HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/1999, 2 - PD, TR AND ER 140-98: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING TO ALLOW REDUCED LOT SIZES, SETBACKS AND PARKING FOR CERTAIN LOTS; A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE SEVEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM ONE PARCEL; AND ENVIRONMENT counCR 4 20.99
j acEnda REpont It2mh.
CITY O F SAN LUIS 0'B I S P 0
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planne
SUBJECT: PD. TR AND ER 140-98: DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING TO ALLOW REDUCED LOT SIZES, SETBACKS AND
PARKING FOR CERTAIN LOTS; A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE
SEVEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM ONE PARCEL; AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
FOR PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EL CAPITAN WAY (915 EL CAPITAN WAY)-
COUNTY FILE NO. TR 2294. KELLY GEARHART, APPLICANT.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce to print an ordinance approving a mitigated negative declaration of environmental
impact and approving, with amended findings and conditions, the revised planned
development and PD rezoning; and
2. Adopt a resolution approving a mitigated negative declaration and approving, with amended
findings and conditions, the revised vesting tentative tract map to take effect on the effective
date of the PD rezoning.
DISCUSSION
Situation
This project was reviewed by the City Council at its February 16, 1999 meeting. At that meeting,
the Council expressed several concerns regarding: access to and maintenance of the creek/open
space area, reduced street yards in relation to vehicles parking in front of garages, and fencing of
creek/open space area. On a unanimous vote,the Council continued the project to a date uncertain,
and directed the applicant to revise the development plan and tentative tract map to address these
issues. In March of 1999, the applicant and his representative met with City staff to discuss the
Council's concerns and to develop possible solutions to address those concerns.
In response to the Council's direction, the following changes have been made to the tentative
map and development plan:
• The proposed units have either been moved or redesigned to provide a minimum of 18
feet between the garage and the property line, which would allow a car to park in front of
the garage without overhanging the sidewalk as requested by the Council. Lots 1-4 and
Lot 7 have a 20-foot setback, and Lots 5 and 6 have a 19-foot setback. Home designs for
Lots 4, 5 and 6 have been revised to include a two-car garage.
2-1
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (; El Capitan- Gearhart)
Page 2
• Access is provided to the creek/open space area from the City-owned open space parcel
with a 10-foot wide bridge across the creek suitable for pedestrians and light vehicles.
• Fencing will be installed along the north creek bank and at the south and east property
lines of the existing parcel.
• The applicant has submitted a revised draft agreement for open space preservation,
maintenance and creek access for the Council's input with final approval to come from
the City Attorney and the City's Natural Resources Manager.
Evaluation
The February 16, 1999 Council Agenda Report includes a detailed project analysis, including a
project description, site description and staff evaluation of the proposed project. Following is a
more thorough discussion of the issues raised by the Council and the resulting project
modifications.
1. Open Space Access and Maintenance
At the February 16 meeting,the Council inquired about maintenance of and access to the proposed
open space area. This area is currently accessed by using an unpaved dirt road along the site's west
property line, or by crossing the narrow creek by foot. The dirt road is owned by the neighboring
property owner and does not include legal access rights to the proposed open space area
Because the project plans did not show a formal access to the proposed open space area at the rear
of the existing parcel (south of the creek),the Council was concerned that the development would
not provide adequate access to maintain the open space area including provisions for hauling debris
from the site. To resolve this issue, the Council directed the applicant to revise the development
plan to provide a more convenient access to the proposed open space area. As shown on the
revised project plans, access to the creek/open space area will be provided from the City-owned
open space parcel with a 10-foot wide bridge across the creek suitable for pedestrian and small
trucks. According to the applicant's representative,this location was selected because it is the most
practical and will have a minimal impact on the proposed homes. It is important to note that staff
did encourage the applicant to consider placing the bridge at a more central location to make it
more convenient to all of the homes. The Council will need to decide if the proposed location is
acceptable.
The Council also expressed concerns with the potential impacts of the future homeowners
constructing individual bridges across the creek. At the Council meeting, a couple of ideas were
introduced for the applicant's consideration. One idea was to construct one centrally located bridge
to serve all of the homes. Another idea was to construct a commonly-shared bridge for every two
lots (a total of three to four bridges). The applicant is proposing to construct one 10-foot wide
2-2
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (91., El Capitan - Gearhart)
Page 3
bridge for the project,and to prohibit the construction of additional bridges as part of the easement
and agreement.
An easement agreement will assure that each of the individual lot owners has access to the bridge
and common open space area, and participates in the maintenance of this common area. The
applicant has submitted a draft agreement for the review and approval of the City Attorney and the
City's Natural Resources Manager.
