HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1990, 1 - TENTATIVE MAP ENDA ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN 90_ ---
1. TENTATIVE MAP - EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN (JONAS/410 - 90 min. )
Staff is working on report. Will be sent out under separate
cover.
MEETING DATE:
city of San WIS ostspo &-40-ITEM
90 AGENDA REPORT NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas Community Development Dire for
PREPARED BY: Judith L utner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: a. ) Tract 1750: A subdivision to reate 245 single-family
lots, 88 medium-density airspace condominiums, a
neighborhood park and a small "historical" park, in five
phases;
b. ) PD 1449-B: A planned development rezoning to allow
exceptions to lot sizes, yards, and density.
The proposals affect property on the east side of the railroad
tracks in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1) Adopt a resolution approving the tentative
map, with conditions.
2) Pass to print an ordinance approving the
planned development rezoning.
Report-in-brief
The City Council adopted the Edna-Islay Specific Plan in 1982. Since
then, development of the area has been proceeding in phases, in
accordance with the specific plan. Several maps had been approved and
homes constructed when in 1989, a vesting tentative map (Tract 1360 -
subdivider: John French) to subdivide most of the remainder of the area
on the west side of the railroad tracks was approved. The first phase
of that map is near completion.
The first phase on the east side of the tracks was approved in 1986.
Construction of that phase, consisting of 131 lots, is also close to
complete.
The applicants are now asking for approval of a vesting tentative map to
subdivide the remainder of the Islay (east) side. Construction would
take place in six phases, extending over a period of several years.
The project is complex. Involved is the creation of a variety of
residential lots, dedication of parks and open space areas, improvement
of the creek habitat, creation of a railroad buffer area, and
construction of bicycle paths.
The issues of greatest concern to the Planning Commission were:
Specific pian consistency: The map for Tract 1750 differs from the
specific plan map in several respects: an area proposed for a mix of
low- and medium-density housing is proposed to be a small-lot development
RECEIVE ®
MAY 2 91990
crny CLEW �'
MEETING DATE:
�' `I'Iip� Pt�llll city of San LUIS OBISpo ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
1107 Tank Farm Road
Page 2
zoned R-1-PD, with density averaging 7.5 units per acre (slightly above
the 7 units per acre allowed in the R-1 zone) ; the proposed railroad
buffer area is smaller in area than shown on specific plan maps; the
phasing boundaries differ and the number of phases is greater than shown
on the specific plan maps; the upper limits of development against the
side of Islay Hill vary - homes proposed along the southwest side are
lower, while homes along the northeast are higher; the private
recreation area has been replaced by a small public park containing the
Rodriguez adobe.
The previous interim Community Development Director determined that the
differences are consistent with the specific plan, in that there are no
major changes to land uses involved in the changes. Planning
Commissioners disagreed among themselves on the significance of the
changes, but in their action found the project consistent with the
specific plan. Three areas generating the largest amount of disagreement
were:
* The lots against the hillside. The specific plan map shows a street'.
as the upper limit of development against the northeasterly hillside.
The map shows lots in this location, and the Planning Commission approved
it as requested. The council will need to decide if the proposal for
homes on the upper side of the street is appropriate in this location.
• The bike path in the preservation area. The specific plan
differentiates treatment of areas designated "creek improvement" and
"creek preservation". Creek preservation areas have habitat value, and
are to be preserved by the provision of larger setbacks from the top of
bank than are required in creek improvement areas. Specifically, bike
paths in preservation areas are required to be located a minimum of 26'
from the top of bank. The path starting in the public park has been
routed into the adjoining creek preservation area, closer than 26' from
the top of bank. This routing happened as a result of minor changes to
the street layout of previously approved Tract 1376 made as part of the
final tract map for that development. It has since been been determined
that a colony of Western Pond Turtles, which live in the preservation
area, are now considered a potentially threatened species.
At this time, it is difficult to go back and modify the bicycle path
route. The Planning Commission recommendation is to have the developer
fund a study to determine the impacts of the proposed path on the turtles
and then for the developer to mitigate those impacts.
* Railroad buffer area. The size of the railroad buffer area is
proposed to be smaller than shown on the specific plan map. The specific
plan allows for modifications to this buffer area. The council must
decide if the alternative chosen, involving a combination of distance and
sound walls for mitigation, is acceptable.
���fi��Nlllylj�I��III�Y'NIII�IIIII c,"J O f SAn LUIS OBISPO l MEETING DATE:
,`IUu COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
1107 Tank Farm Road
Page 3
Hillside dedication and trails: The use and ownership of the hillside
was a concern of commissioners and members of the public. The specific
plan says the owner is to grant an open space easement to the city, and
that long-term maintenance is a responsibility of the owner. Consistent
with this requirement, the developers are offering the easement to the
city.
The Parks and Recreation Element calls for trails on the hillside. After
reviewing a trails plan created by the developer, the Parks and
Recreation Commission recommends that the developer instead donate an
amount to the city, equal to the cost of developing the trails, so that
they may be installed later if determined necessary.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending that the council approve the
planned development and the tentative map, with several conditions,
including a condition to limit lots on the easterly hillside to below the
street, as shown on the specific plan, and a requirement for the
developer to fund a study to limit impacts on the pond turtles. The
staff recommendation differs from the Planning Commission recommendation
in that the Planning Commission allowed uphill lots on the easterly
hillside. If the council needs additional information or would like to
see changes to the map, a continuance will be required.
DISCUSSION
Background
Situation
The applicants want to develop the remainder of their property on the
Islay Hill side of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area. They are asking
for approval of a master vesting tentative subdivision map and a planned
development rezoning. Final maps would be submitted for each of six
phases, consistent with the approved tentative map.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request in a study session on
January 3, 1990, and held public hearings on February 28 and March 28,
1990. On March 28, the commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the
tentative map to the council. The Architectural Review Commission
reviewed plans for the condominium and apartment sites on April 16, and
May 14, 1990, and granted schematic approval to those designs. The Parks
and Recreation Commission reviewed the Rodriguez Park site in June, 1989,
and the trail proposal for Islay Hill on March 7, 1990, and recommended
that no trails be installed as part of this development. The Cultural
Heritage Committee (CHC) visited the adobe site and discussed the use of
the adobe. That committee reviewed the proposed adobe park site on April
23, 1990, and recommended approval with a stipulation that houses
/-3
MEETING GATE:
�' � illllidll ��ll► city of San tins osIspo
Nij% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
1107 Tank Farm Road
Page 4
surrounding the adobe site be reviewed by the CHC to assure compatibility
with the adobe and maintenance of views.
Data summary
Address: 1107 Tank Farm Road
Applicant/property owner: Pacifica Corporation (Stuart Greene, project
director)
Zoning: R-1-SP, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40-SP
General plan: Low-density residential
Environmental status: EIR certified in 1982; no further study needed,
but monitoring of EIR mitigation measures will
take place.
Project action deadline: June 28, 1990
Site description
The site is a large (139 acres) , irregular-shaped parcel of varying-
topography. A creek cuts across the property from north to south,
starting near the intersection of Orcutt Road with Tank Farm Road. A
portion of Islay Hill takes up about a third of the area. An adobe
dating from the 1850's is the only building on the site.
The site surrounds (on three sides) the first development on this side
of the tracks, Tract 1376 ("The Arbors") . The 131 homes in Tract 1376
are complete.
Project description
The applicants propose a subdivision and planned development to create:
1.) 134 single-family lots ranging from 4,100 to 8600 square feet,
averaging 5,500 square feet in area;
2.) 88 air-space condominiums on 6.6 acres, including a program to
provide 23 units to low- and moderate-income families (administered
by the Housing Authority) ;
3.) A 1.8-acre site to be made available for sale to the Housing
Authority, adequate in size for twenty apartments (as required by
the specific plan) ;
4.) 111 large "custom" lots, averaging 9,900 square feet;
5.) An easement, to be dedicated to the city, over 75 acres of open
space (Islay Hill) , with a contribution for trail construction;
6.) A combined city and linear park, totalling over 13 acres, to be
dedicated to the city;
. / - #4�
`�II���IIIyIII,II�IIIII�II�IIIUII� city of san tuts OBlspo MEnNGDATE:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT '"NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 5
7.) A one-acre "mini-park" to be dedicated to the city, containing a
rehabilitated Rodriguez adobe (restoration partially funded by
developer) ;
8. ) A 400, 000-gallon water tank to serve a portion of the development
(water from the Edna Saddle and Terrace Hill reservoirs, along with
the new water tank, will adequately serve the entire Edna Islay
area) .
EVALUATION
WATER
1. Water availability. No city water is presently available for this
development. The developers plan to use well water for park
irrigation, but none would be available for homes or other
irrigation. The previous city attorney found that the creation of
lots does not in itself create a demand for water, and that
-- therefore, lack of water cannot be used as a finding for denying a
subdivision map. Any approval, however, should contain a condition
requiring notification of future lot owners of the possibility of
building permit delay because of lack of water.
Such notes have been required on other maps recently, and in some
instances the State Department of Real Estate has been unwilling to
approve the lots created until water was made available for them.
In those cases, the subdividers are currently retrofitting plumbing
fixtures throughout the city to build a "bank" of water allocations
sufficient to build homes on the lots. The developers of Tract 1750
have the same option. Approximately seventeen existing homes would
have to be retrofitted for each lot developed.
2. Well site. If a well can be developed on site, the developer would
like to use the water to irrigate the creek buffer areas and the
park, ahead of any other development.
A groundwater hydrologist has recommended a location on the west
side of Islay Hill, in the open space area, as a possible place to
find water. The developers are asking for permission to drill a
test well at the site (location shown on attached plan) . They need
to know if a well is an acceptable use in an open space area.
The city's Utilities Department has no objection to the request, and
notes that an improved access road would not be required for such
a limited well site. Therefore, the well site, as developed, would
not attract attention.
/_
��miFGIWI�IIlIu�1�u!NIIIIIIu�s oBIsPo -_ MEETING DATE:
U cityo San
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 6
The Planning Commission supported the well use in the open space
area. The use of the open space area for a well is consistent with
uses otherwise allowed in this zone, although the zoning regulations
are silent on the subject of wells. The city has located its wells
in open space areas without special approvals.
If water can be obtained that does not affect the city's supply, it
should be used to improve the creek habitat and develop the park.
CONSISTENCY ISSUES
3. specific plan consistency. Several parts of the proposal deviate
from the layout of the specific plan map. The former (interim)
Community Development Director determined that the proposal is
consistent with the plan, and approved minor changes to the plan,
based on the finding that changes to the layout of land use do not
significantly affect a planning concept spelled out in the specific
plan. Changes of concern are:
Railroad buffer areas. Instead of the wider landscaped areas along
the railroad, the developer proposes some narrower landscaped
buffers along with walls. Walls are proposed from Tank Farm Road
down to the lots at the end of Wavertree Street. The remainder of
the lots do not need walls for noise attenuation. The specific plan
says that alternative sound mitigation methods may be used, if
acceptable to the council.
Lots against the hill. The specific plan calls for a street to
define the open space area on the east side of Islay Hill, whereas
the developer wants to place lots in this location. Also, the lots
are higher in elevation than the.road as shown on the specific plan
.map. The director found this proposed change consistent with the
specific plan, based on the overall design, which places lots on the
west side of the hill lower down, more than balancing the total open
space to be dedicated to the city, while respecting the overall
guideline requiring development below the 320' elevation. It was
the director's determination at the time that the visual impact of
the homes in this location would not be significant. see below for
additional discussion on this item.
Bike path in creek preservation area. The current neighborhood park
plan (off Tank Farm Road, at the Orcutt Road intersection, between
the two tributaries of the creek) shows a bike path entering the
neighborhood park, meandering south for about 1,000 feet, then
crossing the creek westerly to continue along the rear of existing
lots. A portion of the path (the last 400 feet before crossing the
creek) intrudes into the creek preservation area.
�}�fly,ll�llll I'III�I�II City Of Say� UIS OBt�ISPO MEETING DATE:
n41 I Illl�l�nll�llll l 1
w IU COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 7
The specific plan calls for different treatments for "creek
preservation" and "creek improvement" areas, as the preservation
areas have wildlife habitat value. The specific plan says that bike
paths near creeks must be set back a minimum of 26 feet from the top
of bank in creek preservation areas (see figure 19) .
The southerly portion of the path in the park, then, intrudes in the
preservation area farther than the specific plan allows.
The original proposal for the park, which was approved along with
the first subdivision on the east side of the tracks (copy
attached) , showed the path along the rear of the lots along the
westerly side of the creek from Tank Farm Road southerly. In this
proposal, the path also intrudes into the creek preservation area,
in that in places it is closer than 26' from the top of bank.
During the review of the original plan, staff pointed out that the
specific plan called for the bike path to be in the park, then to
cross over the creek. Accordingly, the path was moved to the
opposite side of the creek and crossed over where it intersected
with a street that was also appropriate for a sewer line crossing.
- During preparation of the final map, the layout of the streets in
Tract 1376 was modified slightly. Unfortunately, because the street
intersection had moved south, the bike path entered the creek
preservation area.
An additional concern related to this section of the creek is the i
discovery of a potentially threatened species - the Western Pond
Turtle - on the site. When the specific plan EIR was prepared, this
turtle was identified (called the "Pacific Pond Turtle") , but it was
not targeted as a candidate species. Further, the creek
preservation area standards were considered adequate to protect
creek wildlife.
It is unclear at this time if allowing the bike path to enter the
creek preservation area will, in fact, harm the turtle's habitat.
A second bike path, intersecting with the original and crossing the
easterly branch of the creek to intersect with "A" Street, is of
potentially greater concern. A turtle expert, visiting the site
recently, was concerned that the path in the proposed location would
interfere with turtle nesting areas. The applicant's representative
is exploring other locations to cross this creek that would achieve
the goal of directing foot and bike traffic away from the creek bed
itself.
The entire creek is being planted to improve its habitat value. Not
only creek preservation areas, but creek improvement areas as well,
have been designed with minimum 20' setbacks (except for a 360'
stretch having 10 foot setbacks, discussed below.) Except for this
one area, where the path was inadvertently routed into the creek
MEETING DATE:
�III �I�I�III city of San 1 LUiS OUISpO ITEM NUMBER:
Mra COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 8
preservation area, the creek preservation area standards are met and
the creek improvement area standards are exceeded.
At this point, the obstacles to relocating the path from the
preservation area are almost insurmountable. The alternatives
considered by staff are:
* Cut across the creek farther north, as shovn in the specific
plan. Unfortunately, Tract 1376 is built. The city has an open
space easement over the rear of the first fourteen creekside lots,
but this easement does not appear to include the right to place a
bicycle path in any part of that location. Further, the area
available behind those lots does not allow much room for a bike path
and vegetation. The city would have to obtain permission from each
lot owner to place a path behind their lots. Based on resident
comments at earlier hearings, staff does not believe the lot owners
would grant this permission. Continuing the path down the narrow
creekside easement might also be more destructive to the creek
habitat than the present proposal.
* Cut across farther north, and place the path on Wavertree Street.
The path cannot be placed on Wavertree Street, because city
standards require any on-street path to be on both sides of the
street. There is not room for on-street paths and parking lanes as
well. Also, the path could not be placed off-street, adjacent to
Wavertree, simply because the right-of-way is not wide enough.
Wavertree Street exists and therefore cannot be realigned to
accomodate a' bicycle path.
* Use the path to "A" Street and continue the path along that
street until it is outside the preservation area, then cut in and
continue along the creek. On paper, this solution looks workable,
if awkward. In the field it does not appear feasible because of the
steep slopes in the area where the path would reroute back to the
creekside. This solution, if physically feasible, would require a
wider right-of-way and the path would have to be off-street.
* Use the path to "A" Street and continue down "A" Street to the
railroad underpass. A wider right-of-way would accomplish this
diversion. This alternative would lessen impacts on the creek from
the park southerly. It would also leave the existing bike path
behind the homes in Tract 1376 without any connections at either
end. The council would have to decide if it is consistent with the
specific plan to reroute the path from the creek to the road.
* Eliminate the path in the peninsula only but make no other
changes. This alternative would essentially place the beginning of
the path where it is now, lined up with the intersection of Ironbark
and Wavertree Streets. The path in the park would be a separate
MEETING DATE:
III city Of San LUIS OBISPO ITEM N MBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 9
amenity. This alternative is feasible, but amounts to a break in
the path. The council would have to decide if the choices available
to a cyclist are acceptable.
Exhibits showing the alternatives will be available at the meeting.
