Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03/16/1993, 1 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2126 (CITY FILE NO. TR 188-92) CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 9.95 ACRES INTO 60 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND CREATE A 247.34-ACRE REMAINDER PARCEL WITH A 47.71-ACRE OPEN SPACE DEDICATION.
�u � ►�IIIIII�P jII�IU city of san WIS 0131spo MEEl1NG DATE, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director; o By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner pR, SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 2126 (City File No. Tr 188-92) - consideration of a request to subdivide 9.95 acres into 60 single- .family residential lots and create a 247.34-acre remainder parcel with a 47.71-acre open space dedication. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Draft Resolution A approving the vesting tentative tract map with the findings and conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review Review of the vesting tentative tract map is the last major step in City processing of the Stoneridge II project. The tract map will enable subdivision of the R-1-PD portion of the property into 60 individual single-family residential lots as well as create an approximately 50-acre open space parcel which will be dedicated to the City. The City Council approved the annexation of the Stoneridge II project area on February 2, 1993. The Council's purview in its review of the tract map is to determine that the map is consistent with the City's general plan and the preliminary development plan approved by the Council on July 21, 1992, and that conditions adequately addresses issues identified in the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . On February 10, 1993, the Planning Commission took an action to recommend approval of the vesting tentative tract map to the City Council (reflected in Draft Resolution A) . The public hearing before the Commission lasted over three hours and involved lengthy public testimony. The most significant issue discussed at the meeting was project and neighborhood drainage with the focus on the need to obtain an easement across a lot on Lawrence Drive to accommodate the required off-site storm drainage system. Update to Attached Planning Commission Report The staff report prepared for the Planning Commission hearing on the tract map is attached to this report. That report provides a detailed evaluation of project issues including drainage. The following paragraphs are intended to update the Council on new information and changes that have occurred since that report was prepared: 4�illiqmllliII city of san L,..is osispo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Stoneridge II Tract Map No. 2126 (City File No. Tr 188-92) Page 2 1. Pedestrian Access Across Proposed Drainage Easement: The fist paragraph on Page*5 of the Planning Commission report discusses the possibility of using the drainage easement area across both a Lawrence Drive lot and a Stoneridge Drive lot as a pedestrian access easement. The third paragraph of Condition 4 included in the report on Page 10 detailed this requirement. This portion of the condition requiring the pedestrian access was vehemently opposed by both the developer and several Lawrence Drive neighbors. The Commission also did not feel that pedestrian access was desired. The attached Resolution A excludes the pedestrian access requirement. 2 . Open Space Acquisition: Pages 6-7 of the Planning Commission report discuss the advantages of acquiring the open space area proposed with the project through fee title versus an easement. The Planning Commission indicated support for staff's recommendation for City control and ownership of the open space area. At the hearing, the project applicant John Ring presented the idea of conveying the open space to the City through a gift deed. He indicated that there. are certain tax advantages to him in conveying the property by gift deed. The Planning Commission was not opposed to transfer of the property through . the instrument of a gift deed, but wanted to leave Condition 20, requiring the open space to be dedicated to the City in fee, as a fallback since no documentation of the gift deed vehicle had been submitted. At the time of preparation of this report, staff had received a draft gift deed. If a gift deed, acceptable to the City Attorney and City Engineer, is successfully executed and delivered to the City prior to the Council hearing, then staff will recommend to the Council at the hearing the elimination of Condition 21. The City makes no warranty or representation concerning the tax implications of a gift deed, which are the sole responsibility of the project applicant. 3 . Cistern in Stoneridge Drive Street Knuckle: The applicant wants to rebuild the lower cistern on the site in a landscaped median in the center of the knuckle at the western end of Stoneridge Drive. This has been a component of the project reflected in plans throughout the City review process. 110111111111,001111 city of san �.AIs OBlspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Stoneridge II Tract Map No. 2126 (City File No. Tr 188-92) Page 3 The Public Works Department has been opposed to the cistern feature being placed in the center of the public street because of maintenance, liability and traffic hazard concerns. Public Works recommends that the cistern be relocated out of the public street to the front yard of one of the residential lots. Community Development Department staff believes that the tentative tract map conditions drafted by the Public Works and Community Development Department staffs adequately mitigates concerns over safety and maintenance. Recommended conditions 316, it and 23 are included in Draft Resolution A to clarify access rights and maintenance responsibilities with incorporation of the proposed 'cistern design in the public street. 4. Public Works Department Editorial Changes: After reviewing the Planning Commission report, the Public Works Department indicated a desire to modify some of the conditions to clarify requirements. These changes clarify, rather than change the intent of conditions and are reflected in the attached Resolution A with italics. This allows the Council to compare the original conditions included in the Planning Commission report with Resolution A, containing the modified conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and suggested by the Public Works Department. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Draft Resolution B. denying the vesting tentative tract map based on findings. 2. Continue with direction to the staff and the subdivider. This alternative would be available if the applicant agreed to a 90-day extension of the legal processing time limit for the vesting tentative tract map application (new deadline would be June 25, 1993) . Attached: Draft Resolutions Planning Commission Minutes of 2-10-93 2-10-93 Planning Commission report and attachments Apprav i nq Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series) ti A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2126 LOCATED AT 500 STONERIDGE DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of. the tentative map of Tract 2126 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2 . The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an R-1-PD zone. 3 . The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easement for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on April 28, 1992, and listed in Exhibit "A" , being incorporated into the project, and the mitigation monitoring program adopted with approval of the preliminary development plan on July 21, 1992 being followed. SECTION 2 . Exception. That an exception to the parking and driveway standards to enable more than four properties to be served by the proposed private street is hereby approved based on the following: 1. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the driveway or parking limitations upon other properties in the vicinity since the Resolution No. (1993 Series) Tract 2126 Page 2 proposed private street will be developed to allow for two lanes of traffic with on-street parking and a conforming turnaround area. 2 . The exception will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons working or residing at the site or in the vicinity since the principal types of concerns associated with a larger number of parcels being served by a private driveway such as provision for unimpeded traffic and available parking are addressed. 3. The exception is reasonably necessary for the subdivider's full enjoyment of uses upon the property. SECTION 3. Conditions. The approval of the tentative map for Tract 2126 be subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivider shall relocate and construct the access road to the Edna saddle water tank to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Utilities Engineer and Fire Department. Said access road shall be constructed as an all-weather surface capable of supporting heavy equipment and fire apparatus to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. Drainage proposed down the access road must be discharged through an under-sidewalk drain per City standards. 2. All proposed public streets (including street furniture such as street lights, Fire hydrants, street signs, etc. . . ) must be constructed to City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (street pavement shall be designed to a Traffic Index of 5.5) . The subdivider shall install curb, gutter and sidewalk along all public street frontages. Sidewalks shall be 4.5-feet in width. 3 . The City Engineer reserves the right to make adjustments, alterations and modifications to the proposed island and cistern to accommodate reasonable access by Fire Department apparatus and City equipment and to provide for public facilities maintenance (including underground facilities) . 4. The subdivider shall construct the off-site storm drain system to an adequate point of disposal. Plans and hydraulic calculations shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In order to provide connection of drainage systems constructed for this tract with the new required off-site Resolution No. , (1993 Series) Tract 2126 Page 3 system to the north, the subdivider shall obtain an off-site drainage easement as shown on the map, or acceptable alternative location, to the approval of the City Engineer. In the event that the City is required to pursue its power of condemnation in accordance with Section 66462 .5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the subdivider shall be responsible for all costs, including attorneys' fees, associated with the acquisition of the off-site drainage easement required by this Condition 4. Both the easement and off-site drainage system are mitigation measures included in the certified EIR for the project, and notwithstanding Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, no final map shall be recorded unless and until said easement is acquired and off-site drainage system has been completed. 5. All proposed public mains and services, in the intersection of Stoneridge and Bluerock, shall be constructed outside the island and cistern structure within the street pavement area. 6. The City shall not maintain or replace any special or decorative pavements. The Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for all. special or decorative pavement maintenance and replacement (around proposed cistern & PD homes - must be noted in the CC&R's) . The City shall not maintain any portion of the proposed cistern or building. 7. All lots shall be served with individual water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV services to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. All water services shall be sized to accommodate both the domestic needs and fire sprinkler requirements with regards to water pressure, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer and Fire Department. 9. Final alignment and grade of all proposed public water mains, sewer mains and storm drains are subject to adjustments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 10. All. sewer mains shall be terminated with a manhole, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 11. All cisterns, drain lines and associated facilities to and from the cisterns are to be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association. An overflow system must be provided, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 1 -b Resolution No. (1993 Series) Tract 2126 Page 4 12. The drainage pipe along the northerly tract boundary must be accessible by City crews (public easement, access gates, etc. . . ) , to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A plan for access shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the approval of the subdivision improvement drawings. Provisions for overflow must be accommodated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Catch basins in each lot shall be maintained by each lot owner. 13 . The subdivider shall pay a pro-rata share (25%) towards the cost of installation of a new traffic signal along Broad Street in the near vicinity of the project as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans. 14. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall pay any applicable traffic impact fees, as calculated by the City Engineer. 15. Street trees shall be required upon construction of individual homes. Species shall be chosen in accordance with the approved design guidelines. 16. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc. . . , shall be tied to the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the Final Map. A computer floppy disk (5- 1/4" diameter) , containing the appropriate data for use in Autocad, shall also be submitted to the City Engineer. 17. Rockview Park improvements shall be modified as required to accommodate the relocated water tank access road, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department (including landscaping, irrigation, etc. . . ) . Subdivider shall guarantee and provide maintenance of new or modified landscaping and facilities for one year after acceptance. 18. The City Council shall quitclaim the affected portion of Rockview Park to accommodate the change in the boundaries of Rockview Park as shown on the tentative tract map. 19. Rockview Park shall either be irrigated from on-site water sources or with reclaimed water from off-site. Specific plans to accommodate this irrigation system shall be to the approval of the Utilities Director and City Engineer. 20. A maintenance and monitoring program shall be prepared outlining measures to assure thatthe proposed wetland area is installed, established and monitored per the wetlands Resolution No. (1993 Series) Tract 2126 Page 5 mitigation program and to the approval of the City and the Department of Fish and Game. An agreement between the City and the developer incorporating .the program shall be executed prior to recordation of the final tract map. The agreement shall include how the pipe, pump, float valve, water amount, replantings, removal of invasives, the fence, interpretive displays ad other wetland area components shall be maintained. The agreement shall require the developer to continue to perform maintenance of plantings and the water system, replace dead or dying plants, and provide annual reports regarding the success of the wetland area to the City and DFG for a specified time period of three years after planting and water system installation. The report shall include photographs of the wetland mitigation site, plant survival statistics, a description of continuing maintenance/monitoring, and new mitigation measures should any aspect(s) of the mitigation fail. 21. The subdivider shall dedicate the open space area to the City in fee. The following restrictions shall apply to the use of the open space area: a. No structures will be placed or erected upon said premises. Fencing may be installed along the 325-foot contour elevation as required by the EIR to protect serpentine endemic plant communities and to secure the wetland mitigation enhancement area to the approval of the Community Development Department. A drainage swale behind Lots 17=33 may extend into the open space area as depicted on Sheet No. 3 of the vesting tentative tract map and shall be maintained by the homeowners' association established for the tract. The existing cistern may remain. in the open space area and minimal associated grading needed to install underground pipes to transport water to the wetland enhancement area shall be allowed. b. No signs, billboards, similar structures or devices, or advertising of any kind or nature shall be located on or within the subject property. C. The City .shall not plant nor permit to be planted any vegetation upon the subject property, except as may be associated with erosion control, fire protection, soil stabilization, or as allowed and approved by the city's Community Development Director. Any such vegetation Resolution No. (1993 Series) Tract 2126 Page 6 shall be drought tolerant and visually compatible with the hillside. d. The general topography of the subject property .shall be preserved in its natural condition. No grading shall be allowed. e. No extraction of surface or subsurface natural resources shall be allowed. f. No removal of natural vegetation shall be allowed except for fire protection or elimination of dead growth as approved by the Community Development Director. 22 . Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a homeowners' association. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. C. Prohibition of storage or other uses which would conflict with the use of garages for parking purposes. d. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motor homes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. e. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. f. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15days of any change in officers of the association. g. Homeowners' association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage swale behind Lots 17-33 as depicted on Sheet No. 3 of the vesting tentative tract map. 23 . CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain specifically to the courtyard cluster units, Lots 47 through 56, 59 & 60: l o Resolution No. (1993 Series) Tract 2126 Page 7 a. The homeowners' association shall enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping in a .first class condition. . b. The homeowners' association shall provide for professional,• perpetual maintenance of all common area including the hillside seep water collection system, water cistern and all improvements within the Stoneridge Drive turnaround. C. Grant to the city the right to maintain common area if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. d. Grant to the city .the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. e. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. f. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. g. All garages shall be equipped with automatic garage door openers and occupants shall be provided with two remote-control units. 24. The subdivider shall provide a total of eight (8) guest parking spaces within the cluster courtyard component of the project (Lots 47-56, 59 & 60) to the approval of the Community Development Director. 25. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements, including maintenance provisions, to the approval of the Community Development Director for all common driveways affecting Lots 14-21 at the time of final map approval. 26. Individual lot development shall occur in accordance with the adopted design guidelines. Any necessary changes to the design guidelines to recognize conditions imposed upon by the tract map shall be to the approval of the Community Development Director. Resolution No. (1993 Series) Tract 2126 Page 8 27 . Outlines of the approved building envelopes for Lots 1-17 shall be shown on the final development plan with a cross reference to the precise building envelopes and setbacks on the approved development plan exhibit boards 1-8 stored in the Community Development Department. No homes, decks over 8 feet in height, garages, pools or accessory buildings may be constructed outside of approved building envelopes. 28. Required tree screening shall be installed behind Lots 1-17 as part of subdivision improvements to the approval of the Community Development Director. Provisions for on-going maintenance of trees by the developer until individual sale of lots shall be made. The developer shall be responsible for replacing dead- trees on unsold lots. 29. The subdivider shall submit a detailed geotechnical investigation and soils engineering report analyzing existing conditions on the site and proposed grading operations. Said investigation and report shall be to the approval of the City Engineer and shall be submitted with the final map. All improvement plans for the tract and grading for individual development of lots shall comply with the recommendations of the report. 30. Individual soils reports shall be required for all lots with an average cross slope in excess of 20%. A document shall be recorded prior to final map approval disclosing this requirement. 31. All units shall be numbered in accordance with an addressing plan approved by the Community Development Director. 32. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474. 9 (b) , the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold the harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, Tract No. 188-92. (County Tract No. 2126) , and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review, and action taken pursuant to Section 66462. 5 of the Subdivision Map Act to implement Condition No. 4 hereof. 33 . An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire-flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises. Water services to Lots 14-33, and possibly others, may require minimum 1-1/2-inch meters to reduce pressure losses for residential fire sprinkler design. The HI Resolution No. •.(1993 Series) Tract 2126 Page 9 minimum sizes shall be provided unless hydraulic calculations are provided which indicate lesser sizing is determined acceptable. 34. All structures shall be equipped with NFPA 13-D residential automatic fire sprinkler systems. The provision of individual fire sprinkler booster pumps may be required on Lots 14-33, and possibly others, to provide minimum pressure, depending upon height and configuration. For disclosure purposes, a document shall be recorded for lots requiring booster pumps to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Director. 35. All buildings, as well as the park area, Edna Saddle water tank, and the open space easement, shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways meeting the requirements of the San Luis Obispo Fire Department Development Guidelines. 36. Proposed water main size within the common access and utility easement giving access to lots 47 through 60 shall be sized in conformance with City Public Works Standards. A fire hydrant is required to be installed on this private common access easement to meet requirements of hydrant spacing as specified in the San Luis Obispo Fire Department Development Guidelines. 37 . All structures shall be provide with approved numbers (addresses) in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Lettering shall be a minimum of 5" high on a contrasting background. Common driveways shall have separate street names or be otherwise identified to avoid possible confusion during Fire Department response to emergency situations. ' On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES:- NOES: YES:-NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 1993 . HA Resolution No. (1993. Series) Tract 2126 Page 10 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: i AcImIn1:4tralgive of f iq6r t t r Community Dev o ment Director EX)RIBIT .r N� Aa h !as o 0°03 �• A y > 04 JsdS3c°i `� a� v a � a S aQ eEb � eC C C cC Q W c oNE0o e 'o �a,y > °' is co IOU -0 vi y aa3 � � � u9p � .o .0 a• W r a U.5 N y Z cc OA as ° °: tq� I E ' c Wo °w' Sc° �U E 0 .r•r V U Q C G cc r V _ oR � mo >,=0 aE o C ...Ganc ) CZ o o'= H C Q+•N U'O �ra Qr U N Ut� �+ N C eE N j' N a �" b W O N cv rCi..Ci eO > O 0. ) N > rn Q 3 y -0 fs'CIO toa o ..tri d Cd. ;mw W Ld V r ,.� r r •C O ca C U 4) to 3 .°C y 93 N mNco � ysuT . = U. o � ca as E 9 O7 N UrN ° o0oi 'ate au � � mob °=- a� L •^ .r CIS Q U U W r �v] R > n3N 2C3 > r r y G' d 6�•F. C C v • 7 C� U•4.. cmic E W eA � C a � ._r Q 00 L4 N \ N tlp+ C•C ti� � N op ba x z >a 1-3 U h C ~ cc .. as 7 7 r N 9) 96 �. rC _a > cl 0 cc0 0 ° Cp0 y o C •� �•O.O� •�� d•N CZ 0 N O 7 3 c0 �cn w t U cC cc F. cc.0 d N W•., •� 4 U C U U >. •� U [C 7'fl N .U.. cC Cl. O v L W U c'3 G ca cz (A 0• r 4.• . m C •� d U U O 0.moi C 4.•+ U ° `° as c.°.' ca Q A y d0 V p O C C N .� C 61 W q N C R'•—' .7 y'O _ _ O U U �� �" 'O.•� U U N N O C'� � 'b U > CaLcC . .. � cc ` y N ' ri W o ° •p C ,= £. W C E,.0 y ° C C z C Qr�WO•cz ��� N cisU O U yhJ •'G O Q U. cC r °W R r h d � C ° 'D •°^ ^ cd CL. G O. Oy 7 O C O cc C X — .y r .. C U > 6..O d U a e0 °° C N °y' a c C N C C1 a• U °; y F u r. ' O O C°i 4: u e0 ca.0 C a�__ es .W+ d a U rAU OZ C C VJy� N GOs pw '� � C a OO Nin C7 cc 4 4 d r.w•� .7 "n LID •D L• •.,W r ,r Ir N {r p C •'° r G- c� y Q) Q)W ••A p U Ci �,� �' p G cz 6�•�+ N '? N O .U.. ° U rUiJ U P. 1 U 7 Q � O > U O ' O� G C U � ��.+ t03 ca 5 y C v pcq iJ Q tj .Ciw vs e'o c.CC* c ..]vim c 5 CO.> LL QcnAz C _ U Q 'cc 1s e v GM CJ O 52 •t CECZ F Q 7q C O W y 'v U 0 r 7 •G� zcz F s ' arieoi � � CZ ao es _ �'� .N+ 6) c7 C •N .N.• N U W C W C '�• 3 7 y .= w y y Z O.0 y > b w w v 7 �' cd r "U3'ci C N cn �s CN in O R� X� C N N O 4 N �'� G 'U yW .ro ►. a�. . ., x u� 3 0 is y Q � � �•, Com_ C o o � � L.�S. N 3aE 0w-0 > CG C UW C > ON O C pyw OW O p C h C•U A ."+ c•U W.- 000 y '� O •p�� U U pU L y N m C W. N W eC •� C O t0 °� y G R O ca 0 L yJ Ay ai'cc .C-. vo F ¢ a.S C* cdccnnv) e C7 ca C - N V CO C C r3 •�+ 3 cC to �C y >. O h _ 2a _ .U.. U C/�w N O•C O v] IO�Cj Jr •p Q D V7 3 N _ 1-4 I—I� u H .w•I ytG .. 90 IS U A at y C b y ti u 3 v� V2O U ea W ^� Y..w...11 •• p+ •9 yId C: h 3Qu o � uo 'o � uw O•° ;o C O y �.� ea w o00, `yy e� � m u W O C,-, = .0 h ° euwQu > b ° d •bUrU 95 V>J%n > vT.. ca tq cu Q,ee e 0 co Q' .�, .= y C cNn O G. S Q"o Rn ea w U � GO Z H U '• Y E-4 Vrx -yu• U > c° 3 G C4 W D LIS ° Q z F �� � r00Cd V ca = 4r �1 s Y VJ L. aA 1••1 to r- LU., y as .C. f y U.S GL U.0 tn cd LV •� �' y'd > N -53 u _ > �. .,� S7 of •--• O ca h t W U Q .0 _= C CU bo i ° C U •� z U @ § & _ co I2 § 2 _ u \ © ky \/ . 5 2 E_. 2 2 $ ' o� 7:j . c �� ■� Iga 2 3 ■: 2 2 < §% . \ me CC7 R 2 § 22u5 % § § go Z: U ° BSE )_ ® H . � f 2222 Cc) / _ _ E § o \ $ §° . & CC c2 cc 'a \ki E ?� � $ \K7 21: . \ C0/ \ > I� . § 2 oQ% L §.0 2 ba - S o8 u2�a \252 2 ¢¢ � 222Li � k22 r_ 0-5 o 2 3$ §' 1 3 k �% \J © 2= § k § Loa � o � Cpl. � . \ $ � 16 . f 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. 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 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). Deny 1 n 9 Resolution "B" RFxSOLUTION NO. (1993 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2126 LOCATED AT 500 STONERIDGE DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of Tract 2126 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The site is not suited for the type and design of the subdivision. 2 . The proposed subdivision does not provide adequate (specify deficiencies: drainage facilities, parking, amenities) . 3 . The proposed subdivision will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. SECTION 2 . Denial. The request for approval of the vesting tentative map of Tract 2126 is hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES ABSENT: Resolution No. (1993 Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1993. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: c �, qiin rat' a Offi er t tto ne Community Devel ent Director DRAFT PLANNIN( )MMISSION MINUTES _ - FEBRUAR" 1, 1993 VOTING: A S - Commrs . Peterson, Williams , Whittlesey, Hoffman, Cross , and Karleskint . NOE - None. ABS£ - Commr. Senn. The motion passe . Commr . Senn return d to the meeting. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Item 3 . Tract 2 '26 (City File No . TR 188-92 ) : z request to create 60 residential lots ; 500 Stoneridge Drive; R-1-PD zone; John K.ing, subdivider . ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pam Ricci presented the staff report and explained the major issue. was:: drainages speaificallythe location of an easement needed to accommodate an off-site drainage system. She explained staff recommended the open space area be dedicated to the city in fee rather than as an easement to be consistent with, city policies and for management of natural resources . She recommended the Commission recommend approval of the vesting tentative tract map with findings and conditions , with or without pedestrian access allowed . in the drainag easement area. In answer to a question by Commr. Whittlesey, Pam Ricci explained there are several locations an easement could be located and that condemnation is. a last resort . In answer to a question by Commr. Peterson, Pam Ricci explained the exception for the private driveway, its use and maintenance . Commr. Cross expressed concern that the mitigation monitoring program was 'not clearly addressed in the conditions . Pam Ricci said mitigation monitoring was addressed in Exhibit A and referenced in finding 5 . She said wording could be added to finding 5 mentioning the mitigation monitoring program. . Co-amr . Cross asked staff how much of the park was located above the development limit line, and how the park would be used . He felt parks and open space were being considered the same in this application . Pam Ricci explained the dedicated park . would include the wetland enhancement area and would be a passive park without improvements . Jerry Kenny explained that the developer had eliminated one lot of the first phase which resulted in dedication of a larger park than what was required. In answer to a question by Commr. Karleskint , Pam Ricci said the access road to the city water tank would continue to be used for public access , but it was not specifically stated in the conditions . Chairman Karleskint opened the public hearing. Erik Justesen, 3026 South Higuera, applicant ' s representative, explained the drainage easement system using overhead drawings . He explained how the intercept swale system would reduced the amount ,r .4% 0% of water currently .flowing on to Lawrence Drive lots , and a 10-foot wide drainage easement for city maintenance over an underground pipe. Commr. Hoffman asked why the concrete drainage ditch was located above the development limit line (DLL) . Mr . Justesen said a number of improvements are allowed above the development limit line (DLL) , and that the concrete Swale would not be visible from lower elevations . He said when plans were originally submitted, the DLL was a development limit but not a lot limit . Commr . Karleskint expressed concern that responsibility for the drainage ditch would be transferred to the city because it is above the DLL. Commr . Hoffman agreed with Commr . Karleskint and said easements are normally on private property, not city property. He felt the homeowners association or the property owners should maintain the drainage system. Mr. Justesen said the applicant would not support property owners being responsible for maintenance because it protects other homes in the city and because the drainage system in phase one of the project was not being properly maintained by homeowners . Jerry Kenny said he preferred the city not maintain the swale above the homes , and that the swales be inside the property line and by maintained by a homeowners association . Commr. Karleskint expressed concern that the street drain could be blocked if it rained on garbage day and cans fell over the inlet . Dean Benedix 3026 South Higuera, RRM Design, explained the inlets would be 7 to 14 feet . Mr . Justesen said if the drainage Swale is above the DLL, fences would not block access . In answer to a question by Commr. Cross , he explained that the wetland enhanceaent-.area would consist '6fbdut=F73 of an acre and it would be`fenced.:off: from;xlae park. = He said the park size met Citp requirements: = John King, 2241 Santa Ynez, in answer to a question by Commr. Senn, said there were tax benefits to gift the land. Mr . 'Justesen said he has been at one meeting with the Lawrence Drive neighborhood and had talked with individual homeowners . He felt some progress had been made in resolving concerns . In answer to a question by Commr. Williams, Mr . Justesen explained how a public walkway easement could .be provided for in the new development , • He indicated thac- the problea was constructing a walkway across a lct or lots in_the. de-,eloped-'a-rr.�-nce-. Dri,e area. Commr . Williams said she did not support a public walkway. Mr . Justesen said off-site easements are required before/��✓ construction , but he believed the applicant should not be required to obtain the easement prior to'' tentative map approval . He •said . the applicant was involved in negotiations to obtain an easement , and . if the applicant is unable to obtain the . needed. land, the applicant would .be responsible for paying for costly condemnation proceedings, which would not be in the applicant ' s best interest . Commr. Karleskint expressed concern about approving the tentative map before easements are obtained. Mr. Justensen said the applicant requested that a 4 . 5-foot sidewalk meeting state handicapped standards be allowed ; that the third paragraph of condition 4 requiring a pedestrian easement over the drainage easement be eliminated; that the Rockview Park improvements in condition 19 are for the realignment of the water tank access road, and the following be inserted: "Rockview Park improvements shall be modified as required for the realignment of Edna-Sattle Water Tank Access Road to the satisfaction of the public works department (Jerry Kenny stated he agreed with that change) ; and that the following language be added to condition .19 : "A corresponding water retrofit credit shall be applied to the subdivision. " He asked for a clarification of condition 30 , and Jerry Kenny explained why it was needed in addition to condition . 29 , and explained what it required of the developer. Pam Ricci expressed concern with the retrofit credit requested by Mr. ' Justensen .in condition 19, because the installation of a reclaimed water system was being required in addition to the retrofiting. of individual lots. Mr. KIno said .the sarinls or t:e zi'-=side provided an on-site *nater source and the cistern allowed for water storage. Iie asked that the Commission consider giving a retrofit credit for the system. He said he had atempted .to obta=r a drainage ease- ment from severs'_ of the La*arenc: Drive neighbors. - Me explaiaed .apedestrian easeaeat and a.:connec£'_ng::street-to .tbe north had.been'previoaslg proposed;.=but. are no -= longer being considered.. - - _ - - ;ons dere . Arnold Jonas explained that the intent of the ADA requirement for 4-foot sidewalks is to accommodate wheelchairs , and 6-foot sidewalks are considered adequate for two people to walk side-by- side. Mike Caudrey, 551 Lawrence Drive, presented a drawing showing the locations of buildings on the Lawrence Drive properties. He said he appreciated Commr. Whittlesey' s statement that she would not support a condemnation proceeding, but he said he believed that if the Commission approved the tentative map, the Commission would be mandating a condemnation proceeding. He said at a meeting last year, the City Attorney said the City could not condemn property from one individual to benefit another individual . He explained the Commission had inserted a condition in the EIR that an easement be obtained, and the applicant had not yet obtained a drainage easement nor had the applicant attempted to purchase an easement in good faith. He said he offered to sell his property to the City and Mr. King, but neither party wanted to buy it . He explained that if garages and driveways were eliminated, the parking requirement would not be met , and he requested a pedestrian easement not be allowed. Cliff Branch, Avila Beach, a partner of John King, said neither the/40 / _ ..-_ _ - __- __. .. :!''