HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1992, 4 - CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING/PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND ANNEXATION TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF ABOUT 10 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE STONERIDGE I TRACT, WEST OF BROAD STREET. IIIN^Itlllll�llllln�ll� IIIIII MEETING OATS:
II II Cityo san "pis oBispo 7-21-92
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director; 17)
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FK
SUBJECT:
Consideration of a General Plan Amendment, Prezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan, and Annexation to allow residential development of
about 10 acres of land located immediately west of the Stoneridge I
tract, west of Broad Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Element map
to designate the 10. 1 acres below the DLL as Single Family
Residential, based on findings;
2 . Introduce an ordinance prezoning the property above the DLL
C/OS-40, and the 10. 1 acres below the DLL R-1-PD, including
approval of a preliminary development plan and a density bonus
to allow 7. 15 density units per net acre (reference Findings 4 ,5
& 6 as required by Municipal Code Section 17. 62 . 040) ; and
3 . Adopt the attached resolution recommending LAFCo initiate
proceedings of the annexation.
REPORT IN BRIEF:
The Stoneridge II project is proposed for property located at the base
of the South Street Hills and directly west of the Stoneridge I
neighborhood, west of Broad Street. The project site is currently
located outside the city limits.
The .applicant wants to build 60 single-family residential units on the
property. Part of the request for annexation to the City includes
extension of City water and sewer services to serve proposed development.
The project, considered to be the second phase of the Stoneridge Village
project, would continue the Mediterranean design theme established with
the first phase, through the adoption of submitted design guidelines as
a component of the preliminary development plan.
Stoneridge II has a long and complicated history going back to 1980 with
its initial discussion during review of the first phase. Since its
introduction to the Planning Commission in 1988, several public hearings
on the project have been held. on June 10, 1992 , the Planning Commission
reviewed the project recommending that the City Council support
annexation and approve the general plan amendment, prezoning, including
density bonus to allow 7 . 15 units per net acre, and preliminary
development plan.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required for the project by the
City Council after an appeal was filed on the Community Development
Director' s determination of a Negative Declaration of environmental
q—I
������►�►►i��lllllll�i�► �IUIII city Of San IW S OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Stoneridge II
Page 2
impact. The EIR was formally reviewed by the Commission at three
different hearings held on August 8, 1990, March 13, 1991 and February
12, 1992. The EIR was certified by the City Council on April 28, 1992.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An EIR was prepared that discussed and evaluated significant
environmental impacts associated with project development. With
incorporation of the mitigation measures included in the EIR, no
significant adverse environmental impacts are expected. A mitigation
monitoring program is attached which lists persons or agencies
responsible for monitoring development in accordance with mitigation
measures, and identifying at what stages in project development that
monitoring needs to occur.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
Without support of the Council for the annexation, general plan
amendment, prezoning and preliminary development plan, the project as
proposed could not be developed. County policies recommend annexation
for urban-scale development of this property. Under current County
zoning, hypothetically, the maximum development potential of the project
site would be six, single-family lots with the requirement for a
community water system.
BACKGROUND
Data Summary
Address: 500 Stoneridge Drive
Applicant: John King
Representative: Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group
General Plan: Interim Conservation Open Space & Conservation Open Space
Project Action Deadline: Not subject to certification requirements.
Site Description
The moderately sloping area is rocky and contains a variety of native and
non-native grasses. Several large eucalyptus trees are located south and
southeast of proposed Lot # 35. Some small utility buildings including
a windmill and two historic cisterns exist on the site.
The proposed annexation area is located directly to the west of the
mostly developed Stoneridge I tract. The older Lawrence Drive
neighborhood is located directly to the north of proposed Lots 1-17.
Project Description
The applicant wants to build 60 single-family residential units on the
property. Lots 1-46 and Lots 57 and 58 would be individually developed
with custom homes consistent with proposed design guidelines. Lots 47-
56 and Lots 59 and 60 are proposed as detached, fee-simple condominium
units.
��������bi►►I�IIIIIIIIII►i►���III city of San ...AIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
The condominium units are referred to in documents submitted by the
applicant as the "courtyard cluster product type" . These units would be
built out by the applicant. Specific plans for the development of the
condominium units would be approved by the Architectural Review
Commission.
In order to develop the property as discussed above, the following
entitlements have been requested:
1. A General Plan Amendment to change the designation on the Land
Use Element Map for the developable portion of the site below the
325 ' elevation from Interim Conservation Open Space tc Low
Density Residential.
2 . A General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element Map to modify
the development limit line (DLL) to coincide with the 325 '
elevation throughout the property. Currently the line .is
coincidental with this elevation across the site except for a
small portion of it in the very northwest corner where it is
defined as an imaginary extension of Meadow Street.
3 . The Prezoning of the area below the 325 ' elevation as R-1-PD and
the area above the 325 ' elevation as C/OS-40. With the PD
overlay prezoning, a preliminary development plan needs to be
approved.
4. The Annexation of the entire 60-acre parcel to the City of San
Luis Obispo as a "minor annexation" area as defined in the Land
Use Element.
GUIDELINES FOR PROJECT REVIEW
Enclosed in the Council 's agenda packet for review of this project are
the following items:
1. Agenda Report Attachments -- Included in attachments is a lengthy
and informational outline submitted by the applicant. It
describes project design changes to respond to the EIR, discusses
identified project issues, includes a list of project statistics
and explains how the project meets City requirements for a
planned development.
2 . Copy of the certified EIR (previously distributed for 4-28-92
hearing) -- Since the changes to the document requested by the
Council were so minimal, staff did not reprint the EIR. The
Council left the first sentence of the second mitigation measure
on Page 4-77 intact. A revised errata sheet reflecting Council
direction regarding building heights on Lots 1-17 is included in
the Exhibit A attachment to the general plan amendment resolution
and the prezoning ordinance.
3
�������►�►ii�illlllllli� 91U111 city of San tuts OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
3 . Design Guidelines -- A copy of the design guidelines proposed for
the Stoneridge II project is included. The Stoneridge II
Guidelines are intended to provide for the continuation of the
Mediterranean- design theme started with the first phase, but be
tailored for the unique characteristics of the different areas
of this project site. The guidelines are considered part of the
preliminary development plan. They were endorsed by the ARC on
July 6, 1992 .
.4. Illustrative site plan and conceptual grading and utilities plan
-- Plans divide the site into four areas. Area 1 includes the
northern tier of lots bordering the Lawrence Drive lots, Area 2
is composed of the courtyard cluster condominium units, Area 3
contains the lots on the east side of Bluerock Drive and Area 4
consists of the hillside lots.
To help expedite its review of project documents and materials and focus
on new information, staff suggests that the Council:
1. Spread out a copy of the conceptual grading and utilities plan
to use as a "map" to understanding the layout of the project.
2 . Read this staff report as an introduction and refresher to the
project. Use the Evaluation section as a start for generating
comments and questions.
3 . Read the applicant' s resubmittal outline which details changes
made in relationship to the project' s overall design concept and
responds to issues raised in the EIR.
4 . Review the Errata to Section 4 . 1.4 (included as part of Exhibit
A) for changes made to the EIR regarding building height and
envelopes for Lots 1-17 directed by the Council. The requested
building envelopes are depicted on a series of 8 boards which are
kept in the Community Development Department and will be
available for Council review in the Council Office the week prior
to the 7-21-92 hearing. For further discussion see Section 4 .
of this report.
5. Focus on the introduction and site development sections of the
new design guidelines. The ARC in its review of the document
concentrated more on building and landscape design issues.
EVALUATION
1. Consistency with the General Plan
Land Use Element
The property is currently under County jurisdiction. County policies
recommend annexation for urban-scale development of the site. The City's
4
������►�►►iIiIIIIIIIIIII° �Iil city of San _.IIs OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
Land Use Element Map designates the property as Interim Conservation Open
Space where development is proposed. This land use category indicates
that the land should remain open until development is appropriate. The
property beyond the 325-foot contour elevation, the development limit
line, is designated as Open Space.
The applicant's proposal to develop the site below the 325-foot contour
elevation is consistent with the Land Use Element Map. The project's
consistency with policies included in both the City and County general
plans is discussed in further detail in Section 4. 1.2 of the EIR (pages
4-5 to 4-8) .
Proposed Development Limit Line Modification
Part of the applicant' s General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element
Map includes modification of the development limit line (DLL) to coincide
with the 325 ' elevation throughout the property. Currently the line is
coincidental with this elevation across the site except for a small
portion of it in the very northwest corner where it is defined as an
imaginary extension of Meadow Street. At the base of the hillside the
contours narrow in this area so the DLL was adjusted to go northward in
recognition of topographical changes and to prevent a constricted lot
shape behind Lawrence Drive lots.
The lot layout proposed by the applicant could be accommodated without
modification of the DLL. The building envelope shown for Lot 17 is
mostly below the existing DLL. Staff had recommended to the Planning
Commission that the DLL be left intact and the applicant's plans changed
accordingly. The Planning Commission agreed that the DLL be left intact,
but felt that they could support a slight density bonus (1. 0 %) to allow
the number of lots proposed on plans and a resulting density of 7. 15
dwelling units per net acre (refer to Section 2 . below for further
discussion) .
As another alternative, a new DLL could be established between the
existing one and the extension of the 325 ' elevation that the applicant
has proposed.
Consistency with Minor Annexation Policies
The proposed project is consistent in terms of its location (next to the
City limits and outside designated expansion areas) , size of area being
developed (10.4 acres, as shown on plans with modification of DLL) , open
space dedication in relationship to area being developed (49. 6 acres) and
demand on City water supplies (will retrofit and utilize hillside water
sources for park irrigation) with minor annexation policies (excerpt from
LUE attached, also included on Page 4-74 .of EIR) .
s
���Ni1►niii�u►Ililll�p�► �I►IIII City Of San L.AISOBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Ri-nnn'rielga TT
Page 6
2 . Prof ect Density
Total gross project area below the 325 ' elevation is 10.4 acres. Net
area, gross area minus public streets is 8 . 66 acres. With the 60 units
proposed, the resulting density is 6.93 units/acre. Maximum allowed
density in the requested R-1 zoning is 7 units/acre.
The environmentally superior alternative discussed in Section 6 of the
EIR (pages 6-2 to 6-4) includes a reduction in the number of project
units from 65 to 59 to conform with R-1 density limitations. The
applicant's revised project shows five fewer units than originally
proposed and as shown is consistent with allowed density. However,
density is consistent only if the proposed amendment to the DLL is
supported.
If the area above the existing DLL is eliminated from Lot 17, then
density is slightly exceeded (60 units on 8 . 39 net acres or 7 . 15 dwelling
units per net acre) . A density exception can be approved through the PD
rezoning process to allow the 60 units proposed with the existing DLL
(further discussed in next section of report) .
3. Planned Development Findings
In order to approve a planned development, the Commission and the Council
must make one or more of the findings listed in Section 17. 62 . 040 of the
zoning regulations (attached) . The applicant includes in his resubmittal
outline on Page 15 an explanation of how they feel the project meets the
first five findings listed.
From staff's perspective, the project does not meet the intent of the
first three findings, but could be found consistent with findings 4-6.
Finding 4 is met by the building envelopes and increased rear yard
setbacks for Lots 1-17 to address compatibility issues and the design
guidelines to continue the neighborhood character started with Stoneridge
I. The mitigation measure for use of reclaimed water in the project
included on Page 4-77 meets the intent of Finding 5. The dedication in
fee to the City of about 50 acres of hillside open space provides an
exceptional public benefit (Finding 6) .
In order to approve a density bonus, the Council must find that at least
three of the criteria included in Section 17. 62 . 040 are met (Findings 4,
5 & 6 in Draft Prezoning Ordinance were recommended by the Planning
Commission) .
4. Lots 1-17 -- Detailed Development Plans
Much of the public hearing discussion has focussed on neighborhood
compatibility issues associated with the proposed project's relationship
to the Lawrence Drive neighborhood to the north. Errata sheets were
prepared to update the mitigation measures included in Sections 4. 1.4
(Neighborhood Compatibility) and 4 .2 .4 (Visual Quality) during the
/review
T�
�����►�H�I�III111111�1►►�iu►���IIII city of San JIS osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 7
of the EIR in response to changes mandated by the neighborhood and agreed
to by the developer (attached) .
The Council amended the errata sheet for Section 4 . 1.4 with its review
of the EIR on April 28, 1992, requiring the applicant to submit detailed
building envelopes for these lots addressing height and privacy issues.
The neighbors present at the Council hearing were concerned with the
provision in the Errata sheet to allow building heights between 15 ' and
20 ' through an administrative use permit. The Council decided to delete
that provision and require the envelopes including height restrictions :
be approved with the project.
In response to the Council 's directive, the applicant submitted a series
of eight boards which show in plan and section view the proposed building
envelopes for Lots 1-17. The boards even include photographs, where they
could be obtained, showing the existing site conditions including
topography and vegetation. Because the boards cannot be easily
duplicated, staff suggests that Council members review these boards prior
to the meeting.
Staff believes that the proposed envelopes adequately respond to the
neighborhood compatibility issues raised in the EIR and the Council 's
directive. Page 15 of the design guidelines references the boards and
indicates the building height restrictions for specific lots.
i
As described in the applicant's resubmittal outline (page 2) , lots have
skewed, rather than regular, lot lines as shown on earlier versions of
the site plan. The applicant' s motivation for the change in the
configuration of the lots was to "further enhance the Mediterranean
hillside character" by having angled lots that make the buildings look
like they overlap when viewed from the street.
Staff does not object to this change, but it will make surveying more
complicated and could create problems with identifying property lines if
there are disputes in the future. The applicant feels that they can
overcome these concerns with property monuments and strategically-placed
retaining walls.
S. Redesign of Condominium Component
The major change to the overall site planning concept has been the
redesign of the condominium component. Previously submitted plans showed
common wall units along a private drive that ran from Bluerock Court to
Stoneridge Drive.
Plans have been modified to show detached condominium units and
elimination of the private drive connection with Bluerock Court. Two
conventional lots were added to complete the Bluerock Court cul-de-sac.
Given public comments expressing concerns with the product type and the
street connection from condominiums to the cul-de-sac, staff supports the
changes.
������►��i�►i►Illllfllll�° llUlll city of San L"IS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
to"e-rjaqe TT
Page 8
In terms of the layout of the condominium lots, staff has the greatest
concern with Lot 53 . Its long driveway and location with five other lots
abutting it make for an awkward and less private lot. If neither a
change to the DLL or a density bonus is supported, staff would suggest
that the property lines between Lots 51 and 52 be adjusted and Lot 53 be
eliminated to conform with allowed density.
6. Parks & Open space
The applicant is proposing to alter the boundaries of Rockview Park to
accommodate proposed lots 32 and 33 . Since the dedicated park is
presently located outside the City limits, it was anticipated at the time
of park development that there may need to be adjustments to the park
boundaries with the development of Stoneridge II. Staff understood that
additional property would be dedicated upslope of the park with the
proposed boundary changes, but a dedication of additional park land is
not reflected in plans. Condition No. 6 suggests that the appropriate
dedication and property line adjustments be shown on the tentative
subdivision map required for the project.
One issue that staff feels has not been fully addressed yet is how access
to the open space area will be provided through the development or from
adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission discussed
this issue, but did not make any specific recommendations. Access to the
open space is currently available, and will continue to be available,
along the maintenance road to the City water tank, but no other access
points are shown on submitted plans. Two possible pedestrian access
points are: through the required drainage easement to link the project
with the Lawrence Drive neighborhood to the north; and the driveway for
proposed Lot 17 as an additonal access to the open space. Final locations
of other access points could be confirmed with tentative subdivision map
review.
7. Future Tract Map Issues
Staff feels that the applicant's submittal more than meets the minimum
requirements for a preliminary development plan and that the requested
entitlements of a general plan amendment, prezoning and annexation should
be approved. Because of the unique features of the site and the multi-
tiered review process, it is often difficult to extract what information
is necessary to be submitted at various project review stages. Certain
specific information required to address issues discussed in the EIR are
appropriate for submittal with the tentative tract map including: precise
location of the drainage easement; further hydrologic analysis; detailed
geotechnical investigation; reclaimed water systems and spring water
collection system plans; further pedestrian access points to open spaces
areas or surrounding neighborhoods; wetland mitigation plan; CC&Rs and
other maintenance issues; and transportation impact fees.
������►b►►►�►IllliillP° 111111 city Of San _-As OBISPO
"NECOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
.
Page 9
CONCURRENCES
No other departments have raised objections to the proposed change in
land use designation or annexation. The Public Works, Utilites and Fire
Departments have made specific recommendations related to proposed
development which will become conditions of tentative tract map approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
City costs and revenues resulting from annexation will be analyzed in
detail by staff before final council consideration; however, some initial
conclusions regarding impacts are possible. Residential development
generally involves greater costs and fewer revenues to the City than
commercial development would.
Public costs of annexation include electricity (street lighting) ,
utilities and street maintenance, parks and maintenance of the open space
and police and fire services. City revenue sources would consist
primarily of a property tax increment allotment from the County and
utility user taxes. These sources cannot be fully evaluated until after
official City application to LAFCo and subsequent negotiations with the
County.
The developer through conditions of the required tentative tract map will
be responsible for the cost of installation of proposed streets and
extending City sewer and water services to the project. Since sewer and
water services are Enterprise funds, the City can expect to recoup some
of the costs of extending services through initial development fees and
on-going customer fees with build-out and occupancy of lots. In order
to receive a water allocation for individual or blocks of lots,
retrofitting of other existing units in the City at the required 2: 1
ratio will also help off-set the costs of supplying services.
If implemented prior to building permit issuance, the developer would
also be responsible for paying transportation impact fees which would
contribute to area-wide street and transit improvements and supplement
City Capital Improvement funds.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may:
1. Adopt some other land use designation for this site.
This approach is not recommended since other residential or
commercial land uses at this site would not be consistent with
the City's general plan.
�-9
�������►b►►►IVllllllllll IIUIII city of San L,.6 OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Atonei,4Agg TT
Page 10
2. Continue review.
Council may wish to continue this item to allow staff to address
specific concerns.
3. Deny the application if the Council decides it would not conform
to general plan policies or would not be appropriate at this
location.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolutions and ordinance to amend the general plan,
prezone the property and recommend that LAFCo initiate annexation
proceedings.
