HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/21/1990, 5 - A.) TRACT 1750: A SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 245 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, 88 MEDIUM-DENSITY AIRSPACE CONDOMIN if City Of San LUIS OBISPO MEETINCa DAZO
IT1111 NUMB R:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Communy Development Director af
PREPARED BY: Judith Lautner, ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: a. ) Tract 1750: A subdivision to create 245 single-family
lots, 88 medium-density airspace condominiums, a
neighborhood park and a small "historical" park, in six
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. Review the Environmental Impact Report addendum prepared in response
to council direction and adopt it through inclusion of language in
the resolution for Tract 1750; and
2. Introduce an ordinance to print, amending the zoning map for the
property from R-1-SP, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40-SP to R-1-SP-PD, R-2-SP-
PD, and C/OS-40-SP-PD; and
3. Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map for Tract 1750, with
findings and conditions.
Report-in-brief
The council reviewed this project on two occasions, and continued it at
the last hearing, with direction to staff to prepare an addendum to the i
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , addressing the various changes to and
interpretations of the specific plan approved by the previous director.
Councilmembers also asked for additional information.
In response to that direction, staff has prepared an addendum, which is
attached to this report. The addendum contains, among other information,
confirmation that the detention basin designs are adequate. A letter
has been sent to the school district, asking for information about the
district's plans to accomodate this and other future development, and
offering any help the city can provide.
The applicants are objecting to some of the recommended conditions of
approval of this map: One condition, recommended by the Planning
Commission, requires Planning Commission review of the final maps. The
applicants feel the requirement is time-consuming and unnecessary. The
Planning Commission also recommended that no sideyard exceptions be
allowed for buildings on the small lots (phases 3 and 4) . The applicants
want to be able to apply for minor exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
The applicants object to conditions 52 and 53, which require
transportation impact and storm drainage fees, which are fees not yet
adopted by the council. They feel it is inappropriate to impose not-
yet-adopted fees on a vesting map. This objection is contained in a
letter attached to this report, along with a memorandum on the subject
4
j city of san Us owpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
1107 Tank Farm Road
Page 2
from the same attorney (while acting as City Attorney) , dated August 5,
1988. Since the public hearing was closed at the previous meeting, the
applicants are preparing written objections for the council to consider.
Once these issues are resolved, the council should approve the map and
planned development, adopting the addendum as part of the action.
DISCUSSION
Background
Situation/previous review
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 surrounding the adobe site be reviewed by the CHC to assure
compatibility with the adobe and maintenance of views. The City Council
heard this item on June 6, and on July 3, 1990, and directed staff to
prepare an addendum to the previously certified EIR to address the
additional protection of certain animal species on site and the minor
changes to the specific plan that had been approved by the director.
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 for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan in
1982; addendum under review concurrently with map
A�I�ll city of san lues oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
1107 Tank Farm Road
Page 3
Project action deadline: October 7, 1990 (90-day time extension
granted by applicant)
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 81,600 square feet,
averaging 51500 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;
7. ) A one-acre "mini-park" to be dedicated to the city, containing the
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) .
.3'=3
crty of san tins oBispo
Ift COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
1107 Tank Farm Road
Page 4
EVALUATION
1. EIR Addendum. Per council direction, staff prepared an addendum to
the EIR to address the following issues: creek habitat changes,
street alignment changes, detention basin design, replacement of
private recreation area with public park, design of medium-density
areas, and the railroad buffer design. Copies of the addendum have
been included in the council's packet for review.
2. Impacts on schools. Councilmembers expressed concern over the
impact of this and nearby future projects on schools in the area.
The council directed staff to prepare a letter to the school
district, asking about the district's plans to serve the additional
housing and offering assistance. This letter has been sent, with
copies to the City Council.
State law limits the assistance the city can provide to school
districts:
Government code.: Section 65995 says that public agencies cannot
require any fees, charges, dedications, or other requirement of a
development project, for the construction or reconstruction of
school facilities.
Section 65996 says that a public agency must not deny a project on
the basis of the adequacy of school facilities.
CEOA Guidelines: Section 15091(a) (2) says that a public agency must
rely on the school district to provide mitigation for significant
impacts on schools. The city may recommend specific mitigation
measures to the district.
3. Planning Commission review of final maps. The Planning Commission,
in its recommendation of approval of the subdivision, attached a
condition saying that all final maps for the project are to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission (condition 054) , The commission
attached this condition because of concerns that the normal review
may not be adequate. (See discussion in commission minutes.)
The applicants are opposed to this condition. Final maps are not
required, either by the city's subdivision regulations or by state
law, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicants
object to the condition because of the additional work and time
involved, and their belief that no useful purpose would be served
by the process. If the council prefers that the Planning Commission
not review the final maps, then condition no. 54 should be
eliminated.
3-�
01101pwpcity of San 1U1S OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
1107 Tank. Farm Road
Page 5
4. Trails on Islay Hili. The Parks and Recreation Commission (P&R)
reviewed the Islay Hill trails system proposal on March 7, 1990.
After hearing testimony on the fragility of soils on the hill, that
commission recommended to the council that the hill be left in its
natural condition, but that the developer fund the cost of
construction of the proposed trails. (See P&R minutes for
discussion. ) The commission wanted the city to have the money
available to build trails later, if usage indicated the need.
Government code (Section 66000 et seq - AB 1600) says that if
certain required development fees are not "spent or committed" to
the use for which they were required, within five years, then the
city must make certain findings to retain the fees or must refund
them. The fees recommended above fall into this category.
It may be several years before the council decides that hillside
trails or some alternative improvements are necessary. If the money
is refunded after five years, it would not be available later.
The council, if it follows the P&R commission's recommendation to
require the developer to fund the cost of construction trails,
should commit those funds to physical improvements or maintenance
of Islay Hill. That commitment, to meet the intent of state law,
has to show a relationship between the amount of the fee and the
type of development. Recommended finding no. 8 and condition no.
38 meet that requirement for commitment. By making a commitment of
this type, the city will not be required to refund the money after
five years, if it is not used.
5. sideyard exceptions. The subdividers originally requested sideyard
exceptions for a small number of lots in the "small-lot" phases of
development. The Planning Commission suggested the subdividers look
at alternative techniques for increasing yard areas on the small
lots, including "zero-lot-line" designs. The commission recommends
that no sideyard exceptions be allowed on the small lots, to assure
that they are not overbuilt. This restriction has been made a
condition of the planned development approval ordinance. (no. 2)
The subdividers have since withdrawn the home designs submitted with
the original map, saying that they would prefer to wait to redesign
until water is available, so their designs can more closely match
what the market demands at that time.
The subdividers are considering zero-lot-line configurations, among
others. A condition (no. 4) of the planned development rezoning
allows this flexibility in lot design. The representatives have
asked, however, that the council allow review of exceptions on a
"W
W- 11 crty of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Tract 1750
PD 1449-B
1107 Tank Farm Road
Page 6
case-by-case basis, to allow minor intrusions into yard areas, where
the site design justifies an exception.
If the council agrees with the subdividers' request, condition no.
2 should be eliminated or modified accordingly.
6. Park funding. The Parks and Recreation Element says that the cost
of new parks in new subdivisions should be divided among the city,
the residents, and the subdivider. Condition no. 35 spells out the
cost obligations of the homebuyers and the subdivider, consistent
with the funding schedule approved as part of Tract 1376 (the first
subdivision in this area) .
Residents and the Planning Commission have recommended that the
developer install the hardscape features in the city park in the
first phase of project construction. Staff and the developer have
no problem with this modification to the phasing schedule for the
park. In fact, the developer has indicated a preference to complete
the park as soon as possible, including landscaping when water is
available. The homeowners' cost of construction would then be
reimbursed as park fees are collected from homeowners.
7. Local street connection with Orcutt Road. Councilmembers asked for
an analysis of the design of the intersection of Street. A with
Orcutt Road. The present design was chosen over the specific plan
design to lessen grading, visual, and safety concerns. The
Engineering Division finds the proposed design superior to the
specific plan intersection, especially in concert with the more
rounded alignment of Orcutt Road southeast of the intersection.
The original EIR analysis of the specific plan intersection offered
the proposed intersection design as a superior alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and adopt the Environmental Impact Report addendum prepared
in response to council direction; and
2. Introduce an ordinance to print, amending the zoning map for the
property from R-1-SP, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40-SP to R-1-SP-PD, R-2-Sp-
PD, and C/OS-40-SP-PD; and
3. Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map for Tract 1750, with
findings and conditions.
Attached: Draft resolutions and ordinance, letters from Roger Picquet,
minutes, addendum (appendix separate)
a
1
RESOLUTION NO. (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 PARKS,
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, and 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.
6. The City Council certified an environmental impact report
for the Edna-Islay Specific Plan in 1982 and has considered
that EIR and the addendum prepared to incorporate minor
modifications between Tract 1750 and the specific plan, and
firids that those two documents incombination are sufficient
Resolution no. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 2
to assess any environmental impacts which would result from
project approval.
7. This subdivision map approval requires the subdivider to
expend in excess of the amount specified in Government Code
section 66452.b(a) - for public improvements outside the
property.
8. The increase in population near Islay Hill created by the
development of Tract 1750, and the granting of an easement
over the open space portions of Islay Hill within the
boundaries of Tract 1750, allowing public use of the
hillside, will lead to greater recreational use of the.
hillside.
This increased use may need to be supported by physical
improvements on the hillside in the form of trails,
fencing, signing, or other improvements to increase public
enjoyment of the recreational use. It is reasonable for
the developer of Tract 1750, therefore, to pay to the city
the cost of installing trails on the hillside, to be used
for the purpose of providing physical improvements as
described above.
9. The proposed use of sound walls perform equally or better
than the concept shown in the specific plan, and the walls
are visually acceptable.
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. Development
of the project is subject to existing city growth
management regulations, not to exceed 94 building permits
per year or one phase per year (phases 1 and 2 shall be
considered one phase) , whichever is more restrictive. Time
extensions for final map approval may 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
S-S
O Resolution no. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 3
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 $10,000 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
for three Opticom intersection controllers for responding
Ofire apparatus.
S. 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.
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 . No part
of the ten-foot buffer area is within the creek protection
area.
11. A creek protection and restoration plan must be submitted
with phase one improvement plans to the approval of the
City Engineer and Community Development Director, along
with improvement plans, consistent with the approved Creek
Concepts Plan. Such plan must show improvements to the
creek area included in the creek maintenance easement or
O 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. The protection
and improvement plan shall include a schedule for
S- 9
Resolution no (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 4
implementation.
The top-of-bank buffer improvements adjacent to the turtle
habitat shall be installed as soon as possible to provide
immediate protection for the existing turtle population.
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 shall be
obtained if required, for work within the creek and for
crossing the creek near the intersection of A Street and
Orcutt Road.
14. A team shall be established to select a consultant and
monitor a turtle habitat study. 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 project applicant.
The team shall assist the city in selecting a qualified
consultant to conduct a turtle habitat study. The turtle
study should focus on the following goals:
a. Identify the essential habitat for the turtles (and
by extension, the frogs) .
b. Determine the size of the turtle population on
site, age and sex characteristics, and attempt to
identify nesting areas.
C. Identify specific essential habitat preservation
areas, if any, within the area designated .as lots
184 through 206 on. the tentative map, which should
be incorporated into the final project design.
d. Recommend any additional habitat protection
techniques to be incorporated into the final
project design.
Funding, not to exceed $10,000, shall be provided by the
applicant. The study period will continue for a maximum
of 24 months, with a 27-month time limitation for both the
study and determination of implementation measures to be
required of the developer. The study period is to begin
when the consultant is hired and begins work. Where a
consensus or majority decision cannot be reached within the
S-A)
Resolution no. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 5
study team, the Community Development Director shall make
the decision.
