HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1999, 3 - PD, TR AND ER 140-98: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF: A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND PD REZONING TO ALLOW REDUCED LOT SIZES, SETBACKS, PARKING; AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE SEVEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM ONE PARCEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EL j acEnaa izEpoizt °=3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner
t
SUBJECT: PD, TR and ER 140-98: Request forapproval of: a Planned Development and PD
rezoning to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, parking; and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to
create seven residential lots from one parcel on the south side of El Capitan Way (915 El Capitan
Way)-County File No. TR 2294.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce to print an ordinance approving a mitigated negative declaration of environmental
impact and approving, with findings and conditions, a planned development and PD
rezoning,as recommended by the Planning Commission; and
2. Adopt a resolution approving a mitigated negative declaration and approving, with findings
and conditions, a vesting tentative tract map to take effect on the effective date of the PD
rezoning, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
With annexation of the property being approved by the County Local Agency Formation
(LAFCo)and City Council, the applicant is requesting City Council action on the following: 1) a
planned development and PD rezoning to allow reduced standards for lot sizes, street yards, side
yards, and parking; 2) a vesting tentative tract map to divide one parcel into seven residential
lots; and 3) environmental review. This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on
November 18, 1998 and January 13, 1999. In reviewing the project, the Commission directed
the applicant to revise the project to reduce the number of proposed lots (from eight to seven)
and to maintain the required 20-foot creek setback. After lengthy discussion, the Planning
Commission found the revised project to be consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning
Regulations and Subdivision Regulations as well as the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (FISP). Based
on these findings, the Commission is recommending that the Council approve the project with
findings and conditions. The Council also has the option of denying the project or continuing the
project, if additional information is needed before Council can make a final decision. This staff
report explains the Planning Commission's actions and outlines the process and issues for the
City Council.
DISCUSSION
Situation
On December 17, 1998, the LAFCo approved annexation of this property, contingent upon a
protest hearing by City Council. Council held a hearing on January 19, 1999,and did not receive
3-1
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (915 El Capitan-Gearhart) -
Page 2
any formal protests to the annexation. Council is scheduled to adopt a resolution confirming that
no protests were made and directing the recordation of the annexation. Staff estimates that the
annexation will be complete in February, 1999.
As part of the annexation process, Council prezoned the site to a combination of low density
residential (R-1), medium density residential (R-2) and conservation/open space (C-OS) with a
Specific Plan overlay, consistent with the General Plan and EISP. The applicant is now asking
for approval of a PD rezoning with a planned development and a vesting tentative tract map to
divide the property into seven lots, consistent with the Planning Commission recommendations.
Data Summary
Address: 915 El Capitan
Applicant,property owner: Kelly Gearhart
Representative: Cannon Associates
Fxisting Prezoning: R-2-SP,R-1-SP and C/OS-SP-
General Plan: Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential and
Conservation Open Space.
Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
recommended by the Director November 7, 1998. ,
Project action deadline: 60 days from date City Council adopts the Negative Declaration'
Site Description
The rectangular-shaped lot is approximately 1.1 acres in size and located at the end of El Capitan
Way. The site is relatively flat, until about 10 feet from the creek, when it slopes towards the
bottom of the creek which runs along the property's easterly and southerly boundaries. The soil
underlying the site is primarily clay and with minor areas of loam. Vegetation on the site
consists primarily of weedy grasses and forbs,with a grove of eucalyptus trees at the edges of the
site and along the creek.
The site is bordered on the north by El Capitan Way, on the south and east by a small riparian
area with a seasonal stream, and on the west by a neighboring driveway. Surrounding land uses
include: 13 small-lot single family homes (Tract 2248 which was developed by the applicant) on
the north side of El Capitan Way, the abandoned Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way and single
family dwellings to the east; vacant residentially-zoned land to south, and a combination of uses
(an older single family home,commercial service types uses,and a church)to the west.
Project Description
The project involves the following:
1. environmental review;
2. a PD rezoning from R-1-SP,R-2-SP and C/OS-SP to R-2-SP-PD and C/OS-SP-PD with a
development plan to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks and parking;and
3-2
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (915 El Capitan-Gearhart)
Page 3
3. a vesting tentative tract to divide one parcel into seven lots ranging in size from 5,200 to
10,200 square feet.
The proposed project is fully described in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 6).
Planning Commission Action
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 18, 1998 and January 13,
1999. At the November 18 meeting, the Commission unanimously voted to continue this item
and directed the applicant to re-design the proposed tentative tract map and preliminary
development plan to reduce the number of proposed lots from eight to seven to comply with tlhe
City's density requirements, to minimize the need for reduced development standards for street
and side yards, and to eliminate the need for creek setback exceptions. In addition, the
Commission also asked the applicant to provide information on housing affordability (i.e., sales
price information), creek maintenance and drainage. In response to the Commission's direction,
the tentative tract map and development plan were revised to reduce the number of lots and
eliminate the need for a density increase, creek setback exceptions.and most of the reduced
property development standards.
On January 13, 1999,the City Planning Commission voted four to none(Commissioner Whittlesey
was absent and two seats were vacant)to recommend that the City Council approve the mitigated
negative declaration and approve the tentative tract map and PD rezoning with findings and
conditions. Attachment 4 is a copy of the Planning Commission Resolution. A copy of the
Planning Commission minutes are included as Attachment 5.
Evaluation
The following paragraphs explain the Planning Commission's action, based on staff report and
public testimony received at the public hearings.
A. Environmental Review
On November 7, 1998, the Community Development Director determined that the project would
qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact. The Community
Development Department prepared an initial study (IS)of the project on November 8, 1998. The
IS addressed potentially significant,but mitigable, impacts to geologic hazards (seismic hazards
and soils), drainage, biological resources, solid waste and cultural resources. Impacts to_other
environmental areas were determined to be less than significant. The IS and DirwtoPs
determination were published in the Telegram-Tribune and made available for public review and
comment at the Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street. CEQA requires that the
environmental document be available for review a minimum of 20 days prior to final action on the
project(to be taken by City Council).
3-3
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (915 El Capitan-Gearhart)
Page 4
At its November 18 meeting,the Planning Commission took public testimony and directed staff to
modify the initial study. On January 13, 1999,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that
the City Council adopt the revised mitigated negative declaration. A copy of the initial
environmental study is attached to the Planning Commission staff report(Attachment 6).
B. Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan
Pursuant to City Zoning Regulations, PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a
specific project and must be approved by the City Council. Zoning Regulations state: "If the
Council approves the preliminary development plan, the Council shall approve the rezoning.to
indicate approval of the planned development and the official zoning map will be amended."
The PD zone overlay is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of the
site. It must provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could
not be provided under conventional zoning. These "benefits" are a component of the required
findings the Council must make to approve the PD rezoning.
Under an approved development plan, property development standards such as lot size and
configuration, yards, height, coverage and parking may be specified for a project without
conformance to the standards of the underlying zones. The applicant is requesting establishment of
site-specific development standards for: street yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, lot area and
dimensions (width, depth and street frontage), lot depth-width relationship and parking. These
items are discussed below. A copy of the preliminary development plan is included in the Planning
Commission staff report(Attachment 6).
Proposed Property Development Standards
Following is a brief discussion of the site-specific property development standards proposed with
the development plan,and the Planning Commission's comments and actions.
1. Street Yards:Because the creek limits the developable area of the proposed lots,the applicant is
proposing to reduce the street yards with the intent of concentrating the buildings near the street
away from the creek. As designed,street yards(front yards)would be a minimum of 14 feet,
with the front porch varying from 5 to 12 feet in width. A 20-foot street yard is typically
required in the R-2 zone. The Planning Commission felt that reduced street yards are needed to
maintain the required 20-foot creek setback,and that the location of the porches along with the
varied street yards will provide relief to the street frontage and enhance the neighborhood's
appearance.
2. Side Yards: Under City Zoning Regulations,a seven-foot wide side yard is required for the
proposed two-story dwelling units. The development plan generally shows a seven-foot side
yard and a minimum of 18 feet between buildings. The only exception is the side yard for Lot
#7 where a five-foot setback is proposed. The Planning Commission felt that the project
3.4
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (915 El Capitan-Gearhart)
Page 5
complies with the R-2 zone side yard requirements,and that a reduced side yard was acceptable
for Lot#7 which abuts the existing open parcel established as part of Tract 2248.
3. Parking: In the R-2 zone, two-bedroom dwellings have a parking requirement of two spaces
and three-bedroom dwellings a parking requirement of three spaces. Developments with more
than five dwellings are required to provide one additional space for every five units, assuming
that the additional spaces would be provided on-site. Using current City parking standards,if
the project were a conventional seven-unit (four 2-bedroom and three 3-bedroom units)
condominium project, it would have a parking requirement of 18 spaces. However, since the
proposal is to develop the site with single-family detached homes,the applicant is propoking to
reduce the project's parking requirement from 18 spaces to 14 spaces (two spaces per unit)
under the development plan,and recognizing that on-street parking will be provided
The Planning Commission felt that given that the applicant is proposing single family detached
dwellings rather than condominiums or apartments, a modified parking requirement of two
spaces per dwelling is justified. There was, however, some concern that the lack of on-street
parking opportunities,largely due to the narrow lots,driveway placement and the red curb("no
parking')on the cul-de-sac,would cause some of the occupants and their guests to park along
other portions of El Capitan leading to parking problems in the immediate neighborhood--lt'.is
staffs understanding that the Fire Department has indicated that it would not have a problem
with removing a portion of the red curb on El Capitan Way. The Planning Commission
encouraged the applicant to pursue having the red curb removed for the cul-de-sac. The
applicant has contactedthe City's Public Works and Fire Departments to initiate this process.
As shown on the development plan,the proposal is to have a one-car garage and an unenclosed
parking space within the side yards of the lots. In its review of the preliminary development
plan,the ARC felt that the unenclosed parking spaces could adversely impact the streetscape's
appearance,due to increased impervious surfaces,and directed the applicant to use alternative
paving material such as borders or trims of brick or tile along with the traditional -paving
surface. The applicant was also encouraged to consider installing mow strip driveways into the
primary garage consistent with the residential development on the north side of El Capitan
Way.
4. Minimum Lot Area and Dimensions: Pursuant to City Subdivision Regulations,the minimum
lot area in the R-2 zone is 6,000 square feet,the minimum lot width is 60 feet,the minimum lot
depth is 90 feet and the minimum street frontage is 30 feet. However, City Subdivision
Regulations state that "Lots approved in conjunction with a development plan as provLded in
the Zoning Regulations may have any shape or size consistent with the structur6s-And
improvements shown on the development plan." The development plan shows lot sizes range
from approximately 5,200 sq.ft. to 10,200 sq.ft. with an average lot size of 6,075 sq.fL The
width of the lots range from 42 feet to about 75 feet and street frontages range from 15.8 to 43.5
feet.
3-5
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (915 El Capitan-Gearhart)
Page 6
The Planning Commission found the proposed lots to be consistent with the lots on the north
side of EI Capitan Way(Tract 2248),which range in size from 5,100 to 8,600 sq.8.
5. Lot Depth - Width Relationship: The proposed lots exceed the 3:1 depth-to-width ratio as
required in the City's Subdivision Regulations. Given that the location of the creek and street
makes the usable portion of the property shallow and eliminates the possibility of any further
subdivision of the property,the Planning Commission felt that the project meets the intent of
the lot depth-widthrelationshiprequirement.
6. Landscaping. Project landscaping consists of small lawns, with shrubs on the perimeter apd
against the houses,and street trees. The developer will install landscaping in the front and'side
yards,and the individual homeowner's would install landscaping in the rear yards.Although no
trees are proposed for removal,the City Arborist will need to examine the trees and determine if
the trees require safety pruning.The Commission's concerns with landscaping were the amount
of front yard landscaping and the transition of plant materials from the rear yards to the creek.A
formal landscape plan is required to be submitted with the final development plan.
7. Fencing.The applicant is proposing to provide fencing along the side property lines. Rear yard
fencing along the creek is not proposed as part of the project Staff originally recommended
that the developer install fencing at the top of the creek to discourage future residents from
intruding into the creek. The Planning Commission did not feel that fencing was needed, and
that future homeowners would not want to pay for maintaining a creek to which they had no
access. Moreover, the Commission felt that keeping the creek open to the residents would
enhance their properties and encourage them to take responsibility for its upkeep.
Planned Development Findings
City Zoning Regulations state that to approve a planned development,the Planning Commission
and City Council must find that it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group(such as the elderly
or families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning;
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental
sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard;
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development;
4.Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards(privacy,usable
open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as
well as or better than the standards themselves;
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials,energy or water than
conventional development;
3-6
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (915 El Capitan-Gearhart)
Page 7
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space,
landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
At the Planning Commission meetings, there was extensive discussion as to whether the project
meets one or more of the required PD findings. After much discussion and several modifications to
the project,the Planning Commission was able to make two findings(nos. 2 and 6). The project
transfers the allowable development from the area on the south side of the creek, designates this
area as conservation/open space (in addition to the creek) and establishes a creek/open space
easement The Commission also felt that the project provides exceptional public benefits such as
open space and more affordable single family detached housing that would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
C. Subdivision Map Review
Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to development in substantial
compliance with the ordinances,policies and standards in effect when the application is determined
complete and accepted for processing. The Planning Commission reviewed the tract map for
consistency with the development plan, including the proposed reduced development standards,
and compliance with the City's Subdivision Regulations.City Subdivision Regulations require that
the layout of streets and lots within a subdivision be consistent with the densities and types of uses
authorized by the General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning Regulations. Other items reviewed as
part of the subdivision process included ownership and maintenance of the creek/open space area
and drainage.