Attached:
Attachment 1: General Plan Amendment Resolution
Attachment 2 : Prezoning Ordinance
Attachment 3 : Annexation Resolution
Attachment 4 : Vicinity Map
Attachment 5: Planning Commission minutes of 6-10-92
Attachment 6: Applicant's Resubmittal Outline
Attachment 7: Minor Annexation Policies i
Attachment 8: PD Findings -- 17. 62 . 040 of the Zoning Regulations
Distributed separately:
Illustrative Site Plan/Conceptual Grading & Utilities Plan
Design Guidelines
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FROM
INTERIM CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
FOR A 10. 1-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 500 STONERIDGE DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on this amendment in accordance with the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendment comes to the council upon the favorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the change
have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council
certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
project on April 28, 1992 , by Resolution NO. 8005 (1992 Series) ,
incorporating the mitigation measures shown on the attached Exhibit
"A" into the project.
SECTION 2. Findings.
1. The proposed general plan amendment will not be
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity.
2 . The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan, including
minor annexation policies.
3 . The proposed amendment will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, subject to the
mitigation measures referenced in Section 1, and listed
in Exhibit "A" , being included in the project.
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3 . Adoption.
1. The Land Use Element is hereby amended as shown in
Exhibit "B" .
2 . The Community Development Director shall cause the change
to be reflected in documents which are on display in City
Hall and which are available for public use.
SECTION 4 . Related Action. That the request for the
general plan amendment map change to modify the location of the
existing development limit line be denied, based on the following
finding:
1. The proposed general plan amendment is not consistent
with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
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
1992.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4-10
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
APPROVED:
Ci y 'Admin'istratOlve Of c r
tt rn
Commu ty Development Director
zk o
EXHIBIT A
i! O C>
r
mm � 7 �I� ,o cue 3 e'� •,,., .� � � cs ,L
m 2 y C.•R
h d p; S 3 0 aur 7 o. Sr ao
'b VbC'OS r1 T >
C �y •y to
ou � �� ° � v �O o � U ya
v aQy vs p v� CCU > U 0 y rj
y � C I.n C..U.•U '�' y y,0,•D^ •L N C
W A
cc rr Q r A = IS G L
a U
w d � o� c� E .S o,•� c � 3 �,5 r
tw
C rs U ea „ rW � C
esoo3 � � =
r3 g W N e0U C a� e _ 2 E ..
cl
E C r A o ys U -� c .o y U
CPO Ncc r-
rto _
_� m _ = h O errs O n v cc T C G vs
fA �_ r oc; U
Z 4LIDU U C t . r. n. U y r r9 C ca 0 C
er $ ..0 .. � cz r. O w ec .� n�> � C, N
cz
CC
m46cc
a y�
.0-5
CLO
a�
6 L •• U Qom/ L V U V V •V vc
r �v �•w a• Fv h v �_ _
O Com_ y aps o U vs eCs C •U a c
Ny V C
� L� .�. U vyi' T cc Q
.. Ed Ua aac- �_T r 3 �
cc Ln IU
U C
a fir. c 0 = " � U N Cs
q� � C � T .. N L L O OD C.1 L' N L' N CSU•• .,
C3-0 ►�- U
TSbDs U• C t
to =
W
O_ _
cc
cz
CD._ _ v•L C o 3 C U C
a �
wy
w CLO
� e�+o cc
.l' eow
.8.=
d a
L40 Win.
-� zc3
=
>a
1-3
U U
to rtJ
y to 1,.. V L= W
7
to eA t-0 tC.D
SC
> � O O C
C
p p O
to.. y y e1 h — ' •••
Ny U to 7"O - y �' v O•O U •U .^ T
Ln ^ U U W W H
U U C 7 H 0 y 0 U a C 0
L d0 r p _ O C ^ y C U i = y '3.='D C'fl
-UU ,U p c-0 O O 9e_o .� La O u > U v
i i c � •-�rb C C Gyj
v
to
' p �r7'X
L p O•r >'n C. d 0 to I= Z 0 O N L► I y O O C = -M°
O j 'C C C—•O 7 ._ ^ U U C ` =C w r C C •y v Gca
2 j
V C. 0•C .�. I.C. V 0) y '. LZ
a U CO G -o r U = y 0 c y 0 O U 2 O
Z. O v O O U .'� "'o003 r. `.�'
OHO - O t O �— r. c _ '� O =
CIO
y V—
"�" Cl. L:7 e-0 V its �' C C.0 rO
y y y V C'0 ✓+ U MO yv'D R
's d•0 w CC; �..
O ._ = H C U -C y r p
f.y v C ea ey C C C1 v YL. U '•-y �_
O L X h C y eCj v 0 C C. fV y•0 � •� L, U.L O
v•- x— 3 U w - ° c
V .-� .0 W N .. 'C O L L y C L C 3 O.• ai r U >
Ni EC tj
OCL); L I"' C.7 N O •^.�p .� W 'a O .r� to C C U
L U r •r pp•r .0O 00 6 7 0 .D ^ y ^ 7 L y v i 0
O C ^ ¢ D = 0.03 � N
C
y
y
^ 3 W ea v
eT0 V v1 U
u o0
rid �co eCa � dIY.
1-4 �14
Q
yi t7
�n 4� I W
y S
I-
Q .� S
x
0 cc u �
G9. h
> �Zj � y � a Eou
h s_ _ cam
V
y r �� = c V c
CIS
C-- O n � yL. rn O
C-4 0 0 0 y O � �
Z ... v �.y CC ...: X U V �r` . p
V
C O e0 y O W
s = = a � = L ` ctn
tC y v7
. U L t� •y•V
cz
CZ rJ
4 Q. 7 > BOO 7es O G ^ y U
E6 c E.y�
D •�•� '� vJ'G W to � •--� O m.� '.+ �' C •�
tv LO:
vi
CIO
a �
O Q . Ht v
r V
L42 0
y c v
co
m
sr
.-
O r 0..
rr V y ,D,� y r O 0 T
e3 W E O y 4 G O
U U C tE C C
`
`n O x
cy .....r 0
cc
C = cW2 � � �y.�
-0 ea c CIO
L-7� l iU G y 4 Q CA N
V CO J O
oow h
�n
i•s 1.���
La
La4
N 7 7
7
m �
Lp y
V
V ti
ta
cc
,r Ri
O•�
O O E
ww
LMv
h U C o p =
V O L V V
c �
C J t4
Z v o e
R O
o � c
E=
410
c
E
Q '"
y .
rn tb a.
U
0-4
.� � L-■
r.
u
E R cz U U O U
R6� JO U U
9
0 -0
vJ R� ...
-Nd r V
z h -o 0
VS.
L13
G to ie U =In
C
In
v=]
Vto) 'e�
CID
rte= *
= o
� v
r. C4 Qa:
j4-/7
Errata to Section 4.1.4
Over the course of the EIR review, the applicant has agreed that all of the lou that back
up to Lawrence Drive (Lou 1-18 on the original site plan used evaluated in the EIR) will
be developed with single-story homes. All of these lots would have approved building
envelopes specifying maximum allowed building heights. A maximum building height of
15 feet would be allowed at the rear of all lots, with a 20 foot maximum building height
allowed in the front portions of specified lots toward the street (Stoneridge Drive).
For clarification, building height would be an absolute measurement, the highest point of
the building at any one point, rather than an elevation above average natural grade.
Therefore, many of the original mitigations related to building height and massing would
be superseded by the following mitigation measure:
■ Lots 1-17 shown on the revised site plan shall be limited to single-story development.
Building height shall be measured as the highest point of the building above natural
grade, rather than an elevation above average natural grade as outlined in the city's
zoning regulations. A maximum building height of 20 feet may be allowed. At the
time of development plan submittal, a plan for Lots 1-17 addressing height and
privacy issues shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.
Implementation of the mitigation measure described above necessitates revisions to the
existing mitigation measures in Section 4.1.4; therefore, in conjunction with the previous
mitigation measure, the following revised mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to
neighborhood compatibility to a level of insignificance:
■ The rear lot setbacks for Lots 1-17 shall be 25 feet.
■ The applicant shall install tree screening along the rear of Lots 1-17 to insure further
protection of privacy for residents of Lawrence Drive at the time of installation of
subdivision improvements. Tree screening shall include a mix of tall, open skyline
trees and medium to large shrubs a maximum of 15 feet high.
■ The following design restrictions shall be implemented:
1.) Decks more than eight feet above natural ground level shall be prohibited;
and
2.) Massing of development must be such that no part of a building over 15 and
20 feet above the natural ground level may be within 30 and 50 feet of the
north property line, respectively.
■ A subsurface storm drainage system shall be constructed that runs from Lawrence
Drive to Meadow Creek.
Errata to Section 4.2.4
In addition, the second mitigation included in Section 4.2.4 on page 4-40 listed below would
be superseded:
■ No more than 33 percent of the floor area would be on the second story. The
majority of the second story would be massed toward the street frontage of the lot.
The third mitigation listed in Section 4.2.4 on page 4-40 would be modified to eliminate the
references to second story development from the second sentence as shown below:
■ Architectural review of sensitive lots " (the hillside lots and lots backing up to
Lawrence Drive) will be required prior to issuance of building permits for these lots.
This review shall consider the bi= 311d CAMIlt Of 3 as
as--the placement of backyard windows and decks in relation to the adjacent
Lawrence Drive units. For hillside lots, architectural review shall consider structure
elevations on a lot-to-lot basis.
In the case of the sensitive lots identified in the EIR, the proposed design
guidelines endorsed by Staff and the Architectural Review Commission,
indicate that the architectural review requirement included in the EIR would
be handled by planning staff review of plans for consistency with approved
building envelopes and the design guidelines prior to submittal of a building
permit, rather than a formal application for architectural review (see pages
6-7 of the design guidelines).
GENEQAL PLAN AMEWMENT
GP/R1346 EXHIBIT B
i_s�:��,, CHANGE FROM "INTERIM CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE
:;. - ./f.• f: ''' !�='t TO"LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
.•r-:
•J I'
T
u - r,•
,y
7.
1
'J
A
p J•
••f 1
i l
"�- r. •.?-�:...;� � i4l1. .�.. :��":..•
+ A
1r'.iy `SSA j�) ._ ��♦ �.
�7 l:• • +1 i 'tee �e -:! �'•; '� �tl,'7\
_
�. ..:-. .. + �. ... r�
. _
t •—:e°°°eo°e.fe°e J.:::::::::::::.::::::..-iE^2i: I •. .. �17°f' -'?+•::`''�'�. ••• :_.�.
--� ape }. ww .. ... _ r .. .�- •�~,t::.M ' y
_-_ �..s"•c�aasaosa ',�•-� ; :: ... w _ —. ;•�j. o���"a� •';r . � ..v;
°..<...°••i;�B
AREA TO REMAIN
°°w¢o�eea998Y ~ "CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE"
`»... �°sees � _ �:_ .. '�-.?r'�1�,+,•> ,� };
??:atiS. ` 'iii: --___ _ _ - '.'Y)��' �:�'�� �1•�7:•Y ��'
,.
0 !00 U00 f000
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
et N , NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ` °€ LOW DENSITY
:?::::::::%i.•::::
SERVICE-COMMERCIAL/ MEDIUM DENSITY
LIGHT-INDUSTRIAL
OFFICE
"" ' `''' PUBLIC/SEMIPUBLIC
�"�k�' PARK BOUNDARIES
MA
—
��.^:��' CONS SPACE CITY LIMIT
—'
C ■�t���� URBAN RESERVE LINE
INTERIM CONSERVATION/
OPEN SPACE .������ DEVELOPMENT LIMIT LINE
RURAL-INDUSTRIAL MAJOR EXPANSION AREA
Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. (1992 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP
TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY 10. 1 ACRES R-1-PD
AND 49. 9 ACRES C/OS-40 AND ADOPT A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PIAN
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 500 STONERIDGE DRIVE (GP/R 1346)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the proposed
annexation area in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the
California Government Code; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Zoning Man Designation. That the annexation area
be prezoned 11R-1-PD" and 11C/OS-40" as shown on the map attached
marked Exhibit "C" and included herein by reference. This
prezoning becomes effective upon the date of final action by the
City Council on the .annexation.
SECTION 2 . Environmental Determination.. The City Council
has determined that the project's Environmental Impact Report
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning, and incorporates
the mitigation measures shown on the attached Exhibit "A" into the
project.
SECTION 3 . Adoption. The preliminary development plan,
adopted consistent with the R-1-PD prezoning of the 10. 1 acres
below the Development Limit Line, is approved, including a density
bonus to allow 7. 15 density units per net acre (reference`Findings
415 & 6 as required by Municipal Code Section 17. 62. 040) , and
including the design guidelines approved by the Architectural
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
Review Commission, subject to the following findings and
conditions:
Findings.
1. The proposed prezoning and preliminary development plan
will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of persons living or working in the area or at the site.
2 . The proposed prezoning and preliminary development plan
are consistent with the general plan.
3 . The proposed project is appropriate at the proposed
location and will be compatible with surrounding land
uses.
4 . Features of the proposed prezoning and preliminary
development plan design achieve the intent of
conventional standards for privacy, parking and
neighborhood compatibility as well or better than the
standards themselves.
5. The proposed project incorporates features which result
in consumption of less water than conventional
development because of plans to utilize on-site water for
irrigation of Rockview Park and possibly other purposes.
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits
by providing 50 acres of open space to the City in fee
that would not be necessarily feasible without the
proposed development to unconventional development
standards.
7 . An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the
City Council on April 28 , 1992, by Resolution No. 8005
(1992 Series) , which describes significant environmental
impacts associated with project development. The EIR
concludes that the project will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown on the attached Exhibit A being
incorporated into the project. In conjunction with these
mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.
•
Conditions.
1. The applicant shall file a precise development plan for
city approval within six months of preliminary plan
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
approval. The Preliminary Development Plan approval shall
expire if a precise development plan is not filed and
approved.
2 . A tentative subdivision map shall be submitted, reviewed
and approved prior to final development plan
consideration. If in the course of the tentative
subdivision map review, issues arise that significantly
alter the layout of streets, lots or other project
features, then a new preliminary development plan will
need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council. However, changes to the
configuration of lots to accommodate elimination of a
single unit to conform with R-1 density standards could
be approved by the Community Development Director without
the submittal of a new preliminary development plan.
3 . Project shall;be built, maintained and operated in strict
conformance with approved precise development plans.
4 . The applicant shall obtain final approval of the
Architectural Review Commission of the project design
guidelines, condominium project plans, a continuous open
fence along the 325 contour line for Lots 17 to 33,
subdivision retaining walls and drainage swales and
Stoneridge Drive median development details.
5. Development of Lots 1-17 shall conform with approved
building envelopes, as shown on the Exhibit Boards,
labeled 1 through S. presented at the June 10, 1992,
Planning Commission hearing, and maintained in the
Community Development Department. These lots as well as
hillside lots, Lots 18-33 shall require review and
approval by the Community Development Director. The
purpose of the review is to ensure consistency with
adopted design guidelines and all applicable project
conditions of approval.
6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City additional
- property upslope of Rockview Park with the proposed
boundary changes to the park. The additional dedication
of park land to the City and changes to property lines
shall be reflected on the tentative subdivision map
submitted for the project.
7 . The applicant shall submit a wetland mitigation plan with
the tentative subdivision map for the review and approval
of the City and the Department of Fish and Game.
8 . Pedestrian paths to the hillside open space area above
the project and/or surrounding residential neighborhoods
�-a3
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 4_
shall be approved with the tentative subdivision map.
SECTION 4 . Implementation. A summary of this ordinance,
together with the ayes and noes, shall be published, at least three
(3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in said city, and the same shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its
passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held on the day of
1992 , on motion of ,
seconded by and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
7 ��
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 5
APPROVED:
Gity'l-Admi-ni-s-tralirve Off ' cer
C' tt n
Commun ty Development Director
`REZONING MA; EXHIBIT C
GP/R1346
;if- Jim
,.._t
CiOS 40- SPEl
Flo
L a.
R_ s
V O O
of j - ' R-2
s-40-s - R— I
Y � J V Y j Y
Lam."
OSLA40 s
i 1 �rPEM � Iv �
Y
5-PD
a¢� C-S-
S S R-2-S
R-2-Pp
-s-
I R-2-PD
R-2 Is
s
I ; C/OS-40 R_
J r
LUPVTA
< f
' Y 7J �
SOO uoo loco
w
R-1-PD
C/OS-40 'T
EXHIBITA
-, V
aEi m 7 A= . OV: a ai
'O E CL's U C " rJ 'h O
C
00 0.`0
,d r� a
o g V R U C� E'COC'O s e3 y
vi C-C > •y L.+ DO tb•O -Vp.� C
O
V w
V 1 O VJ y 0 y 'fl =y
0-0
r Q Q p �.V•U'� y O. '�. y C O
y yQ "3 t0 L
a=i c.^ 3o3ucc a s � L � -o c
E �_ cc uczIn
0 O ° W h U L. •� C s bUi L "J C �', •C
91ca33�-- y� c ^ _
c _
cc c WE
92
m am E ~ r 09 `0Q � a�, o �- h nc c
Cz
_ ..
d•� U'O y G V y V .y.. v_Ci C eC V L C
jj LZ cz 40 Cc
Lz
126 ? V U
..� C O ih '`7 •y• 'f'
too
E r
G.L ba
> a b4 C v CLI.� e� r r u
z t V
ba
li Gi Inn' _ C
CD 0
ea O
tuj
N ` p 7 d " V C
;Ira Hv n' E Os > C
Col.
m =C> seo � = F_ •c ;? ,
Ln to
45
cc 0 cc
C cc
00 LO 0
a'Sol > y 3 v, - vs 3 >
Cv V'i. v�= 7C vC
y L CD E . W � A•o ca
V •,
tn
L. uen
d d0 C C �� 7 y
c = m MOLE0 $'� O L)�
.,: CD „ Z d > Q
U U
U U U
w q t=
7'
L •C) .y .y .y .y
Y
C > O O � O C O U L L.
CO
ta
pUp r = r OL,•• ° y .�V- O •y-_ y •_� c•D
;74
.� U V ^ R .cc '0 GD U U y U C C f7
Ln 0
.. _ _
O L C O i O7� - cz
= 6 O O W ^ C ^ U
O .7 •U U W V C L.0 .. ' O •L •L •= U u O O O O i
to
O O O ` C y v CS mo, .y = U•C•U v yUj
G y C �...•`� y V.•;=. y 52r"-
Z ON
� .. �. y m cm c .� ..� e 3 � - v �:. cchv� Z
U ^ LIZ
ci
F r cA = = O O_ O r_ ✓f r - 0 .=
U
- - - V _
C7 •U O_G C
Z L v JID y C C �- y _ _U
cli=ff r V U U ? .Ur C - VZ - O
C y U _ Q y i3 U W 7R C7
v = oc.� a .^n. Oa v3 v C30
.res a
r. v .. .. C
tj
L)
vy =-V = O , O
0 C6 _
—Nd
O = xmy U O v L g e
ci v v. h o O Ute = 14O` p a... _ Lv-0U ? v
= v
cc
!Q C O C > C�.Od ENZ '�•-' O.. ••" `0-ocz
C .0 :•�•rU.• pp':r 000 w 7 O ,^ v: V V in v O
V ^ _ y V C .L. O
O v'O _ v U L v r O O '� v U N
cc to O w v'a � u o F¢ c.� U cz c: == cN v)
_
C. d! 2
V Cd
C R
cz
>+ '•O O U U
C!} c
O y -0 - .O h
O r1 O
1-4
J
�C [4
U U U
O O C C C
Gp t-0 Gp
V
J S S S
Y
IG tz
cc
n p
_p O > ao� eya C E O O
.y r J �" J G C ca
Ut J C s R C;.=
LO) C •C'�+..