2. Street Yards
The Council directed the applicant to provide a minimum of 18 feet between the garage and street
right-of-way line (property line) to allow parking in front of the garage without overhanging the
sidewalk. The development plan has been revised to provide a 20-foot street yard for most of the
houses. The only exceptions would be Lots 5 and 6 which would have a 19 foot street yard at the
garage. The home designs for proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6 have been revised include a two-car garage
to provide adequate garage setback and maintain the required 20-foot creek setback.
3. Fencing
The original project called for fencing along the side yards,but not along the creek. City Council
inquired about fencing along the top of creek bank and at the perimeter of the property. Council
also expressed concerns with the future property owners constructing fences within the creek. To
address these concerns,the development plan has been modified to include fencing along the top of
the creek bank(approximately 10 feet from the bank),and along the south and east property lines.
Fencing in the creek is not proposed or allowed, and will be prohibited as part of an open space
easement agreement. The applicant is proposing to install solid wood fence at the perimeter of the
property (south of the creek and along the former Pacific Coast Railroad right-of-way). Project
plans do not show a particular style of fencing along the creek, but staff recommends that open
style of fencing be installed at this location.
4. Paving Materials for Parking Spaces
At the previous meeting, there was some discussion regarding paving materials for the proposed
driveways and unenclosed parking spaces. The Council's concern was that one of the
recommended conditions of approval restricted the developer to using alternative paving materials
and did not give the developer the option to use concrete or asphalt for these spaces. Staff has
revised that condition to give the developer more flexibility in the types of paving materials that can
be used for the unenclosed parking spaces and driveways. As shown on the revised development
plan,the driveways will be either concrete or asphalt with brick or textured paver block borders.
2-3
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (. El Capitan-Gearhart)
Page 4
CONCURRENCES
In March of 1999, the applicant and his representative met with the Community Development
staff and the City's Natural Resources Manager to discuss access and maintenance of the creek
and open space area. The Natural Resources Manager supports the construction of a single
bridge because building several smaller bridges along the creek would have a greater impact on
the creek. The Natural Resources Manager is confident that the open space preservation,
maintenance and creek access can be addressed with cross easement as part of an overall
creek/open space agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT
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.Council Agenda Report for February 16, 1999 meeting
5. Initial Environmental Study, TR-140-98
6. Cannon Associates Resubmittal Letter
7. Draft Creek Preservation and Maintenance Agreement
Separate plans have been provided to the City Council and are available for review at the City
Clerk's Office.
]Shoa1s/CC/TR140-98(Gearhart 2nd)
2-4
ATTACHMENT 1
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 public hearings on, February 16, 1999 and
April 20, 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
2-5
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
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;
2-6
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
e) Watering material stockpiles;and
f) Periodic washdowns, or mechanical street sweeping, of EI 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 concrete, asphalt or some other
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 garages shall be equipped with roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door
openers.
5. All development shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
2-7
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 4
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 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.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the 20th day of April, 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:
&.6,1,4C4�
i tt e ffJ gensen
2-8
Exhibit A
PD 140-98
Po�nse �
ttia St.
C/OS to
C/OS-SP-PD
R-2-SP to
R-2-SP-PD
Oki
r
a
Gap�ta R-1 -SP to
C/OS-SP-PD
2\_9N
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTIONNO. (1999 Series)
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 CAPITAN WAY].
(TR-140-98; County file no.Tr 2294)
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 public hearings on February 16, 1999 and April
20, 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:
2-10
Resolution no. (I Q09 Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 El C m)
Page 2
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.
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;
2-11
Resolution no. (1999 Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 El Ca i)
Page 3
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.
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 2294) is
approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
1. All on-site driveways, nonstructural parking improvements, and utilities shall be
installed as subdivision improvements.
2. All units shall be numbered in accordance with an addressing plan approved by the
Community Development Director.
Public Right-of-Way
3. The subdivider shall dedicate a 1.8m [:z6 ft.] wide public utility easement and 3m
2-12
Resolution no. (1909 Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 El C m)
Page 4
[z10 ft.] wide street tree easement along all public street frontages, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Water, Sewer and Utilities
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Each lot shall be served with separate water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and
cable TV services in accordance with City standards.
Grading and Drainage
7. 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.
8. 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,
2-13
Resolution no. (1999 Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 El Or n)
Page 5
particularly if an existing off-site detention basin is used.
9. 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
10.Traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
Trees
11.Some trees may require safety pruning by a certified Arborist to the satisfaction of
the City Arborist.