1. Planned Development Consistency: The PD includes proposals for narrower lots than are
normally allowed, greater depth-to-width ratio than is normally allowed, smaller street yards
than normally allowed, and reduced parking standards. The PD also transfers density from
the rear portion of the lot (proposed to go to open space)to the individual lots. The Planning
Commission found the tentative tract map to be consistent with the proposed development
plan.
2. General Plan Consistency: The site has a maximum allowable density of 8.55 equivalent
units and is proposing 8.5 equivalent units (3 three-bedroom and 4 two-bedroom units).
Consistent with the existing residential development in the immediate area, the applicant is
proposing to construct single-family detached dwellings. In addition to the existing seasonal
creek, the project will provide additional open space and an open space easement for
creeklopen space protection and maintenance. The Planning Commission found the project
to be consistent with City's General Plan.
3. Specific Plan Consistency: The site is identified as part of the Secondary Planning Area in
the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP) which was adopted by the City Council in 1982. The
EISP designates the site as Medium-Density Residential and Conservation Open Space. The
proposed street and pedestrian improvements are consistent with the circulation design
3-7
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (915 El Capitan- Gearhart)
Page 8
shown in the EISP. In addition, the project follows the creek preservation policies of the
Specific Plan. Based on these reasons, the Planning Commission found that the tentative tract
map and developmentplan to be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
4. Ownership and Maintenance of the Creek/Open Space Area: The applicant is proposing to
place an open space easement over the existing creek and open space area, south of the creek,
of each lot. It should be noted the creek will remain in its existing condition.
Staffs original proposal was to have the creek/open space area be maintained by a
homeowner's association (HOA) with the provision that the City have review authority over
creek management/maintenance. The Planning Commission felt that the creek/open space
should remain under private ownership, and maintenance responsibilities should go to the
individual lot owner as part of a creek/open space maintenance agreement to be recorded
with the final subdivision map.
5. Drainage: Project drainage will flow into the street and into an existing detention basin on
the commercial property at Broad Street and El Capitan Way. This property is owned by the
applicant,who has a responsibility to maintain the basin pursuant to an easement agreement.
City Engineering has questioned whether the existing basin has the capacity to handle
drainage from the project, or if the basin can be modified to accommodate the project's
drainage. If the existing basin cannot accommodate the project's drainage, an onsite
detention basin will be required. However, a preliminary analysis of the basin, by the project
engineer, confirms that project drainage can be accommodated by the existing basin.
Drainage calculations must be verified by City Engineering prior to final map approval.
Subdivision Findinzs
City Subdivision Regulations require that the layout of streets and lots within a subdivision be
consistent with the densities and types of uses authorized by the.General Plan, specific plan and
zoning. They also require that a subdivision's design be suitable for the site given its physical
condition,including slope,soil types,and adjacent land use.
The Planning Commission felt that the required subdivision findings could be made for the
proposed tentative tract map. The Commission found that: 1) the design of the tentative map
and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan and the EISP; 2) the site is
physically suited for the type and density of development proposed with the tentative tract map;
3) the subdivision design 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; and 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.
In addition, the Commission found that the potential environmental impacts are adequately
addressed in the initial environmental study/negative declaration.
3-8
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (915 El Capitan- Gearhart)
Page 9
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
Fiscal impacts would be limited to costs to maintain public improvements. Maintenance of the
creek/open space area will be the responsibility of the individual property owners as the City will
not own the property, but will have the authority to oversee and maintain (if it is not being
properly maintained) this area at the owner's expense pursuant to a required recorded
maintenance agreement.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may approve the PD rezoning,preliminary development plan and tentative tract
map,with changed conditions.
2. The Council may deny the PD rezoning, preliminary development and subdivision if it finds
them to be inconsistent with the general plan.
3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should
be given to staff and the applicant.
Attachments
1. Draft Ordinance of Approval- PD Rezone
2. Draft Resolution of Approval-Environmental and Subdivision
3. Draft Resolution of Denial
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5246-99
5. Draft Minutes of January 13, 1999 Planning Commission hearing
6. Planning Commission Staff Report of January 13, 1998.
3-9
M 1AUHMENT I
ORDINANCE NO. (1999 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO
DESIGNATE A 1.1-ACRE SITE,ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
EL CAPITAN WAY,MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL-
SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE-
SPECIFIC PLAN WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY(R-2-SP-PD AND C/OS-SP-PD) PD-140-98
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on November 18,
1998 and January 13, 1999, and recommended approval of amendments to the City's Zoning
Map;and
WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on, February 16, 1999 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 revisions are consistent with the
General Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations,and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed map amendment to the Zoning Regulations, and reflects the independent judgement of
the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and
incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project:
1. A detailed soils engineering report shall be submitted as part of the grading and
building permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the
nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and
recommendations for grading procedures including such recommendations to ensure
that there are no significant impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective
3-10
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed in
compliance with the soils engineering report.
2. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on
adjacent and downstream properties is 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.
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-year 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 to be
subject to flooding during a 100-year storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad
elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-year storm elevation. All areas subject to
flooding shall be documented.
3. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis .
Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
4. The findings and recommendations of the May 1998 biological survey shall. be
incorporated into the final project design and construction.
5. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction
site. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development
Director prior to building permit issuance.
6. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
7. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270,all graded surfaces shall be wetted,
protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining
property or street The following measures shall constitute the project's dust
management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's
constriction:
a) Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete
coverage of all active areas);
b) Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c) Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d) Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported on-site or
off-site;
3-11
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of El Capitan Way in the
vicinity of the construction site.
SECTION 2. The Zoning Regulations map amendment(PD 140-98)designating a 0.84-
portion of the property to R-2-SP-PD and C/OS-SP-PD on the remaining 0.26-acre portion, as
shown on the attached Exhibit"A", is hereby approved based on the following findings:
1. The PD rezoning and development plan transfers allowable development,within a site,
from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or
hazard; and
2. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as open space and more
affordable single family detached-housing that would not be feasible under conventional
development standards.
SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations map amendment (PD 140-98) is hereby approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The unenclosed parking spaces shall be constructed of an alternative paving material,
to be approved by the Community Development Director. Alternative paving
materials include, but are not limited to: decomposed granite, eco-block, interlocking
pavers, cobblestone or other material determined to be of equivalent performance,
strength,quality and durability as concrete.
2. The buildings on lots 1 through 3 shall be moved back to the creek setback limit line to
allow the largest possible front yard setback.
3. The applicant shall submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan for
considerationwith final review and approval of the developmentplan.
4. All on-site driveways, nonstructural parking improvements, and utilities shall be
installed as subdivision improvements.
5. All units shall be numbered in accordance with an addressing plan approved by the
Community Development Director.
6. All garages shall be equipped with roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door
openers.
3-12
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 4
7. All development shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
Public Right-of-Way
8. 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.
Water,Sewer and Utilities
9. 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
shall be required to pay all applicable water and sewer impact fees.
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. Each lot shall be served with separate water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable
TV services in accordance with City standards.
Grading and 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, Tract 2248.
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
3-13
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 5
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. Additional storm water run-off, as a direct result of development of each lot, shall be
evaluated by a registered civil engineer and appropriate mitigation (detention
facilities) designed into the project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. Maintenance responsibilities of detention facilities shall also be addressed,
particularly if an existing off-site detention basin is used.
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.
Trees
16. Some trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist to the satisfaction of
the City Arborist.
Creek and Open Space
17. The subdivider shall dedicate an easement over the creek,open space area and drainage
basin(if required)for access and maintenance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
18.The subdivider shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be
recorded with the County Recorder for each lot in a form approved by the City
Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to final map approval. The
agreement shall include the following provisions:
a) Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space
area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b) Grant to the city the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the
individual lot owner fails to perform, and to assess the lot owner for expenses
incurred,and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to
assure conditions of the agreement and final map are being met.
3-14
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 6
19. The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the individual lot owner in
accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by
the City.
20. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall grant an open space
easement to the City of San Luis Obispo with the provision that the individual lot
owner will have maintenance responsibilities and.the City will have review authority
over management/maintenance of the creek and open space area.
Mapping and Miscellaneous Requirements
21. 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.
22. 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...).
23. 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.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five(5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Telegram-Tribune,a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall
go into effect at the expiration of thirty(30) days after its final passage.
3-15
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 7
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the 16th day of February, 1999,on a motion of
seconded by ,and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(�)4111*1(11e
i �t ttor� y J� Jor sen
3-16
Exhibit A
PD 140-98
u
olnseft�a St.
C/OS to
C/OS-SP-PD
R-2-SP to
R-2-SP-PD
ay
Gap R-1-SP to
C/OS-SP-PD
417
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 4,a ACHMENT t
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
FOR A SEVEN-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF EL CAPITAN WAY 1915 EL CAPTTAN WAY].
(TR-140-98; County file no.TR 2298)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on November 18,
1998 and January 13, 1999, and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 140-98;
and
WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 16, 1999 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 subdivision is consistent with the General
Plan, the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, the Zoning Regulations, Planned Development 140-98 and
other applicable City ordinances;and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated 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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of
the proposed tentative tract map, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council.
The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following
mitigation measures into the project:
1. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and
building permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the
nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and
recommendations for grading procedures including such recommendations to ensure
that there are no significant impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective
measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and performed
in compliance with the soils engineering report.
3-18
Resolution no. (15 aeries)
Tract 140-98 (915 El Capitan)
Page 2
2. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on
adjacent and downstream properties is 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.
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-year 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 to be
subject to flooding during a 100-year storm shall be graded to provide minimum
pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-year storm elevation. All areas
subject to flooding shall be documented.
3. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis
Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
4. The findings and recommendations of the May 1998 biological survey shall be
incorporated into the final project design and construction.
5. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction
site. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development
Director prior to building permit issuance.
6. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
7. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any
adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust
management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's
construction:
a) Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete
coverage of all active areas);
b) Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c) Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d) Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported on-site
or off-site;
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of El Capitan Way in the
vicinity of the construction site.
3-19
Resolution no. (1 Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 El Capitan)
Page 3
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 140-98, 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 R-
2-SP-PD and C/OS-SP-PD 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 November 6, 1998 and .modified by the Planning
Commission on November 18, 1998, adequately addresses the potential
environmental impacts associated with the subdivision map and establishes measures
to mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance.
SECTION 3. The vesting tentative map for Tract 140-98 (County File no.Tract 2298) is
approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
i. The unenclosed parking spaces shall be constructed of an alternative paving
material, to be approved by the Community Development Director. Alternative
paving materials include, but are not limited to: decomposed granite, eco-block,
interlocking pavers, cobblestone or other material determined to be of equivalent
performance,strength,quality and durability as concrete.
2. The buildings on lots 1 through 3 shall be moved back to the creek setback limit line
to allow the largest possible front yard setback.
3. The applicant shall submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan for
consideration with final review and approval of the development plan.
4. All on-site driveways, nonstructural parking improvements, and utilities shall be
installed as subdivision improvements.
5. All units shall be numbered in accordance with an addressing plan approved by the
Community Development Director.
6. All garages shall be equipped with roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door
openers-
3-20
Resolution no. (19 eries)
Tract 140-98 (915 El Capitan)
Page 4
7. All development shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
Public Right-of--Way
8. The subdivider shall dedicate a 1.8m [=6 ft.] wide public utility easement and 31n
[=10 ft.] wide street tree easement along all public street frontages, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Water, Sewer and Utilities
9. 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.
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.Each lot shall be served with separate water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and
cable TV services in accordance with City standards.
Grading and 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, Tract 2248.
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.
3-21
Resolution no. (I Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 El Capitan)
Page 5
13.Additional storm water run-off, as a direct result of development of each lot, shall
be evaluated by a registered civil engineer and appropriate mitigation (detention
facilities) designed into the project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. Maintenance responsibilities of detention facilities shall also be addressed,
particularly if an existing off-site detention basin is used.
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.
Trees
16..Some trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist to the satisfaction of
the City Arborist.
Creek and Open Space
17.The subdivider shall dedicate an easement over the creek, open space area and
drainage basin (if required)for access and maintenance to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
18.The subdivider shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to be
recorded with the County Recorder for each lot in a form approved by the City
Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to final map approval.
The agreement shall include the following provisions:
a) Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space
area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b) Grant to the city the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the
individual lot owner fails to perform, and to assess the lot owner for expenses
incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times
to assure conditions of the agreement and final map are being met.
19.The creek/open space area shall be maintained by the individual lot owner in
accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved by
the City.
20.Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall grant an open space
easement to the City of San Luis Obispo with the provision that the individual lot
owner will have maintenance responsibilities and the City will have review
3-22
Resolution no. (19 :� --eries)
Tract 140-98 (915 El Capii�n)
Page 6
authority over management/maintenance of the creek and open space area.
Mapping and Miscellaneous Requirements
21.All boundary monuments, lot comers 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 Formai, DXF) for
Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City
Engineer.
22. 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. .).
23. 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.
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.
C. 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. The number of trees is
determined by one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage.
D. EPA Requirement. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit are
required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity
where clearing,grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more
acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger
common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required
until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction
Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must
submit a completed"Notice of Intent"(NOI) form,with the appropriate fee,to the
State Water Board-
3-23
Resolution no. ( ;- ' Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 El Capitan)
Page 7
SECTION 4. Effective Date: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 140-98 (County file no. TR
2294)shall take effect on the effective date of the PD rezoning.
On motion of ,seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16th day of February,1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
lit,0"
Jer Jor nsen
3-24
ATICHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND THE VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
AT 915 EL CAPITAN WAY,EAST OF BROAD STREET.