No work, except for temporary improvements that limit human
access to the riparian habitat, shall be conducted within.
the study area, as defined on the Creek Concepts Plan
approved as part of this subdivision, prior to completion
of the turtle study. The need for additional environmental
review prior to approval of the final maps for phases 5 and
6 is to be determined by the Community Development
Director, and is subject to normal appeal procedures. All
necessary studies, enhancement measures, and site changes
shall be identified prior to the recordation of final maps
for phases 5 and 6.
The site design of lots .184 through 206 and the adjacent
streets will be adjusted in conformance with the
recommendations of the turtle study and to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director and the California
Department of Fish and Game.
O 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
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.
O18. Creek preservation and improvement areas shall be dedicated
to the city in fee.
J `!
Resolution no. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 6
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.
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
i
C' Resolution no.. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 7
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 Goriin and Associates dated July
14, 1987 for Tract 1750, and any subsequent soils reports
requested by the City Engineer.
The grading plan for phases 5 and 6 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
C 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
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, as determined necessary
by the City Engineer and Community Development Director.
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
Development Director and Engineering Division staff.
S/3
n ,
Resolution no. (1990. Series)
Tract 1750
Page 8
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 building sites 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 in its entirety, without city
funding assistance, to the 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
(approved as part of Tract 1376) , 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 of Tract 1750. 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 J,
to approval of the final map for phase 1, the developer
shall pay to the city an amount adequate to install the
s--�y
OResolution no. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 9
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
physical improvments: 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.
41. 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,
upon demand by the city.
Water:
42. The subdivider shall inform future lot buyers of the
possibility of building permit delay based on the city's
water-shortage. Such notification shall be made a part of
the recorded documentation for each lot.
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 be 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.
Nomeowners.' Association:
O44. The subdivider shall establish covenants, conditions, and
restrictions for the regulation of land. use, control of
nuisances and architectural control of all buildings and
i
Resolution no. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 10
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. Resale controls applying to the 23 affordable housing units
shall be administered by the Housing Authority and 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 development preliminary
plan. Remodelling and additions to these homes in the
future shall be in accordance with the limitations in the
zoning regulations.
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
O Resolution no. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 11
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.
CFinal maps:
54. The final maps shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation, prior to City
Council approval.
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.
O
�s
Resolution no. (1990 Series)
Tract 1750
Page 12
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Ci y dminis ative Of f4cer
tt rn
Community D v lopment Director
U 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:
O1. 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
O
165'l
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 dministra ive Of ce
C' rn
Community Develo t Director
jzl:res\trl750no.wp
OORDINANCE 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
O specific plan for Edna Islay and meets zoning ordinance
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. The City Council has
considered the EIR and addendum.
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, provision of a large play area in the apartment
complex, 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,
usableopen space, adequate parking, and compatibility with
neighborhood character as well as or better than the standards
do.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
OObispo as follows:
45'49/
Ordinance No. (1990 Series)
PD 1449-B
Page 2
SECTION 1. The Planned Development PD 1449-B is hereby
approved, subject to. the following conditions:
Conditions:
1. A reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the
Housing Authority lot only is hereby approved. Up to 25% of
the required spaces may be eliminated, provided that they are
replaced by an expanded play/picnic area..
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. Zero-lot line developmentschemes are allowed in any phase,
provided the separatiori between buildings is consistent with
the zoning regulations.
5. A density bonus, allowing 353 dwellings, including 134 small
lots, 88 two-bedroom condominium units, 111 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.
6. 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.
Scow
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:
OCity Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City A o ey
C' Community Devel ment Director
v
LAW OFFICES
LYON & PICQUET
ROGER LYON* 1104 PALM STREET TELEPHONE --
ROGER PICOUET POST OFFICE BO% 922 (805) 541P2i5ER0
TELTIMOTHY J.CARMEL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406 (605)543.3857
SA LYr CO��OL1wtOM
August 9, 1990
HAND DELIVERED RECEIVED
AUG 9190
Arnold Jonas Crtr of San Luis OOwsm
Community Development Director CommnuollyDMIMftec
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. sox 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval for Tract 1750
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Pacifica has asked that we set forth the specific legal. grounds for �1
its objections to several proposed conditions for the above-
referenced subdivision. Specifically, Conditions No. 52 and 53
would obligate Pacifica to pay transportation impact and storm
drainage fees anticipated to be adopted by Council in approximately
two years (July 1992) . It is our opinion that such requirements
may not be legally imposed.
The processing of subdivision applications is regulated by the
State of California by the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) , Government
Code Sections 66410 et seq. Section 66474.2 provides that a city
may impose only those conditions which are already in effect at the
time the application for, the tentative map (whether vesting or not)
has been determined to be complete. That section reads as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or
(c) , in determining whether to approve or disapprove an
application for a tentative map, the local agency shall
apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in
effect at the date the local agency has determined that
the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 of
the Government Code.
(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to a local agency
which, before it has determined an application for a
tentative map to be complete pursuant to Section 65943, '
has done both of the following.
OArnold Jonas
Tract 1750/Pacifica
August 9, 1990
Page 2
(1) Initiated proceedings by way of ordinance,
resolution or motion.
(2) Published notice in the manner prescribed in
subdivision (a) of Section 65090 containing a description
sufficient to notify the public of the nature of the
proposed change in the applicable general or specific
plans, or zoning or subdivision ordinances.
A local agency which has complied with this subdivision
may apply any ordinances, policies, or standards enacted
or instituted as a result of those proceedings which are
in effect on the date the local agency approves or
disapproves the tentative map. . . .
As you can see, in very limited circumstances, provided that the
City has taken explicit formal steps to initiate changes to its
standards and requirements, it is possible to require compliance
with the new requirements.
In the present situation, the application was determined to be
complete on January 3, 1990. As of that date, the City had not
formally initiated proceedings to adopt the fees in question nor
.published the requisite notices. We have been unable to discover
any other facts or circumstances which would bring the subject fees
within the exception. Accordingly, we formally protest the
proposed conditions. We note further that the provisions of
Section 66483 (enabling authority for drainage or sewer facilities)
imposes even more restrictive conditions on the imposition of storm
drainage fees (e.g. , the ordinance imposing the fee must have been
in effect at least thirty (30) days prior to the filing of a
tentative map) .
We have done exhaustive research and are aware of no case law
abrogating the clear meaning of Section 66474.2 that only those
conditions (including fees) in effect at the time the application
is determined to be complete may be applied; nor is it necessary to
analyze the effects created by the fact that this is a vesting
tentative map. Suffice to say "the private sector should be able
to rely upon an approved vesting tentative map prior to expending
resources and incurring liabilities without the risk of having the
project frustrated by subsequent action" by the City. (Government
Code Section 66498.9 (b) . ) It would render the lawful benefits
O
Arnold Jonas �)
Tract 1750/Pacifica
August 9, 1990
Page 3
obtainable through a vesting tentative map impossible to secure if
a city could merely "anticipate" future fees or conditions.
We request that Conditions 52 and 53 be deleted as inappropriate
and unauthorized under the law.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
LYON PICQU
Roge Picqu
RP:ar
cc: Pacifica Corporation
Jeff Jorgensen
City Attorney
John Dunn
City Manager
City Council
1`111111111111cit o
OBISPO
- 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100
O (803) 849-7140 (:
August S, 1988
MEMORANDUM
To: Judy Lautner, Associate Planner
From: Roger Picquet, City Attorney
Subject: Vesting Tentative Map Questions.
To close the loop on this subject. I forward the answers to your questions
given by Dan Curtin's associate, Michael Ziechke:
Question 1: It appears that a moratorium based on water or sewer
deficiencies would affect both standards and vesting tentative maps
equally. True?
C' Answer 1: Yes, provided statutory findings set forth in Section
66498(;) (1) are made.
Question 2: If we feel new fees (new types of fees) will be
Initiated within 12 to 24 months, that equitably should be paid by all as
they affect the city's ability to provide adequate resources, can we make
findings to deny a vesting tentative map? Would it be in the public
Interest to do so? What findings have other communities used to deny
vesting maps? Are there any limitations on cities denying these maps?
Answer 2: A city could not deny a final map based on the existence
of new fees adopted since approval of the tentative map: A city could
attach conditions on tentative maps to reflect yet-to-be adopted fees.
(Should be as specific as possible; e.g. , "subdivider shall pay water
conservation and development fees to be considered and adopted by the
Council in [month, year).")
Question Can a health or safety reason be used to prevent
approval of a final map based on a vesting tentative map, if water or
sewer deficiencies will prevent development of the lots (at least
temporarily)? In other words, can the creation of the lots (and their
transfer to others) be avoided in this situation? what might be a
strategy for achieving this objective?
OAnswer 3: No, not unless specific findings "
relating to dangerous
conditions" (see Code) .
Call me if you have any questions. It was Ironic to find myself pushing
Curtin's office for a response (now I know how you feel sometimes) .
P.C. Minutes
February 289 1990
Page 8.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Karleskint, Kourakis, Crotser, Hoffman, Schmidt
and Duark.
NOES - None.
ABSENT - None.
The moti passed.
---------------- ----------------------------- -=---------------------
Item 7. Public He rin : Use Permit U1474. Re at to allow a museum for
children; 10 Nipomo Street; PF-5 zo •pending; Children's Museum
of San Luis ispo, applicant .
Judith Lautner presented th staff rep and recommended approval of the
use permit , subject to findin" and c dit-ions.
Chairperson Duerk opened the publ' . hearing and closed it, after
determining there was no one to. pe k to this item.
Commr. Kourakis moved to app ve the use permit, subject to findings and
conditions. j
Commr. Schmidt seconds/ he motion, Resolut n No. 5007-90.
Chairperson Duerk t exterior art should go t rough the public art review
process.
VOTING: AY - Commrs. Kourskis, Schmidt, Crotser, Hoffman, Karleskint
and Duerk.
OES - None.
ABSENT - None.
Th otion passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 5. Public Hearing: Tract 1750. Consideration of a vesting tentative
tract map creating a 251-lot residential subdivision and 90
residential air-space condominium withins the Edna-Islay Specific
Plan area; 1107 Tank Farm Road; R-1-SP zones; the Pacifica
Corporation, subdivider.
--------
P.C. Minutes
February 28, 1990
Page 9.
Judith Lautner presented the staff report and recommended the commission
recommend approval of the tentative map and the. PD to city council, subject
to findings and conditions, amending conditions 5, 7, and 21 and adding
conditions regarding street paving requirements and Fish & Game Dept.
approval of creek culverts. She noted the receipt . of letters of opposition
to the project, concerned with resource, economical, and environmental
issues.
Commr. Schmidt was concerned about not having the soils and geology report
to determine conformity with the Edna/Islay Specific Plan. He was also
concerned with the creek preservation area and the bike path layout. He
felt there was a general lack of creek information available in the
subdivision maps. He was concerned about deviations in creek preservation
and the protection of open space and public rights-of-way as outlined in
the Specific Plan. He was concerned with the high density calculations of
the condominiums and the Housing Authority area. He had a general concern
with the interpretation of the Specific Plan and what constituted minor and
major amendments and whether that procedure had been followed.
Erwin Willis noted that the flag lots did not appear to meet the fire code.
Wayne Peterson stated he preferred 12 ' lanes and that street rights-of-way
Cremain consistent.
Chairperson Duerk opened the public hearing.