Creek and Open Space
12.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.
13.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.
14.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.
15.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.
2-14
Resolution no. (1999 Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 El C m)
Page 6
Mapping and Miscellaneous Requirements
16.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.
17. 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...).
18. 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.
2-15
Resolution no. (1999 Series)
Tract 140-98 (915 E1 C n)
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 20th day of April, 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
rll*;Mly ey J egensen
A74AMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 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 2294)
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 public hearings on February 16, 1999 and April
20, 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:
2-17
Resolution no. (1999 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Denial. Planned Development Rezoning and Vesting Tentative Tract Map
140-98 (County File no. Tract 2294) 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 '1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey Jorgensen
2-18
ATTACHMENT 4
council 111 D °
j acEnda REpont "®"WAV
C I TY OF SAN LU IS 0 B 1 S P 0
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Shoals,Associate Planner *
SUBJECT: 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 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 (EISP). 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
2-19
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
Existing 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 EI 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; 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.
Proiect 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
2-20
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).
Plannina 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 the
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 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. 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).
2-21
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
2-22
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 proposing 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. It 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 contacted the 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 alterative
paving material such as borders or trims of brick or file 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 provided in
the Zoning Regulations may have any shape or size consistent with the structures 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.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.
2-23
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 El Capitan Way(Tract 2248),which range in size from 5,100 to 8,600 sq.ft.
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-width relationship requirement.
6. Landscaping: Project landscaping consists of small lawns, with shrubs on the perimeter and
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;
2-24
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 conservationtopen 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
creek/open 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
2-25
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 development plan 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 Findings
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.
2-26
Council Agenda Report
PD,TR and ER-140-98 (9 t 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 IMPACT
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
rr
mval PE) Rezone
2 D 44 n t heft o f Det ial
4. Planning Commissien Resolution Na. 5246-99
5. Dr-aft Minutes efianuary H, 1999 Planiting Gewini-s-ion he ing
6. Planning Geffunissien Staff Report ef januwy ,
19
2-27
ATTACHMENT 5
I� III sAn lolls OBISPO
clay o
sso Palm St�NIYIAL STUDY ER 93401-392
40 989
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 -withinor
�reas of loam. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasse rbs,
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 EI 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.
2-29
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
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 r•
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
Fx1 of 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.
I 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, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
2-30
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
zz�_� 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.
2-31
Issues and Supporting Informati, 'ources Sources Potcrn Potentially Leu Than No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Kt; . -4earhart) Signe, Significant Significant Impact
lsstra 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/OS-SP. 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 tap 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 California Department
of Finance (CDF) estimates, there was an average of 2.3 persons per occupied household in the city. If the project
2-32
Issues and Supporting Informal Sources Sources Potcn- V Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(k...., Gearhart) sign significant Impact
ER
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 California and strong ground shaking should be expected during
the life 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.
2-33
Issues and Supporting InformatiL. -�urces Sources Poon. 1 Potentially LAW i an No
EI Ca itan Subdivision and PO Kel,. aarhart) Issues
significant Impact Significant Impact
P ( Issues Unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 7 1 Incorporated
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 water in 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.
2-34
Issues and Supporting Informat Sources soaKes Pote. r Potentially less Than No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Il Gearhart) Sign' Significant Significant Impact
P 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 QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected 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.
Lona-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.
2-35
Issues and Supporting Informat. sources Sources Potei Potcmtaliy Less Than No
EI Issues Capitan Subdivision and PD (KE earhart) Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 140-98 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)
Trio 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-0f--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 (1-1/2)
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 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 requirementof 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.
2-36
Issues and Supporting Informat Sources Sources Sign
i Significant
igni i an Lass than Impact Sign Significant Significant Impact
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(h__, Gearhart) Issas. 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 project's
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 pool? 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 clear 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.
S. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 11 x
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? 11 x
2-37
Issues and Supporting Informati. iurces Sources Potcn Potcnitally Less Than No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(Key.. ,earhart) signet Unless
Significant Significant Impact
P Issues Unless Impart
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 11 Incorporated
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 Stater
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.
9. 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 emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? X
W The creation of any health hazard or potential 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 result 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 significant impacts from airport noise.
2-38
Issues and Supporting Informat. 1ources s°urm Pose " Potentially Less Than Na
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(K-- _ Gearhart) sign significant significant Impact
Issua 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) Fre 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.
2-39
Issues and Supporting Informal "ources sources to Potentially less ratan I No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD (KE ;earhart) Issues
Significant impact Impact
luues lMless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
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 to contribute 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.
