HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/1999, 1 - SUBDIVISION OF A 14.66 ACRE SITE INTO 48 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND STREET YARD SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND BROAD STREET (TR/ER 166-98; R.W. HERTEL & SONS, APPLICANT) Ml ca'Dart
COUnCI L 6-
j acenba RepoRt Irtm�umh. -- -
C I T Y O F SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director CA1 b
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner 'I'�
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION OF A 14.66 ACRE SITE INTO 48 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND
STREET YARD SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND BROAD STREET(TR/ER 166-98;
R.W. Hertel & Sons, applicant)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with
mitigation, and approving the tentative map with subdivision and setback exceptions, with
conditions.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The Fuller Road annexation area was added to the City in February of this year. It is within the
Secondary Planning Area of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP) area. R.W. Hertel and Sons,
Inc. have submitted an application to subdivide a portion of the annexation area into 48
residential lots.
Data Summary
Address: SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street (behind existing service
commercial center)
Applicants: R. W. Hertel & Sons, Inc.
Representative: RRM Design Group
Zoning: Low-Density Residential, Specific Plan (R-1-SP)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental status:Negative Declaration with mitigation measures recommended by the
Community Development Director on March 27, 1999.
Action deadline: September 1, 1999
Site description
The site is relatively flat, with two tributaries of Islay Creek running through the site from the
east to the northwest. A large serpentine rock outcropping is located in the southeastern comer
of the property. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses-and forbs, with
several trees at the edge of the site and along the creek. Existing development on the northern
portion of the property includes a golf driving range. Surrounding land uses include single
family residential to the north and east and service commercial to the south and west.
M.
Council Agenda Report--4rvER 166-98 (Tract 2289)
Page 2
Project Description
The project is a request to subdivide a 14.66 acre parcel into 48 residential lots. The parcels
range in size from 558 sm (6,004 s.f.) to 1048 sm (11,276 s.f.). In order to provide access to
these lots, the applicant proposes to extend Goldenrod Lane approximately 225 in (738 feet)
and construct two additional cul de sacs with access from Fuller Road. Other components of
the subdivision include site grading and the installation of public improvements including one
vehicular bridge on Fuller Road, two detention basins, one bike path and one pedestrian bridge
crossing the creek that bisects the site. The project also involves the dedication of the creek
and setback areas to the City for the purpose of managing and protecting the existing seasonal
creeks on the property.
The proposed project is fully described in the Planning Commission staff report (Attch. 4).
Planning Commission Review
On April 14, 1999 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed subdivision and
recommended Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the vesting
tentative map on a 6-1 vote (Commr. Ready voting no because the City would maintain
ownership of the creeks). The Commission amended the staff recommended conditions
requiring a pedestrian bridge at the end of Goldenrod Lane to connect with Street "A",
requiring Fuller Road to be constructed to City standards (and not a reduced right of way if
needed to address the location of existing off-site structures), and disclosure to potential
purchasers of lots that the neighboring property to the west is zoned Service-Commercial.
EVALUATION
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and
the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. As required by the General Plan, the proposed subdivision has
been integrated into the existing neighborhood and the property's creek areas have been
preserved. Additionally, the subdivision provides for the extension of an existing off-street
bikepath which is called for in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. The attached draft resolution of
approval contains specific findings for approval of the tentative map as well as subdivision and
setback exceptions.
Fuller Road Right of Way
The Edna-Islay Specific Plan calls for Fuller Road to be widened to City standards and
connected with the existing Edna-Islay roadway system with the development of properties
abutting Fuller Road. The southern half of the right of way needed for Fuller Road is located
on the subject property. The northern half is located on the adjoining property north of the
existing roadway.
The Subdivision Ordinance (MC 16.36.250.A) states: The "full width" of each street shall be
improved by grading, base preparation and paving. If a street constitutes a boundary of the
subdivision or connects the subdivision with the rest of the City's street system, even though it
is not within the area to be subdivided, the "full width" of the roadway shall be improved. The
City may, depending on individual circumstances, require full curb, gutter and sidewalk
Council Agenda Report-1 rvER 166-98 (Tract 2289)
Page 3
improvements on the opposite side of the street.
Public Works Department staff recommended the condition for full right of way (R/W) and use
of eminent domain proceedings, if needed, to acquire the off site north half (15 feet) of Fuller
Road R/W (currently a private street) and an additional 13 feet to accommodate the design
R/W of 56 feet. Full street paving (36 ft. curb to curb) is required, with curb, gutter and
sidewalk on the south side and an AC berm on the north side to control drainage. Future curb,
gutter and sidewalk would be installed by the northerly property owners with development.
There is an existing storage/shop building that is on the existing northerly road right of way
line (see Attachment 6) that would prevent completion of the full paved section at that location
without removal or modification of the structure. If the building stayed, the paved section
would be only 15 feet instead of 16.5 feet (to the future gutter line) although it would be better
to hold back the paving to at least 2 feet from the building (13 feet of paving).
The Planning Commission conditioned the subdivider to construct Fuller Road to City
standards (not a reduced right of way). To accomplish this, the storage/shop building must be
moved, modified (if feasible), or the right of way "jogged" around the existing building. The
Planning Commission suggested the latter alternative. The Public Works Department has
reviewed this alternative and finds that it would be undesirable to offset the right of way
around the building, due to the proximity to the bridge and transition needed to meet the
existing frontage improvements at the commercial property at the Broad Street intersection.
Additionally, the Public Works Department does not want to condemn the building for the
right of way because the full R/W requirement may be.easier to acquire - outside of the
building itself. It may be premature to speculate as to the likelihood of the subdivider
acquiring all the R/W without condemnation anyway, but it would seem easier to acquire that
portion outside of the building.
Although the condition as written meets the ordinance, it may be good to consider whether,
pending development on the north side of Fuller Road, the City could consider a narrower
section for about 50 ft. alongside of the building. That would provide for a 13 foot travel lane
plus 2 feet of shoulder area.
City Ownership of Creeks
City staff recommends conditioning the subdivision to have the creek areas delineated as
separate lots dedicated to the City with appropriate access for maintenance. This is consistent
with the actions taken by the City in the Edna-Islay area in the past and is consistent with the
Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Staff recommends the establishment of a reasonable assessment
mechanism on the homeowner's association or residential property owners to support
streamside stormflow management activities (i.e. pruning/thinning of willows) and fire
protection activities (i.e. mowing) in the area as the immediate homeowners are the primary
beneficiaries of such activities.
The boundary of the creek and the developed commercial parcel' to the west should be the
center line of the creek. This way the City would not be responsible for creek bank protection
-3
Council Agenda Report—,.dER 166-98 (Tract 2289)
Page 4
on the developed side where there are buildings right at the top of the bank. The property line
could be modified later if the commercial property is redeveloped and buildings are relocated
away from the top of bank.
Pedestrian Bridee Requirement
In order to provide pedestrian connections between neighborhoods, the Planning Commission
required the construction of a pedestrian bridge and associated trails which would allow a
pedestrian to have direct access from the end of Goldenrod Lane to Street "A". This
pedestrian connection is shown of the attached tentative map.
Disclosure to Property Owners
During their discussion of this item, the Planning Commission expressed concern that potential
buyers might not be aware that the property to the south and west of the project site is zoned
Service-Commercial. To address this issue, the Commission conditioned to subdivider to
disclose to all potential buyers of lots that the neighboring property is zoned Service
Commercial (C-S) and provide them with a list of allowed C-S uses.
Dust Control
At the Planning Commission public hearing, several members of the public spoke regarding
construction dust. To ensure that the building contractors are aware of the dust control
measures required during construction, the Commission added the specific dust control
language to the conditions of approval in place of the standard language requiring compliance
with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.040. The dust
control measures include the regular wetting of roads and graded areas and periodic wash-
downs or mechanical street sweeping of streets in the vicinity of the site. .
Subdivision and Setback Exceptions
Exceptions to the City's Subdivision and Zoning Regulations have been requested on several
lots. Details of the request are provided in the Planning Commission staff report. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed exceptions as recommended by
staff to allow reduced lot depths on nine lots and reduced street yards on three lots. With
approval of these exceptions, the City will be provided with an approximate 12 foot wide
access way beyond the edge of riparian vegetation/top of bank for creek maintenance.
Additionally, no creek setback exceptions are needed as a result of granting the exceptions. In
fact, in most areas a development setback in excess of 20 feet will be provided.
Environmental Review
The initial study prepared for this project identifies eleven mitigation measures that have been
added to the project to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. The most notable
of these mitigation measures include mitigation for the loss of a small number Congdon's
tarplants and protection of the southwestern pond turtle. A copy of the initial study is attached
to this report for Council review.
Council Agenda Report-1 miER 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 5
Inclusionary Housing
The vesting tentative tract map application was deemed complete for processing prior to the
April 1, 1999 effective date of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, therefore, no such
requirements have been imposed on this project.
CONCURRENCES
Other department comments have been incorporated intothe staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts will be limited to costs to maintain the public improvements and creek area
(recommended for City ownership). The detention basin, bikepath, and pedestrian bridge are
proposed to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may deny the subdivision, if it finds that it is inconsistent with the General Plan.
The Council may approve the subdivision with modified findings or conditions.
The Council may continue action on this item if additional information is needed. Direction
should be given to staff and the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. Draft Resolution of Denial
3. Environmental Initial Study for TR 166-98
4. Planning Commission staff report
5. Minutes of the April 14, 1999 Planning Commission meeting
6. Fuller Road Right of Way Detail
7. Small scale project plans
8. Vicinity map
Separate plans have been provided to the City Council and are available for review at the City
Clerk's Office.
Pmandevi\CC\TR 166-98,Hertel.doc
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Sencs)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 166-98, SUBDIVIDING A 14.66-
ACRE SITE INTO 48 RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AND OTHER OPEN SPACE AND
DETENTION BASIN LOTS AND REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND STREET YARD
SETBACK EXCEPTIONS, AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND
BROAD STREET (TR 166-98,County File No. 2289)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 14, 1999
and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 166-98 and subdivision and
street yard setback exception requests; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 1, 1999 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision and request for
subdivision and street yard setback exceptions are consistent with the General Plan, the Edna-
Islay Specific Plan, the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact with mitigation as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 project, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council
hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation
measures into the project:
1. A detailed soils engineering report shall to be submitted as part of the grading and building
permit applications. The soils report shall include: data regarding the nature, distribution
and strength of the existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures
including such recommendations to ensure that there are no 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. The subdivider shall provide the Director of Public Works with a detailed hydraulic analysis
which indicates how the project drainage facilities will be developed to meet City standards
that ensure the proposed development will not significantly impact adjacent and downstream
properties.