John Wallace, 1458 Higuera, applicant's representative, discussed the
project in terms of a housing opportunity resource. He discussed changes
to the Specific Plan and on-going staff involvement and approval of the
steps of this project. He discussed amenities proposed, such as the new
city park, the historical adobe preservation and park area, types of
housing, the unique trail system and access, and public parking available
for amenity enjoyment. He discussed changes specific to the areas of the
housing Authority site, reordering the phasing pran, park and well
irrigation plans, pedestrian paths, detention basin use, lot
reconfigurations, creek buffers, creeks entrances and crosses, bike plan,
circulation plan, and parking management. He stated that the city had
reviewed the geological study and felt the lots were in conformance and 10 '
streetways were proposed to city standards. He stated the Specific Plan
map was originally an approximation and that the new map more clearly
presented current information and density calculations and allowances.
Craig Campbell, 1458 Higuera, applicant 's representative, discussed the
bike lane location in terms of creek preservation and improvement areas.
Michael Cripe, 1458 Higuera, applicant's representative, discussed
determinations of creek buffers and boundaries and the cross-over section.
^.ommrs. Kourakis and Duerk felt the lower square footage of the open space
111_ ias unacceptable.
P.C. Minutes
February 28, 1990
Page 10. _
Commr. Duerk stated she was against the fence system, felt the adobe should
be used as a community resource, asked about proposed street widths, and
stated that lots 120 and 122 had grading problems.
Herb Gottesman, 4058 Edna, was concerned about preserving Islay Hill
against the intense development and trail system proposed.
Adelle Stern, 4444 Orcutt, stated she wanted the developer to stay specific
to the Specific Plan map and that the suggested buffer street be between
the hillside and houses to protect against wildfires. She was concerned
about the concept of "vesting" .
Robert Stern, 4444 Orcutt, was concerned about Islay Hill erosion and asked
that the Specific Plan be reviewed concerning density bonuses, parking, and
narrowing of street. He felt the well drilling concept was futile and
suggested the water tank be screened.
Edward Callahan, 353 Shell Beach Road, suggested that the proposed
recreation area have a basketball court, which wouldn' t require any
watering and wouldn' t disturb the hillside.
John Wallace responded to public comments.
Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing.
Commr. Crotser was concerned with the numerous requested exceptions and
felt square footage limitations should be set and condominium standards
should be met in their entirety. He wanted to see more geological and
slope information and also felt the adobe could- be developed as a
neighborhood park.
Commr. Hoffman did not feel the 20' street setback exceptions were
warranted and was concerned with the amount of guest parking in the
condominium area and the amount of private open space and street widths.
Commr. Schmidt was concerned that the hill would slide and felt the
developer should bear erosion costs. He felt the grading had. problems and
that padding of lots should be minimized. He felt the creek setback should
be a minimum of 20' and that the adobe park should have unlimited public
access. He was concerned with extensive culverting, resale control of
. affordable housing, higher elevations of buildings, hillside development
standards, and the specifics of the topography.
Chairperson Duerk moved to continue the item to the next available meeting.
Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Duerk, Karleskint, Crotser, Hoffman, Kourakis and
Schmidt.
NOES - None.
ABSENT - None.
i
P.C. Minutes
February 28, 1990
�go 11.
The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. to the next regular meeting of March 14,
1990.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Moske
Recording Secretary
O
O
SU
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Sen Luis Obispo, California
March 28 , 1990 Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Commrs. Charles Crotser, Gilbert Hoffman, Barry Karleskint,
Richard Schmidt, and Chairperson Donna Duerk. (One vacancy)
ABSENT: Commr. Janet Kourakis.
OTHERS
PRESENT: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner; Arnold Jonas, Community
Development Director; Erwin Willis, Fire Dept. ; Wayne Pederson
Engineering; Randy Rossi, Open Space Planner, and Lisa Woske,
Recording Secretary.
The minutes of the meeting were March 3 and March 7, 1990 special meeting
were approved as submitted.
There were no changes to the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Frank Ricceri, 2655 Grell, Oceano, SLOCO Housing representative, reque- `e
that the city investigate converting more land to R-3 zoning to allow i i
coalition to have some land available upon which to build viable,
affordable housing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 1. Public Hearing: Tract 1750. Consideration of a vesting tentativ
map creating a 251-lot residential subdivision and a 90-unit
residential air-space condominium within the Edna-Islay Specific
Plan area; 1107 Tank Farm Road; R-1-SP, R-2-SP, and C/OS-40 SP
zones; The Pacifica Corporation, subdivider. (Continued from
February 28, 1990)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Lautner presented the staff report and noted the receipt of a parce
map involving the dedicated open space. She also discussed the impact of
populations increase from Tract 1750 on school site placement, and the new
parcel map specifics concerning the open space easement and proposed
equestrian center, streetyard reductions, power line placement, and
detention basin capacity.
Randy Rossi discussed the Edna-Islay Specific Plan interpretations he made
while Interim Community Development Director, regarding minor changes in
the number of units proposed, phasing schedule, private recreation area,
housing mix, and street layout and design.
Commrs. Schmidt, Hoffman, Crotser, and Karleskint stated they had spoken
with applicant representatives.
_ S-30
O P.C. Minutes
March 28, 1990
Page 2.
Commr. Schmidt was concerned with the park and bike path placed in the
creek protection area, the lack of an adequate railroad buffer area,
development on the higher hillside, lots backing onto the open space area
and the residential density of the Housing Authority area.
Mr. Rossi discussed the final bike path placement and supported the
_ integrated bike path system. He felt the proposed design was the best
solution in terms of environmental and legal issues and could be mitigate
to protect the creek. He felt the proposed solution to the railroad buff
would achieve noise attenuation, .and incorporate water conservation
efforts, and would be immediately effective without loss of views. He fe:
the hillside development proposed ultimately offered more open space
acreage.
Commr. Schmidt contended these were major changes to the Specific Plan ani
should not be handled at staff level.
Commr. Kerleskint felt there was interpretation flexibility within the
Specific Plan.
Commr. Schmidt was also concerned with the actual grading of the city
easement. He noted that rare turtles had been found on site and questions
whether the existing EIR was adequate. He was concerned with approving a
vesting map when development might not commence for several years.
Wayne Peterson discussed the detention basin system and slide areas.
Chairperson Duerk noted four letters were received from John Chesnut,
outlining concerns with the tract development.
Staff discussed the submitted list of modified conditions.
Chairperson Duerk opened the public hearing.
John Wallace, 1358 Higuera, applicant 's representative, discussed the
changes made in response to previous commission concerns and outlined the
public facilities and enhancements provided by this project. He discussec
reasons why he felt this plan -was superior to the original submittal. He
stated there were 470 dwellings in the project. He did not agree with
,condition 27 realigning "A" Street, as it required more grading and would
be too steep. He felt drainage solutions were adequate. He stated Lot 21
was buildable. He discussed creek setbacks and habitat restoration,
including a proposal to add ten feet to the creek bank. He noted that
"zero-lot line" designs had been considered for the small lots, but had
been rejected.
OCraig Campbell, 4384 Wavertree, applicant ' s representative, discussed the
creek alignment on Lot 215 and the sewer maintenance access road.
,x-3.3
P.C. Minutes
March 28, 1990
Page 3.
Commr. Schmidt reiterated his concern about the need for a new creek
crossing.
Chairperson Duerk was concerned with the use of wells. Mr. Wallace
discussed the need for sound attentuation and noted the final design phase
would be reviewed. Ms. Duerk asked about a connection from "A" Street to
"C" Street. Mr. Campbell responded, saying it would be too steep. He.
discussed the requested sideyard exceptions of 2 feet less than standard.
Chairperson Duerk asked about the type of bridge to be placed over the
creek. Mr. Rossi stated it would be prefabricated, of glulam construction
built off-site. She asked about the low and moderate income housing
effort.
George Moylan, 2684 Johnson, Housing Authority representative, felt the
project was offering them a fair deal and that negotiations with applicant
were going well . He felt the housing was attractive and not isolated from
the rest of the project. He discussed the structure of buying and selling
these units.
Commr. Crotser was concerned with the mixed/multi-use facilities. Mr.
Wallace discussed the homeowners' vs. city liabilities.
John Chesnut, 314 Higuere, was concerned about the flood control adequacy
of the project. He was also concerned that the grade of the bikepath made
it infeasible to use in some areas.
Brigett Todd, 1.126 Wisteria, was concerned about the increased number of
children and where -they would go to school , as local schools were already
impacted. Staff responded that the School District would make those site
decisions. Mr. Wallace noted that the development would pay school fees.
Lisa Dylen, 4623 Wavertree, was concerned about the extended bike path
possibly being located along the rear yard of her property.
Judy Neuhauser, Urban Creek Council representative, presented a slide
report concerned with aspects of creek preservation and the inadequacy of
creek improvements and revegetation already performed. She was concerned
with the potential change in the bike path's location and wanted to see the
path fenced to ensure creek protection. She requested habitat enhancements
be made and that the permit should be reviewed by the Dept. of Fish do Game
biologists., as well as their administrators. She was concerned about the
smell size of the railroad culvert, felt the development should be
clustered in the flood plain, and advised against moving the creek. She
was also concerned about driveways located under the electrical power
transmission line due to possible health hazards.
Mark Moore, 1328 Ironbark, felt Tract 1376 residents were already adver y
impacting the creek and felt hard surface recreation areas should be
provided in the proposed park to mitigate creek use.
S-3•.
P.C. Minutes
March 28, 1990
Page 4.
Susan Graves, 1435 Ironbark, agreed that the creek was being damaged by
resident use and agreed that hard surface park areas should be built. She
stated people were already hiking on Islay Hill and that the trail system
should be Out on hold until the usage was studied.
Adele Stern, 4444 Orcutt, clarified square footage calculations for the
railroad buffer, side yard, and backyard areas. She did not feel anyone
should be within 50 to 100 feet of the railroad.
Herbert Gottesman, 4058 Edna, was concerned with the preservation and
protection of Islay Hill. He felt the trail system should be deferred or
eliminated, mountain bikes should be banned, water tanks should be
screened, and no power lines should be visible against the hill .
Robert Stern, 4444 Orcutt, noted that the power lines have broken in the
past and created fires and he thought houses should not be near them. He
felt the original Specific Plan map was more effective and suggested
eliminating the lots on the hillside to avoid potential problems.
Stuart Greene, 867 Pacific, applicant 's representative, discussed the
timely manner of mitigating problems prior to development, and agreed to
provide hard surface recreation areas and revegetate the creek and areas of
Tract 1376 . He discussed the easement covenant.
Don Smith, Vista Lego, felt there were too many questions with the proposed
map and felt the project had been downgraded. He felt there should be an
updated EIR and Specific Plan for council re_view.
Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing.
Commr. Crotser felt the project met the intent of the Specific Plan. He
felt the bike path should remain in the present configuration with
performance standards regarding the vertical separation and landscaping of
the preservation area and bike path. He felt the hillside lots needed
design standards for rear lot fencing, and there should be a 50 foot
setback from slide area boundaries. He was concerned with large houses
being on small sites and wanted design standards regarding yard setbacks
and floor areas. He felt the railroad buffer area should be mixed use and
opened up and was concerned about health factors related to the power
transmission lines. He agreed with the need for early provision of hard
surface areas in the park and did not think trails should be placed an
Islay Hill until a need is determined. He wanted to see the buffer areas
widened.
Commr. Hoffman agreed, stating he wanted to also see a hard edge against
the hillside and elimination of lots on "L" Street. He felt the bike path
should remain on the west side of the creek; a 100 foot easement should
exist under power lines; Phases 3 and 4 small lots needed as much usable
space as possible, and wanted a 100 year flood and slide area study
performed before the lot layout was approved.
i
P.C. Minutes
March 28, 1990
Page 5.
Commr. Karleskint did not agree with connecting streets "A" and "L" . He
agreed with the development of hillside lots and was concerned about people
using the hill without trails. He agreed with the need for hardscapes and
wanted a well installed for landscaping. He did not want any lots under
power lines.