�.Ll^..FYJLS�P^__Y.-.. _ _ vY..�._.. -R.:-�_�l•,-.vo.:w applicant -'nor - the._neighbors-..,want -.-a --pedestrian -path -through-!�the Lawrence Drive-..neighborhood. ..:..He .explained ; that _the -.price °Mr. Caudrey and.. his . neighboring;property : owner:;asked:.for.:.an - easement was way too.':high:. He"said.rthe ;appl icant.,had -deI ivered ,a-._copy.,.of"a. document with :.a , contract..:: to < purchase ,a " home *.: :f or a -drainage ..easement and.the=seIler"did not.w ..the;. informati'on'made public Cindy Clemens said ' she .had not seen the document but understood from speaking with Jeff Jorgesen, City Attorney, that there was an option submitted. Mr. Branch said he felt property owners were attempting to hold up the development by refusing to negotiate a price for an easement . He explained that phase I.I of the project was approved unanimously . by the City :. Council 10•:.years ago. He said the design of --the project has extensive setbacks , CC&R' s, and height restrictions. He said he has tried as hard as he could to work with the Lawrence Drive neighbors but the same four or -five people have been attending meetings .-opposing. the development . Burt Townsend, 531 Lawrence, expressed concern that the City might be forced to condemn property. He asked that the tentative map not be approved until a known ..plan is in hand. . Mike Caudry, 551 Lawrence Drive, said he was not bitter 'that Mr. Branch was not purchasing his .property: He explained .his .property was now in escrow to another. party. He said the offer on the .property_Mr----Branch=had submitted- to the Attorney was not an .. -.. _.__._.._.. - ..- _ . - offer to bay=-proper.ty; but- simply a-six month option to buy: ' 'He said he did not believe Mr. ra�lr+rr intended to buy that property. - Julie Bull .-..523.Lawrence:,Drive --said ;she,,felt.,-emotional-because _ the ,_:- applicant-was-talkin g :about. :taking ,away,ther.home:._that._:>she__had;a,ived -41M,herr-fam l�3refo3 7Ugea§sex L:3iiegalatrida_1h s Irh2'Swas Bh�DYF lest � t 3 �e�c s:: - D=ive:"'She=begge3=tIie�Commi'ssion . to;make .the:applicant. purchase-an : . e_as_em_e_nt ;_so 7that the-Ci.ty , would :not be;;forced -;to.__condemn ;her �_ .. _rl .. _A --,.---property• - �--.— - - Cindy-Clemens- said that there mightbe ways to _'condemnonly a'portion of the property. for: an easement without condemning =an entire'' bperty=and '•destioying I a -home:- s:In_answer to.•a question :by:Commr-r,:!Senn,. §he "explained the condemnation could be necessary if -the needed easement-was-not successfully secured by the developer She: iudicated that'the Subdivision Map Act- states.ihat 'i-final map cannot be denied because -of:the inability_to_nrevlde :]and ;fnr.nff=site=imprwements :an�_:rhar_.rho City ea�ler Bose circustaaces:=mastoW.fe= Mr. King said that it;:-.was not :-the -applicant`s7'intent . to put the City into .-the position..of having',t0_-condemn.. property. _--- _. _. - —- - Jerry Kenny said."approxiinately 14 years ago; a drainage pipe broke on .Mr. -_Bjj3r AC .property,' .-and._the -City-said it would not take over maintenance of the pipe unless. it was installed to City standards , which Mr . HDdL- was not willing to do . Gary Williams , 555 Lawrence Drive, felt a pedestrian corridor was inappropriate. He said the errata sheet was incorrect because it showed all the buildings as one story, but half of the lots on Lawrence Drive were two stories . Pam Ricci said staff ' s intent was for one story houses , but with an /�ry� added height limit for architectural variation in design. Mr. Justesen said the concept of number of stories had been changed to a height limit . Roy Hanff , 569 Lawrence Drive, said he was speaking for himself and several neighbors . He said at the beginning, only 88 lots were proposed. He asked that the property where the drainage easement would be should be named. He opposed a pedestrian trail . He said it was- a condition of the EIR that the developer could not submit a tentative tract map until an easement had been secured. He felt the Commission could not approve the tract map without the developer securing the easement . He asked that the record show that when the EIR was sent to the City Council , he offered to give Mr. King a free easement on his property, but his offer ended after three months without a response from. Mr. King. Larry Wright , 515 Lawrence Drive, said there should be no further action until the drainage easement had been secured by the applicant . He said he was against a pedestrian easement . Loellen Jones , 546 Lawrence Drive, said he did not oppose the drainag easement , but he did oppose the pedestrian easement . He said everyone knew how much was being offered as an option on the property, and he asked why the applicant was trying to keep the information secret . Mr . Branch said the person who has negotiated with the applicant asked that the information be kept private. He said the applicant was not trying to destroy anyone' s home, but. the applicant had rights also. In answer to a question by Commr . Peterson, Mr. Branch said he had an option to buy a piece of property. He said the City Attorney advised him the applicant had to prove he could purchase an easement or a home, but that the property did not have to be purchased before .the tentative map was approved. Mr. Hanff said a secured easement was a condition of the EIR. Mr. Justesen said there was never a condition for a secured easement . He asked staff to respond. Chairman Karieskint closed the public hearing. Pam Ricci explained the drainage and hydrology section of the EIR, page 4-67 , implied that an easement was required, but the easement was not specifically called out as a condition. She said one of the conditions of the tentative tract map requires a secured easement prior to the final map . She felt . condemnation would not be likely, and even if a condemnation was required, the area needed for the drainage easement could be secured. without condemning an entire piece of property. In answer to a question by Commr . Senn, Cindy Clemens felt the condition in the tentative tract map was the best practical solution. She said if condemnation was necessary, the developer would have to pay for that process , which is very expensive. In answer to a question by Commr _ Hoffman, Cindy Clemens said the code does not specify the number of purchase attempts required before a condemnation can occur , but she said the time and money involved would motivate the applicant to avoid condemnation . /064 Commr . Hoffman felt direction should be given to staff to inform the Commission of the details of the easement agreement , to explain how retrofit credits would be allowed for on-site water, and a suggestion of wording allowing Mr. King to gift the property to the City. He said he favored a continuance. Pam Ricci felt all of those issues had been addressed by the conditions. She said the retrofit credit could be handled administratively if a specific proposal was submitted to staff to evaluate. She felt the condition regarding open space should be left intact and could be modified if the open space was conveyed to the City in advance of the City Council hearing. Cindy Clemens said Mr. King would get a tax break if he gifted the land and it was not a condition. Commr. Williams said she opposed pedestrian access , she felt the wetland mitigation plan was acceptable, and four and one-half foot sidewalks were adequate. Commr. Karleskint said the findings should reference the mitigation monitoring packet as well as all of the pages of Exhibit A; condition 19 should be left as is; pedestrian access should be eliminated from condition 4; . that conditions 22 , 23 , and 25 are reworded to make it clear that the entire project is subject to CC&R' s ; that maintenance should be included in condition 25; and that condition 30 indicate that a disclosure is given .to the lot buyer that he is responsible for the cost of soil reports. He said he was extremely uncomfortable that the details of drainage easement were not being addressed in public. Pam Ricci said it was typical to condition the tentative map to require items to be finalized before the final map. She said she did not favor a continuance because it was doubtful could be secured by the March 251 1993 deadline. Cindy Clemens said property owners have a right to keep negotiations confidential . In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Mr . King said it didn' t make sense for the applicant to have the City condemn the property because it would waste hundreds of thousands of dollars . He felt it was unfair to require the applicant to have the easement purchased prior to approval of the tentative tract map . Commr. Peterson expressed concern with the private driveway situation beyond the street knuckle. Pam Ricci said the private street provides parking and access like a public street and staff did not believe it was a major concern. Commr. Senn complimented the neighbors for their concern and knowledge, and thanked staff for their work. He said because of the explanation given to him by the City Attorney, he was comfortable about the question of condemnation because it would not make sense for Mr . King to pursue condemnation because of the time and cost involved. He felt a maximum retrofit credit amount shoulc]. be specified by the applicant . /� Pam Ricci said there was not enough information to calculate a retrofit credit at this time. She explained the applicant could make a proposal that the City would evaluate at a later time. Commr. Williams suggested that condition 21 be deleted, provided Mr. King supplies the City Council with documentation of the land being gifted prior to Council review, with the understanding that if the land had not been gifted before City Council review, condition 21 would be re-instated. Commr. Karleskint felt only the first sentence of 21 should be deleted. Pam Ricci agreed. Commr . Hoffman said the Commission was only making a recommendation to the City Council , and the City Council would be making the requirements. . In answer to a suggestion by Mr. King that the Commission indicate it is favorable to a gift deed, Cindy Clemens advised that a gift deed should be finalized before the item goes to the City Council , or the condition dedicating the land in fee should be required. Commr. Hoffman asked. if other Commissioners felt the hillside drainage swaie' shoti2d be maintained -by= the -homeovnerms' association. - Pam Ricci suggested that the homeowners association should be listed as responsible for the drainage swale as Item 22-g. Commr. Senn said he wasn' t concerned about the location, but felt the homeowners association should maintain it . Commr. Cross expressed concern about requiring the homeowners association to maintain the drainage swale when it was not on their property. Cindy Clemens advised that because it was for their benefit and protection, the homeowners association could be required to maintain the swale. Commr . Karlesk.int said he preferred y.5-2,4, sidewalks . The majority of the Commissioners believed 4-foot sidewalks would be sufficient . Pam Ricci suggested the following changes to address the concerns expressed by the Commissioners : Fi.nding 5 to state that the mitigation monitoring program approved with the preliminary development plan was being followed; condition 2 to state that sidewalks should be 4 . 5 feet in width; under item 4 , paragraph 3 would be deleted; condition 17 changed to state "Rockview Park improvements shall be modified as required to accommodate the relocated water tank access road. . . " ; condition 19 as is without additional water retrofit consideration; an item g added to conditions 21 and 22 stating that the rear lot drainage Swale would be allowed within the open space area but maintained by the homeowners association; condition 25 changed to . state "The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements including maintenance provisions to the approval of the Community Development/—A Director. . . ; " and a sentence added to condition 30 stating that the soil reports shall be recorded prior to final map approval disclosing this proposal . Commr. Williams moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map 188-92 based on the findings and conditions as amended. Commr. Hoffman seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Williams, Hoffman, Whittlesey, and Senn. NOES - Commrs. Cross, Peterson, and Karleskint. ABSENT - None. The motion passed. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Cindy Clemen advised that if the hour gets late and Commissioners get tired, th y should step down rather than vote. Commr. Karlesk nt requested that staff provide findings for disapproval as 11 as approval for items. The Commission de ded to hold a special meeting on March 3, 1993, to consider the Do town conceptual plan. Commr. Cross express d doncern that purview for hillside policies should be clarified. Commr. Whittlesey ment ned a seminar at Cal Poly on February 25. The meeting adjourned a 12: 40 a.m. to a regularly scheduled meeting on February 24 , 1 93. . . Respectfully submitted, Diane Wright Recording Secretary � '0(7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#3 BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FK MEETING DATE: February 10, 1993 FILE NUMBER: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 188-92 (County Tract Map No. 2126) PROJECT ADDRESS: 500 Stoneridge Drive SUBJECT: Request to subdivide 9.95 acres into 60 single-family residential lots and create a 247.34- acre remainder parcel with a 47.71-acre open space easement. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map, based on the findings and the conditions recommended in this report. BACKGROUND: Situation After a long and extensive EIR review process, the City Council on July 21, 1992, approved a general plan amendment, prezoning and preliminary development plan for the proposed annexation and subdivision project. On December 17, 1992, LAFCo approved the annexation. The City Council took a final action to accept the annexation on February 2, 1993. The applicant is now asking for City approval of the required tract map to create individual lots for sale. The proposed tentative tract map is a vesting map. Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a 'vested right" to development in substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect when the application is determined complete (February 3, 1993). Data Summary Address: 500 Stoneridge Drive Subdivider: John King Representative: Erik Justesen, RRM Design Group Zoning: R-1-PD and C/OS-40 General Plan: Low Density Residential and Conservation Open Space Project Action Deadline: March 25, 1993 Stoneridge ii Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 2 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 site of the proposed subdivision 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 subdivider 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 the adopted design guidelines approved by the ARC and the City Council. Lots 47-56 and Lots 59 and 60 comprise the units referred to in the design guidelines as the "courtyard clusters" and Area 2; these units would be built out by the applicant. Specific plans for the development of the courtyard cluster units were approved by the ARC on October 19, 1992. The tentative tract map shows a 47.71-acre open space easement between the boundaries of the tract and the annexation area boundary. An off-site drainage easement and underground storm drainage system are planned with project development. EVALUATION The Stoneridge II project has been through a very extensive review process beginning with its introduction to the Planning Commission in 1988. Review of the tract map is the last significant step in the project review process. Many of the issues related to project development such as density, special setback standards and prescribed building envelopes were previously addressed with the review of the EIR, design guidelines and planned development. However, there were several items which were specifically postponed to tentative tract map,review. These items, as well as changes made since planned development review are highlighted in the following paragraphs: 1. Stoneridge Drive Terminus The most significant change in terms of the lotting-and access patterns shown on the tentative tract map is the common driveway arrangement at the end of Stoneridge Drive. The approved preliminary development plan (attached)showed a 145-foot long common ��� Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 3 driveway serving Lot 17 off of the cul-de-sac at the west end of Stoneridge Drive. The primary difference between the submitted tract map and the preliminary development plan is that the cul-de-sac off west of the street knuckle is now proposed to be private, rather than public. The Fire Department has endorsed the design of the cul-de-sac in terms of meeting their minimum access requirements. The cul-de-sac will allow for on-street guest parking for each of the seven lots it serves. Agreements will need to be recorded between the affected property owners regarding long-term maintenance.of the cul-de-sac and granting access rights over it to the owners of the adjoining properties. Generally new residential lots are served by public streets. There are not specific standards for a private street contained in the subdivision regulations. However, the City's parking and driveway standards do contain provisions for residential common access driveways. These provisions include a limitation of four properties being served by a common access driveway without the Community Development Director granting an exception because of special circumstances. Since the review authority for this project rests with the Planning Commission and City Council, this particular exception request is being considered along with the tract map review. The proposed private street is being developed to allow for two lanes of traffic with on- street parking and a conforming turnaround area. Therefore, the principal types .of concerns associated with a larger number of parcels being served by a private driveway such as provision for unimpeded traffic and available parking are addressed. The only difference is that the sidewalk does not continue down the cul-de-sac past the street knuckle. Given the circumstances, it is recommended that the Commission grant the exception to the parking and driveway standards to enable the development of the private street as depicted on the tentative tract map. Findings in support of the exception are included. 