Conclusion: Staff feels the issue is simply, "Is significant harm
going to come from the path where it is currently shown?" If not,
then the path should be allowed to be built as proposed. If harm
is seen to result, then staff would support eliminating the path in
this location, or imposing mitigation measures to limit the
potential for harm.
Staff recommends that the developer fund a study to determine the
Western Pond Turtle's habits and potential impacts upon its
continued existence here. The study should identify mitigation
measures to limit impacts. A condition has been drafted that
requires such a study and requires the developer to perform
recommended mitigation measures. (Staff has developed a tentative
workscope to complete this study, involving a "team" overseeing the
work of a consultant. Councilmembers may review this workscope in
the Community Development Department if interested.)
The Environmental Impact Report continues to be sufficient in
staff's opinion because 1) the EIR identified the turtle's
existence; 2) the EIR suggested mitigation measures to protect
wildlife in the creeks; and 3) the recommended study will go
farther than the EIR did in identifying impacts and appropriate
mitigation measures.
Change from private recreation area to public park. The specific
plan EIR says that the Rodriguez adobe should be looked at more
carefully at the time of subdivision, to determine its historical
value. The specific plan does not address the adobe at all. The
adobe has now been determined to be historically significant, and
worthy of restoration. The applicant is proposing an offer of a
one-acre park containing the adobe, in lieu of an approximately 1.8-
acre private recreation area located approximately where the
detention basin is shown on the tract map.
Both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Cultural Heritage
Committee have looked at the proposal and support it. The Cultural
Heritage Committee made several recommendations to maximize the
quality of the environment surrounding the adobe. These
recommendations are discussed further below.
MEETING DATE:
city of San IDIS OBISPO Nii%
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 10
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
4. Grading, The grading proposal is superior to the grading done for
Tract 1376. The great majority of lots have banks of four feet or
less in height. About thirty lots have rear yard banks from five
to 12 feet in height, with most of those in the five through eight-
foot range. Sideyard banks are four feet or lower, except for two,
which are five and six feet in height.
These bank heights could be reduced if the site were essentially
flattened, or if the lots themselves sloped. Of these two
alternatives, the second is preferable. However, construction on
unevenly sloped lots would require the developers to custom-design
each house, considerably adding to the cost. The difference in cost
would not likely be acceptable to future homebuyers, given that
homeowners typically want usable flat yard areas and are unwilling
to pay extra for the inconvenience of creating their own. Unpadded
lots also require unique drainage solutions that can be costly and
inefficient. In staff's view, there is not a significant public
gain to be obtained from requiring the small and standard lots to
be unpadded.
The hillside lots are a different matter. The lots adjacent to the
hillside open space are larger and more visible to the general
public. Staff is recommending that grading on these lots be limited
to the house, driveway, and small yard areas, consistent with the
hillside standards in the Land Use Element.
However, the potentially unstable soils on lots within the "shallow
slide area" (lots 170 - 173 and lots 189 - 192 in phases 5 and 6)
should be removed, filled, and recompacted in accordance with the
geology report recommendations. The specific plan says that the
geological report shall "recommend measures to be incorporated into
the design of hillside subdivisions and residential construction
which will mitigate any slope stability or erosion problems." and
that "the city's approval of housing developments or subdivisions
on the lower slopes of Islay hill shall be contingent upon the
succesful mitigation of any slope stability problems identified in
the required geological report." (pp. 43-44) Grading of these lots
is, therefore, necessary to assure stability. Staff is
recommending, in the case of these lots, that the fill and
recompaction essentially match the original terrain.
The lots on the west slope of the hill have been designed in
accordance with the geology report recommendation, which says that
lot lines should be kept at least five feet away from the outer
limits of the slide area. The Engineering Division notes that slope
stabilization is not an exact science, and therefore recommends a
more conservative setback from this slide, unless further geological
"' o MEETING DATE:
IY'I I`flllh �� san tuts osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 11
investigation proves the slide is stable as is. Engineering is
recommending a 50' setback, but points out that the council needs
to make a policy decision on this, as there are no definitive
guidelines. Conditions have been recommended that address the slide
areas in accordance with the Engineering Division's recommendations.
5. Hillside lots versus Public street. As mentioned above, under
"specific plan consistency", the specific plan calls for a public
street against the open space area on the east side of the hill,
while the developers are proposing lots on the uphill side. The
difference is primarily visual, since other factors (such as fire,
public access, and geology) can be mitigated and have been on
similar lots throughout the city.
The appearance of the open space area from a distance is not likely
to be significantly altered by the imposition of homes as opposed
to a street in this location. However, from the point of view of
a driver along "A" Street, the difference could be significant.
After hearing public testimony at the February 28 Planning
Commission meeting, on the value of visual access from the street,
staff now recommends that the street layout be modified so that "L"
Street defines the upper limit of development. A connection from
"A" Street to "L" Street is preferable, to allow a car travelling
along "A" Street to drive next to the hillside, uninterrupted by
homes. Because of the slope, a modification to thestreet layout
may be necessary to achieve this goal.
At the Planning Commission hearings, the issue of lots against the
l
hillside along the east side of the hill was significant, with the
two dissenting commissioners preferring a street against the
hillside, and with public testimony, especially from nearby
residents, also supporting a street. This is the only issue where
the staff recommendation differs substantially- from the Planning
Commission recommendation.
Staff does not object to the upper limits of development as now
proposed, however. In other words, we would support moving
Street to the location now shown as the rear lot lines of the lots
adjacent to the hillside. We feel that the dedication of open space
as currently proposed exceeds that originally envisioned by the
specific plan, since the lots on the west side of the hill are lower
on the hillside, and the lots on the east side do not extend as far
along orcutt Road. The attached map shows the tradeoffs proposed.
6. Railroad buffer. As noted above, the railroad buffer area differs
from the standards in the specific plan, by being narrower and
incorporating sound walls, but the specific plan allows for
differences if acceptable to the council. Staff supports the
differences, for the following reasons: 'l�
V §11'11
� MEETING DATE:
��l ci o san-tins oB�s o
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 144.9-B
Page 12
* The proposal includes a plan for smaller homes on small lots to
meet part of the medium-density requirement of the specific plan.
Staff finds this type housing is different from most other medium-
density proposals in that it allows for individual lot ownership
different from the restrictions of condominiums, but with the
advantage of proportionately lower cost than for larger lots, and
less yard area to maintain. The proposal, in staff's view, meets
a need in the community. Further, the smaller lots are not so small
that privacy is unattainable. They are equal in size to a large
number of older lots now existing in R-1 zones.
'To provide this type housing, however, takes more land area for the
same number of homes than an apartment development would take. The
developer's answer: make the railroad buffer area smaller.
* The railroad buffer area is not a usable open space area. It is
a noise mitigation and visual barrier. The current proposal still
includes a densely-planted buffer, although narrower than the
specific plan design.
* The sound walls can be attractively designed and effectively
landscaped. Further, in the absence of the walls, it is likely that
either the developers or the lot owners would install fencing on
these lots. The sound walls can be more attractive than fences, .
especially if required to be landscaped as part of the tract
approval.
If the council requires the original standards to be adhered to,
that requirement would eliminate 26 of the small lots.
Staff's support of the map is a support for the entire proposal,
which we feel, on balance, is a superior proposal to the original
specific plan map.
7. Drainage swales on the hillside. One concern noted at the February
28 commission meeting was the implied culverting of drainage swales
now existing on the hillside, particularly on the lots on the
easterly side of the hill. If the above recommendation for a street
along the hillside is followed, the swales become effectively a moot
point. The street will intercept drainage from swales, rendering
the downhill swales unnecessary for a significant amount of
drainage.
I€ the council feels strongly that the swales should remain as is,
it could require their retention. In staff's estimation, lot 224
may be undevelopable with this condition, and the others may be
developed around the swales. Staff does not see the public benefit
of requiring swale retention, when views of these swales will likely
��ly,ll`IIIIII g �I` - MEETING GATE:
W I� I��II�I I�uIII City of San Wi s OBI SPO ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 13
be obscured by homes and the swales themselves will likely be
planted.
The Planning Commission action did not include a requirement to
retain these swales.
S. Trails on the hillside As noted in the previous report, the Parks
and Recreation Element calls for developing trails on the Islay Hill
open space when the site is developed. The Parks and Recreation
Commission reviewed a trail plan on March 7, 1990. Because of
public testimony on the sensitivity of the soils on the hill, that
commission recommended that no trails be established at this time,
but that public access be allowed and the developer be required to
pay to the city the estimated cost of installing the proposed
trails. This amount would be allocated to maintenance and
improvements of the Islay Hill open space exclusively. If, after
several years of use, the council determines that trails are needed,
they can be installed at that time.
The Planning Commission supported this approach. Staff concurs with
this recommendation, and has included a condition requiring the
developer to pay the estimated cost. The developer is also
supportive of this recommendation.
9. Detention basin. The applicants have used a method for calculating
the needed capacity of the proposed detention basin (next to the
tracks, south of the adobe) that differs from the technique employed
for specific plan calculations. The Public Works Department has
not yet verified if the proposed capacity will be adequate, and is
requiring a review by the original specific plan engineer.
The basin has been enlarged in capacity by 40% since the Planning
Commission reviewed this subdivision. The total volume is still
lower than the requirement stated in the specific plan, but a
preliminary review of the enlargement by the Public Works Department
indicates it will probably be adequate. If the capacity of this
basin is determined inadequate, then it will need to be enlarged.
The result of that enlargement may be the removal of some of the
residential lots. It should not affect the overall design of the
subdivision significantly.
Staff would prefer to have the Public Works review prior to council
action. This information may be available at the council meeting
or soon after. However, the impact of requiring a larger basin, if
needed, will be to have fewer houses. The council can determine if
this impact is acceptable.
10. Rower lines. The specific plan calls for a linear park beneath the
electrical transmission lines on the northeast side of Islay hill.
/-!3
city of San- Luis OBISPO MEETING DATE:
MIGA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 14
The width of the park is not stated in the specific plan, but scales
at approximately 100' on the specific plan map. The developer
originally showed the park as 50' wide. The Planning Commission
recommends that it be 100' wide, and that no buildings or parking
areas be allowed within this area. The commission's recommendation
is based on recent reports on the possible danger of concentrated
electro-magnetic fields near high-voltage transmission lines to
humans. An additional condition requires a statement to be recorded
on each lot near the power lines to inform lot buyers that they live
near such an electromagnetic field.
The developer has revised the plans to show the wider linear park.
As now proposed, the park would provide access to Islay Hill, but
would not include any amenities, such as picnic tables, that would
encourage people to stay in this area. This revision reduced the
total number of lots by six, from the number requested at the
Planning Commission hearings.
PARRS AND OPEN SPACE
11. Rodricuez park. The applicant proposes offering a one-acre site to
the city as a park. The park would contain the Rodriguez adobe,
restored in part by developer funds. When the Cultural Heritage
Committee reviewed the park proposal, it made the following
recommendations: I
* Prior to any grading or installation of subdivision improvements i
in the area, a historic archaeologist should be hired to evaluate
the Rodriguez Adobe site, and research and identify any historic
archaeological resources in the area.
* Prior to any grading or the installation of subdivision
improvements, the developer should take "archival quality"
photographs of the Rodriguez adobe (minus the chain link fence)
and make them available to the city.
* The design of the dwellings that front the local loop street
bordering the park should be reviewed by the CHC to assure that
they are not bulky two-story buidlings that overpower the
historic building and adversely affect its historical character
and setting.
* The landscaping of the adobe should be in keeping with its
historic character and importance.
* The developer should provide alternative water supplies to use
for the landscaping of the adobe grounds and park.
Staff has incorporated these recommendations into the conditions.
IVII��UuIIIIIII�I city Of San LUIS OBISPO MEETING DATE:
WRIZO auU COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 15
12. Islay Hill open space and related carcel may, The developers are
offering the dedication of an easement over the Islay Hill open
space, consistent with the specific plan. The easement would
include the entire 75-acre site.
The Planning Division is currently processing a parcel map
application that would create the open space area as a separate
parcel. The applicants of that parcel map, who are the former
owners of the Islay site, want to create the parcel so that it can
be transferred to them by the present owners (Pacifica) with the
easement intact. The parcel map is scheduled to be heard at an
administrative hearing prior to council action on Tract 1750.
There are three issues raised by this parcel map as it relates to
Tract 1750:
1) Will the creation of a separate parcel only usable as open space
lead to a future "taking" issue? In other words, will the new
owners later try to obtain compensation from the city for not
allowing development on the site?
The answer is no, according to the City Attorney. The new owners
have been informed ahead of time, through the specific plan and
the easement, that the hillside is intended for open space uses
only. Further, these uses include limited agricultural and
similar uses, and therefore the property owner is not deprived
of "all reasonable uses".
2) Is an equestrian center appropriate on the hillside, as shown on
the specific plan? There is one difference on the parcel map
from the Tract 1750 map: an area approximating a possible
equestrian site is excluded from the open space easement. The
applicants of the parcel map would prefer to retain the option
of developing an equestrian center in the northeast portion of
the site.
The specific plan says an equestrian center may be allowed in
that location, subject to a Planning Commission use permit.
Given the recommended action on the trails, staff is concerned
about the possibility of an equestrian center on the hillside.
Horses need trails, and if none are created they may create their
own, which could be damaging to the hillside. Further, such a
center may not be necessary in this area, given the possibility
- of similar future development in the vicinity (county) .
Staff is recommending that in its consideration of Tract 1750,
the council require the open space easement to include the entire
hillside, including the area designated for equestrian use. The
IIII�I�II�IIII ", T MEETING DATE:
ITEM
�im�►�iilleilll' ►�u�c+� c� o san tins oBispo
RNMe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 16
specific plan shows the equestrian area as part of the open
space, presumably because such a use is consistent with open
space uses. The issue of whether or not to allow the equestrian
center can be resolved with the required Planning Commission use
permit.
3) What does the council ultimately want the hillside to be used
for? The specific plan says that the hillside will remain in
private ownership and will be maintained privately, but that the
city will have an easement over it.
Staff notes that the hillside is already used regularly by hikers
from within and without the neighborhood. The Parks and
Recreation Element shows trails up the hill as part of the city's
overall trails plan. It is likely that it will be used
increasingly by the public.
Normally, in cases where public use is encouraged, it is best for
the city to own the property so that it can be properly
maintained and supervised. The council may prefer to require
dedication of the open space area in fee rather than as an
easement. However, the specific plan does not include a
requirement for such a dedication, and the property owners are
opposed to it.
SCHOOLS
13. Schools. Staff has heard from residents in the general area of the
development, who are concerned about the development's impact on
schools. The environmental impact report for the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan concluded that as the area is occupied, impact on
schools should be monitored, and the developers may be required to
post bonds to help finance school facilities or help bus students.
Since the EIR was approved, the school board imposed fees on all new
development. These fees have been paid with each residence built
in the Edna-Islay area since the fees were adopted. The City
Attorney says that additional fees for schools should not be imposed
on this subdivision without similar action on all others in the
city.
The school district did not project a need for a new school in the
Edna-Islay area, but anticipated that if the Edna Valley were .
further developed a school somewhere in the vicinity may be needed.
Staff has met with school 'officials in the recentpast on this
issue, and found that there are alternative school sites superior
to the Edna-Islay specific plan area that the school board would
prefer to develop. The Edna-Islay area has been rejected because
H6
City Of San LUIS OBISPO MEETING DATE:
- aftme COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 17
of its nearness to the airport and the need for a school more
centrally located in the area of need.
One concern voiced by the residents is that because the proposed
development includes single-family lots instead of apartments, the
number of children may exceed that anticipated by the specific plan
EIR. The EIR (p. 67) says:
"An additional projection of student populations was made based on
the assumption . that the various housing types would generate
approximately the same numbers of students. The reason for this
assumption is the growing number of single parents living in medium
density housing and increased numbers of childless working couples
living in low density housing. As a worst case condition, student
generation rates in the Laguna Area, which has the highest student
generation rate in the city, were utilized, and population
projections were based on the citywide rate for single-family
housing."
Hence, the change from apartments to single family lots was
effectively anticipated in the EIR.
Staff has provided this information in the hope of dispelling any
confusion on the subject, and notes that the city does not control
the school district, nor does the district override the city. The
two agencies operate independently. No action is needed on the parti
of the council.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND EXCEPTIONS
14. Medium density desicn One part of the medium-density proposal for
the site is the condominium site, discussed further below. Another
part of the proposal includes small (average 5,500 square feet) lots
with smaller homes (averaging 1,582 square feet; all three-
bedroom) . The developers propose this portion of the medium-
density area bedesignated R-1-PD, instead of R-2, to create a
single-family neighborhood and to allow more flexibility -in bedroom
counts. The overall density of the lots is higher than normally
allowed in the R-1 zone, but lower than the maximum in the R-2 zone.