Commr. Schmidt was concerned with the disparities of what had been approved
on Tract 1376 and what had finally been built. He felt those conditions
had been violated and should be rectified. He felt this final map should
clime back for Commission review. He also felt that the culverting of Islay
Hill swales should be prohibited; affordable housing should be sold only to
owner-occupants; the lower lot padding should be uniform; the adjacent
hillside development should have a 100' power line easement; the public
road should run along the hill; disclaimers should be included on deeds
concerning land slides and power transmission dangers; bike path bridges
should be free span, and existing improved areas should be revegetated. He
discussed correcting the language of condition 9 regarding PD rezoning;
added Dept. of Fish do Game biologist approval requirements to condition 11,
and discussed conditions 38 and 39 regarding hillside standards of the
Specific Plan.
Commr. Crotser moved to approve the vesting tentative tract map, subject;'
findings and conditions, amended conditions 3, 99 119 239 35, 38 and 41, d
added conditions concerning the revegetation of Tract 1376, having a
minimum 100 ' powerline easement, having park hardscape installed
immediately, deferring installation of trails on Islay Hill, requiring a
minimum 20 ' setback from top of bank for lot lines, and to have the final
map come back for Commission review.
Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion.
Commr. Hoffman felt there were too many questions regarding the open space,
noise buffers, and flooding to approve a subdivision at this time.
Commr. Schmidt stated he could not make the findings because of lack of
conformity with the Specific Plan.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Crotser, Karleskint, and Duerk.
NOES Commrs. Hoffman and Schmidt.
ABSENT - Commr. Kourskis.
The motion passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2. Public Hearing: Tract 1841 Consideration of a tentativ
• e tract
map creating a 10-unit residential air-space condominium
conversion; 415 North Chorro Street; R-4 zone; Stephen Nelson,
subdivider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
�sV�
0
ADDENDUM
TO THE
EDNA-ISLILY SPECIFIC PLAN
BNVIRONMEN'1'AL IMPACT REPORT
August 3990
O
O
e
EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN EIR ADDENDUM
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Environmental status
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. SCOPE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. SPECIFIC PLAN CHANGES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Creek habitat
. 2
Bike path relocation 2
Riparian animal species of concern . . . . . . 3
Creek enhancement
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Street alianment
. 6
C. Detention basin modifications
. .of . . 7
D. Replacement private recreation area with oublic
park
E. Medium-density areas
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
F. Railroad*buffer
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV. CONCLUSION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
APPENDIX . . . . . . v
ADDENDUM
O TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN
August 1990
I. INTRODUCTION
Background
The original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan was certified as complete by the City of San Luis
Obispo on February 8, 1982. Since then, the owners of the Edna
side have submitted six subdivision maps, constructed about 400
dwellings,and have almost completed development of their land west
of the railroad. A subdivision for the first phase of development
in the Islay area, was approved in 1987, and 131 homes have been
built.
Tract 1750, a master tentative subdivision map, subdivides the
remainder of the property on the Islay side. This map divides the
development into six phases, and allows construction of 333
additional homes.
OThe adopted specific plan includes provisions that recognize that
when subdivisions within the planning area are submitted, it is
likely that some changes to the specific plan will be requested.
Provisions on pages 81 and 82 describe what constitutes a "minor"
change versus a "major" change, 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. Tract 1750 includes several minor changes and
interpretations of the specific plan.
Rnvironmental status
The California Environmental Quality Act exempts specific-planned
residential projects from additional environmental review, except
where changes have taken place that may not have been considered
in the original EIR. An addendum to an EIR is required when "minor
technical changes or additions" will make the EIR adequate under
CEQA. Since the original EIR was adopted, some changes have been
made to the specific plan and additional information is known about
animal species on site. The City Council, on. July 3, 1990,
required that an addendum be prepared to address these changes.
This addendum also includes discussion of the railroad buffer
design, although the design did not technically involve a change
to the specific plan.
II. SCOPE
This addendum addresses impacts of changes to the specific plan map
and text, as indicated on the tentative tract map for Tract 1750,
that were determined to be minor by the Community Development
Director. These changes include (and are indicated on the attached
maps) :
Creek habitat changes
* Changes to the bicycle path route
* Riparian animal species of concern
* Planting of creek bank buffer areas
Street alignment changes
* The road alignment adjacent to Islay Hill
Flooding concerns
* Size of detention basins
Replacement of private recreation area with public park
* Restoration of the Rodriguez adobe
Design of medium-density areas
* Condominiums and small lots
Railroad buffer design
* Size and design of railroad buffers
III. SPECIFIC PLAN CHANGES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Creek habitat
Bike path relocations
Proposed chancre: The specific plan calls for different
treatments for "creek preservation" and "creek improvement"areas,
as the preservation areas, because of underground springs and other
natural features, have greater wildlife habitat value than the
improvement areas. The specific plan says that bike paths near
creeks in "creek preservation areas" must be set back a minimum of
SIR Addendum
Page 2 � �
O 26 feet from the top of bank (figure 19 -specific plan) .
The proposed neighborhood park plan (off Tank Farm Road, at the
Orcutt Road intersection, between the two tributaries of the creek)
shows a bicycle/pedestrian 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. The path
crosses the creek farther south than shown on the specific plan map
(see exhibits A and B) . The southerly portion of the path intrudes
into a "creek preservation area".
An adjustment in the street alignment within Tract 1376, the
previous subdivision in this area, led to the need to cross the
creek farther south than shown on the specific plan map.
To strengthen the original mitigation measures in the vicinity of
the path, the project description has been revised to include
additional fencing and planting, to further buffer the creek
habitat from the path. The ultimate alignment of the path may be
dictated by specific recommendations coming from a "turtle habitat
study", discussed below:
Riparian animal species of concern:
When the original EIR was adopted, there were no rare or endangered
species identified within the project site. To date, no species
at the site have been listed as rare or endangered. However, the
EIR listed two animal species as expected to live at the site which
are undergoing closer study by experts and state and federal
officials. The Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) and
the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytoni) havesince
been listed as class 2 Candidate species for "threatened or
endangered" status, by the U.S. Fish and- Wildlife Service, and as
"species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish
and Game (DFG) . Evidence of these species has been found at the
site. The number of turtles and frogs at the site is unknown.
However, it is expected that the two species essentially share the
same habitat.
Environmental effects:
The proposed bicycle/pedestrian path enters an area near where
Western Pond Turtles and the Red-legged Frogs have been observed,
and which may be suitable habitat for the two species. Human
intrusion and domestic animal predation in this area could have a
detrimental effect on these and other sensitive species, nesting
and foraging activities.
Because of these concerns, the project description has been
modified to include funding for a turtle habitat study and
subsequent modifications to the map, including removal of the
O EIR Addendum
Page 3
V �/
r.
i +
bicycle/pedestrian path in this area, if necessary.
The DFG has reviewed the amended project and its potential effects
on the riparian animal species noted above. and is recommending
approval of the map, with the added study, provided three
conditions are incorporated into map approval. The recommended
project conditions now include the DFG recommendations as part of
the conditions requiring the turtle study (see letter from DFG,
incorporated in this report as Exhibit C) :
* A team shall be established to select a consultant and monitor
a turtle habitat study. 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 project applicant.
The team shall assist the city in selecting a qualified
consultant to conduct a turtle habitat study. The turtle
study should focus on the following goals:
a. Identify the essential habitat for the turtles (and by
extension, the frogs).
b. Determine the sizes of the turtle populations on site,
age and sex characteristics, and attempt to identify
nesting areas.
I
C. Identify specific essential habitat preservation areas,
if any, within the area designated as lots 184 through
206 on the tentative map, which should be . incorporated
into the final project design.
d. Recommend any additional habitat protection techniques
to be incorporated into the final project design.
Funding, not to exceed $10,000, shall be provided by the
applicant. The study period will continue for a maximum of
24 months, with a 27-month time limitation for both the study
and determination of implementation measures to be required
of the developer. The study period is to begin when the
consultant is hired and begins work. Where a consensus or
majority decision cannot be reached within the study team, the
Community Development Director shall make the decision.
No work, except for temporary improvements that limit human
access to the riparian habitat, shall be conducted within the
study area, as defined on the Creek Concepts Plan approved as
part of this subdivision, prior to completion of the turtle
habitat study. Any need for additional environmental review
prior to approval of the final maps for phases 5 and 6 is to
8IR Addendum
Page 4
n be determined by the Community Development Director, and is
subject to normal appeal procedures. All necessary studies,
enhancement measures, and site changes shall be identified
prior to the recordation of final maps for phases 5 and 6.
The site design of lots 184 through 206 and the adjacent
streets will be adjusted in conformance with the
recommendations of the turtle habitat study and to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the
California Department of Fish and Game.
* The top-of-bank buffer improvements adjacent to the turtle
habitat shall be installed as soon as possible to provide
immediate protection of the existing riparian habitat.
Original Mitigation Measures:
The original EIR recognized the possible impacts on riparian animal
species and recommended, in addition to the twenty-foot-wide buffer
area proposed in the specific plan, two mitigation measures
relating to the riparian areas:
* Areas of the southern tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek
should be revegetated with native riparian species including
willow, sycamore, and elderberry.
* Stream crossings should be accomplished via bridges rather
than culverts.
These mitigation measures are incorporated into the project design.
To strengthen the measures, the following is recommended:
Mitigation measure enhancement:
1. No significant deviation from the original mitigation measures
to protect the on-site creek shall be allowed, unless
specifically identified in this addendum or in the
recommendations of the turtle habitat study, as approved by
the Community Development Director.
Creek enhancement
Proposed change: The specific plan calls for different minimum
buffers for creek improvement and creek preservation areas. The
creek improvement areas are required to be regraded (as necessary)
and replanted with indigenous species. The creek preservation
areas, on the other hand, are required to be planted only between
the top of bank and the adjacent residential yards, park, or
pathways. Planting was to be done at the time each phase including
a creek was developed.
O EIR Addendum
Page 5
v
• r
The proposed planting, shown on the "Creek Concepts Plan", which
is a part of Tract 1750, includes planting preservation area banks
as well as improvement area banks, to maintain their habitat value.
The plan also calls for completion of the planting with the first
phase of development, to allow earlier establishment of plants.
All buffer dimensions required in the specific plan are met or
exceeded. Some buffer areas include non-planted strips, up to 100
feet wide, in addition to the 20'-wide planted areas. The non-
planted areas serve as uphill open spaces, to be available for
nesting sites for the turtles and general wildlife foraging.
Environmental effects:
The proposed changes exceed the minimum standards for protection
of wildlife specified in the specific plan. No adverse
environmental effects are expected from these changes.
B. Street alicament •
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.
Environmental effects
Landslide potential: A soils and geology report was completed for
the proposed development. This report identifies no landslides in
the vicinity of these lots.
Visual impacts: - The homes built on these lots will be visible by
both short- and long-range viewers. Visual impacts should be
considered in comparison with those expected from implementation
of the specific plan map. The change would result in homes farther
up the northeasterly hillside, and farther down the northwesterly
hillside than the specific plan map shows. The amount of hillside
area left as open space would be slightly greater than shown on the
specific plan map. The original EIR identified visual impacts as
an impact of homes against the hillside.
Short-range viewers: Recreational viewers on .the nearest public
street to the hillside would be affected by the view of homes,
landscaping, and fencing that would interfere with open views of
the hillside.
Long-range viewers: The visual impacts from a distance are
expected to be insignificant, as the degree of development on the
hillside will remain approximately the same as called for in the
EIR Addendum'
Page 6
O specific plan originally.