< e7 C J O O
LM
Cl
v0000 � � ^ o •°�
cZ'yaa =_ x cJiJ � Eo
O O .O C J O R
.— J .4 U C 5 l: & C 'n
F C tL y a p
r r J y J C 4. J •fl y 2
•J ; �..+ `��• ..moi L U �` y V 'D
p
0 OO a'y to c. _. '- to >+ e
�. Z — C .J. C U O U J'rn
C 8 O = J J N 1•-•
.r w C Cif o a C: ._, •v 0. % w
cLo ^
'J U •y J
U u 0
.7
..:, .. CJ
0
ZJ y`.� J etc C
t 7 y U p C
Cl. J J R
QV.. O _ y �. J ^ L
Z C ^ �... U.v (T CD
C v U U14
cd C U.CJ
_ y
O R O\ 'r •� C a� C �_ O'K
r O 'O... r _ 4r _
}� C h '= R C y .. •y'C 'C to O
R ^J J.r > > J
W2
cc OEu CN
h � A > Q� � cnh
vC3 e
eyo ai O
C U
L
J
� 5
W
B
' § § •
Loa
La
§ §
14
2 k R
co
� � 2 2 �
2
2 2 c3cz
Ln
/
§•E— �— §
2 cc
ciq k § o
La
H 22
� / \
\
� = g
E . ��_ 7 7•§ §
§W La
2 55 • =cam k.e .
0.4
- �
� 0CZ § »�
� �� k /k\ I ■ �
CD
_
§ _ . ��23 CCI
e2 �d § 22 °
�b a
F \
R 5 to k %
Errata to Section 4.1.4
Over the course of the EIR review, the applicant has agreed that all of the lots that back
up to Lawrence Drive (Lots 1-18 on the original site plan used evaluated in the EIR) will
be developed with single-story homes. All of these lots would have approved building
envelopes specifying maximum allowed building heights. A maximum building height of
15 feet would be allowed at the rear of all lots, with a 20 foot maximum building height
allowed in the front portions of specified lots toward the street (Stoneridge Drive).
For clarification, building height would be an absolute measurement, the highest point of
the building at any one point, rather than an. elevation above average natural grade.
Therefore, many of the original mitigations related to building height and massing would
be superseded by the following mitigation measure:
■ Lots 1-17 shown on the revised site plan shall be limited to single-story development.
Building height shall be measured as the highest point of the building above natural
grade, rather than an elevation above average natural grade as outlined in the city's
zoning regulations. A maximum building height of 20 feet may be allowed. At the
time of development plan submittal, a plan for Lots 1-17 addressing height and
privacy issues shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.
Implementation of the mitigation measure described above necessitates revisions to the
existing mitigation measures in Section 4.1.4; therefore, in conjunction with the previous
mitigation measure, the following revised mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to
neighborhood compatibility to a level of insignificance:
■ The rear lot setbacks for Lots 1-17 shall be 25 feet.
■ The applicant shall install tree screening along the rear of Lots 1-17 to insure further
protection of privacy for residents of Lawrence Drive at the time of installation of
subdivision improvements. Tree'screening shall include a mix of tall, open skyline
trees and medium to large shrubs a maximum of 15 feet high.
■ The following design restrictions shall be implemented:
1.) Decks more than eight feet above natural ground level shall be prohibited;
and
2.) Massing of development must be such that no part of a building over 15 and
20 feet above the natural ground level may be within 30 and 50 feet of the
north property line, respectively.
_ ■ A subsurface storm drainage system shall be constructed that runs from Lawrence
Drive to Meadow Creek.
4 -31
Errata to Section 4.2.4
In addition, the second mitigation included in Section 4.2.4 on page 4-40 listed below would
be superseded:
■ No more than 33 percent of the floor area would be on the second story. The
majority of the second story would be massed toward the street frontage of the lot.
The third mitigation listed in Section 4.2.4 on page 4-40 would be modified to eliminate the
references to second story development from the second sentence as shown below:
■ Architectural review of sensitive lou " (the hillside lots and lots backing up to
Lawrence Drive) will be required prior to issuance of building permits for these lots.
This review shall consider tile size and extent of sercund-stoiy deveioplizent as INCH
arthe placement of backyard windows and decks in relation to the adjacent
Lawrence Drive units. For hillside lots, architectural review shall consider structure
elevations on a lot-to-lot basis.
In the case of the sensitive lots identified in the EIR, the proposed design
guidelines endorsed by Staff and the Architectural Review Commission,
indicate that the architectural review requirement included in the EIR would
be handled by planning staff review of plans for consistency with approved
building envelopes and the design guidelines prior to submittal of a building
permit, rather than a formalapplication for architectural review (see pages
6-7 of the design guidelines).
4-3A
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION
BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO
TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE STONERIDGE II ANNEXATION
SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION # 39
RESOLVED, by the City Council of San Luis Obispo, that:
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to initiate
proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985, commencing with Section 56000 of the
California Government Code, for the Stoneridge II Annexation also
known as SLO County Annexation # 39; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on April 28 , 1992 , by Resolution No.
8005 (1992 Series) , certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090; and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as
a result its deliberations, the council has amended the General
Plan Land Use Map and prezoned the property for the annexation
known as the Stoneridge II Annexation; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San
Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate
formal annexation proceedings;
WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of
application has been given to each interested and each subject
agency; and
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited,
and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth
in Section 2 ; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of
influence of the affected city; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. Annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous
to the city on its north and east sides.
2 . Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the city
due to its location and existing development.
3 . The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety,
and welfare of persons residing or working within or in
the vicinity of the annexation area.
SECTION 2 . . Annexation Area Described. The Stoneridge II
Annexation shall consist of that area, covering approximately 60
acres, immediately west of the Stoneridge I development (Tract
1150) in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo,
being the portion of Assessor' s Parcel Number 76-331-0011 up to the
ridge line of the adjacent portion of the South Street Hills, as
shown on the attached map, Exhibit "D" .
SECTION 3 . Council Recommendation. The City Council
recommends .that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the
proposed annexation subject to property owner compliance with city
requirements regarding environmental mitigation and public
improvements as described in the project's EIR, in accordance with
JwL3 Y
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 4
APPROVED:
241i
City Administrative Officer
*CC' A1�6 n
Community Development Director
'�-35
STO%PRIDGE II ANNE"ATION
ANNX 1345 EXHIBIT D
- S -
-..c-
_ C/b5 40- SP c/o
R t d - `�'
� c w R R-2
y S-40-S i ~ c u I -' < rf ' I
t
C G -Al y.
O J �L.rotvCL y Sv
10c `
J E D
S-PD
C-S-
S-S
2-S
R-2-gyp R-
�\ -s
v
= Y
I� -2-PD
R-2 I" ANNEXATION AREA
s /OS-40 R-
J
1
SO* �SOO zoo*
R-1-PD
C/OS-40 ��ro
Attachment 4
rs
G I •
is
i 10 1 �i 1• l F(.
` _ $ a • � \wt1,a � r ,�£�' � "i`e1 a F ' s 1 a wN v r
DP r Yw
o • R xfs.
G 4st SLY• •2 � • x 2iF: kNt � a. td 1, y-3 �+�c�`'�, .d � Y t�'�"2.'y.$ ki
`i �^.A y0 Yls` F
' •9.4 'E 1�{ •1N' V a %S+K- .2.W'jolS4. 'H'a. V`' F
-�CF•IG �° {y t• .' kt F aYFMb i �.. y'.
R ,- < •V Y .� • .6 air '+7-- e:i
o -F1 ` 9' -E r ❑ N • '^ T 4° <e�iL .;Ea.>;,..
FOS-ILL a 1 BLV w ' �Y<
Fw...` R• N• "� ` r OE5[RIt • n '�1!'IOND 2 iRRI R I T 2 '` �� T ':i ti•�Y�..
R DEL • � _ SQ!RRI • N i I ;�� I t i� �%�..�� tf.
J04[ t °• FW URR•Y $T * 1 r i
• e SFRR•Ip
i
k:;,�;;ej;". WRFIELD ST
4�x 'n" a pia( ? �,��, k �:' II N• � ° � � •�� f'ri ♦ <" `� •rb ' %C�iae�i��a+s�w�
„ �"' 4• s. ¢.e.afss 'lw i h •-s •- t t v"ni/
` i J 9 •r I ,
t•. -/, 9 •�t �� .x Lus
T t � � � rte. _.. !! .➢O. � ... ` y a ;
Saargt i 2 s'x S
G �� CrN v E
& ?SCM I sPO I
x ° S s F»r'3 ` s 5 ECAs C° d•W t r ^�� e` `Q $' `(', HI�`fi
re-'.�' � nF,.•ES ty& »N � Q +f M �2T `t t 7 � �4� 3 T' �dj'
w. a3 "4F' a f '' t . t JF' • s$ St O" Y" R n"aM t s. s
e9o� '�3sbs ' (' w �, • JA +1p t •O y% "zt 'A' ,,
..........
��a'd>"'s:�._ sx f 'rx,x.., M1 (lam .�P •6 yam$ �' l ,/4`••y t� ••'sy aM.� ..
b'. :<y j j£ �i '�is°�z.i.��w� c y is ^� • °°use �y% Ft'a�u3^, Cs&
R39
Fro \� a hr g: / �: }9 •� f 'SrtF• r'. �'1G. • --_! �a' h d{
s
( xS
1Y �. •5 I /`" �4C[L • i L (�
5-
LEGEND
R° ; • O T 1�� t _ 1 • �
TN R �. T�+ _ • 1t
EXISTING STONERIDGE I s¢ •(R w Project Location
DEVELOPMENT - - .
PROPOSED STONERIDGE II
DEVELOPMENT'
® PROPOSED OPEN SPACE
DEDICATION'
w ,d;;"• OUTLYING COUNTY REGIONS
'THIS AREA IS CURRENTLY IN g"
THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. "" R
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
PROJECT AS PROPOSED WOULD ^• Cti $ W.
RESULT IN ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
_ R 0 650
-Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BR Os.MAPS. x p
This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS.MAPS.It is unlawful
to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof•whether for personal
use or resale.wdhout permission.' FEET
ERC F I G U R E
lft� Environmental prpj Location
and Energy lA
Services Co. 2
2-3 ?-37
Attachment 5
Draft
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo, California
June 10, 1992
PRESENT: Commrs. Brett Cross, Keith Gurnee, Gilbert Hoffman,
Dodie Williams, and Chairman Barry Karleskint
ABSENT: Commrs. Fred Peterson and Allen K. Settle.
OTHERS
PRESENT: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner; Pamela Ricci,
Associate Planner; Cindy Clemens, Assistant City
Attorney; and Barbara Ehrbar, Recording Secretary.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commr. Gurnee requested that Item 2A
be moved to the beginning of the agenda. The
commission concurred with the change.
PUBLIC
COMMENT: There was no public comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 1. Schedule a date to discuss open space concepts and
concerns.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The commission scheduled a special meeting to discuss open space
concepts and concerns on July 13th from 4 to 6 p.m.
The commission also scheduled a special meeting for June 22nd
from 3 to 6 p.m. to continue training begun at the special
meeting at Embassy Suites on May 28th.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2 . Actions Relating to Property at 500 Stoneridge Drive.
Requests to annex 60 acres to the city and to amend the
Land Use Element map and zoning map on 10. 2 acres to
develop 60 residential unit. -
A. Annexation ANNX 1345. A request to annex 60 acres
to the city.
B. General Plan Amendment/Rezoning GP/R 1346.
Request to amend the Land Use Element map and
zoning map to change the designations from
Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) to Single-Family
Residential (R-1) on 10. 2 acres.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commr. Gurnee stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Pamela Ricci, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,
indicating that the project is considered to be the second phase
of the Stoneridge Village project. She noted that the applicant
plans to continue the Mediterranean design theme into the second
A/%38
P.C. Minutes
June 10 , 1992
Page 2
phase and to accommodate that design, the property is being
processed as a planned development. She said that two related
issues include the proposed modification of the development limit
line and the overall project density. In accordance with the
City Council ' s directive, the applicant has submitted eight
boards which highlight each of the seventeen lots in the northern
tier showing existing topography and vegetation and indicating
proposed building heights and envelopes. Staff recommends that
the general plan amendment, prezoning, and preliminary plan be
approved, but that the change to the development limit line be
denied.
Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group, 3026 S. Higuera, presented the
eight boards to the commission and explained the basis for the
building heights shown for individual lots. He indicated that
the 15-foot height limit was constant for the rear of the homes,
but that there were six or seven lots where a 20-ft. building
height was shown in the front portions of lots facing Stoneridge
Drive. The lots which allow 20-foot high buildings were selected
because of topography or significant existing vegetation.
Cliff Branch, applicant, felt a variation in building heights
would be compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Pam Ricci clarified that eleven lots were proposed for 20-foot
high buildings closer to the street..
Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney, commented that an
approval recommendation requires a vote of the majority of the
commission, which would mean four votes.
Terry Sanville reviewed policies of the Hillside Planning Program
and how it relates to this site. He indicated that staff
recommended that the commission interpret the development limit
line to include the building footprint for Lot 17 and retain the
rest of the lot as a non-developed area.
Chairman Karleskint declared the public hearing open.
Erik Justesen, representative, responded to the staff report. He
clarified that a preliminary development plan was needed to get
the annexation, general plan, and prezoning approved. He
indicated they were not seeking to modify the development limit
line (DLL) substantially, but they wanted to include the entire
area of Lot 17 below the DLL, which he felt could be found
consistent with city's policies. He felt that there were two
options available: (1) leave the DLL intact, but allow the area
outside of it to be calculated as part of Lot 17 ; or (2) amend
the DLL' s location on the general plan map to keep in continguous
with with 325 ft. contour.
He noted that the proposed project density is 6.93 units per
acre, which is within R-1 standards, if the 1/3 acre of Lot 17 is
�-39
P.C. Minutes
June 10, 1992
Page 3
included in the land area for density calcuations. He added that
the Stoneridge II project would be consistent with the first
phase design-wise and offers more open space dedication and
amenities. Therefore, he felt that a precedent would not be set
regarding neighborhood compatibility. He explained a significant
design change to courtyard cluster area. He indicated that the
area would be better served by a looped road off of Stoneridge
eliminating access to Bluerock Court, and Blue Rock Court would
be built out with a more regular lot pattern.
He responded to concerns with parks and open space. He
indicated they had no problem with dedicating more parkland.
Access to the open space needs to be channeled into existing
trail areas and could occur by the water tank access road. He
noted that they would be working with the Fire Department in
getting adequate fire access off the water tank road or at the
end of the cul-de-sac.
In answer to a question from Commr. Cross about the retrofit
program, Mr. Justesen noted that buyers of the individual lots
would be responsible for retrofitting prior to obtaining a
building permit. The subdivider would be responsible for
retrofitting for the built-out portion of the project. He noted
they were considering using some of the existing water on the
site for landscaping and/or irrigation and this could be used as
an offset credit.
Erik Justesen stated it may be logical to have a pedestrian
access from the project to the north, but there is no guarantee
that it could be worked out between the Lawrence and Stoneridge
neighbors.
Gary Williams, 555 Lawrence Drive, had concerns with the heights
of the proposed homes. He wanted to see compatibility of Phase
II with the neighbors on Lawrence Drive and was concerned that a
majority of the homes were now proposed at 20 feet instead of 15
feet. He wanted to see a recommendation made that limited the
number of homes at 20 feet to no more than five.
Richard Stephens, 309 Lawrence Drive, had concerns with
pedestrian access in the open space. He hoped that the city
would retain a 10-foot pedestrian access on Mitchell Street when
that portion of the street is abandoned. He hoped that the
development limit line would not be changed and that the park
lawn area could be expanded for use by the neighborhood. He was
concerned with overlook from the new homes into the Lawrence
Drive lots.
Roy Hanff, 569 Lawrence Drive, noted that because lots 1, 2 , and
3 were already elevated over 5 feet, the homes proposed for those
lots at 20 feet will appear to be built with a 25-foot height.
He would be opposed to having an access to the north that would
accommodate cars because it would create traffic problems. He
P. C. Minutes
June 10, 1992
Page 4
suggested a condition be placed on Lot 17 that no decks be
allowed above the 325-foot line.
Cliff Branch, 141 San Rafael, Avila Beach, representative for the
property owners, reviewed the 10-year history of the Stoneridge
projects. He clarified that there are no houses that are over 15
feet in the rear, and eleven out of seventeen have the capacity
. to go up to 20 feet in the front. He felt it was fair for the
Lawrence Drive neighbors to control the rear building heights,
but did not think they should also control the front of the
houses. He felt the proposed setbacks and height limitations
were the most restrictive of any subdivision in the city. He
felt that Stoneridge I was a unique concept that allowed first-
time home buyers to build in the city and Phase II was a logical
extension of that project. He felt there was still flexibility
in adjusting building heights later if something didn't work. He
asked the commission to recommend approval of the project to the
City Council.
Roy Hanff noted that Stoneridge I and II were approved at the
same time and the neighbors were concerned with the project even
at that time. He felt concerns raised by neighbors were not new
issues, but rather the fault of the developer who let the project
sit for ten years. He felt the developer had the right to
develop his property, but the neighbors had the right to privacy
and to a view.
Richard Stephens felt the boards were the best data presented on
the project, but felt the public needed access to that data.
Erik Justesen felt a lot of effort had been put into getting the
right building heights at appropriate locations in response to
specific conditions. In response to another concern, he noted
that. there are no decks over 8-feet high allowed.
Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing.
Terry Sanville explained how the development limit lines were
originally established.
Pamela Ricci noted that if the commission wanted to support a
density exception, the exception would have to be specified in
the approval, with three PD findings being made in support of the
exception.
Commr. Hoffman supported the annexation. He suggested additional
wording to Condition 4 of the PD Rezoning dealing with the
approval of a continuous open fence along the 325 contour lines
between lots 17 and 33 .