Resolution No. (1999 buries)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 2
The analysis must address and identify:
The existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities in order to provide
design criteria that meet City standards. The proposed development shall not create a
situation which increases flooding potential downstream.
The subdivider shall identify any areas within the project subject to inundation during a 100-
yr storm and process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) to include this property on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Map prior to
final acceptance of the development,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Any
lots subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad
elevations at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation, to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works. The areas subject to flooding shall be noted on the final map.
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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of Congdon's
tarplant habitat through a transplanting program approved by the Natural Resources Manager
or by participation in a City initiated program to maintain plants (transplanted by seed from
the adjoining Goldenrod Annexation site) and experiment with habitat management
techniques at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant.
5. A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to
ground disturbance to assure that Western Pond turtles are not present within the construction
zone. If turtles are found, the turtles shall be removed out of the construction zone and
placed in a safe, suitable habitat within the lower creek.
6. An educational brochure or other materials shall be provided to each of the households within
the development that will provide information regarding the correct procedures for protecting
the Western Pond turtles. Background information may be obtained from the Final Report of
the Arbors at Islay Hill Southwestern Pond Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland, March 1995.
7. A specific contact person shall be designated, either a resident within the development or
someone with an appropriate agency. The name and telephone number of the contact person
should be provided to all residents of the development, and included in the educational
information and on any signs regarding the turtle habitat. The contact person should be
encouraged to maintain records of turtle sightings, including the specific location and
circumstances of the sightings and explanation of what, if any, action was taken. Turtle
harassment must be reported to the California Department of Fish and Game.
8. All residents should be discouraged from using invasive non-native plants in the landscaping
areas adjacent to the creeks.
/,7
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 3
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with
snow fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager.
10. 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.
11. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
12. 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 project
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 m.p.h.;
c. Cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h;
d. Direct application of water on material being excavated and/or transported on-site or
off-site;
e. Watering material stockpiles;
f. Periodic wash-downs or mechanical street sweeping of streets in the vicinity of the
site; and
g. Non-potable water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map TR 166-98 and requests for subdivision and street yard setback exceptions, and the
Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports
thereof, makes the following findings:
(Tentative Map)
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General
Plan and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan which call for single family residential development
and circulation connections (Fuller Road, the pedestrian bridge and creekside bike path) in
this area.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1-SP
zone.
3. As conditioned, 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.
��0
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 4
4. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development
Department on March 27, 1999, describing potential environmental impacts associated with
the subdivision of the property. The initial study concludes that with mitigation measures,
the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
(Subdivision Exception)
1. It is impossible, impractical or undesirable to conform to the strict application of the required
lot depths on Lots 21,24,29,30,31,32,38,46,47, and 48 because of the existence of two creeks
traversing the irregular shaped site, adherence to the other City development regulations and
the City's desire to access the creek area for maintenance.
2. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the lot depth regulations is not
the sole reason for granting the reduced lot depth. The reduced depth is proposed to allow
City ownership and access to the creek areas.
3. The reduced lot depth will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity because ample setbacks from the two site creeks
are provided in compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance.
4. The granting of the reduced lot depth is in accordance with the intent and purpose of the lot
dimension regulations and is consistent with the General Plan and the Edna Islay Specific
Plan.
(Setback Exception)
1. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full 20 foot street yards on Lots 46, 47
and 48 because the house designs continue to accommodate a parked car in the driveway
without overhanging the sidewalk. Additionally, open space lots front Goldenrod Lane on
each side of the three lots providing visual relief from the built environment.
2. The reduced street and rear yards will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity because with the proposed design,
creek setbacks in excess of 20 feet will be provided.
3. Allowing a 5-foot setback for two story structures on the side yard abutting the creek will not
be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or
within the vicinity because the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will
not be developed and exception involves an insignificant portion of the total available solar
exposure.
SECTION 3. AApnroval. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map,
subdivision exceptions, and street yard setback exceptions for TR 166-98 (Tract 2289) is
approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
Resolution No. (1999 heries)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 5
(Tentative Map Conditions)
1. Off-site dedication of property for public right of way purposes is required to facilitate full
street improvements for Fuller Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to
acquire said public R/W dedication. if the subdivider cannot obtain the property as public
R/W, the City Council shall lend the subdivider its powers for condemnation to acquire the
off-site R/W dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If
condemnation is required, the subdivider shall pay all costs associated with the off-site R/W
acquisition (including attorneys and court costs).
Fuller Road shall be constructed to City standards. If necessary,the roadway near the bridge
structure may be located more on the applicant property in lieu of a reduced right-of-way.
2. The subdivider shall design and install(at its ultimate location)a new bridge over Lower Fork
Creek on Fuller Road. The new bridge shall provide a City standard sidewalk,curb and gutter
on each side and four 6" conduit sleeves (two on each side) in addition to that which is
necessary for gas electric,telephone and cable TV, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. If requested by the subdivider,a reimbursement agreement can be created that requires
adjacent developments to pay a pro-rata share of the actual bridge costs.
3. The design of the emergency vehicle tum-around on Goldenrod Lane shall be acceptable to the
Fire Chief,Community Development Director and Director of Public Works.
4.
i g Bred etre°, shall be aeaiea4ed to the City, a•.t ata :..tiag dr-iveways.
5. Vehicular access rights on Fuller Road shall be dedicated to the City.
6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and 3m wide street tree
easement along all public street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
7. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities (conduits, sidewalk
vaults, fusing, wiring, luminaries, etc.) per City standards and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. The design of said lighting systems shall be coordinated by the
developer between the City and PG&E so as to minimize the amount of City owned conduit
and wiring system, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
8. All internal streets shall be designed with 17m of R/W, l lm curb to curb and a 3m parkway
on each side. The structural street sections shall be designed using a TI=7.0.
9. Sewer lift station charges shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map as determined by
the Utilities Engineer.
� -lC
Resolution No. (1999 bcrnes)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 6
10. The final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including
service laterals, meters, fire hydrants, etc.) are subject to change to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer.
11. The City will participate in any line up-sizing of public water mains (increases above the size
required to provide fire flow or the City's 8" minimum, whichever is larger).
12. A gravity sewer system shall be designed and constructed to serve this development that will
connect to an existing manhole in Broad St. (State Hwy. 277) at El Capitan or other location
determined by the Utilities Director that will be compatible with the master sewer plan for
the Airport Annexation Area. Creek crossings shall include properly designed sewer siphons
and/or culverted crossings, subject to approval by the respective jurisdictional agencies.
An alternative design may be allowed, at the discretion of the Utilities Director. Use of the
County Airport lift station in Fiero Lane would be allowed only if it is determined to be in an
appropriate location and needed to serve this area of the City (within the Urban Reserve
Line). This would be subject to acceptable modifications to the existing agreement between
the County and the City that would transfer ownership of the lift station and force main to the
City to serve the tributary area. Any required retrofitting and/or refurbishment of the existing
lift station and force main to serve this tract and other tributary areas, as determined by the
Utilities Director, and preservation of the capacity allocated to the County to serve the
County Airport per the existing agreement, shall be incorporated into the project plans. If an
acceptable modification to the existing agreement between the City and the County cannot be
reached, a new lift station may be required at a location agreeable to the Utilities Director.
The Utilities Director reserves the right to decide which of the above alternatives is the most
beneficial and feasible to serve this general area, based on the final Airport Annexation Area
Sewage Master Plan.
The subdivider shall be entitled to reimbursement for any excess costs associated with any
over-sizing of sewer mains, retrofitting of the existing County sewer lift station and force
main or a new lift station, where such greater capacity is required by the City, in accordance
with City regulations.
13. All bridging, culverts and modifications to the existing creek channels shall be in compliance
with the City's Flood Management Policy Book (specifically regarding clear spanning of
creeks, etc.) and approved by the Director of Public Works, Corp. of Engineers and Fish &
Game and must meet City standards and policies.
14. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including any tree pruning
or removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be done to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works, Natural Resources Manager, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of
Fish & Game.
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 7
15. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
16. The final plans shall show a bike path connection between the western end of"A" St. and the
creek side bike path. A curb ramp(with bollards)shall be installed to facilitate this connection.
17. Bike path improvements shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and the
existing bike path improvements for Tract 1750. The bike path and pedestrian bridge shall be
owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association.
18. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works.
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 Director of Public Works.
19. All development of this site shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, except as
approved by the City Council.
20. Manholes shall be shown on improvement plans in lieu of clean outs.
21. The subdivision shall be annexed to the Santa Lucia Homeowners Association. An
amendment shall be incorporated into the existing CC&R's, which provides for
reimbursement for City costs to provide stormflow management for the creeks within the
boundaries of this subdivision, to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Director, Natural
Resources Manager and City Attorney. Such activities include pruning and/or thinning of
willow trees and fire protection measures (mowing).
22. The applicant shall process a lot line adjustment separating the residential portion of the
subdivision from the existing commercial area. The property line separating these two areas
shall be approximately the centerline of the creek.
23. The creek areas shall be delineated as separate lots and shall be dedicated to the City with
appropriate access, as determined by the Director of Public Works.
Resolution No. (1999 beries)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 8
24. All detention basins and related improvements shall be located within lots separate from the
creek lot and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
25. The proposed detention basins shall be graded in such a way as to look natural, rather than
manufactured. The applicant shall make every effort to design the basins so they do not
require fencing. If fencing is necessary, the fencing design shall be approved by the
Community Development Director and/or Architectural Review Commission.
26. Access to the northern basin should be from Fuller Road. Access to the southern basin
should be from the easement between lots 27 and 28, to the satisfaction of the Natural
Resources Manager and Public Works Director.
27. Access road and Fire Department turnaround surface material shall be grasscrete or similar
material approved by the Director of Public Works, the Community Development Director,
Fire Chief and Natural Resources Manager.
28. Lots 40, 41, 42, and 43 shall be accessed via a private common driveway with appropriate
easement and maintenance agreement.
29. Lot 5 and 12 shall be redesigned in such a way is to not require approval of a subdivision
exception for lot size and/or lot width.
30. To the maximum extent feasible, all construction traffic shall be routed from Broad Street
via Fuller Road.
31. The tentative map shows drainage improvements extending off-site into the creek on the
adjacent property located to the south. The drainage system for this development shall be
contained within the limits of the subdivision boundaries.
32. The existing London Plane Tree located in the vicinity of Lot 28 shall be located on project
development plans and preserved as a site amenity.
33. As a part of the architectural review process, the Architectural Review Commission shall
review the project's proposed fencing and streetscape design. Fencing on Fuller Road and
Larkspur Street shall not be located or designed in such a way that the development appears
to tum its back to the street. In addition, fencing at these locations shall include operable
gates to allow for property owner maintenance of these areas.
34. The developer shall disclose to potential purchasers of lots that the neighboring property is
zoned Service-Commercial (C-S) and provide potential purchasers with a list of C-S allowed
uses.