Compared with a typical R-1 development, this proposal is only
slightly more dense (7.5 as opposed to 7.0 dwellings per acre) .
The zoning regulations define "dwelling units" differently in the
R-1 and the multi-family zones. In the R-1 zone, a single dwelling
of any size is considered a "unit". In the other three residential
zones, a two-bedroom dwelling is a "unit".
The total number of "equivalent units" (as defined by the zoning
regulations) , on the easterly side of the tracks, if this area were
�IIIIII9II�I�IIII MEETING DATE:
"��i��i�' I►► N►► cityof San Jlui s OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 18
designated R-2, is 513. If counted instead as single dwellings (R-
1) , the number is 465. It is this unit count, along with the
increased density on the condominium and housing authority lots,
that led to the staff's determination that a density bonus is
required for the development.
The homes may appeal to first-time buyers or "empty-nesters" (who
often prefer extra bedrooms for guests or offices) . Some drawbacks
are the increased lot coverage and proportionally larger areas
devoted to streets. Some advantages are that because the lots and
homes are smaller, they should cost less than the larger homes in
Tract 1376; there will be less maintenance of yards, and they may
appeal to a population that is inadequately served.
Staff supports the inclusion of smaller homes on smaller lots as
meeting the intent of the specific plan in providing medium-density
housing. For greater flexibility, staff also supports the R-1-PD
rezoning. Staff notes that the development, now under construction,
on the north side of Tank Farm Road, west of the tracks, was rezoned
to R-1-PD to allow a different bedroom mix than would have been
allowed in the R-2 zone, as well as to maintain the single-family
character of the development. The present project is similar to
that one, except that these lots are larger (density is lower) and
the streets are public.
15. Affordable housing and density bonus. The developer is offering a
site to the Housing Authority sufficient for 20 medium-density
dwellings, consistent with the specific plan. The Housing Authority
component is over the density allowed in the R-2 zone.
The specific plan says the developer shall offer to the Authority
a lot large enough for twenty dwellings. The developers offered the
lot west of the condominiums and next to the railroad tracks, which
is of sufficient size to accommodate 20 two-bedroom dwellings
consistent with the city's R-2 standards. The Housing Authority
(HA) , however, wants to build fourteen two-bedroom and six three-
bedroom apartments on this site. The three-bedroom units cause the
overall allowed density on this lot to be exceeded by fifteen
percent. (Density is 12.8 units per acre. )
Working with the Authority, the developer has designed the project
to be compatible with the condominiums, but to include no enclosed
garages, and to include six three-bedroom units. Therefore, this
lot has become a part of the planned development proposal and a
density bonus of 15% is being requested for it.
Beyond the housing authority lot, the proposal includes an offer of
23 condominium units to be restricted for sale to qualifying low-
and moderate-income families. These units would be randomly
�"l0
��ill!IiR11116IIIIIIIg11101'I11I1 f pMEETING DATE:
c�".7 o san tins oarsQ
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT rTEm NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 19
selected from the 88 proposed. The number of restricted units is
5% of the total number of dwellings on this side of the tracks, and
is slightly greater than the increase in the number of "equivalent
units over the specific plan maximum (519 - 498 = 21) . Staff sees
the project as including a density bonus request, because of this
overall difference.
The specific plan sets standards for approving planned developments
and density bonuses. The standards (see page 17 of the EISP, copy
attached) are similar to the criteria listed in the zoning
regulations for approving planned developments and density bonuses.
Staff finds that the affordable housing component is desirable, and
the design of the small lots meets a need in the city. These
special components of the project justify a density bonus.
16. Parking reduction request The plans show the Housing Authority lot
containing the required number of parking spaces (47) . The
apartments will be owned and operated by the HA in perpetuity,
exclusively for low-income tenants. Because of this control, the
HA would like a reduction in the number of spaces required. It has
been their experience that fewer spaces are needed for this type of
use than for typical apartments. In fact, the HA usually fences off
portions of their parking lots for use as basketball courts or for
similar activities.
Therefore, the HA would like to reduce the required parking to 1.5i
spaces per dwelling, for a total of _Q spaces. The land area
converted from parking spaces can be added to the recreational area
for the residents.
The Architectural Review Commission, in reviewing plans for the
apartment complex, granted schematic approval to the design and
recommended approval of the requested parking reduction. Staff
supports this recommendation.
17. Condominium standards The city has an ordinance setting property
development standards (open space, storage, private yards, etc. ) for
residential condominium development.
The condominium development will meet"all of the standards. In the
R-2 zone, a minimum of 250 square feet of private open space is
required for each unit. Each unit has 250 square feet of private
open space, provided either in an interior "courtyard" or on a
balcony over the garage. Additional 80-square-foot private open
space areas are provided off the living rooms, but these areas do
not all meet the minimum width requirement of ten feet. A minimum
of 750 square feet of total (private and common) open space per unit
is required. About 950 square feet of total open space per unit is
provided. Required storage units are not indicated, but this
y��lllpl �UIII cMEETING DATE:
t o san tuts oBtspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORTnT:M NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
Page 20
requirement may be met with minor changes in the plans. The project
also includes a recreation building, pool, and whirlpool. Common
recreational facilities such as these are not required by the
condominium ordinance. The developer would like the council to
consider the recreational facilities as providing a degree of
"private recreation", to be considered along with the Rodriguez park
as substituting for the private recreation area on the specific plan
map. Staff does not have a position on this approach.
The Architectural Review Commission reviewed the condominium
proposal on April .16, 19.90 and on May 14, 1990. At the second
meeting, that commission granted schematic approval with direction
on ways to preserve views and maximize open space.
18. Yard setbacks. The applicants previously requested street yard
exceptions for eight homes on the smaller lots (see sheets P6 and
P7) . The exceptions range from three to seven feet and involve only
portions of the buildings. The largest exceptions, for lots
numbered 79 and 90, are for homes on large but fairly shallow lots.
The exceptions will afford easier access to the garages (all of
which are setback at least 20 feet) , and will. provide more usable
yard area. In staff's view, the exceptions are minor, and present
no health, safety, or visual problems. Staff's recommendation to
the Planning Commission was for approval.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the street yard
setbacks, but denial of the sideyard exceptions also requested.
Since the building of homes on those lots is still years away, the
applicants are reconsidering their request, and looking at different
designs for the small lots, including zero-lot-line proposals. The
streetyard exceptions may be irrelevant.
Staff now recommends that any streetyard exceptions be considered
at administrative hearings when home designs are finalized. If the
council is concerned, as was the Planning Commission, that sideyard
exceptions would affect the solar access and liveability of these
lots, then the recommended condition allowing no sideyard exceptions
should be retained. The applicant would like the flexibility to
apply for sideyard exceptions on a case-by-case basis, and therefore
objects to the Planning Commission-recommended condition.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Concerns of other departments are contained in the discussion above or ,_,
in the conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT
An approval of the map would include acceptance of ownership and
nA
�'oW
c1T`�1J)I�(I�fIIIII�IIIIIII _ o san��uis osispo MEETING DATE:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NUMBER:
Tract 1750
PD 144.9-B
Page 21
maintenance of the creek areas and the parks. The Parks Department
estimates the cost of maintenance of these areas to be approximately
$70, 000 per year.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may continue consideration. Direction should be given to
staff and the applicants.
The council may approve the map, as proposed, as recommended by staff,
or with changed conditions.
The council may deny the map, if it makes findings to support a denial.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map, with conditions.
2) Pass to print an ordinance approving the planned development
rezoning.
Attachments -
ORDINANCE NO. (1990 SERIES)
AN. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO DESIGNATE
AN AREA ON TANK FARM ROAD, EAST OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS,
AS R-1-SP-PD AND R-2-SP-PD,
ALLOWING SOME EXCEPTIONS TO DENSITY AND YARDS (PD 1449-B)
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a hearing to consider
the planned development request PD 1449-B; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings;
Findings:
1. The proposed planned development will not adversely affect the
health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working in the
vicinity.
2. The planned development is appropriate at the proposed
location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The planned development conforms to the general plan and
specific plan for Edna Islay and meets zoning ordinance
U requirements.
4. The proposed planned development is consistent with the Edna-
Islay Specific Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report
was certified by the council in 1982. No further
environmental study is necessary.
5. The project provides facilities and amenities suited to
particular occupancy groups: families with children, and
moderate-income homebuyers.
6. The project provides a greater range of housing types and
costs than would be possible with development of uniform
dwellings throughout the project site or neighborhood.
7. Features of the particular design, including common open space
areas, narrower right-of-way widths, small lots, design of the
Rodriguez Adobe Park, creek setbacks and bicycle paths,
achieve the intent of conventional standards for privacy,
usable open space, adequate parking, and compatibility with
neighborhood character as well as or better than the standards
do.
Ordinance No. (1990 Series)
PD 1449-B
Page 2
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The Planned Development PD. 1449-B is hereby
approved, subject to the following conditions:
Conditions•
1. Reduced streetyards are hereby granted, as shown on
preliminary plans approved on June 6, 1990.
2. No sideyard exceptions are allowed for the lots in phases 3
and 4 (small lots) .
3. Smaller than normal lot sizes are hereby approved, but in no
case shall a lot size be smaller than 4,000 square feet.
4. A density bonus, allowing 353 dwellings, including 134 small
lots, 88 two-bedroom condominium units, ill large single-
family lots, and 20 two-and three-bedroom Housing Authority
apartments, on the. lots as shown on the preliminary plan, is
hereby granted.
5. The applicant shall submit a precise plan, consistent with the
zoning regulations requirements for precise plans, to the
Community Development Director for approval. Such precise
plan may be incorporated in the improvement plans for Tract
1750.
SECTION 2 . This ordinance, together with the names of
councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once in
full, at least (3) days prior to its final passage., in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this
city. This ordinance shall go into 'effect at the expiration of
thirty (30) days after its final passage.
�-a3
C" Ordinance No. (1990 Series)
PD 1449-B
Page 3
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of _
1990, on motion of , seconded
by and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST: '
- I City Clerk
APPROVED:
i
City Administrative Officer
bi;t�j Att�orpey
Community Deve opment Director
i
1
RESOLUTION 140. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 1750, CREATING
245 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 88 CONDOMINIUMS, TWO PUBLIC PARRS,
AND A LOT TO BE SOLD TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY,
ON TANK FARM ROAD, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS
(TRACT 1750)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows: '
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request Tract
1750, the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Architectural
Review Commission's action, the Cultural Heritage Committee's
recommendation, the Parks and Recreation Commission's
recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes
the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and the proposed
improvements are consistent with the general plan and
specific plan for the Edna-Islay area.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in an R-1-PD-SP and an R-2-PD-SP zone.
3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause serious health problems,
substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of the property within) the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision is substantially in compliance with
the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and that an environmental
impact report was certified for the specific plan, and no
further environmental study is needed.
l-�S
n
Resolution no (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 2
SECTION 2: The tentative map for Tract 1750 is approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. Multiple final maps must be 'filed, in accordance with the
phases shown on the approved tentative map. Time
extensions pAy be granted by the city, up to the limits
imposed by the Subdivision Map Act.
2. Development of the subdivision must be in accordance with
the .Edna-Islay Specific Plan, except as specifically shown
on the tentative maps approved by the council on (date) or
as conditioned herein.
Fire Department requirements:
3. Fire protection facilities required by the fire department
are to be installed by the developer.. Such facilities,
including all access roads, shall be installed and made
serviceable prior- to and during the time of building
construction.
4. Hydrants are to be spaced at. 500 ' maximum intervals.
5. The subdivider shall pay $60,000 to the city for a fast
response vehicle with off-road capability, to serve this
area. Payment of $60,000, adjusted for inflation between
tentative map approval and time of payment, shall be made
prior to approval of the final map for phase 6.
6. All structures will require an .approved, automatic fire-
sprinkler system, to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department. Minimum water services shall be one-inch
diameter.
7. The developer shall fund $100000 for their share of the
cost of a device that lets Fire Station 3 know when
railroad tracks are blocked by a train at Orcutt Road, or
three Opticom intersection controllers for responding fire
apparatus.
8. A 20 '-wide paved access road shall be provided through lots
183, 184 , and 185 to provide access to the open space area,
to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and City
� Engineer.
9. Emergency access to the Islay Hill open space shall be
provided to the approval of the Fire Department.
Resolution no (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 3
Creek and detention basin requirements:
10. A minimum setback of 20 ' from the creek top of bank is
required for rear property lines or any improvements,
except for setbacks in a 320'-wide section shown on the
Creek Treatment Concepts Plan, approved as part of the
tentative map, which shall be a minimum of 101 .
il. A creek protection and restoration ,plan must be submitted
to the approval of the City Engineer and Community
Development Director, along with improvement plans. Such.
plan must show improvements to the creek area included in
the, creek maintenance easement or extending from the rear
lot lines to the lot lines across the creek, whichever is
greater. Plans shall show all landscaping and erosion
protection methods.
12. The creek crossing methods proposed for the
bicycle/pedestrian paths and for Orcutt Road must be within
the guidelines established in the Flood Management Policy
adopted by the city, unless an alternative is specifically
approved by the council.
13. Fish and Game and Corps of Engineers permits are required
for all work within the creek, and for crossing the creek
near the intersection of A Street and Orcutt Road.
14 . A study team shall be established to monitor the Western
Pond Turtle colony. The team shall be made up of
representatives of the Department of Fish and Game, the San
Luis Obispo Urban Creeks Council, the Community Development
Department, and the developer. Funding, not to exceed
$10, 000, shall be provided by the applicant. The purpose
of the study will be to inventory the population, identify
the extent of existing habitat, and identify impacts to the
turtle colony, and to identify mitigation measures, if any,
which the developer will be required to provide. The study
period will continue for 24 months, to begin when the
consultant is hired and begins work.
15. The design of the bicycle path within the creek
preservation area at the southerly end of the public park
must be' in accordance with Fish and Game recommendations,
as shown on the Creek Treatment. Concepts plan, approved as
part of this map, to minimize disturbance of the creek
preservation area.
16. The creek banks adjacent to Tract 1376 .shall be revegetated
Resolution no (1990 Series)
U Tract 1750
Page 4
in accordance with the Creek Treatment Concepts Plan
approved as part of the tentative map. Work shall be
completed prior to acceptance by the city of maintenance
of the area, to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department.
17. The detention basin must be designed per standards
established by the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The basin shall be
installed with the third phase of development shown on the
tentative map.
The detention basin may be fenced, at the developer's
option, and must be owned and maintained by the tract
homeowners' association. A maintenance schedule and
reporting procedure shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval. The schedule shall include
periodic reports to the city on the condition of the basin.
18. Creek preservation and improvement areas shall be dedicated
to the city in fee, as specified in the Edna-Islay Specific
Plan.
Public Works requirements:
19. Orcutt Road shall be widened and improved along the entire
- frontage as part of phase 4. Orcutt Road shall meet City
and county design standards with respect to super
elevation, vertical, and horizontal stopping sight distance
(55 mph design speed) , and shall include a bicycle path
within the roadway on the westerly side. Sight distance
at the proposed Orcutt Road/A Street intersection must be
evaluated as to adequacy. Existing road may require
regrading.
20. Modifications to sewage lift-stations and related
improvements may be required in accordance with the
specific plan. The developer may be required to contribute
towards these improvements in lieu of actual construction,
to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
21. The water tank proposed in the easterly portion of the open
space area, to supplement domestic water service, must be
installed and operating prior to the issuance of building
permits for phase 3 .
22. Water acreage fees and sewer lift station charges are
required to be paid prior to recordation of the Final Map.
�-as
Resolution no (1990 Series) '
Tract 1750
Page 5
23. All lots must be served by individual water, sewer, and
utilities.
24. The construction of public streets shall comply with the
city's Engineering Standard Details/Specifications, the
Pavement Management Plan, and to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. Street structural sections shall provide
for the ultimate design-life upon acceptance of the street
by the city. Phased construction of housing will require
the phasing of street construction or an increase in the
street structural section to compensate for the reduction
in the life of the street, prior to acceptance, from
construction traffic.
25. The developer must dedicate vehicular access rights to the
city, along all lots adjacent to Tank Farm Road and Orcutt
Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
26. Phasing of this tract and utilities may require off-site
utility extensions within subsequent phases, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer•and Utilities Engineer.