Conclusion: 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
2-40
Issues and Supporting Informer Sources 5oarces MCI y Potaniatiy Less Than No
Sigr t Significant Significant Impact
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD(I Gearhart) Issm 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 wort
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-lie
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
2-41
Issues and Supporting Informati. "°ources sources Poten Potentially Less Than No
EI Capitan Subdivision and PD (KE ,earhart) Issues Unless
impact Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 140-98 mitigation
Page 15 Incorporated
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 15063 (c) (3
(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Edna Islay Specific Plan (EISP) and the EISP Final EIR and the San Luis Obispo Land Use Element Update
and FEIR 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, 6'" Edition, Volume 2.
10. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County - Coastal Part, United States Department of Agriculture-
2-42
Soil Conservation Sery _a.
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/ER140-98(Gearhart)
2-44
ATTACHMENT 6
Qannon
A S S O C I A T E S March 25, 1999 RECEIVED
Ron Whisenand
MAR 2 6 1999
Development Review Manager CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISp
DEVELOPMENT
ENGItJEEF.S City of San Luis Obispo
F:,
=_aE
990 Palm Street
rdrl
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406
SLiRVEY0R'S
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 City Council expressed at their March 2, 1999 meeting. The
major concerns of the Council were access and maintenance of the creek and
reduced street yards in relation to parking of vehicles. In response to these
concerns, the following changes have been made:
• The proposed garage setback is 20 feet. A slight garage encroachment (less
than one foot)occurs on Lots # 5 and#6. This will allow the parking of a
vehicle in the front setback without hanging over into the sidewalk. (The City
required parking space is 9' X 18'.)
• The proposed creek setback on all lots remains 20 feet—no exception from the
creek setback standard is requested.
• Revised home designs for proposed Lots #4, 5, and 6 contain a two-car
garage in order to provide an adequate garage setback and maintain the 20-
foot creek setback.
• Access is provided to the creek from the City-owned Open Space parcel (Lot
16)with a bridge across the creek suitable for pedestrians and light vehicles.
• Revised home designs maintain compatibility with the subdivision and
neighborhood by providing front porches and complementary architecture.
• A revised draft agreement for open space preservation, maintenance, and
access to the creek. Common access easements for maintenance are provided
across each lot. In effect, this approach forces joint maintenance without the
burdens associated with forming a Homeowners Association.
The project provides single family residential units for moderate-income families
with children that 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. Adequate
=--- n- access is provided to the creek for maintenance—common easements across the
lv Proj/950301.60\1tmapplt.doc 2-45
lamon
ASSOCIATES
open space will ensure that all property owners of the tract all equally responsible
for maintenance. The project achieves the intent of conventional development
standards by providing private yards, adequate parking, including space for a
vehicle in front of the garage, and neighborhood compatibility.
We are submitting ten (10) sets of the revised plan and tentative map for the City
staff and City Council review. Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions
or need more information.
Sincerely, /
Doug Davidson, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments: 10 sets of revised plans (Tract Map and Development Plan)
Revised Open Space Preservation and Maintenance Agreement
Proj/950301.60\ttmapplt.doc
2-46
ATTACHMENT 7
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
City of San Luis Obispo
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Planning Director DRAFT
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
APN 076-421-008
CREEK PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
, 1999, by and between KELLY GEARHART, hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Owner", and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to
as 'City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner possess and is the fee owner of certain real
property situated in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California,
which is more specifically described as Assessor Parcel Number 76-421-
008; and
WHEREAS, the above referenced real property has a creek running
through it and is subject to the special standards and restrictions
contained within the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, as a condition precedent to the approval of vesting
tentative tract 2294 which enables the Owner to subdivide said real
property into seven (7) single-family residential parcels, Owner agrees to
fulfill the special conditions imposed upon said real property by the City
under the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance by maintaining
certain portions of property as an open space easement; and
2-47
-1-
$RAFT
WHEREAS, those specific portions of said real property designated
as an open space easement are hereinafter referred to as the "subject
property' , which is more particularly shown in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto
and incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full; and
WHEREAS, execution of this agreement by Owner and City and
subsequent performance of its obligations by Owner and his successors
in interest, will satisfy the open-space preservation and maintenance
requirement imposed by the Conditions of Approval (Tract 2294); and
WHEREAS, the subject property has certain natural and scenic
characteristics that the Owner and City desire to preserve and maintain
as an open space easement; and
WHEREAS, Owner is willing to protect and maintain the natural and
scenic characteristics of the subject property by preserving the property
as an open space easement and by referencing this "Creek Preservation
and Maintenance Agreement" in the property title of future individual
property owners for maintenance of their ownership; and
WHEREAS, common easements are provided across each of the 7
parcels for the benefit of each property owner of the subdivision to
provide for equalized access to, and maintenance of, the open space
easement area and bridge.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and in
compliance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 6950
through 6954, inclusive, and in further consideration of the mutual
promises, covenants and conditions herein contained and the substantial
benefits to the derived therefrom, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1 . Preservation of the scenic and natural condition. Owner
hereby agrees to preserve the scenic and natural condition of the subject
property for the term specified in paragraph7,K below. To that end, and
for the purpose of accomplishing the intent of the parties hereto, Owner
covenants on behalf of himself, his successors and assigns with the City,
its successors and assigns to do and refrain from doing, severally and
2-48
-2-
_ DRAFT
collectively, upon the subject property, the various acts hereinafter
mentioned.