(PD-,TR-140-98; County file no.Tr 2298)
WHEREAS, the Planning commission conducted a public hearings on November 18,
1998 and January 13, 1999, and recommended approval of PD Rezoning and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 140-98; and
WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 16, 1999 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 PD rezoning and subdivision are
not consistent with the General Plan,Zoning Regulations,the Edna-Islay Specific Plan,and other
applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact 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 Planned Development
Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 140-98, and the Planning Commission's
recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
3-25
Resolution no. (1997 Series)
Tract 138-96(County file no. TR 2248) `
850 El Capitan
Page 2
ti
SECTION 2. DeniaL Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
140-98 (County File no. Tract 2298)are hereby denied.
On motion of ,seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 11997.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen
3-26
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 6246-99
TTACHMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on January 13, 1999, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ER, PD and TR 140-98, Kelly Gearhart, applicant.
REQUEST REVIEWED:
Request to allow a residential subdivision creating seven lots from one parcel; request
for planned development rezoning (C/OS-SP-PD and R-2-SP-PD) that will allow
reduced property development standards (lot sizes, setbacks and parking); and
environmental review.
GENERAL LOCATION:
915 El Capital Way
WHEREAS, said Commission as a result of its inspections, investigations, and
studies made by itself, and in behalf of testimonies offered at said hearing has
established existence of the following circumstances.and recommends the following:
A. City . Council adoption of the amended mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact report, ER 140-98.
B. City Council approval of the PD rezoning and development plan, allowing reduced
lot sizes, street yards, side yards (for Lot 7), and parking based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The PD rezoning and development plan transfers allowable development, within a
site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less
sensitivity or hazard; and
2. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as open space and
more affordable single family detached housing that would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
3-27
Resolution No. 5246-99
ER, PD and TR 140-98
Page 2
C. City Council approval of the vesting tentative tract map, with modifications, based on
the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findin s
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the
general plan and with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
R-2-SP-PD and C/OS-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 November 6, 1998 and modified by the Planning
Commission on November 18, 1998, adequately addresses the potential
environmental impacts associated with the subdivision map and establishes
measures to mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance.
Conditions
1. The .unenclosed parking spaces shall be constructed of an alternative paving
material, to be approved by the Community Development Department. Alternative
paving materials include, but are not limited to: decomposed granite, eco-block,
interlocking pavers, cobblestone or other material determined to be of equivalent
performance,strength,quality and durability as concrete.
2. The buildings on lots 1 through 3 shall be moved back to the creek setback limit line to
allow the largest possible front yard setback.
3. The applicant shall submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan for final
review and approval of the development plan.
4. All on-site driveways, nonstructural parking improvements, and utilities shall be
installed as subdivision improvements.
5. Subdivider shall dedicate an easement over the creek, open space area and drainage
basin (if required)for access and maintenance to the satisfaction of the City Elin.
Resolution No. 5246-99
ER, PD and TR 140-98
Page 3
6. The subdivider shall prepare a creek preservation and maintenance agreement to
be recorded with the County Recorder for each lot in a form approved by the City
Attorney and the Community Development Director prior to final map approval. The
agreement shall include the following provisions:
a. Provide for professional, perpetual maintenance of the creek and open
space area to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
b. Grant to the city the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the
individual lot owner fails to perform, and to assess the lot owner for
expenses incurred, and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually
agreed times to assure conditions of the agreement and final map are being
met.
7. All units shall be numbered in accordance with an addressing plan approved by the
Community Development Department.
8. All garages shall be equipped with roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door
openers.
Environmental Mitigation
9. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and
building permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the
nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and
recommendations for grading procedures including such recommendations to
ensure that there are no significant impacts to the creek, and design criteria for
corrective measures, when necessary. Grading and building must be designed and
performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
10. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on
adjacent and downstream properties is 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.
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-year 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 to be subject
to flooding during a 100-year storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad
elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-year storm elevation. All areas subject to
flooding shall be documented. 3-29
Resolution No. 5246-99
ER, PD and TR 140-98
Page 4
11. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis
Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
12. The findings and recommendations of the May 1998 biological survey shall be
incorporated into the final project design and construction.
13. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction
site. The plans must be submitted for approval by the Community Development
Director prior to building permit issuance.
14. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
15. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be
wetted, protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any
adjoining property or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's
dust management plan and shall remain in effect during all phases of that project's
construction:
a) Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete
coverage of all active areas);
b) Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c) Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d) Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported on-site
or off-site;
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of EI Capitan Way in the
vicinity of the construction site.
Public Right-of-Way
16. All development shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
17. 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.
Water, Sewer & Utilities
18. 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; u�r
Resolution No. 5246-99
ER, PD and TR 140-98
Page 5
system and shall be required to pay all applicable water and sewer impact fees.
19. 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.
20. Each lot shall be served with separate water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and
cable TV services in accordance with City standards.
Grading & Drainage
21. 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, Tract 2248.
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.
22. Additional storm water run-off, as a direct result of development of each lot, shall be
evaluated by a registered civil engineer and appropriate mitigation (detention
facilities) designed into the project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. Maintenance responsibilities of detention facilities shall also be addressed,
particularly if an existing off-site detention basin is used.
23. 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.
3-31
Resolution No. 5246-99
ER, PD and TR 140-98
Page 6
Traffic
24.Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
Trees
25. Some trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist to the satisfaction of
the City Arborist.
Mapping and Miscellaneous Requirements
26. All boundary monuments, lot comers 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.
27. 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...).
28. 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.
Open space
29. The creek and open space area shall be maintained by the individual lot owner in
accordance with the creek preservation and maintenance agreement as approved
by the City.
30. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall grant an open space
easement to the City of San Luis Obispo with the provision that the individual lot
owner will have maintenance responsibilities and the City will have review authority
over managementimaintenance of the creek and open space area.
3-32
Resolution No. 5246-99
ER, PD and TR 140-98
Page 7
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.
C. 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. The number of trees is
determined by one tree per 35 linear feet.of street frontage.
D. EPA Requirement. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit are required
for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing,
grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm
water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan
of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the
construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit,
the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed
"Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board.
3-33
Draft Minutes
January 13, 1999 ATTAtHMENT 5
Page 3
nt of the complex. After signing the lease, she found out the landlord w not
the ner and the property owner didn't know the site was being su eased.
This to n suits her business needs and other tenants are supportiv .
Chairman Senn sked if Ms. Witbeck understands the tempora permit is for
one year only.
Ms. Witbeck said she is no mfortable with this situatio , but understands this
is the only way she can operate r business at this to ion. She cannot afford
to relocate.
Commissioner Cooper asked if employees wi off-site.
Ms. Witbeck replied she has no employees d custo will park in one of the
four assigned spaces.
Seeing no further speakers come rward, the public comment s ion was
closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Jeff-rev ved to uphold the appeal, approving a temporary use
permit to allow a Dersdinal services establishment in the C-S-S Zone based on
findings and subie to conditions as presented in the staff report. The motion
was seconded bwtommissioner Coo er.
AYES: Commissioners Jeffrey, Cooper, Ready, and Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REF N: None
AB NT: Commissioner Whittlesey
e motion carried 40. There are two vacant seats.
2. 915 EI Capitan Way: Request to allow a residential subdivision creating
seven lots from one parcel; request for planned development rezoning (R-2-SP-
PD) that will allow reduced lot sizes; and environmental review; Kelly Gearhart,
applicantisubdivider.
John Shoals presented the staff report recommending the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council (1) adopt the mitigated negative declaration; (2)
approve, with modifications, the planned development and PD rezoning allowing
reduced lot sizes, setbacks, and parking; and (3) approve the vesting tentative
tract map, with findings and subject to conditions.
3-34
Draft Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 4
Chairman Senn asked if there are any outstanding issues with the applicant.
John Shoals replied there were not. He noted that the applicant has submitted a
soils report, conducted an archaeological search and found nothing sensitive on
site, and has given a preliminary accounting of drainage calculations, which has
been forwarded to engineering.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked for comment on the encouragement of
neighborhood wellness and the suggestion of sidewalks to porches versus to
driveways.
John Shoals stated that, as currently designed, there are driveways to front
porch connections. Porches are an amenity that will help establish the
neighborhood; however, there is no connection from house entries/porches to
public sidewalks. This is similar to the subdivision on the north side of El
Capitan.
Commissioner Jeffrey noted front yards are smaller than normal and there was a
previous concern with providing alternatives to paving/concrete. He asked for
comment on the public easement into the open space proposal.
John Shoals stated the intent of the easement is for maintenance and possible
ownership. The owner would be responsible for maintaining the creek and open
space, and the City would be able to review the maintenance.
Commissioner Cooper asked if residences on Lots 5 and 6 were redesigned.
John Shoals replied yes.
Ron Whisenand believes these proposals will have to go back to the ARC for
changes, but staff will wait until Council takes action.
Commissioner Cooper asked if the originally proposed fencing was removed.
John Shoals replied yes.
Commissioner Ready suggested (1) replacing "contain" with "include" on the
revised Condition #7, Paragraph 1, last sentence, of Attorney Trujillo's suggested
changes presented during the staff report and (2) including recommendations to
Environmental Mitigation #10, that there are no significant impacts on the creek.
Ron Whisenand noted the "no significant impact" suggestion would included
changing the Initial Study text on Page 7, Mitigation Measure 1; Page 16, #19;
and Condition of Approval #10, Page 10 of the Staff Report.
3-35
Draft Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 5
There were no comments/questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Doug Davidson, applicant's representative, reviewed project changes that were
made to address the Commission's previous concerns and stated they are in
agreement with the recommended revised conditions. Seven lots are now
proposed, all meeting the 20' creek setback, and more space is provided
between units. They are proposing three three-bedroom units and four two-
bedroom units. A density bonus is not required. They feel pushing the garage
back would interfere with maintaining the creek setback. The porch extends
beyond the garage closer to the street, so in effect with the porches, the
structures are setback. They have updated the biology report, submitted an
archaeological report, a soils geotechnical report, a preliminary drainage
analysis, and welcome the draft agreement for open space preservation. They
have provided evidence they have researched the requirement for the red curb
and real estate sales price information. They would like more than the minimum
number of findings to be made and now believe with the revisions that Findings
A, D, and F can now be made.
Commissioner Jeffrey stated the issue of the front yard setback was addressed
only in terms of was there sufficient room to park a vehicle in front of the
driveway without impeding sidewalk traffic and it only looks like this comes into
play on Lot 2.
Ron Whisenand stated the front yard setbacks on Lots 2 and 3 be increased 3'-
5' by moving the structure back to the edge of the 20' creek setback.
Commissioner Cooper would like to see front yard setbacks on Lots 1, 2, and 3
increased.
Mr. Davidson doesn't have any objection to this suggestion. Structures on Lots
1, 2, ad 3 will be moved back to the edge of the 20' creek setback.
Commissioner Cooper asked for staff comment on the applicant's suggestion of
making more than one finding.
Ron Whisenand felt that making more than one finding may help the project
move forward when it goes before the City Council.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was
closed.
3-36
Draft Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 6
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Ready made a motion for the Commission to recommend that
City Council (1) adopt the mitigated negative declaration: (2) approve. with
modifications, the planned development and PD rezoning allowing reduced lot
sizes, setbacks, and parking: and (3) approve the vesting tentative tract map,
with findings and subject to conditions as stated by staff, with the modifications
that (a) buildings on Lots 1. 2. and 3 can be moved back to the edge of the creek
setback line to allow for as large as possible front yard setbacks. (b) that new
conditions proposed by the City Attorney be modified with respect to new
Condition 7 that the list of provisions follow a sentence to reflect that the
agreement shall include the following provisions. (c) that references to creek
impacts as previously identified by staff be amended to incorporated the words
"significant imnaci . (d) and with respect to Condition 7A regarding perpetual
maintenance of the creek, strike the words "in a first-class condition" and
substitute "to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Managers. (e) delete
Condition 2, Page 11. and (f) Finding B. Page 10, to follow within the provisions
of the criteria identified as #6 in the Ordinance 17.620.40 indicate that the
proposed project provides exceptional public benefits with respect to the creek
and creek maintenance agreement which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Jeffrey.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Jeffrey, Cooper, and Chairman Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Whittlesey
The motion carried 4-0. There are two vacant seats.
3. Comment and Discussion:
A. Staff-Agenda Forecast:
Jan. 27, 1999 — Setback denial appeal and Margarita Area annexation/prezoning
Feb. 10, 1999 —Acacia Creek project and MU Zone - Laurel Lane.
Feb. 24, 1999 —Workshop, 6:00 p.m.
B. Commission:
Chairman Senn distributed an update on recent Council actions and reported
Councilmembers Ewan and Marx have been assigned as Planning Commission
3-37
Draft Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 7
liaisons and 22 applications have been received to fill the Commission
vacancies. By consensus, Commissioner Whittlesey was chosen to attend the
Mayor's quarterly meeting in place of Chairman Senn on January 14, 1999, at
11:30 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:20
p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for January 27, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber, 990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
3-38
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ATTACH MEN7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM# 2
BY: John Shoals,Associate Planner MEETING DATE: January 13, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: ER,PD and TR 140-98
PROJECT ADDRESS: 915 El Capitan
SUBJECT: Request for approval of a vesting tentative tract map to divide one parcel into seven
lots; a planned development and PD rezoning to allow reduced lot sizes, setbacks, parking; and
environmental review.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) adopt the mitigated negative
declaration; 2) approve, with modifications, the planned development and PD rezoning allowing
reduced lot sizes, setbacks, and parking; and 3) approve the vesting tentative tract map, with
findings and subject to conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 18, 1998. At that
meeting, the Commission unanimously voted to continue this item and directed the applicant to
re-design the proposed tentative map and preliminary development plan to reduce the number of
proposed lots to minimize the need for reduced development standards for street yards, side
yards and creek setback exceptions. In addition, the Commission also asked the applicant to
provide information on housing affordability (i.e., sales price information), creek maintenance
and drainage. Attachment 1 is a copy of the minutes of the November 18 meeting.
