HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1999, 6 - TENTATIVE MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A 222-ACRE SITE (DEVAUL RANCH) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MADONNA AND LOS OSOS VALLEY ROADS (TR/PD 102-96; DEVAUL RANCH LLC, APPLICANT) nA , AgenbA Repout 6N°
C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner TVA
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE MAP AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A 222-
ACRE SITE (DeVaul Ranch) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
MADONNA AND LOS OSOS VALLEY ROADS (TR/PD 102-96;
DeVaul Ranch LLC, applicant)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce ordinance to print rezoning the lower 35 acres with a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay to allow a density bonus and more variation in the project design than normal
standards would allow based on findings and subject to conditions.
2. Adopt a resolution approving the vesting tentative map based on findings and subject to
conditions and code requirements.
DISCUSSION
Background
In December 1998,the City Council certified the environmental impact report(EIR)and approved
the annexation and prezoning of the DeVaul Ranch site. Now that the property is within the City
limits, applications for the development of the property can be processed. Accordingly, the
applicant has submitted applications for a tentative tract map, PD rezoning, and architectural
review. These applications have been reviewed by both the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Commission and their recommendationsare included in this report.
Data Summary
Address: 11855 Los Osos Valley Road
Applicant: DeVaul Ranch LLC
Environmental status:The Final EIR was certified by the City Council in December, 1998.
Project action deadline: The proposed rezoning is a legislative act which is not subject to the
Permit Streamlining Act processing deadlines.
Site description
The project site is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Madonna Road and Los
Osos Valley Road (see Attachment 4). The upper portion of the site is currently undeveloped
and the lower portion has been used for agricultural purposes and contains two residences.
6-1
Council Agenda Report—TR/PD 102-96(DeVaul Ranch)
Page 2
Project Description
The DeVaul Ranch LLC has submitted applications to the City for the subdivision, PD rezoning,
and architectural review for the design of the site. The subdivision would allow the development
of 147 single family homes (including retention of the DeVaul Ranch house), 122 apartment
units, and 3 acres of parkland (see Attachment 5). The PD rezoning would allow for a 6%
density bonus for property in the R-2 zone (12.75 du/net acre where 12.0 du/net acre is normally
allowed), a 14% density bonus for property in the R-3 zone ( 20.56 du/net acre where 18 du/net
acre is normally allowed), and more variation in the project design than normal standards allow
(see Attachment 6). The architectural and site design details are being reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission.
PD Rezoning Request
The applicant is requesting PD zoning for the residential portion of the project (see Attachment
7). Attachment 8 describes the applicant's justification for the PD zoning. The purpose of PD
zoning as stated in the City's Zoning Regulations is:
To encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more
variation in project design than normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal
standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which
could not be provided under conventional regulations. Under an approved planned
development, lot size and configuration, yards, height, coverage and parking may be specified
for the project without conformance to the standards of the underlying zone.
To approve the planned development, the City Council must find that the PD zoning meets one
or more of the following criteria:
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly
or families with children) which would not be feasible under conventional zoning;
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental
sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard;
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development;
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy,
usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on)
as well as or better than the standards themselves;
S. It incorporates features which result.in consumption of less materials, energy or water than
conventional development;
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space,
landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
Planned development zoning also allows for residential densities to exceed those allowed in the
underlying zone by not more than 25 percent. In order to grant the applicant's requested density
bonus of 6% in the R-2 zone and 14% in the R-3 zone, the Council must find that the proposed
development satisfies at least three out of five criteria stated above. In addition to Attachment 8,
6-2
Council Agenda Report—TR/PD 102-96(DeVaul Ranch)
Page 3
the PD booklet submitted by the applicant(and included with project plans)outlines how they feel
the project meets each of the six criteria. In determining the allowable density bonus,the Council
should assess the extent to which these criteria are met. The requested density bonus is consistent
with the General Plan which calls for Medium Density Residential development with
approximately 500 dwelling units in the Irish Hills expansion area.
Issues raised by staff regarding the proposed PD zoning include garage and building setbacks,the
development of Lot 102, provision of on-site parking including tandem parking, the LOVR
building setback,requested density bonus and additional apartment units, alternative street designs
and landscape screening south of the apartment project. A complete staff analysis of the PD zoning
request can be found in Attachment 9,Planning Commission staff report.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The division of land and site layout is very similar to what the City Council reviewed as part of
the annexation process (see Attachment 10). The subdivision design provides for 147 single
family homes (including homes on standard 6,000 s.f. and larger lots, homes on approximately
4,500 s.f. lots which the applicant is calling "patio homes" and duplex homes on 3,500 s.f. lots),
122 apartments (106 were previously proposed as part of the annexation request), the DeVaul
Ranch house, an emergency access easement to Quail Drive and a 3-acre neighborhood park.
Issues raised by staff regarding the proposed subdivision design include the width of the
landscaped parkway separating the sidewalk from the street, the request for a right in only
driveway on Los Osos Valley Road, and the design of the Quail Drive easement. A complete
staff analysis of the proposed design can be found in Attachment 9, Planning Commission staff
report.
Planning Commission Review of Tentative Map and PD Rezoning
The Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended Council approval of the
tentative map and PD zoning as requested by the applicant with the condition that the proposed
landscaped parkways be a minimum of 6-feet in width (the applicant requested 4 feet and staff
recommended 8 feet) and that the proposed emergency access easement to Quail Drive be
relocated to the north side of the Quail Drive lot (see Attachment 11, Planning Commission
meeting minutes). The Commission generally liked the project and supported the applicant's
requested variations to normal development standards given the many project benefits (including
the 184 acres dedicated to the City as open space). Discussion focused on the twenty some issue
areas identified by staff. The Commission discussed each of these items and provided staff with a
recommendation: Finally,the Commission acknowledged that had this been the beginning of the
project design process, the Commission may have recommended more significant changes to the
overall project design.
ARC Review of Design Issues Associated with PD Zoning
The Architectural Review Commission reviewed this project on September 20 and October 4, 1999
(see Attachment 12, ARC staff reports). The Commission granted schematic approval of the
project generally accepting the proposed site layout(thereby generally supporting the site design
aspects of the tentative map and PD zoning) and directed the applicant to return to the
6-3
Council Agenda Report—TR/PD 102-96(DeVaul Ranch)
Page 4
Commission for final approval of: 1) design revisions that reduce building massing and the
prominence of the garage doors; and 2) additional information regarding the design of easements,
fencing, walls, bulbouts, and the project entry. Items that must return to the Commission for final
approval that may require some built-in flexibility in the PD rezoning include:
1. Reduction of building massing of single family homes. The ARC would like the applicant to
consider variable side yard setbacks and stepping back the second story structure to reduce the
building massing.
2. De-emphasize garages. The ARC would like the applicant to consider more home designs with
side loaded garages, shared driveways, and garages recessed behind living areas as well as
designs with garages located to the rear of the property. The ARC would like the PD zoning to
have the flexibility that would allow detached garages to be located on the side/rear yard
property lines with ARC approval. The ARC did not support the applicant's home design that
had 3 garage doors facing the street.
3. Revised bulb-out design. The ARC would like to work with the applicant and staff to revise the
design of the bulb-outs with tighter turning radii which in tum would encourage slower
automobile travel speeds.
To accommodate ARC's desire for design flexibility when reviewing the design details, staff
recommends that the Council add two footnotes to the applicant's proposed setback matrix that
allows for varied side yard setbacks and zero setbacks for garages at the rear of the property with
ARC approval.
Compliance with Project Mitigation Measures
The City Council certified the Final EIR for the project and adopted a mitigation monitoring
program to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. Mitigation measures
that must be implemented in conjunction with the subdivision have been incorporated as
conditions of approval. These mitigation measures include creation of a maintenance
association, retention of the cypress windrow, design of the drainage/debris basins and channels
as naturally occurring features, protection of cultural resources, dedication of open space,
provision of affordable housing, and transportation improvements.
The required Congdon Tarplant mitigation project is reaching a point where site work should be
getting underway. The plan for this project is to grade a 1-2 acre shallow bowl at a selected
location in Laguna Lake Park designed to retain winter rainfall. Soil containing tarplant seed
will be placed in the bowl and the resulting growth monitored. Staff expects the effort to result
in a stable population of several thousand tarplants at the site. A status report on the mitigation
effort is attached to this report(see Attachment 13).
Staff is working with the applicant on the final details of their affordable housing program (see
Attachment 14 and Tentative Map Condition 48). As required by the mitigation measures, the
units will be intermixed throughout the project-
6-4
Council Agenda Report—TR/PD 102-96(DeVaul Ranch)
Page 5
Compliance with Growth Management Policies
According to the City's General Plan, the City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one
percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents
with very low and low incomes. Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must
have adopted a specific plan or a development plan for it. The DeVaul Ranch project has such a
plan with provides for phased development consistent with one-percent annual, citywide
population growth and taking into account expected in-fill residential development within the
1994 City limits. The phasing schedule is proposed to be approved with the tentative map as
Exhibit A.
CONCURRENCES
The Parks and Recreation Department have asked that the play area and basketball area within
the park be switched.
The Public Works Department has worked with the applicant regarding their proposed variations
to current City street standards. Attachment 15 provides the details of what was originally
proposed, what was recommended by the Planning Commission and what has since been agreed
to by the applicant and Public Works Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impacts will be limited to costs to maintain the new public improvements (City streets and
1-acre park). The landscaped parkways, access easements, 2-acre detention basin and round
about are proposed to be maintained by the homeowners association.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may deny the subdivision and PD zoning, if the Council finds that it is inconsistent
with the General Plan or the Council cannot make the necessary findings.
The Council may approve the subdivision and PD zoning with modified findings and/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 for Approval/Exhibit A
2. Draft Resolution for Denial
3. Draft Ordinance of Introduction for proposed rezoning/Exhibit A
4. Vicinity map
5. Reduced tentative map
6-5
Council Agenda Report—TR/PD 102-96(DeVaul Ranch)
Page 6
6. Requested exceptions to conventional development standards
7. Rezoning map
8. Applicant's justification for PD zoning
9. Planning Commission staff report
10. Annexation map
11. Planning Commission meeting_ minutes
12. ARC staff reports
13. Tarplant status report
14. Affordable housing statement
15. Street/Parkway design
Separate plans have been provided to the City Council and are also available for review at the
City Clerk's:Office..
Pmandevi\Devaul\CC report-PD,TM.doc
6-6
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 102-96,SUBDIVIDING A 222-
ACRE SITE INTO 148 RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AND OTHER OPEN SPACE AND
DETENTION BASIN LOTS AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MADONNA AND
LOS OSOS VALLEY ROADS (TR 102-96, County File No. 2307)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 8,
1999 and recommended approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 102-96; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 19, 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 is consistent with the
General Plan, the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City ordinances with approval of
the requested PD zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the DeVaul Ranch environmental impact
report (EIR) certified by the City Council in December, 1998 for its adequacy in evaluating this
request.
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 DeVaul Ranch EIR
certified by the City Council in December, 1998 adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map TR 102-96 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff
recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General
Plan which designates this area as Medium Density Residential.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1-
PD, R-2-PD, and R-3-PD zones.
3. As conditioned, the DeVaul Ranch phasing plan for development is consistent with the
City's one percent annual growth limit.
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. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to
6-7
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
the mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the
City Council on December 15, 1998, being incorporated into the project and the mitigation
monitoring program adopted with the EIR approval being followed.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map for
TR 102-96 (Tract 2307) is approved subject to the following mitigation measures, development
phasing schedule, conditions and code requirements:
(Mitigation Measures)
1. The subdivider shall comply with all adopted mitigation measures for the DeVaul Ranch
EIR. Those include aesthetics, cultural resources, biological resources, geology and
soils, utilities, affordable housing, traffic and circulation, noise, and air quality.
2. The subdivider shall create a "Maintenance Association" to facilitate long-term care of
the landscaping.
3. The subdivider shall retain the row of cypress trees along Madonna Road and provide an
approximately 8 foot wide buffer/landscape space between the edge of pavement and the
trunks of the trees.
4. The subdivider shall design the DeVaul ranch house drainage/detention basin(s) to appear
as a naturally occurring feature and revegetate the perimeter with native plants and trees
to further reduce its engineered appearance.
5. The open drainage channel along the base of the Irish Hills shall be designed so it appears
as a naturally occurring feature of the landscape rather than an engineered drainage
channel. If used, concrete lining shall be minimied and shall be an earth tone color.
Contour grading, aesthetic consideration of rock placement, and appropriate native
vegetation shall be integral to the design. The drainage channel shall be designed to
enhance the adjacent pedestrian experience as much as possible.
6. Provide a screen including fencing, shrubs, and trees between the project's apartment
development area and the adjacent Laguna Ranch property to the southeast.
7. The subsurface area within the DeVaul Ranch house complex must not be disturbed, or a
qualified archaeologist must conduct subsurface test excavations consistent with City
requirements and follow subsequent procedures as detailed in the project's mitigation
monitoring program. These mitigation measures shall be listed on. the project's
construction and public improvement plans to ensure all contractors are aware of the
requirements.
8. Dedication of 184. acres zoned C/OS-160 (37.9 acres of which is dedicated as an
annexation requirement for open space).
6-S
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
9. All slopes will incorporate run-on and runoff control measures, subsurface drains, and
other improvements as necessary to minimise the potential for erosion and excessive
moisture conditions in soils beneath building foundations, roadways, curbs, and
sidewalks.
10. The designs of all foundations, roadways, curbs, and other structures shall be reviewed
by a geotechnical engineer to ensure that they are compatible with the soils properties and
conditions of the project site.
11. Grading operations shall be monitored by or under the direction of a geotechnical
engineer to ensure proper selection and compaction of fill and to identify any
undiscovered soil conditions or features that might affect the construction of the
development.
12. The applicant shall provide affordable housing consistent with Policy 1.22.1 of the
Housing Element.
13. All project related construction shall be limited to the hours of Monday-Saturday lam to
7pm.
14. Clearly post noise restrictions on-site until the proposed project is completed.
15. The subdivider shall note the air quality mitigation measures on all construction plans.
(Growth Management Phasing Schedule)
1. The project shall comply with the residential growth management phasing schedule for
Irish Hills North as shown on the attached Exhibit A.
(Tentative Map Conditions)
1. An additional 63 feet of right-of-way along LOVR is required on the project side of the
street to accommodate the ultimate street configuration. R/W and traffic lane transitions
across the Madonna Rd. intersection shall be provided in accordance with the mitigation
measures established under the Environmental Impact Report for the project, including.
modifications to the existing traffic signal at Madonna Rd. and Los Osos Valley Rd.
2. The sidewalk along the southerly side of Madonna Rd., adjacent to lot 148, shall be
constructed within a public pedestrian easement (contiguous with the Madonna Rd. R/W)
and within Lot 148, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. An approximate
8 foot wide buffer/landscape space shall be provided between the edge of pavement and
the trunks of the Cypress trees per the project's Mitigation Monitoring Program.
3. Lot 155 shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association and shall
incorporate a public pedestrian, utility and fire access easement. The subdivider shall
improve this area and the adjacent northwesterly off-site easement area (to be acquired by
6-9
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 4
subdivider) to extend access and utilities to Quail Drive, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works, Community Development Director and Fire Chief.
4. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is required to facilitate an
LOVR lane taper. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire the
public right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire the
property, the City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire
the off'-site right-of-way, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If
condemnation is required, the subdivider shall pay all costs associated with the off-site
right-of-way acquisition (including attorneys and court costs).
5. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current
City regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard
Specifications (integral curbs, gutters & 2m sidewalks, full width street pavement,
signing, striping, barricades, street lights, etc.) except as follows: The width, lane
configuration and sidewalk locations of internalstreets may deviate from City standards,
as approved by the Director of Public Works. The modified street section shall be a 50
foot wide right-0f--way with 35 feet curb to curb section (two 10' travel lanes and a 7.5'
parking lane on each side) and 7.5 foot wide parkways on each side. The sidewalks shall
be 5 feet wide and setback 6.5 feet from the curb face, creating a 6 foot wide tree
planting and landscaped parkway area. The subdivider shall dedicate a 5 foot wide public
pedestrian and public utilities easement adjacent to all internal streets to accommodate the
proposed detached sidewalks. Landscaped parkways shall be maintained by the
homeowner's association.
6. All interior streets shall be designed to City standards with travels lanes of at least 10'
wide, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Fire Chief.
7. Vehicular access rights along Los Osos Valley Road shall be dedicated to the City, except
at the driveway location shown on the tentative map.
8. All street layouts and intersections (horizontal and vertical alignments, radii, sidewalk
configurations, lane widths, curb to curb dimensions, etc.) are subject to minor
adjustments and modifications, if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works, for
safety and maintenance purposes.
9. The off-site acquisition and design of the property necessary to complete the connection
between this development and the Quail Dr. neighborhood shall occur prior to approval
of the final map, or if phased, during the first phase. The City shall lend its power of
eminent domain pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, if necessary, subject to
an agreement which provides for all costs to be borne by the subdivider.
10. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of
6-10
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 5
_ each lot. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the
frontage of each lot. The overlapping easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with
all public right of way lines bordering each lot.
11. If construction phasing of the new street pavement is proposed, the phasing shall provide
for the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement
Management Plan) prior to acceptance by the City. The engineer shall detail this
requirement in the public improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director.
12. 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.
13. If the City Arborist identifies trees requiring safety pruning, all pruning shall be
performed by a certified Arborist.
14. Plans lack the detail to assess the adequacy of the emergency vehicle easement to Quail
Drive. All weather access and fire protection water system shall be installed and
approved prior to any combustible construction. The design of this easement shall be
reviewed and approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission and Fire
Marshal.
15. Required access ways shall conform to current San Luis Obispo Fire Department
Development guidelines. All access ways within this project shall be designed as fire
lanes. The minimum access width shall be 20 feet and the vertical clearance shall not be
less that 13.5 feet. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with an approved turn around. A temporary, all weather turn around shall be
installed and maintained in the area of Lots 79 and 80 until the road way in the adjoining
subdivision is completed. Required fire access ways (with minimum width) shall be
painted red with appropriate signage installed to prohibit parking.
16. Pedestrian access easements from the terminus of Streets B and C shall be provided to the
adjoining property to the southeast.
17. A no-build zone on the resulting slopes of the hillside lots after grading shall be provided.
18. Additional street trees shall be provided in the Madonna Road sidewalk next to the
detention basin to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Community
Development Director.
19. Additional landscaping (and not paving) shall be provided in the bulb-out areas, to the
6-11
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 6
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
20. The DeVaul Ranch house property may not be further subdivided for any development.
A covenant acknowledging this restriction shall be prepared by the applicant, approved
by the City Attorney, and submitted to the Community Development Department for
review, approval, and recordation, prior to final map recordation
21. The Quail Drive easement shall relocated to the north side of the Quail Drive lot.
22. In the title report for each property and in the project's CC&R's, the developer shall
disclose that the property may be impacted by noise or other activities associated with the
nearby airport and that the adjoining Froom Ranch Property is designated for commercial
development. Said language shall be to the approval of the City Attorney.
23. Lot 151 shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA) with an
irrevocable easement to the City for recreation purposes.
24. The proposed public park shall be designed and constructed by the developer and shall
meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Parks & Recreation and Community Development Director. The developer shall be
responsible for all costs and maintenance of the park for a period of not less than one
year following acceptance of the improvements.
25. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including
service laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director and Utilities Engineer.
26. The subdivider shall provide all-weather access to all City owned facilities (manholes,
valve wells, drain inlets, etc.) located within easements in private property, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Utilities Director.
27. Easements extending southerly from streets "B" and "C" shall also include rights to
construct and maintain public water, sewer and storm drainage systems.
28. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public
street frontages and/or within the tract boundaries, to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director and utility companies.
29. Additional on site (private) fire hydrants will be required for the apartment project and
shall comply with Fire Code spacing and densities. Landscaping shall not be located
within 3 feet of a fire hydrant. Planting materials should be carefully selected to prevent
obstructions or future maintenance problems.
30. The on site distribution main shall be capable of supplying the required fire flow as
6-12
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 7
determined by the Fire Code.
31. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development' on
adjacent and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must
include analysis of all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities
and shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce flooding.
The development must be designed so as not to increase flooding potential downstream;
detention facilities will be required.
32. If the study identifies on-site areas subject to 100-yr storm flooding, the developer shall
process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map
Amendment (LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to final acceptance of
any development. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be
subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad
elevations of at least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation. All areas subject to
flooding shall be documented.