27. At the time of development of phase 5, an emergency and
construction access road must be provided that continues
A Street to Orcutt Road, to the approval of the City
Engineer and Fire Department.
28. All grading and development improvements shall be done as
approved by the City Engineer and in accordance with the
recommendations per the soils report prepared by Pacific
Geoscience, Inc. , dated July 5, 1989 and the Geotechnical
Update and Plan Review by Gorian and Associates dated July
14, 1987 for Tract 1750, and any subsequent soils reports
requested by the City Engineer.
The grading plan must be approved by a registered soils
engineer and the City Engineer.* The grading shall be
inspected and certified by the soils engineer prior to
installation of any subdivision improvements or issuance
of building permits.
The northwesterly limit of the landslide denoted as Qls 1.
shall be determined precisely in the field prior to final
map approval of the respective phase. The nearest lot line
shall be at least 50 feet from that boundary and the
adjacent lots shall be adjusted or deleted and Courts "H"
and "G" adjusted accordingly, except that property lines
may not extend beyond that shown on the tentative map.
29. The grading plans for phases 5 and 6 shall include such
i-a q
Resolution no (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 6
facilities and preparation so that individual lots will
not require offsite construction.
30. Individual lots on phases 5 and 6 shall have the foundation
design approved by a registered soils engineer. A notice
shall be recorded concurrently with the final map notifying
any purchaser of these lots of this requirement.
31. Additional soil investigations shall be done to ascertain
that the proposed water tank site and lots and streets
above and below Street "A" (phases 5 and 6) are stable and
suitable for development, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, prior to final map approval. If evidence is
found that indicates any instability, mitigation measures
must be taken to remedy the instability, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, or the respective final
map shall be modified accordingly.
If these sites are required to be excavated and filled and
recompacted, the fill and recompaction should closely match
the original terrain, as determined by the Community
CDevelopment Director and Engineering Division staff.
32. Any existing mines encountered shall be abandoned in
accordance with State of California and local regulations,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
33. Any slope instability observed during grading operations
and subdivision construction shall be evaluated by a soils
engineer and repaired to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Community Development Director- prior to final
acceptance of the respective phases. The final maps or
separate recorded instruments shall note that (T)the city
reserves the right to withhold building permits on any lot
which appears to be threatened by slope instability.
34. The subdivider shall .submit a report by a registered civil
engineer certifying that all lots are not subject to
flooding during a "100=year" storm, to the satisfaction fo
the City Engineer.
Parks and open space:
35. The neighborhood park may be completed in one phase by the
developer. The subdivider shall record a lien or
alternative approved by the Community Development
Director, equal to $750 per unit for park improvements, to
become due and payable to a special fund, maintained by
the city, upon transfer of the lots or dwelling units. If
the developer chooses to develop the park to the
1- 3o
Resolution no (1990 Series) . �
Tract 1750
Page 7
satisfaction of the Community Development, Public Works,
and Recreation Departments, the city shall refund the
amounts accumulated in the park improvement fund to the
developer after completion of each phase as described on
the approved park phasing plan, on a quarterly basis, until
all fees have been collected.
36. The hardscape areas in the neighborhood park shall be
installed: in the first phase. The remainder of the park
shall be completed in phases, as described in the approved
park phasing plan, or all in one phase as described in the
preceeding condition.
37. The developer is responsible for securing access and
improvement rights, including maintenance by the city, for
the bicycle path under the railroad.
38. The Islay Hill open space shall be dedicated to the city
as part of the final map for phase 6 or earlier.' Prior
to approval of the final map for phase 1, the developer
shall pay to ,the city an amount adequate to install the
proposed trail system, the amount to be determined by
estimates for the work and as approved by the Parks and -
Recreation Director. This money is to be used solely for
the trail construction, maintenance, or improvement of the
Islay Hill open space, as needed. The Parks .and Recreation
commission will periodically review how the hillside is
being used, and make recommendations to the council on the
disposition of the money.
39. Public pedestrian access to the Islay Hill open space shall
be provided directly from all streets adjacent to the open
space area, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
Community Development Director.
40. The open space beneath the existing power transmission
lines shall be a minimum of 100' wide. No structures shall.
be allowed within this 100' area. A note shall be recorded
for each of the lots adjacent to this open space area,
informing lot owners of the proximity of the power lines.
4.1. The Rodriguez Adobe park shall be dedicated to the city for
public park purposes, in or prior to phase 4. The
Rodriguez Adobe will be restored by the city. The.
developer shall contribute to its restoration by paying
one-half the restoration cost, up to a maximum of $100, 000,
at that time.
i
Water.
42 . The subdivider shall inform future lot buyers of the
!-3/
Resolution no
Tract 1750 (1990 Series)
Page 8
Possibility of building permit delay based on the city's
water shortage. Such notification shall be made by
recording a document simultaneously with the final map.
Archeology:
43. Grading plans must note that if grading or other operations
unearth archeological resources, construction activities
shall cease. The Community Development Director shall be
notified of the extent and location 'of discovered materials
so that they may recorded by a qualified archeologist,
the cost of which shall be paid by the developer.
Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and
federal laws.
Homeowners' Association:
44. The subdivider shall establish covenants, conditions, and
restrictions for the regulation of land use, control of
nuisances and architectural control of all buildings and
facilities. These CC&R's shall be approved by the
� . Community Development Director and administered by the
homeowners' association.
The subdivider shall include the following provisions in
the CC&R's for the tract:
a. Maintenance of linear park, railroad buffer areas,
and all storm water detention basins shall be by
the homeowners' association in conformance with the
Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
b• There shall be no change in city-regulated
provisions of the CC&R's without prior approval of
the Community Development Director.
Affordable housing:
45. Resalecontrols applying to the 23 affordable housing units
shall remain in perpetuity. All affordable units shall be
required to be owner-occupied.
46. Development of homes on the small lots (phases 3 and 4)
shall be limited to approximately the square footage
proposed as part of the planned developmentpreliminary
plan. Remodelling and additions to these homes in the
future shall be in accordance with the limitations in the
zoning regulations.
�-�32
C ;
Resolution no (1990 Series)
Tract 1750 J
Page 9
Transit system equipment:
47. The subdivider shall provide for street furniture and signs
for transit systems, as well as bus turnouts if necessary,
to the satisfaction of the Mass Transit Committee, as
needed with each phase.
Hillside lots:
48. Architectural' review is required for all lots east of the
creek.
49. Except as shown on the tentative map, the maximum
streetyard allowed on lots adjacent to the hillside open
space is 201 . Streetyard exceptions, to reduce the amount
of grading required for location of residences, will be
encouraged where no safety concerns are involved.
50. No solid fences shall be allowed at the rear of any lots
abutting the Islay hill or creek open space. Design
standards for fencing shall be developed_, to be approved
by the Community Development Director and the Architectural
Review Commission.
Noise:
51. Noise walls on the single-family lots adjacent to the
railroad buffer 'area shall be set back at least 10' from
the property line, and the area between the wall and the
street landscaped with drought-tolerant shrubs and
groundcover by the developer, to the approval of the
Community Development Director-.
Fees:
52. The subdivider shall pay any applicable tranportation
impact fees adopted by the City Council, which are
anticipated to be adopted on or about July, 1992.
53. The subdivider shall pay any applicable storm drainage fees
adopted by the City council, which are anticipated to be
adopted on or about July, 1992.
Final maps:
55. The final maps shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for review. and recommendation, prior to City
Council approval.
/-33
Resolution no (1990 Series)
�-' Tract' 1750
Page 10
On motion of
seconded by and on the following roll
call vote: .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City dministra ve Offi r
City Attorney"
/-3JI
Resolution no (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 1
ALb
Community Devel(fp
p ent Director
JL1:res\tr1750.wp
/35
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 1750,
ON TANK FARM ROAD, ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS
(TRACT 1750)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request Tract
1750, the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Architectural
Review Commission's action, the Cultural Heritage Committee's
recommendation, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes
the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and the proposed
improvements are not consistent with the general plan and specific
plan for the Edna-islay area.
2• The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements
are likely to cause serious health problems, substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
3. The Community Development Director has determined that the.
proposed subdivision is not in compliance with the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan and that further environmental study is needed.
denied. SECTION 2. The tentative map for Tract 1750 is hereby
1-310
1
Resolution no (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 2
On motion of
seconded by and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this . day
of , 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administr tive Offi r
p '
t neyl `
L
/Awe,.
Commu ity Developt Director
jzl.:res\trl750no.wp �_
CTHE ARBORS AT ISLAY HILL
DEVELOPER'S STATEMENT
The Pacifica Corporation is proposing to develop the remaining portion of the Islay Hill project
The development will be phased and will provide several housing types, parks and recreation
areas, open space, and historical preservation areas. The proposal also volunteers a program of
affordable housing in addition to providing a site for the Housing Authority as envisioned in the
Edna Islay Specific Plan.
In an effort to create a thoughtful and comprehensive project, the development is presented as
a planned development and a vesting tentative map application. The proposed development,Tract
1750, follows eidsting.Tract 1376 to complete the Islay half of the Edna-Islay specific plan area,
and is carefully planned to provide the unique blend of housing and amenities the specific plan
envisioned.
Housing
Tract 1750 is designed to coordinate with Tract 1376 to provide a wide range of housing types
within the Islay area. This range of housing includes a housing authority site, low maintenance
clustered condominiums, and single family residences in three distinct market levels. These are
identified in the following text as small lot single-family residential, medium lot single-family
residential and large lot single-family residential areas.
The condominium area will consist of 90 2-bedroom dwellings; these will be 1,200 square feet
units and will be clustered in tri-plexes and four-plexes. The condominium units provide.entry
level housing and housing for those looking for minimum maintenance responsibilities. A
swimming pool is provided as a private recreation area, and the site plan includes over 66% of
the.area as open, common areas.
It is in this area where the Pacifica Corporation is volunteering an affordable housing program.
Of the 90 dwellings, 25 percent will be offered for sale at low and moderate income price levels.
The units will be identical to the remaining units and will be interspersed randomly within the
site. The Housing Authority will administer the unit sales and related.issues.
The 90 dwelling "units' are sited on a 6.8 acre area. This is a density of 13 units per acre, and
requires a density increase as allowed under the R2-PD zone. This density can be allowed based
on the following findings:
1. The density of the proposed condominium area makes it possible to provide an area of
housing and amenities for particular occupancy groups. The two bedroom, low
maintenance units will be attractive to fust time buyers, single parents, and students.
2. Within the Planned Development, the allowable density is transferred from the more
sensitive hillside sites to the less sensitive area in phases 1,.-2, and 3.
7
1
1-30
3. The density of the proposed condominium area will allow greater construction efficiency,
and therefore, more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development.
w
4. The features of this planned area provide housing, parking, open space, and recreation
facilities as well as those required by the zoning standards.
Adjacent to the condominium siteis the Housing Authority site envisioned by the Specific Plan.
The 1.7 acre site is shown with a schematic layout of 20 dwellings in a format compatible with
the condominium layout. The Housing Authority will design the units under its own project
application, and the schematic plan is shown only to suggest a compatible site design.
Within the proposed R-1-PD zone, another housing type.is provided with the 134 small lot single-
family residences in phases 1 and 2. This area will provide housing in the 1,400 to 1,700 square
foot range. The development will include construction of the homes, which will be smaller than
the Tract 1376 units, but will share similar architecture in order to provide neighborhood
continuity.
As with the condominium area, this area has been increased in density by a small amount to
allow the hillside areas to be less dense. A density exception is requested for this area based on
similar findings to those expressed above.
In keeping with the medium density shown for this area in the specific plan, are the smaller lot
size and reduced setbacks. These are both requested as exceptions allowed under the planned
development application. The minimum lot size for this area is 4,100 square feet, and the average —
is 5,500 square feet. With a net area of 17.8 acres, the density is 7.5 units per acre.
In proportion with the lot size are the reduced setbacks proposed on some of the lots. The lot
sizes, setbacks and house orientations have been carefully fitted to the topography of the site.
Solar access, sideyard slopes, and the housing interrelationship have all been considered in the
establishment of setbacks proposed. The requested setback exceptions are shown on the planned
development drawings. Similar setback reductions were approved for Tract 1376.
Tract 1376 is an existing development, but deserves mention because it is an integral part of the
housing mix which makes up the overall Islay Hill development. This is the medium lot area and
is a standard R-1 subdivision with 131 lots. Houses range in size from 1,400 to 2,100 square
feet, and lots average about 7,000 square feet.
The ren+a��* g housing type will be a 117 lot R-1-PD single family development on the lower
slopes of Islay Hill. These will be large, natural terrain hillside lots with an average size of 9,900
square feet. The density of this area is 4.7 units per acre.
Specific housing units for this area are not proposed at this time. Because of the hillside nature
of this area, reduced front yard setbacks are proposed to allow the houses to more closely
conform to this natural terrain. Whether the homes are built as production units or as custom
homes, the specific plan requires ARC approval of all house plans for this area.
2
1-39
A significant concept of the Planned Development is the arrangement of housing and densities.
On an overall basis, the development is well below the Specific Plan limit of 498 'units'. Within
the development density is proposed to be mfi irmzed on the more sensitive.hillside areas. The
proposed development has a total of only 472 dwelling*units*providing for a broad spectrin of
housing needs.
Grading
A preliminary grading plan has been prepared for the project. The grading concept concentrates
the areas of grading consistent with the specific plan and with the distribution of housing types.
In Phase 4 and 5 on the lower slopes of Islay Hill, all lots will be left natural, with grading only
for the streets. On the Phase 1, 2 and 3 areas, the lou and condommmms will be graded and
padded. In the design of the grading plan, every effort has been made to minimize grading. The
padded lots are stepped to follow the natural contours as closely as possible, balancing other
concerns such as minimising bank heights and meeting engineering standards. Approximately
15% of, this area will be graded by less than 2 feet.
In Phase 1 and 2 the existing slope is between 6 and 10%, and according to the Grading
Ordinance, 25% of the area (or 20 acres) should remain natural. In Phase 4 and 5 the existing
slope is between 16 and 20% and the Grading Ordinance calls for 60% of the area (or about 25
acres) to be left natural. Therefore, a total of 45 acres is to be left natural. In the approval of
Tract 1376, those areas where grading was less than 2 feet were determined to be *natural"
satisfying the intent of the ordinance. By this criteria, 15 acres remain natural in the R-2-PD area
and all 45 acres within the R-1-PD area is natural This proposal provides a total of 60 acres of
area left'natural'when only 45 acres are required, and therefore meets the intent of the Grading
Ordinance and the specific plan
Parks and Recreation Areas
Several park and recreation areas are incorporated into the development plan These include the
park site and creek areas called for in the specific plan, a one acre park designated as a site for
the historical preservation of the Rodriguez Adobe, and private recreation area in the
condominium and housing authority sites. In addition, a 75 acre site is provided as permanent
open space for Islay Hill.
A revised conceptual park plan is included in the application. This plan is similar to the previous
concept plan approved by the council in 1987 with proposed.revisions based primarily on a more
detailed knowledge of the site area and topography.
The area proposed for the park dedication includes the creek areas adjacent and downstream of
the useable park area. Of the 13 acres offered for dedication, approximately 7 aces is the
useable park, with the.remainder being the creek area.
The specific plan calls for a private recreation area to be provided in one of two sites. Private
recreation sites are included as a pool area for the condominium site and potentially within the
Housing Authority site. In additions, the site for the Rodriguez Adobe is offered for dedication
as a City park in the approximate location of one of the area designated by the specific plan.
l
3
�-Ifo
While this will be a public area, the adobe park site will combine with the pool areas to satisfy
the intent of providing recreation in this area.
A conceptual plan has been prepared for the adobe park, and is included in the project submir;aL
It is anticipated that the City will restore the adobe and develop the site under a pending grant
from the State.
Water Conservation
This project proposes several measures to conserve water. The park concepts have been designed
to limit turf areas to those areas where turf is critical to the intended use. Public and common
area landscaping should use drought tolerant landscaping in conformance with current City
ordinances.
The concept of irrigating the park and creek areas with on-site wells has been pursued, and
several test wells were drilled. Unfortunately, none of the wells proved useable and therefore,
the irrigation areas will use City water. The public area landscaping should use drip or similar
low water use irrigation materials.
Orcutt Road Plan Line
A proposed plan line has been prepared for Orcutt Road. The route generally follows the eidisting
route centerline. However, to accommodate a 55 mile per hour (mph) design speed flatter
horizontal and vertical curves are required. In 1983, 23 feet were dedicated as additional right-
of-way on the west (Islay) side of the original 40 foot right-of-way. The plan line indicates that
an additional 30 feet on the.Islay side is sell needed along some portions of the road. Even with
this, the plan line .study indicates that without jeopardizing a suitable alignment, the full
improvements called for in the specific plan (including cut and fill banks) cannot be constructed
without.additional right-of-way on the east side of the road.