In response to the Commission's direction, the following changes have been made to the
tentative map and development plan:
1. The number of proposed lots was reduced from eight to seven;
2. The number of proposed dwelling units were reduced to comply with the maximum
allowable density in the R-2 zone, thereby eliminating the request for a density increase.
The project consists of a maximum allowable density of 8.5 equivalent units consisting of
3 three-bedroom and 4 two-bedroom units.
3. With the elimination of one lot and the revisions to the home designs for Lots 5 and 6, all
of the proposed residential units comply with the required 20-foot creek setback_ No
exception to the creek setback is requested.
3-39
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 2
4. With the exception of one lot (Lot 7), the proposed residential units comply with the
required 7-foot side yard setback. Lot 7, which adjoins an existing open space area, is
proposing a 5-foot setback.
The applicant has also submitted a draft open space preservation/maintenance agreement for the
creek/open space area, and an archaeological report which concludes that no historic material
exists on the site. Specific project revisions are documented in a letter from Cannon Associates,
Inc. (Attachment 5).
On December 17, 1998, the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCo) approved annexation of the property, contingent upon a protest hearing by City
Council tentatively scheduled for January 19, 1999.
Project Data Summary
Address: 915 El Capitan
Applicant/property owner: Kelly Gearhart
Representative: Cannon Associates
Existing Prezoning: R-2-SP, R-1-SP and C/OS-SP. Zoning will become effective upon the
final approval of the annexation.
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential, Single Family Residential and Conservation Open
Space.
Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended
by the Director November 7, 1998.
Project action deadline: 60 days from date of adoption of the Negative Declaration. City
Council is expected to take final action on the Negative Declaration in December 1998, or
January 1999 once LAFCo approves the annexation.
Proiect Description
The proposed project involves the following permit applications:
1. a negative declarationwith mitigation measures(Attachment 5);
2. a development plan to establish property development standards specific to the project
(Attachment 3); and planned development rezoning to change the property's zoning from R-2-
SP,R-1-SP and C/OS-SP to R-2-SP-PD and C/OS-SP and
3. a vesting tentative tract map (subdivision map) to divide one parcel into seven lots ranging is
size from 5,700 to 10,600 square feet(see Attachment 4).
Site description
The rectangular-shaped lot is approximately 1.1 acres in size and located at the end of El Capitan
Way (see Attachment 2). The site is relatively flat, until about 10 feet from the creek, when it
site slopes towards the bottom of the creek which runs along the property's easterly and
3-40
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 3
southerly boundaries. The soil underlying the site is primarily clay and with minor areas of
loam. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses and forbs, with a grove of
eucalyptus trees at the edges of the site and along the creek.
The property is general-planned Medium Density Residential, Conservation Open Space and
Single Family Residential; and prezoned R-2-SP, R-1-SP and C/OS-SP. Zoning will become
effective upon final annexation approval.
The site is bordered on the north by El Capitan Way, on the south and east by a small riparian
area with a seasonal stream, and on the west by a neighboring driveway. Surrounding land uses
include: 13 small-lot single family homes(Tract 2248 which was developed by the applicant) on
the north side of El Capitan Way,the abandoned Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way and single
family dwellings to the east; an older single family home, commercial service types uses, and a
church to the west.
EVALUATION
1. Environmental Review
On November 7, 1998, the Community Development Director determined that the project would
qualify for a mitigated negative declaration (ND) of environmental impact. The Community
Development Department prepared an initial study(IS) of the project on November 8, 1998. The
IS addressed potentially significant,but mitigable, impacts to geologic hazards (seismic hazards
and soils), drainage, biological resources, solid waste and cultural resources. Impacts to other
environmental areas were determined to be less than significant. The IS and director's
determination were published in the Telegram-Tribune and made available for public review and
comment at the Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street. State law (CEQA)
requires that the environmental document be available for review a minimum of 20 days prior to
final action on the project(to be taken by City Council).
At its November 18 meeting,the Planning Commission took public testimony and directed staff to
modify the initial study. The initial study has been revised to address the Commission's concerns.
A copy of the revised initial study is included as Attachment 5.
2. Planned Development Rezoning
Although the property has not been annexed into the City and zoning has not become effective,the
applicant is requesting a PD rezone to change the property's ultimate zoning (if annexation is
approved)from R-1-SP,R-2-SP and C/OS-SP to R-2-SP-PD and C/OS-SP.
Pursuant to City Zoning Regulations, PD rezoning must occur simultaneously with approval of a
specific project and must be approved by the City Council. Zoning Regulations state: "If the
3-41
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 4
Council approves the preliminary development plan, the Council shall approve the rezoning to
indicate approval of the planned development and the official zoning map will be amended."
3. DevelopmentPlan
The PD zone overlay is intended to encourage imaginative development and effective use of the
site.It must provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which could
not be provided under conventional zoning. Under an approved development plan, property
development standards such as lot size and configuration,yards,height,coverage and parking may
be specified for a project without conformance to the standards of the underlying zones. The
applicant is requesting to establish site-specific development standards for: street yard setbacks,
side yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions (width, depth and street frontage), lot depth-width
relationship and parking. These items are discussed below.A copy of the preliminary development
plan is included as Attachment 3.
Street Yards
Because the creek limits the developable area of the proposed lots, the applicant is proposing to
reduce the street yards with the intent of concentrating the buildings near the street away from the
creek. As designed,street yards(front yards)would be 12 to 15 feet,with the front porch varying
from 5 to 12 feet.A 20-foot street yard is typically required in the R-2 zone.
The Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to consider using a home design that would
provide for a greater setback for garages to increase the driveway area and to eliminate the need for
reduced street yards. Although the project includes revised home designs for Lots 5 and 6, the
home designs proposed for Lots 1 through 4 and Lot 8 have not been changed. The applicant
would like to keep these home designs because they are consistent with the neighborhood and have
been approved by the City's'Architectural Review Commission.
It should,however,be noted that the applicant has revised the development plan to eliminate the
need for creek setback exceptions which was and is a primary concern of the Planning
Commission. This was accomplished by moving some of the proposed units towards the street,
increasing the width of two of the lots and revising home designs for Lots 5 and 6. With these
revisions,all of the proposed lots meet the required 20-foot creek setback,and no exceptions to the
creek setback standard is proposed.
It is staffs opinion that reduced street yards are needed to maintain the required 20-foot creek
setback.In addition,the location of the porches along with the varied street yards will provide relief
to the street frontage and enhance the neighborhood's appearance. There is still a concern that cars
parked in the driveways will overhang the sidewalk. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
garage doors be roll-up with automatic garage door openers.
3-42
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 5
Side Yards
Under City Zoning Regulations,a seven-foot wide side yard is required for the proposed two-story
dwelling units. The applicant's original proposal was to reduce the required side yard for the units
from seven feet to five feet. At the November 18 meeting,the Commission expressed concerns
with reduced side yards and directed the applicant to re-design the project to minimize the need for
smaller side yards.
In response to the Commission's concern, the applicant has revised the development plan to
provide a 7-foot side yard and a minimum of 18 feet between buildings. The revised development
plan shows a 7-foot side yard for lots 1 through 6, with the only exception being Lot 7. Project
plans show a five-foot setback for this lot which abuts the existing open parcel established as part of
Tract 2248.
Parking
Dwelling units in the R-2 zone have a parking requirement of one space for.the first one and one-
half (1-1/2) bedrooms and one-half(1/2) space for each additional bedroom. A two bedroom
dwelling is required to provide two parking spaces and a three-bedroom dwelling is required to
provide three spaces(2.5 rounded to 3 spaces).
The proposed project,which consists of 3 three-bedroom units and 4 two=bedroom units, has a
parking requirement of 17 spaces and is providing 14 spaces (two spaces per unit). At the last
meeting, the Planning Commission felt that given that the applicant is proposing single family
detached dwellings rather than condominiums or apartments, a modified parking requirement of
two spaces per dwelling is justified
The Planning Commission also discussed the lack of on-meet parking, especially in front of the
proposed and existing units,on El Capitan Way. Specifically,there was a concern that the lack of
onsite street parking opportunities,largely due to the narrow lots,driveway placement and the red
curb("no parking')on the culs-de-sac,would cause some of the occupants and their guests to park
along other portions of El Capitan leading to parking problems in the immediate neighborhood. At
the meeting,it was decided that the applicant would pursue having the red curb removed for the
cull-de-sac. The applicant has contacted the City's Public Works and Fire Departments to initiate
this process.It is staff's understanding that the Fire Department has indicated that it would not have
a problem with removing a portion of the red curb on El Capitan Way.
As shown on the development plan, the proposal is to have a one-car garage and an unenclosed
parking space within the side yards of the lots. While this would satisfy the project's parking
requirement of two spaces per dwelling units,it could adversely impact the streetscape appearance
and result in an increase in impervious surfaces materials on the lots. In its review of the
preliminary development plan, the ARC felt that the unenclosed parking spaces should be
constructed of an alternative paving material such as borders or trims of brick or file along with the
3-43
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 6
traditional paving surface. Staff would also suggest that the applicant consider installing mow strip
driveways into the primary garage consistent with the residential development on the north side of
El Capitan Way.
Minimum Lot Area and Dimensions
Pursuant to City Subdivision Regulations,the minimum lot area in the R-2 zone is 6,000 square
feet, the minimum lot width is 60 feet, the minimum lot depth is 90 feet and the minimum street
frontage is 30 feet. However, City Subdivision Regulations state that "Lots approved in
conjunction with a development plan as provided in the Zoning Regulations may have any shape or
size consistent withthe structures and improvements shown on the development plan."
As part of the developmentplan,the applicant is requesting that the City approve different size lots
than typically required in the R-2 zone. The proposed lot sizes range from approximately 5,200
sq.ft.to 10,200 sq.ft.with an average lot size of 6,075 sq.ft. The width of the lots range from 42
feet to about 75 feet and street frontages range from 15.8 to 43.5 feet. It should be noted that the
proposed lots are consistent with the lots on the north side of El Capitan Way(Tract 2248),which
range in size from 5,100 to 8,600 sq.ft. Table 1 compares the lot areas and dimensions proposed
under the project to the City standards.
Table 1: Comparison of Proposed Lots and City Standards
Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth St.Frontage
(sq.ft.) (feet) (feet) (feet)
City Standard 61000 60 90 30
Lot 1 5,754 42 137 —
Lot 2 59754 42 137 —
Lot 3 51728 42 136 —
Lot 4 51197 42 123 473
Lot 5 7,545 — 118 48.1
Lot 6 10,182 — 136 43.5
Lot 7 8,337 — 140 15.8
Lot Depth-Width Relationship
The proposed lots exceed the 3:1 depth-to-width ratio as required in the City's Subdivision
Regulations. However,the location of the creek and road makes the usable portion of the property
shallow and eliminates the possibility of any further subdivision of the property. Therefore,the
proposed project meets the intent of the lot depth-width relationship requirement.
3-44
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 7
Landscaping
There are several eucalyptus trees on the site, primarily along the creek. Although no trees are
proposed for removal,the City Arborist will need to examine the trees and determine if the trees
require safety pruning.
The current riparian corridor has been highly disturbed and is in a degraded condition. However,
while its value as a significant biological corridor is diminished by its physical separation from
other segments of the riparian corridor,its condition can be improved with project development. A
biological survey (May, 1998) recommends the installation of several trees and native riparian
plants along the creek's banks.
Project landscaping consists of a small lawns,with shrubs on the perimeter and against the houses,
and street trees. Rear yard landscaping is to be provided by the individual owner. Staff has
identified three concerns with the proposal. They include: the amount of front yard landscaping,
the potential for homeowners to install plant materials in the creek setback area, and the transition
of plant materials from the rear yard to the creek. To ensure that these issues are addressed, a
formal landscape plan will need to be submitted with the final development plan.
Walkways
As shown on the development plan,the concrete walks from the porches are designed to connect
with the driveway rather than a pedestrian path. To encourage more interaction among the
residents,staff recommends that these walkways go from the porch to the public sidewalk similar
to the homes on the other side of El Capitan Way. ARC agreed with staffs recommendation.
Fenn'
The applicant is proposing to provide fencing along the side property lines. Rear yard fencing
along the creek is not proposed as part of the project.
Staff originally recommended that the developer install fencing at the top of the creek to discourage
future residents from intruding into the creek. The Planning Commission did not feel that fencing
was needed,and that future homeowners would not want to pay for maintaining a creek to which
they had no access. Moreover, the Commission felt that keeping the creek open to the residents
would enhance their properties and encourage them to take responsibility for its upkeep.
3. Subdivision Map Review
The subdivider is requesting concurrent approval of a vesting tentative tract map to create seven
residential lots. Approval of a vesting tentative map confers a "vested right" to development in
substantial compliance with the ordinances,policies and standards in effect when the application is
determined complete. The subdivision map must be reviewed for consistency with the
3-45
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 8
developmentplan,including the proposed reduced development standards,and compliancewith the
City's Subdivision Regulations. Other items that need to be reviewed as part of the subdivision
process are ownership and maintenance of the creek/open space area and drainage. Attachment 4
is a copy of the proposed tentative tract map.
In evaluating the proposed subdivision,the Planning Commission must consider the following:
a) Is the design of the tentative map and proposed improvements consistent with the
general plan and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
b) Is the site is physically suited for the type and density of development proposed with
the tentative tract map?
c) Is the subdivision design and the proposed improvements likely to cause serious health
problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat?