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 9
35. The subdivider shall provide a pedestrian bridge (and connecting pathways) crossing Middle
Fork Creek, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director,Natural Resources Manager, and
Community Development Director.
(Subdivision Exception Conditions)
1. Reduced lot depths shall be approved for Lots 21,24,29,30,31,32,38,46,47, and 48 as
proposed on the tentative map.
2. Lots 5 and 12 shall be redesigned to comply with the City's Subdivision Regulations with
regard to lot width and lot size.
(Setback Exceptions Conditions)
1. Reduced street yards shall be approved for Lots 46, 47, and 48 allowing: a) a minimum 10
foot front yard for living space, b) a minimum 10 foot front yard for side loaded garages, and
c) a minimum 18 foot front yard for front loaded garages. In any case, the reduced street
yard shall allow a minimum 18 foot deep driveway to accommodate a parked car without
overhanging the sidewalk.
2. Reduced other yards shall be approved for Lots 46, 47, and 48 allowing a 5-foot setback for
two story structures on the yard abutting the creek.
(Code Requirements)
1. Architectural review is required for the design and location of the new homes and fencing in
the subdivision.
2. As required by the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, no structures (except approved property
line fencing with an open design) shall be placed within 20 feet from top of bank of edge of
riparian vegetation,whichever is greater.
3. General construction Activity Storm Water Permits 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.
4. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City
regulations, Standard Engineering Details and Standard Specifications (6' wide integral curb,
gutter sidewalk & driveway ramps, full street pavement, signing, striping, street lighting,
barricades, etc.).
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
TR 166-98(Tract 2289)
Page 10
5. Street trees shall be planted in accordance with City Standards and Policies at the time of
development of each lot, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Species shall be Cape
Chestnut, Honey Locust, New Zealand Christmas Tree, and Coast Live Oak.
6. The applicant shall pay park-in lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section
16.40.080.
7. Streets must be named as part of the final map approval process. The subdivider shall submit
a minimum of three street names for review by the Community Development Department, in
accordance with the Street Name and Address Regulations.
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 11999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Q,//,. h_a'"��
fftb. J gens , Ci Attorney
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 48-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FULLER ROAD AND BROAD
STREET (TR 166-98,Tract 2289)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 14, 1999
and recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 166-98; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 1, 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 subdivision is 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;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. That this Council, after consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR
166-98, the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony,
and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
(Council to insert findings here)
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 166-
98 (Tract 2289) is hereby denied.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of ' 1999.
f��
1
Resolution No. (1999 ehem)
TR 166-98'(Traet 2289)
Page 2
Mayor Allen.Settle
ATTEST`.
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED.AS TO.FORM;
J e Jor ens-en, ity eorney
l �;
Attachment 3
INITIAL STUDY ER 166-98
Environmental Checklist
Tract 2289
Fuller Road Subdivision
1. Project Title: Fuller Road residential subdivision (Tract 2289)
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:
Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7175
4. Project Location:
SE comer Fuller Road and Broad Street
Edna Islay Secondary Planning Area
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Representative:
R. W. Hertel and Son's Inc. RRM Design Group
75 South Higuera Street 3701 South Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential and Services and Manufacturing
7. Zoning:
Pre-zoned Low Density Residential with a Specific Plan Overlay (R-1-SP) and Service
Commercial (C-S).
8. Project Description:
The project is a request to subdivide a 16.5 acre parcel into one commercial lot on Broad
Street and 49 residential lots behind the commercial lot for the development of a
residential subdivision. The residential parcels range in size from 566 sm (6,090 sq.ft). to
905 sm (9,738 sq.ft). Other components of the subdivision include site grading and the
installation of public improvements(including three streets, two detention basins and one
bicycle path). The project also involves the dedication of the creek and setback areas 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.
Two tributaries of Islay Creek run through the site from the east to the northwest. The
creek channels and banks will be on separate lots. Adequate area exists to provide a 20
foot wide no build easement from the top of the creekbank.
The site is relatively flat, until about 10 feet from the creek, when it site slopes towards
the bottom of the creek. The soil underlying the site is primarily clay and with minor
areas of loam. A large serpentine rock outcropping is located in the southeastern
corner of the property. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses and
forbs, 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 and by Jacqueline Bowland in
December 1998.
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The property's General Plan designation is Services and Manufacturing and Low
Density Residential. The property is zoned R-1-SP, C-S, and C/OS (see atttached
Exhibit A).
The site is bordered on the north by Fuller Road, on the east by Larkspur Street, on the
south by a seasonal stream, and on the west by Broad Street. Surrounding land uses
include single family residential to the north and east and service commercial to the
south and west.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
a) Environmental review
b) Vesting tentative tract map
c) Architectural review
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
Work within and over the creeks will require approval by the State Department of
Fish and Game (DFG).
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 Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
X Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
X Water Noise X Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Air Quality Public Services � ��� M
X Transportation and X Utilities and Service '
Circulation Systems
w
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
FX] 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
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.
cl
Prepared March 27, 1999
Sign re 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.
/—Z
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract 9 sources Pot. i Potentially Less than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. sig At Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 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 Low Density
Residential and Services and Manufacturing. The proposed subdivision is consistent with these designations.
Zoning: In May of 1998, the City Council adopted an ordinance pre-zoning the site R-1-SP, C-S and ClOS. The
proposed subdivision is consistent with these designations.
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 Low-Density Residential, Service Commercial and
Conservation Open Space. The circulation design shown in the EISP is consistent with the street design
proposed. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Edna Islay Specific Plan.
Open Space Element:The Open Space Element requires developments to include buffer areas next to creeks,to
protect the riparian habitat The project is required to provide a 20' setback from the top of bank or from the
riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The project is providing a minimum of 20 feet between the proposed
dwelling units and the top of creek bankledge of riparian vegetation and therefore is consistent with the City's
Open Space Element and Creek Setback Ordinance.
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) review: Work within or near the creeks will require approval by the DFG.
Approval of DFG permits will assure that there are no conflicts with any environmental policies adopted by that
agency.
Conclusion: Not significant as the project is consistent with Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinance, 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 is a subdivision which if approved will allow the construction of 49 single family dwellings. 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 were occupied at this rate, about 113 persons would live on the property. This
1-Z
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract 9 sources rot , Poun Ixss rnan tvo
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. sig At Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 6 1 Incorporated
additional population and housing is consistent with the approved phasing plan for Edna Islay,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.
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.
The following mitigation measure is recommended to insure that soils impacts are insignificant.
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract .9 Sources Pol Potentiany Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Siz nt Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 7 Incorporated
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. Two drainage basins are proposed to capture the additional runoff. The
basins will retain water for short periods of time, then slowly release it into the adjacent creek. Most of the year,
the basins will be empty.
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 will be designed so only the back yard runoff drains toward the creeks. Project plans do
not show how storm water will be conveyed to the basin. The development must be designed so as not to
increase flooding downstream. The project is also required to be designed to meet City grading and drainage
standards.
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.
/Z�
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract 9 Sources Pot Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hegel and Sons Inc. Sig, n Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 8 Incorporated
Mitigation:
2. The subdivider shall provide the Director of Public Works with a detailed hydraulic analysis which indicates the
effects of the proposed development on adjacent and downstream properties.
The analysis must address and identify:
The existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities in order to provide design criteria that
meet City standards. The proposed development shall not create a situation which increases flooding potential
downstream.
The subdivider shall identify any areas within the project subject to inundation during a 100-yr storm and
process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)to include
this property on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Mao prior to final acceptance of the development, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Any lots subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations at least
1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The areas subject
to flooding shall be noted on the final map.
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.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMto(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 above the threshold contained in the APCD's"CEQA Air Quality Handbook"for generating
significant amounts of emissions and therefore has the potential to cause significant air quality impacts. As a part
of the subdivision proposal the applicant is proposing to continue an existing off-street bikepath that will connect
existing neighborhoods as well as provide a connection to the City's Broad Street bike lane.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract 9 sources Potcr. , Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Sig it Significant Significant Impact
Issu, Unless Impact
ER 166-98 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)
Short Term
Construction traffic has the ability to cause impacts(noise and dust)to neighboring properties. Construction traffic
will be required to use Fuller Road to Broad Street to reduce these impacts.
Long Term
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 490 ADT and 49 PHT.
The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on Fuller Road (presently unimproved)and Broad
Streets and reduce traffic on Poinsettia. Fuller Road is a local street that will be constructed with full street
improvements as a part of this development. 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.
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 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:
3. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the County of San Luis Obispo and provide the City
with a copy of the recorded document.
Conclusion: No impacts with mitigation.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats x
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 20
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
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract S9 Sources Por• Y Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Si, nt Significant Significant Impact
Issu'.. Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 10 Incorporated
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 20 X
The EISP designates seasonal creeks as waterway protection areas in which existing vegetation &wildlife should
be protected and pedestrian traffic buffered from creek banks. Additionally, the City's Creek Setback Ordinance
establishes minimum setback requirements from creeks. The project is required to comply with these regulations.
In April 1998, Bowland and Associates conducted a biological survey of the subject site. The consulting biologist
noted that the wildlife use of the site is expected to be limited to cosmopolitan species accustomed to human
activity. The creeks however are intermittent drainages, which provide habitat for southwestern pond turtles and
numerous species of birds and other wildlife. To ensure that the southwestern pond turtle is not negatively
impacted by the proposed development, a pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted and an
educational brochure provided to each household in the subdivision.
In December 1998, Bowland and Associates conducted a second biological survey specifically searching for a
sensitive plant known as the Congdon's tarplant. The survey identified a small number of individuals(less than 50)
of a species considered to be rare by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This species, known as
Congdon's tarplant occurs in several areas around San Luis Obispo, including the subject site. The plant can be
found on the margins of wetlands, or in disturbed ground in suitable soil conditions. It is in the latter situation that
the plant has been found on the subject site. It is reasonable to expect that it could be found elsewhere on the site
if those areas were to be disked or plowed.
City policies direct that the loss of habitat for species considered rare by CNPS be mitigated. This mitigation can
be in the form of a transplanting effort, or by participation in a mitigation effort being conducted jointly by several
parties. It is recommended that the project sponsors contribute to a current City effort to establish a viable
population of Congdon's tarplant at the fields south of the City Water Reclamation facility. This contribution can be
in the form of a cash payment to the City of San Luis Obispo, the proceeds of which would be restricted to use in
that effort
Mitigation:
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of Congdon's tarplant habitat by
either a City approved transplanting effort or participation in a City approved or initiated mitigation effort being
conducted by other parties.
5. A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to ground disturbance to
assure that turtles are not present within the construction zone. If turtles are found, the turtles shall be
removed out of the construction zone and placed in a safe, suitable habitat within the lower creek.