Commr. Cross was concerned with height restrictions on lots 15 -
33 . He felt the limit should be set at 15 feet from the natural
grade in order to keep buildings lower on the hillside. He had
�� i I
P.C. Minutes
June 10, 1992
Page 5
concerns with the driveway to lot 17 . He felt this lot should be
eliminated. He also expressed concerns with the retrofit program
and. who would be responsible for retrofitting the project. He
felt it was the applicant' s responsibility to retrofit.
Commr. Williams felt the 20-foot height in the front yard was not
a concern for the Lawrence Drive neighbors, but the rear yards
were a definite concern.
Commr. Hoffman felt the design guidelines and the building
envelopes assured him that the 20-foot height would be pushed
forward enough on lots not to be a problem.
Chairman Karleskint felt the developer had done a lot of work to
protect the 15-foot height in the rear yards and to further
restrict them in the front would be a hardship.
The commission discussed the design guidelines and it was felt
that the guidelines were more restrictive than current standards.
Commr. Williams moved to recommended to the City Council that the
general plan map amendment to designate the 49 . 9 acres of the
property above the Development Limit Line (DLL) as Conservation
Open Space, and the 10. 1 acres below the DLL as Single Family
Residential, be approved, subject to the following findings:
General Plan Amendment Findings
i. The proposed general plan amendment will not be detrimental
to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or
working in the vicinity.
2 . The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the
goals and policies of the General Plan.
3 . The proposed amendment will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment as discussed in Finding 7 . in the
Planned Development Rezoning findings below.
and to recommend to the City Council that the proposed minor
annexation be supported and that the property above the DLL be
prezoned C/OS-40, and the 10 . 1 acres below the DLL be prezoned R-
1-PD, including a density bonus to allow 7. 15 density units per
net acre (reference Findings 4 , 5 & 6 as required by Municipal
Code Section 17 . 62 . 040) :
Planned Development Prezoning Findings
1. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan will
not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of
persons living or working in the area or at the site.
P.C. Minutes
June 10, 1992
Page 6
2. The proposed rezoning and preliminary development plan are
consistent with the general plan.
3 . The proposed project is appropriate at the proposed location
and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
4 . Features of the proposed rezoning and preliminary
development plan design achieve the intent of conventional
standards for privacy, parking and neighborhood
compatibility as well or better than the standards
themselves.
5. The proposed project incorporates features which result in
consumption of less water than conventional development
because of plans to utilize on-site water for irrigation of
Rockview Park and possibly other purposes.
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits by
providing 50 acres of ,open space to the City in fee that
would not be necessarily feasible without the proposed
development to unconventional development standards.
7 . An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the
City Council on April 28 , 1992 , which describes significant
environmental impacts associated with project development.
The EIR concludes that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the
mitigation measures shown on the attached Exhibit A being
incorporated into the project. In conjunction with these
mitigation measures, changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects as identified in the Final EIR.
Planned Development PrezoninQ Conditions
1. The applicant shall file a precise development plan for city
- approval within six months of preliminary plan approval. The
Preliminary Development Plan approval shall expire if a
precise development plan is not filed and approved.
2. A tentative subdivision map shall be submitted, reviewed and
approved prior to final development plan consideration. If
in the course of the tentative subdivision map review,
issues arise that significantly alter the layout of streets,
lots or other project features, then a new preliminary
development plan will need to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council . However, changes to the configuration of lots to
� MTZ�
P.C. Minutes
June 10, 1992
Page 7
accommodate elimination of a single unit to conform with R-
1 density standards could be approved by the Community
Development Director without the submittal of a new
preliminary development plan.
3 . Project shall be built, maintained and operated in strict
conformance with approved precise development plans.
4 . The applicant shall obtain final approval of the
Architectural Review Commission of the project design
guidelines, condominium project plans, a continuous open
fence along the 325 contour line for Lots 17 to 33 ,
subdivision retaining walls and drainage swales and
Stoneridge Drive median development details.
5. Development of Lots 1-17 shall conform with approved
building envelopes, as shown on the Exhibit Boards, labeled
1 through 8 , presented at the June 10, 1992 , Planning
Commission hearing, and maintained in the Community
Development Department. These lots as well as hillside
lots, Lots 18-33 shall require review and approval by the
Community Development Director. The purpose of the review
is to ensure consistency with adopted design guidelines and
all applicable project conditions of approval.
6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City additional property
upslope of Rockview Park with the proposed boundary changes
to the park. The additional dedication of park land to the
City and changes to property lines shall be reflected on the
tentative subdivision map submitted for the project.
7 . The applicant shall submit a wetland mitigation plan with
the tentative subdivision map for the review and approval of
the City and the Department of Fish and Game.
8 . Pedestrian paths to the hillside open space area above the
project and/or surrounding residential neighborhoods shall
be approved with the tentative subdivision map.
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Williams, Hoffman, Cross, Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Gurnee, Peterson, Settle
The motion passed.
Commr. Williams moved to recommend to the City Council that the
general plan amendment map change to modify the location of the
14 AV4
P.C. Minutes
June 10, 199,2
Page 8
existing development limit line be denied, based on the following
finding:
1. The proposed general plan amendment is not consistent with
the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Williams, Hoffman, Cross, Karleskint
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Gurnee, Peterson, Settle
The motion passed.
Commr. Williams complemented the representative on a nice job and
making changes to conform to the requests that have been made.
She felt there was adequate access to the open space from the
road above the park area.
---------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Karleskint noted that the League of Cities is having a
meeting in San Jose in August regarding working relationships
between Chambers of Commerce and Cities on the downtown and
recruiting businesses to downtowns.
The meeting adjourned at 10: 05 p.m. to a special meeting of the
Planning Commission scheduled for June 22, 1992 , at 3 : 00 p.m. in
the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Ehrbar -
Recording Secretary
t =450
Attachment 6
STONERIDGE II -- RESUBMITTAL
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/REZONING APPLICATION OUTLINE
June 4, 1992
1. Fees have been previously submitted.
2. Completed application forms have been previously submitted.
3. Official Zoning MaI2 indicating areas to be changed has been previously submitted.
4. Preliminary Development Plan
A. Legal Description (previously submitted)
B. Revised Statement of Objectives
Please refer to the certified EIR for the Stoneridge H Project, section H
entitled Project Description and Section 4-1 entitled Neighborhood
Compatibility for a more detailed description of the annexation proposals and
discretionary actions required. The following outline is the Revised Project
Description and Statement of Objectives which takes into account the findings
of the certified environmental impact report and changes made to the project
during the environmental review process. This outline is intended to
supplement the previously submitted Stoneridge II Developer's Statement.
♦ FEATURES AND HISTORY OF THE PLAN
In November of 1987 the original general plan amendment plan development
application was submitted to the City. Through a number of subsequent
_actions, the City granted the Project a Negative Declaration in September
of 1988. The Negative Declaration was appealed and upheld by the City
requiring the preparation of an environmental impact report. The City
authorized ERCE to prepare an EIR for the Stoneridge II Project in
November of 1989. The Project has since been immersed in the EIR
process. The EIR was certified by the City Council in April of 1992. -
During this time the applicants have submitted a number of revised site
plans, study sketches, and various other proposals in an effort to keep abreast
with the ever changing issues with the Stoneridge II Project. More recently,
X10
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 2
June 4, 1992
the applicants have submitted the revised Stoneridge II Design Guidelines
which further define and describe the various site planning, architecture and
landscape architectural issues which will guide the eventual development of
Stoneridge II. The Design Guidelines have been prepared in response to the
issues set forth in the EIR, comments from the neighborhood and the various
.public hearings which have been conducted over the past three years. Please
refer to this document for additional design information.
This outline will highlight the major new features of the revised project
proposal so as to clearly set forth the new proposals and objectives of
Stoneridge II.
♦ PROJECT DESIGN ISSUES
Two lots have been eliminated along Stoneridge Drive. The remaining lots
have been widened and reconfigured so that the lot lines are no longer
perpendicular to Stoneridge Drive but rather at off-angles thereby creating
irregular lot shapes. The objective in doing so is to further enhance the
mediterranean hillside character by skewing lots at angles so that when
viewed from the street, the buildings themselves look like they overlap one
another and are connected. The configuration also helps to alleviate
neighborhood compatibility concerns due to the nature of the building
envelopes for these lots. As shown on the detailed site plan all of the
building envelopes remain 25 feet from the rear property line and some of
them even further due to the angles which they are placed on the lots. The
lots along Stoneridge Drive will be served by shared driveways or
independent driveways, depending upon the orientation of the garage.
Setbacks
In Area 1, minimum 25-foot rear yard setback. Minimum 3-foot side yard
setback (consistent with Stoneridge I) 10-foot front yard setback for side-
loading garage. 15-foot front yard setback for street-loading garage. The
heights of all the homes along Stoneridge Drive will be determined by the
building envelope sections as presented on the detailed plan development
drawings.
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 3
June 4, 1992
Area 2
The courtyard clusters product type which was first proposed in Stoneridge
II as an attached single family duplex with a shared common wall has been
redesigned to a detached single family lot enclave. The Project as reviewed
in the EIR contained a small cobblestone drive connecting from the cul-de-
sac at Bluerock Court to Stoneridge Drive. This has been eliminated. The
remaining two lots for the Bluerock Court cul-de-sac have been installed and
the three single family lots proposed for the southside of Stoneridge Drive
immediately adjacent to Stoneridge I have been eliminated. This has created
a more regular-shaped parcel for this area of the development. The buildings
in this area will now be single family detached residential units located on
their own irregularly shaped lots focused around a terraced pedestrian court
located off Stoneridge Drive. Lots will be served by either direct drive access
to Stoneridge Drive or by a private drive access from the rear. The access
will be a 20-foot wide easement and will form a loop configuration meets fire
access requirements. The private drive will also provide an opportunity to
serve lots in area 3 with garage and vehicular access from the rear.
This area will now contain 12 lots and as redesigned will achieve two
objectives which were issues in the Environmental Impact Report and which
were concerns of the neighborhood.
(1) This area will now contain single family detached lots and homes
consistent with the balance of the Stoneridge neighborhood.
(2) This area will no longer be accessed from Bluerock court but rather
from a loop road off of Stoneridge Drive thereby eliminating traffic
impacts on Bluerock Drive. The cul-de-sac will now be lotted out
with two additional single family lots.
Turn Around and Cistern
At the intersection of Bluerock Drive and Stoneridge Drive there will be an
enlarged vehicular turn-around in the center of which will be located the
reconstructed water cistern and windmill feature for Stoneridge Village. This
design element offers a unique focal point for Stoneridge Drive and Bluerock.
This building structure and architectural type further enhances the
mediterranean hillside concept and will form a pleasant feature for the
neighborhood. Please refer to the illustrated site plan.
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 4
June 4, 1992
Home Design and Architectural Character
Much thought and design consideration has been given to the type of homes
that will be built in Stoneridge II. Accordingly, we have submitted the
revised Stoneridge Village design Guidelines for Phase II which contain a
very thorough description of the intent, background and discussion of site
development standards, architectural design and landscape design. Please
refer to this document for a detailed discussion of these issues.
♦ CIRCULATION ISSUES
Stoneridge U will be accessed from the two existing street stubs; one at
Stoneridge Drive and one at.Blnerock Drive. No vehicle or access will be
taken from the cul-de-sac at Bluerock Court. All lots will be accessed from
the street, however, lots 36 through 44 in area 3 will have the opportunity
to take driveway access from the loop private drive provided in area II.
Serving lots 13 through 19 at the end of Stoneridge Drive will be a small
street stub and cul-de-sac designed to public street standards.
Bicycle and pedestrian access is provided to all residences of Stoneridge I
and Stoneridge II on the public street way for access to Rockview Park and
Broad Street. Access to Lawrence Drive is not presently planned but is an
option, if a location is agreed upon by the Lawrence Drive neighborhood.
The optimal location would be to joint use the drainage easement necessary
for Stoneridge II as a bike and pedestrian way as well.
♦ DRAINAGE
The drainage proposal as set for by Stoneridge II remain as they were for
the first submittal and as described in the environmental impact report.
However, to briefly highlight the main points:
(1) Stoneridge II will continue the rear yard swale in the 10-foot drainage
easement along the back of lots adjoining Lawrence Drive.
(2) All the water currently falling on the site that flows unchecked to the
Lawrence Drive area will be intercepted by the drainage and street
improvements constructed by the Stoneridge II Development. The
water intercepted by individual lots will be directed to the street storm
drain system. The storm drain water will be directed then to a low
STONERIDGE H — Resubmittal
Page 5
June 4, 1992
point located along Stoneridge Drive and connected with an outfall
line running through drainage easement to the drainage system in
Lawrence Drive. The exact location of the drainage easement has not
been determined, however, it will range between lots No. 4 through
9. The storm drain system located in the Lawrence Drive area will
be a joint participation effort between the City and the Stoneridge II
Developer and involves upgrading the subsurface storm drain system
from Lawrence Drive to Meadow Creek. The implementation of this
upgraded system will help to reduce flooding and drainage problems
that currently plague the Lawrence Drive area. The implementation
of the Stoneridge II improvements will improve the current sheet flow
draining problem that plagues the Lawrence Drive neighbors from the
Stoneridge South Street Hill area.
• GRADING
The grading proposals for Stoneridge II remain consistent with those set
forth in the original submittal. Precise grading and site development
information will be developed with the Tentative Tract Map. Sheet 2 of the
Plan Development Submittal outlines the general grading proposal set for the
by Stoneridge II.
• OPEN SPACE AREA
The rear property lines of the hillside lots along Bluerock Drive in area 4
will be commensurate with 325-foot elevation line. The entire hillside area
of approximately 49.6 acres will be fenced and identified as a biological
preserve. The fence for this area will be constructed to mark the area set
aside for biological preserve and will contain informational signage describing
the area and the indigenous plant species which are intended to be preserved.
The precise style and design of the fence will be determined at the Tentative
Map stage.
Public access to the area will be limited to only the City water access tank
road and one other existing graded trail leading to the ridge of the South
Street Hills. These trail heads will be marked and identified as acceptable
walking trails. All other areas of the hillside are strictly off limits including
the existing water cistern.
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 6
June 4, 1992
Weed abatement for fire control purposes will be conducted in. an area
determined appropriate by the San Luis Fire Department on the lower
portion of the hill immediately adjacent to the hillside lou in area 4. The
weed abatement will be carried out by the City of San Luis Obispo under the
direction of the Fire Department. A fire access to the wildland interface will
be provided at the direction of the Fire Department.
♦ HILLSIDE SEEP AREAS
The Environmental Impact Report, identified .15 acres of the hillside seep
area located on the north central portion of the Project area adjacent to
Stoneridge Drive. Pursuant to the recommendations in the EIR these wet
areas will be removed with the construction of the Project. An area equal
to or greater size of these wetland areas will be reconstructed on a site north
of Rockview Park outside the development area for permanent
reestablishment. The exact location, size, configuration, and specifics of water
supply,.plant types, and methodology for the wetland enhancement has been
set for in the Wetland Enhancement Program. This Program outline will be
used to guide the development of the wetland enhancement plan and
monitorins program,which will be submitted along with a tentative tract map.
The outline provided has also been submitted to California Department of
Fish and Game, for comment. Their comments and any City comments will
be evaluated for inclusion in the final wetland enhancement program.
♦ LANDSCAPE
The landscape proposal set forth in the Stoneridge II Project have been
constructed in response to the EIR. The landscape considerations are broken
into three main areas of concern:
•(1) Landscape screen and buffer between Lawrence Drive Lots and
Stoneridge Drive lots.
The landscape treatment between these areas has come under
consideration for a number of reasons, namely privacy and overlook
and visual screening. As shown on the more detailed drawings in the
plan development package for the individual site sections, there is a
substantial amount of existing vegetation located on the back of
Lawrence Drive lots. It is therefore the intent of the landscape
proposals in this area to supplement and provide additional landscape
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 7
June 4, 1992
screening in areas where none or sparse vegetation exists. Refer to
the illustrative site plan for the proposed landscape. In general,
however, landscaping would be installed by each individual lot owner
as part of individual lot development. This program has been
proposed due to concerns resulting from early implementation of plant
material and potential damage by construction activities on individual
lots along Stoneridge Drive. The Stoneridge II Design Guidelines
specify a plant pallet suitable for use in this specific area. Lot owners
would refer to this guideline and would be required to have a
landscape plan approved by the City which requires implementation
of the plant material prior to certification of occupancy or to post a
bond for the required landscaping prior to certification of occupancy.
The landscape materials consist of tall, open skyline trees taken from
the list in the design guidelines to screen long-range views on to the
site while allowing filtered views off the site. Medium size shrubs
would be required along the rear lot line forming a dense screen of
plant material precluding views from Stoneridge II into the rear lots
of Lawrence Drive while still allowing distance views over the dense
shrub mass. Please refer to site sections provided in the
environmental impact report and the plant pallet provided in the
design guidelines.
(2) Installation of Street Trees
Of particular importance is the establishment of street tree canopy in
the Stoneridge II Project utilizing larger plant material. Box size
Street trees will be installed by the owner of each lot and would be
of the type specified in the design guideline plant pallet. These trees
would be located in the front yards within the public right-of-way
behind the sidewalk. The purpose of the street tree program is to
develop more mature plant material and street character for the
Stoneridge II Project thereby reducing the immature look of the
subdivision and visual impacts associated with it.
(3) Landscape Design Issues
Specific landscape guidelines have been set forth in the revised
Stoneridge II design guidelines. These include a number of goals and
objectives: Design considerations and recommendations for
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 8
June 4, 1992
landscaping of Stoneridge II. Please refer to the design guideline
section 4 commencing on page 33 for detailed description of the
landscape proposals.
♦ Utilities
All utility infrastructure has been stubbed out at Stoneridge Drive and
Bluerock Drive in the Stoneridge I subdivision for extension into Stoneridge
II. All utility lines and services have been sized for the future development
of Stoneridge II.
As the Project represents a minor annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo,
the Project area would need to annexed to the City to receive City services.
The implications on water service to the project area has been outlined in
the Environmental Impact Report in Section 4.5. As noted in the EIR, the
City may approve the Stoneridge II minor annexation provided that the
application meets the following criteria:
a. It is adjacent to land which is inside the City (Stoneridge II meets this
finding)
b. It is outside major expansion areas (Stoneridge II meets this criteria)
C. Has fewer than 25 acres for urban development (Stoneridge II meets
this criteria)
d. Conforms with Hillside Planning Standards (Stoneridge II meets this
criteria)
e. Permanently preserves open space (Stoneridge II meets this criteria)
f. Avoids increased demand for City water supplies, either by using an
on-site source or by making water use reductions within the
development areas of the City equal to twice the expected use of the
water of the proposed development. (Stoneridge II meets criteria F
as outlined by the following:)
-
4 -53
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 9
June 4, 1992
(1) Stoneridge II is predominantly a custom lot land subdivision
which involves the implementation of streets and custom lot for
sale to individual home builders. The exception to this is area
2 which will be improved and constructed by the subdivider all
units built within area 2 of the subdivider will be subject to the
City's water offset program. All other home sites in Stoneridge
II sold to individual home builders will be subject to any water
policies and retrofit programs in place by the City at the time.