Because this property is not owned by the Pacifica Corporation, the right-of-way may not be
available. In that case, the City must be prepared either to waive or reduce the conditions, or
acquire the right-of-way through the powers of eminent domain.
Fire Department Mitization
In meetings with the City Fire Department, alternative fire service mitigation measures were
discussed. Based on these meetings, the following mitigation efforts are proposed:
1. All dwellings will have fire sprinkler systems.
2. A fee of $60,000 will be paid for a fast response vehicle.
3. A fee of $5,000 will be paid to provide fire truck control of local traffic signals.
4
Technical Studies
Several technical studies are included in the application in order to support the proposed
development These include a soils and geology report, a detention analysis, an Orcutt Road plan
line and a noise analysis. "
basin
A phasing plan is included in the application which designates phase areas. These area are listed
below with an approximate time schedule:
PHASE DESCRIPTION DATE
Current Adopt Tentative Map 1989
Adopt Planned Development
Establish Orcutt Road Plan Line
Approve Park Plans
1 61 R-1-PD Lots 1989-1990
Dedicate and Construct Neighborhood
Park and Creek Improvements
Fire Mitigation Fees
2 72 R-1-PD Lots1990-1991
Dedicate Adobe Site
Construct Detention Basin
Construct Adjacent Creek Improvements
3 Condominium Site 1990-1991
90 Units
Dedicate Housing Authority
Construct Water Tank
4 59 R-1-PD Lots 1992-1993
Construct Linear Park
Dedicate Open Space
Dedicate and Construct Orcutt Road
Construct Bile Lanes
There are utility lines which need to occur out of phase to provide service during all phases.
During Phase 1, a portion of the Phase 2 and Phase 3 sewer lines must be constructed, and
during Phase 3, a portion of the Phase 4 water line must be installed in order to serve the water
tank. These lines will be constructed in recorded easements which may be abandoned during the
subsequent phase.
r
5
The grading plan for the development balances the earthwork, considering the project as a whole.
As a result, grading will also need to occur out of phase.. Final grading plans for each phase will
be prepared indicating the are to be used for earthwork balancing. Generally, this will occur
according to the following schedule; A
PHASE ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK AREA
Phase 2 or 3 Place fill
Phase 3 or 4 . If necessary
Phase 4 Excavation and water tank
Phase 5 Cut and fill for all weather access road
Conclusion
This application provides an important opportunity to integrate all aspects of this project in a
planned approach. Significant efforts have been.trade to create a quality and desireable project.
The proposal meets the intent of the specific plan and City ordinances, and will provide a needed
addition to the Cities housing, park, and open space needs.
6 _
=i.INoise Impact Analysis Page 10
Tract No. 1150
July 21, 1989
Lots Barrier Description and Height
140 15, 239 24 None - Edge of road and/or slope to tracks
provides required shielding
46, 479559 569 629 79 Wall at Edge of Lot - Top 6.5' above.
80; 90., 110, 111 8 134 adjacent side or rear- yard elevation
135 through 143 and 169 Berm Between 'G" Court and Railroad - Top
Elev 226 across from Lot 169 and rise to
Elev 246 across from Lot 135
220 and 246 through 251 Wall at Edge of Lot - Top 6' above adjacent,
yard elevation
256 Northerly P.L.
Easterly end Wall at Top of Slope - 6' above adj. yard
Westerly end Wall at Top of Slope - 6.5' above adj. yard
Westerly P.L. Wall at. Top of Slope - 6.5' above adj. yard
257 Northerly P.L.
W'ly end, lot abv road Wall at Top of Slope - 6' above adj. yard
Mid, lot level w/ road Wall at Edge of Lot - 7' above adj. yard
E'ly end, lot bel road Wall at top of Slope - Higher of 4' above
road or 6' above adjacent yard.
Easterly P.L. Wall at top of Slope - 4' above adj, yard
from north P.L. to 160' south of north P.L.
Table 3
Required Noise Control Barriers
Indoor Noise:
Normal residential construction with closed windows typically produces
approximately 20 d6 of outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction, therefore, only
those areas with outdoor noise. exposures higher than Ldn 65 would require
special mitigation measures beyond closed windows. and mechanical
ventilation, in order to conform with the L'dn 45 indoor noise limit. Thus.
no special noise control construction measures would be necessary at the
first floors of any of the units.
The unshielded second floors of two story residences in some areas of the
project will be subject to outdoor noise levels :between , La+ 65 and 69.
WALKER. CELANO & ASSOCIATES
following standards will apply to all residential areas within the planning
area. They are briefly outlined below and dealt with in greater detail in \
the Special Design Concerns section of this Specific Plan.
Design. Standards01
"
= Interior and exterior noise must be reduced to acceptable levels as
defined by the 1915 general plan Noise Element and the city's
building code.
- Visual screening of housing areas must be provided along the Southern
Pacific Railroad.
- Landscaped buffer areas will be installed where housing is next to
agricultural or commercial areas or major circulation elements such
as Tank Farm Road or the railroad underpass.
- Housing development next to. waterways must resolve special design
concerns, such as flood protection, grading, creek access and
conservation of creekside vegetation.
- Housing construction on the lower slopes of Islay Hill will require
detailed evaluation of soils and geological conditions.
- Potential archaeological sites will have special review.
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Purpose and Application - The planned development procedure, as applied
within the specific plan area, is intended to encourage imaginative
development and provide for effective use of unusual sites by allowing more
flexibility in the design of housing projects than normal standards allow.
Such variations from zoning and subdivision standards should provide
benefits to the project or community which could not be provided under
conventional regulations. .
f
IThe `PD' overlay zone, as defined by the city's zoning regulations, may be
applied to areas designated by this specific-plan for low density or medium
density housing.
Planned Development Procedures - The processing of a planned development
application will be as specified by the city zoning regulations. To
approve a planned development (including any density bonuses described ;.:f.
below) the city council will find that the project fulfills the general
purpose of this section and.meets one or more of the following criteria: '•
134
a��
- It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy
group (such is the elderly or families with children).
I - It transfers allowable development within a site from .areas of
greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less
sensitivity or hazard.
I - It provides a greater range of housing types and costs than would be
possible with development of uniform dwellings throughout the project
site or neighborhood.
I - Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional
standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking,
t
compatibility- with neighborhood character, and so on) as well -as or ,
I better than the standards do.
It incorporates features which result in consumption of significantly
less materials, energy or water than conventional development.
Density Bonuses
When approving a planned development, the city council may allow higher
densities (more housing units per acre) than typically permitted by the
city's zoning regulations. The approval of density bonuses is not an
automatic entitlement. The community benefit created by increasing
densities and the ability of the project to meet the criteria -listed above
will be the basis for approving density bonuses.
- In Low and Medium Density Housin ._Areas - The City Council may approve
a density onus o up to 25 percent more housing units per acre.. This
provision may apply to all low and medium density housing areas except
the lower slopes of Islay Hill south of the seasonal waterway. In .this
area the city will not approve density bonuses.
17 /� `/ /
growth management
The development sequence of the Edna-Islay neighborhood has been divided
into nine phases.
Montht, The growth of the neighborhood is -that scheduled so that it cannot
be "built-out" in less than 11 years (a maximum average annual growth of 94
units). To assure development proceeds in an orderly fashion the following-
standards
ollowingstandards shall apply:
- Building permits for each phase shall be issued no sooner
than provided in the following schedule:
Phase Date before which building permits may not be issued:
February 1982. (specific plan adopted)
1 April 1984
2 April 1983
3 April 1985
4 June 1986
5 September 1987
6 April 1989
7rAp i1 1990
8 April 1991
9 September 1992
- phasing must proceed sequentially as shown in figures 32 and 33;
and
- at least SOX of the improvements and residential units required in each
phase must also be completed prior to creation of residential
subdivision or development in a succeeding phase; and
all improvements in a phase which are required to assure the health
and safety of residents must be completed prior to initiation of
residential subdivision or development in the succeeding phase; and
- no phase must be initiated if more than 200 residential units (as
permitted by maximum density provisions of this specific plan,
excluding housing program bonuses,) remain to be constructed in
preceeding phases.
• the city's toning map will be amended to be consistent (see",Zoning
Consistency section. page I1) immediately upon adoption of".th3s: /�
1
m
N N
I
Npa I Yr
�11 ` N W
03 0 O N
- s =
N .
z f ON
..W 6LU
. Q N
~ Eccy}a¢ Q
0 �__ C S z Q
a � m_ <
W
~~ _N V
W Z �^
LU N_ t
O Z/Z
W
l
LU
6 `
V
W F W 4w�
_
z
i
IV
lu 12 �,
- W -
IL
cl
a sh
w N
in
(/)Z t=
�s
aO Z
Ws y ZJ= Q
�g w
_s CA
o ¢a= i Q
Ota a
cm Elm w
_�.�. Z Z _l Q Z
Oe .
zW F O
mj
arw
Ogg
LM
Z
�O f" —
O
*Mae/ vm
s � � • .
o a.
t
f
HJ MG �
J
Q � Z
�;
h �
• O -
j��9
Wto
eo
`
� c .0, � s� Lt's l � S
s6 w
mQ
Z iQdmc o o�i2 all iI gL-� 5 `0 2 _~ 8 ti
3
mw Lu ca
E9m� ��LD < .. w0 ~ OiZ
W � � 'ysma =4Sm8 W �°��+`c '-'�n Z yxj LO
W U q��o � �= '� °s V .� �o�� Wok W o
as
J QI O Qg1
y0 c2
gVEl 021 I Q
ZcWem88 � Q �!
� W W
z
r 1
I �0 -
44 1
i I
1 . 1
t` s
L74i
II
/�V O
T/ 11 1 'SI 1, 1.(• t• 'i !// /r,� /� �
•I'll 1 ', /\ 1 � � ' 'r' . . �� •
1 1111 1 �• �p ,C \ ., ��\`. +.,` `` '��� ,
1 +` ,'` �l tea. \. •1~�'-\ `��-+
Sib
�a• \
App
PO
_`. Ar _ �0
��i�.�.•Q::i:[{icy}"{.-��aL•��'�y.:��:!{��i, 1a✓ 1, �
^iD
. • I
r rJbi`'
fib" � �f:�� • ��
V r•=
IS
MAR
IS
16
IN 41V
• 'ice ` lac
.tea, . � ern•
•' � � ter• �-. ��� � -
►�`V1• 2'. � r
c y
iJ . - . . ..
f �-
•���,I• �, - • • h
.a
�e'' _
A Afo
This is a summary of provisions governing uses allowed in the conservation/open
space WOO zone. Consult the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations for
additional information.
Date Revised: May 1984
w
V. CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE (C/OS) ZONE
1. Allowed Uses:
* Agriculture — grazing and outdoor crops
* Caretaker's quarters
* Construction activities
* Dwellings (maximum density is one dwelling per 5 acres or per acreage as
specified in the zone designation)
* Mobile homes as temporary residence at building site
2. Uses Allowed by Director's Approval of an Administrative Use _Permit:
* Christmas tree sales
* Circus, carnival, fair, festival
* Mobile home as construction office
* Parades, carnivals, fairs
* Parks
* Produce stand (incidental sales of items produced on the premises)
* Temporary uses — not otherwise listed
3. Uses Allowed by Planning Commission Approval of a Use Permit:
* Agriculture — greenhouse culture, livestock feeding
* Antennas (commercial broadcasting)
- * Cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums
* Mineral extraction
53-84'
• -
�iil�� lel��fl���ii►�illlllll_lln,ia_IIIlillll II ofWEETING --
AGENDA
�^yEM_JATE � #
city sen
/
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 9340f1.
! nes acMn b} Lead 'sr;con t'
j Respond by:
L�li/Council
l(,� q
May 22, 1990 ty Atty.
erk-o
TO: City Council Members
@, 7- 7—.
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director Qo
` FROM: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner tS. 1
SUBJECT: Informational Background Report on Development and Subdivisions
in the Edna-Islay Area.
The Situation
In June, 1990, the City Council will consider a Master Tentative Tract Map and Planned
Development proposal for the Islay Area--the partially-developed area east of the railroad
tracks, and south of Tank Farm Road. The proposed subdivision and planned development
is one of the last steps taken by the property owners and the city to convert the Edna-
Islay area from rural grazing land into the city's newest residential neighborhood with a
total of over 1,000 households. The following actions taken by the property owners and
the city resulted in the current situation.
Annexing and Zoning The Edna-Islay Area (1960)
The Edna-Islay area was annexed to the City in 1960. This action was taken prior to the
creation of the Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCo) and the city's adoption of
its first general plan. The property was initially zoned "Unclassified" (U). At that time, any
development proposed within a U zone required the approval of a use permit by the
Planning Commission.
Adopting a New General Plan and Requiring a Specific Plan (1977)
Between 1974 and 1977 the city was working on rewriting its General Plan Land Use
Element. Part of the debate involved determining the appropriate land use designation
for the Edna-Islay Area. The staff had recommended that the area should be shown as an
"interim" agricultural area and be considered as a holding zone. Staff noted that the area
was remote from city services and separated from existing neighborhoods by substantial
county territory. Staff suggested that the intervening county territory should be developed
before the Edna-Islay Area.
The City Council decided that the Edna-Islay area be allowed to develop. The Land Use
Element adopted on January 25, 1977 designates the Edna-Islay area as a "low-density"
housing area with the flanks of Islay Hill designated as permanent open space beyond the
urban reserve. R E C;E'C V E
MAY 3 u i9 io
CITY COM'
SAIN LIS OEISr0, CA
Page 2 — Edna-Islay History
The text of the 1977 Land Use Element includes the following policy:
"Specific Plans should be required for the Edna/Islay Hill residential expansion
area before allowing developments to proceed." (Paragraph C.1 (c), page 11).
A specific plan is a document that bridges the gap between generalized land use policies
designations and policies in the land use element and the precise design of subdivisions.
A specific plan should present the character and arrangement of land uses, the location
of streets, open spaces, recreation areas, utilities and other public improvements.
In requiring a specific plan for the Edna-Islay area, the City Council was also concerned
about the rate and phasing of development and its relationship to the availability of water
supply..
Preparing the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (1977-1979)
When the general plan was adopted in 1977, the land west of the railroad (the Edna Area)
was owned by Cuesta Valley Properties and the land east of the railroad (the Islay Area)
was owned by a group of people represented by Dr. John DeVincenco. Each of the
property owner groups were represented by their own consultant — Merriam, Deasy and
Whisenant (MDW) represented Cuesta Valley Properties and Richmond, Rossi, and
Montgomery Associates (RRM) represented Dr. DeVincenzo et al.
MDW took the lead in drafting the specific plan for the Edna-Islay area. While a number
of draft reports were prepared over a three year period, the report that was eventually
distributed to the Planning Commission for consideration was written by the City Planning
staff.
A comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the
City Council noting significant impacts on transportation, circulation, and community
services and utilities and suggesting mitigation strategies.
Adopting the Specific Plan (1982)
The public review process for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan was exhaustive. Between April
1980 and March 1981 the Planning Commission held numerous hearings and study sessions,
responded to 28 major issues identified by staff and the public, and forwarded
recommendations to the City Council.
Between July 1981 and January 1982 the City Council held numerous meetings to review
the Planning Commission's recommendations and on February 8, 1982 adopted the Edna-
Islay Specific Plan. Some of the key issues raised as part of the public hearing process
included:
Page 3 — Edna-Islay History
Flood Control Strategies Creek Preservation
Hillside Development Infrastructure Improvements
Fire Protection Requirement Phasing of Development
Assisted Housing Programs
Phasing was a key part of the specific plan. It was envisioned that the entire area would
be developed in nine phases, over a period not less than eleven years at a maximum
average annual growth rate of 94 units per year.
Implementing the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (1982 - present)
Since 1982, the owners of the Edna Area have submitted six subdivision maps (including
three condominium subdivisions) consistent with the Specific Plan, constructed about 400
dwellings, and have almost completed development of their land west of the railroad.
Prior to development of the Islay Area, Pacifica Corporation purchased the property,
constructed the railroad underpass at Tank Farm Road. A tentative tract map for the first
phase of development in the Islay Area was approved in 1987 and 131 homes are being
constructed. The proposed "Master"Tentative Map details how the remainder of their land
would be subdivided and developed in six phases with a total of 341 units.