6. An educational brochure or other materials shall be provided to each of the households within the
development that will provide information regarding the correct procedures for protecting the turtles.
Background information may be obtained from the Final Report of the Arbors at Islay Hill Southwestern Pond
Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland, March 1995.
7. A specific contact person shall be designated, either a resident within the development or someone with an
appropriate agency. The name and telephone number of the contact person should be provided to all
residents of the development, and included in the educational information and on any signs regarding the
turtle habitat. The contact person should be encouraged to maintain records of turtle sightings, including the
specific location and circumstances of the sightings and explanation of what, if any, action was taken. Turtle
harassment must be reported to the California Department of Fish and Game.
8. All residents should be discouraged from using invasive non-native plants in the landscaping areas adjacent to
the creek/riparian areas.
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract '9 sources te.. y Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Sigi t Significant Significant Impact
Issue Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 11 Incorporated
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with snow fencing to the
satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
8. 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
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region X
and the residents of the State?
The Energy Conservation Element policies encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use. The project
would expand an already-developed neighborhood in accordance with the EISP, which was reviewed for
consistency with the Energy Conservation Element. Lots are primarily oriented in a north-south direction because
of the shape of the site and the location of existing creeks.
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
c) 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. Fire hydrants will be required.
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 (60Ldn). 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 homes are more than 300 feet from the centerline of 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
l
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract -19 sources Pote y Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Sig it Significant Significant Impact
Issut. Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 12 Incorporated
therefore is exposed to less than 60 d6 from airport operations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impacts from airport and roadway noise.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
The proposed subdivision will contain 49 single-family homes. In San Luis Obispo, according to CDF estimates,
the average household size is 2.3 persons. If all 49 homes are occupied, the projected population of this
subdivision would be 49 X 2.3 = 112. Also according to census figures, approximately 13.8% of the city's
population is aged seventeen or younger. Therefore, we would expect to find 112 X 13.88% = 15 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 15+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 400 acre-
feet of water available through retrofitting to allocate to the development of post-1994 annexations.
L
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract . 9 Sources Poteh Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Sigr Significant Significant Impact
lssut. Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 13 Incorporated
The project is expected to use 0.30 acre-feet/dwelling X 49 dwellings = 14.7 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 twice as much water annually
as the project's 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. There is the potential to modify the Tank Far
Lift Station or provide some other mitigation to provide reliable service until areawide improvements
anticipated pursuant to the Airport Area Specific Plan are constructed. Lift station fees will be charged
Any work done to increase capacity will offset lift station fees. Participation in a project to construct
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 a
the lift station or in the cost of a new gravity sewer line. These requirements are adequate to mitigate the
effects of increased wastewater generation resulting from this development.
Storm Water Drainage
The construction of a residential subdivision on the site will increase runoff from the area. The plans include
the construction of one or two detention basins, to be sized according to City standards, to accommodate
the additional runoff. The basins will hold water from storms and release it at a rate that can be
accommodated by the creeks. The additional runoff, drained in this manner, is not expected to create an
adverse effects on the natural drainage system.
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, landfill capacity 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 1990 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 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:
10. 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.
11. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
Conclusion: Less than significant with mitigation.
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract 19 Sources Pot, .y Potentially Less Than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. SiL Mt Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 166-98 mitigation
Page 14 Incorporated
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
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 January of 1999, a Phase 1 Archaeological Survey was performed on the site. The survey did not find
any evidence of either prehistoric or early historic archeological remains on the property. The survey als
concludes that since no archaeological materials or features were found, and no buried material or deposit
are believed to exist within the area, the proposed project is not expected to have any effect on known o
suspected cultural resources. Based on these findings, no additional archaeological work is recommende
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 49 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
Fuller Road Subdivision, Tract �9 sources Pote: i Potentially l ess than No
R.W. Hertel and Sons Inc. Sig a Significant Significant Impact
UnIcss Impact
ER 166-98 lssu.. mitigation
Page 15 Incorporated
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
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 FOR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent t
which they address site-specific conditions of the project.
Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 1997.
2. City of SLO Land Use Element, April 1997.
3. Edna-Islay Specific Plan, adopted in 1982 by City Council.
4. State of California Department of Finance 1997 Population and Household Estimates.
/ _3
5. San Luis Obispo Qu. .ngle Map, prepared by the State Geol%._� t 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. 1 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-
Soil Conservation Service.
11. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
12. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996.
14. City of SLO Water Allocation Regulations, June 1995.
15. Water and Wastewater Management Element, 1994.
16. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates,
July 1994.
r20.17. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995.
18. City of San Luis Obispo Historical preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987.
19. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of Tract 2289, Thor Conway, Jan., 1999.
Biological Survey, Bowland and Associates, April and December 1998.
19. MITIGATION MEASURESIM_ ONITORING 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: The subdivider shall provide the Director of Public Works with a detailed
hydraulic analysis which indicates the effects of the proposed development on
adjacent and downstream properties.
The analysis must address and identify:
The existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities in order
to provide design criteria that meet City standards. The proposed development
shall not create a situation which increases flooding potential downstream.
The subdivider shall identify any areas within the project subject to
inundation during a 100-year storm and process and complete a Federal
Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to include
this property on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Map prior to final
acceptance of the development, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
Any lots subject to flooding during a 100-year storm shall be graded to
provide minimum pad elevations at least 1 foot above the 100-year storm
elevation, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The areas
subject to flooding shall be noted on the final map.
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.
1-3.3
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 Proaram: 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: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of
Congdon's tarplant habitat by either a City approved transplanting effort or
participation in a City approved or initiated mitigation effort being conducted by
other parties.
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 and Natural Resources Manager.
5. MitigationMeasure: A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist prior to ground disturbance to assure turtles are not present
within the construction zone. If turtles are found, the turtles shall be
removed out of the construction zone and placed in a safe, suitable habitat
within the lower creek.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the
Community Development Department and Public Works Departments
review of grading plans.
6. MitigationMeasure: An educational brochure or other materials shall be provided to each of the
households within the development that will provide information regarding
the correct procedures for protecting the turtles. Background information
may be obtained from the Final Report of the Arbors at Islay Hill
Southwestern Pond Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland, March 1995.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the
Community Development Department's review of the project's CC&Rs.
7. Mitigation Measure: A specific contact person shall be designated, either a resident within the
development or someone with an appropriate agency. The name and
telephone number of the contact person should be provided to all residents of
the development, and included in the educational information and on any signs
regarding the turtle habitat. The contact person should be encouraged to
maintain records of turtle sightings, including the specific location and
circumstances of the sightings and explanation of what, if any, action was
taken. Turtle harassment must be reported to the California Department of
Fish and Game.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the
Community Development Department's review of the project's CC&Rs.
8. Mitigation Measure: All residents should be discouraged from using invasive non-native plants in
the landscaping areas adjacent to the creek/riparian areas.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the
Community Development Department's review of the project's CC&Rs.
9. Mitigation Measure: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge
of grading with snow fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources
Manager.
Monitoring Program: The Natural Resources Manager will review plans through the grading
permit process.
10. 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.
� A /
11. 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.
E EIVED APR 2 1 10
BOWLAND & ASSOCIATES
Biological & Environmental Consulting Services
2674 East Main Street, Suite C-205
Ventura, CA 93003-2899
(805) 652-0577 fax 652-0576
Mr. Jon Adams, Construction Manager April 3, 1998
R. W. Hertel & Sons, Inc.
75 South Higuera, Suite 165
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
RE: Garcia Property - Biological Survey
Dear Jon:
In accordance with your request, I conducted a biological survey of the Garcia property,
located generally west of Tract 2211 (The Willows) on March 18, 1998. 1 conducted a thorough
walk-over survey of the property. The site can be characterized as a disturbed annual grassland,
with the southern and northern boundaries formed by the riparian corridors of two forks of Islay
Creek.
The site appears to have been previously disturbed by disking and/or tilling, and a result,
is vegetated primarily with non-native, ruderal plant species. Although many plants were not
yet in flower, the site appears to be dominated by non-native wild oats (Avera species). Other
common non-native plants include wild radish (Raphanus sativus), cutleaf geranium (Geranium
dissectum), Italian wild rye (Lolium multiflorum), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Fuller's
teasel (Dipsacus follonum), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). One gum tree (Eucalyptus
species) occurs near the center of the site. Patches of native coyote bush (Baccharis piluaris)
are scattered throughout the property, becoming more common in the western perimeter. Small.
dense patches of the native grass, creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides), occurs between the
annual grassland and the riparian corridors along both forks of Islay Creek. Few other native
plants were identified within the grassland component of the site.
An outcrop of serpentine rock occurs along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent
to and extending into the southern fork of Islay Creek. This rocky area is sparsely vegetated,
and contains mostly the non-native grasses wild oats and Italian wild rye, along with scattered
natives such as lupine (Lupinus species), sawtooth goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), redmaids
(Calandrinia ciliata), and creamcups (Platystemon californicus).
The riparian corridors are dominated by willows (Salix species), with occasional western
sycamores (Platanus racemosa) and a few California black walnuts (Juglans californica). The
understory includes poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), California blackberry (Rubus
ursinus), non-native grasses such as wild oats (Avena species) and Italian wild rye (Lolium
multiflorum). The non-native and invasive ornamental periwinkle (Vinca species) occurs along
the banks of the south fork.
_�
Jon Adams
April 3, 1998
Page two
Wildlife use of the site is expected to be limited to cosmopolitan species accustomed to
human activity. Substantial gopher activity was noted during the field survey, but no other
mammal usage was indicated. The site itself offers unrestricted movement for wildlife, but is
bounded by urban land uses, including industrial, residential, and a golf driving range.
The creeks along the property boundaries are intermittent drainages, which provide
habitat for southwestern pond turtles and numerous species of birds and other wildlife. These
creeks are not expected to provide suitable habitat for California red-legged frogs, since they do
not contain a well-developed series of ponds and riffles, nor is water present throughout the
year. No other sensitive species of wildlife are expected to occur within this site.
Please do not hesitate to call to discuss the contents of this report. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Jacqueline L. Bowland
Consulting Biologist
T
BOWLAND & ASSOCIATES
Biological & Environmental Consulting Services
2674 East Main Street, Suite C-205
Ventura, CA 93003-2899
(805) 652-0577 fax 652-0576
Ms. Peggy Mandeville December 7, 1998
City of San Luis Obispo
PO Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA
93403-8100
RE: Biological Survey - Tentative Tract 2289 (Garcia Property)
Dear Peggy:
In accordance with Jon Adams' request, I conducted a second biological survey of
tentative tract 2289 (the Garcia property) located in the City of San Luis Obispo. On 11/20/98,
I conducted a thorough walk-over survey of the property, specifically searching for a sensitive
plant known as Cogdon's tarplant (Hemitonia parryi ssp. congdonit). This subspecies is listed
by the California Native Plant Society as List 1B (plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere)/C1 (enough data on file to support federal listing).' This annual plant
typically occurs in alkaline grasslands, and has been recently seen occurring in several locations
throughout the City of San Luis Obispo where it had not previously been noted (pers. comm.,
Peggy Mandeville, 11/16/98).
