properties in the plan
are located at this entrance, how does the applicant think the potential owners of these
houses will feel with 7+ years of loud rumbling construction vehicles with their
obnoxious back -up beeping at their very doorsteps? Unfortunately, we have discovered
that we can easily hear the beeping of the vehicles that work in the PGE compound from
our house. It is located across from the property at 3725 Orcutt. It is a very annoying
noise, and will continue for many long years.
Our complaints are about the quality of this property and the planning for
somehow mitigating the effects of building out approximately 930 homes, and adding
another 2000 people on Orcutt Road. The spirit and letter of the OASP requires green,
open spaces, flowing water where available, walkable, bike - friendly areas, and housing
style compatible with the town. These tenants are required by the OASP to retain the
uniqueness of this newly annexed rural area of San Luis. This property, again, the
template, really accomplishes none of those things. It is crammed with houses, no
parking, no significant green open spaces and, no walking areas primarily due to the
severe lack of sidewalks. The OASP also requires trees and park -like settings in the
housing areas. If there are no sidewalks, where are the shady areas to occur?
We realize the applicant feels he needs to move this property along quickly to
recoup his investment to date. Our concern is that the property be properly adhering to
the OASP. At this date, it does not. And, relying on it to be redrawn to satisfaction will
likely not occur. What is the rush? Do we really need almost 1000 new homes without
1000 head of household jobs in place first? Cart before the horse. Or, as someone said
of another situation at the meeting the other day, a solution in search of a problem.
Thanks for listening. Please act to slow this down and require it adhere to GASP.
AGENDA I
CORRESPONDENCE
Date1�i�'� ._11i� ;# x'71
Ael Z�o C-4 Ste
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Marx, Jan
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Schroeder, Sheryll
Cc: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Support for VTM Tract 3044
Please post this as agenda correspondence
Thanks
SEP 30 2013
SL.O CITY CLERK
AGENDA
Jan CORRESPONDENCE
- - - -- Original Message - - - -- Date � ..� � i ) i I1rem# FL4I
From: Maddalena Realty [maddalenarealty(a,charter.net]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 11:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Ricci, Pam
Subject: Support for VTM Tract 3044
September 29, 2013
To the City Council:
Mayor Jan Marx, Vice Mayor Kathy Smith, Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson and John Ashbaugh.
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Council Meeting, October 1, 2013, Agenda item # PH 1 (Vesting Tentative Map Tract 3044).
Dear Mayor Jan Marx, Vice Mayor Kathy Smith,
members Dan Carpenter, Carlyn Christianson and John Ashbaugh,
Before you at the Tuesday, October 1, 2013, City Council meeting will be the first Orcutt Area Specific Plan
(GASP) development project.
It is has been a long time and it is exciting to see the first project come forth.
The planning for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) began nearly 17 years ago and during all those years,
we, as property owners in the GASP,
wrote many letters to the City Councils and attended many meetings - all with the intent to help make things
better for everyone.
Today we are happy to write: "We, as OASP property owners and neighbors, are in support of the Wingate
Homes project as proposed before you on October 1, 2013':
Thank You.
Andy Maddalena
1329 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo,CA. 93401
Maddalena Family
Kl:t«tIVED
Goodwin, Heather
OCT 01 2013
5!_) CITY CLERIC
From: Marx, Jan T
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:01 AM
To: Nick Muick; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; ccristi @slocity.org
Cc: Schroeder, Sheryll; Goodwin, Heather
Subject: RE: Oct 1st - Item PH1- (from an adjacent property owner) Vesting Tentative Map Orcutt
Road
AGENDA
Please post this on our website as agenda correspondence. CORRESPONDENCE
Thanks,
Jan Date ru � L Item#-A --
Jan Howell Marx
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716
From: Nick Muick [nm63.nm @gmail.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 7:59 AM
To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; ccristi(abslocity.org
Subject: Oct 1st - Item PH 1- (from an adjacent property owner) Vesting Tentative Map Orcutt Road
October 1, 2013
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members,
For decades I have owned property on Orcutt Road which is in the Orcutt specific plan area. My home is on
land adjoining the proposed Wingate development and I am in support of their project.
When I first saw Wingate's project I liked the neighborhood park. I have lived in a few older neighborhoods of
San Luis Obispo where we had to drive to parks like Sinsheimer or Santa Rosa. A smaller park closer to home
encourages neighborly community, and helps people to not have to drive for a quick game of catch or a picnic.
The day care center is a great idea and so is the small store and corner coffee shop. All are easier for the
neighborhood to access and socialize. Great for me too as they will be closer than anything we have right
now. Plus all this provides more jobs.
Something others might not have noticed is that Wingate has designed the existing site slopes to avoid being
"walled in" which should result in better views in relationship to the horizon (mountain peaks). Through the
years, my family has enjoyed the mountain peaks silhouetted in colorful sunsets — now they will be shared and
we will not lose them.
As an adjacent neighbor, we are in support of the Wingate proposal.
Nick Muick & Family
3731 Orcutt Rd
SLO , CA 93401
RECEIVED
OCT 01 2013
Lf!RK
i.1,, ;councjl mcmoRanbum
DATE: October 1, 2013 AGENDA '
CORRESPONDENCE
TO: City Council Dale fGI -` h 9.M# 1 ,
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
BY: Pam Ricci, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Item No. 1; Vesting Tentative Map No. 3044 at 3725
Orcutt Road (Wingate Holdings, LLC, applicant)
This memo responds to several questions related to the project raised by Council Member
Christianson.