In order to make the necessary site improvements to create
custom lots we propose to use only non-potable water during
the construction and grading phases.
Additionally, on-site water supplies are available at the hillside
seeps. The quantity of the spring water will be determined by
further analysis during the tentative tract map stage however,
the spring water currently existing on the Stoneridge II site will
be-captured in subterranean drainage sumps and then pumped
by the use of a automatic pressure sensing pump to the cistern
located on the hillside. This cistern will be refurbished and
sealed to hold water and secured by an installation of a new
roof system. The water which is captured from the on-site
springs will be used for irrigation of the enhanced and relocated
wetland area as well as irrigation of Rock View Park. The
proposed locations of these sumps has been shown on the
technical exhibit of the plan development application. The use
of this on-site water is proposed to help offset water impacts
to the existing City's domestic supply.
In addition to the on-site spring water other landscaping
measures, such.as the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, the
reduction of allowable turf areas and the implementation of
water efficient irrigation systems as proposed in the design
guidelines are required. Additionally, lots created in Stoneridge
II Project are somewhat smaller than average lots in the City,
thus reducing the area available for landscaping. The
cumulative effect of previously mentioned measures, will act to
reduce the total potable water demand for the Stoneridge II
Development and act to serve as a water off-set credit.
4 -Sit
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 10
June 4, 1992
G Statement of Intention for Future Sale or Lease.
Stoneridge II planned development proposes to create a custom lot
subdivision. Building of individual homes will proceed under the guidance
of the Adopted Stoneridge II Design Guidelines. All lots will be developed
by individual lot buyers except lots located in area 2. Area 2 lou will be
developed by the subdivider. Further detailed plans will be submitted at the
Tentative Tract Map stage and proceed through Architecture review for site
plan building and landscape design approval.
D. A Schedule for Construction of the Development
The proposed schedule is totally dependent upon the following:
(1) Planned development approval
(2) Annexation to the City.
(3) Processing time tentative tract map submittal
(4) Processing time of final tract map submittal
Therefore, it is difficult to predict with any certainty an estimation of when
construction may begin or end for the Stoneridge II Project.
E. Project Summary Statistics
♦ Number of Lots by Area
Area #1 17
Area #2 12
Area #3 15
Area #4 16
Total # of Lots 60 units
♦ Area below 325' elevation (gross) 10.4 AC
(net) 8.66 AC
1t -55
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 11
June 4, 1992
♦ Area of Open Space/Hillside Preserve 49.6 AC
♦ Project Density in Developed Area 6.93 DU/AC
♦ Total Project Area 60 AC
♦ Project Density Overall 1 DU AC
♦ Area Dedicated to Streets 1.74 AC
♦ Summary of lot sizes and dimensions:
Lot Number Ave. Lot Width Ave. Lot Depth Lot Size
1 65 100 7,120
2 55 100 51680
3 60 100 57755
4 60 100 6,275
5 65 100 6,300
6 60 100 69175
7 65 100 5,995
8 45 100 5,300
9 55 100 .59235
10 52.5 100 67150
11 52.5 100 5,555
12 62.5 95 59755
STONERIDGE H -- Resubmittal
Page 12
June 4, 1992
Lot Number Ave. Lot Width Ave. Lot Depth Lot Size
13 65 95 57900
14 55 95 61050
15 60 100 51555
16 60 125 93820
17 80 230 24,750
18 60 140 81300
19 75 102.5 9,225
20 52.5 112.5 67200
21 70 90 6,450
22 60 115 61900
23 57.5 95 5,460
24 52.5 95 47990
25 47.5 95 4,515
26 50 90 41500
27 50 90 4,500
28 50 97.5 41875
29 45 110 4,950
30 50 120 61000
31 52.5 127.5 6,695
___ `EI
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 13
June 4, 1992
Lot Number Ave Lot Width Ave. Lot Depth Lot Size
32 52.5 135 71090
33 70 155 109465
34 72.5 85 51980
35 55 95 47950
36 52.5 97.5 59119
37 55 97.5 51363
38 50 87.5 4,375
39 50 92.5 49625
40 50 97.5 4,875
41 50 95 49750
42 50 95 41750
43 50 95 47750
44 50 95 49750
45 60 95 57700
46 70 95 69650
47 62.5 110 61875
48 50 110 59680
49 50 115 6,500
50 62 107.5 5,580
4 -58
STONERIDGE II — Resubmittal
Page 14
June 4, 1992
Lot Number Ave Lot Width Ave. Lot Depth Lot Size
51 60 72.5 5,270
52 72.5 75 59438
53 60 90 51800
54 60 80 4,760
55 52.5 80 5,390
56 72.5 80 6,390
57 60 75 47515
58 45 95 47360
59 50 100 41790
60 50 90 49850
F. Plan Development Findings
Please refer to finding 1-6 below.
(1) It provides facilities of amenities suited to a particular occupancy
group (such as the elderly or families with children) which would not
be feasible under conventional zoning. The Stoneridge 11 project will
be similar to that of Stoneridge I which is currently 98% owner
occupied. The occupants of Stoneridge I are typically families with
children who are very proud of their unique neighborhood. Stoneridge
II would be a logical addition on to this neighborhood, an addition that
is supported by the Stoneridge I neighborhood. The reduced lot sizes,
coupled with the Stoneridge Village design guideline, allows each
individual resident to design their own home to fit their own program
while assuring consistently with the surrounding Stoneridge
neighborhood. As such, Stoneridge is a unique project that is the
object of pride of its residents.
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 15
June 4, 1992
(2) Transfers allowable development within the site from areas of greater
environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or
hazard. The Stoneridge II project would cluster its 60 units on only
10.4 acres of a 60-acre site. This would mean that development would
be clustered on only 17% of the overall property. The remaining 83%
of the property would be devoted to permanent open space dedicated
in fee to the City.
(3) It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with
convention development. The smaller lot sizes of the Stoneridge
projects have resulted in the lowest per lot price in any new
conventional subdivision in the City of San Luis Obispo. The highest
priced lot sold by Mr. King in Stoneridge I was $75,000, with the
average lot price falling into the $50 - 55,000 range. By contrast, lot
sales in the newer convention Ferrini and Foothill subdivisions sell at
prices in the $150,000 - 250,000 range.
(4) Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional
standards,privacy, usable open space,adequate parking,compatibility
with neighborhood character, and so on, as well as or better than the
standards themselves. Again, please look at the Stoneridge I
neighborhood in the context of Stoneridge H. Look at what this
project proposes to provide that is not existent in either the Rockview
of the Lawrence Drive neighborhoods, i.e., the Rockview neighborhood
park, the open space dedication with an informal trail system, the
special development standards that have been proposed, the proposed
special overlook standards that are stricter than any regulations in the
City of San Luis Obispo.
(5) It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials,
energy or water than convention development. The Stoneridge projects
are designed to minimize the use of water through a drought tolerant
landscape palette contained in the Stoneridge Village design guide.
The design guidelines emphasize the mediterranean character of new
development with preference for terraces and minimal landscaping.
What landscaping there will be can be served by a double irrigation
system that could be served by water captured in the cistern above the
325 elevation on the South Street hills. Finally, all roofs are designed
to be flat and are capable of accommodating solar collectors.
_ -
4 -1:0
STONERIDGE H -- Resubmittal
Page 16
June 4, 1992 ,
(6) The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as
parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special
amenities which would not be possible under conventional development
standards. Stoneridge II proposes to dedicate 49.6 acres of open
space to the city constituting an exceptional public benefit.
G. Identification of Non-Conforming Elements
The following are Development Proposals for Stoneridge II which do not
meet the development standards of the San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations:
1. A number of lots do not meet the 6,000 square foot minimum for the
R-1 zone, nor. do they meet the 50-foot minimum width, nor 90-foot
minimum deph requirements. Please refer to the Project Summary
Statistics on the page 9 for the precise location and statistics for each
non-conforming lot.
Reasons for Deviation
The lots created in Stoneridge II have been constructed to represent
in the truest character possible a mediterranean hillside village,
therefore, odd-angles, irregular lot sizes have been modified so as to
further support the desired neighborhood character. Deviations from
City Use Regulations were previously approved for the first phase of
the Stoneridge Village, therefore, consistency between the two phases
could be achieved the deviations requested above.
2. Setbacks
Stoneridge II employs a 3-foot side yard minimum setback, a 10-foot
front yard setback for side-loading garages and a 15-foot front yard for
front-entry garages and 5-foot rear yard setback for all lots in
Stoneridge II except lots 1-17 along Stoneridge Drive. Lou 1-17 are
designed with a 25-foot rear yard setback.
Reasons for Deviation
Reduced side yard setback has been requested to further support the
desired mediterranean village character. A reduction in the front yard
setback has been requested to allow greater setback distance in the
STONERIDGE II -- Resubmittal
Page 17
June 4, 1992
rear yard for lots along Stoneridge Drive. Modifications to the rear
yard setback have been requested to allow for home designs to
accommodate a central courtyard surrounded by the home pushing the
rear part of the home towards the rear property line and the front
part of the home towards the street.
H. Site Plan and Supporting Maps
Please refer to the Certified Environmental Impact Report for discussion of
existing site conditions contours, vegetation, water courses and information
regarding surrounding land uses in neighborhood context
Enclosed please find the necessary number of site maps including an
illustrative site plan representing all development proposals and one technical
site plan. These site plans, when combined, indicate proposed lot designs,
location of proposed buildings, location and area of all common open space,
proposed circulation system, proposed pedestrian bikeways and sidewalks,
proposed utility systems, storm drain, sewer, water, electricity, etc. A general
landscaping diagram and general grading plan.
5. Enclosed is an 8-1/2" x 11" clear transparency of the proposed site plan.
a/ej-stonr.app
��lo�
Attachment 7
Existing Minor hnnexa+ion Policies
-- A minor annexation is the incorporation of territory to the City of
San Luis Obispo which involves only a relatively small amount of
urban intensity development The principle purpose for allowing such
annexations is to help establish a permanent open space green belt
surrounding the city although other significant public benefits may
justify approval of a minor annexation. The green belt is to provide
a permanent edge to the city's urban area and to maintain the city's
rural setting by preserving scenic hillsides and open agricultural
land.
A minor annexation shall:
a) Be contiguous to existing developed land within the city.
b) Be located outside the major expansion areas shown on the Land Use
Element map.
c) Accomodate no more than twenty-five acres for urban development.
Urban development includes all areas devoted to building sites,
public and private roads, parking, drainage improvements, all
paved areas, utility easements and required yards and setbacks.
(Urban development areas must be contiguous to existing developed
land within the city.)
d) Enable urban development in accord with applicable hillside
planning criteria which are hereby referenced.
e) Include the preservation of permanent open space equal to at least
four times the amount of developed area proposed to be annexed.
This standard is to be considered a minimum, except as provided
under subsection 3 (D) below; the council may require the
inclusion of additional open space if it is deemed useful to meet
the intent of this policy. For example, if a more logical edge to
the green belt, formed perhaps by a ridgeline or other natural or
man-made feature, can be created by adding area beyond the minimum
standard, then this additional open space may be required by the
council. This open space area:
(1) May be provided within the annexed territory or in other areas
consistent with the Land Use Element map; and _
(2) Shall be secured by dedication of fee title or perpetual
easement.
f) Avoid increased demand for city water supplies, either by using an
on-site water source or by providing water use reductions within
existing developed city areas equal to twice the amount of water
used by proposed development within the area to be annexed.
4-/c3
9
Attachment 8
prove the rezoning and the official zone map shall be tors'offices,and lawyers'offices.
amended to indicate approval of the planned develop-
ment. (Ord.941-I(part),1982: prior code-9204.4(C)) 1. The project will be compatible with existing and
allowed land uses in the area.
17.62.040 Required fundings.
Z The project's location or access arrangements do not
A. To approve a planned development, the planning significantly direct traffic to use local or collector streets
commission and council must find that it meets one or in residential areas
more of the following criteria;
3.The project will provide adequate mitigation to ad-
1.It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular dress potential impacts related to noise,light and glare,
occupancy group (such as the elderly or families with and loss of privacy,among others,imposed by conuner-
children) which would not be feasible under conven- cal activities on nearby residential areas,by using meth-
tional zoning; ods such as setbacks,landscaping,berming,and fencing.
2.It transfers allowable development,within a site,from 4. The project does not preclude industrial or service
areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to commercial uses in areas especially suited for such uses
areas of less sensitivity or hazard; when compared with offices.
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be S.The project does not create a shortage of C-S and M
possible with conventional development; zoned land available for service commercial or indus-
trial development.(Ord.1129-I(part),1988,Ord.1087
4.Features of the particular design achieve the intent of - 1 Ex.A(2), 1987;Ord.941-I (part), 1982:prior code
conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, -9204.4(D))
adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood
character, and so on) as well as or better than the 17.62.050 Requirement for development plan.
standards themselves;
No land division maybe undertaken and no construction
S.It incorporates features which result in consumption begunwithin an area zoned PD until a final development.
of less materials, energy or water than conventional plan has been approved. (Ord.941-1(pan).,1982:prior
development; code-9204.4(E))
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public 17.62.060 Final development plan.
benefits such as parking,open space,landscaping,public
M and other special amenities which would not be A. Within six months of approval or conditional ap-
feasible under conventional development standards. proval of the preliminary development plan,the appli-
cant shall file with the community development depart-
B. In order to grant a "density boats" (as explained in ment a final development plan.At his discretion and for
Section 1750.030), the commission and council must good cause,the director may extend for six months the
find that the proposed development satisfies at least period for filing.
three of the five criteria set out in subsection A of this
section. The applicant shall provide a detailed state- B.The final development plan shall include those items
ment indicating how the development satisfies the ap- from Section 17.62.010(Preliminary development plan)
propriate criteria set out in subsection A of this section. which describe the proposal,including division of land,
The maximum density bonus is not automatic. In deter- typeand location of allbuildings and improvements,and
mining the allowable bonus,the commission and coun- so on,but it need not include information on existing
cal shall assess the extent to which these criteria are met. conditions.
C To approve a planned development allowing large C The director shall review and take action on the final
professional office buildings which can include multiple development plan within thirty days of filing. He shall
tenants but with no single tenant space less than 2,500 approve it upon finding that it is in substantial compli-
square feet in the CS or M Zone,the planting commis- ancewitb the preliminary development plan as apprm ed
sion orcouncil must find that it meetseacb ofthecriteria or modified by the council. Upon approval of the final
listed below. The following office-related uses are pro- development plan,the director shall add the number of
hibited in the PD in these zones: banks, real estate the planned development to the official zone map (for
offices, financial institutions, medical clinics and don example,PD (9999)). Subsequently, all grading, con-
_.._ 70
JING AGENDA
DATE7��- z ITEM #
COFMS T'D:
21 July 1992 _p C ❑ DmwtwAcdOA FYI
4,• �..I V rr.�, C� Camol O'CDD DIP,
13'CAO ❑ FIN.DIR.
L�ACAO ❑ FIRE CHEEF
JUL 21 1992 d�,/�TTORNEY a FW DWL
CITY COUNCIL L� CLERK om. ❑ POLICECi-L
Mayor Ron Dunin D MCMT.TEAM ❑ RECDIR.
City of San Luis Obispo SAN Lids QBIsEQ#DA ❑ CRFADFILE n ,,,,LDIR.
990 Palm StreetL5rF1G�
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Stoneridge Phase II Housing
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council,
This letter is to express my endorsement for the next phase of
the Stoneridge housing development. My support for this
project is based upon my perceptions and opinions as a city
resident for 22 years and as an adjacent home owner.
Affordable housing in the City is not available because of the
lack of open land and high development costs for Developers.
Acquisition of land is expensive, project planning and agency
approvals are lengthy, and new land is discouraged from being
annexed for subdivisions.
As .a home owner in the Stoneridge subdivision, I was fortunate.
I was able to buy a small lot at below market value from a
Developer. The Developer could have sold the parcels for more
money, but he chose not to. I was able to prepare my own
drawings, but I could have used standard drawings that were
available from the Developer. I then hired subcontractors and
built my own home.
Others are not as lucky as I was to be in this position. Their
only option is to purchase a built home or condominium. The
best method of providing an affordable home is to build multi-
family units on a scale that the developer can make a
reasonable profit, or to provide lots for purchase at a
reasonable price.
The Stoneridge II Development will be an opportunity for people
with limited means to be able to obtain housing at an
affordable price.
Phase II of Stoneridge deserves approval for the following
reasons:
- This project will provide affordable housing for single
persons, young married couples and parents with families.
- It will provide construction jobs for the many desperate
construction workers in this area.
- It will provide all the typical spin-off benefits such as
sales in construction materials, money deposited in bank
accounts etc. In general there is an increase in retail
sales, goods and services.
- It will increase the tax base for a parcel that has been
vacant for years and currently offers little benefit to
anyone.
- The proposed project is an attractive addition to the city,
and will set a precedent for future developments.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter for your
consideration. I have confidence that city council will
recognize the merits of the Stroneridge Phase II project and
consider it for approval.
Sincerely,
Randolh L. Rea
575 Stoneridge Drive
San Luis Obispo
546-9043
InCETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM 0
Ann Hall Patton
550 Bluerock Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
July 20, 1992
Mayor Ron Dunin
City Council ODPIBTO:
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ 6'�Acb.,..,/ ❑ FYI
990 Palm Street 10 CDDDIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 rAT71IF44EY
O ❑ FN•mR.
AO ❑ FIRE CH1117
PW DIItMWORFG. POLIOCIi
Re: Stoneridge II Annexation Project ❑ MGMT.TEm ❑ RECDIR
City Council Meeting - July 21 , 1992 QiCREAD FnX ❑ UIILD_
Agenda Item #4 - GP/R 1346 and ANNX 134 eO Z_
REC'&IVED
Dear Mayor Dunin: JUL 21 1992
CITY COUNCIL
MN LUIS 0W5P9.CA
Concerning the the General Plan Amendment and Annexation of the 60
acres , which includes the land for the Stoneridge .II development , I
want to express my approval for the project with the following com-
ments .
Living in the last house on the Bluerock Court cul-de-sac, I will miss
our grand view of the field, the rocks , the cistern and windmill with
the hawks gliding above and the tree frogs and crickets chirping
below; and I will welcome the extension of Stoneridge across the field
to the Development Limit Line as the best and most practical long term
use for this space. I realize that land this close to the center of
the city will inevitably be annexed and developed, and since the
opportunity now exists to accept a project that is being well planned
and thought out , I believe the Council should give approval .