Approximately 14 dead Cogdon's tarplants were found in two locations adjacent to the
driving range: on both sides of the existing dirt road (the extension of Fuller Road) within spoil
piles (approximately 8-10 plants);.4 dead and/or dying plants on the east side of Lot 23, along
the paved sidewalk, west side of Larkspur Street. The latter location may have been a spoil site;
other plants present are all ruderal species, common to disturbed areas (i.e. bristly ox-tongue
(Picris echioides), yellow star thistle(Centaurea solstitialis); black mustard(Brassica nigra); and
non-native grasses). The approximate location of these plants is roughly shown on the enclosed
map.
No other Cogdon's tarplants were discovered within the remainder of the subject
property. The conditions encountered during the November 20th site visit were substantially the
same as found during the March 1998 site visit, with no new species of plants identified. As
previously reported, the site is dominated by non-native wild oats (Avena sp. ) with abundant
wild vetch (Vicia sp.) and bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides). The dead oats and vetch form
dense mats ranging in depth from 3 to 10 inches, shading the ground and retarding the growth
of other plants. Areas lacking these mats contained grass seedlings.
' Sldnner,et al. (1994), Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native
Plant Society, Special Publication No. 1/Fifth Edition. �f
1�
Peggy Mandeville
December 7, 1998
Page two
Other common non-native plants include wild radish (Raphanus sativus), cutleaf geranium
(Geranium dissectum), Italian wild rye(Lolium multiflorum), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare),
Fuller's teasel (Dipsacus follonum), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha). One gum tree
(Eucalyptus species) occurs near the center of the site. Patches of native coyote bush (Baccharis
piluaris) are scattered throughout the property, becoming more common in the western
perimeter. Small, dense patches of the native grass, creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides),
occurs between the annual grassland and the riparian corridors along both forks of Islay Creek.
Few other native plants were identified within the grassland component of the site.
An outcrop of serpentine rock occurs along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent
to and extending into the southern fork of Islay Creek. This rocky area is sparsely vegetated,
and contains mostly the non-native grasses wild oats and Italian wild rye, along with scattered
natives such as lupine (Lupinus species), sawtooth goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), redmaids
(Calandrinia ciliata), and creamcups (Platystemon californicus).
Please do not hesitate to call to discuss the contents of this report. I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely yours,
Jacqueline L. Bowland
Consulting Biologist
cc: Jon Adams, Hertel
enclosure (map)
f f V
§ � 11,Jt .. at
flg
LU
Ro
16
Pi
VA
will
�� �' :� :•. fes;;.s.� �:„ �` �t' !� Q
r/: ;� _:. .p \ 1'. `•/� kir ++nn
w
o. r.
>;('_..�` _ it . 1 • CA e
all
\-;
qK
LU
i d6.0 _ W9 he
E;
' ro
':a .—
s� `
- Attachment 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # 1
BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner �� MEETING DATE: April 14, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage
FILE NUMBER: TR 166-98 (County file no. TM 2289)
PROJECT ADDRESS: SE corner of Fuller Road and Broad Street
SUBJECT: Subdivision of a portion of the Fuller Road annexation area into one developed
commercial lot and 49 undeveloped single family residential lots.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration, and approval of the tentative tract map with
subdivision and setback exceptions to the City Council, subject to mitigation measures and
conditions.
BACKGROUND
Situation.
The Fuller Road annexation area was annexed to the City in February of this year. It is within
the Secondary Planning Area of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP) area. R.W. Hertel and
Sons, Inc. have submitted an application to subdivide a portion of the annexation area into 49
residential lots and one commercial lot (currently developed). Final actions on subdivisions are
made by the City Council after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Data Summary
Address: SE comer Fuller Road and Broad Street
Applicants: R. W. Hertel & Sons, Inc.
Representative: RRM Design Group
Zoning: Low-Density Residential, Specific Plan (R-1-SP), C-S
General Plan: Low-Density Residential and Services and Manufacturing
Environmental status: Negative Declaration with mitigation measures recommended by
the Community Development Director on March 27, 1999. Final
action on the environmental document will be taken by the City
Council.
Project action deadline: September 1, 1999
Site description
The site is relatively flat, with two tributaries of Islay Creek running through the site from the
east to the northwest. A large serpentine rock outcropping is located in the southeastern corner
of the property. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of weedy grasses and forbs, with
several at the edge of the site and along the creek. Existing development on the property
includes a golf driving range and various service commercial businesses fronting Broad Street.
Surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north and east and service
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE comer Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 2
commercial to the south and west.
Project Description
The project is a request to subdivide a 16.5 acre parcel into one commercial lot on Broad
Street and 49 residential lots behind the commercial lot for the development of a residential
subdivision. The residential parcels range in size from 558 sm (6,004 s.f.) to 1048 sm (11,276
s.f.). In order to provide access to these lots, the applicant proposes to extend Goldenrod Lane
approximately 225 m (738 feet) and construct two additional cul de sacs with access from
Fuller Road. Other components of the subdivision include site grading and the installation of
public improvements including one vehicular bridge on Fuller Road, two detention basins, and
one bike path. The project also involves the dedication of the creek and setback areas for the
purpose of managing and protecting the existing seasonal creeks on the property.
EVALUATION
Consistency with City Plans
The proposed subdivision which calls for single family residential development is consistent
with the City's General Plan and Edna Islay Specific Plan. As required by the General Plan,
the proposed subdivision has been integrated into the existing neighborhood and the property's
creek areas have been preserved. Additionally, the subdivision provides for the extension of
an existing off-street bikepath which is called for in the Edna Islay Specific Plan.
Subdivision Design
The proposed design is typical of single family residential development. Project plans note
that the commercial portion of the site is not included in the subdivision. In order to allow
this, the applicant must process a lot line adjustment to separate the commercial area from the
residential subdivision. Staff recommends that the lot line be located at the approximate
centerline of the creek. Project plans also do not identify the creek areas as lots. Staff
recommends that these areas be delineated as separate lots and dedicated to the City as has
been done in the development upstream.
The subdivision design calls for Goldenrod Lane to be extended to allow for the construction
of twenty-four single family dwellings. In order to permit such a long cul de sac, the Fire
Department has required the applicant to construct a fire truck turnaround near Lot 45. The
turnaround is the environmentally preferred alternative staff supports in lieu of requiring
another creek crossing in this area.
Several lots within the subdivision have multiple frontages which lead to the potential for the
development to look like its back has been turned to the street. To ensure this does not
happen, the Architectural Review Commission shall review the project's proposed fencing and
streetscape design as part of the Commission's review of the proposed development.
�- yz
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 3
Other minor revisions to the proposed subdivision are recommended by staff. These revisions
include locating detention basins and related improvements within lots separate from the creek
lot and relocating the proposed access to the southern basin via the utility easement between
Lots 27 and 28. For specific conditions of approval, the Commission should refer to staff
recommended conditions at the end of this report.
Subdivision Exceptions
Exceptions to the City's Subdivision Regulations have been requested on several lots. Staff
recommends that Lots 5 and 12 be redesigned to eliminate the need for exceptions to lot width
and/or size because there are no unique circumstances that would justify their approval. Staff
on the other hand, recommends approval of exceptions for the minimum 90 foot (27.5m) lot
depth for Lots 21,24,29,30,31,38,46,47,and 48 because the exception provides the City with
an approximate 12 foot wide access way beyond the edge of riparian vegetation/top of bank for
creek maintenance. No creek setback exceptions are needed as a result of the reduced lot
depth. In fact, in most areas a development setback in excess of 20 feet will be provided.
With approval of the lot depth exceptions, the lot depths would be as follows:
Lot Number Min. Lot Depth Average Lot Depth Max. Lot Depth
21 86 feet 89 feet 92 feet
24 44 feet 80 feet 116 feet
29 79 feet 83 feet 87 feet
30 79 feet 85 feet 91 feet
31 77 feet 84 feet 91 feet
32 77 feet 86 feet 95 feet
46 10 feet 56 feet 93 feet
47 60 feet 76 feet 93 feet
48 59 feet 59 feet 93 feet
(Lot depth is measured by averaging the minimum and maximum depths of each lot.)
Lots 46, 47, and 48 have been identified as the most confined lots. To accommodate the
development of these lots, the applicant is requesting front and rear yard setback exceptions.
A discussion of these requests is included in the next section of this report.
Setback Exceptions
Lots 46, 47, and 48 are difficult lots to develop given their shape and proximity to the creek.
These three lots are separated from the other lots on the street by creekside open space. The
applicant is pursuing creative ideas such as side loaded garages to make these lots easier to
develop. Staff supports these ideas and recommends the applicant be given the ability to
develop these three lots with 10 foot street yard setbacks (20 feet is normally required) as long
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 4
as a minimum 18 foot deep driveway is provided to accommodate a parked car without
overhanging the sidewalk. To allow additional development flexibility, staff recommends
approval of a 5-foot setback (10 feet is normally required for a 24-foot high structure) for two
story structures on the yard abutting the creek because the property that will be shaded by the
excepted development will not be developed.
Creek Setbacks
The proposed design is consistent with the City's Creek Setback Regulations which require a
minimum setback of 20 feet from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is
greater.
Environmental Review
The initial study prepared for this project identifies eleven mitigation measures that have been
added to the project to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. The most notable
of these mitigation measures are described below. The others include the provision of a soils
engineering report and hydrology study, granting of an avigation easement to the County,
development of a plan to recycle discarded building materials, and the provision for interior
and exterior recycling. A copy of the initial study is attached to this report for Commission
review.
In April of 1998, Bowland and Associates conducted a biological survey of the subject site.
The consulting biologist noted that wildlife use of the site is expected to be limited to
cosmopolitan species accustomed to human activity. The creeks however are intermittent
drainages, which provide habitat for southwestern pond turtles and numerous species of birds
and other wildlife. To ensure that the southwestern pond turtle is not negatively impacted by
the proposed development, staff recommends that a pre-construction clearance survey be
conducted and an educational brochure be provided to each household in the subdivision.