2. Drainage The Lawrence Drive neighborhood to the north of the project site has experienced a history of flooding problems. For this reason, project drainage was highlighted in the identified issue areas of the EIR and has been a key topic of discussion at all public hearings. The drainage plan for the Stoneridge II subdivision provides for both on- and off-site drainage improvements. Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 4 Off-site Drainage Improvements One of the beneficial features of project development is that an off-site underground drainage system will be constructed that will carry project storm water runoff from the tract to an outlet in Meadow Park to the north. A mitigation measure included in the certified EIR requires that the off-site drainage system be constructed prior to recordation of the final map. The layout of the off-site drainage system in area streets is shown in Appendix B of the EIR. Surface drainage from the project will be collected in an inlet in Stoneridge Drive, then piped underneath a Stoneridge Drive lot and Lawrence Drive lot in a culvert to connect with the new underground drainage system. To enable connection of the project drainage facilities to the off-site drainage system, a drainage easement across the affected Stoneridge Drive and Lawrence Drive lots needs to be obtained. The location of this easement is shown on Sheets 2 & 3 of the tentative tract map between proposed Stoneridge II Lots 4 & 5 with a continuation of the easement across a Lawrence Drive lot to the north. There is a note on the map indicating that the 10-foot off-site easement needs to be obtained. The subdivider is still negotiating with Lawrence Drive property owners over the precise location of the drainage easement. Therefore, the easement as shown on the tentative tract map may be subject to future modification. The easement needs to be located in the same general vicinity as the easement shown on the map because the naturally lower topography provides the needed fall to make the system work effectively. Staff has been concerned with the tentative nature of the easement location because of the importance of the easement as a critical link in complying with required mitigation measures of the EIR and recommended tract conditions to install the off-site drainage system. Under Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City cannot deny a final map based on non-compliance with a tentative map condition which requires the subdivider to construct or install off-site improvements on land which neither the subdivider or City owns or controls. The concern is that if the subdivider is unable to negotiate an acceptable location for the easement, then the Map Act requires that the City lend its power of condemnation to secure it or delete the condition. Obviously the City does not want to get involved in condemnation proceedings if it can be avoided. At the same time, because of the critical nature of the drainage improvements, the project cannot proceed without them. Recommended Condition No. 4 requires the off-site drainage improvements to be installed and the needed easement(s) to be secured. It also indicates that the subdivider is responsible for paying for all the costs associated with condemnation proceedings should that be required. The idea behind this added language in the condition is to make the /-33 Stoneridge II Tract 168-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 5 responsibility perfectly clear and to proved further incentives for the developer to secure the easement on his own. The costs associated with condemnation would undoubtedly be more than securing the easement voluntarily and would further delay project development. Another peripheral issue that was discussed previously with the drainage easement is the possibility of using the area as a pedestrian corridor between the Stoneridge subdivision and the neighborhood to the north. Planning staff sees this access as a benefit to both neighborhoods and is suggesting that the area contained within the drainage easement over both the Stoneridge Drive and Lawrence Drive lot be utilized for pedestrian access and shown on the final map. The easement shall be developed with an all-weather surface to the approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. The requirement for development of the pedestrian access easement through the drainage easement is included as part of recommended Condition No. 4. Project Drainage Improvements Because there has been confusion voiced at past hearings with how project drainage would be handled, staff requested that the applicant provide a descriptive summary of proposed systems to accompany the layout of the systems shown on the map. Systems are discussed in the attached letter from Erik Justesen dated 12-21-92. 3. Wetland Mitigation Plan Two wetland seeps are located in the vicinity of Lots 7, 8 & 9 and comprise about 0.15 acre. The EIR prepared for the project concluded that these lots could be developed If a new on-site wetland was created or existing on-site wetland areas were enhanced. The mitigation measure for creation of a replacement wetland also called for a wetland mitigation plan to be approved by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The mitigation measure outlined that the wetland mitigation plan would contain the following: ■ the new wetland area must be created before the existing wetland areas are removed; ■ there shall be no net loss in wetland area; and ■ a permanent water source shall be available or developed to supply the new wetland area. The required wetland mitigation plan was submitted with the tentative tract map. The plan has been reviewed by both City and DFG staff. A letter endorsing the plan is attached from Jim Lidberg of DFG. Another letter is attached from V.L. Holland, Chair of the Biological Resources Department at Cal Poly and author of the botanical study incorporated into the project EIR, indicating an interest for his department to participate in the monitoring and management of the wetland area. /-3T Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 6 Jan Di Leo, the City's Open Space Planner, reviewed and commented on the wetland mitigation plan (see attached memo dated 10-7-92). Responses to her concerns are included in the 12-21-92 letter from Erik Justesen. Basically, the City is supportive of the plan. However, there are details related to the development and management of the wetland that still need to be worked out. For tentative map review, staff believes that the level of detail included in the plan is appropriate. Some things, like the specific design of the water supply system, cannot be finally designed until subdivision grading is underway. To address remaining concerns, Condition No. 19 is recommended requiring details to be reviewed, inspections conducted regularly during construction and continued maintenance of the wetland area into the future. A copy of the wetland mitigation plan is available for Commission review in the project file. 4. Open Space Acquisition The tentative tract map indicates that the 47.71 acres of open space associated with the project will be an easement with fee title being retained by the developer. Prior to the submittal of the tract map, it was the City's understanding through the applicant's previous project descriptions that the open space would be dedicated to the City in fee title. As a reference, the Public Hearing Draft of the Open Space Element (Pages 63-64 attached) discusses the circumstances for which open space acquisition through fee title is preferred to an easement. The Stoneridge II project meets Criterion a. and d. which are: a. Properties which may require or have frequent public access to the site or through the site. For example, the property will have a public trail. The open space area is currently used by walkers, hikers and joggers and informal trails have been created. It is envisioned by the adopted Parks and Recreation Element that a formal trail system will eventually be developed through the South Street Hills (page 10 of the Parks and Recreation Element is attached showing the urban trail system). d. Lands which contain delicate habitat requiring monitoring and enforcement. The EIR for the project discussed strategies for fencing and public education to inform open space visitors of the unique and rare plants associated with the serpentine outcroppings. Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 7 Based on the cited criteria and earlier representations of the project by the applicant, staff is recommending Condition No. 20 requiring the open space area to be dedicated to the City in fee. Restrictions on the use of that area are included in the same condition. Another issue that staff brought up with preliminary development plan approval was how access to the open space area would be provided through the development or from adjacent residential neighborhoods. This issue did not garner the same attention as others and there was not a firm consensus on the best solution. Currently, many people utilize the maintenance road to the City water tank for access to hillside trails. This would still be possible with the relocation of the road and development of this second phase. 5. Rockview Park Expansion The applicant is proposing to alter the boundaries of Rockview Park to accommodate proposed lots 32 and 33. Since the dedicated park was located outside the City limits with development of Stoneridge I, it was anticipated that there may need to be adjustments to the park boundaries with the development of Stoneridge H. The tentative tract map shows that 1.42 acres of additional property will be dedicated upslope of the park with the proposed boundary changes. This dedication is consistent with Condition No. 6 of the ordinance adopting the preliminary development plan (City Council Ordinance No. 1217, 1992 Series) which required that the appropriate dedication and property line adjustments be shown on the tentative subdivision map. Public Works has pointed out that the City Council must quitclaim the affected portion of Rockview Park to accommodate the change in the park boundaries. Condition No. 17 is included to reflect this requirement. The proposed area that is added to the park will contain the wetland replacement area. 6. Sidewalks Sidewalks installed in Stoneridge I are 4 feet wide. The current City standard calls for a 6-foot wide sidewalk. Public Works has requested that sidewalks installed in Stoneridge II be a minimum of 6 feet in width. The subdivider would like to install 4.5-foot wide sidewalks in the new tract. The 4.5-foot width meets State handicapped access requirements. Planning staff is of the opinion that a 4.5-foot wide sidewalk would be acceptable given the 4-foot width of sidewalks in the first phase and the fact that it meets State standards. The Planning Commission should indicate their preference regarding sidewalk width through recommended Condition No. 2. Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 8 ALTERNATIVES 1. The commission may continue review to allow revisions to plans or presentation of additional information. Specific direction should given to the subdivider and staff. 2. The commission may deny the vesting tentative tract map with the appropriate findings. Denial is considered a final action unless appealed. OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW No other department has objected to the approval of this project. The concerns of other departments have been incorporated into recommended conditions of tract map approval or mitigation measures of the certified EIR. However, the Public Works Department has indicated that it does not support the placement of the island and cistern in the street knuckle at the end of Stoneridge Drive because of the concern for City liability if the Homeowners' Association fails to adequately maintain the area. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve the vesting tentative subdivision map for Tract No. 188-92 (County Tract No. 2126) based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findin s 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an R-1-PD zone. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with easement for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City Council on April 28, 1992, and listed in Exhibit "A" being incorporated into the project. /.C37 Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 9 6. An exception to the parking and driveway standards to enable more than four properties to be served by the proposed private street is hereby approved based on the following: a. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the driveway or parking limitations upon other properties in the vicinity since the proposed private street will be developed to allow for two lanes of traffic with on- street parking and a conforming turnaround area. b. The exception will not adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons working or residing at the site or in the vicinity since the principal types of concerns associated with a larger number of parcels being served by a private driveway such as provision for unimpeded traffic and available parking are addressed. c. The exception is reasonably necessary for the subdivider's full enjoyment of uses upon the property. Conditions Public Works Department Requirements 1. The subdivider shall relocate and construct the access road to the Edna saddle water tank to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Utilities Engineer and Fire Department. Said access road shall be constructed as an all-weather surface capable of supporting heavy equipment and fire apparatus to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. Drainage proposed down the access road must be discharged through an under-sidewalk drain per City standards. 2. All proposed public streets (including street furniture such as street lights, fire hydrants, street signs, etc...) must be constructed to City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (street pavement shall be designed to a Traffic Index of 5.5). The subdivider shall install curb, gutter and sidewalk along all public street frontages. Sidewalks shall be --feet in width (specify 4.5 or 6 feet). 3. The City Engineer reserves the right to make adjustments, alterations and modifications to the proposed island and cistern to accommodate reasonable access by Fire Department apparatus and City equipment and to provide for public facilities maintenance (including underground facilities). /-33 Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 10 4. The subdivider shall construct the off-site storm drain system to an adequate,point of disposal. Plans and hydraulic calculations shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In order to provide connection of drainage systems constructed for this tract with the new required off-site system to the north, the subdivider shall obtain an off-site drainage easement as shown on the map, or acceptable alternative location, to the approval of the City Engineer. In the event that the City is required to pursue its power of condemnation in accordance with Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the subdivider shall be responsible for all costs, including attorneys' fees, associated with the acquisition of the off-site drainage easement required by this Condition 4. Both the easement and off-site drainage system are mitigation measures included in the certified EIR for the project, and notwithstanding Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, no final map shall be recorded unless and until said easement and off-site drainage system have been completed. The drainage easement over both the Stoneridge Drive and Lawrence Drive lots shall provide for pedestrian access and shall be so noted on the final map. The easement shall be developed with an all-weather surface to the approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. 5. All proposed public mains and services, in the intersection of Stoneridge and Bluerock, shall be constructed outside the island and cistern structure within the street pavement area. 6. The City shall not maintain or replace any special or decorative pavements. The Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for all special or decorative pavement maintenance and replacement (around proposed cistern & PD homes) (must be noted in the CC&R's). The City shall not maintain any portion of the proposed cistern. 7. All lots shall be served with individual water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable N services to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. All water services shall be sized to accommodate both the domestic needs and fire sprinkler requirements with regards to water pressure, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineer and Fre Department. 9. Fnal alignment and grade of all proposed public water mains, sewer mains and storm drains are subject to adjustments to the.satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 1-39 Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 11 4 10. All sewer mains shall be terminated with a manhole, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. 11. All cisterns, drain lines and associated facilities to and from the cisterns are to be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association. An overflow system must be provided, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 12. The drainage pipe along the northerly tract boundary must be accessible by City crews (public easement, access gates, etc...), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Provisions for overflow must be accommodated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Catch basins in each lot shall be maintained by each lot owner. 