According to the phasing schedule on page 84 of the specific plan, building permits for
Phase 7 of the plan could be issued by April 1990. While development in the Edna Area
has proceeded as allowed by the specific plan, development in the Islay Area has happened
at a slower pace.
The adopted specific plan includes provisions that recognize that when subdivisions within
the planning area are submitted, is likely that some changes to the specific plan will be
requested. Provisions on page 81 and 82 describe what constitutes a"minor" change versus
a "major" change to the specific plan and authorizes the Community Development Director
to make these determinations.. Throughout the subdivision of the Edna-Islay Area the
director has approved minor changes — including phasing changes in both the Edna and
Islay areas.
The city staff is available to answer any questions that the City Council might have
concerning the history of the Edna-Islay planning efforts.
Testl/ts
JUN
NJ C--
r,/
44 o:1
Tot, Cou nc-( C�z
F-Ro N\ -1-0 h C 3` s\J L) T
RCE o--T I
&k i1i C-� c I
C
Hc) t-LA NZ.,
t INI
pc>N 14a
L u r- s .
Yi
Wesier Y-\
I A-L A�� qAftNe-
P\f,>--T I C'\-)L (a R L
TaC)V,
17,
Tf\-
V\ I c 1 5; C) C-)e r)-j- FFc,
i On 0 ec.\ t
yvl�5 +T) Cc, I-r-If C}-
j .V-V C T(f
JUI'�-495-1'�7U 15�c� rh'�11•I �r:� cri i carr,I�c _ _ _ . -..
V
o,tevr„�Rr'
The University of Southwestern Louisiana
�`�• Lafayette, Uuuiana 70504-2431
College of Sciamee
Depat'tn"of Biolvo Past-It`"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #of pages ►
P.O.Box 42431 /1/ -%L/ Iuj -5'�-ip to
(318)231.6748 . ok
Ms. Jhdem LarOwer Co. 7 �. L' o "A4 1 lilSt14•
CIA pt. oex
.7 L lU
sift Letl /Irstaa a■
Sttw Fri/ Ibtpf•e to
ors0l OS t7 fN4 14
)es.
PICO.. X defe rsv re// ereore IAL Aawef- herd!/sw /er,ref oZ sArf lesser flus
t
Z dot Cerrr.Nrj tAvolved /. a Aft/df ftSc#reA Prejda r* t rafA.rrt.aefe t,t� s, f 0f0
Aef Amare accal.t H a �yPatrrrfv of dome^( Pr'wessir•, tri am wrrf/,:J da '041•/re/r te.ae
9rwrrs/ conc 'J" jr ,� Aavc 4vrf4 erw1'rS1 re'10, P,Pfrry/a♦/y e1d
'Act +fir#' errftrtr 700ctr1 o/ of-JAM/SIN/ s►/!A AMA144 X 00% feu//iap: Ond /ere
sonic rerearwA u4perre,te. , SfprerFe3N�, T^Ple set t(. WeJfa+w Ae.ttJ jLr/e/e
�4/ewM wr w.a r !(r C./t Firers Red-
/es9rd Fis, �.LC.>t ..aL� =� � r dwI fAr
ewe— tf^,iP•.t 6avh+" S�� ! ewrw• ♦. �Ia� 6Rell, . l �•r/d a/Ja /i#T .ra a.ddKXr /iir
w r / N�f� M dent/ / eh fliede : tr
pa�ertftt►/ r+�//acL s>' Itce R de►j of Z'd +y �werA° /jei
Q ,
TO d6Vrwr ;PAc evesfere, /pond ,rowk thrrerN04Cr- WPr er a j ij CN,4lti4+l@r4F4r
�wdr�d/a �wV a'J "e rnt 7hfrs Rrii arlef/xt lerw,cre nrdita/iwj v44af
4•litfrx ttJ lr ltra,c/ aeraterst a `eve A.flfSefr►J Ac. 7/ptGJCI A64A (;A eftyV
/($I-ad tS 0' tjrt,4/W("e Of ve/tlest At:,g*L44 . *My rcJtar'e'A /wrlees/trff�.f rw //<
rhgjeref3 of rtte•P*Vae Peal/nFionJ file! TfJtrNrs Mve dl /s
rew rarpvw/u �.r:lry
/, rlrtt
rc,lvetd, sr trc /H a r/•/e e>! decY/n4 , rAeri Ort 1 Nu,,pb r.e pre6ab/r eA*Vet
,Car rA4 v;A'&4+.,., rice *asst r*�erle.kj4 s,[ e•A14 is Aerfr/,+f srAe
nfeJAd/e'da. tar( tt&tt&:V Qt fAt. 4.144rr /■ea/ecd .w 14C 4/494/IKc; of ,0F4er3'4. oovjfl&Asiv
/ is en //4e1� felts rrrswy Of t &vL nrtsy r+' f r4 I•x^t�idfrG c�serfa ./ �r,r.4afn.%4wt(
77te 0%f..nr4.n ./in q erf a C fA♦ ee,.f.�/ Cea/1e /i i(r.l�Gerw,
t rr VAah
/ r /r.•ArsKJ' o ck_ /C `L. JhJ& wM� •'w, w a a ad d. 'r/- - s 9 , �7 Svrh, /e r,frrvt/•sem
q a�� Pro!-cedte�.► ♦f !•tele dp.�e, /a /,'.x.r /t e/ /portwr evn f i.•AysrtRearr rte w+e/s<wia
•f• /etlf 0"1L O^.. s+tCti dre vra`/t /peter/a/vas •/ L!// )�eeies,
Y9 { F•-e9 lAe�er�a �.r •
C►/ � 1 /CL�F wur•1,1trwdw Mo... ` r♦ ,• ��
aM /r11/EI^v
rAa/ 104 ,Wafrtt /fete Ismer cv/trrP*} d tAr•dv94a.74 FA,-#%A'ar,i. ter( 14'r rs.t9t , ww^f
fAtf tA. e.w hrwt�wrn9 vra4/. paew Lf.a.,t /A^i •I.3y ert �a.nd �p,..aari/S 6r t*r
Genfr.l tears.
7-ncywP -s,•,-r�crf '•r{cr ln^.� Aaa tt 1t,
jeu/(dn1 �. h„. .I ' �•t�e w/en/+ .SAC
Cs/��ar.7/d Cisf/s ■,wt ^t�rJie<..t fk^vr.Ae,rw,s Like OA. Fre4 ask +w q
06/05/90 16:52 8 805 427 3308 PIEDRA#RiaCRS 02
JLIH-05-1990 15:24 FP,4M THE E1TfEPPRISE TO 1805?_73ZOF P.E=
V
�a{e rsw/r-r/ GRs�.
.:.._/ J@oet/�s I! t.ol rvr><rrait.�
'dL r
Y,* /al.PLj wtoLA .474AGr-
mrme sea.s Ay1 '. tAll AA rte arc re /.k.•e/y e ! A IACP&-
de- 11"o .rtMrf'Fw^� auwfar'
hslt+4uF AwJ /A tAa
erG eM(e frrt/t Tsar rev/tr/ -64 4 /t4r-a,Irer.
ea le
.s to �•A..�
/+t it l.lr
A•blllaf (�) , /��aJoal wtseeA tare/rr r.../ .• or ester
Ohl serwrw/Ira.rfr / Itlre Aker
.d dress t+�tA d•st ><k•/t ,PC&,el (area at fat I}rirrr at /s/euJ f(i !)
r�awFtF/ fa Strrer4ty rw�ae>A �'�./af..wf 9/ frit evPT1 ILLF' it TSG r / Ake �Otw�t
ifiset AjIep4LA p /stttfttty Al Arar,yAf t )40tIArrrw>tr:w MAI be fete e-e•sr �1c .
swM/ .4 + e/reiRev/ae('e f /SOfet
to • 7rty /er, 0r <6oaAeef to wa�
IvAt t q�re.h of /�Ae s/veet.r bio logy tad s�eee�r�s •r A !At eO .raarcr Apt t�t/i�a
psrfi&V14^P007e.///77+��1-Y4 )IA relrCAI . (ie{er>evn• E./ r
yt �et' a nn. 6or 47t rraYor.s, �►++ P
bore° { tche attiae et0/6� y ' 0>/ >•�CSe �d4ree Vetfe't ►a^Atn !rr<><�i� er rA khe�,w
/w r6prrr f0 ♦fsftr f�ettt�to eeipeript Area art �easr/a +/Aow J/ert eriast%letee 1t99
Ii fey, awe! tree vvfqirppjf tf/cs) /nitr. pate/altoh rrave..eA�t f�alY iJ IA/.4eQw'1r
Ye eaft•aaewa�w p•ODe.la�lawt xre% >Rka� core,(rt/ Gh Vto r#e yiren
f� tka �ae-f/e✓Ittf o/ mdLtk r )4,ey sI lke. 9tlrer. l t�:aFs eet
fke_ ee:/ef tto/o'j/ I ate yr�/y ds ttoit iseey, !«obit{ °`ort a �tear¢rtu/i t^ rasa
fp`�.,.aQe. br`rwt! 9t/term/r�r.tt�/:.t Y/�af u�r e� tCosltel.�alr/e vet y�q �/e�►�tot f �or-
Rtr�a�0epow/• I�[+.yeeltr/ tAr's twllir.Nar<tea eM�M �a a bt+lw.o/ u+l� lD��fC�t«1/ �Iwt a
at,-d ,-(e/yt As wI k Ohl t/N.f/qr "'fear" ,
taw/eew►/ ANd /t/he/ed &q ve%e....-/
tvik torvfzcl.tor% oA t4e fle-savretCf) A �artraewn-1 4•nteeltrwf.eK Ilely.hdt papas
ttie tYtttlerpsG OA qh `4c-tu"t d►silt 6^$4L de >r r.h r/a"L eeCtre fti.t o e..r1
tvst'tt+4/e Jr1Mf'ta..s +t• tike �ro4/a...d` IAre(re.1• Oetriteh - A,akrKt wt Ifert ak,c
i-7Ar~vIfew wd/ 114en /cart ;o QI>`(er In reo*illlelPw'¢abrt��eG>Zloe. �r Aft ~
rateorcet /eaeAe.i9 vfi I�1 ereoe�rsl a%t«ft7al.iw er .tw9r�otf,tire.. , enel�i/ a�+eclve.
a,.•t � 1�.pol-/}ea alVeyl-sv/e urlrrea #e ct/t,.¢tth ereA/eef 6j/ /na htuak
`tP/1CI
AIf
f til foie -174-0 00/4t .ri ttv
t
, i'; rfalttiw AAS o//tN peen fj(t
CA se /w &Aker A,cAj - eKol 40ef waf Terre t%e tniero.l1-s of :i� •/ 04e
psr)4e5 Mrolved- f#a •(tos(OP't's)t /'t reg. lalerel s ent�as t Or YAt r•ese✓retCs) .
fuse,/ r en wx tlArrrrWfenf t✓t✓vi Ayer. G,wtj Lt.�rfell enef a 6rr'a� rerte.v
OA rroPet+d Arb,rs et 7r/a�r //r// r(wa/s�KeN/, Z awe 9r.-w/ly conetrred ?4tlaf
thri �er,trGt/!ar �yPe 0f Y'Aguzeo;% JA V" 01,fVdaoo, Xg ,Ptrfaeftior, of tic wa7't$rS"AIL
tts waf/ .s tt.at f/Ae /2r^F aid P.rr/61, TSC, Popo/a,/eeKr /., t/hts v,.aa tr •� '
/Y.p u / I'f/ �9 E.A 4/r-[0-j et req fn Cr 1 l to t'e,.oi444,;fk
tfj^ �t e646ohed he-ArcK s/•ve/°nese.../ /awj 4rv. Etna /i2en� e� ry✓tof res
tJ
11r5►r6r4 7Xti tt.. Qw/ be * ""111pf
y , t WAr4,{� tYeexta�
rAc e(rt,nemics /. r/wfraws of, )Aae T/->acrtt w•rt+e0 rn fArS are%. TArse
S/yp(rtf , dor VO 1'4C pie '1�44L. PAL4M 0-P'* yk a er'anrtw.s tn>.elrarjt
Se►wc irMt.ie cee.&leic . r9n.en' etA+ trrtt. p / .�veJ(+bHS (4e ft,. tNA7- lay•>'aetrn)
•i:O`J HM; 805 927 3308
• e6iesi98 16:, 5434295 6 3
JuIJ-G�-150 15�c_ FkGl9 THE ENTERRF,I;E a ees 9 r 33ee PIE�R11 gS e�aNcas
03
TO if��c=7i_��Jr' G.D1
C 'L/ tt Olt T/tt wwd •..ylt.w 'Pro 144 ,00Jcwr/0A,1a ? U
44&/ /1f1-CEMI*.'. of }dc v4sm.•/.t /w !'Q.c �ePo/i/ro,c �r� ra�I�s1.
wl,af 01er1`shf•a Of tAti ereaya/a r" efi�c/ w.�lv�t
.�' /� ,ys O.44tV4/fy �r•etrreet ? y
No.Ir
e� tt4e arr�Ortl�ph r/fa!=�� s I� wAar,e Fk arf.ra.,�er.j�,;�
W� fjtrev�f y. o f �/�a/�sui If.r's ea.d t.a.// •N ton a/J arc
u�Aaf wtr 1'�A� /Geew$ thek lt•f
ftoil) .f A.t�se•h¢�e�./ar�re.�J �
lottaf ok r( 1/tr
e . refry s0e 'r >K
C fytt C�Ore4{arrc,4es •� OVtrt�twtL�rt r/�•�r /w
/q//e! !"A<se ,eev e ,
I;
Iefertntti,�/ tf tra,w41Ie..ee e / • vio 4/r ! S JVMce O/`,le.-s
n .r„et o{ �
A, �
c,r( ,► �
1 rtr/w.
f�:s J�ecies •w t�lrS
vrfk Mo/a40F4
+�ae�poli f,s, n�erNw<ty to /Ae
�t+l0 -t arfA,h at JlVew area Bare A#ir4e;Ce/ty
beer, /w!�/ueKcsd ,6 tit. 10& 91'144111i4 •-/ sdt h641a
lreas. dl 9�arsd r u rrrd
Row wilt 'fits oNer- 017 Jal,r.rcer.
dw.lo�,y,K� �,,�e,r/!0!/y i4Feef 4A Ii r.�t,efsran 7
ta►elly/ � IS t
/ ydr ybt,,.f It..L'srw d At s.. fAiid ta.t a w Qa Aa Ar-A,4 tit r.,/ ¢h, 49 h
Fvt-Ai�&Aa/
�!/wtlAtM '� ! A �Ii &e / RS ve// dw f; �a �n/farre tw ?t�rj a►ei Grel.�/
dadsd u�• de /.of aw.L �1l jv h,ty ti( !t'r•/,s s
WAri parr(wf.or., ! .ct; ae/I ss >�•sr of f4 ofuer J ' ua `Jw6a iy
7l'0 C►wslc,ct f'Ai,� tvott aXtft4 R t deeS fytc �a►t• � T>lle B�'t'1l,,T3,
alo t+sf enee/esr tt eh fde es)0cwf,w/ 4r t/,T
rettrejf >�a.f �ev uws,e(ar these, t&wtlMg^IL-f gL" tt�{bra�e�n�
•^ fit_ Aef;Iaw �e hr 0-*4.04 eN He AeAprr wt /c/ k•tw /t.idiw9
Ole we ley?Irt raa/T. .� a,.v tol tyc eN t//iw� Hill i tt of
��f� � J rt. d,stuss �
f� 9 rtp4t Y �9Jt''� , f/It1 O t Jip., /fir• St'�,ia �. �
16Y&VC GA�fN/eRCG. /�ww� aw 46- y•vr f/xtif Ow� t
�S�Iewtl.,
•Dsr` C. Aolf"
�li11e 5.
r,.::rci! 1-lembers
I believe misleading and inaccurate information has been offered by
tile applicant on the Open Space portion of Islay Hill. Before the council
takes action un the tentative tract map for Tract 1750, it must take action to
establish correct factual character of this open space.
I think there should be genuine concern that the adjacent property
owner, Northwinds NV, is seeking control of the property in order to
4 achieve a bargaining position to permit development of its property.
In summary, at the final planning commission hearing. Pacifica
withdrew its offer of dedication of 75 acres in fee. A substitute tract map
has been submitted by the adjacent property owner.
The withdrawal of Pacifica's offer of dedication was attributed to a
contractual obligation to a previous owner. This previous owner was
described by Pacifica's representative at the March 28 Planning Commission
hearing as Dr. John Devincenzo.