In December 1998, Bowland and Associates conducted a second biological survey specifically
searching for the Congdon's tarplant, a species listed by the California Native Plant Society as
List 1B, plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere. A small number of the plants
(less than 50), were found on the margins of wetlands and in disturbed areas making it
reasonable to expect that the plant could be found elsewhere on the site if those areas were
disked or plowed. The plants were found in small numbers scattered around construction spoils
which would not be appropriate for protection in place. Therefore, the Natural Resources
Manager recommends that the applicant mitigate the loss of habitat through a transplanting
program approved by the Natural Resources Manager or by participation in a City initiated
program to maintain plants (transplanted by seed from the adjoining Goldenrod Annexation
site) and experiment with habitat management technologies at the City's Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
-C6
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the map to the City Council, based on findings and subject to
modified conditions.
2. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial.
3. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding
desired information or needed revisions to plans.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The comments from other departments have been incorporated into conditions of approval and
code requirements noted below.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration, and approval of the tentative tract map with
subdivision and setback exceptions to the City Council, subject to the following findings,
mitigation measures and conditions.
Findings
(Tentative Map)
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General
Plan and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan which call for single family residential development
and circulation connections (Fuller Road and the creekside bikepath) in this area.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1-SP
zone.
3. As conditioned, 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. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development
Department on March 27, 1999, describing potential environmental impacts associated with
the subdivision of the property. The initial study concludes that with mitigation measures,
the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
(Subdivision Exception)
1. It is impossible, impractical or undesirable to conform to the strict application of the
l-y�
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE comer Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 6
required lot depths on Lots 21,24,29,30,31,32,38,46,47, and 48 because of the existence of
two creeks traversing the irregular shaped site, adherence to the other City development
regulations and the City's desire to access the creek area for maintenance.
2. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the lot depth regulations is not
the sole reason for granting the reduced lot depth. The reduced depth is proposed to allow
City ownership and access to the creek areas.
3. The reduced lot depth will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity because ample setbacks from the two site creeks
are provided in compliance with the City's Creek Setback Ordinance.
4. The granting of the reduced lot depth is in accordance with the intent and purpose of the lot
dimension regulations and is consistent with the General Plan and the Edna Islay Specific
Plan.
(Setback Exception)
1. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring the full 20 foot street yards on Lots 46,
47 and 48 because the house designs continue to accommodate a parked car in the driveway
without overhanging the sidewalk. Additionally, open space lots front Goldenrod Lane on
each side of the three lots providing visual relief from the built environment.
2. The reduced street and rear yards will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of
persons working or living at the site or within the vicinity because with the proposed
design, creek setbacks in excess of 20 feet will be provided.
3. Allowing a 5-foot setback for two story structures on the side yard abutting the creek will
not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons working or living at the site or
within the vicinity because the property that will be shaded by the excepted development
will not be developed and exception involves an insignificant portion of the total available
solar exposure.
Mitigation Measures
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 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.
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 7
2. The subdivider shall provide the Director of Public Works with a detailed hydraulic
analysis which indicates how the project drainage facilities will be developed to meet City
standards that ensure the proposed development will not significantly impact adjacent and
downstream properties.
The analysis must address and identify:
The existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities in order to provide
design criteria that meet City standards. The proposed development shall not create a
situation which increases flooding potential downstream.
The subdivider shall identify any areas within the project subject to inundation during a
100-yr storm and process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter
of Map Revision (LOMR) to include this property on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Mao
prior to final acceptance of the development, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. Any lots subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide
minimum pad elevations at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works. The areas subject to flooding shall be noted on the final
map.
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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall mitigate the loss of Congdon's
tarplant habitat through a transplanting program approved by the Natural Resources
Manager or by participation in a City initiated program to maintain plants (transplanted by
seed from the adjoining Goldenrod Annexation site) and experiment with habitat
management techniques at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant.
5. A pre-construction clearance survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to
ground disturbance to assure that turtles are not present within the construction zone. If
turtles are found, the turtles shall be removed out of the construction zone and placed in a
safe, suitable habitat within the lower creek.
6. An educational brochure or other materials shall be provided to each of the households
within the development that will provide information regarding the correct procedures for
protecting the turtles. Background information may be obtained from the Final Report of
the Arbors at Islay Hill Southwestern Pond Turtle Study, Hunt and Bowland, March 1995.
7. A specific contact person shall be designated, either a resident within the development or
someone with an appropriate agency. The name and telephone number of the contact
person should be provided to all residents of the development, and included in the
I--q7
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE comer Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 8
educational information and on any signs regarding the turtle habitat. The contact person
should be encouraged to maintain records of turtle sightings, including the specific location
and circumstances of the sightings and explanation of what, if any, action was taken.
Turtle harassment must be reported to the California Department of Fish and Game.
8. All residents should be discouraged from using invasive non-native plants in the
landscaping areas adjacent to the creeks.
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall mark the edge of grading with
snow fencing to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager.
10. 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.
11. The final project shall be designed to include interior and exterior recycling.
Conditions
(Tentative Map)
1. Off-site dedication of property for public R/W purposes is required to facilitate full street
improvements for Fuller Road. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire
said public R/W dedication. If the subdivider cannot obtain the property as public R/W,the
City Council shall lend the subdivider its powers for condemnation to acquire the off-site
R/W dedication, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is
required, the subdivider shall pay all costs associated with the off-site R/W acquisition
(including attorneys and court costs).
2. The subdivider shall design and install(at its ultimate location)a new bridge over Lower Fork
Creek on Fuller Road. The new bridge shall provide a City standard sidewalk,curb and gutter
on each side and four 6"conduit sleeves(two on each side)in addition to that which is
necessary for gas electric,telephone and cable TV,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. If requested by the subdivider,a reimbursement agreement can be created that requires
adjacent developments to pay a pro-rata share of the actual bridge costs.
3. Fuller Road access to"A" &"B" streets shall be provided. This will maintain the public sewer
and water mains within the public streets rather than through private yards via easements. This
intersection shall be designed to align with the future street extension on the northerly side of
Fuller Road.
/-YO
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 9
4. The design of the emergency vehicle turn-around on Goldenrod Lane shall be acceptable to the
Fire Chief,Community Development Director and Director of Public Works.
5. If the properties fronting on Broad Street remain within the tract boundaries, vehicular access
rights along Broad Street shall be dedicated to the City, except at existing driveways.
6. Vehicular access rights on the Fuller Road shall be dedicated to the City.
7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and 3m wide street tree
easement along all public street frontages, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
8. The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities(conduits, sidewalk
vaults, fusing,wiring, lumenaires, etc.)per City standards and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. The design of said lighting systems shall be coordinated by the
developer between the City and PG&E so as to minimize the amount of City owned conduit
and wiring system,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
9. All internal streets shall be designed with 17m of R/W, 11 m curb to curb and a 3m parkway
on each side. The structural street sections shall be designed using a TI=7.0.
10. Sewer lift station charges shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map as determined by
the Utilities Engineer.
11. The final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and stone drains (including
service laterals, meters, fire hydrants, etc.) are subject to change to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Utilities Engineer.
12. The City will participate in any line up-sizing of public water mains(increases above the size
required to provide fire flow or the City's 8" minimum, whichever is larger).
13. A gravity sewer system shall be designed and constructed to serve this development that will
connect to an existing manhole in Broad St. (State Hwy. 227)at El Capitan or other location
determined by the Utilities Director that will be compatible with the master sewer plan for
the Airport Annexation Area. Creek crossings shall include properly designed sewer siphons
and/or culverted crossings, subject to approval by the respective jurisdictional agencies.
An alternative design may be allowed, at the discretion of the Utilities Director. Use of the
County Airport lift station in Fiero Lane would be allowed only if it is determined to be in an
appropriate location and needed to serve this area of the City (within the Urban Reserve
Line). This would be subject to acceptable modifications to the existing agreement between
the County and the City that would transfer ownership of the lift station and force main to the
yy
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 10
City to serve the tributary area. Any required retrofitting and/or refurbishment of the existing
lift station and force main to serve this tract and other tributary areas, as determined by the
Utilities Director, and preservation of the capacity allocated to the County to serve the
County Airport per the existing agreement, shall be incorporated into the project plans. If an
acceptable modification to the existing agreement between the City and the County cannot be
reached, a new lift station may be required at a location agreeable to the Utilities Director.
The Utilities Director reserves the right to decide which of the above alternatives is the most
beneficial and feasible to serve this general area, based on the final Airport Annexation Area
Sewage Master Plan.
The subdivider shall be entitled to reimbursement for any excess costs associated with any
over-sizing of sewer mains,retrofitting of the existing County sewer lift station and force
main or a new lift station, where such greater capacity is required by the City, in accordance
with City regulations.
14. All bridging, culverts and modifications to the existing creek channels shall be in compliance
with the City's Flood Manatzement Policy Book(specifically regarding clear spanning of
creeks, etc.) and approved by the Director of Public Works, Corp. of Engineers and Fish&
Game and must meet City standards and policies.
15. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including any tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be done to the satisfaction of the Director
of Public Works,Natural Resources Manager, Corp. of Engineers and the Dept. of Fish&
Game.
16. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage,to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
17. The final map shall show a bike path connection between the western end of"A" Street and the
creek side bike path. A curb ramp(with bollards)shall be installed to facilitate this connection.
18. Bike path improvements shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and the
existing bike path improvements for Tract 1750. The bike path shall be owned and
maintained by the Home Owners Association.
19. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 11
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works.
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 Director of Public Works.
20. All development of this site shall be consistent with the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, except as
approved by the City Council.
21. Manholes shall be shown on improvement plans in lieu of clean outs.
22. The subdivision shall be annexed to the Santa Lucia Homeowners Association.
23. The applicant shall process a lot line adjustment separating the residential portion of the
subdivision from the existing commercial area. The property line separating these two areas
shall be approximately the centerline of the creek.
24. The creek areas shall be delineated as separate lots and shall be dedicated to the City with
appropriate access, as determined by the Director of Public Works.
25. All detention basins and related improvements shall be located within lots separate from the
creek lot and shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
26. The proposed detention basins shall be graded in such a way as to look natural,rather than
manufactured. The applicant shall make every effort to design the basins so they do not
require fencing. If fencing is necessary, the fencing design shall be approved by the
Community Development Director and/or Architectural Review Commission.
27. Access to the northern basin should be from Fuller Road. Access to the southern basin shall
be from the existing easement between lots 27 and 28.
28. Access road and Fire Department turnaround surface material shall be grasscrete or similar
material approved by the Director of Public Works, the Community Development Director,
Fire Chief and Natural Resources Manager.
29. Lots 40, 41,42, and 43 shall be accessed via a private common driveway with appropriate
easement and maintenance agreement.
30. Lot 5 and 12 shall be redesigned in such a way is to not require approval of a subdivision
S�
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 12
exception for lot size and/or lot width.
31. To the maximum extent feasible, all construction traffic shall be routed from Broad Street via
Fuller Road.
32. The tentative map shows drainage improvements extending off-site into the creek on the
adjacent property located to the south. The drainage system for this development shall be
contained within the limits of the subdivision boundaries.
