The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/07/1997, 4 - TRACT 138-96 (COUNTY FILE # TR 2248): SUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS INTO 16 LOTS: ONE COMMERCIAL, 14 RESIDENTIAL, AND ONE OPEN-SPACE PARCEL, ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF EL CAPITAN, SOUTH OF THE STATE FARM REGIONAL OFFICES.Council agenda uEpoat C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O �x FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director ° Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Tract 138-96 (County file # Tr 224 Subdivision of two lots into 16 lots: one commercial, 14 residential, and one open -space parcel, on the northerly side of El Capitan, south of the State Farm regional offices. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map, with conditions, as recommended by the Planning Commission, to become effective on the date the property is officially annexed to the city. DISCUSSION Situation. The applicant has received approval of a planned development prezoning by the Council and the annexation of this property from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Final action on the annexation will follow a "protest hearing" held by the City Council at this same meeting. The applicant is now asking for approval of the tentative map to divide the property into 16 lots, consistent with the approved planned development. Data Summary Address: 850 El Capitan Applicant/property owner: Kelly Gearhart Representative: Cannon Associates: Deb Hollowell Zoning: Prezoned to Medium - Density Residential, with Specific Plan and Planned Development overlays (R- 2- PD -SP) and Service Commercial, with Special Considerations and Specific Plan overlays (C- S- S -PD). This zoning will become effective upon the final approval of the annexation. General Plan: Medium - Density Residential and Services and Manufacturing Environmental status: Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended by the Director December 4, 1996 and reviewed by the Planning Commission December 11, 1996 Project action deadline: February 19, 1997 Site description The site is a trapezoidal essentially flat lot, long and fairly narrow. Eucalyptus trees toward the rear of the site signal the presence of a small creek. There are additional smaller trees surrounding 7 Council Agenda Report - Tract 138-96 (County rile # TR 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 2 the existing house. A commercial building is presently under construction in the portion of the site nearest lEghway 227. An older house sits just beyond the commercial site. A dirt road (El Capitan) runs along the southerly property line. The site is flanked by the State Farm Office and residential development to the north, various service -type commercial uses and residences to the south, and railroad right -of -way and residential development to the east. Proiect Description The project is the division of two lots into sixteen lots: • one commercial lot; • fourteen residential lots; • one open space lot. The project has been designed to be consistent with the previously - approved planned development for the site. EVALUATION 1. The project is described in the attached report. The attached Planning Commission report describes the project and its relationship to the approved planned development. The following paragraphs explain the Planning Commission's action, based on that report and public testimony received at that hearing. 2. The Planning Commission recommends against private ownership of the open space. During the processing of the planned development, the City Council agreed in concept to accept the open space parcel, because it would provide access to a future bicycle path along the abandoned railroad right -of -way, which would be available to the general public. There was no condition in the planned development to this effect, however, because the action was limited to a zoning change. Because the railroad bike path/linear park may be owned by a homeowners' association ultimately, and because the residents in this subdivision are likely to take advantage of amenities currently owned and maintained by the existing Santa Lucia Trills homeowners association, staff recommended as part of the tract approval that the residential lots in this subdivision be annexed to the existing homeowners' association. This large association contains all of the lots on the "Edna" side of the primary planning area of the Edna -Islay Specific Plan area, about 500 homes. Annexation to this association would also provide some flexibility in planning for drainage for this subdivision. Council Agenda Report - Tract 138-96 (County file # TR 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 3 Staff therefore recommended that instead of transferring ownership of the open space parcel to the City, that it be taken over by the existing homeowners association, or by a new, smaller association if the larger one does not accept the new subdivision. The Commission was concerned about the liability of maintaining the open space parcel and the included public bicycle- pedestrian path. Therefore, the Commission recommends that the parcel be owned and maintained by the City, as originally planned. If the adjacent planned bicycle path along the railroad right -of -way is also owned by the City (this is not yet decided), then maintenance of this access to it would be done at the same time as maintenance of the railroad path. Alternatively, maintenance may be done at some of the same times that the public park (French Park) is being maintained This park is within short walking distance of the open space area If the Council does not choose to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation on the ownership of the open space parcel, it may want to consider the "alternative conditions" attached, which allow for some flexibility but keep the parcel in private hands. 3. The commercial lot will handle drainage. The Planning Commission also supported the applicant's offer to divert drainage to lot 16, the commercial lot fronting on Broad Street. A detention basin is shown on this lot. A hydrology study is required so that the ultimate design will be adequate to detain drainage from this subdivision. The drainage will be released at the same rate as traditional flows so that this subdivision will not affect flooding downstream. 4. A minor change has been made to the recommended conditions. The Planning Commission, in deleting references to the homeowners' association in the conditions, inadvertently called for the deletion of a paragraph requiring that a map amendment be filed with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) if any areas of 100 -year flooding are found on the site. This paragraph, a part of condition no. 12, has been added back in. CONCURRENCES Public Works concerns are discussed in the attached Planning Commission report. Building, Public Works, and Planning concerns are addressed in recommended conditions. FISCAL EMPACT Ownership of the open space parcel increases the value of land owned by the City but also incurs a maintenance cost. Maintenance will consist of tree trimming and path maintenance. ��3 Council Agenda Report - Tract 138-96 (County file # TR 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The Council may approve the tentative map, with changed conditions. If the Council is interested in requiring homeowner maintenance and ownership of the open space parcel, it should look at the attached "alternative conditions" for suggested wording. 2. The Council may deny the subdivision if it finds it inconsistent with the general plan or the planned development preliminary map. 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. Attachments draft resolutions vicinity map reduced tract map letter to applicant describing Planning Commission action Planning Commission report of December 11, 1996 Alternative conditions relating to open space parcel Ordinance 1303 (1996 Series), approving the Planned Development environmental initial study � RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION ON EL CAPITAN WAY, EAST OF BROAD STREET, CREATING 16 LOTS FROM TWO. (Tract 138 -96; County rde no. Tr 2248) WHEREAS, the Planning commission conducted a public hearings on December 11, 1996 and recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 138 -96; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 7, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Edna -Islay Specific Plan, the Zoning Regulations, Planned Development 46-96 and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City council. The Council hereby adopts the said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: 1. Access to the future bicycle- pedestrian path from El Capitan shall be a minimum of fifteen feet wide, to accommodate a sufficiently -wide pathway for both bicycles and pedestrians. 2. Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two residences closest to I1ighway 227 to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with recommendations in the Noise Element and Noise Guidelines. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Tentative Tract Map 138 -96, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof; makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan and with the Edna -Islay Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C-S -S- SP and R- 2 -PD-SP zones. 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. Resolution no. (1997 Series) Tract 138-96 (County file no. TR 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 2 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision SECTION 3. The tentative map for Tract 138 -96 (County File no. Tract 2248) is approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions: All development shall be consistent with the Edna -Islay Specific Plan. Public Right -of -Way 2. Street improvements shall consist of Ilm [f--36 ft] pavement (curb to curb), complete frontage improvements along the northerly side of the roadway (1.8m [:�6 ft] wide sidewalk with integral curb & gutter), and a temporary asphaltic concrete berm along the southerly curb, transitioning to accommodate existing curb & gutter, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 3. Vehicular access rights along Broad Street, except at the driveway locations shown on the tentative map, shall be dedicated to the City. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 1.8m [:--6 ft] wide public utility easement and 3m [� 10 ft] wide street tree easement along all public street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 5. Phasing of construction of the new street shall provide for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management Plan) at the end of the project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. The subdivider shall install street lighting per City standards, including off -site street lighting along roadways leading to and from the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. Water, Sewer & Utilities Existing water wells may remain in use to serve only the lot on which the well is located. Upon development, water well use shall comply with the City regulations and policies in effect at that time. All applicable water and sewer impact fees must be paid for all structures connecting to the City's water system. 8. All existing structures currently served by private sewage septic systems may continue to utilize the systems until the system fails, the property is redeveloped or the property owner desires to connect the City's sewer system. Applicable sewer impact fees will be required to be paid at that time. 9. The proposed sewer serving this development is tributary to the Tank Farm/Rockview Lift 544 Resolution no. (1997 Series) Tract 138 -96 (County file no. TR 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 3 Station system; lift station fees will be charged accordingly. The lift station system is at. capacity and some improvement to the system will be necessary to accommodate this development and/or a contribution to the improvements to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. Any work done on the system or contributions will be credited against the lift station fees, as determined by the City Utilities Engineer. 10. Final grades and alignments of all public water, public sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 11. The overhead utilities serving the existing structures within the tract boundaries shall be removed and replaced with new underground service, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and utility companies. Grading & Drainage 12. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal and shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce flooding. The development must be designed so as not to increase flooding downstream; detention facilities will be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the owner of Lot 16. If the study identifies on -site areas subject to 100 -yr storm flooding, the developer shall process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of any development. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a 100 -yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100 -yr storm elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented. 13. The subdivider shall be responsible for performing any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, tree pruning or removals and any necessary erosion repairs within lot 15, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, Army Corps of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 14. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross -lot drainage, or appropriate easements and the drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of Director of Public Works. Traffic 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. -//-% Resolution no. (1997 Series) Tract 138 -96 (County file no. TR 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 4 Trees 16. Street trees shall be planted on each lot at the time of development of each lot, per City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 17. Some trees may require safety pruning by a certified arborist to the satisfaction of the City Abborist. Mapping and Miscellaneous Requirements 18. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 19. A copy of all public improvement plans (record drawings) shall be submitted on 3.5" diameter computer diskettes in a format compatible with the City's CAD system and shall comply with the City's computer aided drafting standards (including but not limited to layering, symbols, line weights and colors, stationing, scale, etc.). 20. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. Noise 21. Noise mitigation techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227, to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with policies in the Noise Element (Section 8.2). Open space 22. Lot 15 shall be owned and maintained by the City of San Luis Obispo. 23. A 15' -wide minimum easement shall be provided, and an eight- foot -wide pathway constructed from the street through parcel 15, to connect to the railroad right -of -way, adjacent to the east. Location of easement and pathway shall avoid removal of trees as much as possible, and shall be to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments. 7_ Resolution no. (1997 Series) Tract 138 -96 (County file no. TR 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 5 Screening 24. A minimum ten- foot -wide landscape screen shall be installed at the rear of lots adjacent to the State Farm site to the north, and to the proposed commercial site adjacent to Broad Street, to minimize effects of noise and glare from the parking lots. Existing building 25. The existing building (shown on lot 2 of the subdivision) must be set back from new Property lines to meet Building and Zoning regulations. Code Requirements A Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. B. Water & Wastewater fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on any lot. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: a the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1997 and shall become effective upon the date of final approval of Annexation no. 45 by the Local Agency Formation Commission (L co). r Allen Settle Resolution no. (1997 Series) Tract 138-96 (County-foe no. TR 1248) 850 El IQap itah Page 6 ATTEST; City -B .r-k -41-10 RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR A RESIDENTIAL, AND COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION ON EL CAPTTAN WAY, EAST OF BROAD STREET, (Tract 138 -96; County file no. Tr 2248) WHEREAS, the Planning commission conducted a public hearings on December 11, 1996 and recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 138 -96; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January, 7, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Co mrrussion hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the [General Plan], [the Edna -Islay Specific Plan], [the Zoning Regulations], [Planned Development 46-96] and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council , after consideration of Tentative Tract Map 138 -96, and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof; makes the following findings: [Council specifies findings] SECTION 2. Denial. The tentative map for Tract 138 -96 (County File no. Tract 2248) is hereby denied. On motion of and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: seconded by the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1997. `7' I� Resolution no. (1997 Series) Tract 138 -96 (County file no. TR 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 2 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonme Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen lz- To R -2 -PP- ') sP T- ra& l 3d x VICINITY MAP 46 -96 850 EL CAPITAN nlmla t:YNjA1 -r A -- .1 -1-3 e r N ... m- O r— _ b b r I { 1 i I -- �• pr i a5 \?� Li b r` ;�e�Ce`t :6xx)_t�� ovoaa a _d a.l r 3 5 4 Yg � E� 5 pp t � L E i vL. s a CV cv 8 3rd z n� b E- 12 Z C7 a 9 e E- r 3 5 4 Yg � E� 5 pp t � L E i vL. s a 1 � I city of san Luis ogispo � December 12, 1996 Mr. Kelly Gearhart 6660 Navajoa Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 SUBJECT: TR 138 -96: 850 El Capitan Tentative map for the creation of 15 lot from 2 lots plus one open space lot. Dear Mr. Gearhart: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of December 11, 1996, recommended that the City Council approve the tentative map with the following findings and conditions: Findings: The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan and with the Edna -Islay Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C -S -S- SP and R- 2 -PD -SP zones. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. 5. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development Department on December 4, 1996, that describes environmental impacts associated with the subdivision map. The Community Development Director, on December 6, 19967 reviewed the environmental initial study and recommended a Negative Declaration, with mitigation, of environmental impact. The initial study concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed that Negative Declaration with mitigation. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. 1� l Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. TR 138 -96 Page 2 Conditions: I. All development shall be consistent with the Edna -Islay Specific Plan. Public Right -of -Way 2. Street improvements shall consist of llm &06 ft] pavement (curb to curb) , complete frontage improvements along the northerly side of the roadway (1.8m [ =6 ft] wide sidewalk with integral curb & gutter), and a temporary asphaltic concrete berm along the southerly curb, transitioning.to accommodate existing curb & gutter, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 3. Vehicular access rights along Broad Street, except at the driveway locations shown on the tentative map, shall be dedicated to the City. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate a 1.8m [:--6 ft] wide public utility easement and 3m [;z10 ft] wide street tree easement along all public street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 5. Phasing of construction of the new street shall provide for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management Plan) at the end of the project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. The subdivider shall install street lighting per City standards, including off-site street lighting along roadways leading to and from the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. Water, Sewer & Utilities 7. Existing water wells may remain in use to serve only the lot on which the well is located. Upon development, water well use shall comply with the City regulations and policies in effect at that time. All structures connecting to the City's water system and shall be required to pay all applicable water and sewer impact fees. 8. All existing structures currently served by private sewage septic systems may continue to utilize the systems until the system fails, the property is redeveloped or the property owner desires to connect the City's sewer system. Applicable sewer impact fees will be required to be paid at that time. 9. The proposed sewer serving this development is tributary to the Tank Farm/Rockview Lift Station system; lift station fees will be charged accordingly. The lift station system is at capacity and some improvement to the system will be necessary to accommodate this development and/or a contribution to the improvements to the satisfaction of the Utilities 7769_ TR 138 -96 Page 3 Director. Any work done on the system or contributions will be credited against the lift station fees, as determined by the City Utilities Engineer. 10. Final grades and alignments of all public water, public sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 11. The overhead utilities serving the existing structures within the tract boundaries shall be removed and replaced with new underground service, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and utility companies. Grading & Drainage 12. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal and shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce flooding. The development must be designed so as not to increase flooding downstream; detention facilities will be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner of lot 16. 13. The subdivider shall be responsible for performing any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, tree pruning or removals and any necessary erosion repairs within lot 15, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, Army Corp of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 14. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross -lot drainage, or appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Traffic 15. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Tmes 16. Street trees shall be planted on each lot at the time of development of each lot, per City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 17. Some trees may require safety pruning by a certified arborist to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 41-i7 TR 138 -96 Page 4 Mapping and Misc Requirements 18. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc..., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Neltivork. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutOCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 19. A copy of all public improvement plans (record drawings) shall be submitted on 3.5" diameter computer diskettes in a format compatible with the City's CAD system and shall comply with the City's computer aided drafting standards (including but not limited to layering, symbols, line weights and colors, stationing, scale, etc...). 20. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System Of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. Noise 21. Noise mitigation techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227, to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with policies in the Noise Element (Section 8.2). Open space 22. Lot 15 shall be owned and maintained by the City of San Luis Obispo. 23. A 15' -wide minimum easement shall be provided, and an eight- foot -wide pathway constructed from the street through parcel 15, to connect to the railroad right -of -way, adjacent to the east. Location of easement and pathway shall avoid removal of trees as much as possible, and shall be to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments. Screening 24. A minimum ten - foot -wide landscape screen shall be installed at the rear of lots adjacent to the State Farm site to the north, and to the proposed commercial site adjacent to Broad Street, to minimize effects of noise and glare from the parking lots. TR 138 -96 Page 5 Existing building 25. The existing building (shown on lot 2 of the subdivision) must be set back from new property lines to meet Building and Zoning regulations. CODE REQUIREMENTS A. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits B. Water & Wastewater fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on arty lot. The action of the Planning Comrnission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on January 7, 1997. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office (805) 781 -7102. Due to City water allocation regulations, the Planning Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant renewals for successive periods of not more than one year each. If you have any questions, please contact Judith Lautner at (805) 781 -7166. Sincerely, Ronald G. Whisenand Development Review Manager cc: Deb Hollowell, Cannon Associates I--139-96-let y17 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMJ$SION STAFF REPORT ITM # 2 BY: Judith Lautnessociate Planner MEETING DATE: December 11, 1996 FROM: Ron Whise n6d, Development Review Manager FILE NUMBER: Tract 138 -96 (County file # TR 2248) PROJECT ADDRESS: 850 El Capitan SUBJECT: Subdivision of two lots into 16 lots: one commercial, 14 residential, and one open - space parcel. RECOND4ENDATION Recommend approval of the tentative map to the City Council, with conditions. BACKGROUND Situation. The applicant has received approval of a planned development prezoning and the annexation of this property from the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Final action on the annexation will follow a "protest hearing" held by the City Council in January. The applicant is now asking for approval of the tentative map to divide the property into 16 lots, consistent with the approved planned development. The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 850 El Capitan Applicant /property owner: Kelly Gearhart Representative: Cannon Associates: Deb Hollowell Zoning: Prezoned to Medium- Density Residential, with Specific Plan and Planned Development overlays (R- 2- PD -SP) and Service Commercial, with Special Considerations and Specific Plan overlays (C- S- S -PD). This zoning will become effective upon the final approval of the annexation. General Plan: Medium- Density Residential and Services and Manufacturing Environmental status: Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended by the Director December 4, 1996 Project action deadline: February 19, 1997 Site description The site is a trapezoidal essentially flat lot, long and fairly narrow. Eucalyptus trees toward the rear of the site signal the presence of a small creek. There is little additional vegetation on the site. A y-4120 TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 2 commercial building is presently under construction in the portion of the site nearest Highway 227. An older house sits just beyond the commercial site. A dirt road (El Capitan) runs along the southerly property line. The site is flanked by the State Farm Office and residential development to the north, various service -type commercial uses and residences to the south, and railroad right -of -way and residential development to the east. The project is the division of two lots into sixteen lots: one commercial lot; fourteen residential lots; one open space lot. The project has been designed to be consistent with the previously - approved planned development for the site. EVALUATION 1. The project is consistent with the planned development. The City Council approved a preliminary plan for a planned development on August 20, 1996. That approval included approval of narrower lots than are normally allowed, greater depth -to -width ratio than is normally allowed, and smaller street yards than normally allowed. The PD also transferred density from the open space lot to the individual lots, allowing a maximum of 2.0 dwelling units each. The plans have been modified to meet conditions of the planned development. How those conditions have been met is addressed in the following paragraphs. 2. The access easement to the open space lot has been widened. The project includes an open space parcel at the easterly end of El Capitan, plus a provision for a pathway through this parcel that would connect to a future linear park (shown in the Edna -Islay Specific Plan) along the railroad right -of -way. The approved PD application showed the width of the access easement, where it begins at the end of El Capitan (adjacent to lot 14), as five feet wide. To accommodate an eight -foot wide pathway within it (the minimum acceptable to the City), the planned development approval requires a 15' -wide easement. The 15' is shown as 7.5' on the applicant's property plus 7.5' on the adjacent property, which is also to be dedicated as right -of -way to the City. y �� TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 3 The adjacent property is not owned by the applicant and dedication of the easement for public access purposes may be difficult to obtain. If it appears to be infeasible to obtain that easement easily, the subdivider may choose to provide the access wholly on his own property. This option would require some modifications to frontages of adjacent lots, but is acceptable to City stag. A condition has been placed on the map requiring a 15' -wide easement "to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments." This condition will allow placement of the easement depending on what is possible at the time of final map submittal. 3. The path should be shown. The PD approval ordinance requires that the eight- foot -wide pathway be constructed. The plans do not show the actual pathway. It should be shown, and should be designed to avoid removal of as many trees as possible. 4. The open space parcel could be maintained by a homeowners' association. A homeowners' association, created for the property on the "Edna" side of the Edna -Islay Specific Plan area, owns and maintains the linear parks and creeks within that side of the specific plan area. It would be logical for that association to take over ownership and maintenance of the open space parcel in this subdivision, and for this subdivision to be annexed to that association. The annexation was processed with the understanding that the open space parcel would be dedicated to the City, as a means to protect the wildlife value of the parcel and to provide public access through it. In addition, it was envisioned that this property would tie in well with the adjoining railroad right -of -way that is ultimately planned for a City -owned bike path. Staff, however, supports the alternative, if possible, of annexing this subdivision to that homeowners' association and requiring that the open space parcel and access way be maintained by the association, along with the other linear parks and detention basins in that area. A drainage concern could be addressed through this process as well (see discussion below). The annexation to the association would allow these homeowners to share the cost of maintenance of the open space lot with the larger association, and it would require these homeowners to assist in the maintenance of the existing recreational and drainage facilities within the larger residential neighborhood. It is likely that residents of this project would take advantage of nearby linear parks, and therefore it is logical that they should assist in the cost of their maintenance. However, the project applicant is concerned that the burden of a homeowners' association and associated dues might price these the homes too high to attract the intended buyers. The project is a development of "neo- traditional " -style small simple homes with garages `l1_122_ TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 4 in the rear. The homes are planned to be more basic and affordable than any in the existing Edna development. If ownership includes membership in an association, this plan may be affected. Staff has contacted the existing association and learned that present dues are $15 per month. Annexation of these parcels into the association would not change this amount, because maintenance of the open space parcel and changes to the detention basin throttling would not be a high cost per unit, spread over the approximately 500 members. This association has just recently approved the annexation of thirteen lots on the northwesterly end of Poinsettia Street, and the current president recommends that annexation of this property be considered at the annual May meeting, to simplify the process. It is likely that the nearby Goldenrod Annexation will be requesting annexation to the association at the same time. Staff is recommending that the owners of this property request annexation to the existing homeowners association. If the annexation is denied, then other provisions for the ownership and maintenance of the open space parcel (lot 15) must be made. Staff is recommending that in that event, either a new homeowners' association be formed of this subdivision alone or the City own and maintain the property as originally planned. The Commission should comment on which ownership option is in the best interest of the community. 5. Drainage systems must be designed. Because the drainage from this site would enter nearby creeks that are not within the city limits, a hydrology study is needed. City staff does not know if increased runoff would increase flooding downstream. Therefore, to assure that there is no possibility of increased danger from flooding that can be attributed to this development, staff is recommending that detention facilities be provided that can hold the water until it can be safely and gradually discharged. An alternative is to modify the outlet devices for the existing off -site detention basin northerly of lots 14 and 15. The basin could hold water for longer periods, while runoff from this development would enter the street (El Capitan) and the storm drains and ultimately the same creek as the detention basin flows enter. In other words, if less water enters the creek from the detention basin, then more can enter from these parcels. This option would require the subdivision to annex into the existing homeowners' association. 6. Noise reduction techniques are not shown. Preliminary noise studies of the annexation revealed that the first two homes nearest Broad Street may be subjected to unacceptable levels of noise from traffic on Broad Street. The PD ordinance requires that noise reduction techniques, consistent with the recommendations in the Noise Element and Noise `1_ -0 TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 5 Guidelines, be incorporated into the design. Such techniques are not shown on the subdivision map. The Noise Element and Guidebook require that noise mitigation techniques follow a specified order. The most desirable technique is to provide distance between the noise - sensitive recipient and the noise source. The least desirable technique is to use a combination of buildings and sound walls to create a continuous noise barrier (Noise Element, section 8.2). The applicant must show that the more desirable techniques are not effective or that it is not practical to use the preferred approaches "consistent with other design criteria based on the General Plan." In this case, it appears that this last determination could be made. To comply with the requirement to provide distance between source and receiver means elimination of the first residential lot and part of the second. Such elimination would result in fewer residential units, unless the design is changed so that the homes are clustered together even more than they are. However, General Plan policies encourage development of simpler, neo- traditional style neighborhoods such as this, and encourage maintaining the full density allowed. In addition, this alternative would be inconsistent withthe preliminary development plan approved withthe property's prezoning. It appears, therefore, that it is not practical to use the preferred approach (distance) consistent with other design criteria based on the General Plan. The applicant could therefore work down the list below (section 8.2) to develop noise mitigation for these two parcels: A. Provide distance between noise source and recipient; B. Provide distance plus planted earthen berms; C. Provide distance and planted earthen berms, combined with sound walls; D. Provide earthen berms combined with sound walls; E. Provide sound walls only; F. Integrate buildings and sound walls to create a continuous noise barrier. The Architectural Review Commission, in its review of house designs, will also look at physical noise mitigation techniques proposed. Staff is recommending a condition requiring compliance with this requirement. ��y TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 6 7. Screening is not shown. The PD ordinance requires "a minimum 10' -wide landscape screen ... at the rear of lots adjacent to the State Farm site to the north... ", consistent with policies in the Edna -Islay Specific Plan. This screening is not shown. Architectural and final improvement plans will be reviewed for compliance with this requirement. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission may recommend denial of the map, if it finds it is inconsistent with the Planned Development or with any City policies or regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend approval of the map, with modified findings or conditions. The Planning Commission may continue consideration of the request, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to the applicant and staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Public Works comments are included in the discussion above and in the conditions below. Building Division notes that the existing building must be set back at least three feet from the property line. (It appears that it is.) RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the tentative map to the City council, based on the following Findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan and with the Edna -Islay Specific Plan. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C -S -S- SP and R- 2 -PD -SP zones. 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. t� �S TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 7 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. 5. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development Department on December 4, 1996, that describes environmental impacts associated with the subdivision map. The Community Development Director, on December 6, 1996, reviewed the environmental initial study and recommended a Negative Declaration, with mitigation, of environmental impact. The initial study concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed that Negative Declaration with mitigation. and subject to the following Conditions: 1. All development shall be consistent with the Edna -Islay Specific Plan. 2. The subdivider shall request annexation of the residential lots to the Santa Lucia Hills Homeowners' Association (HOA). If such annexation is not successful, then a new homeowners association must be formed, to the approval of the Community Development Director. Public Right -of -Way 3. Street improvements shall consist of l lm [ =36 ft] pavement (curb to curb) , complete frontage improvements along the northerly side of the roadway (1.8m [ =6 ft] wide sidewalk with integral curb & gutter), and a temporary asphaltic concrete berm along the southerly curb, transitioning to accommodate existing curb & gutter, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 4. Vehicular access rights along Broad Street, except at the driveway locations shown on the tentative map, shall be dedicated to the City. 5. The subdivider shall dedicate a 1.8m [ =6 ft] wide public utility easement and 3m [ =10 ft] wide street tree easement along all public street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 6. Phasing of construction of the new street shall provide for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management Plan) at the end of the project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. aZ( TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 8 7. The subdivider shall install street lighting per City standards, including off -site street lighting along roadways leading to and from the proposed development, as determined by the City Engineer. Water, Sewer & Utilities 8. Existing water wells may remain in use to serve only the lot on which the well is located. Upon development, water well use shall comply with the City regulations and policies in effect at that time. All structures connecting'to the City's water system and shall be required to pay all applicable water and sewer impact fees. 9. All existing structures currently served by private sewage septic systems may continue to utilize the systems until the system fails, the property is redeveloped or the property owner desires to connect the City's sewer system. Applicable sewer impact fees will be required to be paid at that time. 10. The proposed sewer serving this development is tributary to the Tank Farm/Rockview Lift Station system; lift station fees will be charged accordingly. The lift station system is at capacity and some improvement to the system will be necessary to accommodate this development and/or a contribution to the improvements to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. Any work done on the system or contributions will be credited against the lift station fees, as determined by the City Utilities Engineer. 11. Final grades and alignments of all public water, public sewer and storm drains (including service laterals and meters) shall be subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer. 12. The overhead utilities serving the existing structures within the tract boundaries shall be removed and replaced with new underground service, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and utility companies. Grading & Drainage 14. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal and shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce flooding. The development must be designed so as not to -LI-027 TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 9 increase flooding, downstream; detention facilities will be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and homeowners' association (where applicable). If the proposed detention basin within lot 16 is determined to be acceptable by the City and the HOA for this entire tract, an easement will be required to be dedicated to the HOA for maintenance and operation. Alternatively, the existing off -site detention basin, northerly of lot 14 and lot 15, could be modified to provide for the needed additional detention in lieu of an additional basin, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works and the HOA. If the study identifies on -site areas subject to 100 -yr storm flooding, the developer shall process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of any development. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a 100 -yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100 -yr storm elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented. 15. The subdivider shall be responsible to perform any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, tree pruning or removals and any necessary erosion repairs within lot 15, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, Army Corp of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish & Game. 16. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross -lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Traffic 17. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Trees 1.8. Street trees shall be planted on each lot at the time of development of each lot, per City Standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 19. Some trees may require safety pruning by a certified arborist to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Mapping and Misc Requirements 20. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc..., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a -171—o4 TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 10 tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with AutoCAD (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 21. A copy of all public improvement plans (record drawings) shall be submitted on 3.5" diameter computer diskettes in a format compatible with the City's CAD system and shall comply with the City's computer aided drafting standards (including but not limited to layering, symbols, line weights and colors, stationing, scale, etc...). 22. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. Noise 23. Noise mitigation techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227, to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with policies in the Noise Element (Section 8.2). Open space 24. Parcel 15 shall be owned and maintained either by the existing (Santa Lucia Hills) or new homeowners association. 25. A 15' -wide minimum easement shall be provided, and an eight- foot -wide pathway constructed from the street through parcel 15, to connect to the railroad right -of -way, adjacent to the east. Location of easement and pathway shall avoid removal of trees as much as possible, and shall be to the approval of the Public Works and Community Development Departments. Screening 26. A minimum ten - foot -wide landscape screen shall be installed at the rear of lots adjacent to the State Farm site to the north, and to the proposed commercial site adjacent to Broad Street, to minimize effects of noise and glare from the parking lots. Existing building 27. The existing building (shown on lot 2 of the subdivision) must be set back from new property lines to meet Building and Zoning regulations. ll—o2� TR 138 -96 (Tract 2248) 850 El Capitan Page 11 CODE REQUIREMENTS A. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. B. Water & Wastewater fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on any. lot. Attachments: vicinity map Ordinance 1303 (1996 Series), approving the Planned Development environmental initial study Suggested Alternative Conditions if the open space parcel is to be privately -owned 2. The subdivider shall request annexation of the residential lots to the Santa Lucia Hills Homeowners' Association (HOA). If such annexation is not successful, then a) a new homeowners association must be formed; or b) an agreement must be recorded requiring the owner of lot 16 (the commercial lot) to provide detention facilities and to maintain those facilities and to maintain lot 15 (open space parcel) to the approval of the Community Development Director. Ownership of lot 15 shall be restricted to either a) all owners of the residential lots of the subdivision (shared ownership) or b) to the owner of lot 16, and all recorded documents referring to this lot must note that development potential has been transferred from the lot and that it must remain as open space perpetually, or c) an agreement must be recorded requiring the owner of lot 16 to provide detention facilities and to maintain those facilities, and lot 15 shall be dedicated to the City as open space. 14. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of disposal and shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce flooding. The development must be designed so as not to increase flooding downstream; detention facilities will be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage improvements, except those within a public street, shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and any applicable homeowners' association. If the proposed detention basin within lot 16 is determined to be acceptable by the City and the HOA (if annexation to the HOA is successful) to provide detention for this entire tract, an easement will be required to be dedicated to the HOA for maintenance and operation. Alternatively, the existing off -site detention basin, northerly of lot 14 and lot 15, could be modified to provide for the needed additional detention in lieu of an additional basin, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works and the HOA. If the study identifies on -site areas subject to 100 -yr storm flooding, the developer shall process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of any development. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a 100 -yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100 -yr storm elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented. 3/ Alternative conditions Tract.138 -96_ Page Z 24. Parcel 15 shall be owned and maintained either by the existing (Santa Lucia Bills) or, if annexation to the Santa Lucia Dills association is not. approved; by a new hoineowners s-association or by the owner of Lot 16. Iwthe latter case; CC&.Rs or a maintenance;agreement must'be approved by the Community Development Director. ORDINANCE NO. 1303 (1996 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO DESIGNATE 1) A 3.15 -ACRE SITE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF BROAD STREET, SOUTH OF TANK FARM ROAD, MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAYS (R- 2- PD -SP), AND 2) A 0.7 -ACRE SITE, IN THE SAME LOCATION, SERVICE COMMERCIAL, WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAYS (C- S- S -PD), CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION OF THE SITE (R 46 -96) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 26, 1996 and recommended approval of amendments to the Zoning Regulations map; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 23, 1996 and has considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that map amendments are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element OAM) map and text, because a) Medium- Density Residential zoning is consistent with the Medium - Density Residential land use designation on the LUE map and Service Commercial zoning is consistent with the Services and Manufacturing land use designation on the LUE map, b) prezoning and annexation of the site is consistent with LUE policies on annexation, and c) the land use designations are consistent with those indicated in the Edna -Islay Specific Plan for this part of the "Secondary Planning Area' (Figure 27); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the-map amendments are consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City council finds an determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning map amendment, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: The access easement to the future bicycle - pedestrian path from El Capitan shall be a minimum of fifteen feet wide, to accommodate an eight - foot -wide pathway for both bicycles and pedestrians. 3� Ordinance no. 1303 (1996 Series) R 46 -96 850 El Capitan Page 2 2. Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227 to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with recommendations in the Noise Element and Noise Guidelines. SECTION 2. The Zoning map amendment R 46 -96, designating the residentially- designated site R- 2 -PD -SP as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following findings: 1. The design provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group, specifically moderate - income families, which would not be feasible under conventional zoning, because the narrow lots combined with simple small three - bedroom homes allows room for large back yards and adequate living room for children. 