Neighborhood input has already been sought and given, and some has
been given - without being sought . The developer has worked hard to
reach agreements and understandings with those who were willing to
reason and discuss , those whose concerns went beyond their private
issues to the issues of the community at large. I am sure that this
process will continue during the development of Stoneridge I.I .
The EIR Mitigations will enhance the area and show ( 1 ) respect for
neighbors by reducing height limits and set-backs for houses backing
up to Lawrence Drive, ( 2 ) respect for flora and fauna with the preser-
vation of the eucalyptus grove and the development of a new water
source up the hill , ( 3) respect for our pig farm history with the
windmill structure to be placed in the Stoneridge Drive circle, (4)
respect for the city with adherence to the 325" Limit line, and ( 5)
respect for aesthetics in the Design Guidelines which will assure
individually unique homes with architectural compatibility.
A. Patton - Page 1
John King' s decision to eliminate condominium ownership and develop
the entire project in privately owned, single-family lots is also much
more in keeping with the Lawrence Drive and Stoneridge I neighbor
hoods . This , too, enhances the community of existing privately owne4
homes .
While the addition of 60 homes will mean twice as many cars trying to
merge with the traffic flowing by on Broad Street , the 120 some units
in Villa Rosa will already demand major traffic improvements in this
area where neither Lawrence Drive (west) , Lawrence Drive (east ) , nor
Stoneridge Drive line up in accessing Broad. I would expect this is
already a major concern of the Traffic Department .
While I believe the growth issue in and of itself needs more reasoned
consideration by the citizens of San Luis Obispo; I also believe that
Stoneridge II exemplifies planned growth with much citizen and expert
input , and as such should be annexed and proceed in a timely manner .
Sincerely,
Ann Hall Patton
Phone 541-3776
cc: Pam Ricci , SLO COmmmunity Development Department
Erik Justesen, RRM
John King, Project Applicant
City Council Members
Peg Pinard
Penny Rappa
Jerry Reiss
Bill Roalman
A. Patton - Page 2
Steve Boyle ML_,MG AGENDA
DATEal-9&
Dear Mayor Dunin and City Council Members,
I understand that there has been some negative conversations
on John Kings development off of Stoneridge. I don't know anyone
involved in these conversations but I can only assume that it
comes from people who bought their house below the Stoneridge
project long before a development was considered and they just
thought that it would be that way forever. Well, just because
they have their dream it should not preclude us from having ours.
I was one of the fortunate ones who bought into John
Kings'phase 1 project. It was a carefully thought out planned
development with alot of thought in the design in that the
development blended in with the environment. I was fortunate
that John tried and did keep the price in range that one could
afford to purchase one of his Mediterranean styled homes that
were elegant yet affordable. When one turned off Broad Street
after driving by older houses with gable roofs, business after
business, some run down and boarded up, and drove up the
IFStonedridge Drive, it uplifted ones spirit seeing such a clean,
environmently sensitive, and well planned development. I enjoyed
living there and oftentimes wish I was still there and had not
traded up. Maybe I can after you approve his Phase 2 part.
In conclusion, I think that John, as usual, has done alot
for his new project in the sense that cares more than most about
how his development effects the environment and the adjacent
neighborhoods. The property is basically non usuable land and
this area would provide a nice setting for yours.. and my future
homes. If John has met all of your requirements, then there is
absolutely no reason to listen to disenchanted and jealous voices
but it is time to get going with this. project. •
Steve Bo e
44 year sident
E C E W E D Copusro.
O•DawW Ad1on ❑ M
�Couva i
JUL 2 01992 d &DMVCAO ❑ M.DIX
VCAo EJpuce CHU
CITY CLERK A ❑ FWDUL
SAS; LUSS OBISPO,CA VCI.F WORT '. ❑ POACH
❑ MCMT.TFAM ❑ RBC DIX
El CRBADFIE 0 UMDIR.
0
r
fv'e
.i
\ _ r
�, ' :. y,+fir ,�, ,�, ,�,� �6��- _=__ ��►,�
•„ X11 .\� r, , � ,,y 9r/ ;, - ��;, / � pI��Y ;
i
,.�► -- ice! � � 111 -
� I
J.
.I
1 1 ,
I,y 'I
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
I. INTRODUCTION
Vicinity and Context Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
' Organization of Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Purpose of Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Administration and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
' II. SITE DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
' Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
' Grading & Drainage . . . . . . . . . . 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Building Envelopes and Setbacks 13
Streetscape and Garage Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
' Solar Orientation . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Privacy and Overlook 20
BUILDING DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Goals and Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
' Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Building Form and Massing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
' Garages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Roof and Rooflines . 25
Windows and Doors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
' Balustrades and Railings . . . . . 30
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exterior Materials and Finishes 31
' IV. LANDSCAPE DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
' Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Hardscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
' Walls and Fences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Trellises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
' Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Lighting . 40
Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
' Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Landscape Palette 42
JUL 9 1992
MNERIDGE 11
DESIGN GUIDELINES
�19*T",ql,�,
Tertrace Hill
501,
o;
Rachel i.,
d 11 Stdee
1 4 wl �1 J
3nde=ck E —
dh.
Film
xStr Hawthorne CIL S'.V.eih I
L) STREET'-, t n Carlo
:i.:jS0UTU
u�
�jn
t z 3��Wo brd e -0. �ii;o IC�c
orrid Z
4
Dr YJ L�.Iffi ri MMIX,
...Park-S' )
d Mi,sion 4b W,
Cent
C .11%r.
\N Obispi
-,N Base
M
rison St.
PRO E T S1
ORCUTT
.%.
VICINITY MAP
. as .......a NORTH
wl
___j -_(L_rL_L i—L i—L Li j LL Li, ii LFL� 1. L i
LAWRENCE DRIVE
T 7121 137
7__ —
_f 4T75
6 7— 0: u 2TIT314TIT2 3T 6 7 8 9 10 1 11
F12 5 72 6] 16731 32 IST19T,
UZI"
14 15116117 18 [!L
STONERIDG 26 25
UER 24
Cou Tt
32
30
29
28
1 '
STONERIDGE II a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
' I. INTRODUCTION
y)
r
1
Stoneridge Village is a unique residential subdivision situated on the
' lower slopes of the South Street hills in the City of San Luis Obispo.
From concept to implementation, the focus of the design effort has
been to develop a unique neighborhood with a distinct
' Mediterranean hillside village character. As the project is a custom
lot subdivision, specific home designs are not proposed for any of
' the lots. Unlike typical residential subdivisions, Stoneridge Village
has been guided by and will continue to be guided by a very
prescriptive set of Design Guidelines.
' To achieve the desired village design and allow for diversity in
individual homes, exceptions to conventional subdivision
' requirements have been requested through the PD process. The
intent of the Design Guidelines is to provide the .City and
homeowners and their architects with assistance and direction
' designing homes. The users of the Design Guidelines booklet
should view it as a set of guidelines developed to assist them in
devising their own design solutions within the context of the overall
' character desired for Stoneridge. It is divided into a series of
sections, Site Development, Building Design, and Landscape
' Design, further setting forth the purpose and organization of the
Guideline document.
' 2 .
STONERIDGE II
DES/GN GU/DEL/NES
The three primary design sections provide information detailed '
enough to guide designers to adhere to the overall desired
character; however, they remain flexible enough allowing '
individuality and creative solutions to specific design challenges.
Background Stoneridge Village was originally conceived as a single phase '
custom lot project which would be planned and processed as a
singular unit, thereby creating the entire neighborhood through one ,
construction period. Stoneridge Village occupies property which is
located within the City of San Luis Obispo, and property in the
County of San Luis Obispo. The process envisioned at the outset '
was to apply for a minor annexation for the 60 acres lying in the
County, and proceed with one development plan for both areas.
However, due to a number of events which had City-wide '
implication at the time, the project was broken into two phases.
Stoneridge Village Phase I, which lies inside the City proceeded
through design development, tentative tract processing, and was '
developed according to the Design Guideline package. Stoneridge
II or Phase II of the Village, is the subject of these revised Design ,
Guidelines, modeled after the original guidelines, but tailored for the
unique characteristics of the new area being developed.
Due to the nature of the Phase II application, a General Plan '
Amendment, Prezoning, and Annexation is required prior to the
approval of a Tentative Tract Map and subsequent site '
development. Because of environmental issues that arose out of
the initial study for Stoneridge II, an Environmental Impact Report
was required by the City and prepared. The purpose of an EIR as ,
prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act is to highlight
and identify project impacts which can be feasibly mitigated through
changes to the project design. Therefore, it is one of the primary '
objectives of this Design Guideline document to take into
consideration the findings of the EIR, and comments from '
surrounding neighborhoods creating guidelines which will effectively
implement these findings.
These Design Guidelines have been compiled following ,
extensive public comment, review of existing conditions in the
first phase and thorough environmental review. All conditions, ,
3 '
1 ,
TONERIDGE II . a
ES/GN GUIDELINES
1 '
' proposals and suggestions contained in these guidelines have
been agreed upon by the surrounding neighbors, developer
' and City of San Luis Obispo.
In addition to the EIR findings, this revised Design Guideline
' contains responses to a Stoneridge questionnaire survey. Because
Phase I has been completed, this created an opportunity to
conduct a post-construction evaluation. The questionnaire surveys
' existing residents about a number of livability, design and
neighborhood issues. The questionnaire and the summary of
responses are appended to this document and have proven to be
' very helpful in updating the Design Guidelines. Also, appended to
the Design Guidelines is a summary of mitigation measures required
' by the EIR which have been addressed in the Design Guidelines.
Organization of The Design Guidelines are organized as follows:
' the Guidelines
Purpose of the Guidelines - This section describes the
purpose, outlines the format of the Guidelines, and identifies the
' potential users of the document.
Administration of the Design Guidelines - This section
' provides a general submittal and processing outline for all
building activity within the Stoneridge neighborhood. This
section also identifies how and who is responsible for
administration and enforcement of the Guidelines.
' . Site Development - This section deals with the location and
position of homes on a particular site and identifies design
principles useful to affect a beneficial relationship between
' neighboring residences and the site itself, including building
setbacks, orientation, privacy overlook, views, grading and
drainage, building envelopes, streetscape, solar orientation, etc.
' . Building Design - This section outlines the specific architectural
character desired for the Stoneridge neighborhood and further
' describes building form and massing, garages, roof and roof
lines, window and door treatments, balustrades and railings,
exterior materials and finishes, floor area, and building height
' limitations.
' 4
1
STONERIDGE 11 ,
DESIGN GUIDELINES
• Landscape Design - This sections sets forth the design '
parameters for the landscape treatment for Stoneridge Village,
including acceptable landscape palettes, walls, fences, trellises, '
erosion control, recommendations for the use of various
irrigation techniques, lighting, and maintenance operations.
Purpose of the The purpose of the Design Guideline document is outlined as ,
Design follows:
Guidelines ,
• Provide the prospective buyer, builder, or designer with a set
of site development, architectural and landscape design
parameters to be used as a guide in the design of all proposed '
homes. This design guideline is not intended to replace or be
used in lieu of subdivision Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&R's). However, the Design Guidelines will be '
an element of the eventual CC&R's.
• Provide the City of San Luis Obispo and its various reviewing ,
bodies with a document that will facilitate and expedite the
review and subsequent approval of custom homes in the t
Stoneridge Village neighborhood.
• Create through the use of these Design Guidelines a residential '
neighborhood that remains consistent with the architectural
character established in Stoneridge I and that will result in the
overall neighborhood appearance similar to a Mediterranean '
hillside village.
• Set forth specific development guidelines addressing necessary '
site planning, building design, and landscape design issues
which are raised in the EIR document, neighborhood survey,
and surrounding neighborhood comments. '
Format The Design Guideline document is divided into a series of sections, ,
Site Development, Building Design, and Landscape Design that are
detailed enough to direct the users of the document sufficiently to
achieve the overall character of a Mediterranean hillside village. '
Each section contains a series of specific goals and objectives
which are further supported by design considerations, these are
presented in text with supporting graphic examples. ,
5 '
ISTONERIDGE 11 a I�
DESIGN GUIDELINES
' Users Users of this document will consist of the following groups.
' 1. Property owners will utilize the Design Guidelines in conjunction
with the City of San Luis Obispo's Zoning Ordinance to develop
plans for homes in the Stoneridge Village.
' 2. Design professionals working with the property owner. will
utilize the 'Design Guidelines for the creation of new homes,
' landscaping, or remodeling in Stoneridge Village. The guidelines
will provide directions for site design, landscaping, and
architectural treatment for each home. These guidelines will
t help to provide a framework for decision making between
homeowners and their respective design professionals, ensuring
that the ultimate character and a high level of quality is achieved
for Stoneridge Village.
' 3. City staff when meeting with owners and design professionals
will utilize the Design Guidelines to review, provide direction,
and work with the ARC (if necessary).
' 4. Architectural Review Committee will utilize the Design
Guidelines when reviewing sensitive lots and home designs
which present especially challenging and unique design
proposals.
Administration Designers of homes within Stoneridga Village Phase II will be
and Enforcement required to participate in a design review process.
' First, all home designs proposed for Stoneridge Phase II must be
reviewed and approved by John Kng and/or his representative.
t Review by Mr. IGng and/or his representative must precede
submittal to City staff.
' Secondly, all homes proposed in Stoneridge Village Phase II must
go through a brief "over the counter" review with. City staff. City
staff will use an established checklist to review all home plans.
' Should there be. a difference of opinion between staff and the
applicant in the course of staff design review, the preliminary design
package may be forwarded to the ARC for a more in depth review
' and recommendations. Please refer to the plan submittal
requirements section for specific proceedure and requirements.
' 6
STONERIDGE LI '
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Design Guidelines will be administered by these review bodies '
allowing for flexibility and exploration of a range of creative solutions
provided they are consistent with the intent and specific document '
requirements.
Review.and' In order to ensure that the Design Guideline requirements are '
Approval enforced, the following action must be taken.
1. The City Planning staff must review and approvethe preliminary '
design package prior to submittal to the City Building
Department. '
2. If any substantial changes occur to the building or landscape
design due to Building Department review, the Planning staff will '
be notified and provide a second review for consistency with the
Guidelines.
Appeals Planning staff decisions may be appealed to the ARC for '
appropriate action. Should the applicant continue to disagree with '
the ARC decision, the ARC decision may be appealed to the City
Council.
Plan Submittal This section has been created to clearly outline the necessary steps ,
Requirements to obtain project approval for prospective Stoneridge Village
property owners and/or their design representative. Each applicant
shall be responsible for the submittal requirements and fees
required by the City of San Luis Obispo for its review and approval
process. The following outline highlights these steps. ,
• Obtain and review a copy of the Stoneridge Village Design
Guidelines,.
• Conduct an initial meeting between the owner and/or their
design representative and City Planning staff. This is necessary
to thoroughly review and become familiar with all design and
development requirements set forth by the. Design Guideline '
document.
t
7 '
' STONERIDGE II
a
DES/GN GU/DEL/NES
' • The owner and/or his design representative shall submit a
preliminary design package to the City Planning staff. These
' shall contain:
1. A preliminary site plan to scale identifying all setbacks, yard
space, driveway aprons, and building footprint
2. One elevation of each side of the building, including materials
' and color information with "body color"samples, accent color
samples, and window and door specifications.
. 3. A preliminary landscape plan including a list of proposed
' plant material, location of proposed plant material, and
' statement of the proposed irrigation system.
• Staff will review this preliminary package and will return it to the
' applicant with comments and direction for modifications to be
included in the final construction document package. (Should
applicant wish to appeal staff's decisions, refer to "Appeals" on
' Page 7.)
• Construction documents, including all drawings, designs, and
materials must be accurately completed and submitted to the
City Building Department.
' • Upon payment of all applicable fees and compliance with
applicable City policies, a building permit will be issued.
.� 8
1
STONERIDGE 11. a `�
DESIGN GUIDELINES ,
. 1
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
H. J. King or
Initial Meeting
Preliminary Representative '
Design Package Review
4'
APPEALS:
APPEALS
City Planning Staff
City Council Over-the,counter
Review ARC Review r review
1
IL '
Construction
Documents ,
I , t
Sub it to '
Building Dept.
,,Jill
Building Permit
\I '
1
Begin Home
9 Construction '
' STONERIDGE 11 a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
' TABLE 1
' STONERIDGE 11 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE TRACT CONDITIONS
1
t
1
1
10
STONERIDGE 11 a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
t
coo
1�
Ar.
. ••rz,a
Aga CA
- ..".. ars• r+'''�'�-•�,52.'S`�- <.W ..�, �• "�'' •
i
R Q
- S c
OZ.S` ,•.f� ",17+J.�� -�•ZS•rT• fir` `� z-..ra.��.r2 .
1
11 '
' ;STONERIDGE II a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
' II. SITE DEVELOPMENT
1
1 -
1 SII
1 I� � T' • }•• 1
' Goals and The site planning component of the Design Guidelines specifies
Objectives arrangements for buildings, outdoor spaces, and other site
improvements, such as landscaping, walkways and drives in a
' fashion that takes advantage of correct solar orientation,
topography, and views. Good site planning will shape useful and
enjoyable outdoor spaces while working with the existing landscape.
' These Design Guidelines strive to minimize the visual impact of the
Stoneridge II homes from existing Lawrence Drive residents and
' other portions of San Luis Obispo while retaining the existing and
desired Mediterranean hillside character.
Design The most significant design considerations revolve around setbacks,
Considerations site access (orientation of garages), solar orientation and the
relationship of buildings and front yard spaces to the street. Each
site design should respond to the size, shape and slope
characteristics of each individual lot.
' 12
STONERIDGE II a
DESIGN GUIDELINES ,
Grading and . In preparing a plan for a Stoneridge II site, designers will have '
Drainage to work with the natural grade conditions peculiar to the lot.
• Detached garages are encouraged with a transitional slope '
between the main home and the garage. The residence would
be approximately a half level up or down from the garages pad '
elevation.
• Garages may be attached to the unit, but will usually involve a ,
level change to the home from the garage due to the
topography.
On all lots, split level plans are encouraged, not only as a '
design solution in response to the site, but to further enhance
the visual variety of the streetscape and the play of level
changes typical of a Mediterranean hillside village.
Building Building envelopes and setbacks are intended to create '
Envelopes and architectural variety, interest, and individuality, respective of natural
Setbacks site constraints.