Mitigation of impacts
The specific plan includes standards for all development on
hillsides. These standards closely resemble the city's hillside
standards, which are incorporated into the Land Use Element. In
addition to these standards, the following is recommended:
Mitigation measure enhancement:
2. Homes adjacent to the Islay Hill open space shall be built
close to the street. Streetyard exceptions will be encouraged
where no safety concerns result. No solid fencing shall be
allowed in the rear yards, beyond 20' from the rear of the
homes.
C. Detention basin modifications
Proposed change:
The proposed detention basins are smaller in total capacity than
the specific plan requires. The original EISP hydrology study
called for two basins totalling 29 acre-feet (AF) in the Islay side
of the Edna-Islay area. After adoption of the specific plan, the
original engineer developed more precise calculations, resulting
O in a total storage volume requirement of 14 AF plus freeboard, with
the larger basin being located on the southeasterly portion of the
site.
The proposed two basins contain a total capacity of 25 AF including
freeboard. The arrangement and design- of the basins has been
analysed in accordance with specific plan design criteria, and
found to be adequate by the project engineer.
Environmental effects:
If the basins are smaller than needed, the surrounding area will
flood in heavy rains, resulting in damage to homes and temporary
loss of wildlife habitat.
The design of the proposed detention basins has been reviewed by
the original hydraulic engineer for the specific plan, under
contract with the city. This. review found that the proposed
detention basins are adequate. No additional mitigation is
required.
D. Replacement of private recreation area With pubic park
The specific plan EIR says that the Rodriguez adobe should be
O BIR Addendum
Page 7
looked at more carefully at the time of subdivision, to determine
its historical value. The specific plan itself does not address J
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.
The private recreation area was included in the specific plan as
a means to utilize a low area, and to provide distance between the
railroad tracks and homes, alleviating noise concerns. The
recreation area was expected to be a tennis club or similar private
activity, available to residents of the area. Thearea would
provide recreational opportunities to the neighborhood, in addition
to the neighborhood park and trails system.
The adobe park, as proposed, would be a small public park,
available to all citizens but designed primarily for use by the
neighborhood. It would provide a building suitable for a variety
of activities, the range of which would be limited by the size of
the building and grounds, availability of parking, and the degree
to which the adobe can be restored.
Environmental effects:
Noise: The change results in placement of a detention basin in
the general area of the private recreation area. The detention
basin is smaller than the private recreation area, and therefore
homes will be placed closer to the tracks than shown in the
specific plan. Noise from the railroad could have a detrimental
effect on these homes, if unprotected. Noise impacts are mitigated
in conformance with specific plan standards. No significant
impacts are expected to result from this change. (See also
discussion on railroad buffer area. )
Recreational opportunities: The replacement of a private
recreational area with a public recreational area still affords
recreational opportunities for the neighborhood. Since the adobe
park is to be public, it will be available to all citizens at no
cost. The subdivision also includes a private recreation area
within the condominium development, which includes a pool and
recreation building. The combination of public park and private
recreational facilities is equal in area to the specific-planned
private recreation area. Therefore, there will be no deficit.
E. Medium-density areas
The specific plan shows two distinct medium-density areas: one
near the railroad tracks and Tank Farm Road, the other
southeasterly of the first. The proposal includes two adjacent
EIR Addendum \
Page 8
S�-S
medium-density areas: a condominium development near Tank Farm
Road, and a larger medium-density area extending southerly from the
first, proposed to be rezoned R-1-PD. The second area is composed
of smaller lots than are normally required in the R-1 zone.
Environmental effects:
The density proposed for the "small lot" subdivision is slightly
higher than R-1 density, and therefore qualifies as medium-
density. This proposal differs from the standard lots developed
as part of Tract 1376, as well as from the condominium proposal
that is part of Tract 1750. The smaller lots will provide adequate
area for small yards (the average lot is approximately 5,000 square
feet) and homes smaller than the average in Tract 1376.
Because of their smaller size, the homes on these lots should
appeal to a different market than the Tract 1376 homes retired
couples, small families, buyers of "first" homes. The overall
density resulting from the small lots is approximately the same as
anticipated in the specific plan.
The proposal to provide this type of housing, in addition to the
standard-size lots, the condominiums, the apartments, and the
larger custom lots, is consistent with the specific plan's goal to
provide a variety of housing, approximating the city as a whole.
ONo significant environmental effects will result from the change
from standard single-family lots plus medium-density clustered
housing, to smaller lots.
P. Railroad buffer `
The specific plan guidelines for the railroad buffer provide
several "concepts" of :noise and visual buffers. Different concepts
are to be used in different locations, depending on topography and
distance of homes from the railroad.
Tract 1750 provides noise attenuation primarily through the use of
sound walls, up to 6.5' high, on residential lots closest to the
railroad. Portions of the proposed buffer are narrower than called
for in the specific plan. However, the specific plan (page 31)
says, "Other combinations of barriers may also be built as long as
they are equal to or better than those described above and are
visually acceptable to the city. " This alternative design, then,
is not a change to the specific plan. It is included in this
addendum for completeness.
OEIR Addendum
Page 9
Environmental effects• �^
Noise: A noise study has been completed that identifies no
significant noise impacts from the railroad buffer as proposed.
Visual impacts: The proposal includes planting of heavy vegetation
in the buffer areas, similar to the specific plan guidelines. The
primary difference is in the depth of planting. The difference is
not judged to be significant.
Recommendation
3. To assure consistency with the specific plan, the City Council
should find, in its action approving Tract 1750, that. the
proposed use of sound walls perform equally or better than the
concept shown in the specific plan, and that the wall is
visually acceptable.
IV. CONCLUSION
The changes to the certified EIR discussed above do not raise
important new issues about the significant effects on the
environment. The following recommendations assure consistency with
the goals of the Edna-.Islay Specific Plan:
1. No significant deviation from the original mitigation measures
to protect the on-site creek shall be allowed, unless
specifically identified in this addendum or in the
recommendations of the turtle habitat study, as approved by
the Community Development Director.
2. Homes adjacent to the Islay Hill open space shall be built
close to the street. Streetyard exceptions will be encouraged
where no safety concerns result. No solid fencing shall be
allowed in the rear yards, beyond 20' from the rear of the
homes.
3.- To assure consistency with the specific plan, the City Council
should find, in its action approving Tract 1750, that the
proposed use of sound walls perform equally or better than the
concept shown in the specific plan, and that the wall is
visually acceptable.
SIR Addendum
Page 10
s d'
F I
L• s. S
� f �T l ^•' 41�FY .vk F _
y AY� i�y-� t i r �' .w t 91`^\1S�'%R'A i`.�r"�.>•4'.�
X < L S�, �$1 aha..,s`.�`y'.� _ s. -t^t^ a3�.''•
` k1'�'�
f'. cY, v4r '�'~`<'k'�` '_f>,4 '�4 �_�"�L�}R.l���.'•.`''Y 4 8132 nT - 1 Svc
Aw
y 1 a�,y5`fi`,�,`r"n" ,''�tt:-y"�•, „at,.�'f,�tL.FtF.�'4'���i +�IM1 4�1„ r
� a
•,)%'- .�1'�:may: [ Y':�;ldc -.
��• ..
i
,Ank •
IL
AS
OMMIBITS
A. Original Specific Plan map
B. Tentative Tract 1750 map
C. Letter from Department of Fish and Game
O
SIR Addendum
Page i
�-fib
o -�-
OEM
01
or 9
01
CO
JUH U-4 7U 10-':iG
f yh 11 1'r C
STATE of CAUFMNIA—ft USWRCES AGENCY OfOROf NUILMLIAN. Gewmr
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAMEArm
POP
iOFFICE BOX 47
ua CAUFORNIA %599June 4, 1990
(7D7) 4f4S300
Mr, Craig Campbell
John L. Wallace & Associates
1458 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Campbell :
The Arbors at Islay Hill
Vesting Tentative Map No. 1750
City of San Luis Obispo
We have reviewed the propossed Tentative Tract 1750 "Creek
Treatment Concept Plan" and your comments regarding the protection
of the Southwestern Pond Turtle and Red Legged Frog colonies which
the plan addresses.
The Department of Fish and Game approves of the "Creek Treatment
Concept Pian, " provided the following are incorporated into the
conditions of approval of the tentative map.
1. The alto design of lots 184 through 206 and the adjacent
streets will be adjusted in conformance with the results of
the south western pond turtle study and to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director and the California
Department of Fish and Game.
2. All necessary studies, mitigation measures, and site changes
shall be identified prior to the recordation of final maps for
phases 5 and 6.
3. The top-of-bank buffer improvements adjacent to the turtle
habitat shall be installed as soon as possible to provide
immediate protection for the existing turtle population.
The final wording of the above conditions of approval of the
tentative map shall be approved by the California Department of
Fish and Game prior to approval of the map by the City of San Luis
Obispo.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact
Theodore Wooster, Environmental Services Supervisor, at ( 707)
944-5524.
Sincerely,
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
1� !
APPENDIX
CEQA Sections 15162 - 15164: Subsequent EIR, supplement to an EIR,
Specific plan excerpts: and addendum requirements
Figure 18 (Creek improvement area standards)
Figure 19 (Creek preservation area standards)
Hillside development standards
Land Use Element excerpts:
Hillside standards
Noise study
Excerpt from Federal Register showing listing of frog and turtle
as candidate species
Letter from Dan Holland, 5 June 1990
O
JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
MEEMC
August 10, 1990 DATE mai c
i ACIENDAr1B1:r
Honorable Mayor and City Council ; [ IrpLN; L
City of San Luis ObispoF1 FeT1.D:'
P.O. Box 8100 = r :1TOPNL-Y ❑ IT. Dix
San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100 r i�J . ao VU—iLDUL
E
Subject: Tract 1750, The Arbors at Islay Hill
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council members:
On July 3, 1990, the Arbors project was before the City Council.
In following the Council's direction after that meeting, several
significant actions have been undertaken. These include the
following:
1. In accordance with C.E.Q.A. requirements, City Staff has
prepared an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report,
addressing those items requested by the Council to be
appended to the original EIR.
2. The Pacifica Corporation has constructed a system of
temporary fencing to protect the sensitive habitat areas,
pending the permanent creek buffering projects to be
constructed after tentative approval of the project. .
Also, detailed construction and landscape plans for the .
creek buffering improvements (and Tract 1376 creek
revegetation) are being prepared for City review and
approval. This design has been "fast tracked" so that
installation can occur quickly after map approval.
3. Dr. James Schaaf, the hydrology consultant originally
retained by the City for the Edna/Islay Specific Plan (EISP)
reviewed and approved the Tract 1750 detention basin
analysis and the sizing of the proposed detention basins.
4. A minor change to the park plan has been approved by the
Parks and Recreation Commission. This change rotates the
baseball field such that "home run" balls do not land in the
sensitive habitat areas, and locates one of the creek
crossings (park to hillside) entirely out of the EISP creek
preservation areas.
We believe that all of the above are positive activities and will
further enhance the project for the Council's final consideration
on August 21, 1990.
1458 HIGUERA STREET• SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 • (805)544-4011 • FAX(805)54411294
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 10, 1990
Page 2.
Although both Staff and the applicant have workedveryhard to
refine the remaining details of the project and to prepare a
final package for the Council, at this point in the process we
still feel there are a few changes warranted to the Staff
recommendations. These items are as follows:
1. The first is condition No. 2 of the Planned Development,
which reads:
"No sideyard exceptions are allowed for the lots
in phases 3 and 4 (small lots) . "
We believe that a blanket condition rejecting all sideyard
setbacks is inappropriate. When the project was before the
Planning Commission, we were presenting a planning scheme
where nearly every lot in phases 3 and 4 had a side setback
exception on one side (usually with a compensating excess on
the other side) . The Planning Commission was concerned with
this approach and denied the exception requests.