13. The subdivider shall pay a pro-rata share towards the cost of installation of a new traffic signal along Broad Street in the near vicinity of the project as determined by the City Engineer and Caltrans. 14. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall pay any applicable traffic impact fees, as calculated by the City Engineer. 15. Street trees shall be required upon construction of individual homes. Species shall be chosen in accordance with the approved design guidelines. 16. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc..., shall be tied to the City's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the Final Map. A computer floppy disk (5-1/4" diameter), containing the appropriate data for use in Autocad, shall also be submitted to the City Engineer. Parks and Open Space 17. Rockview Park improvements shall be modified as required, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department (including landscaping, irrigation, etc...). Subdivider shall guarantee and provide maintenance of new or modified landscaping and facilities for one year after acceptance. 18. The City Council shall quitclaim the affected portion of Rockview Park to accommodate the change in the boundaries of Rockview Park as shown on the tentative tract map. 19. Rockview Park shall either be irrigated from on-site water sources or with reclaimed water from off-site. Specific plans to accommodate this irrigation system shall be to the approval of the Utilities Director and City Engineer. Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 12 20. A maintenance and monitoring program shall be prepared outlining measures to assure that the proposed wetland area is installed, established and monitored per the wetlands mitigation program and to the approval of the City and the Department of Fish and Game. An agreement between the City and the developer incorporating the program shall be executed prior to recordation of the final tract map. The agreement shall include how the pipe, pump, float valve, water amount, replantings, removal of invasives, the fence, interpretive displays ad other wetland area components shall be maintained. The agreement shall require the developer to continue to perform maintenance of plantings and the water system, replace dead or dying plants, and provide annual reports regarding the success of the wetland area to the City and DFG for a specified time period of three years after planting and water system installation. The report shall include photographs of the wetland mitigation site, plant survival statistics, a description of continuing maintenance/monitoring, and new mitigation measures should any aspect(s) of the mitigation fail. - 21. The subdivider shall dedicate the open space area to the City in fee. The following restrictions shall apply to the use of the open space area: a. No structures will be placed or erected upon said premises. Fencing may be installed along the 325-foot contour elevation as required by the EIR to protect serpentine endemic plant communities and to secure the wetland mitigation enhancement area to the approval of the Community Development Department. b. No signs, billboards, similar structures or devices, or advertising of any kind or nature shall be located on or within the subject property. c. The City shall not plant nor permit to be planted any vegetation upon the subject property, except as may be associated with erosion control, fire protection, soil stabilization, or as allowed and approved by the city's Community Development Director. Any such vegetation shall be drought tolerant and visually compatible with the hillside. d. The general topography of the subject property shall be preserved in its natural condition. No grading shall be allowed. e. No extraction of surface or subsurface natural resources shall be allowed. f. No removal of natural vegetation shall be allowed except for fire protection or elimination of dead growth as approved by the Community Development Director. Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 13 Homeowners' Association 22. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain to all lots: a. Creation of a homeowners' association. b. No parking except in approved, designated spaces. c. Prohibition of storage or other uses which would conflict with the use of garages for parking purposes. d. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motor homes, or trailers nor long-term storage of inoperable vehicles. e. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council approval. f. Homeowners' association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses of all officers of the homeowners' association within 15 days of any change in officers of,the association. 23. CC&R's shall contain the following provisions that pertain specifically to the courtyard cluster units, Lots 47 through 56, 59 & 60: a. The homeowners' association shall enforce the CC&R's and provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area including private driveways, drainage, parking lot areas, walls and fences, lighting, and landscaping in a first class condition. b. The homeowners' association shall provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area including the hillside seep water collection system, water cistern and all improvements within the Stoneridge Drive turnaround. c. Grant to the city the right to maintain common area if the homeowners' association fails to perform, and to assess the homeowners' association for expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of CC&R's and final map are being met. d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles.on a complaint basis which are parked in unauthorized places. Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 14 e. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas. f. Provision of appropriate "no parking" signs and red-curbing along interior roadways as required by the City Fire Department. g. All garages shall be equipped with automatic garage door openers and occupants shall be provided with two remote-control units. Community Development Department Requirements 24. The subdivider shall provide a total of eight (8) guest parking spaces within the cluster courtyard component of the project (Lots 47-56, 59 & 60) to the approval of the Community Development Director. 25. The subdivider shall submit common driveway agreements to the approval of the Community Development Director for all common driveways affecting Lots 14-21 at the time of final map approval. 26. Individual lot development shall occur in accordance with the adopted design guidelines. Any necessary changes to the design guidelines to recognize conditions imposed upon by the tract map shall be to the approval of the Community Development Director. 27. Outlines of the approved building envelopes for Lots 1-17 shall be shown on the final development plan with a cross reference to the precise building envelopes and setbacks on the approved development plan exhibit boards 1-8 stored in the Community Development Department. No homes, decks over 8 feet in height, garages, pools or accessory buildings may be constructed outside of approved building envelopes. 28. Required tree screening shall be installed behind Lots 1-17 as part of subdivision improvements to the approval of the Community Development Director. Provisions for on-going maintenance of trees by the developer until individual sale of lots shall be made. The developer shall be responsible for replacing dead trees on unsold lots. 29. The subdivider shall submit a detailed geotechnical investigation and soils engineering report analyzing existing conditions on the site and proposed grading operations. Said investigation and report shall be to the approval of the City Engineer and shall be submitted with the final-map. All improvement plans for the tract and grading for individual development of lots shall comply with the_ recommendations of the report. Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 15 30. Individual soils reports shall be required for all lots with an average cross slope in excess of 20%. 31. All units shall be numbered in accordance with an addressing plan approved by the Community Development Director. 32. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9 (b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold the harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, Tract No. 188-92 (County Tract No. 2126), and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review, and action taken pursuant to Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act to implement Condition No. 4 hereof. Fire Department Requirements 33. An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire-flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises. Water services to Lots 14-33, and possibly others, may require minimum 1-1/2-inch meters to reduce pressure losses for residential fire sprinkler design. The minimum sizes shall be provided unless hydraulic calculations are provided which indicate lesser sizing is determined acceptable. 34. All structures shall be equipped with NFPA 13-D residential automatic fire sprinkler systems. The provision of individual fire sprinkler booster pumps may be required on Lots 14-33, and possibly others, to provide minimum pressure, depending upon height and configuration. 35. All buildings, as well as the park area, Edna Saddle water tank, and the open space easement, shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways meeting the requirements of the San Luis Obispo Fire Department Development Guidelines. 36. Proposed water main size within the common access and utility easement giving access to lots 47 through 60 shall be sized in conformance with City Public Works Standards. A fire hydrant is required to be installed on this private common access easement to meet requirements of hydrant spacing as specified in the San Luis Obispo Fire Department Development Guidelines. 1-4Y Stoneridge II Tract 188-92 (SLO Co. Tract No. 2126) Page 16 37. All structures shall be provide with approved numbers (addresses) in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Lettering shall be a minimum of 5" high on a contrasting background. Common driveways shall have separate street names or be otherwise identified to avoid possible confusion during Fire Department response to emergency situations. Attached: Vicinity Map City Council Ord. No. 1217 (1992 Series) including Exhibit A referenced in Finding 5. Approved Preliminary Development Plan Off-site Drainage System Layout Letter from Erik Justesen dated 12-21-92 Letter from Jim Lidberg of DFG dated 1-12-93 Letter from V.L Holland of Cal Poly dated 1-9-93 Memo from Jan Di Leo dated 10-7-92 Pages 63-64 of Public Hearing Draft of Open Space Element Page 10 of Parks and Recreation Element Mitigation Monitoring Program Enclosed: Tract Map No. 2126 (full-size plans) Wetland Enhancement/Landscaping Plans 1-�S ����������aaa.a�.a�.��aaar�t_aa■la�� .�.�.. CITY LIMIT I O 0 T i m � N f'1 Ni:•3 D �..,.. O Jyf v -l0 [;[-;�•• O�r I � ft I I L� - ,l Y AO• rY C O 1 rJ p�= k 1 � 1 ■ r v _ '•Y O ��. 1 — C -C O 7 0 e .. E �i r•. i J a , 0 1' rn F v _ C J c ■ • t5 •c n ° a P m •, 1 „ • o 1 0 c 44 r 2• I 1 _ v O r ° wAiw . __.. � I^ .' \� h•� � ``I 1. U� C.A oma.-.. O O 7 r ° o' ° r /ate ' O c o ■ o O O '• N i _ O C O Q LA � fa O•�•.O� O S±7 O O _ � � ', \t�. ••Q �' � \J" O Oma: O A 'Y.�N� •1+' ,j N ^!,�� Cl�t i•° ��-/'fll Q•��` �ed(�0 N � �� � v � fry.•l��/' � t`• r. y .J ORDINANCE NO. 1217 (1992 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBI.SPO TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY 10.4 ACRES R-1-PD AND 49 . 6 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 May 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 prezonirg becomes effective upon the date of final action b_v '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 nrezoning of the 10. 4 acres below the Development Limit Line, is approved, including the design guidelines approved by the Architectural Review Commission, subject to the following findings and conditions: 0-1217 Ordinance No. 1217 ( 1992 Series) Page 2 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 approval. The Preliminary Development Plan approval shall expire if a precise development plan is not filed and approved. -' 0 ordinance No. 1217 ( 1992 Series) Page 3 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 nap 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 preli-mir.ary 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. Develonnent of Lots 1-17 shall conform with approved building envelopes, as shown on the ?xhibit 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 amnroval. 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 Came. 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. /_T-7 Ordinance No. 1217 (1992 Series) Page 4 SECTION 4 . Implementation. A summary of this ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published, at least five (5) 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 upon the date of final action by the City Council on the annexation. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at its meeting held . on the 21st day of July , 1992 , on motion of Councilwoman Raapa , seconded by Councilman Reiss and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Reiss, and Mayor Dunin NOES: Councilman Roalman ABSENT: Councilwoman Pinard M yor Roa n ATTEST: U, City lerk Pam V es APPROVED: Ordinance No. 1217 (1992 Series) Page 5 APPROVED: ;ty Administra ve Off 'cer 7W/A Commun ty Development Director Ordinance No. 1217 (1992 Series) FINALLY PASSED this 4th day of August 1992 on.motion of Councilwo,an Rappa , seconded by Councilman Reiss , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Ranpa, Reiss, and Mayor Dunin NOES: Councilmembers Pinard and Roalman r ' ABSENT: None . a�Vi yor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Ierk Pam V e l ��J� "REZONING M r\r EXHIBIT C GP/R1346 -S Ila , C/0S 40-SP0 c/o � ' e o • R-2 y 5-40-5 R Y - Y 3 Y V Y � V �T Y J T O S — 1I' t .L w.tvC1 a•. Iv Ov D ' 'yam 5-pD v�' o C-S I �J� S S R-2-S R-2-PD �s -S- I� R-2-PD R-2 � s I GlOS-40 R- J � i f .� it LV►fel - -� n r L R-1-PD , C/OS-40 P-05 EXHIBIT .A CC x 0...= U � >`•'O d •� ,,,, ... eG U �t .0+ c !2 c > - G c •�_.�.r V C J .y.n L. •y Oy u -0 u 'a S n o > cn L4 o =Gcec v p cj v r > ° > -^ C < p' .> r. L 0 Ln FM cx is v c -� M U Cox _ i. J+ .•O� r G _ L 3 C �Lo ra u a_>. — = y n C y v OZ M3 J _..�1:.� � r L^•� U .fl W � L`r U ^ U .fir iOli y r3 U � �i �+ C r a T r U - $ c a .., zoej v .= ci gn to > e a0a � vv. IOJ U= cd .Z FIX U� v � V� C •Q•G r V •l V O V v U - L .. ccvLa c pp r � u C C OC? W O U,Ui W•O N C. C C ao a .�. V w' >� 4 O - zC t-Y' C.... c� �''o .� ra ir. Z Q w1 L' O F.' vi v O 7 L V •y etlcs p•q cam-• G .C �^, p `) �A h U •,V-+, r _ h v O C O 99.1 °G Cj G L L v = m > r 'J 0 U G � b•O L- - U �. F. O ►v e: v•C C V rd C%lQ L u A > = a.���rs e w v .-. 00.1 - _ C4 v Cv� � h � ci u N }, 17 -3r �� > Ll tt,D •C a .. � O U rs VJ oarCRc = _ .1-3 v U 7 r _ v u u � tC.O ao CC.G tC.A — •y N N N x fit... V .•. V — V .�. r. 12 U T y L. v_ r C TO v �-�— cui p e Aa At U C IC .� tiU.. ^ y Ci V - O — ^ .j r C x=i O v .O`. O � r. `• � O O C � •••� 7 > _ ^ O C U U C. .-.0 CL h V ^ 'y U V.^• U U O—• ^ U •� 7 ^ — U — r Q wa NO� y TO •r.� r 1.... G •�•_ �_' U O T r U �• y c N 0 y p U H U.�. v ., .: w 7- cr = .� ..� � 3f? = v �: ccN ✓� ZS p U ° — to —� ••t u tti L) mz C �• U L _ _ - oU5 W3 N•C O 7 �. pp y = _U rZ uy �+ .J.. N • U V .Ci r 3 V.� N 1.. L. Cc W N L. C N G� U�•0 � �. V r '� U o s. C U ^ o ` � _ mY �' 3 ` mac cro N _ to =arW LM U W2 c - - o•� - ooT " __ r. O v 572 L, C N V T O C Ov7 V •O — N rn r 1.4 ��� � r L42 c "r�. c• m as w tz lu l: C _a e-0 ep V •g C ^ ?% U-y ` 72 V h Ural 3 O > O - _ A Z C� C G. C w` = q C,h L42 W3l7 V C !) L' r U _ r _ �: C - L. O O C C 'Iv� O Cd <ca 77 = — 0-O O v 0 Cc _ v Z UN Z — o v: �•= I -ID = c ofZ5CJ V Ln N •y 67 r V r � ^ V •'3 > U _ O V) ra7R 0 ^ 0 7D ham < � Fc`vn �� V V U - v � G. B / I _ 3 es / wt & 0 § g 7'§■ � _ )ƒ / — k )•; • �- � ■ $= 2 k: aZ01 / §0 � t . � � ■ � % ie\� $ k� . . & m2 — ■ 2 © � = . � . K - _ cc ���I> CO) ( % §\aucpj � 2 � � § - . Q ] ® o . 16 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: V ■ Lou 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 of development plan submittal, a plan for Lou 1-17 addressing height ght 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 followins 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 Lou 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 folloxving 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. ��Sp 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 lou backing up to Lawrence Drive) will be required prior to issuance of building permits for these lots. This review shall consider the size and extent of secandustmy dc=!oF1J1%.11L "a as-the placement of backyard windows and decks in relation to the adjacent Lawrence Drive units. For hillside lou, 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). ? :.� �• �� i �' .� i _ � i 1 7 � ; eat 0 r _ q No AS P gg / n Z .,• 1,i n Nn l .1N� m97 46 y J5 . t a .� � � •.' , `;, \ _ .h.:;Ill :; ''^^ i ' •/ vu•`�ti� r>\ �.. �N�'a\u/'1 _ I IJIIII l�i j� —/ V • iia , N `\ /� A I f ili ��. I O , '-�-- r 'q'� \ a N 1a� t, O YI-' �III• 'lll I o I!y 7 fly s m a u I -- 'gaO..t ?Otis y t76:1d M.t?m •AS.V FL .� z L Irl:o II ,V /'ten 1 j !� OOOORIOGE ST 1 1.0 INV .Colo. ,,• Rs.ts?L :> 1 1.14 NV .- 1 '• CAUOILL•••'� ST. "1 p� o �-- �xt5 tNC� �E V _ U a J d A f 1 N im C 3: MITC 1ELL OR. n .. i ' irr rt� LAI"REN DR. I R RM DESIGN GROUP ArdtlAtlire•Awning•6�Sineenng• lntertins•LnnLmpe Architecture December 21, 1992 R EC E IV ED DEC 2 619% Ms, Pam Ricci cm OF SAN Luis aeIsao cOWMNrtvDEVELOPWNr Associate Planner Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: STONERIDGE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP INFORMATION Dear Pam: Per discussions with yourself and other City departments, the following represent our response to comments on a number of Tract Map issues which have been raised in our meetings. 