1
u -JjA1—j- L—L 111__L J-_ JJA L1 '
IIIT IIIT� E,AWKWa DRIVE —VIII--1�IY
6 1 26 19 31 ' d3 ' 19 19 10: �11 IY 13 14 2 1 �9 1 9 IO IY 3
133 1211
Area 76 y r_ STGNERIDGE DR
17 1 13 /7 18 M1 `57 98_ 1/ 6 11 15 I 16 117 19 19� '
Area 2
YO
26 ) YS
Area 3 YI 9 w< 0E FYI
6g8�� 5 5 coDRr
23
Area 4 Y/ °ems 3 . 3 _ 31'\3Y\
i Y6 30 Y '
i \
29
Ye
�•
22
AREA MAP 13
1
'STONERIDGE 11 a `
DESIGN GUIDELINES
' Responding to the variety of site constraints, the project has been
divided into 4 areas (refer to Area Map). Each area has.a unique
' set of building setback and envelope standards. While the
minimum setbacks and maximum height limitations are listed for all
4 areas, setbacks and heights are encouraged to vary lot to lot,
avoiding a bland, uniform, or mass-produced appearance.
In response to the Environmental Impact Report completed on
' Stoneridge II, setback and height restrictions have been revised
as follows.
' Area 1 (Refer to Area Map on page 13)
' Lots in Area 1 have been designed with irregular lot lines and
dimensions. The purpose of this design is to further reduce the
impact of these homes on their Lawrence Drive neighbors and
' to create-a more authentic Mediterranean village appearance.
By orienting Stoneridge II homes at angles to the rear property
line, maintaining the 25 foot minimum rear yard setback and 15
' foot maximum building height at the rear setback, more space
between buildings and a "softer" building facade can be
presented.
' Due to extreme sensitivity of the Lawrence Drive neighborhood
to privacy and overlook issues, specific building height and
' setback guidelines have been developed on a lot by lot basis
for Area 1. These guidelines below are minimum standards.
' For these specific standards, refer to Development Plan exhibit
boards 1-8.
1. Street yard setbacks: Minimum of 10 feet from front property
line for garages not facing the street or residential buildings;
minimum of 15 feet for garages facing the street.
' 2. Side yard setbacks: Minimum 3 feet from building to property
line.
3. Rear yard setbacks: Minimum 25 feet from building to
property line.
1
14
;STONERIDGE 11 a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
4. Building height: A maximum building height of 15' measured ,
from finish grade at rear yard setback. the rear yard building
height limit is consistent throughout area 1 at 15'. The front '
yard building height limit varies from 15' to 20' lot to lot.
Refer to approved Development Plan Exhibit Boards 1-8 for
exact height limitation (boards maintained at Community
Development Department). ,
MAX.BUILDING ENVELOPE '
STONERIDGEI II
DRNE LAWRENCE DRIVE
HOMES '
*._. ..
T
1101 1
15' 25'
• 20' HEIGHT LIMIT ON LOTS 5,6,8_11,13-17 '
15' HEIGHT LIMIT ON LOTS 1-4,7,12
STREET FACING GARAGES- 15'min. SETBACK ,
REFER TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXHIBIT BOARDS 1-8
FOR MORE INFORMATION ,
The building envelope shall be measured up 15' at front yard '
setback and extend at a 90 degree angle towards rear yard
property line for 35' (from front property line), then slope '
downward meeting the 15' height limit at rear yard setback.
1
15 '
= l/J ` •�►- ° ,�
OF
7111
I
An -
d � a�l�Lo �� ./��r�rN'Qi��iE.� � ��`rt• /`���C { �7 I � ♦.
i�qw , 6. i 4
IS
^� .
_., .��►�=fir±
'MMI 'moi_ s ' --G.-
��� �.
.STONERIDGE II
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Area 3 (Refer to map on Page 13) ,
1. Street yard setbacks: Minimum of 10 feet from front property '
line for homes or garages not facing the street; minimum of
15 feet for garages facing the street.
2. Side yard setbacks: Minimum 3 feet from building to property '
line.
3. Rear yard setbacks: Minimum 5 feet from building to '
property line.
4. Building height: Maximum building height of 25' parallel to '
finish grade.
CLUSTERED UNITS
3' 3'
-- BLUEROCK DRIVE MAX.BUILDING ENVELOPE � CLUSTERED UNITS
BUILDING ENVELOPE ::;;1:;::;2: :;...:...:.;::..:•. '
cm
to
10 "5'
BLUEROCK DRIVE • STREET FACING GARAGES 15' min. SETBACK
Area 4 (Refer to map on Page 13) '
1. Street yard setbacks: Minimum of 10 feet from front property '
line for residential buildings or garages not facing the street;
minimum of 15 feet for garages facing the street. '
2. Side yard setbacks: Minimum 3 feet from building to property
line. '
17 '
'STONERIDGE II a `�
DES/GN GUIDELINES
' 3. Rear yard setbacks: Minimum 5 feet from building to
property line.
4. Building height: Maximum building height of 25' parallel to
finish grade.
3' 3'
BWEROCK DRNE
OPEN SPACE I MAX.BUILDING ENVELOPE BLUEROCK
' - - -- DRIVE
O
Cq
i
i
,
i
MAX.BUILDING 5' 5'
ENVELOPE
STREET FACING GARAGES-15'min. SETBACK
' OPEN SPACE \
Streetscape . Where possible, garages should be oriented to minimize the
and Garage view of garage doors, reducing the auto-dominance and garage
Orientation presence along the streets.
Lots with uphill slopes or irregular lots needing special design
considerations should orient garages in a way best serving the
' site and the home being built.
Shared driveways are encouraged to more efficiently serve lots.
' This will increase usable yard area and reduce paved areas.
' . Placement of drives and parking areas should be hidden from
public view as much as possible by the use of berming and
screening and. reduction of apron width.
1
' 18
STONERIDGE 11 a ��
DES/GN GU/DEL/NES
Solar Building orientation should maximize the optimal solar exposure, '
Orientation minimizing shading on adjacent properties.
Provisions within the site plans and building designs for passive '
solar space and water heating are strongly encouraged.
Give careful attention to adjacent neighbors to avoid shading '
windows and patio areas.
1
THIS " NOT"
Privacy . Orient buildings and decks to maximize views while preserving ,
and Overlook privacy of surrounding neighbors.
• Rear yard decks more than 8 feet above natural ground level
are prohibited in Area 1.
• Locate windows and other openings away from neighbor's '
windows and openings to insure privacy between homes.
• Large windows are discouraged for use in north facing walls in '
Area 1 and 3 to minimize visual overlook.
19 '
t STONERIDGE 11
a
' DESIGN GUIDELINES
' SITE DESIGN CRITERIA
REAR PROPERTY LINE
' 10' WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
FENCED IN BACKYAR -
NOT OBSTRUCTING
DRAINAGE 25' REAR YARD SETBACK
' HOUSE: _
ORIENTATION TO VIEWS _
MINIMIZE WINDOW SIZE ON
' ORIENTATION FOR SOLAR _ •
NORTH FACING WALLS
. ALLOW GREATER WINDOW
'
SIZE ON EAST & WEST
'FACING WALLS
ENCLOSED FRONT 1 - i GRADE TRANSITION
GARDEN OR COURTYARD BETWEEN HOUSE
AND GARGAGE
SIDE LOADED
PIASTER WALL AT GARAGE COCKED AT
PROPERTY LINE - ANGLE TO STREET
' WITH 10' SETBACK
FROM STREET
USE OF CURVED OR
COBBLE DRIVE - ANGLED WALLS ENCOURAGED
' FRONT PROPERTY LINE - ORNAMENTAL PLASTER
' - =WALL
STREET TREE t
AREA 1
1
20
1
STONERIDGE II
DESIGN GUIDELINES
i
�r
_= �g
r
,v
10
21 '
1
STONERIDGE 11 a `�
DESIGN GUIDELINES
' III. BUILDING DESIGN
1
1
I � •
1
Goals and These architectural design guidelines are intended to establish
' Objectives general parameters and direction that encourage creative and
appropriate building design solutions without severely restricting the
' design process. These guidelines should not be perceived as
constraints that•limit creative possibilities, but rather guidelines by
which the desired architectural quality can be expressed and
' developed. This architectural section seeks to encourage tasteful,
imaginative design solutions sensitive to each individual lot,
capturing the Mediterranean village character desired for
' Stoneridge.
Rather than creating a neighborhood where any architectural style
' is tolerated, Stoneridge Village offers something new and different.
Stoneridge II includes detached single family homes with a design
program incorporating distinctive architectural elements of a
Mediterranean hillside village.
STONERIDGE II a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
L
Design ,
Considerations
Building Form . The articulation of building forms is a critical element to '
and Massing capturing the Mediterranean village character desired for
Stoneridge. Use of angles or even curved walls are
encouraged. '
• Columns, pergolas, "acropolis" type free standing structures are
encouraged. '
• Building exteriors should be broken into a variety of planes,
creating visually interesting shadow lines. ,
• Careful articulation of building forms such as windows, doors, '
walls, parapet walls, and fences is important in capturing the
Mediterranean character and creating an intriguing streetscape.
• Soften the building's mass with architectural features such as ,
garden walls, porches, balconies, arbors, and trellises. Avoid
"tacking on" architectural features to hide poor massing without '
thought to overall form. Projections, recesses, and overhangs
provide shadow and depth.
• Buildings should be design to follow the topography using split '
pads, stepped footings, and grade separations to allow
dwellings to step up or down the slope. ,
23 '
' STONERIDGE II a ��
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
0000
-y
-�
' THIS "MOT"
1 . Large expanses of unbroken walls or the use of uniform height
' roofs on the front and rear elevations of a building are
discouraged. Vertical wall planes on a house's downhill side
should be minimized. Terracing the structure helps reduce its
mass and blend it into the terrain.
On lots in Area 1, no part of a building may be over 15 to 20
' feet above the finished ground level. Homes in Area 1 are
subject to the .approved development plan. Building heights
up to 20' may only be allowed in the front area facing the street
' to accommodate special design features and support the street
character of Stoneridge I homes. (See page 14)
' Garages . Garages can be attached or detached from the main structure
and should not dominate the street facade. Minimize the visual
' impact of garage doors by orienting them perpendicular or at an
angle to the street.
Garages and garage doors should be well articulated and blend
with the main structure's design. Incorporating the same design
elements in the garage as in the primary living structure is
' important.
For lots with topographic relief, garages should be tucked under
' the main house or integrated with the main building design to
take advantage of grade change, therefore minimizing impact of
garage.
' 24
STONERIDGE II a ��
DESIGN GUIDELINES ,
1
Roof and The architectural style and vision for Stoneridge Village involves 1
Roof Lines the use of flat, domed, barrel vaulted, and pyramid shape roofs
of varying heights that expressindividual interior spaces on their 1
exterior elevations generating visual variety and interest in the
architectural forms.
Sloping roofs of 1712' or greater hidden behind parapet walls '
giving a flat roof appearance is encouraged to properly convey
roof drainage. 1
Flat roofs used as roof decks are encouraged in areas 2, 3, &
4. 1
• Tile-clad sloped, vaulted, pyramid, and dome roofs, as well as 1
pyramid skylights, are also part of the design vocabulary to be
used as accents to the roof line delineating individual spaces, for
example; entry; family room, or master bedroom. '
• Minimize use of gable forms on roofs and chimneys.
• Consistent with the Mediterranean style, ornamental parapets 1
are encouraged throughout the project, defining and articulating
the individual perimeters of flat roofs. 1
• Parapet detailing can vary widely throughout the subdivision,
but detailing on an individual site should be consistent. ,
• Special attention should be given to parapet wall and roof
detailing to ensure water tightness, and code compliance. 1
1
1
1
25 1
1
1 STONERIDGE II
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
4=44
1 - .
1 .
f
1 In older Mediterranean hillside villages, chimneys are one of the
few exterior design elements that are used to personalize a
particular home. This same notion will be encouraged with
1 Stoneridge II Village. Chimneys should be articulated on the
exterior of buildings as sculpted plaster forms and designers
are encouraged to come up with their own flue and chimney
1 cap details that would be unique to the unit they design, yet
reflect the geometrical forms typical of Mediterranean.
1
1 26
STONERIDGE 11 a
DES/GN GUIDELINES
RECESSED ARCHED
OPENING WITH BUILT UP PLASTER _
..'.OPERABLE WINDOW DETAILING
f ' MULTI-PANED WINDOW .
X WIDE SASH
RECESSED WINDOW
1- MUNTINS -
OPERABLE WOODEN SHUTTERS PAINTED _
WITH ACCENT COLOR ,
Windows and Another element important in achieving the character and vision
Doors for Stoneridge is the treatment of door and window openings.
In Greek Mediterranean buildings, brightly painted doors and ,
windows bring color to the all white facades. Below are a series
of general guidelines for windows and door treatments.
1. Size of Openings: Fenestration of building forms.should be '
done with small,well placed, and well proportioned openings.
Large picture windows without a multi-paned design are not t
acceptable.
Where larger fenestrations are desired, they should be ,
designed as an aggregate of smaller, more intimate doors
and window openings.
27 '
STONERIDGE II
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
2:3 PROPORTION
3'
RECESSED WINDOW
SECTIONS 1F'
INTERIOR t WINDOW RECESSED B° THIS "NOT"
1
EXTERIOR SILL 2.' Shape of Openings: The predominate shape of fenestrations
tshall be rectangular with the smallest side as the base. The
2:3 window proportion used often in Mediterranean villages
WINDOW RECESSED So is strongly encouraged.
INTERIOR
3. Articulation of Openings: All windows should be recessed
' from the exterior wall planes a minimum of 6 inches,
EXTERIOR preferably 8 inches.
' SILL. Windows, unless arched, should be multi-paned with wood
SHUTTERS black,
having 1.5"-3" wide sashes and 1" wide muntins. No
black, bronze, or natural anodized aluminum windows will be
' :SILL DETAIL allowed.
Large openings without multi-paned windows will not be
' allowed.
' Use of stained or leaded glass to accent window openings
low or as an alternative to multi-paned glass is an option.
MIN. The use of tinted or reflected glass is not acceptable.
t4. Ornamentation of Openings: Window and door openings
can be designed as a recessed opening in an unadorned
' exterior wall, or ornamented with built up stucco detailing.
WOOD FRAME
' 28
c�
STONERIDGE II a
DES/GN GU/DEUNES
1
Wood shutters with accent color
1 Wide window frame and
Muntins with accent color
� � 1
Recessed window /
system /
Terra cotta potted plants '
With all light-colored stucco facades, the quality of the
1
window is very important. 1.5-3 inch window sashes are 1
strongly encouraged creating a more authentic Mediterranean
character.
Wooden-shutters that fit the windows are encouraged. t
Windows in accent colors from the Stoneridge II color palette 1
are encouraged. (See page 33)
Doors and windows can be trimmed out minimally in wood 1
or local stone.
o�o�ao 1
THIS " NOT" _
29 1
ISTONERIDGE II a `�
DESIGN GUIDELINES
evl1
07,
F
1
' FRENCH DOOR WITH ONE CENTER MULLION
' 5. Doors: Doors and garage doors should be painted a light
"body color" or preferably an accent color. (See color palette
on page 33.) Black doors will not be allowed.
' All exterior doors shall be of wood or of a french door
design with small window panes. Sliding glass doors must
' provide a multi-paned design and should not be visible from
the street.
Garage doors may be metal or wood.
' Balustrades and Guardrails for decks must be constructed in one of these two
Railings ways:
' 1. Solid walls - these would be as stucco wall extensions from
stucco building forms that would contain internal roof
drainage with decorative scuppers.
' 2. Open wood balustrades -this type of open railing would also
be encouraged for use on balconies and exterior stairways.
' For wood balustrades, all posts, rails, and balusters shall be
of wood only and painted with accent colors. (See color
palette on page 33.)
' Decorative newel posts and wood corbels supporting exterior
' balconies are appropriate to the Mediterranean Stoneridge
vernacular. (See color palette on page 33.)
' 30
STONERIDGE 11
a ,
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
Exterior Materials Exterior building materials and colors will be the most strictly
and Finishes regulated facet of Stoneridge II. Designers are expected to adhere
strictly to the use of the materials and color schemes in individual '
home design.
For Stoneridge II, the color palette will use a more muted color '
scheme for the "body" color, slightly warmer tones than Stoneridge
I. This, along with the increased vegetation, is to reduce glare and
to better blend in with the surrounding hillside. '
The Stoneridge II color palette was inspired by primarily Greek
Mediterranean architecture, using light "body" colors with accent '
colors on windows, doors, and fences.
Although conventional concrete driveways are allowed,designers
will be encouraged to "personalize" individual driveways via
stone pavers or stamped concrete.
o •
000
1
pp 1
Color the accent on wall
Color tlles Integrated Into steps
• 1
Terra cotta pavings
• 1
31 1
1 -
'STONERIDGE 11 a ��
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
'
• Decorative hand painted colored tile or terra cotta the could be
used as an alternative for color accenting.
Each color scheme includes a "body" color and a series of
accents to be used on elements such as windows, doors,
balustrades, trellises, shutters, and fences. The number of
elements painted with an accent color should be controlled to
' a minimum, avoiding a bright color dominating the house. In
general, the brighter a color, the more sparingly it should be
used.
' . In order to create a more authentic Mediterranean character, the
' stucco shall be a hand applied mission finish opposed to a
machine applied finish.
' . The use of wood should be limited exclusively to trellises,
windows, doors, door and window trim, shutters, and
balustrades. Any other use of wood on the exterior of buildings
' is not acceptable.
Local stone could be incorporated in pavement, steps, garden
' walls, window sills, and fireplaces.
Exposed gutter and downspout systems will only be allowed at
' pitched roof areas with Design Review Committee approval.
Internal roof drainage with decorative overflow canals, finials,
' and pendants are to be used to handle building drainage
overflow.
Canales
Canales collar.
Finials
1
DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGNS
32
STONERIDGE II
DESIGN GUIDELINES
TABLE 2 '
MATERIALS AND COLORS '
Flat Roofs:
♦ Built-up; light gray granite crushed. '
Sloping Roofs:
♦ Greenhouse glass roofs, non-glazed flat concrete tile, or stucco roofs (on domes or barreQ. '
Roof Decks:
♦ Buift-up with a light stained redwood deck on sleepers, plastic dated exterior deck material, or
ceramic tiles. '
Exterior Walls:
♦ Smooth troweled stucco (California mission finish) in a body color. Warmer colors should be used '
in Area 4 to help blend with the hillside.
Exterior Balustrades and Walls:
♦ Open painted wood balustrades or solid stuccoed walls. Paint balustrades with accent colors. '
Walls & Fences:
♦ Streetscape walls - stucco covered walls In body color, or local stone walls.
♦ Side and rear yard fences.
a. Black coated chain link fence system with trailing vines.
b. Combination of stucco and wood fence with the wood painted in an accent color.
c. Wood or wrought iron gates painted in accent colors.
d. Local stone walls or pilasters.