In accordance with this action, we have removed the
requested setback exceptions from the site plan. City Staff
however, has interpreted the Planning Commission action as
intending that no setback exceptions will ever be allowed on
any lot in phase 3 and 4. We disagree with this
interpretation, and feel that setback exceptions if ever
requested should be able to be considered on a case by case
basis.
This project will be superior if it enjoys the same
flexibility as all other lots in the City. There are times
when setback exceptions are warranted and the City has an
established review process for this. Setback exceptions
should be considered on a case by case basis, based on the
merits of the situation and we feel therefore, that this
condition should be deleted.
2. The second condition with which we have difficulty with is
the Tract Map Condition #55, which reads:
"The final maps shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for review and
recommendation, prior to City Council
approval. "
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 10, 1990
Page 3.
With this condition, the Planning Commission is introducing
an unnecessary, and precedent setting new step in the City
Planning process . City ordinances do not provide for this
extra step and we feel that it is unproductive for the
Planning Commission to duplicate the Council function of
reviewing final maps for conformance to tentative maps.
Spending the additional time to prepare duplicate staff
reports, public notices and hold public hearings at the
critical time when a final map is ready for recordation is a
very significant hardship. We hope that the Council will
consider carefully whether or not this is a reasonable
process for this, or other projects.
3. The Tract Map Conditions of Approval Numbers 52 and 53
specify future fees to be paid that are not yet being
considered by the City for adoption. We understand the
Staff's desire to obtain future fees not yet- adopted but
believe that this is inappropriate and have attached a
memorandum from Mr. Roger Picquet addressing the legal
nature of our position in the matter. We would appreciate
the Council's consideration of this information and the
deletion of Conditions Numbers 52 and 53.
We appreciate the Council's consideration of all to these items
and urge that it proceed to finalize the tentative approval of
the remaining phases of the Islay portion of the Edna/Islay
Specific Plan as indicated in your preliminary action on July 3,
1990.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please
do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
John L. Wace
Principal
cc: Arnold Jonas - City of San Luis Obispo
Jim Ring - Pacifica
CAC:mv/110-3
110/arbors.let
RU tlliutA
DATE 9-21- 90 ITEM #
San Luis Coastal Unified School District
1 4 9 9 SAN LUIS DRIVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93+01-3099
• TELEPHONE (805) 543-2010
�. 7J i
August 10, 1990 %�`` -, - E_1 i
RECEIVED
Honorable Ron Dunin / / '
Mayor, City of San Luis =� AUG 1 4 t9gp
P.O. Box 990 �,.1
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 feu LUIS 081SP0,CA
Dear Mr. Dunin:
Thank you for your letter of July 20, 1990, regarding the district's interest in the proposed
subdivision in the Edna-Islay area. Unfortunately, I was out of the country and was unable to
respond to you by your deadline of July 27. I hope the following will still be of use to you.
• In the past year the Board of Education and district administration have been reviewing and
studying growth in the eastern and southern portions of the school district in which the Edna-
Islay, Garcia Ridge, and Dalidio projects lie. Both the Edna-Islay and Garcia Ridge projects are
within the Los Ranchos Elementary School attendance area while the Dalidio project is nearest
to C.L. Smith Elementary School.
Los Ranchos Elementary School is currently overcrowded. Construction of a twelve-classroom
wing approved for construction by the Board of Education in 1986 is in progress. At the time of
the project's approval, the addition was felt to be adequate to house new student growth for four
to five years after completion. One year behind the original completion date, we now expect to
fill all classrooms this school year. The proposed subdivision you are reviewing in Edna-Islay has
been identified as one which will have a major impact on the Los Ranchos Elementary School
and Laguna Junior High School future.
As the city continues to develop outward, and the unincorporated coy.aty areas Past of the city
develop inward, the district recognizes there will be a need for future schools ,m' sites; however,
the presence of t::: airport in this growth area places a rewricti•7n on the district's a,di:.,i to
identify pot-Mtial school sites. Education Code §39605 dofs not allow the. pla^.Fment of a school
within two milks of an airport unless there is Department of Transportation approval. Tire
narrow topography of Edna Valley; the physical placement of the aiTon runway; w ri the Etight
approach patterns make it is unli c-!y that the district could obtain approval for a school site
within the Garcia Ridge or Edna-slay develop_lents.
•
CADTUNII.810
District Superintendent. EDWIN DENTON, Ed.D. ,
. P
i
Honorable Ron Dunin
August 10, 1990
Page 2
There is a site which has the potential to be approved for school use on Orcutt Road between
Tank Farm Road and Johnson Avenue. This site was pointed out to us by your planning staff
and is identified as a Joint Park and School Site in the Parks Element of the City General Plan.
At present, neither the City nor the school district owns the site.
The next area of concern is the district's financial ability to acquire school sites and build schools.
As you are aware, the district does not have the authority to require developers to donate or
convey school sites or to mitigate the impact their developments have upon the school system..
Currently, the district does levy developer fees as authorized by law at $1.50 per square foot on
residential construction. These funds represent approximately 20% of the cost of constructing a
school facility and are presently used to provide interim student housing (relocatable classrooms).
The district does not qualify for the State School Building Program, but even if it did qualify, the
State program has only $800 million in available moneys with a statewide need of$6 billion. The
administration and the Board of.Education have begun developing a facility package and are in
early discussions of the possibility of placing a general obligation bond initiative on the June
ballot. Absent the voters' approval of this funding, the district has no method of constructing new
schools..
In May 1990, the Board of Education considered a number of student housing options for
redirecting students from neighborhood schools, changing attendance boundaries, and cross-
district bussing. While none of these measures was approved for the coming school year, some
will have to be implemented in the 1991-92 school year should the Los Ranchos attendance area
population continue to grow. I have enclosed a copy of the agenda item in which these growth
issues were discussed for your information.
If you, the Council, or City staff have any further questions, concerns, or ideas, please feel free to
call me at any time.
Sincerely/1
i
OR GSTON
Stant, uperintendent, Business
RLL:mkh
Enclosure
cc: Edwin Denton, Superintendent
GWMDUNIN.810
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
O REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA
May.1, 1990
ITEM NO.: 14.
TOPIC: School Attendance Area Boundaries
PREPARED BY: Rory Livingston
WILL BE PRESENTED BY: Rory L. Livingston
TYPE OF ITEM: Action/Discussion
DESCRIPTION OF AGENDA ITEM:
For some months, the administration has been reviewing the demographic and growth trends
in the district. On April 17, 1990, staff presented its analysis of the problems and proposed
alternatives for their solution. The Board of Education asked that, in addition to the staff
proposals, the following concerns be addressed:
1. Consider a grandfather clause to allow sixth graders to remain at Los Ranchos
Elementary School in 1991-92, provided parents provide required transportation.
2. Designate attendance areas for all new developments to avoid impacts such as Los .
Ranchos Elementary School has been experiencing with the Country Club development.
3. Specify what district facilities are being used by other organizations.
4. Consider moving Los Ranohos Elementary School K-3 students to Bellevue-Santa Fe
Elementary School, and leaving remaining 4-6 grade students at Los Ranchos Elementary
School.
5. Provide an analysis of the current population of Teach Elementary School, and show the
impacts to district schools if the alternative school program is expanded to third grade.
.6. Prepare a back-up plan to the option of expanding Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School.
7. Consider reopening San Luis Obispo Junior High School as an elementary school.
8. Examine the socioeconomic profile of the area proposed for transfer (South Higuera).
The text of the agenda item as presented on April 17 follows in order to provide background and
a complete document including the details and alternatives considered. At the end of this report
(page 16.10), the Board's concerns enumerated above have been addressed followed by staff's
recommendation for action at this time.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
• Attached: Yes xx No
Available: Yes xx No
14.1 More . . : .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda 'May 1, 1990
School Attendance Area Boundaries
RECAP OF APRIL 17 PRESENTATION
There are two areas of the district experiencing significant changes which create problems in
providing equal educational opportunities for all students--the northern coastal area (the Morro
Elementary School attendance area) and the southern central and southeastern portions of the
district which encompass attendance areas for Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School, Los
Ranchos Elementary School, and C.L. Smith Elementary School. The administration has
reviewed the data and developed a series of recommendations for implementation in the 1990-91
school year. The following provides an overview of the present. and future trends, options
considered, and the administration's recommendation for 1990-91 and beyond.
I. Overview of Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School, Los Ranchos Elementary School, and
C.L. Smith Elementary School Attendance Areas:
A. Enrollment Data
Bellevue-Santa Fe Los Ranchos C.L Smith Elementary
ElementarySchool Elementary School School
1985-86 75 246 438
1989-90 93* 431 483
* NOTE: 21 students were transferred to other schools due to an inadequate number
of students to fill classes in certain grade levels.
B. Potential for Future Growth. In reviewing the growth potential for the three
attendance areas of concern, it was readily apparent that they are in three different
modes of growth. The Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School attendance area is
experiencing relatively low growth due to either water moratoriums or the low-
density development of the region. Growth in the C.L. Smith Elementary School
attendance area has historically been somewhat flat; however, upon review of
pending and proposed development proposals, the school is on the precipice of
major future growth. Los Ranchos Elementary School has been impacted by
significant recent and future growth. In a time span of four years the student
population has nearly doubled. The Edna-Islay project and Country Club areas
have added 803 dwelling units to this school's attendance area of which 147 were
still unoccupied in mid-March. Once occupied, these units would add 35-47
students. Additionally, a large portion of the Los Ranchos Elementary School
attendance area is subject to the County Planning Department's jurisdiction. Due
to the reaction of the various growth limitation measures, the county has been
deluged with subdivision and permit applications. To date, neither the
administration nor the county is able to assess the full impact of the recent
submittals upon the Los Ranchos Elementary School attendance area. However,
there are several large proposed subdivisions within the study area. Excluding
impacts of small development, the major projects alone will exceed the capacity
of C.L. Smith Elementary School and Los Ranchos Elementary School. The
projects are as follows:
14.2 More . . . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
• School Attendance Area Boundaries
Project Name # of Dwelling Units Current School of Attendance
Dalidio Project 994 C.L. Smith Elementary School
Edna-Islay 559 Los Ranchos Elementary School
Garcia Ridge 650 Los Ranchos Elementary School
Irish Hills 254 C.L.Smith Elementary School
C. Assessment of Problem—Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School. In reviewing the
delivery of instructional services, it is recognized that, for the future, the ability of
C.L. Smith Elementary School and Los Ranchos Elementary School to
accommodate additional students will be a challenging problem. Of a more
immediate need is the under-utilization of Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School.
Over the past several years, Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School has suffered
from fluctuating enrollments and unequal grade level distribution of students. In
order to properly instruct the students, the district has had to transport entire
grade levels to Hawthorne Elementary School and C.L. Smith Elementary School.
During the 1989-90 year, the district transferred 21 students from Bellevue-Santa
Fe Elementary School to other attendance areas. In order to stabilize the
Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School situation, the administration has looked to
neighboring attendance areas for mitigation options. It is the administration's
opinion that a minimum schoolk would be one which offers two classrooms per
• grade level, or (by this district's class loading standards) a K-6 population of 371.
The closer a school is to this configuration, the better the district is able to
maintain a consistent and equal level of instruction throughout the district.
Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School's current population of 93 is only 25.07%
of this minimum number.
D. Assessment of Problem—Future Growth in Study Area -
1. When areas convert from agriculture to housing, school sites are typically
planned, acquired, and schools eventually built. In the Los Ranchos
Elementary School attendance area, this would normally be the case
except for the fact that the San Luis Obispo County Airport rests in the
center. Education Code §39007 effectively precludes the acquisition of a
school site or placement of a school within two miles of an airport runway
unless the site is approved by the Department of Transportation. This law
excludes sites acquired prior to 1966. Due to the location of the airport,
its operations, and the unique topography of the valley, the district could
not locate a school within the Edna-Islay or Garcia Ridge projects. The
only possible location near where student growth is occurring is along
Orcutt Road between Tank Farm Road and Johnson Avenue where the
City designated in its Parks Master Plan some property as a future
park/school site. The property is currently not in the City limits and would
have to be approved by both the Departments of Transportation and
Education. If approved, the Board of Education would still need to find
• funds to acquire the property and construct the school.