The claim of a contractual obligation is explicitly contradicted by my
review of the deeds and other documents available at the county Recorder's
office,
The tentative parcel map ISLO 89-219► submitted by Northwinds NV
withdraws 9,8 acres from the proposed open space easement. Oniv5R
Father than 75 acres are proposed for open space. I
My review of deeds and related documents can be outlined as follows.
Dr. john Devincenzo sold the Islay property to Pacific Ventures on Oct 3,
1984. The selling price was $2.453 million. (Deed recorded in book 2540,
In August 1986, the property was sold to Pacifica Corp, for exactly 5
million dollars Robin Rossi is described as the seller, having succeeded to
sole beneficial interest" in Pacific Ventures.
C ECTIVE
1;2-b C� A .
JUN b
CITY CLERK
SAN -UIS OBISPO,CA
O
The 190 deed also has an attached agreement carefully describing
the terms of sale . Among these items are paragraph '.?. 3.3 and 3A,
In paragraph 2.7, Rossi, the beneficiary agrees to obtain appropriate
releases so that any precedent liens on the deed shall be released without
cost or delay. This means Rossi agrees to obtain clear title from John
Devincenzo.
In paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4, titled Co-operation and Joinder, Rossi
agrees to release all claims to title any and all areas of theproperty,
wherever located either to be conveyed to any homeowners association or to
dedicated to the public pursuant to conditions required by any governmental
agency in connection with the approval of any final subdivision or
development of the Property." Furthermore Rossi authorizes Pacifica to
enter into "any grant of easements, dedications, covenants over, in, or about
any portion of the property that are reasonably necessary to the
development of the property."
I believe the conditions of this deed explicitly contradict the claims
made by Pacifica and its representatives that a contractual obligation which
prevents dedication of the Islay Hill open space to the city in fee.
The dedication of the open space parcel in fee was identified by the
staff report as "normally, in cases where public use is encouraged, it is best
for the city to own the property.- I note that the city is undertaking
responsibility to build and maintain any trails on the property. I question
the propriety of the city improving and maintaining private property.
I am concerned that the Planning Commission, city staff, and council
members were offered unverified and factually incorrect information
regarding contractual obligations on the open space parcel by Pacifica.
Sincerely
a 4
John Chesnut
314 Higuera
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone 544-6?23
C
cc: Judith Lautner, Arnold Jonas, Jeff Jorgenson, Dave Eddy tT-T i
Enclosure: schematic outline of deed transfers Islay Hill property.
e.
necomeo NO Rro, -CO RY
TICOR TTTLE INaURANCE COMPANY
OF CALIPORNIA ' - p
RECORDING REQUESTED BY +. •+►, I t,1
ESCROW SERVICC3 OF Tit r) O(X_ No. 529Jfi ( T.
CENTRAL COAST Of:II-,IAI, ni:c( IIUS
412 Hiquera Street SAN I IIIC OIIISPO C0 CA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 AUG 2 2 1998
+wo mMtw wf comott)w+.roFnANCIS M.DDONEY
DOC NO. GUIIC1
DS
County Clark-Recurtlor OFFICIAL C ISP O Co..r A r 1 SAN LUIS 0819 PO O.CA
,..-. PETER C. MILLER, ESQ. SEP 2 4 19M8
MILLER 6 WALTER FRANCIS M.GOONEY
Oft 412 Itiquera Street CCunty clerk-Record!
y.. LSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 J TIME 8.00AM
SPACE ADOVE THIS LINE Fort nECOnDEIQ S USE
CA'w ww-,A- LONG FORM ALL-INCLUSIVE PURCHASE MONEY DEED Of TRUST AND ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS
•n:nwC.n NI
J This All-Inclusive Purchase Mower peed EdTru�( maJc Ihi...l4th_ day nf. At"<O°_t _ Iv g�
hetwern_THE_PACIFICA CORPORATION, a _CtaliEornia eor�ozatIon
Mein called nus1Oa,who.e3dme,,;. 200. N.__Westlake .Blvd, Westlake vi110_ge CA_91362,
TICOR TITLE. INSI;RA'XCE. (' )NIPANY OF (•AI.IFORNIA, u cm.tw.r.A w.n, hemm cmirJ ul .n,. ar.1
PACIFIC VENTURES, a joint venture _ _--
-.. herein called aENF FKIARY,
�Yl pricipenyi That Thlator tititiv KAntt GRAMS,TlAN3FEl3 AND A33N:N3 TO 1RU3711 IN TRIAL,WITH fOw ER Of 4LI.
thatplopMyin .—San Luis-.Obispo.__ . .—. -._.C1lunty.CaliflNnlade.cnbedn:
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"
THIS Dt1-D OF TRUST i5 RtLu=tD N ATTPIC)( Tilt LCG+il. DLSL:KIPTIUi.
TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. JJ
Td:afHF.R Will Nle RM\.i.we\and profit\Ihennf,q wit I. 11OIs1\f R.10 the nFM.plmtr Ad auduw,l\ htRmahel 111,M to bad
cunlenEd upon Senencisr)TO ailed and apply,bah lent\,nww\and pmol..
C For the Purpose of SecurinR:
I. perhw,nMlte of each gl.emrm ef llwdlw hnen.comaned .• ►a.aem,d Ile uwknedm..e.drmed 1.m Mina Alt w iwuvw penkawr mue\
plaei.wey mine of even Awe IN h.ad Mn"Im,,sal,m Tow..)nlrmr.m Ane pm.Irq.l win of 35 r 000.. Q4
q �0L d-0 an�Unz m0 ed
I.mwedanerw,wywm,ka Trustor's obit a io s yyn €r. ara4rap CC
Ultket Inoblitat greenteaEntt dated Aril 9a 19 bgtween Trustor and Bents c� ry.
FIVE_HI LLI_ON_DO_L_ d[4of slaw.N.twllr 1 an All.mhww flown a maw.P..n..wy ear. de nnpww pnmgd M,Oaa of
CL Ikmw.11_5a000.a000 _.__.lime-mon-I.hmh m.h.k..ahm'wh Mmrm IN uelNd h.I.i[r a IN h.lwm•y --
1(` twArm+ m,a.e.nnwalFmdpnmlp.I. .fTwn million FauiHundred-rilCY_i.11.r.M' T11Qu8(!nd
Five. Hundred _
.._MIM.
rt 2.4531�Q0_00____y „IaK,d _JOh21.�.�D.CVirtCtnEo_aIISLR9bq�\q—DeVincenzo-._—._
—— _ — — - -- - - - — - - —-- — M►awe.
N'MM1 by a and d im,4 r nhw October 3, _ to. 84.a.no oMm No 528 n2 .- _.u R,nL 26 40_.►qe
92_tx lw line ur_S&u_LUiH_Obispo cmw+y.E•r.rmm..Md
'Uhl Ap.amewy eormmr malwat lw,mnpal wmd�_—.--.— _ —_._
www d M.drrd d Irw.ma+And _. _. .._.Io. . .M Daumem V. ._... .. _____._ •w R.wi __ P,re
Of An.?Rnmd.d
I174 rlvml.uw)Nlae,.eC-TTJ h,,uch,tead.M rm.t.re helna.hn t alted the-.Kit 1.•M Nm,.-I
Ta I mart the Steortty of This Deed of Truo.T}mtor AKim:
t 11 T let?Yid prmgwen m loW tordmloa and rt?wr.m M M."Of drmW.,h am Nnhhnr dernm.M nurpr<m m.wwe pn•w,r,1,ad m iwd..d
abolt rmM[nnnm an)Ir14Nnr.hwh ma)N t0lnlm[1ad,darn.W m 6t a nyld IIItrMw W b pay.M.Jae.II.I..w.Iw I.Ip pM,wmN ab mrn+aw
fr,w,led de.efor,inn nmmdy.,M w1 h..anMM1,eA1 Pr+4td7 a.equm.l Mmy.INrw.mw M Ingmw..w+w.w.N m.tr Mrnw.wa.In cmmnn w Rnn1
wart db Am ,int 1n[wmww...Inh m pl.wm my.C1.p.m,aid pnRlrrt\m vW M.d I...w Nm.Mt.imvw.kmhn,hm+trt,p.vnr a w h,all miler
aDa e4k frram the Ckxwwr m amt d mad propaq mer K RraaIJJ)nn'f•+rl.01e.Fla,rK emmmnma:wn hamaan Imin t.cladm.l Ae iar.etd
t)1 T pre..'e,mamaM nN drll.er m 1knAklry nr,erdah.m.nA mJkww.ml.chwf mwranae.wm.Tana\rami+ww kw.p.,.W M a—•f:,.ry
' The al,anoa tQ11m: onha any M m Mim monlobf ode)may he AWwd
M 11Mefln h.poi,r,)nAlffwlnn,mKw1l.1 herelw and u,aeh e,dn m
9oenno,mq dewtlmw.m w m.p„g1 d aemeMry 11me l.Mka.,nlYw...tMltCaad maw)pem mere"N lekMad w To.v
Awh,Mlwmlm Or wls 4"moa two w wniw aur Alvah w hake of drfmh Hammier Or r.d4m ban ao dwe pa b o,m m,wk maw, TN
permiow.Awad Are I'C p de ruluw tlrnmtr.d Illr panto n Nkm,rl fpm
1 y)Th.pper m aid dAemd ry al kw m prntwAM Imm,' ,1 m aRwi the`nWky h- I,de nlhM Or pawn,d Rrwfk,.n w 11o.r..and a F•
sa too rd eapaw.ea,imkdlml eMf of w:dawaa Of Mk aid main.*1 he,m AT Ta,O 141..M.m army back Aare M A M d M waw1b Ilr.mahlMy
A""may sypew,ami I.my wk hroweM M MnMclry m to w dont mi.Dead
(4r T Fay r it"tem Aan helm Arhngeekcy.R amt.M4 rv..Wat.wf t -1'Md prupeny,kel.mry M.nN,em.m appnrenrm rower a.ah.
we,mct k+de moual arromm,of IN rate,w Irloe w hall,m pay whin dwl.all bbrvwt ewe.,ckwpn aid Nm..wim wew.I,m.rd palmy M a"
prl deme.Ohm(h apptr b N pAM M.m�arww kneto;al cin.TeF tri t,pM.e.d m:.TNe
SIIouW TNNm tui a ma►r rIy pnmem M m do wry r n hnelw pmrided,de•I aewRnary M TMww•tint widlw aM►wa e a A..b.mM.a
nw:w an a dru,Md opow TMeor bad.ilt.ar wk.xnl lYmrww from bay vM:aw:an NIe,"•+Y"nW e w du de.Mme k..rm mruwr ab r..a1 nw a
rider mq hem ntce..ry m. mc INwarily Need,ltrerm,ry w Tied l awhor4W b MW LVW tail fM.nil
'a�rr PtR'� pwTan:AFer at aid
J �t
/AS
�, ��
x
a portion of Phase 3 plus the right of way for the Tank Farm
Road extension, totalling approximately 35 acres, together
with the right to have released up to 160 Lots thereon.
2.6 Application of Subse uent Princi alal
Pa�ment�a. All payments o pr nc pa y Trustor to Bene ciary
subsequent to the Down Payment and made pursuant to the
$5,000,000 Note which is secured by this Deed of Trust (the
"Note") shall be applied as follows,
2.6.1 All such amounts paid to
Beneficiary as the release price for one or more Phases or
Lots shall be credited against the principal next becoming due
on the Note.
prepaid under the terms 2of the Note, aent of nd prepayments
when due or
principal, shall alit as P P yments of such
qualify payment of the release price and
shall be credited to future releases to the extent not
theretofore credited against prior releases.
2.6.3 The price for release for each Lot
subsequent to those released in consideration of the Down
Payment shall be derived, from time to time, by dividing the
principal balance then owing on the Note by the total number
of then unreleased Lots as shown on the Specific Plan as it
then exists in a binding fashion. For example, if no t
principal reduction has yet been made on the Note and the
Specific Plan as then adopted shows 336 Lots yet to be
-eleased, then the release price shall be $5,000,000/338
$13,783 per Lot.
2.7 Releases from Underlying Deed of Trust.
Beneficiary uncondiEiona y covenants and agrees to obtain
appropriate releases from the lien of tl:e Underlying Deed of
Trust so that upon the release of any Lot or Phase as
hereinabove provided, any lien thereon of the Underlying Deed v
of Trust shall, without cost, expense, or delay to Trustor be
concurrently released.
3. Miscellaneous
3.1 Unenforceabilit . If any provision of
this Rider or the app cat on hereof to any person or
circumstance shall be invalid or unenforceable to any extent,
the remainder of this Rider and the application of such
provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be
effected thereby and shall be enforced to the extent permitted
by law.
C
-3-
any party to 3.2 Attorne Fees. Should it
the other to enforcecthe n act on at law or
the Prevailingbe necessary for
the losing r Party shallavean provision ofuity against
determined ti ntpm rty for reasonable a right to this Rider,
attorne judgment against
Y's tees and costs as
all 3.3 Coo erasion
ttme step° necessary' sem_�t Beneficiary agrees
time, Promptly upon written the Trustee, g to take
areas f Without consideratlon request of from time to
of the Trustor
con?eeyed to PrOPertY. wherever r compensatton to partially
to dedicatedomeowner's associalocateed, eitherany and all ,
conditions to by the
public,tion or I1) to be
connection Nithir°d (x) either Pursuant
anchor (2)
Parcel maps(°) or he governmentalapprovalagencY Pwhether to
development of Otherwise Y final subdivision in
or
J the Property. (Y) in connection with thor
e
agrees to, w 3.4 Joinder.
time ithout cons eratlOnBeneficiary shall,
authgr�ro Ptly upon the w and hereby
Trustees to rltten requestpof9Tilon, from time to
zesPro development planter into and ustor. and �+n
Yt (2) any or join r the affecting
public streets or ways,
amendment thereto
or an a ( ) an Portions of th affecting the l
the about Y portion sof 3 Y grant a pro
Ilk e] and the pr of easement Perry for A
covenants 14) any grant(sje- for public (s) over, in, - fi
thutilities
at O1 rights similar easements, dedications,
ere reasonabl Or dissimilar
Property or anY portionnthe saryeng tO the development
fore g
P ent otgo�he
the tact 3.5 oat t
will be requested
releases 7m lementetion. In recoq
quested from time roPart
tim rT_asea of the°ltIon or
e• operty
Beneficiary agrees
srthat
that
i
-4-
�• ,_,,.., �.5�-, ..
VOL 2888 '�716 2874„a 372
4�
�• 1
{1(
fE
such releases shall be implemented promptly upon the
satisfartion of the conditions precedent thereto.
atj
THE PACIFICA CORPORATION,
WA a Cali rnia co pon
EM
By•
J n Hedberg
ts: President
By:
M rgar t M. Dykes
ts: Secretary
C "Trustor"
PACIFIC VENTURES,
a California joint ventuu
By: ROADRUNNER, a California
limited partnership,
a joint venture partner
by:
Rot/ o s , Geneca Partner
By: EASTHINDS, N.V. , a
Netherland Antilles
Corporation, a joint
venture pjrner
� oug a Hur oc ,
Attorney-in-Fact
"Beneficiary"
C-
._ -5-
vaL2888p1717 1vk2874rwM
1
O
Schematic outline of deeds affecting Islay Hill open space.
Date Book Document and notes
10/3/84 2640p.592 Deed of Trust-Dr. John Devincenzo sells property to
Pacific Ventures for $2.453 million. Open space
described as released from lien on receipt of down
payment.
8/7/86 2888P.706 Deed of Trust-Rob Rossi sells property to Pacifica
for exactly 5 million dollars. Rob Rossi has
"succeeded to sole beneficial interest in Pacific
Ventures. Eastwinds NV, a Netherland Antilles
corporation also signs the deed contract. John
Devinceno and Rob Rossi have both concluded
several assignments of deeds of trust with
EastwindsNV.
1/xx/87 2934-0542 Power of Attorney-Devincenzo assigns Rossi P-0-A.
7/xx/87 3021 p.167 Assignment of Deed of Trust- Rob Rossi assigns
interest and receives a loan on the property. Rossi
was served with a lien by the IRS for
non-paynment of taxes in May 1987. The lien
was served against Rossi's personal and Rossi-King
Organization property.
1/15/88 3097p.106 Modified trust deed- A four party agreement
between Dr. John Devincenzo, Rob Rossi, Pacifica,
and the banks holding deeds of trust. Devincenzo
reduces his lien on the property to the open space
portion of the property. He is described as being
owed $759,000 in principal plus interest. This
principal is due and payable on Dec. 1, 1988.