Lighting: '
♦ Light fixtures should be complimentary to Mediterranean character blending or molded into facade.
♦ Brass or reflective fixtures would not be appropriate.
Windows: '
♦ Mufti-paned window system preferably with 1.53 inch sashes painted with accent colors.
Approved Project Colors: ,
Code numbers refer to 'FRAZEE' color swatches or'La Habra Stucco'finish samples. The Stoneridge
Design Review Board will have a color board available with all finish and color samples. Any brand of
exterior paint could be used, but should match these color samples: '
Accent Colors: Accent Colors •Body' Stucco Colors
4265 Pioneer Red 5033 Deep River CMF 23 Aspen '
4445 Mission Bell 5064 Marina 1/2 CMF 34 San Simeon
4874 Hawaii 5104 Cove CMF 34 San Simeon
4875 Caribbean. 5105 Middy Blue CMF 40 Dove Grey
4884 Turquoise 5154 Blueberry 1/2 CMF 48 Meadowbrook '
4885 Key Largo 5155 Nantucket CMF 48 Meadowbrook
4895 Meditation 6355 Cherry CMF 53 Pure Ivory
CMF 73 Eggshell '
1/2 CMF 86 Sandstone
CMF 86 Sandstone
33 ,
1
ISTONERIDGE II
a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
IV.LANDSCAPE DESIGN
fa 1
Goals and The landscape scheme devised for Stoneridge II contains a variety
' Objectives of landscape materials that are common to the Mediterranean
hillside village. The landscape palette will provide continuity
' between the built environment and the natural environment, as well
as providing consistency in neighborhood character throughout
Stoneridge I and II.
' One primary design objective will be to create street spaces which
reduce the auto-dominance and form a human scale volume
' through the use of tree canopies, street width, building setbacks,
and sidewalk design. In support of this, introduction of mature olive
trees along existing streets in Stoneridge I and along the streets in
Phase II is proposed. Mature trees will create a street tree canopy
and established look to both existing and new homes.
' Another primary design objective is further enhancing the
Mediterranean hillside character by creating a more unified village
' streetscape with interconnecting walls and planting.
34
STONERIDGE II a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Design The Mediterranean character created with the site and architectural '
Considerations design should be reinforced by the landscaping of each lot. The
plant palette developed in this section further compliments the
desired Stoneridge II character while incorporating drought tolerant ,
plants. The yards of each lot should be landscaped using plants
from the provided plant palette.
Planting . In order that lots be landscaped and irrigated within 6 months ,
of occupancy, acceptable security must be posted. '
• Landscape plans for individual lots shall be reviewed at the
same time as building designs and reviewed in the context of '
these design guidelines.
• Plans shall identify location of all plant materials in front and '
side yards. These plans must contain a legend of plant
materials including botanical name, common name, quantity and
size of all plant material. '
• Plant materials must be drought tolerant unless used only for
accent purposes. ,
• The use of turf shall be prohibited in front yards. Turf shall be '
used for functional spaces such as play areas and outdoor
entertainment areas and should be used sparingly.
• The use of trees should be encouraged to create an intimate '
scale and enclosure to spaces, but their placement should .
respect the long range views of the surrounding neighbors. '
• Planting should be used to screen less desirable areas from
public view, i.e. trash can enclosures, parking areas, storage ,
areas, satellite dishes, and public utilities.
• Careful consideration should be given to the plant selection and ,
landscape design for Area 4 bordering open space areas.
These areas should act as a transition from the domestic '
landscape to the natural.
1
35 '
jL
TONERIDGE 11 a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
' Hardscapes . Minimize the visual impact of hardscapes such as driveways.by
reducing the expanse of paved areas where possible.
Paving materials should reinforce the architectural character of
the house. (See exterior materials and finishes, page 31)
1 . Breaking up paved area with planters will help reduce the visual
impact of hardscape.
1 . Patio designs are encouraged to use level changes and work
with architectural features like trellises.
1 Enhance the definition of walkways with accent plantings, low
• walls and gates.
1
1 ACCENT PLANTING NATIVE STONE PATIO
1 DEFINES ENTRY
r
{ '
1
COBBLE PAVING
REDUCES . PLANTING S/OR BURMING
' HARDSCAPE TO SCREEN HARDSCAPE
IMPACT
1 36
STONERIDGE II
a '
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Walls and Fences Special attention has been given to develop consistent detailing ,
for ornamental walls and fences tying the whole project together.
Two primary categories have been developed for walls and
fencing, streetscape walls and interior walls and fences. These '
designs should be used exclusively throughout the subdivision
including the locations chosen for their application. '
1. Streetscape Walls:
Walls exposed to view from the streetscape must be of a t
stuccoed solid design and detailed in the manner shown
below. These street yard walls can be constructed either out ,
of wood wrapped in stucco, or out of concrete block, again,
covered in stucco. The designers would be encouraged to
use curved or linear walls to enclose front or rear garden ,
and patio areas and to create visual interest along the
streetscape and property corners abutting the street.
All streetscape walls must be constructed prior to occupancy. ,
1
PLASTER WRAPPED '
16X16 PILASTER
PLASTER WALL AND ,
PILASTER IN "BODY COLOR"
51 ADDRESS TILE WITH '
ACCENT COLOR
'6• 1• �, 1^ 8" CONCRETE '
BLOCK OR
M1' •�.,, 3' PLY—WRAPPED
' ,y f WALL '
COMMON STREETSCAPE WALL DETAIL '
1
37 '
1
TONERIDGE 11 a
DES/GN GUIDEUNES
' WOODEN GATE PAINTED
^` I WITH ACCENT COLOR
I STUCCO OR
I l PLASTER WALL
1 .
I .
1 I ,
STUCCO OR PLASTER
' PILASTER
2. Interior Walls and Fences:.
' Property lines not visible from the street may be enclosed
' with a 6' high maximum black coated chain link fence
system. Lot owners would be required to plant trailing vines
selected from the landscape palette to grow along this fence.
A combination of stucco and painted .wood fences may be
used to define other yard areas. These fences may be a
' maximum of 5' and should incorporate accent colors on
wood elements. Local stone can be used in place of stucco
walls.
' Wooden and wrought iron gates painted with an accent color
are a common Greek Mediterranean feature and may be
integrated in the fence design.
38
STONERIDGE 11 a `�
DES/GN GUIDELINES '
r _
xL
Trellises Common in a Mediterranean hillside village are the use of heavy
wood trellises upon which bougainvillea vines or other trailing ,
vines are attached.
• Trellises can be used at entries, over rear yard deck of patio ,
areas, as well as over roof top decks.
• Vertical members supporting the trellis could be stuccoed '
columns or heavy wood columns that would be at least 6" x 6'
in cross section. ,
Irrigation . All planted areas shall be irrigated with a water efficient
automatic system. The use of microspray, drip systems or other '
efficient methods are required. Automatic controllers are
necessary to avoid over-watering and to efficiently control the
application of water. ,
• All irrigation systems shall separate turf areas from shrub and '
groundcover areas, as well as separate all planting according to
orientation, exposure, and slope.
• Irrigation schedules must be adjusted quarterly to meet plant '
requirements and programmed to operate during low water
demand periods of the day. '
• Adjust irrigation system to minimize runoff and discharge of
water onto adjacent hardscape or properties. '
39 '
1
ISTONERIDGE II
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
1 FIXTURES FOR REAR
AND ;SIDE YARD ONLY
RECESSED LIGHTING
� �.` —PLASTER COVERED
LIGHTING
I
1 ' .GARAGE DOOR
i,
I
1
Lighting . Adequate on-site lighting should be provided to insure safety,
' but light levels should not be a nuisance to adjacent properties.
• Light fixtures should be complimentary to Mediterranean
1 architecture and character. Exterior lights are to be designed
to wash building surfaces and gardens, concealing sources of
' glare from adjacent properties and the streetscape.
• Landscape lighting is encouraged, but should follow these
1 guidelines:
A. The light source should not be visible.
B. Light should be used only to accent focal points, not entire
yard (no flood lighting).
C. No colored lighting will be permitted.
1 D. Lighting should not cast glare or spill over onto adjacent lots.
40
STONERIDGE 11
a
DES/GN GU/DEL/NES
Maintenance . All landscaped areas shall be maintained to industry standards, '
insuring proper health, growth and appearance of all yards.
All lots shall be kept free from debris, trash, and noxious weeds. '
Erosion Control All graded slopes shall be immediately planted and irrigated with '
an automatic system. Graded slopes in excess of 6 vertical feet
in height and 1-1/2:1 slope shall be treated with erosion control ,
matting in addition to planting.
Erosion control planting design should provide both short and ,
long term slope stability through a plant palette including short
lived, fast growing slope stabilizing groundcover, long lived
groundcover and shrubs and long lived trees and shrubs. This ,
mix of plant materials will provide the necessary slope stability,
as well as look good throughout its evolution. Refer to Table
3 for appropriate plant material. '
1
1
41 '
ISTONERIDGE II
a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
TABLE 3
' LANDSCAPE PALETTE
Streetscapes and Front Yards
This contains both trees, evergreen and deciduous, and a list of suitable shrubs and
' groundcover.
' Entry Areas and Accent Plantings
This contains, again,trees and shrubs suitable for focus planting on individual lots and
' focal areas within the neighborhoods, such as around the cistern, the entry to the
attached products, and even the entry to the development at Broad Street.
' Transition to the Hillside Open Space
These plant materials would be suitable to use within the lot area behind residences
' backing up to the hillside. No planting would occur above the 325' .elevation. These
plant species include trees, shrubs, and groundcovers which are supportive of the visual
character of the hillside.
' Transition to the Lawrence Drive Neighborhood
' These list both skyline trees and screening trees suitable for location between the
Stoneridge II and Lawrence Drive lots as well as shrubs and groundcovers which will
' help to screen short distance views into the backyards while allowing long-distance
views to other view sheds.
' A note of caution: This plant material list is not meant to be all inclusive, nor exclusive
of other plant materials that may be suitable, but rather to give some guidelines for the
homeowner. The palette is not composed purely of native plant material, as that would
limit the possibilities drastically, but rather plant material that is all considered to be
drought tolerant and compatible with indigenous species.
1
42
STONERIDGE II
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
ALL AREAS '
STREETSCAPES AND FRONT YARDS '
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Street Trees '
Olea europaea Olive ,
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus suber Cork Oak '
Yard Trees
Arbutus unedo Strawberry tree '
Laurus nobilis Grecian Bay Laurel
Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress '
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box
Prunus cerasifera 'T.C.I Flowering Plum
Shrubs & Groundcover '
Agapanthus orientalis Lily of the Nile ,
Artemesia schmidtiana Angel's Hair
Bougainvillea
Ceanothus spp. Ceanothus ,
Cistus spp. Rockrose
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster '
Dietes vegeta Fort-night Lily
Erica carnea Heather
Escallonia spp. Escallonia ,
Euonymus fortunei Euonymus
Festuca ovina glauca Blue Fescue
Grevillea noelli NCN '
Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass
Lantana spp. Trailing Lantana
Miscanthus sinensis Zebra Grass '
Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum
43 ,
1
ISTONERIDGE 11
DESIGN GUIDELINES
' BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Shrubs & Groundcover (cont.)
Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo
' Nerium oleander Oleander
Pennisetum setaceum Fountain grass
Phormium tenax Flax
' Pittosporum tobira Tobira
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box
Punica granatum Pomegranate
' Rhaphiolepis indica India Hawthorn
Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary
' Salvia spp. Sage
Sollya heterophylla Australian Bluebell
Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic
' Viburnum spp. Viburnum
Unca spp. Periwinkle
Zylosma
' ENTRY AREAS AND ACCENT PLANTINGS
' Trees
Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree
' G!editsia triacanthos Honey Locust
Magnolia grandiflora Southern Magnolia
.' Olea europaea Olive
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date Palm
Pyrus spp. Pear
' Schinus molle California Pepper Tree
Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm
Coccos plumosa Queen Plum
Shrubs and Groundcover
' Acanthus mollis Bear's Breech
Agapanthus orientalis Lily of the Nile
Agave spp. Agave
' Aspidistra elatoir Cast Iron Plant
44
STONERIDGE II
a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME '
Shrubs & Groundcover (cont.)
Bougainvillea Bougainvillea '
Centaurea cineraria Dusty Miller '
Dietes vegeta Fort-night Lily
Distictis buccinatoria Blood Red Trumpet Vine
Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira '
Eriobotrya deflexa Loquat
Festuca ovina glauca Blue Fescue
Hemerocallis spp. Day Lily '
Jasmine polyanthum Jasmine Vine
Lavandula angustifolia Lavender
Limonium perezii Sea Lavender ,
Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium
Sollya heterophylla Australian Bluebell
Strelitzia spp. Bird of Paradise ,
Trachelosperum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Wisteria spp. Wisteria '
Xylosma congestum Xylosma
AREA 4
TRANSITION TO HILLSIDE OPEN SPACE (BELOW 325-FT. ELEVATION) ,
Trees
Acacia spp. Acacia '
Lyonothamnus floribundus Catalina Ironwood
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak '
Shrubs and Groundcover '
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita
Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush '
Ceanothus spp. Ceanothus
Cistus spp. Rockrose
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon '
45 '
' STONERIDGE 11
a
DES/GN GU/DEL/NES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Shrubs & Groundcover (cont.)
Myporum parvifolium Myporum
' Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry
Salvia spp. Sage
Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary
' Artemesia schmidtiana Angel's Hair
AREA 1
' TRANSITION TO LAWRENCE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
' Screen Trees
' Alnus rhombifolia White Alder
Acacia spp. Acacia
' Lyonothamnus floribundus Catalina Ironwood
Pittosporum undulatum Victorian box
Prunus lyonii Catalina Cherry
' Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus suber Cork Oak
' Screen Shrubs
Ceanothus spp. Ceanothus
Cytisus racemosus Broom
Dodoneae viscosa Hopseed Bush
Eriobotrya deflexa Loquat
' Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Pittosporum eugenioides NCN
Laurus nobilis Bay Laurel
Rhus ovata Sugarbush
Zylosma
' 46
STONERIDGE II
DESIGN GUIDELINES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME ,
Skyline Trees
Populus nigra Italica Italian Poplar ,
Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress '
Eucalyptus citriodora Lemon-Scented Gum
Tristania conferta Brisbane Box
Shrubs and Groundcovers '
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita '
Baccharis pilularis Coyote Brush
Callistemon ciitrinus Lemon Bottlebrush
Cistus salvifolius Rockrose '
Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster
Euonymus fortunei Euonymus
Grevillia noellii Grevillia '
Lantana spp. Trailing Lantana
Lonicera spp. Honeysuckle '
Myoporum parWolium Myoporum
47 '
ISTONERIDGE II
a
DESIGN GUIDELINES
1
' SUMMARY OF EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
PERTINENT TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES
' Location in
Description Design
of Impact Proposed Mitigation Measure Guidelines
Neighborhood . 25 foot rear yard setback on lots in Area 1. Page 14
' compatibility . Maximum building height of 15 feet as Page 14
measured from finished grade. Maximum
building height of 20 feet would be allowed with
' approval of Planned Development for lots in
Area 1. Page 14
Decks more than 8 feet above natural ground
' level shall be prohibited.
Tree screening along the rear lot lines of Area Page 42
t 1 lots, including a mix of tall open skyline trees
and medium to large shrubs.
'
Visual quality . The lots along Stoneridge Drive will have their Page 14
and aesthetics building mass located towards the street.
City's architecture review is required for lots Pages 6&7
' backing up to Lawrence Drive.
Extensive retaining or foundation walls or large Page 23&24
unbroken planes should be avoided.
' Colors used in Stoneridge II shall be softer Pages 31-33,
earth tones. Project lighting should be kept to 40
a minimum. Lighting fixtures should be headed
and the light source deflected away from
surrounding areas.
' Plant palette, including native species, shall be
required. Page 42
' Water supply Water conservation measures such as drought Pages 35 &
tolerant plant species and drip irrigation species 42-47
should be employed whenever possible.
' c/dl-stone.gui
' 48
1
COMMENTS SUMMARY
' STONERMGE II QUESTIONNAIRE
' April 1, 1992
' Yes No
' 1. Have you had any problems with privacy from surrounding 7 15
neighbors due to proximity of buildings, decks,driveways,etc.?
' Privacy could be improved by greater sensitivity to window
locations, increased landscaping, and incorporating stuccoed block
' walls in rear yard areas:
2. Stoneridge I had a very specific color palette for exterior paint.
' Did you find that helpful?
16 1
' Most neighbors would like a wider selection of colors possibly
including some regional colors like terra cotta and green. The use 15 2
of milder off whites as "body colors" would be less reflective.
' Dark peach stucco shades used as a "body color"and black doors
are too dark and detracting for the Stoneridge character.
' 3. Have the Stoneridge I Design Guidelines been too restricting? 5 16
Strict guidelines are necessary to maintain the neighborhood
' charaaer. Colored window frames of a higher quality would be
a nice addition. Stronger enforcement of guidelines would help
ensure the desired Stoneridge character.
4. Has a planting palette been helpful?
' A. Helpful? 10 5
' B. Problems with plants from palette? 3 8
A planting palette offering a wider variety of plants would be
' preferred. The neighborhood entrance needs to be re-landscaped
1
1
1
5. Have you had any drainage problems with your lot and 6 15 '
improvements?
The main drainage problem seems to be caused by neighbors
blocking or not clearing the drainage channel on their property.
6. Have you had any problems with exterior lighting style, 4 16 '
intensity, etc. recommended by the Stoneridge Design
Committee?
Light fixtures should blend with the Stoneridge Mediterranean
character excluding all use of shiny brass fixtures. The standard '
street lights should be replaced with smaller, more intimate lights
that integrate well with the Mediterranean character.
7. Is there adequate parldng provided for the neighborhood? 16 6 '
The majority of the neighborhood agrees there is adequate parking '
provided but rental homes do seem to cause a parking problem.
Additional Comments ,
♦ 732ere tends to be a traffic problem at the Rockview Drive and Stoneridge Drive intersection
due to the absence of stop signs.
♦ Neighbors do not want condominiums built in Stoneridge R, and prefer all homes to be ,
owner-occupied
♦ Light and signage is needed at entrance to Stoneridge neighborhood ,
♦ The flat roofs predominately used in the neighborhood tend to leak '
♦ 71ze vacant lot and its drainage channel is full of weeds and needs to be maintained
♦ More walls (short garden .type) are needed to give the neighborhood more continuity. i
♦ In conclusion, the Stoneridge I residents enjoy the distinct character of their unique '
neighborhood along with the park and open space.
Wdl-stone.com '