The following discussion is provided to assist the Planning Commission in determining whether the
above-stated findings can be made for the proposed project.
Planned Development Consistency
The Planning Commission will review and make recommendation to the City Council, which
will take final action on the planned development. The PD includes proposals for narrower lots
than are normally allowed, greater depth-to-width ratio than is normally allowed, smaller street
yards than normally allowed and reduced parking standards. The PD also transfers density from
the rear portion of the lot (proposed to go to open space) lot to the individual lots. It is staff's
opinion that the tentative tract map is consistent with the proposed development plan.
Subdivision Regulations Compliance
City Subdivision Regulations require that the layout of streets and lots within a subdivision be
consistent with the densities and types of uses authorized by the General Plan, specific plan and
zoning. They also require that a subdivision's design be suitable for the site given its physical
condition,including slope,soil types,and adjacent land use.
General Plan Consistency: The site has a gross area of approximately 1.1 acres(48,600 sq.ft.) and
a net developable area of about 0.84 acres, excluding the area between the tops of banks of the
creek. According to the City Land Use Map, the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and the pre-zoned
approved by the City Council, the site has three different land use and pre-zoning designations.
The area north of the creek is designated Medium Density Residential with a maximum allowed
density of 12 units per net area The area to the south of the creek is designated Low Density
3-46
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 9
Residential with a maximum allowable density of 7 units per net area. The creek is designated
Conservation Open Space.
Approximately 23,000 sq.ft. (0.53 acres) of the site is designated MDR with a maximum
allowable density of 6.36 units (0.53 x 12 = 6.36) and 13,600 sq.ft. (0.31 acres) is designated
LDR with a maximum allowable density of 2.19 units. . The proposal is to transfer the R-1
density credits from the rear of the site (south of the creek) to the front portion (north of the
creek) of the lot which is more suited for this type of development. With the density transfer,the
project site has a maximum allowable density of 8.55 units. The proposal is for seven units
consisting of three three-bedroom and four two-bedroom dwellings. Using the established unit
values for the R-2 zone (a two-bedroom dwelling is the equivalent of 1 unit and three-bedroom
dwelling is the equivalent of 1.5 units),the applicant is proposing to construct 8.5 units.
With the elimination of one lot and the mix of three- and two-bedroom units, the project meets
the density requirements of the R-2 zone. Staff also finds the project to be suitable for the site
given the site's physical condition and the surrounding residential land uses.
Specific Plan Consistency. The site is identified as part of the Secondary Planning Area in the
Edna-Islay Specific Plan (FISP) which was adopted by the City Council in 1982. The EISP
designates the site as Medium-Density Residential and Conservation Open Space. The proposed
street and pedestrian improvements are consistent with the circulation design shown in the EISP.
In addition, the project follows the creek preservation policies of the specific plan. Based on
these reasons, staff finds the proposed project to be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
Ownership and Maintenance of the Creek/Open Space Area
The applicant is proposing to place an open space easement over the existing creek and open
space area, south of the creek, of each lot. It should be noted the creek will remain in its existing
condition.
Staff's original proposal was to have the creek/open space area be maintained by a homeowner's
association (HOA) with the provision that the City have review authority over creek
management/maintenance. The Planning Commission felt that the creek/open space should
remain under private ownership, and maintenance responsibilities should go to the individual lot
owner as part of conditions, convenants and restrictions (CC&R's). The applicant agreed and
has submitted a draft Creek Preservation and Maintenance Agreement for the City's
consideration. (Attachment 8).
Drainaae
According to the applicant,the project has been designed to drain towards the street(El Capitan)
and into an existing detention basin at Broad Street. However,the preliminary grading plans do
not show how storm water will be conveyed to the basin or if the existing basin has the capacity
3-47
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 10
to handle drainage from the project, or if the basin can be modified to accommodate the project's
drainage.
At the November 18 meeting, the Planning Commission asked the applicant to provide the
necessary information needed to verify that the existing basin had the capability to handle
drainage from this project. If the existing detention basin cannot accommodate the project's
drainage, an onsite detention basin will be required. The applicant's representative has indicated
that preliminary analysis confirms that drainage from this project can be accommodate by the
existing basin. At that time this report went to print, drainage calculations had not been
submitted to City staff. It is staffs understanding that written verification will be provided at the
meeting.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The revised project plans were circulated to other City departments for comment. The Fire and
Utilities Departments did not have any concerns as the necessary public improvements were
installed as part of Tract 2248 (TR140-98).Public Works is concerned with drainage and soils.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The commission may continue review to allow revisions to plans or presentation of additional
information. Specific direction should given to the subdividers and staff.
2. The commission may deny the PD rezoning and development plan and vesting tentative tract
map with the appropriate findings. Denial is considered a final action unless appealed
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Recommend City Council adopt the amended mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact report, ER 140-98.
2. Recommend City Council approval of the PD rezoning, with modifications to the
development plan, allowing reduced lot sizes, street yards, side yards (for Lot 7), and parking
based on the following findings:
a) The PD rezoning and development plan transfers allowable development, within a site,
from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or
hazard; and
b) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography,which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the
3-48
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294) -
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 11
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning.
There is a seasonal creek situated on the property which greatly reduces the developable
area of the site.
3. Recommend approval of the vesting tentative map, with modifications,to the City Council,
based on the following:
a) The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the
general plan and with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
b) The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2-
PD-SP and C/OS-SP zones.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community
Development Department on Novermber 6, 1998 and modified by the Planning
Commission on November 18, 1998, adequately addresses the potential environmental
impacts associated with the subdivision map and establishes measures to mitigate those
impacts to a level of insignificance.
Conditions: The above three recommendations are subject to the following conditions:
1. The unenclosed parking spaces shall be constructed of an alternative paving material.
Alternative paving materials include, but are not limited to: decomposed granite, eco-block,
interlocking pavers,cobblestone or other material determined to be of equivalent performance,
strength,quality and durability.
2. To encourage more interaction among the residents,the proposed walkways shall go from the
front porch to the public sidewalk similar to the homes on the other side of El Capitan Way.
3. The applicant shall submit a more refined landscaping and irrigation plan for final review and
approval of the development plan.
4. The subdivider shall establish conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) for each
individual lot owner for ownership and maintenance of the creek and open space area. The
CC&R's must be formed,to the approval of the Community Development Director.
3-49
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 12
5. All on-site driveways,nonstructural parking improvements,and utilities shall be installed as
subdivision improvements.
6. Subdivider shall dedicate an easement over the creek, open space area and drainage basin (if
required)for access and maintenance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
7. Subdivider shall prepare conditions,covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) to be approved by
the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval. CC&R's
shall contain the following provisions:
a. Provide for professional,perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area in a
first class condition.
b. Grant to the city the right to maintain the creek and open space area if the individual
lot owner fails to perform,and to assess the lot owner for expenses incurred,and the
right of the city to inspect the site at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of
CC&R's and final map are being met.
C. No change in city-required provisions of the CC&R's without prior City Council
approval.
8. All units shall be numbered in accordance with an addressing plan approved by the
Community Development Department.
9. All garages shall be equipped with roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door openers.
Environmental Mitigation
10. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building
permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature,distribution
and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures
and design criteria for corrective measures,when necessary. Grading and building must be
designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report.
11. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent
and downstream properties is 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.
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-year storm flooding, the developer shall
process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment
3-50
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 13
(LOMA), or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of any development.
Any lots or building pads, identified to be subject to flooding during a 100-year storm shall
be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-year storm
elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented.
12. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via
an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
13. The findings and recommendations of the May 1998 biological survey shall be incorporated
into the final project design and construction.
14. Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building
materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction site. The plans
must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building
permit issuance.
15. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
16. Consistent with Municipal Code Section 15.44.270, all graded surfaces shall be wetted,
protected or contained in such a manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property
or street. The following measures shall constitute the project's dust management plan and shall
remain in effect during all phases of that project's construction:
a) Regular wetting of roads and graded areas (at least twice daily with complete coverage of
all active areas);
b) Increasing frequency of watering whenever winds exceed 15 mph;
c) Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph;
d) Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported onsite or offsite;
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic washdowns,or mechanical streetsweeping,of El Capitan Way in the vicinity of the
construction site.
Public Right-of-Way
17. All development shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
18. 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.
Water, Sewer& Utilities
19. Existing water wells may remain in use to serve only the lot on which the well is located.
3-51
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 14
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.
20. 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.
21. Each lot shall be served with separate water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV
services in accordance with City standards.
Grading& Drainage
22. 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,Tract 2248.
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.
23. Additional storm water run-off, as a direct result of development of each lot, shall be
evaluated by a registered civil engineer and appropriate mitigation (detention facilities)
designed into the project, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Maintenance
responsibilities of detention facilities shall also be addressed, particularly if an existing off-
site detention basin is used.
24. 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.
3-52
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 15
Traffic
25. Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
Trees
26. Some trees may require safety pruning by a certified arborist to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist.
Mapping and Misc Requirements
27. All boundary monuments, lot comers 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.
28. 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...).
29. 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.
Open space
30. The creek and open space area shall be maintained by the individual lot owner in
accordance with the CC&R's as approved by the City.
31. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall grant an open space easement to
the City of San Luis Obispo with the provision that the individual lot owner will have
maintenance responsibilities and the City will have review authority over
management/maintenance of the creek and open space area.
3-53
TR 140-98 (Tract 2294)
915 El Capitan(Gearhart)
Page 16
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.
C. 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. The number of trees is determined by
one tree per 35 linear feet of street frontage.
D. EPA Requirement. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit are required for all
storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and
excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less
than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also
require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a
General .Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity
occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to
the State Water Board.
Attachments
1. Minutes of the Novermber 18, 1998 Planning Commission meeting
2. Location Map
3. Preliminary DevelopmentPlan
4. Proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map
5. Initial Environmental Study/NegativeDeclaration
6. Cannon Associates letter of 12/23/98 - Resubmittal of Subdivision Map and Planned
Development
.7. Guhwal ReseuEees SuFvey and impar.;Assessment Not Attached
Not Attached
JShoa1 W-/TR140-98(Geuhart3)
3-54
None
NOE& ....'u .... .r L
2. 915 EI CaQitan: Request to allow a residential subdivision creating eight lots from
one parcel; request for planned development rezoning (R-2-SP-PD) that will allow
for reduced lot sizes, setbacks, and creek setbacks; and environmental review; R-2-
PD zone; Kelly Gearhart, applicant.
John Shoals presented the staff report and recommended that the Commission
recommend to the City Council that they take the following actions: 1) adopt the
mitigated negative declaration; 2) approve, with modifications, the planned
development and PD rezoning allowing reduced lot sizes, setbacks, parking and a
density increase; 3) approve creek setback exceptions; and 4) approve the vesting
tentative tract map with findings and subject to conditions.
Commr. Cooper asked if the creek bed itself is counted into the density calculations.
Mr. Shoals stated they have subtracted the creek bed, so there is a net developable
area of the site.
Commr. Jeffrey asked if, based on the calculations on Page 5, #2, the parking
requirement would be two spaces.
Mr. Shoals explained the Commission needs to decide whether three spaces per unit is
appropriate. This project is proposed as single-family detached even though ifs
prezoned R-2.
Commr. Jeffrey asked if a hydrology study,can be requested prior to further review to
determine the possibility of a detention basin and potential impact on lot size.
John Shoals replied yes.
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager, noted that drainage has to comply
with City standards. This is typically a condition of approval.
Commr. Jeffrey expressed concern that drainage and runoff are directly involved in the
environmental report.
Commr. Ewan asked for comment on the cul-de-sac that is red striped/zoned.
Ron Whisenand explained that the Fire Department, at an earlier time, felt they needed
a larger turning radius for emergency vehicles. However, they have since revised
standards and are willing, along with the Public Works Department, to review the red
9 ATTR ENT 1
striping/zone. Neither the developers nor the neighbors have approached the City to
request review of removal of the striping.
Commr. Manx asked for comment on the ARC's suggestion to move Lots 1-4 closer to
the creek.
Mr. Shoals explained the ARC suggested placing them closer to the creek, still trying to
mindful of the street setback, and the applicants have proposed what is before the
Commission.
Commr. Manx asked if Unit 8 can be moved closer to the street.
Mr. Shoals felt the lot is set back in such a manner to accommodate parking.
Mr. Whisenand felt there may be other designs that would allow the house to be moved
closer to the street. Staff has explored turning Unit 8 parallel to the street, but this
would involve combining lots and result in less of a need to build as close to the creek
as is proposed.
Commr. Ewan asked if the design of the properties across the street with the front
porch and garages in the rear was proposed by the applicant.
Mr. Whisenand stated that design was a feature of the Planned Development.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Doug Davidson, applicant's representative, stated the foremost project design
constraint is the creekway which basically takes up 50% of the site. A 20 foot front
setback and 20 foot creek setback allows a 20 foot buildable area on these parcels and
affects the housing design. This is a unique circumstance that no other properties in
the vicinity are subject to. The City's Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the
project and is comfortable with the creek setbacks as proposed.
Mr. Davidson stated a biological survey has identified no endangered species and
recommends native landscaping and creekway enhancements via landscaping.
Mr. Davidson stated the homes were designed to be compatible with the adjacent tract
which has the same owner, architect, and engineers. The creekway and shallow
buildable area does not allow for the garages to the rear. The ARC comments were
positive, with the exception of one member.
Mr. Davidson stated they are in agreement with conditions proposed by staff with the
exception of those which reference a homeowners' association (HOA) because it would
10 3-56
B RA� FT
go against the intent of this single-family residential parcel. HOA agreements are
complex and difficult to administer.