1. Why is the total number of 'residential units listed as 142 on PH -1, but listed
as 132 on PH -3?
The total number of individual residential units in the project is 142 including
45 single - family homes, 33 single - family attached terrace homes, 12 loft -style
apartments, and 52 senior flats, as stated at the bottom of PH -1.
The discussion under "Affordable Housing Density Bonus & Incentives" in the
second paragraph on Page PH -3 is a summary of project density. The 132
number is correct; it refers to the total number of density units (as opposed
to the total number of residential units which is 142). Any unit with two or
more bedrooms has a value of 1.0 (all of the SFDs, Row Houses, & Lofts);
however, some of the senior apartments are one - bedrooms with a value of
0.66. Therefore, the density units (42) for the senior apartments is lower than the
total number of project units (52). This lowers the overall project density to 132
which is under the 136 units allowed xith the 33% density bonus (102 base
density + 34 = 136 units).
There is a detailed discussion of the zoning, density and affordable housing on
pages 7 & 8 of the 8 -28 -13 Planning Commission report (Attachment 4).
2. What is the status of ARC review of the project? Is it appropriate for the
City Council to approve the map before the ARC has completed their review
of the development plans?
Council Memo — VT< 3044 - Wingate; Project at 3725 Orcutt Road (PH # 1)
Page 2 of 2
The ARC reviewed the project conceptually with an introduction to the project on
May 6, 2013. The Council is approving the tentative map which establishes the
lot pattern, street network and other improvements. Until these features of the
development are set, the final design of the housing, landscaping, park, and other
improvements cannot occur. This is the reason it has become City practice for the
final design review by the ARC to occur after the tentative map is approved by
the City Council. It is not' uncommon for project details to be worked out after
the tentative map approval is granted but before the final map is returned to
Council for final approval and recordation after all conditions have been satisfied.
3. What is the project's requirement for park fees?
Unit Type
2013 OASP Park
# Units in
Total Fee
Improvement Fee
Project
Single - Family
$12,719
78
$992,082
Residential
Multi- Family
$9,359
64
$598,058
Residential
$1,591,058
4. Why is the Council considering a complete waiver of park fees if the City's
Subdivision regulations say 50% as the maximum?
As the staff report states, on pages PHI -4, the applicant is requesting to waive the
park fees entirely based on the proposal to dedicate the land and improvements to
the City as a public one -acre park. The Subdivision Regulations allow up to one -
half of a dedication or fee waiver for a private recreation facility. The option for
the entire fee waiver will depend on the final determination of the Parks &
Recreation Commission on the suitability of the facility as a public park and its
consistency with OASP Program 2.3.4a. The deferral of park fees is listed as an
eligible alternative incentive for affordable housing projects listed in Section
17.90.060 of the City's Zoning Regulations.
Condition # 54 stipulates that specific plans for the development of the park
return to the Parks & Recreation Commission with final approval of the park
design by the ARC. In addition to the physical design of the park, the Parks &
Recreation Commission would weigh in with a recommendation on the specific
terms of any fee waiver. The Commission's recommendation would be
considered by the Community Development, Parks & Recreation, and Public
Works Directors in defining the specific terms of the waiver of park fees in the
Affordable Housing Agreement (Condition #2 in Section 4 of the Draft
Resolution).
Please call Pam Ricci at extension #7168 (781 -7168) if you have any questions.
Goodwin, Heather
From: Schroeder, Sheryll
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 3:02 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Support For Affordable Housing
Sheryll Schroeder
Interim City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 781 -7102
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Christianson, Carlyn
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:50 PM
To: nick@golflandwarehouse.com
Cc: Johnson, Derek; Schroeder, Sheryll
Subject: RE: Support For Affordable Housing
RECEIVED
OCT 0 12013
S -0 CITY CLERK
.AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date lO - Item# 144-1
Hi Mr. Taylor,
Thanks for your comments on the Orcutt project on tonight's Agenda. I've cc'd staff so that they can include your letter
as public comment. I'm glad you support the project, and I appreciate your time and trouble in emailing,
Regards,
Carlyn
Carlyn Christianson
Member, San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street, SLO 93408
r_christi @slocity.or�
805 - 550 -9320 cell
805 - 752 -1021 home (for city calls)
From: nick @golflandwarehouse.com [nick @golflandwarehouse.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 9:47 AM
To: Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Marx, Jan
Subject: Support For Affordable Housing
Dear Council Members,
I just read an article in the Tribune and want to share my support for the new development at Orcutt Road near
Johnson. Our best friends are both in their late 30s and both Cal Poly Professor's. It has been a nearly impossible
challenge for them to find decent affordable housing for their family of 4.
Being born and raised in SLO and graduating from Cal Poly I have seen almost every friend decide to leave due to the
housing situation. I was very happy to see this plan offer so much affordable housing.
I finally have hope San Luis Obispo will have some affordable housing options for those who are positive community
members raising families in our beautiful city.
Thank you for all your hard work and caring about San Luis so much!
Nick Taylor
Owner
Golfland Warehouse, Inc
www.goiflandwarehouse.com