2. The planned development provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development, because the narrow lots allow potential to reach the medium - density limits of the site, while the lot designs emulate low- density development. 3. Features of the particular desigd achieve the intent of conventional standards for privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with neighborhood character, as well as or better than the standards themselves, because the "neo- traditional° concepts included in the plan make the best use of the site, by use of rear garages, front porches, and narrow lots, to foster a sense of community. and subject to the following Conditions: Right -of -way: 1. The property to be annexed shall be of sufficient size to provide for a 53' -wide public street right -0f - -way (El Capitan),If the applicant cannot obtain permission, from the owners of some portions of the El Capitan road, to offer those properties as right -of - way to the City, to include the road property in the annexation and to develop street improvements within it, the City may choose to use its powers of condemnation to 2131 Ordinance no. 1303 (1996 Series) R 46-96 850 El Capitan Page 3 obtain the property. In such a case, the applicant will be responsible for all costs of acquisition, including legal and court fees. Utilities: 2. All existing structures currently served by sewer septic systems may remain on said systems until the septic system fails or the property is redeveloped. At that time, the sewer systems will be required to be abandoned and existing and new structures connected to the city's sewer system. Applicable sewer impact fees will be required to be paid at that time. 3. Existing water wells may remain in use until the time of redevelopment. Upon redevelopment, water well use shall comply with the City policies in effect at that time. All new structures shall connect to the City's water system and shall be required to pay all applicable water impact fees at that time. Open space: 4. A 15' -wide minimum easement shall be provided, and an eight - food -wide pathway constructed from the street through the open space parcel to connect to the railroad right -0f - -way, adjacent to the east. Density: 5. Density is hereby transferred from the open space parcel, minus the area between the banks of the creek, to allow a maximum of 2.00 density units per residential lot. Screening: 6. A minimum 10' -wide landscape screen shall be installed at the rear of lots adjacent to the State Farm site to the north, to minimize effects of noise and glare from the parking lot. SECTION 3. The Zoning map amendment R 46-96, designating the commercially- designated site C- S -S -SP as shown on the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved, based on the following findings: Findings: S� Ordinance no. 1303 (1996 Series) R 46-96 850 El Capitan Page 4 1. The prezoning is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and Edna -Islay Specific Plan maps, which call for medium - density residential and service commercial zoning on the site, in the proportions and in the locations shown in the submittal. 2. The Special Considerations zone, in this case, is intended to assure conformance with the general plan and its implementing ordinances, consistent with the intent of the Special Considerations zone, as described in Section 17.56.010 of the Municipal Code. and subject to the following .-r 1. The drive- through convenience store use does not conform with City regulations. Those elements of it that are nonconforming, including the drive- through, must be eliminated and made to conform with current zoning standards in the event of any of the following: a. Any significant change or modification to the use. For purposes of this requirement, "significant" change means any remodeling of ten percent or more of the building or any expansion of the building of ten percent or more. b. Vacancy for six months or longer. If the building is unoccupied for at least six months continuously. C. Sale or lease. Any sale or any lease of over 35 years. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of the Council Members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) prior to its final passage, in the Telegram - Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect upon final approval of annexation of the site by the Local Agency Formation Commission. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the 23rd day of July on motion of Council Member Romero ------_,seconded by Vice Mayor Williams and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Romero, Williams, Smith and Mayor Settle NOES: Council Member Roalman -0 ?1 Ordinance no. R 46 -96 850 El Capitan Page 5 1303 (1996 Series) ABSENT: None ATTEST: C' Clerk Bonnie L Gaw APPROVED: Mayor Allen Settle W-37 Ordinance No. 1303 (1996 Series) FINALLY PASSED this 20th day of August, 1996, on motion of Council Member Romero, seconded by Vice Mayor Williams, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Romero, Williams, Roalman and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Smith %/ Mayor Allen K. Settle ATTEST: F,fclerk Bonn 1 %'3v ys�g6 adz 3 a .I - -.1 "4) ,,,... 0 w �o a F, od ax ww z �z wz C7 a a e Cl) 18�t F wa 1 � 0 1. I I y-1�7 t s - -.1 "4) ,,,... 0 w �o a F, od ax ww z �z wz C7 a a e Cl) 18�t F wa 1 � 0 1. I I y-1�7 city of sAn luis oaspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 INITIAL STUDY ER 138 -96 850 El Capitan Project Title: El Capitan subdivision 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner (805) 781 -7166 4. Project Location: 850 El Capitan Portion Lot 103, SLO Suburban Tract Assessor's Parcel Number 076 - 421 -019 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Kelly Gearhart 6660 Navajoa Atascadero, CA 93422 represented by: Deb Hollowell Cannon Associates 364 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. //� ER 138 -96 850 El Capitan Page 2 6. General Plan Designation: Medium - density Residential and Services and Manufacturing 7. Zoning: City: R- 2 -PD -SP and C- S -S -PD, effective upon final approval of annexation County: Residential single family and Commercial retail 8. Description of the Project: The project is the subdivision of hte site into 16 lots: one commercial, one open space, and 14 residential, as previously defined in the planned development prezoning of the site, approved by the City Council on August 20, 1996. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is adjacent on the north to an office building for an insurance company (State Farm), to multi- tenant commercial buildings on the south, and to the railroad right -of -way and residential development to the east. The site is relatively flat, and contains several trees, most of which are clustered in or near a creek that flows next to and under the railroad right - of -way. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). The Local Area Formation Commission has approved the annexation, contingent on completion of a protest hearing by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. y�1 ER 138 -96 850 El Capitan Page 3 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and Land use and Planning a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Biological Resources I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there Aesthetics will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an Population and Housing attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION Energy and Mineral Resources will be prepared. Cultural Resources 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an Geological Problems ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Hazards find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least Recreation one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal Water X Noise described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Mandatory Findings of Significance Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must Air Quality analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Public Services I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there x will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ER 138-96 850 El Capitan Paee 4 December 4, 1996 igna a Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS The evaluation and conclusions contained in ER 46 -96, environmental initial study of the annexation and pre- zoning of the site, are incorporated into this report by reference, and the mitigation measures of that document repeated here as mitigation measures of this document. There is no new information about the project design or about any environmental aspects of the site that changes the evaluation or conclusions of the previous study. Earlier analyses: Earlier analysis used: Environmental Initial Study ER 46 -96, City of San Luis Obispo, adopted by the City Council August 20, 1996. Impacts adequately addressed: All impacts from the previous study were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the earlier document consistent with applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation measures: The following mitigation measures are incorporated from the earlier douument and they address all effects from the current project: 7 — `f3 ER 138-96 850 El Capitan Page 5 MITIGATION MEASURES /MONITORING PROGRAM 1 Mitigation Measure: The access to the future bicycle - pedestrian path from El Capitan shall be a minimum of fifteen feet wide, to accommodate a sufficiently -wide pathway for both bicycles and pedestrians. Monitoring Prooram: The tentative subdivision map has been reviewed for compliance with this measure. The final map will be reviewed for inclusion of an adequate 15' easement and for final design of the pathway. 2 Mitigation Measure: Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227 to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with recommendations in the Noise Element and Noise Guidelines. Monitorino Program: The subdivision map has been reviewed for compliance with this requirement. A condition restating the requirement will be recommended. 4V 1 2. 3 i9 5. N. Project Title: city of sAn Luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM El Capitan annexation and prezoning Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401- Contact Person and Phone Number: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner (805) 781 -7166 Project Location: 850 El Capitan Portion Lot 103, SLO Suburban Tract Assessor's Parcel Number 076 - 421 -019 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Kelly Gearhart 6660 Navajoa Atascadero, CA 93422 represented by: Andrew Merriam Cannon Associates 364 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 General Plan Designation: Medium- density Residential and Services and Manufacturing V�The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. 7. Zoning: No City zoning County: Residential single family and Commercial retail 8. Description of the Project: The project is the prezoning and annexation of 3.85 acres to the city. The site is adjacent to the city limits on the north; and is about 60' away from the city limits on the east, separated by an abandoned Pacific Coast Railroad right -of -way. The prezoning to R -2 -PD includes a request for exceptions to normal lot standards. The lots are narrower than normally required, and deeper (a greater than 3:1 ratio of length to width) than normally allowed. The planned development rezoning process allows exceptions to normal standards when the result is an innovative design that could not reasonably achieved without the exceptions. The request is to annex the property to the city; { prezone it to: Medium - Density Residential, with a Planned Development (R -2 -PD) for the 2.9 acres farther from Broad Street, closer to the railroad right -of -way Service Commercial (C -S) for the 0.7 -acre portion fronting on Broad Street. The commercial portion is currently being developed with a drive - through convenience store, with permits from the County. The residential portion is to be developed with 13 three - bedroom dwellings on individual lots, each about 45' X 137' (about 6,165 square feet). A 0.29 -acre lot next to the railroad right -of -way, containing many trees and a creek, is to be dedicated to the City for open space. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is adjacent on the north to an office building for an insurance company (State Farm), to multi- tenant commercial buildings on the south, and to the railroad right -of -way and residential development to the east. /rrO, The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the �sabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. `7' `�" The site is relatively flat, and contains several trees, most of which are clustered in or near a creek that flows next to and under the railroad right -of -way. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). The Local Area Formation Commission will act on the annexation. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410. �� / ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality X Transportation and Circulation DETERMINATION: Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards X I Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there x will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fiftd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 4 J/ p Si tore Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: June 18, 1996 Date Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. For 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross - referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section .17 at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 5 y �� Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46 -96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 a Capitan Issues Unless Impact Page 6 Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? I 1,2,3 I I I I X I 13 Land use element: The General Plan Land Use Element map (LUE map) designates the site Medium - Density Residential and Services and Manufacturing, in what appears to be the same configuration as the proposal. The proposed prezoning is consistent with these designations. Zoning. The zoning map does not include areas outside the city limits. The prezoning would provide a consistent zoning designation if the property is annexed. Edna-lslay Spec Plan: The site is identified as part of the "Secondary Planning Area" in the Edna -Islay Specific Plan (EISP), a plan adopted by the City Council in 1982, which provides more detailed policies and design for a specific area than are provided in the Land Use Element. The EISP designates the site as Medium - Density Residential and Service Commercial, consistent with the proposed prezoning. The circulation design shown in the EISP matches the street design proposed. Open space element The Open Space Element requires developments to include buffer areas next to creeks, to protect the riparian habitat. No specific width of buffer is required in the element, but the proposed creek ordinance, which would implement this provision, and a long- standing policy (Administrative Creek Policy, source 14) in most cases call for 20' setbacks from the top of bank or from the riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The proposal includes the creation of an open space lot containing the creek. All buildings are set back farther than 20' from the top of bank, and all are at least 20' from the edge of the vegetation as well. Conclusion: No impact. The project is consistent with Land use element, zoning, Open Space element, and EISP policies and requirements. The annexation request includes a project (immediately adjacent to Highway 227) that is currently under construction. The applicant has received approval from the County for construction of a drive - through convenience store. If annexed, this use would be inconsistent with a provision in the City's zoning regulations that prohibits drive - through facilities, and may be inconsistent with the uses allowed in the Service Commercial zone: Drive - through facilities: Section 17.22.010 says (in part): Drive - through facilities are not allowed in any zone. The project under construction is a drive - through convenience store. This use is inconsistent with the above prohibition. 6 � S� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 This policy has been interpreted to mean that convenience stores are not an appropriate use for the Services and Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 0 Ca P tan well as other sites in the city that would not conform with the uses allowed by the City's LUE. Acceptance of a non- Issues Unless Impact 4 Page 7 Mitigation adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Incorporated The California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over any work in the creek. No work is proposed or necessary. No other agencies have concerns with this request. Convenience stores: The Land Use Element says (section 3.5.1): 3.5.1 Purpose The City should have sufficient land designated for Services and Manufacturing to meet most demands of the city, and some demands of the region, for activities such as wholesaling, building contractors, utility company yards, auto repair, printing, bakeries, and retail sales of large items, bulk quantities, and items often stored outdoors. (vehicles, building materials, plants!. Areas reserved for these uses may also accommodate convenience restaurants and other activities primarily serving area workers. This policy has been interpreted to mean that convenience stores are not an appropriate use for the Services and Manufacturing areas. Currently, however, the Zoning Regulations allow such stores with approval of an Administrative Use Permit. Staff is in the process of amending the zoning regulations to eliminate this provision. If the City Council adopts the amendment, thereby confirming that the general plan language means that convenience stores are an inappropriate use for the zone, then the use itself will not conform with present regulations. Conclusion. Less than significant impact. The City's Land Use Element calls for eventual annexation of the site, as well as other sites in the city that would not conform with the uses allowed by the City's LUE. Acceptance of a non- conforming use into the city as part of an annexation is not an unusual situation and does not set a precedent for uture actions. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 4 X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? The California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over any work in the creek. No work is proposed or necessary. No other agencies have concerns with this request. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X The site is adjacent to an office use to the north, and close to low- and medium - density residential to the east. A residence already exists on the site (and is proposed to remain). Residential and office uses tend to be compatible with each other. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? There are no agricultural uses nearby on this side of Broad Street. The nearest such uses are the grazing cattle on nearby hills. Thwadditional residences should not have any effect on these activities, nor should they be affected by them. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low- income or minority community)? *_57 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46 -96 projections) Significant Significant Significant Impact FJ Capitan The project includes the construction of thirteen homes. An average of 2.48 persons live in each occupied residence in Issues Unless Impact Conclusion. Not significant. Pag Page 8 Mitigation X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or Incorporated 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections) The project includes the construction of thirteen homes. An average of 2.48 persons live in each occupied residence in the city, according to date from the 1990 census. If the project were occupied at this rate, then, about 13 X 2.48 = 32.24 = 32 persons would be expected to live here. The LUE anticipates a population increase of about one percent, or about 420 persons, per year during the 1990s. The project would thus account for about 32/420 = 7.6 = 8% of one year's increase. Conclusion. Not significant. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? No significant new infrastructure is proposed. The project will not enable further development in the area. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? I I I X The existing house on the site is to remain. The proposed housing is expected to be affordable. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture) X The nearest significant fault, the San Andreas, is about 40 miles away from the city. The other active faults in the area, Nacimiento, Rinconada, and Hosgri, all lie outside the city limits and are expected to have a negligible effect on the city. Under the Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently- active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the Special Studies Zone is limited to a zone along the San Andreas fault. The edge of this study area touches the westerly city limits line, near Los Osos Valley Road, but is present nowhere else in the city. No fault lines exist on the project site. b) Seismic ground shaking? 5 X The site sits in an area of "high seismic hazards ", according to the informational map atlas. Much of the southerly part of the city and portions of the remainder are in high or very -high seismic zones. This means that seismic ground shaking during an earthquake is highly likely. Building codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake, which should mitigate effects as much as possible. The site is not subject to any hazards that are not common in much of the city. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X Z/- C7_7 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46 -96 According to the map atlas (source 5), the property has "nil" landslide potential. Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 8 Ca P Kan X Issues Unless Impact Page 9 X Mitigation h) Expansive soils? 5 Incorporated The informational map atlas shows the soil as type "SnA ", which is a soil type with "no limiting factors ". The soil has severe shrink -swell potential, but construction on such soil is possible with the proper foundation. Soils reports will be required to be submitted as part of the building permit application, and recommendations in the reports must be followed i the design. This process will assure that the soils present no problems in the near- or long -term. i) Unique geologic or physical features? e) Landslides or mudflows? 5 X According to the map atlas (source 5), the property has "nil" landslide potential. f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? —7 X The site is relatively flat, except for the creek. Grading operations will be done in accordance with the City's grading regulations and should not create any erosion or unstable soil difficulties. g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? 5 X The informational map atlas shows the soil as type "SnA ", which is a soil type with "no limiting factors ". The soil has severe shrink -swell potential, but construction on such soil is possible with the proper foundation. Soils reports will be required to be submitted as part of the building permit application, and recommendations in the reports must be followed i the design. This process will assure that the soils present no problems in the near- or long -term. i) Unique geologic or physical features? X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X All construction causes changes in drainage patterns, absorption rates, and the amount of surface runoff. However, construction codes are required to be followed, and these codes will limit these impacts to less than significant. b) Exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding? 7 X Much of the property appears to be in a flood plain (available flood insurance rate maps are at too small a scale to allow exact determinations of the limits of flooding on this site). A hydrology study will be required at the time of subdivision submittal, and buildings will be required to be built in accordance with the City's Flood Prevention Regulations. These requirements will limit the exposure of people or property to water - related hazards or flooding. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X The creek on the site is proposed to be left in its natural state, and no discharge to it is planned. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 X Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 E3 Capitan Issues Unless Impact Page 10 X Mitigation Incorporated There are no water bodies in the vicinity except the creek near the railroad. If the drainage from the development enters the creek it will not be of sufficient volume to change the amount of surface water in the creek. e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements? No changes to the creek are proposed. f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? No direct additions to or withdrawals from the groundwater are proposed at this time, in addition to withdrawals from existing wells. g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X No plans to use groundwater are included. h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X The residential development is not expected to have significant effects on water quality. i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? There are no public wells in the vicinity. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 7 X existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? The CEQA Air Quality Handbook (source 7) sets thresholds for air quality effect significance. The threshold is 10 lbs of reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter per day. Such a threshold is reached when 35 or more single homes are constructed. This project includes the construction of 13 homes, and therefore i s not expected to contribute significantly to the degradation of the air quality. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X The project is residential and does not involve pollutant producers beyond the automobiles and some appliances common in residences today. The exposure of residents to what is essentially their own pollutants is not expected to be significant. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 77 1 1 X any change in climate? J d) Create objectionable odors? X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 E Cepitan Issues Unless Impact Page 11 Mitigation 1) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Incorporated X Each residence will have a two -car garage plus an additional parking and backup area, consistent with requirements for typical single - household residences. 11 4�sr� 6. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 8,9 X The project, which consists of the thirteen new residences, is expected to generate 101 trips per day, or about 13 per peak hour. All of the traffic will use El Capitan and Broad Street. Cal Trans does not see a significant impact on traffic in the area. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X 1) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? X Each residence will have a two -car garage plus an additional parking and backup area, consistent with requirements for typical single - household residences. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? J 3,10 T X 11 4�sr� Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 8 Capitan Issues Unless Impact Page 12 Mitigation Incorporated Bicycle spaces: The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan (source 10) says that for dwellings in the Medium - Density Residential zone, short- term bicycle spaces should be provided at the rate of five percent of the required automobile spaces. In this case, the requirement would be 5% of two = 0.10 bicycle parking space per dwelling, or 0.10 X 13 = 1.3 short-term spaces for the development. There is no practical location for this one short-term space unless it is located on the sidewalk, which does not appear to be a logical location for a bicycle rack in a residential area. Because the development consists of single- residence lots, similar to what is normally developed in the Low - Density Residential (R -1) zone, it is more appropriate to require bicycle spaces in accordance with what would normally be required in that zone. Because of the ample opportunities to store bicycles in single- residence developments, there is no specific requirement for this zone. The garages are wider than normally required, and will easily accommodate storage of two or more bicycles. Conclusion: Not significant. Bicycle paths: The Bicycle Transportation Plan also delineates where future bicycle paths should be constructed. There is no plan for a bicycle path on this street. The EISP (source 3) map shows a system of linear parks throughout the specific plan area. The linear parks are intended to provide a place for pedestrian and bicycle paths through the development, which offer an alternative to motor vehicle transportation. Figure 27 in the specific plan shows one of these paths within what appears to be the railroad right -of -way just east of the site. The project plans show access to this area by way of an open space parcel proposed to be granted to the City. The access proposal is consistent with the City's goals to promote alternative transportation, but the width of access at its narrowest (at the end of El Capitan) is shown as only five feet. This width does not appear adequate to support an acceptable pathway. Conclusion: May be significant. Recommended mitigation: The access to the future bicycle- pedestrian path from El Capitan shall be a minimum of fifteen feet wide, to accommodate a sufficiently -wide pathway for both bicycles and pedestrians. Public transit. The City's Transit Manager indicates that no bus turnouts are required in this vicinity. Conclusion: Not significant. g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility 3,11 X with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? The Airport Land Use Plan (source 11) indicates that the site is in area 6, and "single family" residential uses are "compatible" with the airport use in this area. A residential subdivision in this location is consistent with the Edna -Islay Specific Plan (EISP), and the EISP (source 3) was reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission and approved. The nearest railroad is about 1,000 to the east. A residential area and park lie between the project site and the railroad tracks, and sound walls have been constructed near the tracks. The railroad will have a minimal impact on the site. Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 8 Capitan or birds)? Issues Unless Impact Page 13 There are no known endangered species in the vicinity, although some endangered or candidate species (Southwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida), Red - legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)) exist Mitigation An investigation of Southwestern Pond turtles was done as a condition of approval of Tract 1750, a six -phase development project on the east side of the railroad tracks directly east of the site. The study (source 12) concluded that there are turtles in several of the creeks nearby, but the study did not investigate the specific creek on this site. The study further noted the existence of Pallid bats in the culvert under Orcutt Road. The valuable part of the site, from a wildlife habitat standpoint, is that area near the creek, which is encompassed in the Incorporated eucalyptus trees), and is proposed to be dedicated to the City. This is the area most likely to contain listed or endangered species, if any exist on the site. The proposal to dedicate the land to the City as open space is one way to protect the 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 12 X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? There are no known endangered species in the vicinity, although some endangered or candidate species (Southwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida), Red - legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)) exist or are suspected to exist in the general area, primarily near the creeks. An investigation of Southwestern Pond turtles was done as a condition of approval of Tract 1750, a six -phase development project on the east side of the railroad tracks directly east of the site. The study (source 12) concluded that there are turtles in several of the creeks nearby, but the study did not investigate the specific creek on this site. The study further noted the existence of Pallid bats in the culvert under Orcutt Road. The valuable part of the site, from a wildlife habitat standpoint, is that area near the creek, which is encompassed in the parcel at the easterly end of the site. This parcel contains the creek and most of the vegetation near it (primarily eucalyptus trees), and is proposed to be dedicated to the City. This is the area most likely to contain listed or endangered species, if any exist on the site. The proposal to dedicate the land to the City as open space is one way to protect the `iabitat. Buildings are set back at least 20' from the edge of the vegetation as well, consistent with City policies on creeks. Conclusion. Not a significant impact. b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X There are no heritage trees on the site. No other species of plants or animals are "locally designated ". c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, T7 I X coastal habitat, etc.)? I d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X There is a creek at the easterly edge of the site. The creek is to be provided its own lot, which is to be dedicated to the City. Such dedication to the City or to some other entity charged with creek protection is sufficient to retain the habitat value of the creek area. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X See d), above. 13 � �� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 The Energy Conservation Element policies encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use. The project would expand an already-developed neighborhood in accordance with the EISP, which was reviewed for consistency with the Energy Conservation Element. The specific design emphasizes the homes at the expense of the garages, which are located at the rear of the lots. Home designs are simple and compact and make efficient use of materials. Lots are oriented in.a north -south direction because of the shape of the site and the existence of El Capitan Way. Even with this orientation, though, it would be possible for residents to take advantage of solar heating panels on the gable -on -hip roofs facing the street. Conclusion. Less than significant. There are no conflicts with policies in the Energy Conservation Element. Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 0 Ca P tan X Issues Unless Impact Page 14 X Mitigation 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Incorporated X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 14 X The Energy Conservation Element policies encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use. The project would expand an already-developed neighborhood in accordance with the EISP, which was reviewed for consistency with the Energy Conservation Element. The specific design emphasizes the homes at the expense of the garages, which are located at the rear of the lots. Home designs are simple and compact and make efficient use of materials. Lots are oriented in.a north -south direction because of the shape of the site and the existence of El Capitan Way. Even with this orientation, though, it would be possible for residents to take advantage of solar heating panels on the gable -on -hip roofs facing the street. Conclusion. Less than significant. There are no conflicts with policies in the Energy Conservation Element. b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? X 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X The project meets response requirements if built in accordance with City standards, according to the Fire Department. c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? _F X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? _T X 14 '/ 4-17/ y' 1/0 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46 -96 Single homes do not usually add significantly to ambient noise levels. In this case, the homes are close to Broad Street Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 B ca P tan Issues Unless Impact Highway 227 will be reduced to 60 Ldn at a distance of 292 feet from the center of the roadway. Residences set back Page 15 The right -of -way for Highway 227 varies in this area. It is approximately 84' adjacent to the site. Therefore, a distance of 292' will be 250' from the property line, or partway into the second residential parcel. Residence no. 1 and a portion Mitigation the noise guidelines, between 60 and 65 Ldn. Noise levels between 60 and 70 Ldn are "normally unacceptable ", according to the element. The site is also within an area which may be affected by airport noise. Figure 6 in the Noise Element shows projected noise contours for the theoretical capacity of the airport. The site is beyond the 60 Ldn contour, and therefore is exposed to less than 60 dB from airport operations. The incremental addition of noise from the airport to the noise from Highway 227 is Incorporated Conclusion: May be significant. The first two homes are expected to be exposed to noise levels between 60 and 65 Ldn Recommended mitigation: 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X Single homes do not usually add significantly to ambient noise levels. In this case, the homes are close to Broad Street (Highway 227), which generates greater levels of noise than are normally generated by residential subdivisions. b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 15 The Noise Element of the General Plan and its accompanying Noise Guidebook (source 15) say that a "generally acceptable level of noise for residences is 60 decibels, average (60 Ldn). The guidebook estimates that at buildout, noise from Highway 227 will be reduced to 60 Ldn at a distance of 292 feet from the center of the roadway. Residences set back this far or farther from the highway will be exposed to "acceptable" noise levels. The right -of -way for Highway 227 varies in this area. It is approximately 84' adjacent to the site. Therefore, a distance of 292' will be 250' from the property line, or partway into the second residential parcel. Residence no. 1 and a portion of no. 2 (the existing house) will be affected by levels higher than 60 Ldn, in fact levels that are, according to charts in the noise guidelines, between 60 and 65 Ldn. Noise levels between 60 and 70 Ldn are "normally unacceptable ", according to the element. The site is also within an area which may be affected by airport noise. Figure 6 in the Noise Element shows projected noise contours for the theoretical capacity of the airport. The site is beyond the 60 Ldn contour, and therefore is exposed to less than 60 dB from airport operations. The incremental addition of noise from the airport to the noise from Highway 227 is insignificant. Conclusion: May be significant. The first two homes are expected to be exposed to noise levels between 60 and 65 Ldn Recommended mitigation: Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227 to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with recommendations in the Noise Element and Noise Guidelines. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X A new fire hydrant will be required on Broad Street, and the public main in El Capitan will be required to supply the required fire -flow for the proposed development. All new structures will be required to have fire sprinklers. The public distribution main on Broad Street appears adequate for the development. Conclusion: No impact. b) Police protection? X 15 51 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 the average household size is 2.48 persons. If all 13 homes are occupied, the projected population of this subdivision Significant Significant Significant Impact 650 El CapFtan subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate Issues Unless Impact d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Page 16 Mitigation X Incorporated c) Schools? 20 1 X The proposed subdivision will contain 13 single- family homes. In San Luis Obispo, according to census figures (source 17), the average household size is 2.48 persons. If all 13 homes are occupied, the projected population of this subdivision would be 13 X 2.48 = 32. Also according to census figures, approximately 13.8% of the city's population is aged seventeen or younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 32 X 13.8% = 4.45 = 4 school -age children living in this subdivision. The number may actually be slightly higher because the EISP area tends to attract young families. The school districts in this state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction and parcel acquisition. Section 65995 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that the additional 4 + children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the district's per- square -foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each home. Conclusion. Less than significant. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? I I I I I X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? I I I I I X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 1 16 1 1 1 X d) Sewer-or septic tanks? I I I I X The City's wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. However, the lift station that will be serving the development is at capacity. The sewer serving this development is tributary to the Tank Farm - Rockview lift station system. Lift station fees will be charged. Any work done to increase capacity will offset lift station fees. Participation in a project to construct a gravity sewer replacement to the lift statio system may be required in addition to or instead of the lift station fees. Conclusion. Less than significant. The project will, by ordinance, be required to contribute to the costs of increasing capacity at the lift station or in the cost of a new gravity sewer line. e) Storm water drainage? I I I I X 16 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46-96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 8 Ca P itan Issues Unless Impact Page 17 retrofitting. Currently, the City requires all development that will increase water use to obtain a water allocation. The most reliable way to obtain such an allocation is to retrofit existing plumbing fixtures inside the city limits, with the goal of Mitigation requirements.) In addition, the City has restricted the total amount of water available to annexations to 33 acre -feet. The project is expected to use 0.30 acre - feet/dwelling X 13 dwellings = 4 acre -feet of water. To obtain this water from the city's supplies, the developer will have to retrofit existing plumbing fixtures. If other annexations use all of the 33 acre -feet available for annexations Incorporated until additional resources are available or until the City Council determines that additional water will be made available for annexations. The lots will be required to drain to the street or to some other acceptable drainage point. From here it may drain to the creek on site. A hydrology study will be required to be submitted along with the tentative tract map, that reviews existing drainage patterns, predicts future runoff, and makes recommendations to avoid any danger or damage to .persons or property. Conclusion: The additional runoff from thirteen homes is not expected to have a significant effect on storm water drainage. f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water supplies? X The city's water supply is limited. Supplies available for new development are restricted and only available through retrofitting. Currently, the City requires all development that will increase water use to obtain a water allocation. The most reliable way to obtain such an allocation is to retrofit existing plumbing fixtures inside the city limits, with the goal of saving twice as much water as the new development is likely to use. (See below for possible changes to these requirements.) In addition, the City has restricted the total amount of water available to annexations to 33 acre -feet. The project is expected to use 0.30 acre - feet/dwelling X 13 dwellings = 4 acre -feet of water. To obtain this water from the city's supplies, the developer will have to retrofit existing plumbing fixtures. If other annexations use all of the 33 acre -feet available for annexations prior to application by this developer for building permit, no water allocations will be issued and no homes will be built, until additional resources are available or until the City Council determines that additional water will be made available for annexations. The City's Water & Wastewater Management Element (source 16)'projects the city's water needs at its ultimate build -out of 56,000 people. The project site is included in the anticipated build -out, because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element was adopted. The City Council initiated changes to the Water & Wastewater Element on March 13, 1996, to increase that available to annexations to approximately 260 acre -feet, which would likely accommodate the subdivision and any other annexations to the city in the near future. The changes would also allow retrofitting at a 1:1 ratio rather than the 2:1 now required. These changes have not yet been adopted, however. New water supplies are currently being sought through three projects: Reuse of treated effluent, Salinas Reservoir expansion, and the Nacimiento water supply project. These three sources are expected to yield 6,263 acre - feet /year, sufficient to serve this and other expansion projects up to the projected city build -out, plus reserve. It is unlikely that any of these projects will go online before 2001, however. Conclusion: Less than significant. The City is committed (source 16) to supplying adequate safe water for all inhabitants at its ultimate build -out of 56,000 persons. Water may not be available immediately for the proposed project, but should be by 2001. No mitigation needed. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: d) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X 17 / Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46 -96 c) Create light or glare? Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 0 Capitan Issues Unless Impact Page 18 X Mitigation b) Disturb archaeological resources? 17 Incorporated b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 17 X A cultural resources survey was made of the site. Nothing of value historically or prehistorically was found. Significant disturbance of the soil and the fact that the site is in a floodplain led the survey author to conclude that it is highly unlikely that any buried deposits will be found during construction of the project. No additional archaeological investigations were recommended. b) Disturb archaeological resources? 17 X I c) Affect historical resources? I 17 I I I I X I d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which I 17 I I I I X I would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 17 X potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Ia) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks I 18 I I I I X or other recreational facilities? The thirteen homes will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Park -in -lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space or equipment in the vicinity. These fees should be sufficient to offset the effect of the additional demand. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? I I I I I X I 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. I 18 x.22 .ssues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Annexation and Rezoning 46.96 Significant Significant Significant Impact 850 0 Capitan Issues Unless Impact Page 19 Mitigation plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? See sections 7 and 14 in this report. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? Short- and long -term goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) Incrementally, all development contributes to the degradation of air quality. The effects of development within the city's Urban Reserve Line were analyzed in the Land Use and Circulation Elements Environmental Impact Report (source 19). The analysis concluded that programs in the Circulation Element aimed at reducing emissions would result in a less than significant impact cumulatively. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project is not expected to have significant adverse effects on human beings. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: �) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. .o earlier analysis was used that was specifically related to this project. 19 4663 b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequate, analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. not applicable c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions of the project. not applicable Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 General Plan Land Use Element and map, City of San Luis Obispo, 1994 2 Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, as amended 1995 3 Edna -Islay Specific Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, adopted 1982 4 California Fish & Game Code Section 700 et seq 5 Informational Map Atlas, City of San Luis Obispo, 1975 6 City of San Luis Obispo Flood Prevention Regulations, DATE? 7 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, August 1995 8 Letter from Cannon Associates (Andrew Merriam) dated May 15, 1996, on Traffic Generation, available in project files in Community Development Department 9 Letter from the State Department of Transportation dated May 23, 1996, available in project files in Community Development Department 10 Bicycle Transportation Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, Oct. 1993 11 Airport Land Use Plan, Airport Land Use Commission, County of San Luis Obispo, 1973 12 Final Report: The Arbors at Islay hill Southwestern Pond Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland, March 1995 Javailable in the Community Development Department) 13 Open Space Element of the General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, Jan. 1994 14 Energy Conservation Element of the General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, April 1981, as amended 1982 15 Noise Element of the General Plan and Noise Guidebook, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996 16 Water & Wastewater Management Element, City of San Luis Obispo, November 1994 17 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Gearhart-Ell Capitan Annexation, San Luis Obispo County, California, Clay A. Singer, June 5, 1996 I 20 g—�Z� 18 I Resolution no. 8373 (1994 Series), restructuring Park -in -Lieu fees, adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo, November 22, 1994 19 1 Environmental Impact Report on the Land Use and Circulation Elements, Fugro - McClelland (West), Inc., I adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo 1994 1 20 I State Government Code section 65995, State of California 19. MITIGATION MEASURES /MONITORING PROGRAM —I Mitigation Measure: The access to the future bicycle - pedestrian path from El Capitan shall be a minimum of fifteen feet wide, to accommodate a sufficiently -wide pathway for both bicycles and pedestrians. Monitoring Program: The tentative subdivision map will be reviewed for compliance with this measure. 2 I Mitigation Mea r -: Noise reduction techniques shall be incorporated into the subdivision design to reduce noise exposure to the two residences closest to Highway 227 to below 60 Ldn. Techniques used shall be consistent with recommendations in the Noise Element and Noise Guidelines. The subdivision map will be reviewed for compliance with this The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above. Applicant 21 Date