33. The proposed detention and siltation basins and related drainage improvements, shall be
privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association (HOA). The storm
drainage facilities downstream of the detention basin and within public streets will be
accepted by the City. The HOA shall be required to provide annual maintenance and
status reports each Fall by a registered civil engineer for the basins and do necessary
repairs as recommended prior to the rainy season. This provision shall be included in the
CC&Rs for the tract.
34. The path/road providing access to the siltation basin shall be constructed as an all-
weather access, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Community
Development Director.
35. The drainage swale and related improvements within lot 152 (behind lots 51-74) shall be
maintained by the HOA. Appropriate easements shall be provided to allow access and
maintenance of said drainage improvements, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works and Community Development Director. This provision shall be included in the
CC&Rs for the tract.
36. Off-site easements for grading and drainage are required in order to discharge drainage
across the adjacent property to an adequate point of disposal.
37. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Director, Community Development Director, the City's Natural Resources
Manager and the Dept. of Fish& Game.
38. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and
6-13
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 8
drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
39. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall
be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used
and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map.
All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
40. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final
map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record
units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer.
41. Water meters shall be manifolded in pairs, whenever practical.
42. The subdivider shall design the driveway entrance at the southeastern comer of Parcel
148 to provide for only right turns into the project by southbound traffic on Los Osos
Valley Road. (Right turns out of the project shall be precluded because this driveway
configuration would introduce traffic into a merge lane.)
43. The subdivider shall install a transit stop on Los Osos Valley Road, as shown on the
tentative tract map, to include a concrete pad, transit shelter, trash container, transit route
sign and lighting. The precise location and design of these facilities shall be to the
approval of the Director of Public Works and Community Development Director.
44. Pedestrian Access: As shown on the tentative tract map, the public utility easements
(PUE) shall also be reserved and improved for pedestrian access throughout the tract
boundary, as follows:
• A pedestrian connection shall be provided across the south side of the
neighborhood park between "D" and "E" Streets.
• The PUE at the south end of "B" Street should be relocated to be adjacent to
the western property boundary for Lot 125-D.
• Of specific importance is reserving non-vehicular access rights from the ends of
both "B" and "C" Streets to the southern tract boundary to enable non-vehicular
circulation to and from development on the adjoining parcel.
• Connection to Quail Drive.
45. Walkways in Park: The walkways that extend through the neighborhood park (Parcels
6-14
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 9
149 and 150), shall intersect with "D" Street at the normal pedestrian crossing location
parallel to Madonna Road. (The sketch plan for the park included in the application
materials shows an offset which would encourage pedestrian crossings at an unexpected
location on "D" Street.)
46. Traffic Circle: All curb "bulb-outs" and "traffic calming" features shall accommodate
access by emergency response vehicles and garbage trucks, and shall be constructed to
avoid damage from large moving vans/trucks, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works and Fire Chief. (e.g. - mountable curbs should be designed to withstand the
impacts incurred from fire trucks, garbage trucks & semi-trailer moving vans.)
Appropriate signs or directional facilities, to the approval of the Director of Public
Works, shall be provided and shall be visible from all approaches to the traffic circle that
foster its correct use.
47. Madonna Road Median: The metal railing that is shown around the curved portion of the
median nose shall be eliminated. The final design of the pedestrian refuge for crossing
Los Osos Valley Road (as shown in the "Center Median Design" detail in the
"Attachment to the Tentative Map") is subject to modification, specifically regarding
railing, curbing, landscaping and paving materials.
48. The applicant shall prepare and submit an Affordable Housing Agreement for City review
and approval per Section 17.19.110 of the Zoning Regulations.
(Code Requirements)
1. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. EPA Requirement: 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.
3. A water allocation is required, due to the addition of residential units. Currently, a water
allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water
Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary
number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
4. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential unit basis and shall
be paid at the time building permits are issued. The cost of developing an allocation
through retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to
appropriate City policies.
6-15
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 10
5. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary ssary on any connection to the City water
system if the property includes an active Well.
6. On-site use of any Well Will be allowed to continue only on the parcel overlying the well.
7. Some off-site public sewer must be constructed in.order to provide adequate capacity to
serve this project.
8. The applicant shall pay parkin-lieu fees consistent with, SLO Municipal' Code Section
16.40.080
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following toll call vote;
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT.
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1999;
Mayor Allen Settle
ATrEST:
Lee,Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
jw
o/orir
'Nd-V Attomey Y
6-16
1
x
N 00000006 O cO o
N N O O 1� to It O 0 N 1�- 1
O N O r N r Co N N I c 1
N T T C7
Cl)
O
O) co
T m
O
W
N N O O O O O CDO O
N O w
O
N •
O
N c 0 vi
O N O O O O O O 00 T 3 m •0 w co
T r r 0 «c m
cl' m 5
O w E >
N m 4) m =
N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o f�- EL
CO M O U) Cl V M E rn O aw o n
(Dr r N p w y m c
35 V x W O ECD
CD
w
= m 0 0 :c
yV- O O O N N CSO 4D c i m
r `
W C m 0 ,0' 0 co
m r W t.� co M y
_ N N c °� c0 W �.c
tom 3 y � " M � o'
d p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r M � L m E
O ch � IB o to N o 0 0 ) E
t V 0 N N (o T S ., rn _ a rn
COcc
a� corns m
mO 0 � 3 � 0
x C N C y X
W (� C j N -0zrna oo m
_ 0000000 00 morn E
H Z � m N O w O V) O o c c 0
W (Q O ' r r N Co '` c a c O E
m a O r 0 --
N
N m .
`p O m Nycoyr
m N O O O o O O O Cl O E y E E
cM � ao osN � o � mX � � =
O T 3 � c W 3
O O c co
m b: to .
C c y _
LCCOF)i
M � O S O O N Cl ti 0 +� E mvr r to a o 0 M mm U, cca av �t c 0) 0 d m
mo� �
3 y E
� � E
cc r C
CL
r 3 Cm 'y0 m G`y1 LL W W
O O O w tm 3 eo -6m
O Z to x c mv c = d c
Co c
rcow M to r0
,
co
= = — a
mO Ov m
Co
a _ m 0o m �i
d '0 a •vZ o r
-o o c Ea) 0 .0
O C y y :E C r p
O) my M y
75
C mCL
Im
V
E m m m m m m y. 7 U V m
y y� 0 0 0 0 0 tan d O H w Q a v
U) y
t6 t6 !Q to !0 W A l0 l0 •-•� •• •-• ��
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 148-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION WITH OTHER OPEN SPACE AND DETENTION BASIN LOTS AND
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
MADONNA AND LOS OSOS VALLEY ROADS
(TR/PD 102-96, Tract 2307)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 8, 1999
and recommended approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 102-96 and Planned
Development Rezoning PD 102-96;and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 19, 1999 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the project evaluation and recommendations of staff,and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the DeVaul Ranch environmental impact
report (EIR) certified by the City Council in December, 1998 for its adequacy in evaluating this
request;
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 DeVaul Ranch EIR certified
by the City Council in December, 1998 adequately addresses the potential significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Findin s. That this Council,after consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map TR 102-96 and Planned Development Rezoning PD 102-96, the Planning Commissions
recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
(Council to insert findings here)
SECTION 3. Denial. The request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map TR 102-96
and Planned Development Rezoning PD 102-96 is hereby denied.
On motion of seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
6-18
Resolution No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ _ day of_ 1999.
May&Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
6-19
X
U
N N O OD � l� � 0 N � m
O N O r N r Co N CN it O m
N r r M r
;a o
M
F- o
O �
C� m
r m
O
Ul
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r °'
N N 1� ►� r m
N O v,
O
N ui
O c
N c o vi
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O cn 3 a' •O � ca
N O O
O r
a w 0 0 ()
O � a CL a) c
r c ca
O ° 10 4r-) E E �
N v v; E o
ca 0000000 OF- f: E t CL
" Co M O W) O v C ) p) 0 C p
N O X .S = m O c
m o E £ a
co 3 E t m
N ma � 3ad
= d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c r d m w
CDm ch O CD M N N ce) RT C) 0 � N c >_ m
CD r ' r r o :2 o a 1p
Of r W t y v, vi m
R 70 3 N N E P (A m 'o
0 '000000 Or 3NNr- mE
O M N LD O W) N O O C t
Q L Z 0 r ' r N N Co r = 2 pV mj v a7
5
O1 m m m L � E
O C:)
w 3 3 `n
X O N O c a) c m
W O 3 N aMa o
O O O O O O O O O (D f rn�
cc
N Z ti m N O LA O M O O c U
m O ' r r r N Co r 4) c mr E Ec
r t L6 a 0 'c d a1
N 3
d o M4 yCO yw
N ayi o m m
® 0 0 0 0 00 0 O O E E
O M co O1 N co LO Cl v ami x m c m
r c a) c O y
c a
0 3 c W = cu
O o c N o
N C N @ C e-
r M O o m o o N O o 3 E m o x
O ' N T r LO o " 3 a1
r
c a m m 2
CA a) w c a� m
CD a)CA > v NCD 0 a) C
3 to £
a) sL M CD cEM75CD
C.`o
^ O O p) y 3 `m a m m c
to v Z CO) x a c = o
'O N c0 «c O a7 m m
c 0 O t S m o 3 .. 0
., m o
c0 = C _ = f+' cc C=O o O a `c � � c
U O — 2 3 m � O � m L) o a> > •g
z d m CO M c ` Cc (D CD p O. c p m t c
c o CG M �cOO M cEmC9a --
o c y N S c == p
Q) (U a) CU C dl N U C V,
(D 3 3 3 3 3
E E m
3
a) O H W Q v U
y y 0 0 0 O O m N
w N y ] f0 U
6-20
ORDINANCE NO. (1999 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP
TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM R-1, R-2, AND R-3 TO R-1-PD,R-2-PD
AND R-3-PD AT 11855 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
(PD 102-96; DEVAUL RANCH)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 8, 1999, and
recommended approval of the amendment to the site's zoning; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has held a public hearing on October. 19, 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 revisions are consistent with the General
Plan,the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the DeVaul Ranch environmental impact report
(EIR)certified by the City Council in December, 1998 for its adequacy in evaluating this request;and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the Final EIR for the DeVaul Ranch
project adequately addresses this amendment to the site's zoning.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. The components of the PD rezoning are consistent with the General Plan which calls for a range of
housing types, with low density, medium density, and medium-high density development each
occupying about one third of the area.
2. Features of the design (ie. traffic calming measures and design of streetscapes) achieve the intent
of conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves.
3. The project incorporates features (such as electrical vehicle plug ins) which result in consumption
of less energy than conventional development.
4. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been approved by the City Council in conjunction with the
certification of the Final EIR.
5. The PD rezoning provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as
the elderly or families with children)which would not be feasible under conventional zoning;
6. The PD rezoning transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater
6-21
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 2
environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard;
7. The PD rezoning provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development;
8. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open
space,adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better
than the standards themselves;
9. The PD rezoning incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or
water than conventional development.
10. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space,
landscaping, public . art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (PD 102-96) is hereby approved and
the property rezoned to Planned Development (R-1-PD, R-2-PD, R-3-PD) as shown on the attached
Exhibit A subject to the following conditions:
1. Should the DeVaul Ranch planned development not be pursued, the Planned Development zoning
for the project shall expire with the expiration of the vesting tentative map.
2. Three footnotes shall be added to the setback table requiring:
* An 18-foot deep driveway apron to be located in front of the garage and outside of the
sidewalk area;
* Varied side yard setbacks to reduce building massing; and
* Zero setbacks for garages at the rear of the property with ARC approval.
3. Homes abutting the Quail Drive lots shall be limited to 19 feet in height, subject to Architectural
Review Commission approval.
4. Side, street, and rear building setbacks shall be varied to provide visual interest.
5. No two 2-story portion of a duplex structure shall be located next to each other.
6. Any access to parking that is provided in addition to that which is required, should be constructed
with a pervious surface to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
7. Speed tables shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed bulbouts.
8. A density bonus shall be granted to allow a total of 147 single-family and 122 multi-family dwelling
units.
6-22
5/Pu/90
Pored 2 Pored ROC.d
5/Pu/90 Los OSos Volt.
co
70
o ,
J
I
n � I
C1�
m
r 0 I S� I
(V J33?LIS) MAI /NINOI
" 00 g= N I Q
r
m N N A N N
Q
N
0 - -
Q �Iya ggN00ds 4
(9 L3 37J8I0 Ol8 CZ, - - -
y .
- = I r- m
O _N
II�mm V3gAi
m '
cc
cn
I.
111 1
_ o
11° 1 1
_ 1 C%j
iR
/
John L.WWI=&Ascomtes ZONING - MAP
Eqbwffig a DEVAUL RANCH
4„5 sa Braad S,BS San tub Obapa. Co
(805 544-4077 FAX 544-4294
�Xti 181T �C
Ordinance No. (1999 Series)
Page 3
9. The energy conservation measures proposed by the applicant in their submittal materials shall be
included with the DeVaul Ranch Planned Development Project.
10. The pedestrian entry at Los Osos Valley and Madonna Roads shall not include a closing gate.
11. In conjunction with the applicant's application for the fust phase of building permits, a noise
analysis shall be submitted which identifies potential aircraft noise impacts and construction
measures proposed to comply with interior noise levels.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting
for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a
newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of
the thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at
its meeting held on the day of 1999, on a motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�L
Att Je Jorgensen
6-23
��fY � 4p1'v !i. ®.r� �y4+) r Lg.S. •„'6.11
♦o �e r� 1 ♦'., a'a�"..Pei ��. �;; . i �'^ ���1 ear
S:'n! ) . �� of J �« •a •<7 ay v
to�t�e,��a t�� ���.��.`�`��1;tjV � J � @- ��y►:�• -c ����a. CQ-, �(` `' 1r�
�� ffQe�'CfQi•,>G ���' �i��y �o�i �' � ^�`►'�s yi_ i�" '�•Y� ���f�*t:�{� �
�I �" _ r�lt, � '@� o,►t'1�" ^ 1 wV. � 04.�<•.''��`yam +.
.rs �6 �% i J K$ `ems<y � � 0 � ��.����. � ��`t �yy►�Pa. ..�►�+4`,�.
.�► V�'r ® �y <' to ✓ 4��ta `:I,� t •':�'� ���,'� It. r����-C.`� tti'�:f+., �^.'"�fe
Ee,.w a �•'r J O Com, � �d.`� � r � Q�
cze. v q` ,i ..fib" � ia'���e °�+:� '•.a
_ / d1 In Q��• Phi • ., Y�Y``�p` .Q 1 Cj4�. :j!•q/' yi
sr ��• w�' �0. IS'GH•t7' r4 •, 0��� G �r ''f4< i��ti
'rte - '� � PT.S-ClL� � rl�V/t••.• r a% ♦ �1i�♦ �.-�� �1�I
�� pY �, �• �'°`'�''� �'& `s .C; 'rt'_4:��>v �!.�� .�J.�e , i.y�j��� �jit ww o'e�w.
. 6 .^ � .di��•++•11y bti7. '•6�e� ., *� �• �•� - '' O '�^rp��0>�. �w`�w ii>� ��
- ���,Y.,: �h.. .1�`ea.��,laPi f•Y��S��...•� e�`3�� �r � e Nt�.t p?{� �^`t 1
��- �b �a(?� tity � w ,. �(" wP,.� O 6t^>. wwt•. �t�•. �tw� 'olt°'�>
• I tilt �!a�' sem`d��f�N.?� 7
I � I I I I II I � •`�J
I i
_ylil'I�ill:ui'
'
'
.,I� II;Ii I•
I.i
i Los Osos •
ARC/ PD 102-96
1 -25
AvAcHMe4-rr" 5
------------
---
— ------------------------ ------------_ --
— - —
— --
J y
. .. :. � .. ta, .k : 1. :: k:' i. k • S k I�� -___ - ��
i..
;. i, �: k S": .• :�___ ___ --_— — ---- - •��
VAUL RANCH DRIVE Ef c
-___- ;. • a': e:: a is i,;,fa . !i: !�,'`;`.' -Sa:.� - i_.—
f
..
1�1. is t-
...........fa t s,I• -- " ..ETO CIRCLE%STREET
OONE R DRIVE 57 D '
_s� I I _s�.._ -- =� _;�{: --�-r—�-- � +. iLiSj`i ':4+�4'i i i i ���•:,�
NIs
N� a
.I Sri i•t$ i
�'I $ ❑
"TArv- 7sr-e
e i�l
t- ^-r—
TONINI DRIVE (STREET A) OQ
is
Q B Da VAMRANCH �•-- ��
' STREETNAMES =�- 6-26
06
4i Gi
m m 3 7
C
0.0 O
Z � MW
r � m
C 0
� v
N (O OJ OO 1 0 tf) -t Oi
N tC0 X
r r !7 U) r
M a s
� o m0t000 �
r N r r N _ M
CL0
0
w ma
£ c 0 �Uc3U� U 3 m m � „
po -Q 0 p m
D
E' w a« 7+ W a V' Q- C '� E
cd o Qa. aQ ��a n � o c r o
_ �, m ns t
CL
o D "0 13 � � a '� v C v w -o fl
.® ' o- -
i+ G � � � rNMet 7 a't 7 CL � l^L
CL
C3 Z IM
CDJce
CD
V
d 0 Q Q C In
c �
Q m eo ti N
ai N
Z r
c m
c w d a ..
m m W02
as
LL � m oaE .
o � c
0
J NNm CO CO NNO t m 0 0 C) E
N r a _� C
O r Z A _
= N �
O
V0 CL
V C
m a a a a Na 0CL cm A "
N
LL
a U �.t0
6-27
O A 5 1 5
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
Exceptions to Conventional Development Standards
EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
R-1 R-1-PD R-1-PD Patio R-1-PD Duplex
DENSITY 8.75/net acre' 7/net acre 7/net acre 7/net acre
COVERAGE 40% max. 50% max. 50% max. 50%
LOT SIZE 6000 SF 6000 SF 2) 4500 SF 2) 3500 SF 2)
Nfm Width 50 FT 60 FT 45 FT 35 FT
Min.Depth 90 FT 89 FT/Lot 4 44 FT (avg.) 90 FT
Min.Frontage 20 FT 31 FT 37 FT 27 FT
PARKING 2 2 2 2
HEIGHT 25 FT max. 28 FT"" max.28 FT max.21.5 FT
YARDS:
Front 20 FT 10'to porches, 15'to living,18'to garage,10'to side
loaded single story garage or detached single story
structures for Plan 1,3 8 4,but not on comers.
Side 5- 15 FT 5 FT 5 FT 0-5 FT
Rear 5- 15 FT 15 FT 15 FT 15 FT
NOTES
1) Notations in bold italics represent exceptions to the conventional development standards.
2)"Exceptions"pursuant to Title 16 Sec. 16.36.160 Lot dimensions.
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUEUTO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO DeVaul Ranch PD �
6- 28
�p
CAUFORNLA 93401 June 1999 o O
A 5 1 5
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
Exceptions to Conventional Development Standards
EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED
R-2 R-2-PD Patio R-2-PD Duplex
DENSITY 15/netacre' max.12.751netac. 2) max1Z75(netacre 2)
COVERAGE 50% 50% 50%
LOT SIZE 6000 SF 4500 SF 2) 3500 SF 2)
Nrm Width 60 FT 45 FT 2) 35 FT 2)
Min.Depth 90 FT 90 FT 2) 90 FT 2)
Min.Frontage 30 FT 37 FT 27 FT
PARKING 1.5+.53) See attached table See attached table
HEIGHT 35 FT max.28 FT max.21.5 FT
YARDS:
Front 20 FT 15 FT to living area, 18 FT to garage
Side 5- 15 FT 5 FT 0-5 FT
Rear 5- 15 FT 15 FT 15 FT
NOTES
1)Notations in bold italics represent exceptions to the conventional development standards.
2)*Exceptions"pursuant to Title 16 Sec. 16.36.160 Lot dimensions.
3) 1 1/2 for 1st bedrom plus 1/2 for ea.addt9.bedroom.
`Reflects density bonus.
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUEUTO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401 DeVaul Ranch PD 6-29
June 1999
41'r-2
O A 5 1 5
L A N D 5 C A P E
.ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
Exceptions to Conventional Development Standards
EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
R-3 R-3-PD Patio R-3-PD Duplex R-3-PD Apts.