Mr. Davidson stated the proposed drainage would be handled like it is across the street
with the detention basin that currently exists in front of the commercial property. They
are draining towards the street and are conditioned to provide a drainage'and hydrology
study and prove the capacity of the basin as adequate. Preliminary analysis shows that
it may be adequate as is. If it is not, they are conditioned to do necessary
improvements. They are not proposing on-site detention that would affect the density
of the project. Lot 16, the commercial lot, owns and maintains the detention basin.
Mr. Davidson stated Parcel 15 is owned by the City. Tract 2248 on the north was
encouraged to seek combining into the San Lucia HOA. They have made an effort
which was not accepted. They will propose individual CC&Rs for each individual lot
owners for creek maintenance versus an eight-lot HOA. The City won't have to
maintain the open space easement.
Mr. Davidson proposed the reference to a HOA, Condition 6, be changed to reflect
"CC&Rs for each individual lot owner".
Mr. Davidson proposed Condition 9a be modified to read: Provide for professional,
perpetual maintenance of the creek and open space area in a first-class condition.
Mr. Davidson proposed 9b be modified to reflect "individual lot owner' instead of
referencing the HOA.
Mr. Davidson suggested 9i be deleted.
Mr. Davidson proposed replacing reference to a HOA in the last sentence of Condition
25 with "...the property owner of Lot 16, Tract 2248." He noted Mr. Gearhart is owner of
Lot 16.
Mr. Davidson proposed replacing references to an HOA in Conditions 33 and 34 with
"individual lot owner in accordance with the CC&Rs as approved by the Community
Development Director."
Mr. Davidson stated if Lot 8 is moved forward then they do not have the room for the
additional parking space.
Mr. Davidson explained how he believes the Commission can make all of the findings
provided on Pages 4 and 5.
Commr. Cooper asked if the applicant will be dedicating open space for a bike path
along the railroad right-of-way.
1 3-57
�.
FT
John Shoals stated there was some discussion about a bike lane, but there are no
formal plans.
Commr. Marx expressed concern about how close Unit 8 is to the creek and asked if
there is another way of situating the unit. She also shares the same concern for all the
units which are this close to the creek.
Mr. Davidson stated the difficulty is with providing the required parking. With providing
two parking spaces and trying to respect the front setback, with the 9 foot minimum
width required along the side, what's presented is the best solution to Lot 8. The ARC
recommended moving Lots 1-4 back to get more of a front setback.
Commr. Marx feels the creek should be protected as much as possible.
Ron Whisenand stated based on eight lots and the frontages associated, it would be
difficult to further address rear setbacks without requesting a creek setback exception.
This does not mean the applicant necessarily needs to come in with an eight-lot
subdivision. As an alternative, staff looked at a variety of situations which included
combining lots to allow for a different housing orientation.
Commr. Ewan asked if it would be possible to move the house over to one side and go
with a zero lot line.
Ron Whisenand stated they are being creative by spacing the houses out, but moving
them closer to the property line than what is allowed. They are asking for a setback
exception on the side to begin with, but they can modify their request.
Commr. Jeffrey asked the basis for increasing the density of the 10.68 units.
Mr. Davidson stated the 10.68 is with the 25% density bonus. They are comfortable
with Condition 1. These are relatively small homes. One thought is to convert one of
the proposed bedrooms into a den by opening up the room on three sides and
eliminating the closet and making it into a den/office area.
Commr. Jeffrey would be more comfortable if lot widths were change to accommodate
seven three-bedroom homes as opposed to eight.
John Shoals stated staff has concerns with individual lot owners having responsibility
for creek maintenance. The City would like to have more control of the open space
area. Dealing with eight individual homeowners is more difficult than dealing with one
Homeowner's Association.
The Commission and staff discussed HOA formation and powers.
Commr. Marx asked if Planned Developments are required to have HOA.
12 3-58
DRkFT
Mr. Whisenand replied no, but in this case it is recommended.
Commr. Whittlesey stated creek setback exceptions are discretionary exceptions. The
Zoning Regulations state certain findings have to be made, but in addition, that there is
no practicable afternative to the requested exception. She's not convinced that there
are no other alternatives to the requested setback exception.
Mr. Davidson stated the lots they are requesting a creek setback exception for are 60
feet from the existing street right-of-way to the top of the bank. The City requirement is
for a 20-foot front setback and a 20-foot creek setback. This does not allow a
reasonable building area.
Commr. Whittlesey feels the buildable area is controlled by the number of lots in the
development. She asked if a description of a potential design change which would
eliminate or reduce the need for the exception has been included in the application, as
is required.
Mr. Davidson stated design alternatives were studied, but were not prepared for the
Commission. The best effort has been presented to the Commission for approval.
Commr. Whittlesey asked Mr. Davidson to comment on the effective use of the site.
Mr. Davidson stated design is compatible with the project across the street, which was
deemed an imaginative project. The lot sizes average out just like Tract 2248. They
would propose staying with the eight lots versus seven based on lot widths and
compatibility. If the Commission is concerned about the appearance of density, the
structures can be made smaller. They are trying to create one community developed
by one owner.
John French, 3942 Hollyhock, feels formation of an eight-unit HOA is not reasonable.
More than half of the HOA's costs would to towards managementladministration and
HOA abandonment occurs. He believes CC&Rs would be better for what the City is
trying to achieve. He asked if the extension of the bike path is not included in this
project because the railroad right-of-way is owned by the adjacent property to the
south.
Ron Whisenand stated the path was dropped from the City's Transportation Plan.
Mr. French questioned if the Edna-Islay Specific Plan will need to be amended because
a bike route is shown. He feels a convenient pathway to shopping would be a nice
feature in this area.
Commr. Ewan noted currently there's an asphalt pathway across Lot 15 which turns
into dirt and doesn't connect with Poinsettia.
Kelly Gearhart, applicant, stated he doesn't own the railroad right-of-way.
13 3-59
DRAFT
Mr. French believes he owns the right-of-way and it can be obtained by the City.
Chairman Senn will contact the City's Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville
regarding this property.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission began discussion with the environmental review of the Initial Study.
Commr. Whittlesey cannot agree with the General Plan Consistency conclusion of"not
significant" on Page 5 of the Initial Study because there are problems with the Open
Space Element and there are setback exceptions requested. She is concerned about
the shrink-swell potential and the low strength soils statement on Page 6.
John Shoals stated the requirement of a soils report is a condition of approval. This
would determine how the footings of the project would be designed should approval be
recommended.
Commr. Whittlesey proposed moving 3h, Expansive Soils, under Geologic Problems,
Page 6 of the Initial Study, from "less than significant" to "potentially significant unless
mitigated".
Commr. Whittlesey suggested the first sentence of Mitigation Measure, 1, Page 7 of the
Initial Study, be modified to read: A detailed soils engineering report shall be submitted
and approved by the Public Works Department as part of the grading and building
permit applications. She suggested the second sentence be modified to reflect that the
soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the
existing soils, conclusions and recommendation for grading procedure to ensure no
impacts to the creek from fill or other contaminants and design criteria for corrective
measures when necessary.
Commr. Whittlesey asked if recharge areas are considered in seasonal creeks. Runoff
will be redirected so there isn't going to be as much runoff into this seasonal creek and
therefore not as much recharge occurring.
John Shoals noted this is a valid concern and staff raises the issue of increasing
impervious surfaces, but it doesn't go as far to say it's going to reduce runoff and
recharge into the creek.
Commr. Whittlesey noted there is a "less than significant impact" indicated for
Transportation/Circulation, 6d, Page 9 of the Initial Study, yet there is no discussion of it
within the body of the section.
14 3-60
DRAFT'
John Shoals suggested adding some language basically saying they would require a
certain number of spaces; however, based on the finding that they would only be
required to provide two spaces off site if parking capacity is considered insignificant.
Commr. Whittlesey suggested changing the indicated "less than significant impact" on
Hazards, 9a, Page 10 of the Initial Study, to reflect no impact. Staff supported this
suggestion.
Commr. Whittlesey stated it's important for the final product to be user friendly with
regards to recycling, referring to Mitigation Measure, 1, Page 13 of the Initial Study, and _
suggested a second mitigation measure be added to.reflect her concerns.
Commr. Whittlesey suggested "no impact" indicators be changed to "potentially
significant unless mitigation incorporated" for Cultural Resources, 14a-14e, Page 13 of
the Initial Study.
Commr. Ready suggested only changing 14a-14c, because the 14a-14c cover
everything. Commr. Whittlesey agreed.
Commr. Marx suggested the table on Page 3 reflect the changes suggested by Commr.
Whittlesey and be included with the Mandatory Findings of Significance, 16, Page 14 of
the Initial Study.
The Commission reached consensus that the Initial Study is acceptable with the
modifications provided this evening by the Commission.
The Commission discussed the Maximum Allowable Density, Page 1 of the Staff
Report.
Commr. Jeffrey cited Section 17.62.40, B, relative to density bonuses and noted that
meeting criteria alone doesn't ensure grounds for applying the density bonus. He feels
this could be a good project, but he's concerned about all the exceptions that have
been requested. He believes a new configuration with seven lots would help in terms of
eliminating many of the concessions and address density concerns.
Commr. Cooper doesn't believe there are any exceptional public benefits provided by
this project as a result of the open space. He doesn't see transfer density from a
eucalyptus grove as a viable justification for a density bonus. He's not sure the
development provides adequate privacy. He is more supportive of a seven-unit project
rather than eight.
Chairman Senn requested staff to research the findings that were made for approval of
the project across the street.
Commr. Whittlesey expressed concerns for protection of the creek. She believes an
eight-lot subdivision is too dense and there are too many exception requests.
15 3-61
DRAFT
The Commission reached consensus that it cannot make Finding 1 a on Page 4 of the
Staff ReportThe Commission feels this should be a seven-lot rather than eight-lot
subdivision based upon density concerns.
Commr. Whittlesey can support Finding 1b. A portion-of the other side of the creek
property can be used and can be transferred.
Commr. Ewan stated the layout of this property leaves an area behind that will be
undevelopable.
Commr. Cooper doesn't feel undevelopable land — the creek and the eucalyptus grove
—can be considered as a gift or benefit to the city.
The Commission reached consensus that it can make Finding 1 b on Page 5 of the Staff
Report. Commr. Cooper dissented. _
The Commission reached consensus that it cannot make Finding 1c on Page 5 of the
Staff Report based on a lack of economic market evidence.
The Commission reached consensus that they could possibly support Finding 1d on
Page 5 of the Staff Report with revision.
The Commission reached consensus that they cannot support Finding 1e of on Page 5
of the Staff Report because no evidence has been submitted.
The Commission reached consensus that they could possibly support Finding 1f on
Page 5 of the Staff Report with revision to the current design.
The Commission discussed Parking, 2, on Page 5 of the Staff Report.
Commission Ewan can support two parking spaces per parcel. He would like
clarification of the red zone/striping.
The Commission concurred with Commr. Ewan and favors deletion of the red zone
provided Public Works and Fire Departments can accept its elimination.
The Commission discussed proposed Street Yards and Side Yards on Page 6 of the
Staff Reportand it does not have a problem with street yards and side yards as long as
the overall design is feasible. The Commission favors greater garage setbacks.
The Commission offered no further comment on Minimum Lot Area Dimension; Lot
Depth - Width Relationship, Landscaping, and Walkways on Pages 7 and 8 of the Staff
Report.
The Commission discussed Fencing, on Page 8 of the Staff Report.
16 3-62
DRAFT
Commr. Ready doesn't support creek bank fencing, but favors a monument structure
delineating the property line such as required in the Prefumo Creek project. People
should be encouraged to be stewards of their own property and be responsible.
The Commission concurred.
The Commission discussed the Creek Setback Exception, Findings 3a-3e, on Pages 8-
9 of the Staff Report. Staff included a Finding 3f relative to circumstances applying to
the site such as size, shape, or topography which do not apply generally to land in the _
vicinity with the same zoning and that the variance will not constitute the grant of
special privilege and entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties
in the vicinity with the same zoning.
The Commr reached consensus that it would like to see a redesign/revision before
making a decision on a design that would create the proper amount of space the
between the residences and the creek.
Ron Whisenand believes it's possible to design this subdivision that would fully comply
with the 20 foot creek setback.
The Commission can support a seven-lot subdivision with a 20 foot setback from the
creek when referring to the Subdivision Map Page 9 of the Staff Report.
Planned Development Consistency and Lot Configuration, Page 10 of the Staff Report
will be coming back to the Commission.
The Commission discussed C, Ownership and Maintenance of the Creek/Open Space
Area, Page 10 of the Staff Report.
Commr. Ready does not support the requirement of establishing a HOA because
maintenance and individual responsibility can be established with CC&Rs.
Commr. Manx concurred and suggested the land be turned over to City ownership.
Commr. Jeffrey does not support City responsibility of the creek.
Chairman Senn suggested the applicants bring back crafted CC&R language
addressing creek maintenance.
Commr. Whittlesey moved to direct this matter back to the applicant with modification of
the tentative map to incorporate the changes suggested by the Commission. The
motion was seconded by Commr. Ewan.
AYES: Commrs. Whittlesey, Ewan, Marx, Ready, Jeffrey, Cooper & Senn
NOES: None
17 3-63
DRAFT
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 7-0.
OMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
6. ff—Agenda Forecast:
Dec. 2, 1 8 —Appeal of a setback exception.
Dec. 16, 199 Meeting canceled.
7. Commission-
Commr. Ewan submitt a letter of resignation, dated November 19, 1998.
The Commission and sta hanked Commrs. Marx and Ewan for their service on the
Commission. They both ha been elected to serve on the City Council. The two
vacant commission seats will b [led in Jan. 1999.