2. Restrictions on use of the subject property. The Owner and
his successors in interest shall preserve the subject property as an open
space easement as shown in Vesting Tentative Tract 2294.
3. Maintenance of subject property. The Owner and his
successors in interest shall maintain the subject property in a clean and
safe manner in compliance with City maintenance standards. The open
space, creek, and bridge shall be maintained in a professional manner in
perpetuity to the satisfaction of the City's Natural Resources Manager.
Common easements are provided across each of the 7 lots to allow
equalized access and maintenance of the open space, creek, and bridge.
4. Compliance with City regulations. Land uses permitted or
reserved to Owner in this agreement are subject to all City ordinances
and regulations, including those regulating land use. The lot owners
grant to the City the right to maintain the open space, creek, and bridge
if the individual lot owner fails to perform proper maintenance. The City
has the right to assess the IV owners, the xpgses in urred for
ave IV
k l�e4l aA 2- rorne�l S. ees.
maintenance in this situation/ The City has the right to inispect the site
at mutually agreed times to assure conditions of the agreement and final
map are being met.
5. No authorization for public trespass. The restrictions
contained herein, do not authorize and are not to be construed as
authorizing the public or any member thereof to trespass upon or use all
or any portion of the subject property or as granting to the public or any
member thereof any tangible rights in or to the subject property in any
manner whatsoever. It is understood that the purpose of this agreement
is to require preservation and maintenance of the subject property as an
open space easement by the owners and subsequent individual lot
owners of record.
6. Effect on prior easements. Nothing contained in this
agreement shall limit or affect any easements that are of record and that
2-49
-3-
VDRL FT
have been heretofore granted by Owner on, over, under or across the
subject property or any portion thereof.
7. Duration of restrictions. This agreement shall be effective
upon execution, and it shall remain in effect unless abandoned or
otherwise terminated by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
8. Binding on successors in interest. All provisions of this
agreement shall run with the land described herein and shall be binding
on the parties hereto and their heirs, assigns and successors in interest.
9. Law governing and venue. This agreement has been executed
and delivered in, and shall be interpreted, construed, and enforced
pursuant to and in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
All duties and obligations of the parties created hereunder are
performable in the City of San Luis Obispo, and such City shall be that
venue for any action, or proceeding that may be brought, or arise out of,
connection with or by reason of this agreement of this agreement.
10. Enforceability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision
of this agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions hereof
shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected,
impaired, or invalidated thereby.
11 . Subordination. The trust deed beneficiaries and mortgages,
if any, do hereby assent to this agreement and, further, do hereby
subordinate their respective interests to the restrictions and obligations
imposed herein.
12. Agreement to be recorded. Owner and City intend and
consent to the recordation of this agreement in the office of the County
Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.
2-50
DRAFT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
agreement as of the day and year first above written.
OWNER
TRUST DEED BENEFICIARIES
and/or MORTGAGES
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By'-------- --------
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
City Attorney
By:
Dated:
2-51
-5-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) DRAFT
ss.
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
On , before me, this undersigned, a Notary
Public in and of said State, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to the person whose name_— subscribed to this
instrument, and acknowledged that he executed it.
Notary Public
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO )
On ----- before before me, FRANCIS M. COONEY,
County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California, personally appeared
and
personally known to me to be the persons who executed this instrument
as the Chairman and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County
for San Luis Obispo, State of California, and acknowledged to me that
the County of San Luis Obispo executed it.
FRANCIS M. COONEY, County Clerk
and Ex-Officio Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors, County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California
By:------_-------------
City Clerk
[SEAL]
95-0301.60IScen ic.aoc
-6-
2-52