DENSITY 22.5/net acre` 20.041net acre 2) 20.041net acre 2) 20.04/net acre 2)
COVERAGE 60% 50% 50% 31%
LOT SIZE 6000 SF 4500 FT 3) 3500 FT 3) 4.55 acre 3)
Nfm Width 60 FT 45 FT 35 FT 470 FT 3)
Min.Depth 90 FT 90 FT 90 FT 450 FT 3)
Min.Frontage 40 FT 45 FT 35 FT 450 FT 3) M'donna
470 FT 3) LOVR
PARKING 1+1.5+.5+1/5 See parking table 4) See parking table 4) See parking table 4)
DIGHT 35 FT 28 FT 21.5 FT max.35 FT
YARDS:
Front 15 FT 15 FT to living, 18 FT to garage 2 FT (to carport) LOVR
(70 FT to bldg.)
Side 5- 10 FT 5 FT 0-5 FT 14 FT Madonna
Rear 5- 10 FT 15 FT 15 FT 13 FT "A"Street
NOTES
1)Notations in bold italics represent exceptions to the conventional development standards.
2)Requires density bonus.
3)'Exceptions"pursuant to Title 16 Sec. 16.36.160 Lot dimensions.
4) 1/studio apt., 1 1/2 for 1st bedrom plus 1/2 for ea. addt'I. bedroom, plus 1/ea. 5 units.
*Reflects density bonus.
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUELrrO CT
SAN Huls OBISPO DeVaul Ranch PD 6-30
CALIFORNIA 93401 June 1999
O A 5 I 5
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
Parking Requirements
Type of No.of Required Parking Difference.
Unit Bedrooms Parking Provided*
R-2& R3
Duplex-Plan 1 3 2.5 spaces 2.0 spaces (.5 spaces)
Duplex-Plan 2 3 2.5 spaces 2.0 spaces (.5 spaces)
Patio-Plan 1 3 2.5 spaces 2.0 spaces (.5 spaces)
Patio-Plan 2 3 2.5 spaces 2.0 spaces (.5 spaces)
Patio-Plan 3 1 4 1 3.0 spaces 1 3.0 spaces I o.k.
*Providing an average of two (2)spaces unit.
Apartments
Studio 16 16.0 spaces"
1 bedroom 56 84.0 spaces
2 bedroom 50 100.0 spaces
1/5 units 122 units 24.4 spaces
TOTAL 224.4 spaces 232.0 spaces +7.6 spaces
** 1/studio apt., 1.5 for 1st bedroom plus .5 for ea.Addt'I. bedroom, plus 1/5 units .
SOLS-541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUELRO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO DeVaul Ranch PD 6-31
CALIFORMA 93401
MAam-�M June 1999
5/PIA/90
S j�/so aO"d 1 Los Osos Vali Road
---
�� �r I
o ,
J
I
I
Q: I
� I
cn UQ
�J
N, I
CO
-'-'❑O (V L33?LLS) 8AIb10 ININol1<1
r ^ —
El - -
:L3 ArVA3t!m❑ yI N N N N N n`
0
"❑ c .Ls •rte xsla
0 o sc
a s e = =1
g ts al 21
R N N N N
I q ON !
m ^ o
S cl —
s —
�
/ O
a ! /
1 � M /
/
1 01 N /
LaL Waw&A�oaat� ZONING - MAP
<4115 sa Broad s1 es Sam• p� DEVAUL RANCH
(805)544-4011 FAX 544-4294
Westme
08 June 1999
Ms.Peggy Mandeville
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: DeVaul Ranch Planned Development—
Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Architectural Review Submittals
Dear Peggy,
The following is a description of the amenities, facilities and ideas that DeVaul Ranch,LLC have
incorporated into the project to create an innovative planned development.
Under its General Plan,the City of San Luis Obispo had outlined the DeVaul Ranch property for
residential development,ranging from high-density multi-family to single family residential units.
The General Plan had anticipated that approximately 500 units/homes would be built on the
property.DeVaul Ranch,LLC has attempted to follow this policy as closely as possible and has
proposed a planned development of approximately 260 unitsihomes.
The DeVaul Ranch project has been designed to accommodate a variety of occupancy groups,
singles,and families with children, active seniors, and the young professional.It is able to do this
by offering a wide range of housing types—multi-family,the innovative duplex,the patio home,
and the larger single-family homes.
The proposed homes and their layout have been designed to incorporate amenities such as front
porches,landscaped parkways,and a variety of architectural styles to enhance the neighborhood
experience.In addition,the DeVaul ranch residents will be able to enjoy a 3+acre neighborhood
park,public art,and 184 acres of accessible open space that will be dedicated to the city upon
approval of the tract map. WestP e
a�4HI
DeVaul Ranch,LLC will also dedicate 15%of the total project to affordable housing,instead of sVkstpwShd�cOLj
paying an in lieu fee.The affordable housing will be distributed throughout the project and WestFac Pmpertws,
therefore,be unidentifiable. 6&dak AZ
DeVaul Ranch,LLC has also committed to building a more environmentally friendly and energy
efficient-project.This will be achieved through utilizing the experience of Build America and
past projects that have garnered awards in Santa Barbara County.Items such as attic exhaust fans;
ceiling fans;high efficiency water heaters;thermal blankets;re-circulating pumps; solar collector
decking at the apartment pool; skylights and/or solar tubes; dual glazed windows and sliding
westPac lmesanents,Inc.
1880 Santa Barbara Sheet,Suite F
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
80&S44-7995•FAS:80&U4-1171
6-33
ZI 1
Westpac
08 June 1999
DeVaul Ranch Planned Development
Page 2
doors with low E values; and the location of trees for temperature modification will be just some
of the innovative ideas that DeVaul Ranch,LLC is committed to providing in the project.
The DeVaul Ranch project has also gone to great effort to propose and provide state of the art
traffic calming measures. These have been adapted from examples utilized worldwide and
include meandering bulb-outs, traffic islands,neck downs,roundabouts,pavement changes,and
continuous pedestrian access from sidewalks through landscaped parkways to the dedicated open
space.
DeVaul Ranch, LLC has further committed to the much-needed upgrade of Los Osos Valley
Road.These improvements include roadway widening and an upgraded intersection with
pedestrian refuge and landscaping.
Lastly,the project has adopted the theme of the original ranch home. This is reflected in the
commitment to dedicate approximately two acres to the site restoration effort and to rehabilitate
the ranch house structure.
We hope that the outlined project improvements will provide sufficient information for your use.
In closing,we believe that the submitted drawings that depict the overall site layout,the design of
specific site amenities, the proposed site plan for the residential units and multi-family apartment
complex,the architectural style and level of detail should provide the Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Commission and ultimately,the City Council with a comprehensive
package that clearly describes the planned development. Should you have any comments or
require any additional information,please contact us at your earliest convenience.Thank you for
your continued assistance.
Yours sincerely,
WESTPAC Wegm Haw*
Ho=mm.Br
westPac Shelter Cor.
S=MBm6M% ca
+HshpXshall wcstPw Prwufies,
Vice-President GMzda[AAZ
cc: Investec
Oasis Associates
I.L.Wallace Associates
W.Hezrnalhalch Architects C.U)EVA ULVIMARSHALIPDSUBMnTAL60899.DOC
WestPw hNestments,Ine-
1880 Saha Barbara Sheet,Sarte F
San tans Obispo,CA 93401
M544.W•FAS:805/644.1177
6-34
WILLIAM H¢ZMALHALCH
ARCMs T. CTS 1 NC.
I
ral plurdag
REVIEW OF APARTMENT SITE FOR P.D. REQUIREMENTS ceecn
ArcnlUenlre
• SITE FLAN
Suedinp heights are varied(1,243 star Oreatatres)to Provide for G41 required VIM
carldore.
The Praleot to not gdA Fad dons open b atl fronbq)es.hdM pedadit dMiatlon.
Podeebtart tras tlnialM o=r around the ft Impw to the reeldeMe conneattort to other
Asa slmd es and the suaoumlir g nelgftdk ads.
®WW"dMem were separated and don't overlap,ao that U view aantdom Ow through
be the middle and the ands of fie 9b(bI71}I In NwtdSOO and Eaetlweet dVamlorm).
The Wrote sWQd amr4 the ab In such a nunnerto nla*ntm the varlety of
mtent et efts(front and sides)and hethts(I A.&3 stoles).
• ImItrsion of a reoredon building,pool,and spa,helps reduce Impact an MWd(ng faeisties.
♦ BUILDING CLUSTERS
• The re were modlfled horn test to West to mWxd Io di fererd site adjaceD*L
&MV mea*g Wes verled(N stomas)WAUdn the eluelars,to provide befter.sale to the
• The hunq clusters were OW and maffed,in osierto provide dl%rW alevegarn hom
the outside of the pro)eet. The larger 3.etoty bulldin8 segments coeur mostly at tte middle of
to Sits tin.
• UNIT PUNS
. Mwq units are i mhomea,WhM Include mora W(649M residents.
AddiBonal*sW Is Included under Ohs In Ute garages,under eWro-In the untm,and on the
decks ar>d In Ills unitL
•
Most garages are dhectly natneoW ID the units,ptavlding a more°For Sale'Itbalyle.
As unb Include washerldryeta,smiting the impact on avnounding facStles,
6-35
WILLIAM HFZMALHA1XH
A R C H I T. C T S 1 N C.
'.ar.0 P1annlAp
REVIEW OF APARTMENT SITE FOR P.D.REQUIREMENTS comm
nrcnlusonue
• SITE PLAN
• Bonding heipttta ere varied(1,2,&3 stay ahua♦ M)to provlde for City required view
mrtldors.
The Project Is not gated. Frail doors open to all frontages,Inviting pedestrian olroulatlon.
Pedestrian kA ifrdcages o=r around the Sk Impra ft the malderde connection to other
project amenities and the wroundhig neighborhoods.
•
la" ware separated and don't overlap,so that till view contdom aootr through
botll the middle and the ends of tit®site(boar In NodhISauth and EadWast directions).
The bugdings were situated around the stie In ouch a manner to maximus the variety of
aiment elevation(front and sides)and helphte(1,2,$3 stades).
• Inollrslon of a moreatiort bulldhV,pool,and spa,helps reduce Impact on surrounding WNW.
BUIIAING CLUSTERS
• The bullding CNatore were modlIM from gest to West to respond to dtiterent site adjacer rift
Building massing was varied(2.3 stories)within the atuetwa,fa provide better scale to the
•
The buMM oluetera were dipped and Moged,in order to provide dbrent elovatlone from
the outside of the project The larger 3-glory bWWIM segments Occur mostly at the middle of
the Sao Plan.
• UNIT PLANS
Marty m to are fownhomes,which include more W*Iann(Mate.
• Additional stgW Is induded under Itlelro In Iris germs,under ensue In ftte unto,and on the
decks and In the units.
• Moat garages are directly oartneftd to IM unh.Providing a Moro°For Sale"ilfrlagde.
• All units Include washeddryeta,limiting the impact on surrounding facilities,
.. &36
h M a c�
invESTEC
Reol Estote Companies ■
August 11, 1999
Ms.Peggy Mandeville
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249
Re: DeVaul Ranch Energy Efficiency and Green Building Goals
Dear Ms. Mandeville,
I am pleased to submit the following information regarding the DeVaul Ranch LLC's
commitment to energy efficiency and green building for the DeVaul Ranch project. Our
intentions are framed by a successful history that includes receiving the 1998 Green Award
recognizing our voluntary efforts to improve the environment, participation in the Department of
Energy's Building America, and as a award winner in the 1999 Waste Reduction Awards
Program sponsored by the Integrated Waste Management Board.
Many of the design and construction concepts and methodologies to be implemented at the
DeVaul Ranch are truly innovative. At this stage of design we expect our homes to exceed
California's Title 24 by 20-30 %. Our participation in Building America has provided our design
team the support of nationally recognized energy consultants (design and engineering) with the
goal of achieving higher levels of efficiency. In that regard, we are designing the homes to
include a combination water heater and heat exchanger, which will offer state of the art energy
efficiency and eliminate the traditional forced air unit(fau). Short duct runs and the elimination of
duct leakage with unvented roofs are two techniques that the design team can incorporate for
even higher efficiency levels and healthier homes.
In conjunction with these methodologies we will include low a glass, higher R valued insulation
and, as appropriate, solar tubes and ceiling fans to improve the climate control issues in the
homes. Each home will have lengthened roof overhangs to provide shade. We are investigating a
composite siding with higher R-value than traditional wood siding and the use of recirculating
water pumps to improve energy efficiency.
Additional detail has been given to design engineering. We have designed in even increments to
minimize construction waste. As an added benefit to the waste issue and the project,we will bring
our experience in construction recycling and work along side the local waste hauler to achieve the
highest levels of recycling practical. To emphasize this potential, we refer to a subdivision in
Santa Barbara County, Summerland Heights, where we have recycled construction waste at an
unprecedented level of 90%. This experience has been prominent in our partnership with the
Community Environmental Council's project program C&D Source Reduction and Recycling:
Guidelines for Sustained Recovery,which will provide a model for communities.
6-37
200 East Canillo Sheet Striae 200 Santo Barbara,CA 93101 ■ Tel 805 962-8989 Fax 805 962-1918
z�1
The DeVaul Ranch project will also see the inclusion of numerous "green products" such as low
VOC paints and adhesives, energy efficient appliances, recycled materials (glue and muti-lams),
and composite materials created from recycling. Certified lumber from managed forests is being
considered for the manufactured truss system and roof sheeting.
With an eye to the future,all the garages will be pre-wired to accommodate electric vehicles.
Acknowledging the sun's energy, the apartment pool will have a solar collector built into the
deck and skylights will be a valued resource provided for in the apartment design.
As the project proceeds we anticipate additional innovation.The developers remain committed to
consider appropriate opportunities for efficiency and the implementation.of green technology. We
look forward to working with staff and others to create a remarkable neighborhood.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlie Eckberg
Vice President
Enclosure
6-38
1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#3
BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner f�A MEETING DATE: September 8, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: TR/PD 102-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11855 Los Osos Valley Road
SUBJECT: Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council for a request to subdivide a
222 acre site (DeVaul Ranch) to allow for the development of 38 acres with approximately 147
single family dwellings, 122 multi-family dwellings and a 3-acre park and planned development
rezoning to allow a density bonus and to provide for flexible development standards in the R-1,
R-2 and R-3 zones.
RECOMMENDATION
A. Recommend to the City Council that the lower 35 acres of the site be rezoned with a
Planned Development (PD) Overlay.to allow a density bonus and more variation in the
project design than normal standards would allow based on findings and subject to
conditions.
B. Recommend to the City Council that the vesting tentative tract map be approved based on
findings and subject to conditions and code requirements.
BACKGROUND
Project History
In December 1998;the City Council certified the environmental impact report(EIR) and approved
the annexation and prezoning of the DeVaul Ranch site. Now that the property is within the City
limits, applications for the development of the property can be processed. Accordingly, the
applicant has submitted applications for a tentative tract map, PD rezoning, and architectural
review. The architectural review component of this project is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed
by the Architectural Review Commission on September 20, 1999.
Data Summary
Address: 11855 Los Osos Valley Road
Applicant: DeVaul Ranch LLC
Environmental status:The Final EIR was certified by the City Council in December, 1998.
Project action deadline: The proposed rezoning is a legislative act which is not subject to the
Permit Streamlining Act processing deadlines.
Site description
The project site is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Madonna Road and Los
Osos Valley Road (see Attachment 1). The upper portion of the site is currently undeveloped
and the lower portion has been used for agricultural purposes and contains two residences.
6-39
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 2
Proiect Description
The DeVaul Ranch LLC has submitted applications to the City for the subdivision and PD
rezoning of the site. The subdivision would allow the development of 147 single family homes
(including retention of the DeVaul Ranch house), 122 apartment units, and 3 acres of parkland
(see Attachment 2). The PD rezoning allows for a maximum 25% density bonus and more
variation in the project design than normal standards allow(see Attachment 3).
Planning Commission Authority
The Planning Commission's charge is twofold.
One, the Planning Commission should review the request for Planned Development (PD) zoning
for compliance with the purpose and intent of PD zoning. The intent of PD zoning is:
To encourage imaginative development and effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more
variation in project design than. normal standards would allow. Such variation from normal
standards should provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole which
could not be provided under conventional regulations. Under an. approved planned
development, lot size and configuration, yards, height, coverage and parking may be specified
for the project without conformance to the standards of the underlying zone.
To approve the planned development, the Planning Commission and Council must find that the
PD zoning meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly
or families with children) which would not be feasible under conventional zoning;
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental
sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard;
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development;
4. Features of the particular design achieve,the intent of conventional standards (privacy,
usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on)
as well as or better than the standards themselves;
S. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than
conventional development;
6. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space,
landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under
conventional development standards.
Planned development zoning also allows for residential densities to exceed those allowed in the
underlying zone by not more than 25 percent. In order to grant the applicant's requested density
bonus of 6%in the R-2 zone and 14%in the R-3 zone,the Commission and Council must find that
the proposed development satisfies at least three out of five criteria stated above. The attached PD
booklet submitted by the applicant outlines how they feel the project meets each of the six criteria.
In determining the allowable bonus,the Commission and Council shall assess the extent to which
6®40
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 3
these criteria are met.
Two, the Planning Commission should review the proposed design of the vesting tentative map
for compliance with City plans and policies. Specifically, the Planning Commission should
review the proposed subdivision for compliance with the following purposes of the Subdivision
Regulations:
A. To protect and provide for the public health, safety and general welfare;
B. To guide the development of the city in accordance with the general plan;
C. To ensure that real property which is to be divided can be used without danger to inhabitants
or property due to fire,flood, soil instability, noise or other hazard;
D. To ensure that proper provision will be made for traffic circulation,public utilities,facilities,
and other improvements within the subdivided land and within the city as a whole;
E. To protect and enhance the value of land and improvements and to minimize conflicts among
the uses of land and buildings;
F. To protect potential buyers and inhabitants by establishing standards of design, and by
establishing procedures which ensure proper legal description and monumenting of
subdivided land;
G. To protect the natural resources of the community, including topographic and geologic
features, solar exposure, watercourses, wildlife habitats and scenic vistas, and to increase
reasonable public access to such resources;
To enable innovations in subdivision procedures to facilitate development that will best reflect
the capability of the land to support a desirable living environment.
The Planning Commission's action on the vesting tentative map and PD zoning (including the
density bonus request)should be in the form of a recommendationto the City Council.
EVALUATION
The evaluation section of this report is structured to provide a discussion of the application
requests, compliance with the adopted project mitigation measures, and conformance with
Growth Management policies.
L APPLICATION REQUESTS
PD Rezoning
As noted in the project description, the applicant proposes that the site be zoned for residential
development(with Planned Development zoning), open space and public facilities. The PD zone
for the residential portion of the project is intended to .encourage imaginative development and
the effective use of sites. It does this by allowing more variation in project design than normal
standards would allow. Through the use of PD zoning, density (not to exceed a 25% increase),
lot size, configuration, yards, height, coverage and parking may be specified for the project
without conformance to the standards of the underlying zone. Such variations from normal
6-41
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8,1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 4
standards however shall provide benefits to the project occupants or to the community as a whole
which could not be provided under conventional regulations.
Attachments 4 and 5 illustrate the applicant's request for exceptions to conventional development
standards and their justification for the deviations. Staff generally supports the applicant's
request for PD zoning. The variations in project design proposed by the applicant offer many
benefits. The variations include traffic calming measures, reduced street setbacks for living
areas, detached sidewalks, the provision for attached housing, building techniques that exceed
Title 24 standards, and pre-wiring garages for electric vehicles (see Attachment 6 for a complete
listing).
Components of the PD zoning which staff recommends that the Commission discuss and provide
a recommendation on include the following:
1. Garage setbacks. The Commission should consider adding a footnote to the setback
table requiring that in all cases an 18 foot deep driveway apron be located in front of
the garage and outside of the sidewalk area to allow a vehicle to park in front of the
garage without hanging over into the sidewalk.
2. Lot 102. The Commission should consider whether this lot should be used as an open
space lot (ie. community garden, guest parking, etc.) owned and maintained by the
HOA until such time that a lot line adjustment can be processed with the off-site
property to the east to provide a deeper lot and minimum 15 foot rear yard. The lot as
currently designed is restricted due to its orientation and shape thus making it very difficult to
develop in a way that is compatible with the neighborhood. Other patio lots in the
subdivision have lot depths of 89 feet or deeper.
3. Homes abutting the Ouail Drive lots. The environmental mitigation program for DeVaul
Ranch limits these homes to one story to reduce the visual impact of this development from
homes on the Quail Drive lots. A 25-foot height limit is normally allowed. The
Commission should consider whether a height limit (ie. 16-19 feet) should also be
imposed to ensure that the intent of the mitigation measure is met.