Chairman Senn reported the Inclusi ary Housing Ordinance was continued by Council
because clarifications were required.
7a. 1999-2001 Budget Goals:
The Commission reviewed/discussed its 1997- 99 goals.
Commr. Jeffrey would like to undertake the PD ' eria to develop a more objective
foundation. This issue could be made a part of a planned commercial zoning
workshop along with MU discussion.
The Commission reached consensus to continue to encou a pursuit of previously
established set oals with the inclusion of a PD and MU worksh
ADJOURNMENT:
With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m.
to the next regular meeting scheduled for December 2, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in Council
Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
Respectfully submitted,
Leaha K. Magee
Recording Secretary
is 3-64
.TACHMENT 2
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
EDNA-ISLAY SECONDARY PLANNING AREA
` ADOPTED LAND USE & CIRCULATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE
TRACT 2294
90
,9 :.fie.: r� :; ;:;.•.::;:
low density {j, •:;{•:;;�::�:•.? ..
residential
medium density •::;;���. •;��• .
residential • •'•::•;
/ •' retail P�
commercial
commercial
.7 Improved
waterways
'
- - �•��� linear park NORTH
m�mumem�mnnem
Elcyete/ 1 in. = 400 it.
pe estrian path
tem = 48m
LOCATION MAP*
3-65
ATTACHMENT 3
F ��.
ao-
b.G a`i
Mc
6
uj
N
z ' .b
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3-66
y 1
�$
I Z.
y�W
I m d� S6986c� �rvyyy,,�rr-!, j�R"
�C 9y-i, 80
! • •
Omco
�'
l _ — / /f �o
0. 4
Ni m: m 1 F
CD
cr
C3
�— OEM
m '
Sod 1 70
SM
m N
c co
1
t. 1
1 )
e
— — ATTAGIfNT 4
ATTACHMENT 5
� I8III8fl���I�I��� )pllll[II� ���
IU
cityO S�►1'11�,11S oBispo
990 Palm Street San Luis Obis CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUD ER 140-98
915 EI Capitan 11
Revised November 18, 1998
1. Project Title: EI Capitan Phase II
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.
John Shoals, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
915 EI Capitan - Portion Lot 103, SLO Suburban Tract, APN 076-421-32
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Representative:
Kelly Gearhart Cannon Associates
6205 Alcantra Avenue 364 Pacific Street
Atascadero, CA 93422 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-High Density Residential, Conservation Open Space and Low Density
Residential
7. Zoning:
Pre-zoned R-1-SP, R-2-SP and C/OS-SP
Final zoning to become effective upon final approval of annexation
8. Project Description:
The project is a request to subdivide a 1.1-acre parcel into seven lots for the development
of a residential subdivision. The individual parcels will range in size from 5,700 sq.ft. to
10,200 sq.ft. The homes will be 1,500 sq.ft. and two-stories. Other project components
include: site grading, the installation of public and private walkways, landscaping and
fencing. The project also involves the dedication of an easement for the purpose of
managing and protecting an existing seasonal creek at the property's southerly and
easterly boundaries. See Section 9 (Entitlements)for specific actions requested of the
City of San Luis Obispo.
The site is relatively flat, until about 10 feet from the creek, when it site slopes towards
the bottom of the creek. The soil underlying the site is primarily clay and with minor
�reas of loam. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses$orbs,
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
with a several trees at the edges of the site and along the creek. The existing
conditions of biological resources (flora and fauna) are discussed in the biological
survey conducted by Celeste Wilson in May of 1998.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The property is general-planned Medium Density Residential, Conservation Open
Space and Single Family Residential; and pre-zoned R-2-SP, R-1-SP and C/OS-SP.
Zoning will become effective upon final annexation approval.
The site is bordered on the north by El Capitan Way, on the south and east by a small
riparian area with a seasonal stream, and on the west by a neighboring driveway.
Surrounding land uses include: 13 small-lot single family homes (Tract 2248 which was
developed by the applicant) on the north side of EI Capitan Way, the abandoned Pacific
Coast Railroad right-of-way and single family dwellings to the east; an older single
family home, commercial service types uses, and a church to the west.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
a) environmental review;
b) vesting tract map;
c) planned development rezoning to:
1) change the property's pre-zoning designation FROM R-2-SP, C/OS and R-1-SP
TO R-2-PD-SP and C/OS-SP;and
2) establish property development standards specific to the project through
development plan approval; and
d) architectural review of building designs and development plan.
Annexation: The site is located in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan Secondary Planning
Area and is part of the Fuller Road annexation area. In May of 1998, the City
Council adopted an ordinance pre-zoning the property along with several other
properties east of Broad Street between E/ Capitan and Fuller Road. The LAFCo
approved the annexation on December 17, 1998 subject to a protect hearing by the
City Council to held on January 19, 1999. All City actions are subject to LAFCo
approving the property's annexation into the City of San Luis Obispo.
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
a. County LAFCo final approval of the annexation.
b. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission determination on
compatibility with the Airport Land Use Plan.
3-69
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 X Biological Resources Aesthetics
I
Population and Housing X Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems X Hazards Recreation
X Water Noise X Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
F-1 There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse
effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the
project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
FAof Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 the mitigation measures described on a
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X
prepared.
1 find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact or is "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, ther
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
3-70
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
Prepared November 7, 1998
zt� Revised November 18, 1998
ignat Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager for Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. 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 CEQA 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.
3-71
Issues and Supporting Informatr�..Sources sources Poten. Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(KellyGearhart) significant significant Impact Impact
p Issues Unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 5 Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1 X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 1,2,3
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1, 2 X
d) Affect agricultural resources-or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible X
land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide- the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low_income or X
minority community)?
General Plan Consistency:
Land use element The General Plan Land Use Element map (LUE map) designates the site Medium Density
Residential, Conservation Open Space and Low Density Residential. The proposed residential project is
consistent with these designations.
Zoning:The zoning map does not include areas outside the city limits. In May of 1998, the City Council adopted
an ordinance pre-zoning the site R-2-SP, R-1-SP and C/OS-SP. The proposal is for a PD rezoning to change the
site's ultimate zoning to R-2-SP-PD and C/OSSP. Under the PD rezoning process, the applicant is requesting
approval of a development plan with variations from R-2 development standards including lot size, lot depth, lot
configuration, yards and street frontages. PD rezoning is allowed with the intent of encouraging imaginative
design and effective use of sites. If the City Council approves the PD rezoning with reduced standards,the project
would be consistent with the City Zoning Regulations(Chapter 17.50).
Edna-Islay Speck Plan (EISP): The site is identified as part of the Secondary Planning Area in the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan (source 3)which was adopted by the City Council in 1982. The EISP provides more detailed policies
and design for this area. The EISP designates the site as Medium-Density Residential and Conservation Open
Space. The circulation design shown in the EISP matches the street design proposed. The project is consistent
with the Edna Islay Specific Plan.
Open Space Element The Open Space Element requires developments to include buffer areas next to creeks,to
protect the riparian habitat The project is required to provide a 20' setback from the top of bank or from the
riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The project is providing a minimum of 20 feet between the proposed
dwelling units and the top of creek bank.
Conclusion:Not significant as the project is consistent with Land use element,zoning, Open Space element, and
EISP policies and requirements.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? 4 X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area X
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? X
The project includes the construction of seven single family dwelllings. According to 1997 Calftmia Department
of Finance (CDF)estimates,there was an average of 2.3 persons per occupied household in the city. If the project
3-72
Issues and Supporting Informati%.., Sources Sources Potcn. -.r PotenualiY less ll�an No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Significant UnIcsscmtc Impact Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 6 Incorporated
were occupied at this rate, about 16 persons would live on the property. This additional population and housing is
within the General Plan's projection, and has been addressed in the EIRs on the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and
1994 Land Use Element Update. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial growth into the area or cause
exceedances to local and regional growth projections
Conclusion:Not significant
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 5 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 6 X
c) Seismic.ground failure, including liquefaction? 6 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 6 X
e) Landslides or mudflows? 6 X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
. conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? X
g) Subsidence of the land? 10 X
h) Expansive:soils? 10 X
i) Unique.geologic or physical features? X
Seismic Hazards
There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in
Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of Cal'domia and strong ground shaking should be expected during
the fife of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established
in the Uniform Building Code.
The site lies in an area identified by the Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan as being in the"F",
Franciscan Formation,zone which has a high landslide risk. As defined in the Seismic Safety Element, "the
Franciscan Formation is composed of incompetent material of complex structure". The evaluation included in the
element qualifies its applicability by noting that it is based on natural conditions and does not account for changes
in stability that may accompany development
Soils
The soil underlying the site is classified as Cropley Clay (127). This soil type has slow permeability and slow
surface runoff with a slight hazard of water erosion. This soil type is easily compacted. Foundations and footings
should be designed for high shrink-swell potential and low strength(source 5).
In December of 1996, a soils report,for adjoining tract 2248,was completed by Mid-Coast Geotechnical, Inc.
(MCG). The purpose of the soils test was to determine the geotechnical properties of the surface and sub-surface
soils in order to provide recommendations for general site grading and to design suitable foundations for tract
2248. The MCG soils report concluded that the adjoining property was suitable to support residential
development Although test samples were not taken at the project site, both properties have the same soil type
with similar characteristics according to the informational map atlas.
While the site is generally suitable for development,with proper grading and foundation designs, a soils report will
be required to be submitted as part of the subdivision, grading and building permit applications, and
recommendations in the reports must be followed in the final project design. Grading operations will be done in
accordance with the City's grading regulations and should not create any erosion or unstable soil difficulties. This
process will assure that the soils present no problems in the near-or long-term.
3-73
Issues and Supporting Informati�.. Sources sources Posen. roc�nr;�ir lesslhan No
El Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) L%MCSiemrt signd'iemrt sipificanr rmpacr
ER 140-98 Issues Was
lmpaa
Page 7 ����
The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has also expressed concerns regarding the placement
of fill and other contaminants on the site during excavation and grading of tract 2248 and EI Capitan Way. The
following mitigation measure is recommended to insure that soils impacts are insignificant
Mitigation Measure:
1. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part of the grading and building
permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the
existing soils,conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including recommendations to
ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design criteria for corrective measures,when necessary.
Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report
Conclusion:Less than significant with mitigation.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in;:
a) Changes in absorption.rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? .: ` X
b) Exposure of people or property to.water related
hazards such as flooding? 7 X
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or-turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface waterin any water
body.? X
e) Changes-in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through X
interception of an aquifer by cuts or:excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? X
Drainage:
The project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site, and has the potential to alter absorption
rates or drainage patterns in the area. The'project is required to be designed to meet City grading and drainage
standards.
According to project plans, the creek will be left in its natural state, and no discharge to it is planned. According to
the applicant, the project has been designed to drain towards the street(EI Capitan)and into an existing detention
basin at Broad Street However, the preliminary grading plans do not show how storm water will be conveyed to
the basin or if the existing basin has the capacity to handle drainage from the project, or if the basin can be
modified to accommodate the project's drainage.The development must be designed so as not to increase
flooding downstream. If the existing detention basin cannot accommodate the project's drainage, an onsite
detention basin will be required.
3-74
Issues and Supporting Informat. Sources $0ur POu Potentially Less 1 NO
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart)
Significant untess�arrt bVaCteant lmpaet
Issues unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 8 Incorporated
Flooding
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). Compliance with the City's Flood Damage and
Prevention Regulations will mitigate flooding impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation:
1. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream
properties is 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.
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-year 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 to be
subject to flooding during a 100-year storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1
foot above the 100-year storm elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented.
Conclusion:Less than significant with mitigation.
5. AIR;Q.UALITY. Would the:proposa_l:_.
a)' Violate..any.:air quality-standard, or.=contribute to an
existing orprojected;air quality violation (Compliance 8 X
with APCD::Environmental Guidelines).
b) Expose;sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) Alter air movement,:moisture, or temperature, or cause
. any change in climate? X
d) Create objectionable odors? X
Short-term Impacts
During project construction, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading
activities,as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty construction equipment Compliance with
the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X (Sec. 7004(b))will adequately
mitigate short-term impacts. No further mitigation is necessary.
Long Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM,o(fine particulate matter 10 microns
or less in diameter)air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their
precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1995 Clean Air Plan(CAP)
for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that
requirement The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional
industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that
the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
The project size is below thresholds contained in the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook"for generating
significant amounts of emissions. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant impact on long-term air
quality.
Conclusion: No impacts.
3-75
Issues and Supporting Informat. Sources Sources POW Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Significant significant significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 14498 mitigation
Page 9 Incorporated
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 9 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g: sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X
uses (e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? x
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? x
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e:g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? x
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts.(e:g. 12 x
compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land
Use'Plan)
Trip Generation
According to the Trip Generation manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE), single family
dwellings generate about 10 average daily trips(ADT)and 1 p.m. peak hour trips(PHT). Using these trip
generation estimates,the residential project would generate about 70 ADT and 7 PHT.
The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on EI Capitan Way and Broad Streets. EI Capitan
Way is a local street that was constructed as part of Tract 2248. It is presently improved to its full right-of-way
width. In the City's General Plan (Circulation Element), Broad Street is classified as a Residential Arterial in the
city and a Highway/Regional route in the county. The City's Traffic Engineer concludes that these streets can
adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without creating a significant change in the current
Level of Service(LOS)for Broad Street
Parkinq
Dwelling units in the R-2 zone have a parking requirement of one space for the first one and one-half (1-12)
bedrooms and one-half(12)space for each additional bedroom. A two bedroom dwelling is required to provide two
parking spaces and a three-bedroom dwelling is required to provide three spaces(2.5 rounded to 3 spaces).