1. Flag lots at the end of Stoneridge Drive We have redesigned the flag lot configuration to eliminate the straight 20' wide common driveway to these lots. The redesign as shown on the revised Tentative Tract Map now features a 40'wide private drive with a 30' radius cul-de-sac bulb at the end at lots 15, 16, 18 and 19. The private street will now allow for 7 on-street parking spaces, providing one parking place per lot in this area, similar to what is provided for at the Courtyard Cluster area. The street configuration will be 40' wide curb to curb with two 8' parking lanes and :An. it 1 1 .l.• .y T'�. •1 J Lr V.Vl Lu4W. 111�..V IJ i; J..1Lr. all rIl V�VJG Li S1V17� L111J privh Le Jll-:e►. 1 uc street will remain in private ownership with an easement created for fire access, vehicular access, parking, drainage, and utilities. Homeowners for lots 14 through 21 will enter into a common drive easement agreement to provide for use and maintenance of this street. We propose that this agreement be consummated prior to the recordation of these lots as a condition of the Tentative Map. 2. On-site drainage system The proposed drainage system is broken into.S components. Let me go over each of these to describe what is being proposed. I .•_ .. i 1- \lii': ....:a'.:. l.I I::'.'ll.l.li'.i.i �. :1i"I_`11 Ms. Pam Ricci Page 2 December 21, 1992 1) The hillside drainage intercept Currently, water sheet flows off of South Street hills onto the flatter portions of the site, collects in the seep areas, and then passes under Ted Bull's house to an invert in Lawrence Drive. With the improvements being made to Stoneridge II, there will be custom lots across the balance of the hillside intercepting this water. Behind these lots we propose to install a drainage intercept channel that will collect the sheet flow off the hillside and direct it to two sag points, one located between lots 26 and 27, and the other located between lots 17 and 18. Water will then be conveyed in an underground storm drain between these lots located in the drainage easements to the storm drain system located as shown on Sheet 2 of the Tract Map. The detail for the intercept ditch is shown on Sheet 4 of the Tentative Tract Map. 2) The second component is the drainage system for lots 46-57. Each of these lots drain towards the rear portion of the property adjacent to the common drive at the courtyard cluster. At the rear portion, a drainage catch basin is provided for each lot which then conveys the water into the storm drain system located in the private drive easement This system and details are shown on Sheet 2 and Sheet 4 of the Tentative Tract Map. 3) The third component is the storm drain system on lots 1-17 that back up to Lawrence Drive. The only water that is being captured on these lots is that water which would fall on lots themselves, created by runoff from hardscapes, roof areas and driveways. All other water on the property is captured either in the street system or in the hillside intercept shale. Therefore, the catch basins and pipe at the back of these lots is a fairly small infrastructural item. An 18" coacrcte wall will be constructed along the entire north boundary, at the south of which will be placed an 8" plastic storm drain. Each lot will contain a catch basin inlet at the low corner which will convey surface runoff into the storm drain pipe. The pipe will be connected to the outfall of the subdivision storm drain as conceptually shown on Sheet 2 of the Tentative Tract Map. The precise location of the drainage easement is currently under negotiation. 4) The fourth component of the drainage system is the street system itself. Due to the limited size of the subdivision and the adequate slope on the streets, most water falling on the lots and the street areas will be conveyed by curb flow to a low point in Stoneridge Drive. There will be two inlets located adjacent to the pedestrian plaza which will give water access to the storm drain system and then be exited through a 36" storm drain to Lawrence Drive. / moi... Ms. Pam Ricci Page 3 December 21, 1992 5) Component #5 - once the water gets the Lawrence Drive storm drain system, a new storm drainage system for that whole neighborhood will be constructed jointly with the City to convey.water in an up-sized storm drain pipe along the street alignment of the neighborhood. This concept routing system is shown on the Tentative Tract Map, as well as the sizes of the storm drains necessary to handle both Stoneridge water and e3dsting neighborhood water. 3. Draft CC&R's We have sent a draft of the project CC&R's to you for City review. In this document we have created a Homeowner's Association for the 12 Courtyard Cluster lots that will be responsible for maintaining and operation of the hardscape, landscape, common walkways for the plaza area, as well as maintaining the hillside seep water collection system. 4. Drainage easement between Lawrence Drive and Stoneridge Drive The applicants are currently under negotiations to obtain this easement. Due to the sensitive and confidential nature of these negotiations, they do not wish to disclose the names of the property owners on Lawrence Drive that are involved. We request that this off-site drainage easement be a condition of the Tentative Map, using language as previously discussed between yourself and Jeff Jorgenson. 5. On-site water collection system The ou-site water collection system as described in the Wetland Enhancement Plan will be operated and maintained by the Courtyard Cluster Homeowner's Association. The Homeowner's Association will benefit from this system by receiving an amount of water necessary to irrigate their common area landscaping. The balance of water will be delivered to the wetland enhancement area above Rockview Park The water collection system, depending upon the final design, will consist of a series of water collection vaults, pumps, water storage tanks, and pipe systems. This system will include all improvements and landscaping to be located in the center turn-around on Stoneridge Drive, including the windmill and water cistern. 6. Responses to Jan Delio's Memo on the Wetland Mitigation Prog am 1A. We have provide a larger scale blueprint and noted the area of the wetland enhancement program. A precise boundary has not been shown because the entire area is covered by an open space agreement and under one ownership. If this area comes under City ownership, we will provide a precise boundary line. /�1 Ms. Pam Ricci Page 4 December 21, 1992 1B. A wetland enhancement and mitigation plan dated August 25th shows the location of the fence and the entry points to the enhancement area. An elevation of the proposed fence is shown on the landscape plan provided as a part of the Tentative Tract Map package. 2A. The whole concept here is to capture the existing hillside seep water within the development area and to transfer this water to the proposed enhancement area. Fish & Game and RRM concur that it is not necessary to measure the precise amount of water available at this time. Our objective is to create a new hillside seep that operates much the same as the existing seep. No, there were no concerns with water flowing off-site, as it is not anticipated that the enhancement area will see a significant increase in flow from domestic water supplies. 2B. The cistern on the hillside will be sealed so that .it will hold water. The french drain is an alternative water collection system to a source collection system. It may be employed if during the construction of the extension of Bluerock Drive we encounter water coming out of the hillside. If we do not encounter water, we will utilize the source collection sump system. The french drain is not designed to collect drainage water from the street, but rather subterranean water, therefore would not be exposed to grease. 3A. This detail information will be provided at the time of construction documents. 3B. Fish & Game has approved the management program. We will coordinate with then. a: the Construction drawing level in identifying exact plant types and sizes. 3C. This information will be part of the design development and construction documents for the enhancement area. It will not be provided as a part of the Tentative Map. 4A. We will work with Fish & Game and the City to develop a maintenance and monitoring agreement .This should be a condition of the Tentative Tract Map. 4B. The maintenance of the wetland area will be established through an agreement between the applicant and the City. The water collection and distribution system will be homeowner maintained. The applicant proposes to implement and maintain the area for one year after which it would be Ms. Pam Ricci Page 5 December 21, 1992 maintained by the city in conjunction with Cal Poly. I have been in contact with the Biological Science Department at Cal Poly and they are interested in monitoring the wetland area and using it as a case study. 5. There will be interpretative displays around the enhancement area as shown on the enhancement plan. The displays will be designed and developed in conjunction with Cal Poly and Fish & Game at the time of construction documentation. 6. The applicant proposes to implement all water system improvements. The water system will be maintained by the Courtyard Clusters Homeowner's Association. (Refer to CC&R's) 7. Responses from City Comments 1) We have previously transmitted information concerning the conceptual off site drainage routing and design. This was prepared by EDA Engineering in 1985 and was conceptually approved by the City at that time. This information is appended to and is a part of the Tentative Map. 2) The portion of the project shown as open space outside of the development area will remain in the applicant's ownership; however, an open space easement will be placed upon it Therefore, the amount of park area that will be quit claimed by the City to the developer for lots 29 and 30 will be rededicated to the City above Rockview Park. This rededication will include the entire wetland enhancement area and the water tank access road. This is shown on the Tentative Tract Map with the appropriate notes. The amount of area being quit claimed is 10,474 s.f., and the amount of area being dedicated as park space and wetland enhancement area is approximately ±3.5 acres. 3) As I recall, there was no requirement to establish a pathway either at lot 17 or on the drainage easement We were, however, very supportive of the idea to create a pedestrian way between the lots along the alignment of the drainage easement to Lawrence Drive. We would still propose that a pedestrian accessway be provided, however, this must be reconciled with the lot owners along Stoneridge Drive on either side of the easement. Concerning the easement across Lot 17 to the open space area, we have several concerns: ��tO oma:.; Ms. Pam Ricci Page 6 December 21, 1992 a. The open space area was created as a biological preserve to protect rare and endangered plants. The objective was to limit pedestrian access to a couple of locations. Those locations are the City water tank access road, and the existing hillside trail that splits off, from the access road to the ridge of the South Street hills. Those are currently established walking trails that should be maintained in that condition. b. The concern we have over an access point at lot 17 is the topography in this area is very unsuited for hiking and we would be creating another pedestrian accessway into an area that currently has no trail and contains rare and endangered plants. C. We feel that the pedestrian way to Lawrence Drive would substantially meet the objectives of allowing the Lawrence Drive neighborhood access to Stoneridge and Rockview Park, and vice versa, Stoneridge residents gaining access to the Lawrence Drive area and Meadow Park. 4) We added a notation on the Tentative Tract Map to refer to the approved building envelopes shown on the Development Plan boards. 5) We added some language on the Tentative Map indicating that the cistern will be rebuilt in the turn-around knuckle on Stoneridge Drive, and yes the designation of a water tank on the Tentative Map is the existing cistern. 6) We included a vicinity map on Sheet 1. 7) The open space agreements will be completed as a condition of the Tentative Map. 8) The reclaimed water system for the Stoneridge neighborhood that resulted from the EIR review will consist of providing a reclaimed water pipe stub out to Rockview Park for irrigation of the park space and not a looped system through the subdivision with individual connections to each lot Rockview Park may also be irrigated with water captured on .site from the seep collection system. We show a reclaimed water line from the saddle area to the south adjacent to the Margarita Area to Rockview Park. At such time as the Margarita Area is developed and reclaimed water supplied, this pipeline can be connected to the balance of the reclaimed system. Ms. Pam Ricci Page 7 December 21, 1992 This proposal is somewhat speculative as we don't know what the reclaimed water master plan consists of. However, in previous conversations with Glen Matteson and Rob Livick, this seems to be the preferred alignment. The size of the line would be enough to serve the Rockview Park only as it does not seem logical to extend the line further to serve other park areas. 9) The tree and shrub screening along lots 1-17 will be installed by the developer, or bonded for by the developer, along with the balance of the tract improvements. 10) Estimated quantities of cut and fill for the proposed tract are shown on the resubmitted Tentative Map. 11) A soils report prepared by Central Coast Labs was submitted for the first phase of the Stoneridge project. This information was used by the EIR consultant in their review of geology and seismic hazards. The EIR presents an in-depth review of the soil and geologic conditions of the site and outlines 10 specific mitigation measures. In addition to the 10 mitigation measures, the EIR recommends that a "detailed geotechnical investigation must be completed prior to commencement of construction". We don't believe an interim soils report need be submitted at this time and feel that the EIR review of this issue and requirement for an in-depth geotechnical study is sufficient. That concludes our response to comments for the Stoneridge Tract Map. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP Erik P. Justesen Vice President Planning Division cc: Dean Benedix c/ej-stone.rs2 / ��f0$ STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TME RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gov"Mr DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME San Luis Obispo Wildlife Unit s Post Office Box 6360s � Los Osos, CA 93412-6360 (805) 528-0782 . 12 Januar* 1993 FIs. Pam Ricci Associate Planner Community Development Department �i E C E I V � Li 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 JAN 1 91993 RE: STONERIDGE WETLAND MITIGATIONS crr1'OFSAN w;sOBISPO •FVMUNRyOEM,, Dear T2s. Ricci: I have reviewed the Gdetiand Mitization Program prepared by IiR}l Desig:z Group, dated August 25, 1992. As indicated in the report. the pia:: prepared following a number of conversations with our office and a �to visit to the proposed wetland enhancement area in August of 1992. Our primary objective was to have this mitigation program identify the -proposed pater source. the water denvery system. identify the area that was nron_ used to be enhanced. outline a general program for mitigation, and set forth a time frame for this to occur. .%Iy revie:: of the RR?' report leads me to believe that all of the concerns ti:at I have previousiy outlined have been addressed in this report. We are satisfied that this mitigation rrogram will result in a larger and much im- proved wildlife habitat for the Stoneridge hills. Additional detailed information concerning precise numbers, locations, and species of plant material will be reviewed by this office as part of the construction document phase. Thank you for the onportunity to review this information.. if :-ou have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call. 9Jaes L. Lidbers .associate Wildlife Biologist San Luis Obispo Wildlife Unit cc: DFG files B. Elliott RRM Desicxn Group CAL POLY CALIFORNIA hOLYTECMNIC STATE UNIVERF:TY E C E V E Ij SAN Lvis Oisisro. CA 4i4C RIOUIGICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT JAN ?. 01993 Cm of SAN LUIS osisao AMUNrry nFL=, January 9, 1993 Mr. Erik Justesen Vice President Planning Division RRM Design Group 3026 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Erik: This is to confirm that the Biological Sciences Department is interesting in working on the monitoring and management of the Stoneridge Wetland Site in the City of San Luis Obispo. We could involve students in this project under my supervision or under the supervision of one of our other botanist such as Drs. Dave Keil or Dirk Walters. Will there be some funding to help pay expenses of students and faculty involved in the project? I'm sure these details will be worked out more specifically after an agreement is reached between John King and the City. We feel this will provide some excellent hands on experience for our students in an innovative wetland enhancement program. If you have any questions regarding our involvement, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, V. L. Holland Professor and Chair cc. Pam Ricci, City of San Luis Obispo ,III IIIII cityo san tuts oBispo'A 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 TO: Pam Ricci FROM: Jan Di Leo DATE: October 7, 1992 RE: Wetland Mitigation - Stoneridge In general the consultant has provided a good plan. Since mitigation plans are complicated, and since I have not been a parry to all the previous discussions, I still have some questions. In general, I think the main issue is whether the program is acceptable to Fish and Game. It may be appropriate to have one more meeting to verify everyone's responsibilities and concerns. Then incorporate these concerns into the mitigation plan. Below are my comments: t. Plan additions: a. It would be helpful if the larger scale blue print drawing showed the perimeter of the enhancement area. b. It would also be helpful if the fence line for the enhancement area and entry points were shown. An elevation of the proposed fence should also be provided. 