4. Building setbacks variations. The Commission should consider whether to impose the
requirement of setback variations or allow the applicant to follow through with this
intent without the explicit requirement.
5. Duplex units Planning staff raised a concern to the applicant about the proposed seven foot
side yard setback request for the 2-story duplex structures. To address this concern, the
applicant proposes that no two 2-story duplex structures be located next to each other. Staff
believes this design restriction is a great improvement and recommends that the
Commission include this as a condition of approval
6-42.
TRIPD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 5
6. Parking requirements in R-2 and R-3 zones. The Planning Commission should review and
make a recommendation on the applicant's request to provide two parking spaces per
dwelling unit regardless of the number of bedrooms in each dwelling. At present, the
Zoning Regulations require parking to be provided in accordance with the number of
bedrooms in all zones other than R-1 and C/OS. Staff supports this request as an effort to
reduce the residents dependence on the automobile. Persons considering a move into the
neighborhood will be aware of the parking provisions and can make the determination as to
whether the parking will meet with their needs. If parking does become a problem, the
problem will not spread beyond the DeVaul Ranch subdivision because it is generally
separated from the surrounding development.
'7. Tandem parking in duplexes. The Commission should review and make a
recommendation on the applicant's request to allow required parking for the duplexes
to be located in.tandem. The benefit of allowing tandem parking is to improve the view
from the street to.that of two one-car garages rather than two 2-car garages (which would
dominate the streetscape). The duplex homes have been designed to appear as one large
residential unit (with two 1-car garages side by side) rather than a duplex. The downside of
the tandem parking design could be more parking of cars on the street or in the driveways.
The applicant is very confident that this design will work and notes that buyers will be aware
of the parking situation before they decide to buy one of the duplex homes. Attachment 7 is
a letter from the applicant stating the positive effects of the tandem parking. Without
approval of the tandem parking design, a complete redesign of the duplex homes will be
necessary.
8. Parking for the apartments. Pursuant to the City's parking standards, the apartment project is
required to provide 224 parking spaces, none of which must be covered. The applicant is
proposing to provide 230 parking spaces; six more than required. Approximately 122 of the
spaces will be covered or enclosed. The Planning Commission should review and make a
recommendation on the applicant's request to provide additional parking spaces over
what is normally required. If the Commission's only concern is the increase in impervious
surface, the Commission could require that a percentage of the uncovered parking spaces be
designed with a pervious surface such as grasscrete or pavers.
9. LOVR street yard setback. The Commission should review and make a recommendation
on the applicant's request to provide a minimum 2-foot street yard setback for the
detached garage structures where a 15 foot setback is normally required. (As required
by the project EIR, the dwellings themselves are setback a minimum of 148 feet from the
existing centerline of Los Osos Valley Road). The garage structures also act as retaining
walls (allowing five-foot high mounding next to Los Osos Valley Road) and sound walls
(blocking traffic noise on Los Osos Valley Road). A landscape planter and public sidewalk .
will be located on the back side of the garage structures within a 15 foot wide area of the
public right of way (see Attachment 8). Public Works Department does not have a concern
with the reduced setback because the ultimate roadway width will be constructed with this
6-43
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 6
project. The Commission should review and make a recommendation on the proposed
reduced setback In addition, the Commission should confirm that the placement of the
retaining wall and garage walls in this location is consistent with General Plan Policy
N1.2.15 Sound Walls which states, "... In the Irish Hills Special Design Area ..., dwellings
shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway Arterials, Arterials,
Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards can be
met without the use of noise walls (see Attachment 9 for entire policy). Staff believes the
design does comply with this policy and requests the Commission's concurrence.
10. Impervious surfaces. Staff raised a concern regarding the increased impervious surfaces
resulting from the 3 and 4-car garage house plan options. In response, the applicant has
suggested that the driveway aprons in these areas be limited to pervious surfaces (see
attached project plans). Staff recommends that the Commission include this provision in
the conditions of approval.
11. Traffic calming measures. The applicant has included several traffic calming measures into
the project design. These include detached .sidewalks, bulbouts and a roundabout/traffic
circle. Staff supports all of these features. Additionally, staff recommends that the
Commission consider the addition of speed tables in the location of the bulbouts to
further reduce traffic speeds on these residential roadways.
12. Density bonus. As part of the Planned Development, the applicant is requesting a density
bonus. Specifically, the applicant proposes a density of 12.75 du/net acre where 12 du/net
acre is normally allowed(a 6% density bonus) in the R-2 zone, and a density of 20.56 du/net
acre where 18 du/net acre is normally allowed (a 14% increase) in the R-3 zone. No density
bonus is requested in the R-1 zone. Staff recommends that the Commission support a
density bonus request which at a minimum would allow the 253 dwelling units
evaluated in the project EIR.
13. Additional apartment units. The project EIR prepared for this residential development
envisioned 106 apartment units. Development plans submitted by the applicant include 122
apartment units; an increase in 16 units. City staff has reviewed this request for the
additional units and determined that the 16 units do not create any additional or increased
environmental impacts and therefore further environmental analysis was not required.
Additionally,the additional units comply with the General Plan policy which calls for"about
500 dwelling units in the Irish Hills Special Design Area". In regard to traffic, the additional
units should generate between 10 and 16 vehicle trips during the peak pm period which is not
a significant impact. The Commission should review and make a recommendation on
the applicant's request for 122 apartment units.
14. Alternative street designs. Because this project is a planned development, staff suggested
that the applicant might propose some alternative street designs such as limiting parking to
one side of the roadway to reduce the ultimate roadway width. The applicant has considered
6-44
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 7
.this alternative and determined that it is not feasible because it would require the redesign of
the subdivision.
Vesting Tentative May
The division of land and site layout is very similar to what the Planning Commission reviewed as
part of the annexation process (see Attachment 9). The subdivision design provides for 147
single family homes (including homes on standard 6,000 s.f. and larger lots, homes on
approximately 4,500 s.f. lots which the applicant is calling "patio homes" and duplex homes on
3,500 s.f. lots), 122 apartments (106 were previously proposed), the DeVaul Ranch house and a
3-acre neighborhood park. The traffic calming features of the subdivision are discussed under the
PD rezoning section of this report.
The grading design calls for much of the site to be raised (with the exception of the lots abutting
the hillsides and the lots abutting the Quail Drive homes) in order for the site to properly drain.
The fill areas will be gradual with minimal fill near Los Osos Valley Road and increased fill (up
to 7 feet) near lots 89-92. Retaining walls will be needed where the property abuts vacant
property owned by another DeVaul family member. These retaining walls are envisioned to be
covered by fill material at the time the adjoining property develops.
The proposed street design calls for detached sidewalks to be located 4.5 feet from the street curb
with street trees planted between the sidewalk and the curb. The applicant has proposed that the
homeowners association maintain this landscaped parkway. The Public Works Department has
recommended a minimum landscaped parkway of 7.8 feet to provide a wide enough planter for
the street trees to grow while hopefully reducing the possibility of future buckling of sidewalks
and curbs from tree roots. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the smaller landscaped parkway which is key to their project design as
currently proposed. PC action: The Commission should review the applicant's request
along with the Public Works Department recommendation and formalize a
recommendation for the width of the landscaped parkway.
A right turn-in only driveway from Los Osos Valley Road is proposed for emergency and private
vehicle access to the apartments that are planned for the comer of Los Osos Valley Road and
Madonna Road. This proposed driveway will improve access to the project while not
significantly affecting through traffic. The DeVaul Ranch EIR indicates that the addition of such
a driveway is not required to mitigate traffic impacts at the intersection of LOVR and Madonna
Road, however the addition of the driveway will improve the operation of the LOVR/Madonna
Road intersection. Land Use Element Policy LU 8.10.1 states that no driveway access should be
provided to minimize disruption of traffic flow along Los Osos Valley Road. The basis for this
policy is traffic safety/flow with vehicles trying to enter/exit northbound lanes of LOVR.
Because the proposed access is limited to right-tum in only, and actually improves the efficiency
of the street system, staff feels the right turn-in only driveway could be found to be consistent
overall with the traffic safety policies of the General Plan. PC action: The Commission should
indicate whether this design feature is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 8.10.1.
6-45
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 8
The street layout design has been revised to reduce the number of cul-de-sacs and improve
circulation. Two points of vehicular access have been provided to the vacant site adjacent to
DeVaul Ranch. Street "E" is proposed to temporarily dead end until the neighboring Laguna
West property develops. Because this temporary cul-de-sac needs to accommodate emergency
vehicles, staff has included a condition of approval that requires an all weather turn around to be
installed and maintained until the roadway in the adjoining subdivision is completed.
The subdivision design also locates several access easements including trail maintenance access
to the open space hillside, pedestrian access to the undeveloped properties to the south, and
emergency/pedestrian access to Quail Drive. The. Quail Drive easement allows access to
pedestrians and emergency vehicles only and is required as a mitigation measure in the project
environmental impact report (EIR). Neighbors on either side of the easement continue to voice
their opposition to the placement of the easement (see Attachment 10), and request modifications
to its design if it is to be approved. Specifically, the neighbors request that the location of the
easement and the remaining developable area be reversed so the easement is on the north side of
the vacant lot. Staff has notified the applicant of the neighbors request so that the applicant can
explore the feasibility of this request. Staff believes that this.request can be accommodated
without the loss of any lots and therefore supports the neighbor's request. PC action: The
Commission should indicate either support for the Quail Drive easement as proposed by
the neighbors or as currently designed. Additionally, the Commission should indicate
either their support for the construction of residence or a mini-park on the remaining
portion of the Quail Drive lot.
The proposed 3-acre park/detention basin site is divided into two areas: the northern acre which
is located outside of the detention basin will be dedicated to the City as a public neighborhood
park. The southern two acres which is within a detention basin will remain under the
responsibility of the developer, but will be available for public use when not impacted during
periods of heavy rain. Special design measures will be required as a condition of ARC plans to
reduce to amount of time the basin will not be available for public use.
II. COMPLL4NCE WITH PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
The City Council certified the Final EIR for the project and adopted a mitigation monitoring
program to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented. Mitigation measures
that must be implemented in conjunction with the subdivision have been incorporated as
conditions of approval. These mitigation measures include creation of a maintenance
association, retention of the cypress windrow, design of the drainage/debris basins and channels
as naturally occurring features, protection of cultural resources, dedication of open space,
provision of affordable housing, and transportation improvements.
The required Congdon Tarplant mitigation project is reaching a point where site work should be
getting underway. The plan for this project is to grade a 1-2 acre shallow bowl at a selected
location in Laguna Lake Park designed to retain winter rainfall. Soil containing tarplant seed
6-46
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 9
will be placed in the bowl and the resulting growth monitored. Staff expects the effort to result
in a stable population of several thousand tarplants at the site. A status report on the mitigation
effort is attached to this report(see Attachment 11).
Staff is presently reviewing the applicant's proposal for providing affordable housing (see
Attachment 12). As required by the mitigation measures, the units will be intermixed throughout
the project.
III. CONFORMANCE WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES
According to the City's General Plan, the City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one
percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period, excluding dwellings affordable to residents
with very low and low incomes. Before a residential expansion area is developed, the City must
have adopted a specific plan or a development plan for it. Such plans must provide for phased
development consistent with one-percent annual, citywide population growth and taking into
account expected in-fill residential development within the 1994 City limits.
A draft phasing schedule for how these General Plan objectives can be implemented for the
DeVaul Ranch project will be included in the Planning Commission packet next week. The table
divides the anticipated 24-year, citywide build-out period into three-year increments, with the
expectation that at the end.of one three-year interval or the beginning of the next. The City
Council could adjust the allowed future phases to reflect any recent periods of low activity or
differences from assumptions about infill development. The maximum number of dwelling units
does not include the affordable units which are exempt from the residential growth management
policy.
IV. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Parks and Recreation Department have asked that the play area and basketball area within
the park be switched. Comments from other Departments are discussed in the staff report and are
included as conditions of approval.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may recommend that the. Council deny the project. Action denying the
application should include the findings for denial.
2. The Commission may continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the
applicant and/or staff regarding desired information.
RECOMN ENDATION
A. Recommend to the City Council that the PD rezoning (including a density bonus) and vesting
6-47
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 10
tentative map be approved subject to the following findings,conditions, and code requirements:
Findings
(PD Rezoning)
1. The components of the PD rezoning are consistent with the General Plan which calls for a
range of housing types, with low density, medium density, and medium-high density
development each occupying about one third of the area.
2. Features of the design (ie. traffic calming measures and design of streetscapes) achieve the
intent of conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves.
3. The project incorporates features (such as electrical vehicle plug ins) which result in
consumption of less energy than conventional development.
4. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been approved by the City Council in conjunction
with the certification of the Final EIR.
(Commission to insert required PD zoning findings here)
(Tentative Map)
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General
Plan which designates this area as Medium Density Residential.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1, R-2,
and R-3 zones.
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. The subdivision will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, subject to the
mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by the City
Council on December 15, 1998, being incorporated into the project and the mitigation
monitoring program adopted with the EIR approval being followed.
Conditions
Tentative Map
1. An additional 63.' of R/W along LOVR is required on the project side of the street to
accommodate the ultimate street configuration. R/W and traffic lane transitions across the
Madonna Rd. intersection shall be provided in accordance with the mitigation measures
established under the Environmental Impact Report for the project, including modifications
6-48
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 11
to the existing traffic signal at Madonna Rd. and Los Osos Valley Rd.
2. The sidewalk along the southerly side of Madonna Rd., adjacent to lot 148, shall be
constructed within a public pedestrian easement(contiguous with the Madonna Rd. R/W) on
the southerly side of the existing Cypress trees and within Lot 148,to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
3. Lot 155 shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association and shall
incorporate a public pedestrian, utility and fire access easement. The subdivider shall
improve this area and the adjacent northwesterly off-site easement area(to be acquired by
subdivider)to extend access and utilities to Quail Drive, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works, Community Development Director and Fire Chief.
4. Off-site dedication of property for public right-of-way purposes is required to facilitate an
LOVR lane taper. The subdivider shall exhaust all avenues available to acquire the public
right-of-way dedication. In the event the subdivider is unable to acquire the property,the
City Council will lend the subdivider its powers of condemnation to acquire the off-site right-
of-way, including any necessary slope and drainage easements. If condemnation is required,
the subdivider shall pay all costs associated with the off-site right-of-way acquisition
(including attorneys and court costs).
5. Complete street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City
regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications
(integral curbs, gutters&2m sidewalks, full width street pavement, signing, striping,
barricades, street lights, etc.). Upon approval of the Director of Public Works, some
sidewalks may be constructed as detached sidewalks. If detached sidewalks are approved,
the sidewalks shall be at least 1.5m with adjacent parkways maintaining a minimum width of
2.4m. Landscaped parkways shall be maintained by the homeowner's association.
6. All interior streets shall be designed to City standards with travels lanes of at least 10' wide,
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Fire Chief.
7. Vehicular access rights along Los Osos Valley Road shall be dedicated to the City, except at
the driveway location shown on the tentative map.
8. All street layouts and intersections (horizontal and vertical alignments, radii, sidewalk
configurations, lane widths, curb to curb dimensions, etc.) are subject to minor adjustments
and modifications, if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works, for safety and
maintenance purposes.
9. The off-site acquisition and design of the property necessary to complete the connection
between this development and the Quail Dr. neighborhood shall occur prior to approval of
the final map, or if phased,during the first phase. The City shall lend its power of eminent
6-49
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 12
domain, if necessary, subject to an agreement which provides for all costs to be borne by the
subdivider.
10. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each
lot. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each
lot. The overlapping easements shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right of
way lines bordering each lot.
11. If construction phasing of the new street pavement is proposed,the phasing shall provide for
the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management
Plan)prior to acceptance by the City. The engineer shall detail this requirement in the public
improvement plans,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
12. 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.
13. If the City Arborist identifies trees requiring safety pruning, all pruning shall be performed
by a certified Arborist.
14. Plans lack the detail to assess the adequacy of the emergency vehicle easement to Quail
Drive. All weather access and fire protection water system shall be installed and approved
prior to any combustible construction. The design of this easement shall be reviewed and
approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission.
15. Required access ways shall conform to current San Luis Obispo Fire Department
Development guidelines. All access ways within this project shall be designed as fire lanes.
The minimum access width shall be 20 feet and the vertical clearance shall not be less that
13.5 feet. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an
approved turn around. A temporary, all weather tum around shall be installed and
maintained in the area of Lots 79 and 80 until the road way in the adjoining subdivision is
completed. Required fire access ways (with minimum width) shall be painted red with
appropriate signage installed to prohibit parking.
16. Pedestrian access easements from the terminus of Streets B and C shall be provided to the
adjoining property to the southeast.
17. A no-build zone on the resulting slopes of the hillside lots after grading shall be provided.
18. Additional street trees shall be provided in the Madonna Road sidewalk next to the detention
basin to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Community Development
6-50
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8,1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 13
Director.
19. Additional landscaping (and not paving) shall be provided in the bulb-out areas,to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
20. The DeVaul Ranch house property may not be further subdivided for residential
development.
21. The Quail Drive easement shall relocated to the north side of the Quail Drive lot.
Public Park
Lot 151 shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association(HOA) with an
irrevocable easement to the City for recreation purposes.
23. The proposed public park shall be designed and constructed by the developer and shall meet
American Disabilities Act(ADA)standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks&
Recreation and Community Development Director. The developer shall be responsible for
all costs and maintenance of the park for a period of not less than one year following
acceptance of the improvements.
PD Rezoning
24. Should the DeVaul Ranch planned development not be pursued,the Planned Development
zoning for the project shall expire with the expiration of the vesting tentative map.
25. A footnote shall be added to the setback table requiring that in all cases an 18-foot deep
driveway apron be located in fornt of the garage and outside of the sidewalk area.
26. Lot 102 shall used as an open space lot(ie. community garden,guest parking, etc.) owned
and maintained by the HOA until such time that a lot line adjustment can be processed with
the off-site property to the east to allow a minimum 15 foot rear yard.
27. Homes abutting the Quail Drive lots shall be limited to a range of 16-19 feet in height.
28. Side, street, and rear building setbacks shall be varied to provide visual interest.
29. No two 2-story duplex units shall be located next to each other.
30. Any parking that is provided in addition to that which is required, should be constructed with
a pervious surface to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
31. Speed tables shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed bulbouts.
32. A density bonus shall be granted to allow a total of (Commission to insert number here)
6-51
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 14
units.
Water,Sewer& Utilities
33. Final grades and alignments of all public water, sewer and storm drains (including service
laterals and meters) shall be subject to change to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director
and Utilities Engineer.
34. The subdivider shall provide all-weather access to all City owned facilities (manholes, valve
wells, drain inlets, etc.) located within easements in private property, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works and Utilities Director.
35. Easements extending southerly from streets`B" and"C"shall also include rights to construct
and maintain public water, sewer and stone drainage systems.
36. The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the public street
frontages and/or within the tract boundaries,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director
and utility companies.
37. Additional on site(private) fire hydrants will be required for the apartment project and shall
comply with Fire Code spacing and densities. Landscaping shall not be located within 3 feet
of a fire hydrant. Planting materials should be carefully selected to prevent obstructions or
future maintenance problems.
38. The on site distribution main shall be capable of supplying the required fire flow as
determined by the Fire Code.
Grading& Drainage
39. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent
and downstream properties will be required. The scope of the study must include analysis of
all existing public and private drainage facilities and creek capacities and shall make
recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce flooding. The development
must be designed so as not to increase flooding potential downstream; detention facilities will
be required.
If the study identifies on-site areas subject to 100-yr storm flooding,the developer shall
process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of Map Amendment
(LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision(LOMB) prior to final acceptance of any development.
Any lots or building pads,identified in the hydrology study to be subject to flooding during a
100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at least 1 foot above the
100-yr storm elevation. All areas subject to flooding shall be documented.
40. The proposed detention and siltation basins and related drainage improvements, shall be
privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners'Association(HOA). The storm
6-52
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 15
drainage facilities downstream of the detention basin and within public streets will be
accepted by the City. The HOA shall be required to provide annual maintenance and status
reports each Fall by a registered civil engineer for the basins and do necessary repairs as
recommended prior to the rainy season. This provision shall be included in the CC&Rs for
the tract.
41. The path/road providing access to the siltation basin shall be constructed as an all-weather
access,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Community Development
Director.
42. The drainage swale and related improvements within lot 152 (behind lots 51-74) shall be
maintained by the HOA. Appropriate easements shall be provided to allow access and
maintenance of said drainage improvements,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
.Works and Community Development Director. This provision shall be included in the
CC&Rs for the tract.