The proposed project,which consists of 3 three-bedroom units and 4 two-bedroom units, has a parking requirement
of 17 spaces and is providing 16 spaces(two spaces per unit). At the last meeting,the Planning Commission felt that
given that the applicant is proposing single family detached dwellings rather than condominiums or apartments,a
modified parking requirement of two spaces per dwelling is justified.
The proposed project could potentially contribute to parking problems on EI Capitan Way. Typically in a single family
development in the R-1 zone with standard lot and street widths would have on-street parking available for residents
and their guests; however,due to the reduced size of the lots, the placement of the driveways and the fact that the
existing culs-de-sac is painted red for"no parking," on-street parking would not be available to project residents and
their guests. This could displace on-street parking to another segment of EI Capitan Way causing neighborhood
conflicts. It should, however, be noted that the City does not count on-street parking towards a project's parking
requirement To reduce the potential for parking problems,the project design has been revised to increase the width
of some of the lots and a portion of the red curb will be removed to allow some on-street parking within the cuts-de-
sac.
3-76
Issues and Supporting Informat, Sources Sources Pow > Potentially l css Ihan No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Issues
Unless
significant Impact
Issues unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 10 Incorporated
Airport Land Use Plan
The project site is located in Area 5 of the Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP). According to the ALUP,the project
could,with conditions, be made a compatible land use. The ALUC will make a determination on the projects
compatibility with the ALUP. The following mitigation measure will ensure that the project will not conflict with the
San Luis Obispo County Airport. It should be noted that the EISP was reviewed and found to be consistent with
the ALUC.
Mitigation:
1. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo via an avigation
easement document prepared by the County.
Conclusion:No impacts
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 20 X
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 20 X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 20 X
d). Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pod[? 20 X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 20 X
The EISP designates the seasonal creek as a waterway protection area in which existing vegetation and wildlife
should be protected and pedestrian traffic and buffered from creek banks.
In May of 1998, a survey of biological resources on the site was conducted to assess flora and fauna on the site.
The survey. concluded that no federally or California state endangered, threatened, species of concern or
candidate species (plant or animal) are present on the site. Therefore, the project will not affect rare or
endangered species of plants and animals.
The survey does, however, make specific findings and recommendations on plant materials to be planted along
the stream to help with creek stabilization. The following mitigation measure is recommended to ensure that the
project does not adversely affect the riparian habitat of the creek. A copy of the biological survey is available at
the Community Development Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Although the creek preservation area will remain in private ownership, protective fencing will be installed to denote
a dear boundary between the dwellings and the creek.
Mitigation:
1. The findings and recommendations of the May 1998 biological survey shall be incorporated into the final project
design and construction.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation measure.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? L x
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? I x
3-77
Issues and Supporting Informatk Sources sounxs Poten ro=uauy Less Than No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) significant significant pifieant Impact
ER 140-98 Issues Impact
mitigation
Page 11 moorporazea
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region X
and the residents of the State?
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 Lots are primarily oriented in a north-south direction because
of the shape of the site and the existence of EI Capitan Way.
Conclusion:No Impacts.
S. HAZARDS. Would the.proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release'of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, X
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergencyresponse plan
or emergency evacuation plan? X
c) The creation of any health hazard or poten#ial health
hazard? X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable-brush,'
grass or trees? X
The City Fire Department finds the existing road and fire services adequate for fire protection. The project site
also meets response requirements if built in accordance with City standards.
Conclusion:No impacts.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal resu...lt in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?. 13 X
b) Exposure of people to 'unacceptable' noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 13 X
Element?
Roadway Noise
The Noise Element of the General Plan and its accompanying Noise Guidebook (source 13) say that a generally
acceptable level of noise for residences is 60 decibels, average (60 ). 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 project site is more than 300 feet from Broad Street Therefore,future project residents would not be exposed
to noise generated by automobiles.
Airport Noise
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.
Conclusion: No impacts from roadway noise, less than signficant impacts from airport noise.
3-78
Issues and Supporting Informat. iources sources Pore. J Potemially n'g' No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) Issues
Unless
am Impact Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 12 Incorporated
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
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
The proposed subdivision will contain eight single-family homes. In San Luis Obispo, according to CDF estimates,
the average household size is 2.3 persons. If all eight homes are occupied, the projected population of this
subdivision would be 7 X 2.3 = 16.Also according to census figures, approximately 13.8% of the city's population
is aged seventeen or younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 16 X 13.88% = 2.2 (rounded to 2) 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 2+children will have on school facilities will be mitigated
in whole or in part by the districts per-square-foot fees, charged at the time of building permit issuance for each
home.
Conclusion:Less than significant
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. 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) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local-or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? 14 X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? 16 X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
Water Treatment & Distribution Facilities
This project has been reviewed by Utilities Department staff. Comments note that the project is subject to
water impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of
constructing the water supply, treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to service it.
Water Supplies
The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development
and land use changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. Section
17.89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the
city water system for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the use of land or buildings,
whether or not a construction permit is also required; obtain a construction permit." The City has reserved
300 acre-feet of water for development of post-1994 annexations.
3-79
Issues and Supporting Inforrnat, Sources sources ' Potentially I= Iran 1 No
Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhartsignificant significant significant ImpactEI Ca
p � ry � Issues Unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 13 tncatpotaW
The project is expected to use 0.30 acre-feet/dwelling X 7 dwellings = 2.1 acre-feet of water, and
incrementally contribute to water demand. To receive an allocation, the property owner will need to provide
water offsets through retrofitting the plumbing of existing structures to save at least as much water
annually as the projected demand, or otherwise satisfy the requirements of the water allocation regulations
through an approved method. Compliance with the provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the
water impact fee program is adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand.
The City's Water & Wastewater Management Element 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 Urba
Reserve at the time the element was adopted.
Sewer/Wastewater
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 station system may be required in addition to or
instead of the lift station fees. The project will, by ordinance, be required tocontribute to the costs of
increasing capacity at the lift station or in the cost of a new gravity sewer line.
Solid Waste
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a
threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity
by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by
50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent
with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must be accommodated on the
project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials should be
submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for both interior and
exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction
and Recycling Element.
Mitigation Measure-
1 . Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials
such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals from the construction site. The plans must be submitted
for approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance.
2. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
Condusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
The aesthetic concerns associated with site development will be addressed with the Architectural Review
3-80
Issues and Supporting Informat, . .iources sources >'ouI Potentially Less lltan No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD Kell Gearhart) significant unless
significant impact
P (Kelly Issues Unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 14 Incorporated
Commission's final review of plans. No further mitigation is required.
Conclusion. No impacts.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 19 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 17,19 X
c) Affect historical resources? 17,19 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
The City's Archaeological Resources Preservation Guidelines requires an Archaeological Resources Inventory
(ARI) of the site because it is more than one acre in size and contains a seasonal creek.
In December of 1998, a cultural resources survey and impact assessment was performed on the site. Th
survey did not find any evidence of either prehistoric or early historic archeological remains on the property.
The survey also concludes that since no archaeological materials or features were found, and no burie
material or deposits are believed to exist within the area, the proposed project is not expected to have an
effect on known of suspected cultural resources. Based on these findings, no additional archaeological worl
is recommended prior to construction.
Conclusion. No Impact
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:.
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? X
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
The seven homes will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Park-in-fie
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.
Conclusion: No impacts.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal.community, X
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?
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas
checked in the table on page 3.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X
3-81
Issues and Supporting Informati, sources souses Potrn Potentially r.asThan No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kelly Gearhart) �u`iint unless citnt Ung` `
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 15 lncorpotged
goals?
In this case, short- and long-term environmental goals are the same.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection X
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
The impacts identified in this initial study are specific to this project and would not be categorized as
cumulatively significant.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse.effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on
humans.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,. one o
more effects:have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative-Declaration. Section 1506.3 (c) t3
(D). In this case.a discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used: Identify earlier-analyses and state where they.are Available for.;review.
Edna Islay Specific Plan (EISP) and the EISP Final EIR and the San Luis Obispo Land Use Element Update
and FOR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop:
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat
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 t
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. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 1997.
2. City of SLO Land Use Element, April 1997.
3. Edna-Islay Specific Plan, adopted in 1982 by City Council.
4. State of California Department of Finance 1997 Population and Household Estimates.
5. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
6. City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, July 1975.
7. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981.
8. APCD's 'CEQA Air Quality Handbook", August 1995.
9. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 61" Edition, Volume 2.
10. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County - Coastal Part, United States Department of Agriculture-
3-82
Soil Conservation Service.
11. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
12. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996.
14. City of SLO Water Allocation Regulations, June 1995.
15. Water and Wastewater Management Element, 1994.
16. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates,
July 1994.
17. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
18.. City of San Luis Obispo Historical preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987.
19. Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment, Clay A. Singer, Anthropologist, Dec., 1998.
20. Biological Survey, Celeste Wilson, May, 1998.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted, as approved, as part
of the grading and building permit applications. The soils report shall include:
data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of the existing soils,
conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures including such
recommendations to ensure that there are no impacts to the creek, and design
criteria for corrective measures,when necessary. Grading and building must
be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report
Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department and Engineering staffs will
review plans in conjunction with the soils engineering report through the
building permit plan check process.
2. Mitigation Measure: A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development
on adjacent and downstream properties is 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.
If the study identifies any on-site areas subject to 100-year 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 to be subject to flooding during a 100-year storm shall be graded to
provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-year storm
elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented.
Monitoring Program: The Community Development Department and Engineering staffs will
review plans in conjunction with the soils engineering report through the
building permit plan check process.
3. Mitigation Measure: The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San
Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the County.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
plans submitted for a building permit by the Community Development
Department staff.
4. Mitigation Measure: The findings and recommendations of the May 1998 biological survey shall be
incorporated into the final project design and construction.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit
primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
5. Mitigation Measure: Site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded building materials such as concrete, drywall, wood and metals
from the construction site. The plans must be submitted for approval by
the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit
primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
6. Mitigation Measure: The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of
detailed plans submitted for architectural review and building permit
primarily by the Community Development Department staff.
JShoals/Environ/ER 140-98(Gearhart)
3-84
-VA AR 1'
Eamon
A S S O C I A T E S December 23, 1998 ATTACHMENT 6
V _ _"'—n
Ron Whisenand f[
Development Review Manager F= 3 73
ENGINEERS City of San Luis Obispo CI!1'
990 Palm Street Coc -L�;r"W:ENT
PLANNERS San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
SURVEYORS
RE: Resubmittal of Vesting Tentative Tract 2294/Planned Development
Kelly Gearhart—850 El Capitan Way
Dear Ron:
The attached revised tentative map and development plan is in response to
concerns of the Planning Commission expressed at their November 18, 1998
meeting. The major concerns of the Commission were the number of proposed
lots (8)and the number of exceptions requested,particularly the creek setback
exception. The following changes have been made:
• Seven(7) lots are proposed. Instead of four units around the bend of the cul-
de-sac, three are proposed in this location.
• The project proposes 3 three-bedroom units and 4 two-bedroom units. This is
the permitted density in the R-2 zone - a density bonus and the findings
associated therewith are not necessary.
• The proposed creek setback on all lots is 20 feet—no exception from the creek
setback standard is requested.
• The proposed side yard setback is now 7 feet with a minimum combined of 18
feet. This is the required minimum side yard setback. Thus, an exception
from the side yard setback standard is also no longer necessary.
• Revised home designs for proposed Lots# 5 and 6 maintain a 20-foot creek
setback and compatibility with the subdivision and neighborhood.
The following additional information is provided:
• Per request of city staff,a letter is attached from the project biologist
confirming no evidence of Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdoni on the site.
• An archaeological report indicating that"no prehistoric material of any kind
was found on the property and development of the site should have no impact
64 P. s whatsoever on cultural resources."
• A memo containing our recommended changes to the conditions as presented
-;401 at the November 18, 1998 meeting to utilize ownership and maintenance by
individual lot owners instead of a HOA.
805 544-7407 • A draft agreement for open space preservation and maintenance for
805 544-386.3 recordation and incorporation into the title of individual lot 6whers: "
3-85
Pmj/95030I.60VttmapplLdoc
Dannon
ASSOCIATES
• We have researched the requirement for the red curb on the cul-de-sac. It was
not a condition of approval of Tract 2248. It materialized from a plan check
comment during the final map process. City Engineering staff referred us to
the Fire Department for origination of the requirement. As of this date,we are
awaiting a return call from Spencer Meyer of the Fire Department
• There is not good real estate sales.price information available in the
geographical area. The Housing Authority does not possess or have access to
recent sales price data George Moylan of the Housing Authority agrees that
there is a lack of current, quantifiable information in this regard(phone call
December 21, 1998). Although these units could be considered"more
affordable"than conventional single family development, we are not
submitting sales statistics to present these units as "affordable housing."
Again,we are not seeking a density bonus where provision of"affordable
housing"is often a requirement of approval.
The required Findings for a Planned Development project are contained on pages
4 and 5 of the November 18, 1998 staff report and in Zoning Ordinance Section
17.62.040. Since a density bonus is no longer necessary,just one(or more)of the
six criteria must be satisfied. The project provides single family residential units
for moderate-income families with children which would not be possible under
the conventional R-2 zoning. Although not quantified,the project provides a
"more affordable"new single-family home than would be possible in many other
areas of San Luis Obispo. The creekway will be preserved and maintained as an
open space easement. The project achieves the intent of conventional
development standards by providing private yards, adequate parking, and
neighborhood compatibility.
We are submitting ten(10)sets of the revised plan and tentative map for the City
staff and Planning Commission review. Please do not hesitate to call if you have
questions or need more information.
Sincerely,
Doug Davidson, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments
3-86
Proj/950301.60ktmapp1t.doc