2. Water. a. Flows from the distribution box should be indicated for clarity, or expected amounts of water within the wetland area should be indicated. The plan simply states that °water will be released at a rate to simulate the slow flow of a natural seep." Does RRM and Fish and Game agree what amount or range this should be? Are there any concerns with water flow off-site? b. It is my understanding that the cistern presently holds no water. Is the alternative water from French Drain indicated in case the cistern can not be adequately reconstructed? How often would this supply be utilized? Would the French Drain have a grease trap or other filters to purify water before it goes to the wetland? 3. Plantings: a. The mitigation plan does not indicate the amount of replanting that will occur, the eventual mix (for instance the number of expected white alders), or the size of plants. Some indication of coverage and plant sizes should be provided. b. Fish and Game should approve the plant mix and sizes. c. The mitigation time schedule on page 9 does not indicate when the mitigation area would be planted. /- 7/ Page 2 — Stoneridge Mitigation Plan . 4. Monitoring and Maintenance: a. A monitoring and maintenance agreement should be approved by Fish and Game, RRM, and the City so we are aware what agency is responsible for what. The agreement should include monitoring and maintenance of the pipe, pump, float valve, water amount, replantings, removal of invasives, the fence, interpretive displays, and other such project components. If, for example, there is a greater or lesser amount of water coming from the pipe, when the City gets a complaint who do we call? The plan states "California Department of Fish and Game or the City will monitor the release of water to the enhancement area" (page 5). b. For Channel B (page 8) it is indicated that "if satisfactory results do not occur within one year then a supplemental course of action will be taken.' Some clarity should be provided who determines 'satisfactory results" and who determines the changes necessary. S. How many interpretive displays are anticipated? It may be helpful to provide an example of interpretive displays. Would the interpretive displays be designed with Fish and Game? 6. Pumping the water 70 feet in elevation is no small task. Who will pay the electrical bill for the pump? L•mitiga.pin /_ 74a Public Hearing Draft Open Space Element c. Adjacent properties are being developed in a way that is likely to significantly diminish the conservation values of the property in question. d. Management of the property will be very costly or management of an easement would be unusually difficult to enforce (such as multiple owners, fencing restrictions, or other considerations). e. The site cannot be acquired with reasonable effort in relation to its value or purpose. One site may be more valuable; however, all time and effort should not be expended if other sites may be more easily obtained. f. The site is developed with facilities or structures, and thus would not be consistent with the open space definition. Fee Ownership, Easements. or Purchase of Development Rights This section discusses when the City should obtain fee ownership (either through purchase or dedication) versus easements. These criteria should be utilized when attempting to purchase property or easements as well as when private projects must dedicate property as part of their development conditions. 1. The City should generally obtain fee ownership for: a. Properties that may require or have frequent public access to the site or through the site. For example, the property will have a public trail. b. Agricultural lands when (1) public access is desired, (2) the property could be leased back for continued agricultural use, (3) or there may be harmful impacts from current or future agricultural practices. c. Lands for which buying the development rights is almost as expensive as obtaining the land in fee. d. Lands which contain delicate habitat requiring monitoring and enforcement. e. Land on which enforcing an easement will be difficult or costly. 2. The City should generally obtain an easement or development rights: a. On agricultural lands where the cost of development rights is less than fee ownership. b. For lands on which continuation of the underlying private use is compatible with its open space designation and direct management by the City is not required. pdos-iv 03 . 10/30/9' — �� Public Hearing Draft Open space Element c. To protect viewsheds or scenic resources that involve little or no public access. Methods & Sources of Protection A variety of techniques may be employed to implement open space .preservation. Examples include, but are not limited to: - Fair market value purchase. - Donation by landowner. - Exchange of property. - Transfer of surplus government property. - Use of state or federal grants. - Dedications and exactions of open space land to mitigate development impact. - Securing conservation or open space easements. - Creating assessment districts. - Transfer of Development Credits. - Bond Sales - Lease/purchase options - Life-estate-sales- - ife-estate-sales- Monies from Foundations Progbms 1. The City should: a. Pursue implementation of longi term financing mechanisms such as a bond measure, special assessment district, or a sales tax measure. The text of any measure should specify the percentage of monies that will be: (1) committed to open space acquisition, and (2) allocated for management and maintenance costs of protected lands. b. Revise the City's current parcel transfer tax fees. Monies from this source should be available for open space maintenance and preparation of master plans. c._ Devise a program to have some maintenance costs of open space lands paid in part by uses on these lands (such as agricultural lease back). d. Develop an impact fee that will pay for some open space with new development, and encourage the County to implement such an impact fee. pdos-iv 64 - 10/30/92 0 .5 1.0 URBAN TRAIL 0YSTEM ONE MILE EXISTING PARK OR RECREATION FACILITY PROPOSED PARK OR RECREATION SITE TRAIL ACCESS POINT caa ON-STREET TRAIL OFF-STREET TRAIL ff CAL PI 1 Y e r F�cTiitLt 4 i �',, .eco► �� 0 a ^� 5A+4 LU 5 < MTN. ® / LL a v C G � / 0 SOLtTtC ��l4 � . d� IC morS HILLS. �f� caa. . O Q C�� Ify i a o / UU, i NORTH city of PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT Marne san Luis oalspo r'/ 10 /- 75 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB 3180 STONERIDGE II SUBDIVISION AND ANNEXATION PROJECT Prepared For: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 (805)549-7180 Prepared By: ERC Environmental&Energy Services Co. 510 State Street Suite B Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805)962-0992 January 1992 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STONERIDGE II PROJECT This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,hereinafter referred to as Program, is prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo for the Stoneridge II project to comply with AB 3180, which requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measums. This is a comprehensive monitoring program capable of being implemented immediately upon approval of the project. However, the program is a dynamic one in that it can potentially undergo changes as additional conditions of approval are placed on the project after the development plan is approved and throughout the project approval process. Also, additional changes will be made to this program as specific information with regards to the monitoring efforts are provided. This Program will serve a dual purpose of verifying completion of the mitigation measures for the proposed project and generating information on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures to guide future decisions. The Program includes: • Monitoring team qualifications • Specific monitoring activities • Reporting system • Criteria for evaluating the success of the mitigation measures The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the Stoneridge II project in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Stoneridge II project consists of 65 single-family residential units located in the northeastern 10.2 acres of a 60-acre site. The remaining 49.8 acres is an open space dedication. The EIR environmental analysis, which is incorporated herein as reference, has been focused on 11 issues which were determined to be potentially significant by the City of San Luis Obispo. The environmental analysis concluded that the issue areas discussed would avoid significant and potentially significant impacts through implementation of recommended mitigation measures should the proposed project be implemented. The issue areas are: Neighborhood Compatibility, Visual Quality/Aesthetics, Geology and Seismic Hazards, 1 DrainagelSurface Hydrology, Water Supply, Biological Resources, Transportation, Air Quality,Public Services,Parks and Recreation,and Archaeological Resources. AB 3180 requires monitoring of only those impacts identified as significant or potentially significant; and therefore this Program addresses the recommended mitigation measures for the following impacts: Neighborhood Compatibility, Visual Quality/Aesthetics, Geology and Seismic Hazards,Drainage/Surface Hydrology,Water Supply, Biological Resources, Public Services, Parks and Recreation, and Archaeological Resources. Transportation and Air Quality were determined,based on the conclusions of the environmental analysis,not to have significant or potentially significant impacts; and therefore, these issues do not require monitoring and reporting. A monitoring team should be identified once the mitigation measures have been adopted as conditions of approval by the San Luis Obispo City Council. Managing the team would be the responsibility of a Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC). The monitoring activities will be accomplished by Environmental Monitors (EMs), Environmental Specialists(ESs), and the MCG While specific qualifications should be determined by the City of San Luis Obispo,the monitoring team should possess the.following capabilities: • Interpersonal, decision-making, and management skills with demonstrated experience in working under trying field circumstances; • Knowledge of and appreciation for the general environmental attributes and special features found in the project area; • Knowledge of the types of environmental impacts associated with construction of cost-effective mitigation options; and • Excellent communication skills. The responsibilities of the MCC throughout the monitoring effort inchide the following. • Overall implementation and management of the monitoring program • Quality control of the site-development monitoring team. • Administration and preparation of daily logs,status reports, compliance reports and the final construction monitoring report. • Liaison between the City of San Luis Obispo, the applicant and the applicant's contractors. 2 I� 78 • Monitoring of onsite,day-today construction activities,including the direction of EMs and ESs in the understanding of all permit conditions, site-specific project requirements,construction schedules and environmental quality control effort. • Ensure contractor knowledge of and compliance with all appropriate permit conditions. • Review of all construction impact mitigations and, if need be, propose additional mitigation. • Have the authority to requite correction of activities observed that violate project environmental conditions or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions.. • Maintain prompt and regular communication with the onsite EMs, ESs, and construction personnel responsible for contractor performance and permit compliance. The primary role of the Environmental Monitors is to serve as an extension of the MCC in performing the quality control functions at the construction sites. Their responsibilities and functions are to: • Maintain a working knowledge of the project permit conditions, contract documents, construction schedules and progress, and any special mitigation requirements for his or her assigned construction area; • Assist the MCC and construction contractors in coordinating with City of San Luis Obispo compliance activities; • Observe construction activities for compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo permit conditions; and • Provide frequent verbal briefings to the MCC and construction personnel and assist the MCC as necessary in preparing status reports. The primary role of the Environmental Specialists is to provide expertise when environmentally sensitive issues occur throughout the development phases of project implementation,and to provide direction for mitigation- 3 Prior to any project implementation activities,a pre-construction meeting should take place between all the agencies and individuals involved to initiate the Program and establish the responsibility and authority of the participants. Mitigation Measures which need to be defined in greater detail will be addressed prior to any project plan approvals in follow-up meetings designed to discuss specific monitoring efforts. Construction activities within the project area will be scheduled each week by Wednesday for the following week. At the weekly scheduling meeting, the applicant's contractors would distribute a "Three-Week Schedule" handout which will identify construction activities,equipment and areas to be worked in for up to three weeks in advance; however, the primary focus would be on scheduling the following week's activities. Attenders at the meeting would generally include the EMs and/or ESs, various City personnel and the MCC. By attendance at the meeting and the reference to the work schedule, the MCC will identify where work is to occur and the commitment of monitoring necessary. An effective reporting system must be established prior to any monitoring efforts. All parties involved must have a clear understanding of the mitigation measures as adopted and these mitigations must be distributed to the participants of the monitoring effort. Those that would have a complete list of all the mitigation measures adopted by the City would include the City of San Luis Obispo, the MCC and the construction crew supervisor. The MCC would distribute to each Environmental Specialist and Environmental Monitor a specific list of mitigation measures that pertain to his or her monitoring tasks and the appropriate time frame that these mitigations are anticipated to be implemented. In addition to the list of mitigations, the monitors will have Mitigation Monitoring Reports (MMRs}with each mitigation written out on the top of the form Below the stated mitigation measure, the form will have a series of questions addressing the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. The monitors shall complete the MMR and file it with the MCC following their monitoring activity. The MCC will then include the conclusions of these MMR into an interim and final comprehensive construction report to be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo. This report will describe the major accomplishments of the Program, summarize problems encountered in achieving the goals of the program, evaluate solutions developed to overcome problems and provide a list of recommendations for future monitoring programs. In addition,each EM and/or ES will be required to fill out and submit a daily log report to the MCC. The daily log report will be used to record and account for the monitoring activities. Weekly/monthly status reports, as determined appropriate, will be generated from the daily logs and compliance reports and will include supplemental material (i.e., a p� I-04/ memoranda,telephone logs,letters). This type of feedback is essential for the City of San Luis Obispo to conform the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures imposed on the project There are generally three separate categories of non-compliance associated with the adopted conditions of approval: • Non-compliance requiring an immediate halt to a specific task or piece of equipment. • Infiaction that initiates an immediate corrective action. No work or task delay. • Infraction that does not warrant immediate corrective action and results in no work or task delay. In all three cases, the MCC would notify the applicant's contractors and the City of San Luis Obispo,and an MMIC would be filed with the MCC on a daily basis. There are a number of options the City of San Luis Obispo may use to enforce this Program should non-compliance continue. Some methods commonly used by other lead agencies include: "Stop work" orders; fines and penalties (civil); restitution; permit revocations; citations; and injunctions. It is essential that all parties involved in the Program understand the authority and responsibility of the onsite monitors. The following text includes a summary of the project impacts, a list of all the associated mitigation measures and the monitoring efforts necessary to ensure that the measures are properly implemented All the mitigation measures identified in the Extended Initial Study are anticipated to be translated into conditions of project approval. In addition, once the project has been approved and prior to its implementation,the mitigation measures shall be further detailed during pre-grading meetings between the monitors, City of San Luis _ Obispo,and the contraction supervisor. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Development of the proposed project would infiinge upon the privacy and solar access of Lawrence Drive neighbors, exceed city density standards by 6 dwelling units unless the 5 .rr I project is approved as a Planned Development,and create potential drainage problems for Lawrence Drive neighbors. 