43. Off-site easements for grading and drainage are required in order to discharge drainage across
the adjacent property to an adequate point of disposal.
44. Any necessary clearing of existing creek and drainage channels, including tree pruning or
removals, and any necessary erosion repairs shall be to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director, Community Development Director,the City's Natural Resources Manager and the
Dept. of Fish& Game.
45. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage
facilities shall be provided,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
Mapping and Misc. Requirements
46. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc.,shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk,containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System(GIS)purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
47. The final map,public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map
where necessary(e.g. -all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units,metric
translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer.
48. Water meters shall be manifolded in pairs,whenever practical.
6.53
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 16
49. The subdivider shall design the driveway entrance at the southeastern corner of Parcel 148 to
provide for only right turns into the project by southbound traffic on Los Osos Valley Road.
(Right turns out of the project shall be precluded because this driveway configuration would
introduce traffic into a merge lane.)
50. The subdivider shall install a transit stop on Los Osos Valley Road, as shown on the tentative
tract map, to include a concrete pad, transit shelter, trash container, transit route sign and
lighting. The precise location and design of these facilities shall be to the approval of the
Director of Public Works and Community Development Director.
51. Pedestrian Access: As shown on the tentative tract map, the public utility easements(PUE)
shall also be reserved and improved for pedestrian access throughout the tract boundary, as
follows:
• A pedestrian connection shall be provided across the south side of the neighborhood
park between"D"and"E" Streets.
• The PUE at the south end of`B" Street should be relocated to be adjacent to the
western property boundary for Lot 125-D.
• Of specific importance is reserving non-vehicular access rights from the ends of both
"B"and"C" Streets to the southern tract boundary to enable non-vehicular circulation
to and from development on the adjoining parcel.
• Connection to Quail Drive.
48. Walkways in Park: The walkways that extend through the neighborhood park(Parcels 149
and 150), shall intersect with"D Street at the normal pedestrian crossing location parallel to
Madonna Road. (The sketch plan for the park included in the application materials shows an
offset which would encourage pedestrian crossings at an unexpected location on"D"Street.)
49. Traffic Circle: All curb"bulb-outs"and "traffic calming"features shall accommodate access
by emergency response vehicles and garbage trucks, and shall be constructed to avoid
damage from large moving vans/trucks, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works
and Fire Chief. (e.g. -mountable curbs should be designed to withstand the impacts incurred
from fire trucks,garbage trucks& semi-trailer moving vans.) Appropriate signs or directional
facilities,to the approval of the Director of Public Works, shall be provided and shall be
visible from all approaches to the traffic circle that foster its correct use.
50. Madonna Road Median: The metal railing that is shown around the curved portion of the
median nose shall be eliminated. The final design of the pedestrian refuge for crossing Los
Osos Valley Road(as shown in the"Center Median Design'detail in the"Attachment to the
Tentative Map")is subject to modification, specifically regarding railing,curbing,
6-54
TR/PD 102-96, DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 17
landscaping and paving materials.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
51. The subdivider shall comply with all adopted mitigation measures for the DeVaul Ranch
EIR. Those include aesthetics, cultural resources,biological resources, geology and soils,
utilities, affordable housing,traffic and circulation, noise, and air quality.
52. (D-6) The subdivider shall create a"Maintenance Association"to facilitate long-term care of
the landscaping.
53. (D-7) The subdivider shall retain the row of cypress trees along Madonna Road and provide
an approximately 8 foot wide buffer/landscape space between the edge of pavement and the
trunks of the trees.
54. (D-8) The subdivider shall design the DeVaul ranch house drainage/detention basin(s)to
appear as a naturally occurring feature and revegetate the perimeter with native plants and
trees tofurther reduce its engineered appearance.
55. (D-11) The open drainage channel along the base of the Irish Hills shall be designed so it
appears as a naturally occurring feature of the landscape rather than an engineered draiage
channel. If used, concrete lining shall be minimized and shall be an earth tone color.
Contour grading,aesthetic consideration of rock placement, and appropriate native vegetation
shall be integral to the design. The drainage channel shall be designed to enhance the
adjacent.pedestrian experience as much as possible.
56. (D-12) Provide a screen including fencing, shrubs, and trees between the project's
development area and the adjacent Laguna Ranch property to the southeast.
57. (E-6 -E-10) The subsurface area within the DeVaul Ranch house complex must not be
disturbed, or a qualified archaeologist must conduct subsurface test excavations consistent
with City requirements and follow subsequent procedures as detailed in the project's
mitigation monitoring program. These mitigation measures shall be listed on the project's
construction and public improvement plans to ensure all contractors are aware of the
requirements.
58. (F-1) Dedication of 145.8 acres zoned C/OS-160 (37.9 acres of which is dedicated as an
annexation requirement for open space).
59. (G-2) All slopes will incorporate run-on and runoff control measures, subsurface drains, and
other improvements as necessary to minimize the potential for erosion and excessive
moisture conditions in soils beneath building foundations, roadways, curbs, and sidewalks.
60. (G-4) The designs of all foundations, roadways,curbs,and other structures shall be reviewed
6-55
TR/PD 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 8, 1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 18
by a geotechnical engineer to ensure that they are compatible with the soils properties and
conditions of the project site.
61. (G-5) Grading operations shall be monitored by or under the direction of a geotechnical
engineer to ensure proper selection and compaction of fill and to identify any undiscovered
soil conditions or features that might affect the construction of the development.
62. (I-1) The applicant shall provide affordable housing consistent with Policy 1.22.1 of the
Housing Element..
63. (K-3) All project related construction shall be limited to the hours of Monday-Saturday lam
to 7pm.
64. (K-4) Clearly post noise restrictions on-site until the proposed project is completed.
65. (L-Ithrough L-8) The subdivider shall note the air quality mitigation measures on all
construction plans.
Code Requirements
1. Traffic impact fees are required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. EPA Requirement: 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.
3. A water allocation is required, due to the addition of residential units. Currently, a water
allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water
Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary
number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258.
4. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a per residential unit basis and shall be
paid at the time building permits are issued. The cost of developing an allocation through
retrofit could offset a portion of the required Water Impact Fee according to appropriate City
policies.
5. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water
system if the property includes an active well.
6-56
TR/PD 102-96,DeVanl Ranch
September 8,1999 Planning Commission Report
Page 19
6. On-site use of any well will be allowed to continue only on the parcel overlying the well.
7. Some off-site public sewer must be constructed in order to provide adequate capacity to serve
this project.
Attached: 1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced Tentative Map
3. PD Rezoning Map
4. Requested exceptions to conventional development standards
5. Applicant's PD Rezoning Justification
6. Listing of project's energy efficiency components
7. Applicant's justification for tandem parking
8. LOVR street setback plan and section
9. Noise Element policy on soundwalls
10. Letters from the public
11. Congdons tarplant mitigation status report
12. Applicant's affordable housing statement
13. Project plan reductions(included in Commission)
Large scale project plans are available for review at the Community Development Department.
6-57
I�fct�ta-rf to
uS O Sial j s �Sf
u
v
[!
Los Osos Valley Road CL
4)
'i se
o i �
t � .
Er Tigre — 1 D
0 m
6 0 •-Ia� � I
7:Z
' 3
• c iiliiiliii4 � �
e
5], o �'�'�'-r�l� .li.ir m o <
n 1 1 1 I I I I I I C m I
oz I
o =O c I
¢
�i J
-L7
r..�..—Liz---r--t-•T--r-1
\ i i
I � odT Ir
• � 1���•-1'- f -�- t`�-1'- 1 1 �1 i 1 i 1
J
c _ L. �.• J 1-J I I
r -
_ Y' �• r 1 Q
s
ii
j g
u
I H �
I e ow M �g W
a m d \llJ
Li
y2
)
0
Draft Planning Commission Minutes I
September&, 1999
AYES: CommXRe
enn, and Vice Chairman Jeffrey
NOES: Commerson
REFRAIN: Chairm
The motion carried 3ooper was absent.
. 3. 11855 Los Osos Valley Road: TR and PD 102-96: Request to subdivide the 222
acre DeVaul Ranch site to allow for the development of 146 single-family and 122
multifamily dwellings and a three-acre park, and request for a planned development
zoning for flexible development standards in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones; DeVaul
Ranch, LLC, applicant.
Associate Planner Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission (1) recommend to the City Council that the lower 35 acres of the
site be rezoned with a Planned Development (PD) overlay to allow a density bonus and
more variation in the project design than normal standards would allow, based on
findings and subject to conditions; and (2) recommend to the City Council that the
vesting tentative tract map be approved based on findings and subject to conditions
and code requirements.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked for staff comment on Zoning Ordinance 17.50.030 B, page
76, in terms of latitude the Commission may have regarding property development
standards.
Associate Planner Mandeville stated under the PD zoning, the Commission has latitude
to be creative in creating a special neighborhood that might not otherwise be allowed in
a typical residential zone.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked for staff comment on tandem parking, Section 17.16.060.
Associate Planner Mandeville cited Section 17.16.060 1 and noted tandem can be
approved if desired by the Commission and Council.
Commissioner Loh commented that PD zones allow for exceptions, greater density,
and/or creative designs. She asked for staff comment on Attachment 4.
Associate Planner Mandeville stated Attachment 4 was provided by the applicant and
staff is seeking Commission review and comment on each item raised.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Charlie Eckberg, Investec Real Estate, 200 E. Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara, DeVaul
Ranch representative, stated he has worked with the city for nearly four years to,Eo"
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
to this juncture. The Commission's recommendation is being sought to approve the PD
overlay and the vesting tentative map. The site plan has not changed significantly from
when the Commission considered the EIR, pre-zoning, and annexation. The design
team has brought together various concepts to create a beautiful, safe, innovative, and
special neighborhood with a commitment to green building and sustainability. He.
described significant green awards that Investec received for environmental innovation
and waste reduction. In pursuit of a commitment to the environment, the DeVaul Ranch
has been included as a United States Energy Department Building America Project and
systems have been implemented to qualify these homes for the Energy Star Program.
He requested that if there is to be emergency access at Quail Drive, they would like the
opportunity to show how they could integrate a residence onto the lot.
Rolland Foyer, William Hezmalhalch Architects, described the proposal and displayed
slides of the proposed project, noting the linear park, historic house, diversified housing
products, project traffic calming devices and parking.
Jeff Chillwick, William Hezmalhalch Architects, described and displayed slides of the
proposed project, noting the view corridor, site plan, layout of the building concept,
pedestrian connections, and the architectural imagery.
Commissioner Peterson asked for comment on the corner gate at Madonna Road/Los
Osos Valley Road .
Mr. Chillwick stated it will be an open gate that acts as a defining element for pedestrian
entry.
Carol Florence, Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning, reviewed the PD zoning
findings the Commission and Council must. make in order to support approval, noting
the project complies with all criteria. She thanked the Commission for its careful and
deliberate consideration and urged favor for the PD overlay and the small increase in
density.
Betsy Petit, Building Science Consortium, indicated the Department of Energy
supported Building America Program that was developed to support energy and
resource efficiency in dwelling units. With this project, a 30 percent energy usage
reduction is projected.
Hamish Marshall, project representative, 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue, thanked
Associate Planner Mandeville for her well-written report. He stated the architects have
done a great job in designing a house for Lot 102, page 4, #2, of the staff report, and he
requested the Commission's approval of a home on this.lot. He referred to page 5, #7,
and requested tandem parking approval. He asked that parking requirements for R-2
and R-3 zones be clarified for single-family homes, page 5, #6. He referred to page 5,
#9, and stated the LOVR street yard setback for detached garage structures would be
set back two feet from the property line; however, it is 17 feet off the road. The reason
for the two-foot setback is because 58 feet were dedicated to the City for bus turnouts.
6-60
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
The single-story elements of the garages actually add to a better outlook for LOVR
stepping back instead of having cars displayed through the front parking lot.
On the apartment site, Mr. Marshall said they are asking for 16 more units than were
proposed in the EIR because the design had not be completed at that time. The
building block size has not been increased with the increase in units. This provides a
greater variety of units with more affordable housing. He requested narrower parkways
than what staff is recommending. He corrected Condition 2, page 11, to reflect
northerly rather than southerly. He. asked that Condition 5, page 11, be changed to
reflect 1.2 meters rather than 1.5. Regarding Condition 9, page 11-12, he requested a
house be allowed to be built on the lot and requested the wording be changed to reflect
that the process has started of condemnation. Condition 10, page 12, is not an issue
and is unnecessary because the HOA will be maintaining the parkways and footpaths.
He recommended deleting Condition 26, page 13, because they do not want to leave it
in open space. Condition 32, page 13, should reflect 122 apartments and 147 homes.
Regarding Mitigation Monitoring Program, #56, page 17, clarification should be noted
that this refers only to apartments and not to the rest of the project. He corrected #58,
page 17, to reflect 184 rather than 145.8 acres.
Commissioner Senn asked what number would be recommended for#3, page 4.
Mr. Marshall recommended 19 feet.
Commissioner Senn asked for further comment on #5, page 4.
Mr. Marshall suggested #29 reflect, "No two two-story portion of the duplex structure..."
Commissioner Senn asked for comment on staff's recommendation of speed tables,
#11, page 6,
Mr. Marshall stated speed tables are not necessary, but are acceptable.
Commissioner Senn asked for comment on the detached sidewalk and parkway widths.
Mr. Marshall deferred the question to Ms. Florence.
Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concern with the overall parking of the project.
Mr. Marshall stated there are 60 parking spaces around the park area and there will be
on-street parking. Staff's suggestion of parking only on one side would ruin the
neighborhood feeling and would actually create a parking problem. Walking paths to
the park, pedestrian connections to LOVR, and the bus turnout will cut down on auto
usage.
Commissioner Jeffrey asked if there is some sort of safety condition regarding the use
of the detention basin, especially during rainfall periods.
6-61
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
Brad Breckwald, John Wallace and Associates, civil engineer, stated three hours is
anticipated for basin drainage during a 100-year storm. They are proposing to keep the
basin side slopes shallow which also help with landscaping and maintenance. He
recommended that the CC&Rs, as well as public signage, include notification that the
basin is used as a detention basin.
Associate Planner Mandeville noted the goal of parking only on one side of the street
with guest parking bays is to reduce the roadway width to create a neighborhood
feeling.
Ms. Florence stated she has worked with the City Arboristto determine the most
appropriate street tree species for the project. She commented on sidewalk/pavement
buckling due to root systems and the proper irrigation necessary. She expressed the
importance of maintaining the parkways and the rhythm of the streetscape. She noted
there is not currently a City standard for landscape parkways.
Commissioner Senn asked why staff recommended 7.8 foot parkway.
Ms. Florence stated they are trying to push the trees as close to the street as possible.
From a technical standpoint, 4.5 feet is ample. Public Works Department
recommended wider sidewalks; they prefer narrower sidewalks because this will
provide more front yard space and landscaping for individual homeowners.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked staff for comment on tree placement.
Engineer Kenny stated that appropriate tree placement will minimize damage to
sidewalks which the city is responsible for repairing at great cost. He suggested HOA
responsibility for damages to sidewalks and curbs as a possible alternative.
Ms. Florence stated the applicants are willing to accept responsibility for
pavementtsidewalk upheaval repair, but noted this may be precedent setting.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if plant material were selected in conjunction with the
City Arborist.
Ms. Florence replied yes.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariner's Cove, asked staff about the requirement for buildings to be
set back 148 feet from the center line of the street.
Associate Planner Mandeville stated that was a requirement of the EIR with the primary
reason being to keep an open viewshed of the Irish hills.
Mr. Cross stated, with respect.to both the setback and the wall concept along LOVR,
that it is clear that neither are in conformance with zoning regulations or the General
Plan. With regard to the tar plant, there seems to be a policy decision that has been
6-62
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
made with mitigation to occur at Laguna Lake Park, yet the public has not been
involved in this process.
Robert Tefft, 375 Acacia Street, Morro Bay, local pilot and member of local pilot
associations, pointed out that this project is 2.5 miles from the departure end of the
main airport runway. This is potentially relevant in terms of both the project and the
airport. He displayed/ and described an overhead of the main departure route and
stated aircraft will be brought very close to this development, yet there has been no
consideration given to the effects of aircraft noise. He reviewed noise monitoring points
throughout the city, noting 90 decibels were monitored 1,500 yards from project
boundary with interior noise levels of 75 decibels. The airport regularly receives noise
complaints from around this project site. He questioned if special insulation will be
installed to reduce noise impacts to allow people to live in this area in comfort. He felt
this project should not be approved until a noise study has been produced for this
property and a mitigation plan should be developed if interior decibel levels will be
greater than 60. He noted a court case in Wyoming in which homeowners successfully
litigated against developers because of airport noise; the homeowners were informed of
the airport location, but they were not adequately informed as to the level of noise and
the expected changes in airport activity. A disclosure statement should be provided to
all perspective buyers to prevent future litigation.
Ken Bruce, San Luis Obispo resident, stated the main project issue is Quail Drive
emergency access. He provided history on Quail Drive/Royal Way access, noting
Royal is the longest dead-end cul-de-sac in the city. He advocated a full dedicated
right-of-way of 30 feet minimum curb to curb which would also serve not just as an
emergency access, but would serve the access that Public Works needs and would
allow people from the existing Quail Drive/Royal Way neighborhood access to the park.
He urged consideration of a straight right-of-way dedication to the city or in lieu a
landscaped pocket park maintained by the HOA. He did not feel the tandem parking
would work in the duplex units because the garage could be used as a rental
unit/bedroom or for storage and all cars will be parked in the street.
Gissel Shonager (Inaudible), 1600 Madonna Road, expressed gratitude to the staff and
developers for their sensitivity and hard work in keeping the historic home. She noted
there is a fresh water spring on.the top of the mountain that needs to be protected and
commented on the pathway up to the green space which may pass by the private part
of the historic house.
Dick Komorowski, 484 Mobile Avenue, Camarillo, has been working on plans for Irish
Hill South and stated a logical design would include the extension of the Spooner Drive
knuckle to form a central hallmark entry point between the properties.
Daniel Manion, 1250 West Newport Street, stated this is a good project and it is
compatible with houses across LOVR.
Stan Vallen, 1500 Madonna Road, felt the ballpark will be well used and asked if there
are plans to help keep children and balls from going out into the streets kte
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
commented on the traffic and high speeds traveled in the area and suggested reducing
speed limits to help protect children.
Mr. Eckberg summarized how the congdon tar plant was addressed and thanked the
public for their input. He appreciated Mr. Tefft's comments regarding the airport; this
was not brought up in the EIR and there is no opposition to a condition addressing
interior decibel levels and a disclosure statement. He noted Quail Drive access has
been addressed through a compromise which has the support of Public Works and the
Fire Department. In regard to the fresh water stream, the City should be aware that this
is something valuable to protect. Plans for the historic home include preservation and
long-term use as a private residence with the opportunity for additional landscaping to
assure privacy. He noted they do not have adjacent land under contract and they
cannot change their designs in regard to what may happen on the adjacent property.
He displayed/described an elevation of Lot 102 which accommodates a patio home.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
The Commissioner began their deliberations by reviewing page 4 of the staff report.
Commissioner Loh commented on the layout of the planning concept and suggested
the idea of open backyards creating a common open space linking towards the ball
field.
The Commission found no issues with #1. page 4.
The Commission reviewed #2, page 4.
Commissioner Jeffrey felt Lot 102 could be developed.
Commissioners Whittlesey, Peterson, Senn, and Chairman Ready concurred.
Commissioner Whittlesey felt Condition 26, page 13, could be deleted.
Commissioner Loh expressed concern with the connection to the future Irish Hills South
proposal.
Associate Planner Mandeville noted there will be two secondary accesses into-the
subdivision. It is not necessary to go through Lot 102 for this project and there is no
application in for the adjacent property.
Commissioner Senn noted Commission Loh concerns, but stated this project has been
in the process for four years and adjacent property owners have had numerous times to
raise issues before this point.
The Commission concurred there were no issues with #2, page 4. 6-64
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
The Commissioner reviewed #3, page 4.
Commissioner Senn suggested Condition 27, page 13, be revised to read: Homes
abutting the Quail Drive lots shall not exceed 19 feet in height, subject to ARC approval.
The Commission concurred with Commissioner Senn's suggestion.
The Commissioner reviewed/discussed #4 and #5. page 4 and found no issues. The
Commission concurred to accept Mr. Marshall's suggested language for #5. page 4.
and Condition 29. page 13, to reflect: No two two-story portion of the duplex structures
shall be located next to each other.