33. The existing London Plane Tree located in the vicinity of Lot 28 shall be located on project
development plans and preserved as a site amenity.
34. As a part of the architectural review process, the Architectural Review Commission shall
review the project's proposed fencing and streetscape design. Fencing on Fuller Road and
Larkspur Street shall not be located or designed in such a way that the development appears
to turn its back to the street. In addition, fencing at these locations shall include operable
gates to allow for property owner maintenance of these areas.
(Subdivision Exception)
1. Reduced lot depths shall be approved for Lots 21,24,29,30,31,32,38,46,47, and 48 as
proposed on the tentative map.
2. Lots 5 and 12 shall be redesigned to comply with the City's Subdivision Regulations with
regard to lot width and lot size.
(Setback Exceptions)
1. Reduced street yards shall be approved for Lots 46, 47, and 48 allowing: a)a minimum 10
foot front yard for living space, b) a minimum 10 foot front yard for side loaded garages, and
c) a minimum 18 foot front yard for front loaded garages. In any case,the reduced street
yard shall allow a minimum 18 foot deep driveway to accommodate a parked car without
overhanging the sidewalk.
2. Reduced other yards shall be approved for Lots 46, 47, and 48 allowing a 5-foot setback for
two story structures on the yard abutting the creek.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
• Architectural review is required for the design and location of the new homes and fencing in
the subdivision.
• As required by the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, no structures(except approved property
i-rz
Tract 166-98 (TM 2289)
SE corner Fuller Road and Broad Street
Page 13
line fencing with an open design) shall be placed within 20 feet from top of bank of edge of
riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.
• General construction Activity Storm Water Permits 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.
• Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City
regulations, Standard Engineering Details and Standard Specifications(6'wide integral curb,
gutter sidewalk & driveway ramps, full street pavement, signing, striping, street lighting,
barricades, etc.).
• Street trees shall be planted in accordance with City Standards and Policies at the time of
development of each lot, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. Species shall be Cape
Chestnut, Honey Locust, New Zealand Christmas Tree, and Coast Live Oak
• The applicant shall pay park-in lieu fees consistent with SLO Municipal Code Section
16.40.080.
• Streets must be named as part of the final map approval process. The subdivider shall
submit a minimum of three street names for review by the Community Development
Department, in accordance with the Street Name and Address Regulations.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Initial study for TR 166-98
Biological survey reports from Bowland Assoc.
Tentative map reduction
Tentative map (included in the Commission packets)
Attachment 5
DRAFT
SAN L OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 1999
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, April 14, 1999, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. David Jeffrey, Allan Cooper, Paul Ready, Alice Loh, Stephen
Peterson, Mary Whittlesey, and Chairman Charles Senn
Absent: None
Staff Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Recording Secretary
Present: Leaha Magee, Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville, and Assistant City
Attorney Gilbert Trujillo.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes of February 10, 1999, and February 24, 1999, were accepted as
presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Edna Islay Area: Request to subdivide a 16.5-acre parcel into one commercial lot
on Broad Street, 49 single-family residential lots behind the commercial lot for the
development of a residential subdivision on the southeast corner of Fuller Road and
Broad Street, and environmental review; R-1-SP, C-S and C/OS Zones; R.W. Hertel
and Sons, Inc., applicant. ER and TR 166-98 (Tract 2289)
Draft Planning Commission ' -ites
April 14, 1999
Page 2
Assoc. Planner Mandeville presented the staff report, recommending the City Council
adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the tentative tract map with subdivision
and setback exceptions, subject to mitigation measures and conditions.
Commissioner Cooper asked if there is any way to preserve the serpentine rock
outcroppings.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated that staff has looked at preservation as a mitigation
measure, but couldn't find any environmental reason why it should be preserved.
Commissioner Cooper had staff explain the purposes of the avigation easement and
asked how the condition discouraging use of non-native plants will be enforced.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated landscaping would be addressed in the CC&Rs.
Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand explained the avigation easement
requirement.
Commissioner Ready asked staff about the adjacent Goldenrod subdivision in which lot
lines avoided creeks.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated this project will follow a similar design.
Commissioner Whittlesey questioned staff on the density requirement compliance and
noted her concern with the small lots and possible street/side yard setback exceptions.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there is a condition to address the lot line adjustment to
separate the commercial from the residential uses.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated the final map will not be deemed complete until the
lot has been split.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked the net acreage for the residential area after the
commercial area is removed.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville deferred the answer to the applicant.
Commissioner Jeffrey commented that this tentative tract map has been presented in
the metric system. He feels a conversion chart would be helpful in the future. He
stated that Zoning Regulation 17.16.025 speaks to creek setbacks and he questioned
how far Acacia Creek is to Islay Creek.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated a tributary of Acacia Creek is north of Fuller Road
and is not affected by this proposal.
Commissioner Jeffrey expressed concern that density and parking calculations may
impact lot size.
Draft Planning Commissionrtes
April 14, 1999
Page 3
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated this is R-1 property and two parking spaces per lot
will be required.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked about the minimum street-yard setback of 20 feet and the
adjustment to 10 feet for the three smaller lots.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated the reason for 20 foot setback is to provide a front
yard and driveway parking. Regarding the three smaller lots, staff looked at the fact
that there is open space on either side of the lots, the creek setback, and the potential
for a 18-foot deep driveway with a side-loaded garage.
Commissioner Jeffrey cited Housing Element Goal 1.22 and asked about the
requirement of the provision of affordable housing.
Mgr. Whisenand stated the goal wasn't in effect/implemented when this project was
proposed.
Commissioner Jeffrey noted Policy 1.26.12 speaks to rationing public services,
including water and sewage treatment, and that projects with affordable components
will be given priority over market-rate projects. He questioned the City's available water
reserve based on all proposed annexations.
Mgr. Whisenand stated when this project came forward for annexation, water was
specifically discussed and the project was found to be in compliance with the City's
Water Management Plan.
Commissioner Jeffrey noted Housing Element Table 12 and projected new housing
construction by source has a cap of 185 new units per year and questioned where the
city currently is.
Mgr. Whisenand stated the City hasn't approached coming close to the cap; however,
given the change in economic situation and given the number of residential projects
coming up, the numbers will be followed closely. Phasing may be implemented to
ensure the annual cap is not exceeded.
Commissioner Loh questioned staff on the fact that only a portion of the property is
before the Commission for discussion. She does not favor piecemeal development.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville described the lot layout, ownership, and the lot line
adjustment.
Mgr. Whisenand added that this project is a portion of the area that was recently
annexed by the city which involved multiple property owners.
Commissioner Loh questioned the lot sizes, particularly the three smaller Lots (46, 47
and 48).
Draft Planning Commission ' vtes
April 14, 1999
Page 4
Assoc. Planner Mandeville noted that all lots are at least 6,000 sq. ft. which is the
requirement to meet the density and is the minimum size is the R-1 Zone.
Commissioner Loh discussed her support of staffs recommended 10-foot setbacks for
the three smaller lots because there is a tradeoff with city access, the detention pond
area, and the creek. She raised concern over flooding, water level fluctuation and the
resulting erosion.
Chairman Senn noted the need for a pedestrian creek crossing/bridge to accommodate
pedestrian circulation. Commissioner Peterson concurred.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated that because of the sensitive environmental habitat
throughout the area, use of the creek and access to it is discouraged. The bike path
will allow access to view the creek. Rear yard fencing will be required to keep
disturbances out of the creek area as well.
Chairman Senn asked how far away this project is from the parks at the Edna/Islay
tract.
Assoc. Planner stated the project is near French Park.
Mgr. Whisenand added the applicant will be required to pay parkland dedication fees.
Chairman Senn felt the CC&Rs should be specific and list uses permitted in the
adjacent C-S zoned land.
Commissioner Loh suggested the City's Tree Committee be involved with the
recommended use of native plants.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Bob Fowler, project representative , complimented staff, described the hydrology study
which satisfied Public Works, and stated they are in agreement with the conditions of
approval, including the recent wordsmithing by staff. He noted the total proposed
residential area is 14.66 acres and the project meets the City's requirement of a
minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. He reviewed Goldenrod project's lots and stated they
will provide appropriate creek setbacks for maintenance to satisfy the desires of the
City's Natural Resources Manager and Planning staff.
Commissioner Cooper stated the initial study indicates only backyard runoff will flow to
the creek and had Mr. Fowler explain how storm water will be conveyed to the basin.
1-5,2
Draft Planning Commissiondes
April 14, 1999
Page 5
Commissioner Cooper asked if there has been any development on the right of way
along Fuller Road.
Mr. Fowler stated the right-of-way is a concern and noted the Goldenrod development
had to acquire some right-of-way in order to improve Fuller Road down to the edge of
the property.
Commissioner Peterson asked how house placement is affected by the serpentine rock
outcroppings on Lots 45 and 46.
Mr. Fowler stated Lots 45 and 46 are deep and a majority of the rock formations can be
avoided.
Commissioner Ready asked if the City-owned aspect of the creek were limited to the
portion adjacent to the bike path and incorporated into the development, would the
awkwardness problems of Lots 46-48 be eliminated.
Mr. Fowler doesn't believe so. He commented on the difficulty in developing this
particular area and believes they have presented the best plans to the Commission.
Commissioner Ready asked what other aspects the HOA will maintain other than bike
path.
Mr. Fowler responded the two detention basins. It will be essentially the same situation
as Goldenrod; the City will be in ownership of the two creek areas and his subdivision
will be annexed into the adjoining HOA.
Commissioner Whittlesey had Mr. Fowler review the back property line of Lot 46 and
city access to the Fire Department turnarounds incorporated into the street system.
She asked about the side road adjacent to Lots 4043.
Mr. Fowler explained the side road is a private, common driveway for use by all four
lots. Lots 40-43 exceed the 6,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size.
Commissioner Whittlesey had Mr. Fowler explain side load garage situation. Mr. Fowler
concurred with Chairman Senn's suggestion of listing adjacent C-S uses in the CC&Rs.
Marvin Dee, 4341 Larkspur, questioned the legality of the public hearing because he
didn't receive written notice.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville noted the site was posted in three places and an ad ran in
the newspaper.
Mr. Dee continued that he and most of his neighbors have recently purchased their
homes and may not be on the County Assessor's list for notifications. He asked if there
can be provision for the bike path to go down Broad Street until the adjacent property is
developed so the path doesn't dead-end. `
SO
Draft Planning Commissior ."'-lutes
April 14, 1999
Page 6
Assoc. Planner Mandeville indicated the path will continue on street.