1. Applicant-proposed restrictions on setbacks and second-story development shall be implemented. These include rear yard setbacks of 25 feet, street yard setbacks of 10 to 15 feet, and second-story development for lots 1-I8 of not more than one third of the building floor area. 2. Tree screening shall occur along the rear lot lines of lots 1-18. Trees shall consist of tall,open skyline trees and medium to large shrubs a maximum of 15 feet high. 3. The following design restrictions shall be implemented: 1)Decks more than eight feet above the natural ground level must be set back at least 50 feet from the north property line; 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; and 3)no second-story portion of a structure may extend across more than 50 percent of a lot's width, or 30 feet, whichever is less. 4. A subsurface storm drainage system shall be constructed which runs from Lawrence Drive to Meadow Creek. Motpling Stoneridge II developers shall collaborate with the city to establish a final project design which incorporates mitigation measures 1, 3 and 4. A qualified landscape architect shall be responsible for implementing measure 2; selection of qualified personnel shall be subject to approval by the City of San Luis Obispo. The species recommendation and planting specifications shall be incorporated into the final project design prior to any subdivision map recordation. 6 VISUAL QUALITY/AESTHETICS Development of the project site would be visually incompatible with the existing visual setting and negatively impact the viewshed of adjacent Lawrence Drive neighbors. 5. The applicant-proposed restriction on floor area shall be implemented. No more than 33 percent of the floor area would be on the second story. The majority of the second story floor space would be massed towards the street frontage of the lot. 6. Architectural review shall be required of hillside lots and lou backing Lawrence Drive prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Extensive retaining or foundation walls,colmmns,or large structures visible from a distance shall be avoided wherever feasible. S. The exterior surfaces of structures shall be painted with soft earth tones. 9. Project lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and tall lighting fixtures should be hooded and angled toward the proposed project and away from surrounding areas. 10. A plant palette,including native species,shall be required Monitoring Mitigation measure 5 shall be ensured by the city during review of final project design. Mitigation measure 6 shall be required by the City of San Luis Obispo. Mitigation measures 7 through 9 shall be subject to review by the architectural commission and incorporated prior to final development plan approval. 7 /-83 Measure 10 shall be reviewed by a qualified landscape architect After appropriate plant species are approved,the landscape architect will amnitor the planting of such species. GEOLOGY AND SEISMic HAZARDS -I=acts Based on the geological data available, potential geologic concerns on the site include gravity-induced landsliding, ground acceleration, expansion, erosion, reactive soils, and asbestos exposure. 11. A detailed geotechnical investigation shall be completed prior to commencement of construction. Recommendations from this study and the slope stability study shall be incorporated into final project design. 12. During grading and disturbance of the serpentine rocks and soils on the Stoneridge site, measurements must be taken (in conformance.with OSHA standards) to determine the presence or absence of asbestos fibres in the air,and potential worker exposure to such emissions. If asbestos is detected, a health and safety program should be initiated and should include providing personal protective equipment to workers and a worker education program on the potential hazards of asbestos exposure. In addition, airborne asbestos (and fugitive dust) emissions can be reduced through the use of water sprays and work restrictions during windy periods- Ivl�it�u: Mitigation measure 11 shall be required prior to approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. Monitoring shall assure the implementation of recommendations stated in the geotechnical report Implementation of mitigation measure 12 shall occur through the sampling of soils by a person knowledgeable in proper soils and sampling techniques. The sample shall be taken to a certified analytical laboratory capable of testing for the presence of asbestos. If the 8 ��$T presence is confirmed, air sampling measurements shall be taken as needed during active construction. If the level is determined to exceed OSHA standards,a hazardous materials specialist shall be employed to administer a worker education and safety program. In addition,the increase of dust suppression activities shall be monitored by an environmental monitor. DRAINAGE/SURFACE HYDROLOGY The proposed project would result in grading and the construction of impervious surfaces. These changes would increase the quantity of surface runoff by approximately 25 percent. �II4II 13. All grading shall take place during the dry season between May and November. 14. The applicant-proposed new storm drain system shall be constructed. hJQWtoringr Measures 13 and 14 shall be explicitly stated in the final development plan prior to city approval. Construction of the storm drain system shall be periodically monitored by a geouximical consultant NATER SUPPLY The proposed development will increase demand on city water supplies by 21.9 acre feet per year. Since the city's use of water currently exceeds safe annual yield, meeting additional water demands adversely impacts the supply and represents a significant increase in water demand. 9 /- 85 15. Require the Stoneridge 11 developers to retrofit at a 2:1 ratio in another part of the city so the development can be built without increasing water demand. The water conserved through retrofitting should be equal to twice the expected water use of the proposed development. This can be achieved by installing new water-saving plumbing fixtures (toilets, showerheads, and faucet figures) to replace older fixtures that use more water. 16. Water conservation measures shall be included in the Stoneridge H development plan. Water-conservation fixtures (low-flow showerheads, 1.5 gallon toilets) and landscaping (drought-tolerant plant species, drip irrigation systems) shall be employed wherever possible. 17. The applicant shall provide for use of reclaimed water, or utilize existing on-site sources of water,to irrigate Rockview Park Monitoring Mitigation measure 15 shall be implemented prior to approval of final project design. The city shall collaborate with the applicant in selecting the most effective method of achieving a 2:1 retrofit of water-conservation devices. 1Vlitigation measure 16 shall be subject to review and implementation by both the city and a qualified landscape architect. The city shall ensure incorporation of interior water-saving- devices atersaving- devices (low-flow showerheads and 1.5 gallon toilets)and follow the landscape architect's recommendations in approving a landscaping plan for the development. These conservation measures shall be incorporated into final project design to the satisfaction of the city. Landscaping measures will require field monitoring by the landscape architect to ensure proper implementation and success of the drought-tolerant landscaping. Environmental monitors will ensure implementation of the interior conservation measures. Mitigation measure 17 shall be ensured by the city through verification of incorporation into final project design. 10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Activities associated with construction,such as vehicular traffic and storage of construction materials, may impact sensitive resources in the valley needlegrass grassland area. Potential impacts to sensitive plant species may occur due to increased recreational use of the proposed open space area. Development of lots 9, 10, and 11 would adversely impact .15 acres of wetlands created by natural seeps. Raptors may be impacted if eucalyptus trees are trimmed. 18. Fences and signs shall be placed along the eastern property line and the 325-foot elevation contour line of Cheapskate Hill prior to construction activity so as to prevent vehicular traffic from entering and consequently adversely impacting these sensitive species and the entire serpentine endemic community. No construction personnel, equipment, or refuse shall enter or be placed at any time beyond the boundaries of the eastern property line and the 325-foot elevation contour line of Cheapskate Hill. 19. The preliminary development plan shall be modified to limit the southern boundaries of all hillside units (lots 19 through 22 and 24 through 33}so that they extend only to the 325-foot contour line. Building envelopes within the 325-foot boundary will be approved with the tract map. The area above the 325-foot contour line should be fenced and dedicated as a biological open space easement. The biological open space easement will contain the standard City open space easement restrictions with the addition of a restriction prohibiting any uses which alter the natural condition of the easement area,including cattle grA=g. 20. Educational and interpretive signs pertaining to any sensitive species onsite and the valley needlegtass grassland offsite, written by a qualified biologist, approved by the department of community development, and paid for by the applicant, shall be posted along the 325-foot elevation contour line, the trails of Cheapskate Hill, and the eastern property line. 11 /-8' 21. Loss of wetlands shall be mitigated through re-creation of new wetland areas or enhancement of existing degraded wetland areas to the satisfaction of California Department of Fish and Game. 22. No trimming or removal of onsite eucalyptus trees shall occur. NdQIIit®ai: Mitigation measures 18, 19, and 20 shall be assured by the city,prior to approval of tract map. Measures 19 and 20 shall be implemented by a qualified biologist. Measure 20 will_ require joint city and field monitoring, as photodocumentation of said signs shall be provided to the city,whereas the posting of the signs,within a time period determined by the city after commencement of construction,shall be monitored by EMs. Mitigation meantie 21 shall be monitored through the development of a wetlands mitigation plan by a biologist experienced in revegetation planning and familiar with the ecological conditions in the area. The plan will be submitted as part of a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)under State Code 1603. Jim Lidberg, CDFG Wildlife Biologist, believes that wetland concerns for this project can best be resolved by enhancing and improving the existing wetland in and around the cattle trough, and creating new wetlands in this same area. Once implemented, the mitigation area will be monitored by a qualified biologist for at least three years to ensure its success. Mitigation measure 22 will require field monitoring and shall be monitored by EMs. PUBLIC SERVICES SCHOOLS The Stoneridge II project is expected to generate an additional 18 students to the San Luis Coastal Unified School District This would impact both the elementary and junior high schools which serve the site as they are currently over capacity. 12 Ml�4II 23. Payment of Developer's Fees,as required by law. mQuimfu No monitoring is required. FIRE PROTECTION The project would contribute an incremental reduction in the Fire Department's response time. Fire access to the hillside units may be impeded. Water service to hillside slopes is limited and greater flow is required. 24. (recommended) The applicant should financially contribute to the installation of a signal controller at the Broad StreevSouth Street intersection. 25. Incorporate 10 foot unfenced access easement between lots 24 and 25 and an access point at lot 35. Maintain clearing of fire access routes during construction. 26. Assess fire flow necessities to determine flow requirements for onsite sprinklers. Mpnitarin To ensure mitigation measure 24,the city shall specify the amount of payment and receive -said payment prior to occupancy of any Stoneridge H units. To ensure mitigation measure 25, the city shall incorporate the access easement into final project design prior to approval- EMs shall monitor.the maintenance of fire access routes during construction. 13 To ensure mitigation measure 26, the city shall require a fire flow assessment and incorporate it necessary sprinkler systems into the final project design prior to approval. PARKS AND RECREATION According to city park standards,the proposed project would intensify the current deficit of district parks. Since the 49.8 acre open space dedication probably cannot be classified as a district park,the parkland deficit would remain. 27. The applicant shall contribute to one of the city's capital programs, as outlined in the parks and recreation element. Examples of such programs include in-lieu fees and contribution to a construction tax fund. Monitoring No monitoring is required. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Direct impacts would occur to one of the onsite historic water cisterns, as extension of Stoneridge Drive would necessitate destruction of the cistern. Potentially significant _ impacts to surface remnants of foundations, structures, privies, trash deposits, and other cultural features associated with the Gingg home site and slaughterhouse may occur during land disturbance associated with construction. II 28. A historic architectural/engineering record(HAER) shall be drawn up for the cistern lost as a result of the proposed development. The HAER study shall comply with 14 -90 State of California standards and be filed with the local historical society, archaeological society,and library. Monitoring To implement mitigation measure 28, a qualified archaeologist skilled in historical documentation shall be employed to write the HAEEL It is recommended that a qualified historic archaeologist monitor all initial grading and soil disruption. In the event that subsurface artifacts or features are encountered, the archaeologist should have the authority to temporarily halt or divert grading operations and assess the integrity, context, and significance of the resources. If the resources are determined to be significant,a plan should be devised for the excavation,recordation,and analysis of the materials through a data recovery program. is I!g/ N C C c •••" LO LE t7 v U v N 7 F N N N L C,� c•�i nCi r•C'i Y ea 41 c •y O r t7..V.y V C Cr p O > too r Lrs c O v c n o c ese � o � U•crs o"a � c �/Jy iG Ln N O r v C C cc U .. L ccbD y N r. W 6• Q Lam. L .yU ° e O v O•_ �j U V V u in WD El cc U Q go in 0 U s _ rag U < •Q .. r c 10 !4 C=0 � w V r � :� Sem � .�•oQ C MIAV o > a= v� l7 N V C y Q O r .... r V W _ 'r V �. CN e6 7 V 7 > U v•> ov oc •^ V UU cz G U y J •L• r 7 • v ea v ° °c u o U � LL H Ce 1 5 /- / L) 0 9 \ h h 7 7 � m � S 5 r N V C .v O G •v v .. cis cc O 7 y t' 'ire ba H. _N V ... ^ � Z L o r ci .4 2 Ts. U . -bg ?y � U V` V O = v w = Vj •20 G L• r- ; V b._ 04 � v �� -bg �s z C r ° = o O a cn 0 .fin 0 > V 0 C = - � t e07 y y go O C•G 1. C V V v V. •+ L U ,y., •� �.. v v C ^ Q.: v ea ._ � � _ •off L9 LOD -93 1-6 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 lou 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 Lou 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. l`7T 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 lou and lots backing up to Lawrence Drive) will be required prior to issuance of building permits for these lou. This review shall consider the size and extent of second Valy drvel . H as—the placement of back-yard windows and decks in relation to the adjacent Lawrence Drive units. For hillside lou, 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). ��S N, INO AGENDA DATE -93 ITEM # 555 Lawrence Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COPIBTO: ❑' =tmzx,3 Actium� FYI March 15, 1993 [�CO1 ml.rnl �� �Ao ❑ Fu,.rnR �7/ ,] Q FW DIRG. ❑ POLICE CFL RE: Vesting of Stoneridge Drive II MI CJ P.ECDIX CFEADPA.E UIIL DIIL Dear Mayor Pinard; - After years of following this project and trying to prevent a repeat of the problems which were encountered with phase one, I feel most of the Lawrence Drive neighbors' concerns have been address. The maximum height envelopes behind many of the Lawrence Drive homes is still higher than we were initially lead to believe they would be. The maximum building height of 20 feet which applies to homes noted in the attached Errata 4.1.4., will still allow some of those homes to create a definite visual impact due to the topography. It would appear to be too late to press for height reduction on lots 1-18, but it's not too late to address another real concern. The concept of a pedestrian corridor between Stoneridge and the- neighborhood to the north, however beneficial, is not practica6, If we had two new subdivisions with the corridor planned with open space surrounding it, then privacy would not be a problem. The setbacks and lot layouts on Lawrence Drive are too close and the walkway will impact the neighbors. This concept was presented a few years ago, and was strongly opposed by the neighbors; we figured it was as dead an issue as the idea of connecting the neighorhoods via a new street. The planning commission, planning staff, and the developer are all opposed to the pedestrian corridor because of its impact on the neighbors. I would encourage you to also oppose the idea. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and your hard work on this long and involved project. Sincerely Gary a Kitty Williams NAR 1 1993 f'f C^'.:MCP F-:% CA Errata to Section 4.1.4 NeiSW-,hwd Compaf i Over the course of the EIR review, the applicant has also 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. For clarification, single-story would not exceed an absolute building height of 15 feet, meaning that it would be measured as the highest point of the building at any one point, rather than an elevation above average natural grade. Height exceptions to allow a building height of a maximum of 20 feet, measured again as an absolute height, may be approved through an administrative use permit process. Therefore, many of the original mitigations related to building height and massing would be superseded by the following mitigation measure: ■ Lots 1-18 shall be limited to single-story development. A maximum building height of 15 feet will be allowed. 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 178'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 1-18 shall be 25 feet. ■ The applicant shall install tree screening along the rear of Lots 1-18 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.