The Commission reviewed #6, page 5.
Commissioner Peterson agrees with the provision of two parking spaces per dwelling
unit, regardless of the number of bedrooms in each dwelling.
Commissioner Whittlesey expressed concern with impacts of on-street parking,
specifically with regards to the duplexes and questioned if parking restrictions between
certain hours can be effective.
Commissioner Senn believes the HOA will be helpful in controlling parking issues.
The Commission accepted #6. page 5, as presented.
The Commissioner reviewed #7, page 5.
Commissioner Whittlesey raised the concern of where duplex residents will park.
Chairman Ready suggested one covered space with a longer drive.
Chairman Ready allowed the applicant the opportunity to address the matter.
Mr. Foyer, project representative, stated the tandem garage space is designed to
accommodate two cars. The HOA could require one car to be parked inside the
garage.
Chairman Ready asked if per-unit tandem parking can be designated.
Associate Planner Mandeville replied yes.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if an electric vehicle charging station can be
accommodated.
Mr. Foyer replied yes.
6-65
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
Commissioner Jeffrey noted tandem parking is allowed under the zoning regulations.
The Commission accepted #7, page 5, as presented.
The Commission reviewed and accepted #8. page 5, as presented.
The Commission reviewed #9, page 5.
Commissioner Peterson expressed concern with the appearance of a solid wall.
At the suggestion of Associate Planner Mandeville, the Commission addressed the use
of wrought iron embellishing the top of the wall and decided the ARC has the flexibility
to address this issue.
The Commission accepted #9, page 5, as presented.
The Commission reviewed #10, page 6.
Engineer Kenny stated Condition 30, page 13, is satisfactory with the Public Works
Department.
The Commission accepted #10, page 6, as presented.
The Commissioner reviewed and accepted #11-#13, page 6, as presented.
The Commission reviewed #14, page 6.
Commissioner Peterson would have liked to have seen a project with alleys and
garages along the back to go along with the neotraditional approach of this
development.
The Commission accepted 914. page 6, as presented.
The Commission reviewed the landscaped parkway width, page 7.
Director Bochum discussed potential maintenance costs and liability issues to be
considered and ADA requirements..
Chairman Ready asked for staff comment on the suggestion of the HOA assuming the
maintenance of the sidewalks.
Attorney Trujillo stated sidewalks are City owned; liability would be the City's
responsibility.
Commissioner Whittlesey favored encouraging trees at the street with a separated
walkway.
6-66
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
The Commission concurred with Commissioner Whittlesey's suggestion.
Commissioner Senn suggested a 6 foot landscaped parkway as a compromise to
accommodate large trees to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
Commissioner Jeffrey suggested HOA reimbursement for maintenance costs due to
repairs resulting from tree-caused damage.
The Commission concurred with Commissioner Senn's suggestion.
The Commission discussed the right turn-in only driveway from LOUR and its
consistency with General Plan Policy LU 8.10.1, page 7.
Commissioner Jeffrey felt impacts upon pedestrian traffic across LOVR will be lessened
by having this entrance.
Commissioner Whittlesey raised a concern with a Tonini Drive connection to a future
adjacent development.
Associate Planner Mandeville stated that this roadway in this general location is
required per an access easement with the adjoining property to the south.
The Commission reached consensus that the right turn-in only driveway is consistent
with General Plan Policy LU 8.10.1.
The Commission discussed the 20 foot Quail Drive easement, page 8, and Condition
21, page 13, and the construction of a residence or a mini-parts on the remaining
portion of the Quail Drive lot.
Commissioners Whittlesey, Jeffrey and Chairman Ready support the construction of a
residence on the remaining portion of the lot.
Commissioner Loh doesn't support developing a residence on the lot.
After further discussion. the Commission indicated their support of a 20 foot Quail Drive
easement and for the construction of a residence on the remaining portion of the Quail
Drive lot.
Commissioner Jeffrey raised the concern of a safety issue regarding park/detention
basin usage.
Commissioner Whittlesey suggested #20, page 13, be changed to reflect: The De Vaul
Ranch house property may not be further subdivided for any development.
Engineer Kenny recommended Commissioner Whittlesey's suggestion be included as a
covenant recorded against the land.
6-67
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
Commissioner Jeffrey suggested the concern regarding airport noise be addressed
through a covenant disclosure.
Director Jonas noted the applicant could have a sound expert measure site sound
levels to determine what construction techniques would be necessary to meet the City's
interior noise standards, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
Commissioner Senn suggested the need for deed restriction or recorded
acknowledgment, subject to City Attorney approval, that would show on a title report for
any party purchasing property in this subdivision that includes (1) an acknowledgment
that this property is within a specific distance from the airport and that there is airport
noise resulting and (2) that there should also be disclosure in a reportable form which
acknowledges that the Madonna property immediately adjacent is commercially zoned
and is appropriately developable for non-residential purposes. Disclosures could also
be included in the CC&Rs.
Commissioner Peterson expressed concern about locking of the pedestrian gateway on
the front comer.
Mr. Marshall indicated the gate aspect could be deleted.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked for clarification on the project description; can aspects
such as electric vehicle charging stations or solar tubes/collectors be included in the
project description or in the conditions?
Associated Planner Mandeville recommended including a finding of the PD zoning that
attachments to the staff report regarding energy conservation be made a part of the
project.
Commissioner Whittlesey suggested amending #50, page 16, to included "trash and
recycling containers..."
Associate Planner Mandeville asked for comment on Mr. Marshall's request regarding
Condition 9, page 11.
Attorney Trujillo suggested for clarity including, "pursuant to Government Code Section
66462.5."
Commissioner Senn moved to recommend to the City Council (1) that the lower 35
acres of the site be rezoned with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay to. allow a
density bonus and more variation in the project design than normal standards would
allow based on findings and subject to conditions. (2) that the vesting tentative tract
map be approved based on findings and subiect to conditions and code requirements.
(3) that the phasing of the project be in accordance with the replacement Residential
Growth Management Regulations proposed draft ordinance to replace Municipal Code
Chapter 17.88 and the adjacent phasing schedule which is attached. (4) that PD
Rezoning Findings 1-4 have been satisfied. (5) that Tentative Map Findings 1aw
e
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 8, 1999
been satisfied. (6) that Condition 1 is acceptable as presented, (7) that Condition 2 be
corrected to reflect: The sidewalk alonla the northerly side...". (8) that Conditions 3 and
4 be accepted as presented. (9), that Condition 5 be modified to be six feet. (10) that
Conditions 6-8 be accepted as presented, (11) that Condition 9 be revised to reflect
"...power of eminent domain, in accordance with Govemment Code Section 66462.5, if
necessary...". (12) that Conditions 10-19 be accepted as presented. (12) that Condition
20 be revised to reflect that the De Vaul ranch house property may not be further
subdivided for any development and that a covenant be recorded when deeded in a
fashion satisfactory to the City Attomey. (13) that Condition 21 be accepted as
presented. (14) that there be a Condition 22 included to reflect that there be
appropriately recorded disclosures to the satisfaction of the City Attorney which advises
prospective purchasers and subsequent purchasers of the property of potential aimort
noise and discomfort and the potential for commercial or other development on
adjacent property. (15) that Conditions 22-25 be accepted as presented. (16) that
Condition 26 be deleted, (17) that Condition 27 be amended to reflect that homes
abutting the Quail Drive lots shall not exceed 19 feet in height, subiect to ARC approval,
(18) that Condition 28 be accepted as presented. (19) that Condition 29 reflect that no
two two-story portion of the duplex structures shall be located next to each other. (20)
that Conditions 30 and 31 be accepted as presented. (21) that the number 269 be
inserted in Condition 32. (22) that Conditions 33-49 be accepted as presented. (23) that
Condition 50 be modified to include "trash and recycling containers". (24) that correctly
renumbered Conditions 51-59 be accepted as presented. (25) that printed Condition 56
be modified to reflect "only for the apartments". (26) that printed Condition 57 be
accepted as presented. (27) that printed Condition 58 be revised to reflect a dedication
of 184 acres, (28) that remaining conditions be accepted as presented. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey.
Commissioner Whittlesey requested the motion be amended to include energy
conserving items contained in attachments be included as a condition.
Commissioners Senn and Jeffrey accepted the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Peterson requested the motion be amended to include a condition so
that the comer entrance will not feature a lockable gate.
Commissioners Senn and Jeffrey accepted the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Loh commented that she likes the project because of the variety of
housing types, the land donation, and provision of the parks and ball fields.
AYES: Commissioner Senn, Jeffrey, Loh, Whittlesey, Peterson, and
Chairman Ready
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 6-0-0. Commissioner Cooper was absent.
6-69
�IT�ctit�,c.fr 1Z
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM# 3
BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner 07A MEETING DATE: September 20, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage
FILE NUMBER: ARC 102-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11855 Los Osos Valley Road
SUBJECT: Review of architecture and site design for the DeVaul Ranch project; a proposed
269 unit residential planned development at the corner of Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna
Road.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval to the project effective upon final Council approval of the project's PD
rezoning, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements.
BACKGROUND
Project History
In December 1998, the City Council certified the environmental impact report (EIR) and
approved the annexation and prezoning of the DeVaul Ranch site. Now that the property is
within the City limits, applications for the development of the property can be processed.
Accordingly, the applicant has submitted applications for a tentative tract map, PD rezoning,
and architectural review. The tentative map and PD zoning requests were heard by the
Planning Commission on September 8, 1999. At the meeting the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended City Council approval of the tentative tract map and PD rezoning.
The Commission generally liked the project design that has been refined by the applicant over
the last four years and acknowledged that had this been the beginning of the planning process,
the Commission may have recommended more significant changes to the overall project
design.
Data Summary
Applicant: DeVaul Ranch LLC
Zoning: Proposed R-1-PD, R-2-PD, R-3 PD and PF
General Plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental Status: The Final EIR was certified by the City Council in December
1998.
Project Action Deadline: The proposed rezoning is a legislative act which is not subject to
the Permit Streamlining Act processing deadlines.
Site Description
The project site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Madonna Road and Los
Osos Valley Road (see Attachment 1). The upper portion of the site is currently undeveloped
.6-70 0
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20, 1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 2
and the lower portion has been used for agricultural purposes and contains two residences.
Project Description
The applicant is requesting approvals to allow for the development of 147 single family homes
(including the retention of the DeVaul Ranch house), 122 apartments, and a 3-acre park. PD
zoning has been requested to allow more .variation in the project design (ie. setbacks, lot
coverage, lot size, and parking) than normal standards will allow. The proposed variations are
outlined in Attachment 2.
Building design plans for the single family homes show two floor plans for the duplex homes
with two different architectural styles for the two-unit structure, three floor plans for the patio
homes (single family homes on smaller lots) with two different architectural styles for each
floor plan, and four floor plans for the single family homes with three different architectural
styles for each floor plan as well as several design modification options.
Design plans for the apartments show a mixture of studio, one and two-bedroom designs within
a total of eight (two and three story) structures. Amenities offered include one covered or
enclosed parking space per unit, laundry facilities within each unit, a recreation center
including gym, sauna, locker rooms, theater, lounge, kitchen and business center and an
outdoor pool.
The DeVaul Ranch house and its grounds are proposed to be retained within a 64,450 s.f. lot.
A new orchard is proposed north of the ranch house to augment the existing historical
plantings. Restoration of the ranch house is proposed along with several small improvements
such as.the construction of a detached garage. Project plans will be reviewed by the Cultural
Heritage Committee to ensure the site's historic character is maintained.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed tentative map and PD
zoning with the following conditions related to site design:
1. Require a minimum six foot wide landscaped parkway where the applicant was requesting
4.5 feet.
2. Allow for the development of a single family home on the adjacent Quail Drive lot in
conjunction with a minimum 20 foot wide emergency/utilities/pedestrian access easement
relocated to the north side of the lot. The design of this easement shall be reviewed and
approved by the ARC.
3. Provide pedestrian access easements from the terminus of Streets B and C to the adjoining
property to the southeast.
6-71
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20, 1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 3
4. Provide a no-build zone on the resulting slopes of the hillside lots after grading.
5. Provide additional street trees in the Madonna Road sidewalk next to the detention basin.
6. Provide additional landscaping (and not paving) in the bulbout areas.
7. Provide a minimum of 18 feet of paving in front of the single family home garages to allow
parking that doesn't encroach into the sidewalk.
8. Limit building heights on homes abutting Quail Drive lots to 19 feet subject to ARC
approval.
9. Vary building setbacks.
10. Locate no two 2-story portion of a duplex structure next to each other.
11. For the patio and single family homes, provide a pervious surface for access to parking that
is provided in addition to the two spaces that are required.
12. Construct speed tables in conjunction with the proposed bulbouts.
13. Do not include a closing gate at the pedestrian entry at the comer of Madonna and Los
Osos Valley Roads.
EVALUATION
Staff generally supports the applicant's proposed architecture and site design for the DeVaul
Ranch project. Staff recommends that the Commission discuss and provide a recommendation
on the following components of the project design:
Single Family Homes- Building Design
1. Color and material boards. Color and material boards will be available for review at the
ARC meeting. The applicant is proposing several colors and materials that complement
each other. Staff recommends approval of the proposed colors and materials as proposed.
2. Front vs. side/rear architecture. The applicant proposes to provide a very detailed
architectural design on the front of the single family homes and duplexes. Staff appreciates
the applicant's attention to detail and generally.recommends approval of the front building
elevations. The building sides and rear elevations, however are much less detailed. Given
6-72
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20, 1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 4
the project's reduced lot sizes and setbacks and increased lot coverage, all building will be
closer together, therefore staff recommends more articulation on the side and rear facades
be required. This is also consistent with past ARC action (Gearhart 1) where it was felt
that one of the most important views of a residence was from the back yards since
occupants spend more time enjoying their home from that location.
3. Garages. Where living space is located above the garage on the duplex elevations, staff
recommends that second story project out a minimum of 18 inches to help reduce the
prominence of the garage door below.
4. Roof lines. Roof lines of homes as seen from the rear yards appear somewhat plain (see
Attachment 3). The Commission should consider whether additional articulation is needed.
5. Roof overhangs. The Commission should review the applicant's proposal for roof
overhangs and consider whether wider overhangs should be required.
6. Front porches. The applicant proposes front porches on all single family and duplex home
designs which staff strongly supports. Some of the porches are rather small in size and not
well articulated. Staff recommends that front porches on duplex Plan 1 and single family
Plans 2, 3, and 4 be increased in size and articulated with railings.
7. Garage door designs. The proposed garage door designs (see Attachment 4) are a very
unique project feature. To ensure that they remain a component of the project design and
not become victims of future project budget cuts, staff recommends that they be specifically
called out as a condition of approval.
8. Windows. To ensure the high quality architectural design as shown in .the project
elevations, staff recommends that all project windows be of architectural grade quality.
9. Garage windows. The Commission should consider whether to require a window or other
form of building articulation on the side of the garage which is next to the residence's front
door. This consideration is applicable to patio homes Plans 1 and 2, single family Plans 1
and 3.
10.Detached_garages/structures. The Commission should review the proposed design for
single family Plan 1 and 3 which allow for a detached garage/living space in front of the
residence. Staff sees the benefits of such a project design, but can also see drawbacks of
this structure blocking views from the street.
11.Mechanical equipment. Staff recommends that all mechanical equipment be screened from
view of the public right of way with landscaping and/or architectural treatments compatible
6-73
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20, 1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 5
with the building design.
12.Building heights abutting Ouail Drive homes. Per the Planning Commission's request, the
Commission should review and act on the homes abutting Quail Drive lots. These homes
shall have a maximum building height of 19 feet.
13. Side loaded garages. The Commission may want to consider requiring additional house
plan designs with a side loaded garages to provide buyers with more side loaded garage
house designs to pick from.
14. Side loaded garage elevation. The Commission should consider whether or not to require
planter boxes or other architectural feature on the street side elevations of side loaded
garages. In the submitted elevations some architectural 'feature is proposed, however to
ensure such a feature is included, the ARC may want to include a condition.
15.Identical floor plans. The Commission may want to condition the project to not allow two
identical homes from being located next to each other.
Single Family Homes- Site Design
1. Pervious surfaces. As part of the Planning Commission's review, the project was
conditioned to provide a pervious surface for access to parking that is provided in addition
to the two spaces that are required by Code. The Commission should review and act on
the applicant's request that this surface be grasscrete, decomposed granite, or other
pervious material. Based on past Council action, decomposed granite has not been looked
upon as a suitable surface material.
2. Tree removals on DeVaul Ranch house property_ As part of the environmental review and
annexation process, the applicant requested and received approval to remove the
eucalyptus grove (that includes one cypress tree) north of the DeVaul Ranch house. In
addition, the applicant has requested to remove the existing palm tree that has no head.
This removal is supported with the condition that a replacement palm tree be planted
(historically, two palm trees were planted at the entry drive to Victorian homes and
ranches). Finally, the applicant is proposing to remove several trees of heaven to
accommodate a drainage easement. At the ARC meeting the applicant will present their
request for the exact number and location of trees of heaven requested for removal for the
Commission review and action.
3. Fencing adjacent to open space. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring non-
flammable open fencing (ie. wrought iron or fire retardant split rail) along the rear
6-74
`1
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20, 1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 6
property lines abutting the hillside open space subject to approval of the Community
Development Director, Natural Resources Manager and Fire Marshal.
4. Design of easements. The ARC should review the proposed access easements and either
approve their design (fencing, landscaping, pathway material, gates, bollards, etc.) or
provide the applicant and staff with direction for their design with subsequent staff or ARC
approval required. Each easement (see Attachment 6) is somewhat unique. Easement A
and B provide pedestrian access to the undeveloped property to the south within a 20 foot
wide sewer and drainage easement. Easement C is 10 feet wide and also provides access
to the undeveloped property to the south. Easement D provides for emergency and
maintenance access within a 15 foot wide drainage easement. A gate or similar feature
will be needed to restrict pedestrian access into this area. Easement E provides pedestrian,
maintenance and emergency access into the hillside open space within a 15 foot wide
drainage easement. A wooden gate (in keeping with the historical DeVaul Ranch house) is
proposed at the beginning of the easement to restrict unauthorized vehicles. The material
of the maintenance road has not been called out. If acceptable to the other City
Departments, Community Development staff would recommend a reinforced decomposed
granite surface rather than a paved surface. Easement F provides utility, emergency and
pedestrian access from the DeVaul Ranch subdivision to Quail Drive. Residents abutting
this undeveloped lot have asked for a 6-foot high masonry block wall with evergreen vines
planted on both sides and a grasscrete surface in lieu of a 10-foot wide paved surface that
would be used by skateboarders (see Attachment 7 for letters from the public).
5. Open space lots 149 and 154. The Commission should review and provide direction on
the design of these open space lots. According to the applicant, lot 149 (see attachment 8)
is meant to provide a visually pleasing entry to the project as well as provide a pleasant
pedestrian access to the park for residents of Tonini Drive. Plans for lot 154 have not
been submitted, however the applicant has talked of a community orchard on this property.
Other ideas may be offered by the applicant at the ARC meeting.
6. Shade trees/palm trees. As a project environmental mitigation measure, the applicant is
required to plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOVR and plant shade
trees at a rate of not less than one tree/4000 square feet of land.
7. Review of future exterior remodels. The ARC should consider whether to require
homeowner association approval of any exterior remodel prior to submittal of a building
permit application.
Apartment Design
1. -Southern property line planter width. The project EIR required a "screen including
6-75
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20,1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 7
fencing, shrubs and trees between the project's development area and the adjacent Laguna
Ranch property to the southeast" (see Attachment 9 for location). In response to this
requirement, the applicant is proposing a landscape strip approximately five feet in width.
The ARC should review this component of the project design and determine whether it
provides an adequate buffer.
2. Parking stall size. The site plan calls for compact parking spaces as well as garage parking
with an exterior dimension on 18'-5". As required by City code, all parking spaces must
comply with minimum interior dimensions of 8-7.5 "x 18'-5".
3. Decorative paving. The ARC may want to consider requiring decorative paving at all of
the apartment entry driveways.
4. LOVR retaining wall. The ARC should review and take action on the proposed retaining
wall design that doubles as the rear wall to the proposed detached garages (see Attachment
10 for plan and building section). The wall is not needed to block noise coming from Los
Osos Valley Road so between the garage structures the wall can be reduced in height from
8 feet to 6 feet as shown on project plans.
5. Apartment elevations. Not all elevations have been submitted on the apartments. The
ARC may want to place a condition the design to provide architectural details on building
facades similar to that which is shown on the submitted Madonna Road elevation.