8/xx/88 3296p794 The French Brothers sign an option agreement
with Northwinds NV, a Netherland Antilles
corporation, to purchase a portion of the La
Lomita Ranch. adjacent to the Islay Hill properEv.
This option evidently has not been exercised.
Rob Rossi's name appears on this option agreement
as a principle of the NorthwindsNV corporation.
2/xx/89 3265-495 Devincenzo makes a full reconyevance of title on
the. Islay Hill property.
C ' 2/I4/90 SLO-89-291 Northwinds NV proposes a subdivision of the
Islay Hill open space,
Known owners and/or Trustors of the various Netherland Antilles*
corporations.
Eastwinds NV-- Rob Rossi, John Devincenzo, Robert Takken, Douglas
Murdock is "attorney-in-fact"
Southwinds NV--Rob Rossi
Northwinds NV--Rob Rossi, John Devincenzo, Doglas Murdock is "attorney-in-
fact"
Westwinds NV-- John and Charles French
mream consciousnegs , �,,_,
Local Affili
URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL
314 Higuera St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 544-6723
L
BOARD OF JUP4
DIRECTORS Jun=• 6 , 1990
07
1.1!FY CL E Fi K
Honorable City Council SA I LJJ;S-0 S i S P 0.CA
City of San Luis Obispo V
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
URBAN CREEKS Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
COUNCIL CHAPTERS In Re Tract 1750 ( " Islay Hill " Subdivisions) : We
,•nu C] ,,t..n., Lh.tne, respectfully request that this communication be
........ made a part of the public record concerning this
mat ter .
We believe the Environmental Impact Report done
ADVISORY BOARD for the Edna Islay Specific Plan in 1982 fails to
her rJ.Icn,,+ fulfill the fundamental requirements of the
C.-U.1 fi,he.rs clhfnenm rofie,M.'" California Environmental Quality Act with respect
X111i%•1111 Sorely.0A6.d
Cat-kl.' �7 to the currently proposed ( 1990) subdivisions. In
A SIML Project C'nn"
C.fiforn'.C..nd.1
r.,U.finnh�.F.nl�, summary, the existing EIR has two major
11,nC Ern�n shortcomi ngs:
Anne wnd% D",ntnnnn w Famtn
ch.a.hS...C... ..d�.
NUnwantnt
%1.11VAI'l I It fails to note the presence on site of three
candidate endangered species; and
1,,,the S,
R"Msnc,A.... 2. There are at least 12 ways in which the
proposed development differs from the specific
...... plan for which the earlier EIR was done .
Ln nm n10WY.m•.
We believe it is incumbent upon the City to
.............. ...
undertake a subsequent or supplemental EIR prior
....... to considering approval of this project .
IULI,nd ti-1.1.
The facts and citations which support this
_11th'....0......n
Ln—M, I•'"'"^'•. k
111J
contention follow.
AFFILIATES Staff proposes to use an EIR done for the original
Edna-Islay Specific Plan (EISP) ( 1982) without
doing further environmental study. CEQA
Guidelines Sec . 15182 allows reliance on a
.......Crrxl l.n.,, ,..„....r,..... specific plan EIR for residential projects
........ developed pursuant to the specific plan unless "an
event described in Section 15162 should occur , ” in
rnr.d,nl C re,LL,h•n which case agency must complete a subsequent EIR
%."he,.L,ht.rnu(..anal P,de,o'...1 or supplement to an EIR.
Ines In,(1,,1.tnelh,11'.I'do A:.,.
4fI Lleek A'111.1r'.'�Ih. Sec . 15162 triggers further study if there are
—qn R,,,, I.......
I end,.1 In,1,1n,,1—X,.I... ........ changes in the project which may cause "new
D,,
G.Idl.We'.V1,nn—111,F.Ihl-,I.-Wn,._
i_
significant environmental impacts not considered in a. previous EIR ; "
or if "new information of substantial importance . becomes 1m-es
avi fable ,
and - A) The information was not known and could not have been known at
the time the previous EIP, was certified. . . , and (B) The new
information shows any of the following: 1 . The project will have one
or more significant effects not diE.cussed previously in the EIP. • 2.
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the EIR ; . . . " " If the EIR . .. , has been
completed but the project has not yet been approved the Lead Agency
:hall prepare or cause to be prepared the subsequent EIP before
approving the project ." (emphasis added)
The California Public Resources Code (Sec . 21166) also discusses the
need for subsequent EIRs or supplements to existing EIRs , :.nd
concludes that further study is needed if : " ( a) Substantial changes
are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
Environmental Impact Report . . . (c ) New information , which was not
known and could not have been known at the time of the Environmental
Impact Report was certified as carnplete , becomes available . " This
language is unambiguous.
The existing EISP EIP, states there are no endangered species on the
site . Now, however , we know there are three candidate endangered
species: the Pacific Pond Turtle , red legged frog, and two—striped
garter snake . This has been verified by qualified persons. These
were not yet candidate species at the date of the EISP EIR. The EIR
does not specifically discuss effects of the project on any of the
candidate endangered species. It does not even acknowledge the
presence on site of two of the three species. Furthermore , overall ,
the EIR's handling of wildlife is extremely superficial . There is no
indication of extensive scientific literature search in its
preparation . Based on the flimsiest of conjecture , the EIP, concludes
that with the mitigation measure of a narrow ( 10-20' ) buffer along the
creek. . " there will be negligible direct impact . .. . " upon creek
wildlife, presumably including the two of the three candidate
endangered species which are riparian . The adequacy of such minimal
mitigation is questionable since current literature indicates the
turtles may roam landward at night for up to one kilometer from their
water home in order to nest .
An additional issue is that there are at least 12 significant changes
in the subdivisions being proposed from the specific pian on which the
EIR was done . These include the following: phasing of the project
differs; a private recreation area is eliminated; street layout and
tiidths and locations differ ; total density sought is greater than
maximum stated in the specific plan ; a medium density housing area is
eliminated and replaced by single family housing; the bike pedestrian
path intrudes into the riparian " creek preservation area" ; the
multi —use railroad landscaped buffer zones are reduced in size or
eliminated; development is proposed higher on Islay Hill than shown as
the upper limit on the specific plan map ; private lots are shown
backing up to Islay Hill open space where the EISP showed a public
road at the open space edge ; densities in the medium density housing
areas adjacent to Tank Farm Road exceed maximums in the specific plan ;
Gtream Ccnsc I ou = =,''1 =_1 a.j% r .aC t r'.age =
- torm water detention trategies do not conform to those r:f 'he
C .- e,_ ifi _ plan ; and the master bract map sought by the applicants has
areuiousl ; been found by . taff to be impermis- ibie under the =pecif ; C
:,.Ie believe .; number of the changes are so significant that they kick
_=f the need for additional environmental revieiu. One bears directl
upon the welfare of the three endangered riparian species : the
1rcposed routing of a bicycle and pedestrian pathway directly through
the heart of a "Creek preservat i on area." =nature prese.r ue ) ioh i ch
=pans ti+Jo adjacent creeks, the peninsulabetween them ,
and =over=_. the
=ore of the i te ' = least damaged gone of riparian habitat . Under the
_peri4ic plan this .area i s supposed to be off-limits to human
act. iitl . This routing is proposed in direct in contravention of the
pecific plan , which shows a, bike path location vihich avoids the
=_eruation area . .approvals of a previ ous adjacent subdivision
:Tract 1376) by both the Planning Commission and City Council
on tai ned condi tions _.tipuIating the path must be '. orated as shown on
`he E1SP map . Staff presented a. report to Council at the time of
7ina1 map approval +•.r Trac .`_ 137o stating those conditions 1,,lere met .
:espito the fact maps in staff' s possession showed they !a!ere not being
met . The existence of these maps and correspondence relating to them
has only recently been discovered by citizens in the course of
investigating the current subdivision app.lication' s proposed bike path
rerouting. Staff has responded by supporting the proposed violation
of the preservation area by the bike path .
Staff strategy for dealing with the endangered turtle and the bike
path rerouting is to recommend approval of the subdivisions subject to
a condition requiring the developer to fund a post-approval study of
the turtle to determine if any mitigations are possible . This clearly
runs afoul of Sec . 15162 cited above requiring study before
approval . Staff seemingly has no strategy at all for the other two
endangered species.
'he proposed study-as-mitigation also runs afoul of the basic premise
:,f CEQA -- that information be in hand before projects are approved.
CEQA clearly affords full " endangered" protection to species such as
the turtle , frog and snake in question . Sec . 15330 (b) states : "A
species of animal or plant. is ( 1 ) 'Endangered' when its survival and
reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more
auses, including less of habitat , change in habitat ,
Overexploitation , predation , competition , disease , or other factors;
or (2) 'Rare' k.,)hen either : (A) Although not present1 ;v threatened with
extinction , the species is existing in such small numbers throughout
.a.11 or a significant portion of its range that it may become
endangered if its environment worsens; or (E) The species is likely to
`jecome endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a.
significant portion of its range and may be considered ' threatened' as
that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act . " The section
then states in subsection. (c) that an animal or plant is "presumed"
C' rare or endangered if listed in state or federal registers, but : " (d)
A species not included in any listing identified in subsection (c)
=ti .11 nevertheles=s be considered to be rare or endangered if the
=stream Cori Sc l iIl_ av 7r' z -age
Species can be shown to meet the criteria in subsection (b) . " Those
-,- i `.sri .5, are cIeArl .' met by candidate species_ which are being
-=onsidered for listing due to habitat loss from development .
Court interceret.ations f CEGA mull ,' support our request for
=upp1ementaI EIR
Court findings relating to the timinq of An environmental study do not
support staff' s proposed study—as—mitigation—after—approval .
A basic premise of LEGA is that review must occur As early .A'_ feasible
in the planning process , not after a project is approved. ( Sunds_ t.rom v
County of Mendocino, 1938) ( and LEGA Guidelines 15004 (d) )
. . ( E) nvironmental problems should be considered at .A point in the
planning process 'where genuine flexibility remains' (Mt . Sutro
Defense Committee v Regents of UC, 1978) . A study conducted after
;.pproual of a prriject 14ill inevitably have a diminished influence on
_]eiision—mak ing. Even if the study is subject to administrative
Approval , it is_. analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of
acie.nc;: Actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions
construing CEQA. " (No Oil , Inc . v City of Los Angeles, 197";
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc . v Coastside County Water District ,
1972)
Similarly, court decisions relating to standards which establish the
threshold of environmental harm which triggers supplemental EIR work
also support our request .
In a case somewhat similar to the present instance which involved
changes to a previously approved plan which a public agency handled in
a manner that limited opportunities for renewed citizen environmental
review -- which has certainly been the case with the current
inconsistencies between the proposed subdivision and the EISP
" Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v 32nd District Agricultural Assoc . ,
198.5) , the Supreme Court ordered a supplemental EIR because of the
project changes .
The one Appellate case coming to A contrary conclusion is regarded by
environmental law authorities as an anomaly . Remy, Thomas, Duggan and
Moose ( 1990 edition) caution pub lic agencies against relying on that
_ase , pointing out that in the most anomalous related case ( Fund for
Environmental Defense) , the court was split , and the issue could have
been conceptualized differently with very different results.
Authorities such .As P,TD&M anticipate that " courts will tend to err on
the side of treating modified development proposals as new projects
rather than changed projects" (which would open them up to broad
environmental review) , and cite consistency of their view ;A,ith the
mandate of Friends of Mammoth : " to afford the fullest pos=_.ibla
protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the
=_ tatutory language . "
C
Court rulings on the denial of public participation in environmental
review, such as the City's current Tract 1750 strategy involves, have
=.lso supported our position .
1
tr Pam Con s i o I =.1 a., Tr.:,.= ` - rP -
" Public participation is an essentia.l part of the CEQA Proce=_.s . " state
the CE;?A Guideline=_. . A public agency =_.hou1
d provide for ::lime public
nvolvement , formal and informal . . . in order to receive and evaluate
pac ions. to en v ironm_ ntaI i vsu _ Se c . 15201 , ::.lith court
ended)
- fusing to _cm Fl l-Jl th requirements to n subsequent EIR viork on
new information/changed conditions , the City shortcircuits the
public ' s opportunity for involvement .
Court=_ have frowned upon such an approach . The public holds a
" privileged position" in the CEQA process -- a status reflecting_ both
" ' a belief that citizens can make important contributions to
environmental protection and notions of democratic
decision-making. . . "' (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa Inc v :32nd
District Agricultural Association , 1987)
In the Islay Hill projects, there is already a. record of public_
interest in participating in expanded environmental review. In
Mountain Lion Coali ` ion v California Fish and Game Commission ( 1989) .
the appeals court upheld relief in a similar case where public CEQA
participation was truncated, noting that the public "had actively
asserted a keen and sophisticated interest' in the agency action and
had desired to "fully participte in the assessment of the cumulative
impacts associated with th(e) project . " The court directed the agency
J to "provide a cumulative impact analysis to the public that encourages
rather than impedes meaningful discussion of these important issues. "
Finally, courts have condemned public agencies' deliberate avoidance
of .actions which would probably kick off CEQA review of a project .
In the Islay Hill matter , staff has made a series of decisions
regarding deviations from EISP and the need for subsequent EIR work
Ljihich have the net effect of truncating public participation in
resolving issues of public concern . Regarding deviations between
subdivider plans and EISP, staff has denied that some deviations exist
( the bike path change , for instance , was denied publicly until
incontrovertible evidence to the contrary was produced by
citizens> and has arbitrarily labeled changes enumerated in the EISP
as "major" (which require proceeding through the general flan
amendment process with Planning Commission and City Council hearings
on the EISP changes prior to introducing revised project plans) as
"minor" (which can be handled by staff with no public involvement ) .
The public has thereby been cheated out of its rightful participation
in deciding public planning issues in which it has a full right to
participate . Had the proper full and careful public review procedures
been followed, it is likely at least some of the "major" changes would
have. triggered subsequent EIR work . By avoiding public hearings on
the EISP changes and handling the change=_- in-house , staff eliminated
the likelihood the changes would be targeted by public comment or
common sense for further EIR review.
U
The courts have held that public agencies may not truncate the CEQA
process in this manner . In Friends of Westwood, Inc . v City of Los
Stream Consci u� _. i = lay Tract _ Page .
ngela _ 1987) . the _.ppeal =_ court ruled that CEQA cannot 'e
nterpreted to Qlve agent::- staff the chance to exempt .x project =rom
Proper CE-CA review b ' !4alvInQ prior discretionary development revIe •J
requirements that would have triggered the statute .
it
i e,: i of `f L Ll i t.. ♦ _
_ t U=... _ lake fart= and precedents .ha.t l:?e Urge
folloua the full and clrear Intent of CEQA by proceeding with .:_.
Ubsequent EIR or supplement to the existing EI'=P EIP prier to
considering approval of Tract 1750 . [Ale believe it is the
responsibility of public officials to uphold the law .
r'curs Truly.
Judy Neuhauser
,or Stream Consciousness
Public Interest %tion Center '"
Pi ADCORPORATED
of San Luis Obispo County
Post Office Box 15113 San Luis Obispo, California 93406
June 6, 1990
To: Honorable City Council, City of San Luis Obispo, CA
Re: Proposed Islay Hill subdivision EIR
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the original Edna-
Islay Specific Plan is not adequate for the proposed development.
The California Environmental Quality Act, Sec. 15162, requires a
subsequent or expanded EIR be prepared Lefore project approval if
there are changes in the project which may cause new impacts not
considered in the previous EIR, or if new information of
substantial importance becomes available after the EIR was
certified.
Both of the above conditions apply to the proposed development .
There are significant changes in the proposed subdivisions from the
plan on which the EIR was prepared, and new information has come to
light.
One significant change is the proposed routing of a bicycle and
pedestrian pathway through a natural preserve which includes
sensitive riparian habitat. The preserve cannot tolerate this
level of human activity.
The new information includes the fact that there are three
candidate endangered species on the site: Pacific Pond Turtle, red
legged frog, and two-striped garter snake. The existing EIR states
that there are no endangered species on the site.
11
Oe l f8e L.Lle COULLCll Lo 1ecjuii'e a1L eXI)a LLL1ed CI\ LO Qe'tel'MiLlC TIC
impact of these and other new factors before project approval .
Sincerely yours , Q
FBrac`—' MEEnNC / r /
ken,
ff��� ` DATE (o president ACENDAt71 is
YCOLNCIL CDDE)a
F C.1O ❑ RN.D'R.
I4/ I...r.IK
Lh CL=RIC-0rig l UIQ.
. . .and there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic,
nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right. . .
Martin Luther King, A