Mr. Dee stated the map indicates there will be approximately 12,000 yards of imported
dirt and he questioned how it will get to the site and where it comes from. He
expressed a concern about the potential for dust generation. He's concerned about the
HOA and the city's ownership of the creek because it is his experience that creeks are
not well maintained by the City when it comes to eliminating flood hazards. He
questions whether the HOA should be responsible for a potential flood zones
associated with the basins.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville responded the creeks will be maintained by the City; the
basins will be maintained by the HOA.
Mr. Dee suggested fire truck turnarounds should go out to Broad Street to provide
better public safety.
David Wilson, 979 Goldenrod, is concerned with the developer building a quality
product. He is experiencing corrections on his home that he's occupied for seven
months and is still unsuccessfully dealing with Mr. Fowler. He recommended denying
approval until past development corrections have been satisfied.
Joseph DePanfilis, 1000 Goldenrod, concurred with the previous speaker. He has
occupied his home since August and R. W. Hertel has not corrected construction
problems. He is concerned that Fuller Road will become a shortcut to Broad Street and
traffic impacts will increase. The creek on Goldenrod is not properly maintained by the
city and the basin is not maintained by anyone either. The creek is only partially fenced
off by the developer between the basin and bike path. The trees planted on Goldenrod
have not been properly cared for and are dying. He's concerned about the dust that will
be generated during construction. He did not receive written notification of this hearing
and the site posting is obstructed by overgrown weeds.
Ray Blare, 4300 Broad St., owns a portion of land along the north side Fuller Road and
he's concerned about a storage building he owns, a water well near the bridge, and
how the easement/road setback will affect his property.
Mr. Fowler stated Fuller Road has been difficult to deal with and he has been working
closely with Public Works. With the tentative map in place, they'll be able to move
forward with specifics. He has had dialog with Mr. Blare regarding acquisition of his
property and he has spoken with other property owners, but has been unsuccessful.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville noted Public Works is looking into the idea of a reduced
right-of-way in this section so that buildings won't have to be removed.
Mr. Fowler commented the fencing has been installed according to city requirements
and basin maintenance is the responsibility of the HOA. He described the storm water
generated system.
�-sy
Draft Planning Commission ' ites
April 14, 1999
Page 7
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for comment on the Fuller Road right-of-way problem
in relation to avoiding impacts to property owned by Mr. Blare. She suggested curving
the road to address the situation.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville felt that Public Works should review this option. Staff has
reviewed options such as a reduced right-of-way width, elimination/ relocation of
sidewalks, etc.
Commissioner Whittlesey didn't believe the right-of-way should be diminished because
of this project and she is concerned with Mr. Blare's property and building. She asked
staff to address noticing concerns expressed by the public.
Mgr. Whisenand reviewed public noticing procedures and asked the audience to leave
their addresses with staff for future hearing notification.
Mr. Fowler offered to supply a list of homeowners to the City.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated that standard requirements regarding dust generation
during construction of the Air Pollution Control District are referred to in the mitigation
measures. They can also be added to the building plans to make the contractor aware
of how often the site needs to watered down, etc.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
(The Commission recessed for ten minutes.)
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Cooper moved to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and
approval of the tentative tract map with subdivision and setback exception to the Citv
Council, subject to the findings, mitigation measures, and conditions as presented by
staff with changes (1) to delete Condition 3. (2) dhange the second sentence of
Condition 27 to reflect "should" instead of "shall" and including the words. "to the
satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and the Public Works Department." (3)
include a Condition 34 that states the CC&Rs will contain language which discloses to
potential purchasers that adjacent property is zoned C-S and include a list of each
potential use. (4) to include Mitigation 12. pg. 8, to address dust control. and (6) to
include Condition 35 to state if needed. Fuller Rd. may meander instead of reducing
sidewalks or the right of way. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Whittlesev.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the lot line adjustment should be included in the
conditions.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated Condition 23 addresses lot line adjustments.
�n
Draft Planning CommissionAes
April 14, 1999
Page 8
Commissioner Peterson had Atty. Trujillo further address public noticing concerns.
Atty. Trujillo feels the noticing was legally adequate for the Commission to take action.
The requirement does not require personal service. Service was posted on the
property and published in the newspaper.
Commissioner Peterson asked that the motion be amended to include a pedestrian
bridge at a location jointly determined by the applicant and the Planning Department
subject to Public Works Department approval and the ability to obtain approvals from
Fish and Game, Department of Natural Resources, the Army Corps of Engineers, etc.
This would help address concerns about neighborhood connectivity.
Commissioner Loh concurred with the recommended amendment. She felt the water
main/pipes can be situated under the bridge across the creek.
Commissioner Cooper and Whittlesey accepted Commissioner Peterson's amendment
to the motion.
Commissioner Ready understands the necessity of maintaining city ownership of the
creek, but is concerned about creating areas that are likely to be unmaintained and not
complimentary to the creek. Under these circumstances, it is important to keep this
area in private ownership. He doesn't support city ownership of the area south of the
basin on the left-hand side extended to where the gas company easement needs to be
abandoned.
Assoc. Planner Mandeville stated staff feels the city will maintain the area better than
the HOA.
Commissioner Ready felt ownership would be best served by individual homeowners,
not the HOA.
Commissioner Ready made a motion that with respect to Lots 39-48 and Lot 25, that
surrounding areas associated with the creek be incorporated into these lots. There was
no second to the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Whittlesey, Loh, Jeffrey, Peterson, and Chairman
Senn
NOES: Commissioner Ready
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 6-1.
Chairman Senn commented that he is concerned about the statements made by
homeowners about disputes regarding proper finishing of their homes. He felt it would
be easier if all issues could be resolved before this item goes to the City Council.
- nancia an — e era ,
S W-
... ........
31,
.... ... ... . .
U)l
C-2
"9•5
-sag
V
LU
t4
cc sa
DE TEN TIO,
. . ...............
............................
..............................
f
1%4
-1
P
—000 :
Ica
Lain
N,
LO/10'd LR-i BOSVEVSSOB dnOdS NOIS30 Vidd-flOal VIYBZ:I L 66-OZ-90
Attachment 7
N o �
N �
Q ,
\
G ot%
per, Q
\'° m
s
oUc2 � � � W�a .
CoLIJ Co
R LL
LL 46
�r 0
W *4
ills
e ;- 5"s_a
SU
p,Q- :2
■■2jy.:�2 INN
O
rR � eQoiZ 'aaeae CO���
y t k 4LIJ
-
Attachment 8
T
. .:..:... ...........
City Limit Line
TR AND ER 166-98 EDNA-ISLAY AREA
41�
its•► RELIVED
R.W. HERTEL & SONS; [Nr. MAY 2 8 1999
• SLO CITY CLERK
May z8, 1999 MEETI G
DATE � -1 -Qy AGEnIDA �
ITEM I
Ms.Peggy Mandevifle _
Associate Planner COUMCIL • 3*D DIR
City of San.Luis Obispo ,9�no O RN DIR
990 Palm Street .B9(CAO O Fl CHIEF
EY DIR
San Lias Obdsptr,CA 93401 =L . O POLICE CHF
O Y T 0 REC DIR
��� O llTll DIR
Meeting,Tuesday,June 1, 1999 O` O PERS
Tract 2289(JONA- P•MANDEVMLEC03-03-7 Hour)
De&Peggy_ .
I 8m writing to request a contim=Ce ofthe City Council discussion regarding Trwt 2289 scheduled .
for Tune 1, 1999 to be forward and 94)eduled on the agenda of the City Council meeting June15,
1999:
Your prompt attention and>i *,ce inthis matter Is 8ready appreciated
Sincerely,
Jon Adams
Vice President,Construction
JA:lms
RECEIVED
S200TELEGRAPH ROAD - VFA-TUkA,GAUFORNIA 93003 MAY 1 $ 1999
(805)339=0388 - FAX(80.91 339.0270 - v+ww.nvhc tel.�pm
SLO CITY CLERK
®d►aao � ®
d►a iun❑ ® ETING AGENDA
d!a lod❑ w 31 lw w❑ June 1, 1999 DATE ITEM #
3AIg2,clod❑ �Jldol)!d3lo� �O" I" q
ZJrQ 1'Aao Arm'-Golf X
n
'2110 qri t3 a1htA
a>a aGJt+� To: SahtJV41l1§& City Council
This letter is about our concerns with the R.W. Hertel &Sons project 166-98. Our properties are
adjacent to Fuller Road on the north side.
We strongly object to any of our properties being taken and used for the widening of Fuller Road
that benefits this new proposed development and the other developed areas in the Islay area.
Our family has owned this property since 1943. The building that is next to Fuller Road was built
prior to 1952. Our water supply,wells and water storage tank, is also located along Fuller Road.
Along the back portion of our property runs a seven-foot high fence. We can't express enough
how important the building and water supply are to us.
The land to be developed by Hertel &Sons is vacant land; there are no permanent buildings on
the land. Hertel &Sons should make the proposed road improvements on their property to
ensure that our buildings have the proper setback.
We also want it to be on record that there have been no negotiations between Hertel&Sons,
Blair's and Wisberg. AT the planning commission meeting on April 14, 1999 the planning
commission asked the VP of Hertel &Sons if they had any talks with us about the street and our
land and he said yes, but they hadn't gotten anywhere. He didn't even know who we were until
Ray Blair spoke during the public comment section of the meeting. Then during the break he
came over and introduced himself. And I might add we still haven't had any conversations.
• Another major concern is the traffic that Fuller Road is going to have to support. Many people
from the other Islay area homes are going to use this road.When the last development was being
built and the gate on Fuller Road was open there was a high increase of traffic from the
homeowners from the other developed areas. Their speed was high on the road even though it is
dirt and rough. The cars would fly down the road. We want to know how the speed is going to be
kept down to residential speed of 25 m.p.h.
Another problem is the traffic turning on and off of Broad Street and Fuller Road. Since it is a
state highway and the speed is 55 M.P.H. its very hard to enter and exit. The turn lane on Broad
Street is not efficient enough to handle all the traffic for Fuller Road and Fiero Lane. Even now
turning onto Fuller Road coming from San Luis you end up facing the traffic trying to turn onto
Fiero Lane. As both areas develop more traffic will be using that turn lane and the problem
increases. It is also difficult in that area of Broad Street because that is where the highway
bottlenecks down from two laned to one lane. And at peak times, morning commute and evening
commute, the traffic in the Fuller Road/Broad Street area is terrible.
The wildlife in the bridge area on Fuller Road is another of our concerns. There are turtles that
live in the bridge area that we have watched for years. Mallard ducks come in and nest each
year then leave and return the following season. American Egrets and hawks hunt in the creek
area. Also the sycamore tree next to the bridge is very important to the habitat area.We know
that these are not endangered species but we feel that the wildlife and environment need to be
preserved.
Thank you,
Ray Blair OROV
RECEIVED Barbara Blair ,����a..��
Betty Wisberg we
• JUN 0 1 1999
SLO CITY COUNCIL