6. Colors and materials. A colors and materials board will be available for review at the
meeting. Conversations with the applicant indicate that the colors and materials will be
compatible with the DeVaul Ranch single family home designs. The Commission should
review and take action on the proposed colors and materials.
7.. Pedestrian entry design at Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road. The Commission
should review and provide direction on the applicant's design for the project's pedestrian
entry. As part of the Planning Commission's action, a closing pedestrian gate was
eliminated from the project design.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from other Departments are included as conditions of approval.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Grant schematic approval with direction on items to return to the Commission with final
review of plans.
6-76
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20, 1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 8
2. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding
desired information or needed revisions to plans.
3. Deny the project. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial.
RECODEIAENDATION
Grant final approval to the project effective upon final Council approval of the project's PD
rezoning, based on findings and subject to the following conditions:
1. Additional articulation on the side and rear building facades of the duplex patio and single
family structures are required subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
2. Where living space is located above the garage on the duplex elevations, the second story
shall project out a minimum of 18 inches to help reduce the prominence of the garage door
below.
3. Roof lines of homes as seen from the rear yards shall be revised to provide additional
articulation to the approval of the Community Development Director.
4. A minimum 2-foot overhang shall be provided on all residences.
5. Front porches on duplex Plan 1 and single family Plans 2, 3, 4 shall be enlarged and
articulated with railings to the approval of the Community Development Director.
6. Garage door designs submitted by the applicant shall be utilized throughout the DeVaul
Ranch project.
7. Architectural grade windows shall be utilized throughout the DeVaul Ranch project.
8. Windows or other form of building articulation shall be provided on the side of the garage
which is next to the residence's front door on patio Plans 1 and 2 and single family Plans 1
and 3.
9. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the public right of way with
landscaping and/or architectural treatments compatible with the building design.
10.Planter boxes or other architectural feature shall be placed on the street side elevation of
the side loaded garages to the approval of the Community Development Director.
6-77
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20, 1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 9
11.No two identical homes shall be located next to each other.
12.Prior to the approval of a building permit, the applicant shall submit and receive approval
of any proposed pervious surfaces from the Community Development Director and Public
Works Director.
13. Non-flammable open fencing along the rear property lines abutting the hillside open space
shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director,, Natural
Resources Manager and Fire Marshal.
14.Final design of the proposed easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director, Public Works Director, Fire Marshal, and Natural Resources
Manager.
15.Home owners association approval shall be required prior to submittal of a planning or
building permit application for a building addition.
16.A minimum 15 foot wide landscape planter that includes fencing shrubs and trees shall be
located along the southern property line north of Tonini Drive to screen the apartment
complex development from Los Osos Valley Road, east of the property. The design shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director.
17.The DeVaul Ranch project shall comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards
including parking stall size and the provision for bicycle parking.
18.Decorative paving shall be provided and the entry driveways to the apartment project
subject to the approval of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director,
and Fire Marshal.
19.Building elevations of all sides of the apartments shall detailed in a similar fashion as seen
from the Madonna Road elevation.
Attached:
1. Vicinity map
2. Variations to conventional zoning standards recommended by the Planning Commission
3. Roof line designs
4. Garage door designs
5. Tree removal request
6. Location of proposed access easements
7. Letters from the public regarding the Quail Drive easement
J
6-78
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
September 20, 1999 ArchitectaralReview Commission Report
Page 10
8. Design for open space lot 149
9. Apartment screening requirement
10.LOVR retaining wall plan and section
11.Reduced site plan(project plans included in:Commission packets)
6-79
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM# 1
BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner A-'�A MEETING DATE: Octobber 4, 1999
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manag�
FILE NUMBER: ARC 102-96
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11855 Los Osos Valley Road
SUBJECT: Review of architecture and site design for the DeVaul Ranch project; a proposed
269 unit residential planned development at the corner of Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna
Road (continued from ARC meeting of September 20, 1999).
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant final approval to the project effective upon final Council approval of the project's PD
rezoning, based on findings and subject to conditions and code requirements (see September
20, 1999 ARC staff report for details).
ARC DIRECTION/APPLICANT'S RESPONSE
This project was fust heard by the ARC on September 20, 1999 at which time the Commission
continued their review of the item to this date with direction to the applicant to provide
additional information and address issues raised by the Commission. Issues raised by the
Commission include:
1. Prominence of garage doors as seen from the street. Idea of garages at rear of lot.
2. Need for private outdoor space for the apartment dwellers.
3. Street layout not conducive for a "neighborhood".
4. Ridge lines all running parallel to the street.
5. Roof pitches not reflective of historic ranch house.
6. Homes seem large for the size of the lots; smaller homes would provide larger yards.
7. Details of side and rear architectural facades.
8. Curb radii.
9. Houses facing park vs. turning their back to it.
10.Lots next to farmhouse.
11.Public vs. private entrance to apartments.
12. Street connections with property to the south.
13.Need for textured paving on streets at location of tot lot.
14.Ideas to promote neo-traditional design- ie. side loaded garage off of shared driveway or
parking courts.
6-80
ARC 102-96,DeVaul Ranch
October 4, 1999 Architectural Review Commission Report
Page 2
Additional information requested by the Commission includes:
1. Typical landscape plans showing plant names, sizes and numbers.
2. Information on sizes of proposed palm trees and street trees.
3. Details regarding proposed tree removals.
4. Design of the proposed easements.
5. Additional information on the design of the proposed LOUR retaining wall.
6. Elevations of the apartments from the auto courtyards.
The applicant is preparing a response to the Commission's requests and comments, however
given the short turn around time, the applicant was not able to submit plans in time for them to
be reviewed and included in this report. Instead, the applicant intends to submit a letter that
will be included in your ARC packet and provide additional information at the hearing. Staff
intends to review this information along with the Commission and verbally provide any
comments or recommendations at the hearing.
Note: Staff requests that the Commission bring the DeVaul Ranch project plans and staff
reportfrom the September 20 meeting for use at the October 4 meeting.
6-81
►Iv
As of August 9,IM the migration plan for Miziizo ria.parryi ssp,congdoa i restoration his —
progressed as follows:
U Surveying of the iemizonia nartvi ssp. o ngdonii population at Laguna Lake is complete and
surveying of the DeVaul Ranch population is currently underway.At Lacuna I.2ke potmanent
trace=wore established from which a gaadrat nxhod of sampling was used.This dita will be used
to estimate pemcat cover of Iemizonia narrvi ssp.ongdoliii (HPC)and arsociam species.Density of
IIPC will also becalculaud.Tho data from thcse.surveys will be used as baseline data on which to
compure tlk new population.Area and quadrat photographs have been taken whichpttsCOt a visual
imsgu for.comparison With the new population.The transects at Laguna Lake were installed
permanently(3 foot rebar was placed into the around)in order to sample the same quadrats
every year:
2) Lagt m Ta:=park was chosen as the site at which to establish a new population of HPC.In
October 1 U acro of topsoil will be remove!from Laguna lake park and repluced with.topsoil from
lh',Vaul Ranch.the topsoil from DcVaul Ranch will contain the sccds of HPC from previous years
growth and.arty desicated 1.1130 plants from this yests growth.Ile area from which Lite soil will he
removed at Lagum Lake will be formed into a shallow deprccsion in order to mlmick areas where
HPC is currently growing naturally.
3) Survivorsbip was uackal at DeVaul Ranch,Quadrats of HPC warc sampled twice monthly for the
current growing season.A survivorship curve of HPC is being graphed.Soil temperature,soil
moisture,air temTatum and amount of precipihadon were monitored and/or followed..Thik-same
study will he performed every year throughout the ccurso of this mitigation plan to help gauge
variability and baseline data within the existing populations of HPC.
4) A competitiva study is eurrcatty underway following the competitive effects of HPC and two non.
t alive annual grasses.Locum ruuNflormu and Brawas hordeacent..on each other.Both occur at both
of ftsites•whcre natural populations exist'IIx goals of this experiment are to determine whether
there Is a competitive effect of the gasses on HPC so that plans can be made to control these two
grasses at the site of the new population if necessary.
3) Inforrhal studies have been conducted to determine he optimal depth for sad bank removal.It
was d:scovcted that ha:ausothe soil at DeVaul Ranch is clay the seals do not move into the decii.soil
very cosily:However during the hot,dry months the soil fOttns largo cracks, which enable seeds to
move to deeper areas.
In January of this year a small amount of soil 16cm deep was removed from 2 different antis of
DeVaul Ranch and moves!to Laguna Lake as a preliminary test.The soil was also sown with seal
collected from the 1998-growing season.HPC germinated and is currently growing in this soil When
tic soil is excavated from tic DeVaul Ranch site, 16cm of topsoil vd1l be rcmovcd and.moved-to the
tag.ma Lake sltc.
- 6=82
6) Cment Prcpamdoms:
- wateitight cases aro being designed in which to house temperature trackeis:Tlia uackers WOM
purchased to monitor air temperature;in the HPC micmclimam above and bk:low the soil.They will be
installed around the p;qi=situ:
pians to study liow the water table level Wow the growth of HPC.
- installation or moisture probes to track loll rnoistmm throug4cat the growing season
- plans to dctcrtninc which type of atnich and which type of procodut e,foc dispersal`oC seeds ai the
Lsguna Lake site is best.
i
6-83
inVESTEC
Real Estote Companies ON
May 24, 1999
Ms.Peggy Mandeville
Mr.Jeff Hook
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249
Re:DeVaul Ranch Developer's Statement re Affordable Housing
Dear Peggy and Jeff,
You have requested a"Developer's Statement"regarding the DeVaul Ranch LLC's affordable
housing commitment for DeVaul Ranch.We will,as stated during the annexation and zoning
hearings,comply with the newly adopted guidelines of the Housing Element.
Program,1.22.10
As the project is located in an expansion area we will,under 1.22.10,provide 5%low and 10%
moderate-cost Affordable Dwelling Units(ADUs).The exact number will be a function of the
approved number of units in the project,however based on our Tentative Tract map submittal of
269 units this requires 13 low-cost ADUs and 27 moderate-cost ADUs.
Affordable Housing Standards
As previously agreed, the low-cost ADUs will be located in the apartment complex and will be
offered for a 30 year period on a rental basis to qualified renters.Additionally,thirteen of the
moderate-cost ADUs will be located in the apartment complex and offered for a 30-year period
on a rental basis to qualified renters.Fourteen of the moderate-cost ADUs will be single family .
homes offered to qualified buyers.The buyers of those homes will decide if they wish to purchase
under the City's 30-year program or the City's `shared equity program'.
Tables provided in the City of San Luis Obispo's 1999 Affordable Housing Standards will
determine rents and sale prices.
Income levels for qualifying applicants for both rent and sale ADUs will be determined by annual
income levels provided in the City of San Luis Obispo's 1999 Affordable Housing Standards.
6-84
200 East Om ilio Street Suite 200 Santo Barbara,CA 93101 m Tel 805 962-8989 Fax 805 962-1918
ZI�,
Policy 1.24.1 and 1.24.2
In compliance with Policy 1.24.1 and 1.24.2 the ADUs are intermixed and indistinguishable from
similar market rate units in both the home and apartment neighborhoods. It is our intention that
there be no more than four(4)contiguous ADUs.There may be additional amenities offered to
market-rate product such as upgrades in appliances and other interior fixtures.
Siting of ADUs
The ADUs located in the apartment complex will not be sited in advance because of Section 8
issues.The apartments, market and affordable,will be virtually indistinguishable.The units will
be represented evenly in the studio(400 sq.ft.),one bedroom(6 10 sq. ft.),and two bedroom(980
sq. ft.)product. Again,no more than four ADUs will be contiguous in the apartment complex.
The fourteen ADU homes will be of two product types (duplex and patio)and have three,three
bedroom floorplans(1170-1429 sq.ft.).
As of 5/24/99 we have identified the following lots,as indicated on the tentative tract map,ADU
homes: 27-d, 28-d,29-p, 31-p,32-d, 33-d, 35-p, 101-p, 120-4, 123-p, 126-4, 127-4, 131-4, 132-d.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlie Eckberg
Vice President
6-85
The developer has proposed a variation from current City standards as part of the Planned
Development and subdivision design, as follows:
Detached 4 ft. wide sidewalks, 4 ft. wide landscaped parkways and 34 ft. curb to curb dimensions
within a 50 ft. right of way for the new streets within this development, except Madonna Rd. and
Los Osos Valley Rd., which have wider street sections and special design features. There are
proposed "bulb outs" and other traffic calming features also incorporated into the street design.
However, since the developer proposes large canopy"parkway trees",the City Arborist
recommended 8 ft. wide landscaped parkway areas, instead of only 4 ft.(effectively 3.5 ft after
deducting the curb width). Otherwise,the potential would be great for future City liability for
costs due to damaged curbs, gutters and sidewalks caused by tree roots, under City policy. The
developer indicated that the Homeowners Association would assume that responsibility, but staff
said those homeowners may ask the City to assume that responsibility at some later date anyway,
because they wouldn't have the same benefits as other property owners in the City. In any case,
it's just not a good practice to plant trees in such a narrow landscape strip.
The Planning Commission agreed that large parkway trees were desirable and suggested a 6 ft.
wide (clear) landscaped parkway would be acceptable. The City Arborist agreed that 6 ft. would
be acceptable, with deep root planters. A development condition provides that the Homeowners
Association maintain the parkway trees, regardless of the wider parkway.
Public Works staff met with the applicant's representatives and agreed on a design that is
incorporated into the conditions, based on the Planning Commission's recommendations. The
typical section street design provides only 35 ft.between curbs, instead of the normal 36 ft. [2 -
7.5 ft. parking lanes (instead of 8 ft.)and 2 - 10 ft. travel lanes]. Where detached sidewalks are
approved,current City standards require 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks, instead of 4 ft. wide -
except at driveway ramps to accommodate the proposed 18 ft. setback to garages,where 4 ft.
wide meets ADA requirements. A 5 ft.wide pedestrian easement is being provided to
accommodate the 6 ft. wide parkway and 5 ft. sidewalk and to coincide with the standard 6 ft
wide public utility easement along all street frontages.
6-86
t-06-99 08:57A JLWA Asr P.02
4 ii n
QN
9 SII
Aha
lJ yY` n C
vu
v1
nom" � W v1
0
^ b ---
ly�
Vi
k �
�a
y
z
R �)
ti ...
O
W _
0
T •-J
Q
d y
cz
a yy�
_ _
in in ---------
.
PC b
h Q a
l - a
y o
3
W
o�
�� r
DAVE ROMERO-Congdon's Tarplant Mi+ination Page 1
.MEETING AGENDA
DATE 10 - I2 ITEM # _
From: "BRETT CROSS" <brettcross@worldnet.att.net> `
To: "Dave Romero" <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "jan marx"
<jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "john ewan"<jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Ken Schwartz"
<kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Alan Settle" <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: Thu, Oct 14, 1999 10:30 PM
Subject: Congdon's Tarplant Mitigation
I could say I was surprised to see construction equipment grading approximately two acres of City
property at Laguna Lake Park this morning as part of Congdon's tarplant mitigation measures required by
the DeVaul Ranch PD Final EIR but I'm not. Although the EIR mitigation measure required a restoration
plan be prepared by a qualified plant restoration ecologist and the plan would identify the location of a
suitable site or sites in an open space area off-site(possibly Laguna Lake)where a colony of Congdon's
tarplant could be established it was apparent staff had concluded that Laguna Lake would be the preferred
site and without City Council approval allowed grading to begin. This behavior should be deemed
unacceptable by the City Council.
Certainly I believed staff was going to present the required off-site mitigation plan to the City Council and
the public to review and provide comments as to plan's adequacy and any policy implications before
mitigation began as is indicated in the Final EIR; "This plan should be prepared by a qualified plant
ecologist and approved by the appropriate government agencies. Obviously staff did not believe that the
City Council was a necessary appropriate government agency that needed to approve the plan.
I am also uncomfortable with the timing of the restoration project. Staff needs to explain why a decision
was made to begin the restoration project less than one week before the Tentative Map and Planned
Development rezoning application for DeVaul Ranch is scheduled to be reviewed by the City Council
along with conditions and mitigation measures, including the off-site mitigation plan. Staff should
recognize that their action in this matter gives the impression that City Council approval and public review
are unwelcome.Additionally, staffs action could lend credibility to the perception that they (staff)were
attempting to eliminate any potential for alternative mitigation sites.
The decision by staff to allow mitigation to take place on public property raises a significant public policy
issue that needs to be addressed in a public forum. Unfortunately this discussion is no longer timely with
regards to this project. This issue should have been thoroughly debated in public and not decided by
staff.
I do not have any answers as to what needs to be done, however ignoring what staff decided to take upon
themselves it not one of them.
Sincerely,
91C:-t�
7tiDD DIR
IR
Brett Cross Q'A ❑FIR:CN-F
GYAT ❑PW D'R
C>< ❑PCS SCE CHF RECEIVED
❑M� ❑REC DIA
IR
❑PERS DR i3 0 C T 1 q 1999SLO C17Y CLERK
RECEIvE1)
n r j 1 9 1999
S'0 CITY C pCNCIL
DAVE ROMERO - DeVaul Ranch Planned Development
-- ML AQ AGENDA �
DATE U-11-15 -ITEM #.
From: "BRETT CROSS" <brettcross@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Dave Romero" <dromero@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "jan marx"
<jmarx@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "john ewan" <jewan@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Ken Schwartz"
<kschwartz@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, "Alan Settle" <asettle@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: Sat, Oct 16, 1999 10:05 PM
Subject: DeVaul Ranch Planned Development
I am going to keep this short and to the point. The project that is being submitted for your approval
Tuesday evening is horribly designed. It does not incorporate any of the characteristics that should be
expected in modern neighborhoods. Instead it is more of the same cookie cutter style development that
applicants submit to this City. Staff has done a terrible job of analyzing this project. I know they can do
better, there are some very smart planners working downstairs who seemingly have forgotten everything
they know about neighborhood design. It is a real shame that their talents are not being utilized to the
fullest.
The current project that is being submitted should be denied and the applicants given very precise
direction as to what this City is going to require of new subdivisions in this community. This includes the
street design and network, common open space areas throughout the project which bring people together
and create linkages throughout the project , housing types incorporated throughout the project not
grouped in distinct areas, recognition that walls are not acceptable as a means of screening developed
areas, the design should facilitate easy access to mass transit, setbacks at the street yards should be
varied to enhance neighborhood interaction, and design of parking for high density parcels should be
better incorporated to minimize huge expanses of asphalt and reduce visibility from outside and inside the
project.
This community deserves much better than what is being proposed. This project is going to set the tone
for all new residential projects in the City's expansion areas and it needs to be a superior example of what
is going to be expected of developers.
Sincerely, r, -
L'
Brett Cross0PV1
YC,,`,.�i 1i:I D iti G 0 POLICE CHF
01 _ T� ❑RTC DDR
0 UTIL DIR RECEIVED
❑PERS DIR ,6
P r+iinAelidl� OCT 1 9 1999
SLO Cl-ry C;,-;`RK
JOUNCIL
SLQy
Richard Schmidt W 544-4247 M010/19199 •:v 12:[3 FIM L7111
MEER. AGENDA
DATE ��''_ITEM # ,
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu
October 19, 1999 VIA FAX
To the Council Re: DuVaul Ranch Development
I urge the council to send this project back to the drawing board. It has many problems,
and, if built as proposed, will become an instant slum which cements its part of town as
the wrong side of the tracks.
Chief among its problems is that the plans represent a fundamental abuse of the city
Planned Development ordinance. Rather than using the flexibility of that ordinance to
effect something creative otherwise not permitted, the applicants have used the
ordinance to achieve wholesale exemption from important city ordinance provisions,
including lot size minimums (tiny lots with large houses on them) and parking
arrangements, among others.
The neo-traditional verbiage used to justify these exemptions is, in the opinion of this
architect who is a neo-traditional planning advocate, a lot of nonsense. This is not a
good neotraditional project, nor is it one which should be approved.
Please send it back for major redesign.
Sincerely, E
DD DIR
❑FIN DIR
O FIRE CHIEF
O PW DIR
la POLICE CHF
M O REC DIR
Richard Schmidt ounLDIR
se/lard p PERS DIR 1 S
eO e
RECEIVED
OCT 1 q 1999
SLO CITY CLERK
RECEIVED
0 C I 1 91999
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Hicnaraacnmiar Ya aeai auIV, 01» -, U"
centralized location. The n ty hall is unnecessary, When it is r lved from the mix there is no
com elp ling reason for city involvement with this developer,
14. Circulation Impacts Aren't Being Examined Holistically.
A. Morro Street Closure. Since when can a developer demand closure of a street and get
quick, unquesitoning city agreement? Morro Street isn't expendable. It plays an important role
in downwotn circulation, particularly with regard to access to city parking and to the Downtown
Center. So why is the city so ready to surrender it? How does this dovetail with proposed
closures of Osos (for bus terminal), Broad (by mission), Garden, with the congestion on
Chorro? Is there a precedent here? If the Copelands can close Morro Street, can I close Broad
Street in front of my house so I can plant trees and flowers there? If not, why not? What are
public streets for, anyway?
B. Traffic Impact on North Broad/Chorro north of freeway. This project will aggregate
parking from numerous other spots in downtown on Palm Street at Chorro. This on top of the
existing Palm Garage and the Marsh Garages I and II, all of which feed off Chorro. In effect, this
project will suck still more cross-town traffic through a neighborhood that is being killed by such
traffic. This is contrary to the Circulation Element, whose top limits for traffic in the Broad/Chorro
corridor are being exceeded already. It is contrary to the neighborhood preservation
components of the General Plan. Yet, Administration states that neighborhood programs will be
among those that are sacrificed to make time and money available to promote the Copeland
project. This is all backwards: This project must mitigate its traffic impacts on the Broad/Chorro
neighborhood, and those mitigations must be meaningful works undertaken as part of the
project. How does the 120-day get-it-done-at-all-costs program deal with this sort of issue?
In conclusion: This process is bad, bad, bad. Reject it. Whoever drew up the process clearly has
no love for democracy, and does not deserve the high honor of being administrator of the public's
interests.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
Schmidt to Council, Copeland'Process," Page 5
Richard Schmidt It 544-4247 18111 o/19199 :1112:12 PM b 415
appropriate "process," it ..ould involve a smaller increment.)
B. The project may falter financially, then what? Developers are incredibly arrogant and
narrowly focused on the short term. The proposed developer earned a "reputation" by bailing
out a bankrupt former developer who had been bragging in court of $75 million cash flow over
five years just months before failing financially. And in rescuing us from the "French Hole," the
developer "saved" downtown, according to some. But this development is huge. What if it gets
started, and fails? Who will save us from the "Downtown hole" that will result? This is not idle
speculation. The current economy is not truly propserous, only inflated with hot air and
consumer debt. A slight shift in the economic wind, and the feasibility of this project would
change overnight. It is worth noting that the previous city-sponsored Court Street developer,
filled with the same arrogant bluster as the newcomer, failed financially. The process being
entered into byify is a very dangerous one and must be refected on that account.
11. Fiscal Imprudence. The city should take its responsibility to protect the public's resources with
greater seriousness.
A. Morro Street Offices. The city recently spent $1 million on seismic retrofit and upgrade of
this city office building, and now contemplates abandoning this investment and turning the
building over to a private party for demolition and private development of the site. This is fiscally
irresponsible.
B. Sale of Increasingly Valuable Property. Staff, at the developer's "insistence," is pushing for
sale of valuable city property which will only become more valuable as time passes. It is clearly
in the city's interests to retain ownership of this property even if it should be developed. It is bad
government to cater to a developer's selfish take it or leave it demand.
12. Arrogance Towards Basic Human Rights
A. Safe Workplaces. City employees who work in the Morro Street offices, recently retrofitted
to lessen chance of injury or death when the inevitable earthquake hits, are to be transferred to
an unretrofitted unreinforced masonry building to facilitate sale of their safer building to the
proposed developer. This arrogance towards the city's res.ponsibility to provide safe workplaces
isis astoundinaI And surely shows how corrupted this pro op sed process is.
B. Fair Construction Wages. One selling point of the proposed project, including a new city
hall building, is that the private developer can build for less than the city because he doesn't
have to pay prevailing wages to construction workers. In other words, the city enters into a
subtertuae to acquire�uarters built by underpaid, non-union scab labor in order to save a
few bucks To heck with any ragard for state law and for the financial welfare of construction
workers.
13. There's No Demonstrated Need for a New City Hall (or annex, or whatever it is to be). The
citizenry is not sold on the need for a new city hall. Where does this edifice keep coming from? It
started during the last "economic boom" when the city was brimming with money it didn't know
what to do with, and was at that time part of a vast and lusty city edifice complex, but unmerited by
any objective criteria. The city has had no trouble housing its departments, and those departments
probalby function better and more economically at scattered locations than at one costly,
Schmidt to Council, Copeland"Process," Page 4
RichardSchmidt X544-4247 In1Oil9199 .ki11,11F'M J31b
9. Public Controversy. This project is being railroaded despite considerable public controversy
about the best and most appropriate uses for the city properties involved, and despite direct citizen
expression that the uses contemplated are not favored.
A. Court Street Use. Once the issue of use other than parking arose more than a decade ago,
a spirited dicussion began about the proper use. The city, then as now, favored commercial
development, but thousands of citizens favored more public uses -- a park, formal gardens, a
museum site, a public market square were all mentioned --, all of which would provide
something unique to the city which citizens want. There is no public consensus that run-of-the-
mill commercial development is the proper, or best, use. The city has had years in which to
conduct a public discussion about the future of this public land, but has failed to do so. Prior to
proceeding with a process such as the proposed one which locks in the presumption of a
particular outcome it is incumbent that the city have a full and o enp dialogue with its citizens
Legardiag their preferred use of this land which is owned byla I the people of San Luis Obispo.
Turning this property over to a private party absent consensus that such is the best course is
f-d, undemocratic government.
B. Court Street Referendum. Upon approval of a prior development proposal for Court Street,
a referendum against the approval was initiated. The current mayor was co-sponsor of that
referendum, which sought to stop the devleopment on grounds development of the site was
inappropriate use of city property. More than a sufficient number of signatures were quickly
gathered, indicating the public supported the referendum. It was never voted upon because the
petition was found to be faulty. But indications are it would have passed had an election been
held. In the face of demonstrated public opgpoition to commercial development of this site, itis
bad undemocratic government for the city now to railroad a similar pmposal.
C. Palm Street Referendum. The city also gave prior approval to a mixed use/parking project
on the Palm Street parking lot which was remarkably similar to but less far-reaching than the
subject of the current proposed process, and this, too, was subjected to referendum. In the city-
wide election that followoed, the city's development plan was overwhelmingly rejected by the
voters. In the face of demonstrated public opposition to a similar J_e_ t it is bad.
undemocratic government for the city now to railroad this proposal
It is bad government to ride roughshod over public controversy about the best uses for public
property by railroading a favored project through the review process in a hurried and unfair
manner.
10. The Project Is Too Large.
A. The incremental change is too much for one bite. This is, physically, a huge change for
downtown. We don't even know if it will be good or bad for downtown and the city as a whole.
Increments customarily come in smaller packages, either development over a longer time
frame, or development by a number of independent parties, both of which have the effect of
adding onto something that exists in a manner not to dominate or displace. A monolithic project
of this extent is completely out of scale for San Luis Obispo's downtown. In 120 days of hurried
deliberations we will lock ourselves into something that will dominate our city for a century. This
is unwise, and another example of bad government. (If there is to be any revised, fair and
Schmidt to Council, Copeland"Process," Page 3
Richard Schmidt 1544-4247"' 1n10119/99 1270 PM 02/5
3. The process, as design._ ., presumes an outcome: Approva. ,. whatever the Copelands
want. It presumes an approval before even beginning the project review rop cess. This is the
caboose at the front of the train syndrome. It is just plain wrong. It is bad government.
L
4. It is disquieting to cast staff in the iole`of uncritical cheerleader and promoter towards
effecting the harnessing of a public asset for very private and very lucrative personal gain.
What is the public benefit in doing something this down and dirty?
5. The process creates a charade of public Involvement. For example, instead of meaningful
discussion of meaningful issues (like what sort of future the PEOPLE want for THEIR property on.
the Court Street block), we get a correographed design workshop to publicize and propagandize
the project with the public, going through the motions of taking public input about an outcome that's
predetermined. Don't our elected officials take.their pledge to uphold the public trust any more
seriously than to endorse this scam on the public process? When did the REAL discussion of these
issues take place?
6. Closed Process Rather than Open Government. To date, the "Copeland process" has been
conducted largely behind closed doors, out of public view, with only ceremonial celebrations held in
public. Before the public knew anything, the skids were already well greased. By meeting, serially,
with the developer for months prior to any public disclosure of their meetings or of the project that
was in the works, and by essentially assenting to the merits of the project in those private serial
meetings, the council has been in blatant violation of the Brown Act. The "process" proposed by
staff continues this course of major decision-making in private, with intermittent ceremonial
formalities in public, with a minimum of public involvement or access to the overall issue of whether
the project itself makes sense. (Sorry, but cha.rettes on the design of the project don't qualify as
public input on the wisdom of the project.) This is the antithesis of what local government in
California is supposed to be about. „The people. do not give their public servants the right to
decide what is good for theeeoople to know and what is not good for them to know. Theepople
insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instrucments they have
created." That's the law. Put an end to secrecy and undue haste by rejecting the proposed
"Process."
7. Inherently Unfair. Why an exclusive agreement with one party? Why exclude others, if the city
is to proceed with divesting its interest in its parking lots and streets? Excluding others from this
opportunity is favoritism of the rankest sort. It is unfairunAmerican, and jusiplain wrong.
8. Monopoly. The proponent of this project is not a non-controversial downtown landlord. He
already controls a large part of downtown, some would say has in effect a monopoly on prime
properties. Council members in favor of the new project point to the "success" of the Downtown
Center. That center is not without controversy; for example, it is rented exclusively to chain
operations, not to local merchants, and thereby drains money -- the lifeblood of our economy -- out
of the community. Why do project proponents close their eyes to the other things this property
owner does downtown, like the blighted, empty storefronts he has lined a sizable of Monterey
Street with for years? Why should the city, in one fell swoop, increase this one owner's monopoly
control over downtown? Isn't this excessive? What public benefit is there in turning over so much
of our downtown to one party to determine who can rent there, set the.rents, etc.? What ever
happened to the notion that diversity in ownership is healthy? This increasedmonop_QLy_Qn1ro1,
brought about by-government action, would be an example of bad Government.
Schmidt to Council, Copeland"Process." Page 2
Richard Schmidt 9544-4247 M10/19199 ";r 12:09 PM D 1/5
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.ed,
October 19, 1999 VIA FAX
To the City Council: Re: Copeland Exclusive Negotiating Agreement
For a variety of reasons I urge you to reject the proposed 120-day exclusive negotiating "process"
before you.
I am a proponent of good, open government. This process is the opposite: an example of bad,
closed, corrupted government.
Here are 19 reasons why you should reject this proposed process.'
1. Contrary to Adopted City Policies. Although the city's adopted property ownership policies
state that prior to disposal of real estate the city shall determine that it is surplus and shall then
proceed through open sale or RFP, staff asserts that policies may be ignored when convenient
because policies are onlyguidelines! Really now! Staff's practice of regarding written policies,
general plan procvisions and ordinances as guidelines , to be followed when one pleases and
ignored for similar motivation, has killed this city's integrity and has produced the ethos of
corrupted, unfair, inconsistent, favorite-playing government which currently characterizes this city.
What a tragedy that a city which once stood as a beacon on a hill, showcasing its deliberative,
public-spirititd, policy-and-law-driven government to other cities of similar size, has descended to
such depths of degradation. It is is n�propriate to ignore adopted policies If the policies no
1mger work, the- should be revised in a deliberative manner.� Lpublic full view, wit1�pLapeLpublic
notice and participation,
2. 120 Days To Where? We set aside adopted policies, adopted development procedures„
adopted process and work for 120 days as one happy, fun, out of the box team to grease the skids
for something which should never happen in that length of time (because it is far too complex and
involves far too many variables which need careful and honest public scrutiny), which perhaps
should not happen at all. We reduce our ordinances, state law, our general plan, our planning
commission, our architectural review commission, the public and the city council to so many little
ornamental (read nuisance) appendages to the process (because otherwise, if they were granted
any maeaningful role, they might become impediments to getting this thing done). Can a council
seriously countenance this sort of authoritarian regime? The top-down autocratic and authoritarian
control mechanisms outlined in this document have no place in our city-government. The "gag
order" on staff speaking individually to council members about the project is outrageous -- it is
insulting to the council members (and to the public who they represent) and an infringement on
Constitutional liberties of staff members. Fun team uber alles! Is this the sort of government
members of our city council want to foster?
Noto that my cricicicm¢ concorn tho pr-orocc boing proposod, and not nQcQ-:-ar-ily any or all a¢poctc
of 1hp.. prnjP.rt that 1hp. nrnnP.ri^n 1S intm1p.rl tri P.xpP.MitP
Schmidt to Council, Copeland`Process." Page 1
MLLfING AGENDA
DATE lc,-(q- q9 ITEM #=
OCTOBER 17 , 1999
ATT: SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
RE : OPPOSE DE VAUL RANCH DEVELOMENT
I AA OPPOSED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, REZONING TRACT MAP AT
11855 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (DE VAUL RANCH) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :
OL lll—�Xle�
OMAOF
ffCOUNCIL DIR
p FIN DIR
� p FIRE CHIEF
5rATrOR ❑PW DIR
ER'CLERKIOp POLICE CHF
p RTC DIR
❑UTIL DIR
Ov�//it G
,
p
✓ p ! '
CEIVEC�i q 1ggg I[o:R
Y COUNCIL
MLLIING AGENDA
DATE l°''_�_ITEM # 6
OCTOBER 17 , 1999
ATT : SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
RE: OPPOSE DE VAUL RANCH DEVELOMENT
I A14 OPPOSED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, REZONING TRACT MAP AT
11855 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (DE VAUL RANCH) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :
Q
►
c,
L
bs� Pet,
S as--, lid bbd o, CA R3q-o 5
EnOUNCIL WDD DIR
Q'CAO p FIN DIR
C?'ACAO p FIRE CHIEF
aATTORNEY p PW DIR
eCLERKIORIO p POLICE CHF
p MMG11Mep RTC DIR
al,
1 L�G477S�rYll(E�LYdd p�L DIR
p PERS DIR
R Ma✓td ev l la-
RECEIVED
OCT 1 9 1949
SLO CITY COUNCIL]
n►tETING AGENDA
DATE.Lo y ITEM #
OCTOBE
_..___.._. CDD DIR
❑FQJ DI7
ATT: SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL ❑FIRE CHIEF
�/T ❑PW DIR
C lc IGORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑i.4,TTEAM ❑REC DIR
RE: OPPOSE DE VAUL RANCH DEVELOMENT & t11G 0 UTIL DIR
Ca'� O PERS DIR
P•Handwil�
I AM OPPOSED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT , REZONING TRACT MAP AT
11855 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (DE VAUL RANCH) FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :
61
cy-C"t",E' Axk�tc
ar
J,oj,k C-6uEix, ?,4( au
t
Jc�'m ice- t .
RECEIVED 0/1Nv6r
r.r T 1 Q 1499 �
A
1�. D�� ae v-
SLO CITY COUVUL] /700 Pua.`/ rave 3UeS'�
I •MEETING AGENDA
DATE 10-1_ITEM #
OCTOBER 17 , 1999
1647 PARTRIDGE DRIVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 934C
ATT: SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
RE : OPPOSE DE VAUL RANCH DEVELOPMENT
I AM OPPOSED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, REZONING TRACT MAP AT
11855 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (DE VAUL RANCH) FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS :
LL LL
c�is�g 1 . TRAFFIC OVER LOAD
Q Qu,_—G
c c W c J ¢ LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD IS A :THRO.UGH ROAD TO AND FROM
o Rd=9d LOS OSOS AND MORROBAY AND PRESENTLY OVER CROWDED
000onnO CAUSING MANY ACCIDENTS AND NOISE POLLUTION .
ENDANGERS HANDICAP RESIDENTS CROSSING FROM ROYAL WAY TO SHOP .
2 . OPPOSED TO THROUGH WAY ON LOT ON QUAIL FROM MADONNA ROAD
L99 A. IN OPPOSITION TO C .C.&R. FOR OUR TRACT 412
_, zo
B. OPENS US TO INCREASED THEFT & VANDALISM
z c¢¢ C . ENDANGERS RESIDENTS RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND PURSUIT OF
oav�tu HAPPINESS
3 . ENDANGERS AND A PROBLEM FOR WILD LIFE
GROUND SQUIRRELS AND'.:DEER, ETC . '
PLEASE CONSIDER THIS DEVELOPMENT BEFORE MAKING A FINAL DECISION .
IN MY OPINION, AS A HOME OWNER AT 1647 PARTRIDGE DRIVE FOR 23 YEARS
IT WILL NOT BENEFIT THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO .
RECEIVED
CONSTANCE M. PETERSEN
15wc4-: SLO CITY COUNCIL
G a Sao t0 .L w owwd
. .�� 42
O .to.m.i'bm,,,atoGao oa�p•��tia� O O O rN,a .: b : v) mwm �w d ytd.a�bo++ a6mopa
2
o . 00
o
ap _
O t,
's.
wyvoo� p a3 � aNa.wa E m ;
Aaomve2 � "'O ; oaz N
w . v . �
C
,ol
s�Oamoa+{��d•-:dfOo0I'l.��a�,-o-�a'�'��oa? oawc�a'sy0'�VO •°' m� yo�'0 O.�`,"c.0o:b.a'�;�o.�°'�"-,i � a adc0,'.•¢0oU..am�-.�+7 a
iwe
yav, Vacd:Ej
orI
. c
,�i3as
3tacot�J , � vc a .OoU= " A y
c0 O'>+ 93.A), 4a
O v ao oD• v a w . d z
110 0. ' oam c� I0)o 'O V4 cw a �
!
O a m•c+w a+ maw) y , •D v�.0 as is a-y, .'7 .. .:.10 c
.�' O'O, ry+ �.y'°""'�� '4'a" r«' C� fA y O' co .5: i C a'"' s. O • .^.e.p,..,�� tt ,cc �• ,Q fiJ U a1 F
� {� •off �:00 3 cam;
+p cd a)•'J" .o o '�vxs.t'v'�i r '� �" R7 ;p y�,i,
co.m ai to o� . CL
CL
v v - ,�"S.0.a •a ;'� °4y1{ c.aa�� �"'• ed �, d-0 4)'a.5-0 yp, C
4) a0i S C Cn h t
a o
M!,--
� � 0`3 @L^��F'tn� d� ���e�,L )�~ i o ►�a^� ��F^a+�
x a H U - b}.�hm#a' 'A GI.C+L�$-�C eiPA �. .Q�[� `cd ^ ti�'•V Q
v k. •
a�a� a�
Sidney B. Findley
1772 Quail Circle
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 �O
October 19, 1999
Hon. Mayor Settle and Councilmembers:
Re: Devaul Ranch Development
This letter will express my general dissatisfaction with the development plan as
proposed. My disagreements are many, but the following are of obvious
concern to me:
1. The development is too intensive for the area. Three story
buildings have no place in a residential area.
2. The ingress proposed for Quail Drive will disrupt what has been a
quiet neighborhood. Vehicle or foot traffic will be detrimental this
area.
3. Laguna Lake area has more than Ws fair share of high-density
residential buildings. There is already a disproportionate amount of
low income housing concentrated in the adjacent blocks e.g,
Madonna Road Apartments.
4. Tenants of the existing low-income housing create a
disproportionate amount of service calls for the police department.
A close examination of government records at the city and county
show a large concentration of individuals who have been convicted
of crimes and are current or former probationers. This area is also
a magnet for graffiti and there is no reason to believe increasing
low-income population density will remedy the situation.
5. The additional traffic from this area will only add to an already
overburdened Los Osos Valley Road which is quite often bumper to
bumper in the affected area. Adequate mitigation measures have
not been provided.
In past contacts with city employees, I have come away with a feeling that
the city is actively promoting this development. Many individuals have
expressed the idea that the city is under some obligation to promote more
low cost housing and actions to date indicate that the city has been more
than receptive to his high-density proposal.
October 19, 1999
Re: Devaul Ranch Development
don't have any illusions that the development will be stopped, however, I
would request that you consider the cumulative effect of this concentrated
housing plan.
A final word. Some cities have found it useful to place police officers in
close proximity to low income and trouble prone housing units. May I
suggest that the developer be required to provide at least one apartment
rent free to any city police officer that would be willing to live there. In the
alternative, you could require that the developer build a small police
substation within the complex.
Thank you for your attention. As I live in this area, I have valid concerns .
about what will happen to my neighborhood. I hope you will share those
concerns.
Cordially yours,
7
Sidney B. Findle