14.3 More .. . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
School Attendance Area Boundaries
2. Both the Irish Hills and Dalidio projects are outside the airport radius.
Within the Dalidio Specific Plan, there is an elementary school site
identified adjacent to Pacific Beach High School. There are no sites in the
Irish Hills project. In the event the Dalidio project is approved, the district
would still be faced with the requirement to purchase the property. Both
the Los Ranchos Elementary School and C.L. Smith Elementary School
attendance areas are faced with major future development which will
require the construction of an additional elementary school within their
present boundaries. Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School, conversely,
does not have any major projects planned at this time which will require
an additional school.
3. Current Status of Facilities.
Bellevue-Santa Fe Los Ranchos C.L. Smith
Elementary School. Elementary School Elementary School
Site Size 7.62 acres 9.84 acres 12.00 acres
Permanent
Sq. Feet 1 5,496 16,678 24,958
Permanent 3 classrooms 11 classrooms 18 classrooms
Buildings multipurpose room multipurpose room multipurpose room
office space (small)
Relocatable 2 classrooms 9 classrooms 5 classrooms
Buildings 1 restroom facility
Under 12 classrooms
construction plus restrooms
All of these schools were constructed between 1958 to 1965 and reflect the
instructional program at that time. When contrasted against the 53,000 square-feet
Los Osos Elementary School, the square footage demonstrates that the district's
existing facilities are inadequate to meet present needs, let alone future growth.
E. Problem Resolution
1. Problem #1: Insufficient pupil population at Bellevue-Santa Fe
Elementary School resulting in unequal educational opportunities as
compared to larger schools.
a. Option A: Close Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School. Transfer
students to Los Ranchos Elementary School, Pacheco Elementary
School, or C.L. Smith Elementary School. This option would
require additional facilities at either Los Ranchos Elementary
School or C.L. Smith Elementary School. It would utilize all surplus
space at Pacheco Elementary School and would limit growth
options for city school planning. Additionally, the first student on
14.4 More . . . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
School Attendance Area Boundaries
•
the bus would remain so approximately three hours per day. In
addition, this option could start a campaign to annex to Lucia Mar
Unified School District. The former Avila-Bellevue-Santa_ Fe School
District included the Diablo Canyon property.
b. Option B: Leave Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School.Open:
(1) Do nothing—allow Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School to
continue operating as it has in the past and wait for the
existing area to grow and develop a population base for the
school.
(2) Allow Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School to continue to
operate as it has in the past, but provide additional staff
and resources to avoid transferring students. This proposal
would eliminate the recurring question of whether or not
certain grade levels would continue at the school. It would
require additional staffing until such time as the population
grew.
(3) Increase student population at Bellevue-Santa Fe
CElementary School by any of the following suggestions:
(a) Turn Bellevue-Santa. Fe Elementary School into a
magnet school. On the surface this seems to be a
reasonable idea; however, transportation and
prevailing community commute patterns prevent this
idea from being a viable alternative.
(b) Reallocate a portion of the C.L. Smith Elementary
School attendance area to Bellevue-Santa Fe
Elementary School, and transport those students to
the new school. The area bordering Madonna
Road, south Los Osos Valley Road, and the areas
east of Madonna Road to Highway 101 could be
reassigned to Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School,
The largest concern with this option is that students
who are currently walking to school would be
bussed. Additionally, the district would have to
acquire two busses at.approximately $95,000 each,
and fund recurring costs of $40,000 for their
operation. This would increase student population
by approximately 130 students.
(c) Reallocate a portion of the Los Ranchos Elementary
C School attendance area,and transfer those students
to Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School. This
14.5 More . . . .
i h
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990.
School Attendance Area Boundaries
option has a number of variables which could be
considered:
I) Sub-Option 1: Transfer South Higuera areas
known as Los Verdes, Margarita, The
Meadows, and Creekside and Silver City
Mobile Home Parks to Bellevue-Santa Fe
Elementary School. This would raise
enrollment by 136 students. These students
currently ride buses to, school. The
difference in time and mileage is small. The
present route takes 8 minutes to travel 4.2
miles to Los Ranchos Elementary School.
The proposed route would take 9 minutes to
travel 5 miles to Bellevue=Santa Fe
Elementary School.
ii) Sub-Option 2: Transport all students
residing in the Arbors, Edna-Islay,and Orcutt
Road areas to Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary
School. This would increase student
population by approximately 130 students
and would increase ride time for rural Orcutt ;
students to 40 minutes on the bus. The
Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School
attendance area would be bisected by the
Los Ranchos Elementary School attendance
area.
2. Problem#2: Insufficient space exists at Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary
School, Los Ranchos Elementary School, and C.L. Smith Elementary
School to house students generated by present and proposed growth.
a. Option A: Master plan all three schools to facilitate student
populations of 600 to 650 based on Los Osos Elementary School
space criteria.
b. Option B: Reassign one or more projects from present attendance
areas to other areas with less growth. The methodology behind
this option is that the Board of Education could transfer a major
development to Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School and not
affect present students, but forestall more rapid effects of growth
on existing schools and affect only students from future residences.
C. Option C: Reassign students from present attendance boundaries
to new schools. A number of options exist, most of which are
outlined in the problem resolution for Problem #1. Additionally,
14.6 More . : . .
r 1
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
OSchool Attendance Area Boundaries
some of the students identified in the Arbors, Edna-Islay,. and
Orcutt Road areas could be reassigned to Sinsheimer Elementary
School. A subsequent reassignment of some Sinsheimer students
could be made to Pacheco Elementary School; or all the Arbors,
Edna-Islay, and Orcutt students could be transferred directly to
Pacheco Elementary School.
d. Option D: Increase capacity of district schools in San Luis Obispo
to allow for additional students beyond the present capacity and
for current instructional needs.
e. Option E: Reconfigure grades to iunior high schools as 6-7-8 and
reopen the old San Luis Obispo Junior High School. This option
would overload Laguna Junior High School, but would free up 1/7
of space at all elementary schools.
f. Option F: Acquire sites and construct new'schools. The only way
this option would be feasible is through the voters' approval of a
general obligation bond, a Mello-Roos District, or the district's
disposal of.surplus real property._ The proceeds would then be
used to build the new schools.
® F. Staff Recommendations:
1. The administration has met with parents, school personnel, and the
community in both individual and group meetings. There have been
numerous letters, petitions, and phone calls sent to the district supporting
and opposing the various proposals. Through the entire process, the
focus has been "what is best for all students" and "we are looking for a
long-term solution, not a short-term fix." The following recommendation
will allow for resolution of both planning problems, increasing Bellevue-
Santa Fe Elementary School population, and spreading the growth
management resolution through three attendance boundaries. While it is
recognized that the solution is not"forever more,"it does permit the district
to allow for additional growth and provide for additional schools. It was
originally intended that the recommendation be fully implemented in the
1990-91 school year. Due to problems surrounding the expansion of the
Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School which require mitigation, it is unlikely
that campus could be ready for school opening in September 1990.
2. Therefore, it is recommended that, effective with the 1991-92 school year,
areas of school attendance bordering Higuera Street south of Madonna
Road be reassigned to Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School. Additionally,
it is recommended that both the Dalidio project and Garcia Ridge be
included within the Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School attendance area.
14.7 More . . . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
School Attendance Area Boundaries
3. For the 1990-91 school year, allow Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School
to continue to operate as it has in the past, but provide additional staff and
resources.to avoid transferring students.
4. It is further requested that the administration begin the immediate
schematic master planning of Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School, Los
Ranchos Elementary School,and C.L. Smith Elementary School to their full
capacity consistent with district standards and requirements. Additionally,
it is further recommended that the administration begin a review of
capacities and needs of the district's present schools and return with a
report and recommendation regarding present and future facility needs.
5. It is also recommended that the district meet with local planning agencies
and identify future school sites. It is recommended that the administration
review the Orcutt Road site with the State Department of Education and
Department of Transportation for a determination of its viability as a school
site.
II. Morro Elementary School Planning Area
A. Current Status of Facilities
Student Morro Elementary School
Enrollment
1985-86 442
1989-90 578
Site Size 10.99 acres
Permanent Square Feet 26,376
16 classrooms
Permanent Buildings multipurpose room
office space
Relocatable Buildings 10 classrooms
B. Background:
1. In 1986, the report of the Long-Range Facilities Plan Committee
recommended that Morro Elementary School be improved to handle 550
students. Its designed capacity by classroom is 424 students; however,
the core and support facilities are inadequate as the school was originally
constructed in 1931 with additions in 1946 and 1951 prior to mandated
programs and changes in education technology. Morro Elementary -
School currently has 10 portables placed in every possible manner and
_i
14.8 More . . . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
School Attendance Area Boundaries
location on the campus. While the current enrollment is 578, it peaked at
614 in the fall of 1989. The dilemma now presenting itself is whether
district should reopen Del Mar Elementary School which has been closed
some eight years. In 1989, the Board of Education hired Kirk Heiser &
Associates to do a schematic design for Morro Elementary School to
provide for reconstruction of the facility to meet current and future needs.
2. The estimates for the design, depending on the option selected, range
from $2.2 to $2.8 million. Del Mar Elementary School, though somewhat
newer, is a small school which can hold 282 students. The present
situation, for Morro Elementary School, presents great hardship on both
students and staff in the delivery of educational services. The opportunity
now exists to reopen Del Mar Elementary School and have two schools in
the Morro Bay area of 300 students each. The administration has worked
with the principal of Morro Elementary School to determine requirements
for this proposal. Preliminarily, it is estimated that after reviewing the
needs it would take $786,000 to reopen Del Mar Elementary School. It is
the administration's opinion that this figure is high; and in all likelihood will
be $400,000 to $500,000. Of this estimate, $316,000 is for capital facility
needs with paving, roofing, and irrigation replacement totaling $203,000.
3. Staff Recommendation. It is the administration's recommendation to
reopen Del Mar Elementary School for September 1990.
III. Future Use of Emerson School
A. Emerson School is a small school comprised of 8 classrooms with no
multipurpose room on a 3.51 acre site. The site is in the middle of the growing
downtown commercial core on Nipomo Street between Pacific and Pismo.
Students living in this area are served by Hawthorne Elementary School located
just a few blocks away.
B. Emerson School is currently used for the district's Special Education operation,
County Mental Health, and the County Office's Community School. In 1989, the
district was approached by the City of San Luis Obispo to purchase the site. The
Board of Education authorized an appraisal which was performed by the firm of
Schenberger, Taylor, McCormick&Jecker. In January 1990, the district received
an offer to purchase from the City for the amount stipulated in the district's
appraisal of$2,640,000. The administration was asked to review the future needs
of Emerson School and make a recommendation to the Board of Education. In
light of the district-wide space needs; and more importantly, the two previous
items in this agenda item, it is evident that Emerson School is located where the
students are not. Additionally, the site and the school facility are too small to
adequately house a minimum school of 371. The student housing value of the
site is equal to the cost of 9 relocatable classrooms, or $315,000-$450,000.
C Therefore, the cost to the district to maintain this school for future classroom
inventory is a lost opportunity cost of $2,190,000 to $2,325,000. The cost to
14.9 More . . . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
School Attendance Area Boundaries
relocate the programs elsewhere would run in the neighborhood of $400,000-
$500,000 which would be proportionately shared between the County of San Luis
Obispo, the County Office of Education, and the district. Assuming the district's
portion is $300,000, there would still be available $2,340,000 to mitigate
overcrowding or acquire future school sites.
C. Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of Education direct staff
to begin the formal process to sell Emerson School to the City of San Luis
Obispo. It is also recommended that the Board of Education direct staff to make
plans to vacate Emerson School by July 1, 1991.
RESPONSE TO BOARD'S QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON APRIL 17. 1990
1. Consider a grandfather clause to allow sixth graders to remain at Los Ranchos
Elementary School in 1991-92.if parents provide transportation.
If the change were to occur in the 1990-91 year, the administration would be supportive
of a proposal to allow the sixth grade to remain. However, as the proposal for 1991-92
would affect current fourth graders, the administration is not supportive for the following
reasons:
a. 1991-92 allows adequate time for a transition adjustment;
b. There will be requests for sibling transfers;
C. The existing fourth grade is the leading edge of a significant population increase—
it is currently larger than either fifth or sixth grade classes.
2. Designate attendance areas for all new developments.
The staff recommendation does remove two developments from current boundaries and
reassigns them to a new attendance area. The district is now required to file with the
State Department of Real Estate what the school of attendance will be prior to new
subdivisions being placed for sale.
3. Specify what district facilities are being used by other organizations.
a. The Office of the San Luis Obispo County Superintendent of Schools (OCSS) is
expected to rent the following classrooms for 1990-91:
(1) Morro Elementary School 1 classroom
(2) C.L. Smith Elementary School 2 classrooms
(3) Teach Elementary School 3 classrooms
b. Two relocatable classrooms at C.L. Smith Elementary School were specifically
acquired by the district for OCSS. More than 75% of the enrollment is comprised j
of students from San Luis Coastal Unified School District.
14.10 More . . . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
• School Attendance Area Boundaries
C. The Head Start program uses one classroom at Del Mar Elementary School.
d. The Adult.School program uses four classrooms at Del Mar Elementary School for
its parenting classes. The program is in place Monday through Friday from 9:00
a.m. to noon. The administration is currently looking at alternatives to provide a
classroom at Morro Elementary School, Del Mar Elementary School, and alternate
scheduling formats.
4. Consider moving South Higuera area K-3 students to Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementarv'
School, and leaving remaining 4-6 grade students at their current schools.
For the 1991-92 year, the district would be transporting 134 K-4 students and 38 5-6
grade students from the South Higuera area. To split their destinations between Bellevue
Santa Fe Elementary School and Los Ranchos Elementary School will require one
additional bus and driver for two years. Additionally, this proposal would generate
requests for 4-6 grade transfers to accompany K-3 siblings to Bellevue-Santa Fe
Elementary School.
5. Provide.an analysis of the current Pooulation of Teach Elementary School, and show the
impacts to district schools if the alternative school program is expanded to third grade.
C Teach Elementary School is comprised of students who would normally attend schools in their residential area in
the following numbers:
Grade BA BSF BP HA LR ME PA SI SMSU
4th 9 2 5 2 2 2 8 7 7 21
5th 17 2 3 4 6 8 8 9 7 8
61h 12 1 9 1 12 1 6 16 7 22
If Teach Elementary School enrollment were opened to third graders (3 classrooms totaling 84 students), it is
anticipated that it would be composed in the following way:
Grade BA BSF BP HA LR ME PA SI SM SU
3rd 14 2 6 3 8 4 8' 12 8 19
This change would require the district to relocate the three special ed programs run by
OCSS which contain 100% San Luis Coastal Unified School District students.
6. Prepare a back-up plan to the option of expanding.Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School.
In the event the septic system issues cannot be resolved, the administration would make
the following recommendations:
14.11 More . . . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
School Attendance Area Boundaries
a. Begin planning C.L. Smith Elementary School and Los Ranchos Elementary
School immediately to house 650 students.
b. Look for a 10-acre site in the Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School area and
arrange to
(1) Sell the present Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School site; and
(2) Build a new school.to replace Bellevue-Santa Fe.
7. Consider reopening San Luis Obispo Junior High School as an elementary school.
For the immediate time frame, this is not a viable option as there are currently insufficient
students to warrant opening a new elementary school. In the future, this site could be
used as an elementary or junior high with all students bussed. However, it would be
more effective on a recurring cost basis for the district to master plan existing schools to
600 or 650 before building or opening additional schools in the San Luis Obispo area.
8. Examine the socioeconomic profile of the South-Higuera area.
Federal guidelines qualify schools for Chapter I when 10-126/6 of the student population
qualifies to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). At Los Ranchos
Elementary School, 3.68% of the students qualify and 42 students receive free/reduced
meals. By comparison, Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School has an AFDC-qualified
population of 4.05% and 10 free/reduced meal students.
The South Higuera area contains a good mix of housing comprised of apartments,
condominiums, town homes, mobile homes, and single-family residences.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Education approve the administration's recommendations
I. F. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; 11. B. 3; and 111. C. These recommendations are repeated below for clarity:
I. F. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BELLEVUE-SANTA FE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, LOS
RANCHOS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND C.L. SMITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1. The administration has met with parents, school personnel, and the community
in both individual and group meetings. There have been numerous letters,
petitions, and phone calls sent to the district supporting and opposing the various
proposals. Through the entire process, the focus has been "what is best for all
students" and "we are looking for a long-term solution, not a short-term fix." The
following recommendation will allow for resolution of both planning problems,
increasing Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School population, and spreading the
growth management resolution through three attendance boundaries. While it is
recognized that the solution is not "forever more," it does permit the district to
allow for additional growth and provide for additional schools. It was originally
intended that the recommendation be fully implemented in the 1990-91 school
14.12 More . . . .
Regular Board Meeting Agenda May 1, 1990
School Attendance Area Boundaries
year. Due to problems surrounding the expansion of the Bellevue-Santa Fe
Elementary School which require mitigation, it is unlikely that campus could be
ready for school opening in September 1990.
2.: Therefore, it is recommended that, effective with the 1991-92 school year, areas
of school attendance bordering Higuera Street south of Madonna Road be
reassigned to Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School. Additionally, it is
recommehded that both the Dalidio project and Garcia Ridge be included within
the Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School attendance area.
3. For the 1990-91 school. year, allow Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School to
continue to operate as it has in the past, but provide additional staff and
resources to avoid transferring students.
4. It is further requested that the administration begin the immediate schematic
master planning of Bellevue-Santa Fe Elementary School, Los Ranchos
Elementary School, and C.L. Smith Elementary School to their full capacity
consistent with district standards and requirements. Additionally, it is further
recommended that the administration begin a review of capacities and needs of
the district's present schools and return with a report and recommendation
regarding present and future facility needs.
O 5. It is also recommended that the district meet with local planning agencies and
identify future school sites. It is recommended that the administration review the
Orcutt Road site with the State Department of Education and Department of
Transportation for determination of its viability as a school site.
II. B. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MORRO BAY ATTENDANCE .AREA (MORRO
ELEMENTARY SCHOOUDEL.MAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL).
3. It is the administration's recommendation to reopen Del Mar Elementary School
for September 1990.
III. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF EMERSON SCHOOL.
C. It is recommended that the Board of Education direct staff to begin the formal
process to sell Emerson School to the City of San Luis Obispo. It is also
recommended that the Board of Education direct staff to make plans to vacate
Emerson School by July 1, 1991.
14.13
r-�<
LAGUNA
LAKE,
PAR
UN
AIRPORT wis cm1w C
14.14
MEETING AGENDA
LAW OFFICES DATE _ `-- ITEM # _' S
LYON & PICQUET �Y�
ROGER LYON* 1104 PALM STREET TELEPHONE
ROGER PICOUET POST OFFICE BOX 922 (805)541-2560
TELECOPIER
TIMOTHY J.CARMEL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93406 (805) 543-3857
••y CO�O�TION
August 17 , 1990
HAND DELIVERED
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Re: Request for Continuance (Tract 1750)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council:
This firm represents Pacifica Corporation, subdivider and developer
for Tract 1750 . The vesting tentative map, and related planned
development, for this subdivision is scheduled for consideration at
the meeting of August 21, 1990. Due to unavoidable scheduling
conflicts of the undersigned, we respectfully request a continuance
to the meeting of September 4, 1990 . In addition, continuing this
matter to September 4, 1990, will allow the full Council to
participate.
Thank you for your cooperation and courtesy in this regard. Please
call if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
LYON & PICQUET
Roge icquet
RP:ar
cc: Pacifica Corporation
John Wallace
:..) i� rr.J ivy"�
Jeff Jorgensen ; ;;/`''` ' ;_ .,
Arnold Jonas
i 1 1
RECEIVE ®
t1 7 149
r
SAN LUIS SPO,CA
PAELETING AGENDA
GATE 802/-90 ITEM #
CITIZENSPLANNING ALLIANCE
O OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY , CALIFORNIA
Post Office Box 15247
San Luis Obi
s�so, California 93406
Regarding Tract 1750 /.
August 24, 1990
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of San Luis Obispo _T_%
990 Palm Street w.__
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
We believe there are such serious procedural errors in the City's
processing of Tract 1750 that you should not approve this tract
prior to correcting the errors committed to date.
Our concerns center upon two broad areas:
1. That Tract 1750 is not in conformity with the Edna-Islay Specific
Plan. The Specific Plan contains procedures for its amendment and
modification via the .public hearing process, but these procedures
C have not been followed. Instead the City is processing plans which
are in nonconformity without first modifying the Specific Plan.
This is significant since under the Specific Plan's procedures,
amendments to the plan are to be considered (and always before now
have been so considered) in their own hearings, against a neutral
background, prior to presentation of a development plan
incorporating the changes, so that the plan' s concepts can be
carefully evaluated to assess their continuing validity. That this
has not been done undercuts the validity and purpose of all the
City's General and Specific planning documents by establishing a
precedent for disregarding such documents according to the pleasure
of the staff/developers/decision-makers of the moment.
2. That the City' s analysis of environmental impacts stemming from
nonconformity between Tract 1750 and the Specific Plan, as well as
impacts due to information that is new since adoption of the
Specific Plan's EIR in 1982, is inadequate, is being carried out in
an -improper manner with the deliberate intent of. short-circuiting
both the public and the scientific processes, and, indeed, flaunts
both the intent and the letter of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
This letter constitutes a list of the specific issues of which we
are aware at this time which justify the above statements.
0 RECEIVED
MR 2 i 1
�9[90
:.lntr W1'�llbFai?'!lyn
SAN!.I Pq naiRPQ.Ce.
CPA, Page 2
• A. Nonconformity between Tract 1750 and the Edna Islay Specific
Plan.
We find it particularly disturbing that the amendment procedures on
Page 81 of the Specific Plan have not been followed.
Staff reports gloss over this issue. They justify what has been
done by stating that the Community Development Director has
determined all the changes are "minor" and therefore can be approved
by him. However, there are three problems with this position:
First, there are many changes that remain unacknowledged or
partially-acknowledged, which have apparently never been subjected
to any determination of "major"/"minor" status at all, by anyone;
rather, the developer's plans have been processed despite
nonconformity with the Specific Plan. Apparently the attitude is
one of "see no change, speak no change, have no change. "
Second, though staff reports have stated that all "changes" to the
Specific Plan are "minor, " many of the discrepancies between Tract
1750 and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan concern matters that fall into
categories enumerated on Page 81 to be "major" and therefore require
public hearings, which have not been held.
Third, there are in the City's files, according to the Community
Development Director, .no written documentary records of how
determinations of conformity with the Specific Plan (or of
"minor"/"major" status) were made nor of the findings used in
reaching such determinations. There is not even a complete record
of who made the various determinations, and when. The majority of
the "determinations" (if such is the proper word for something that
doesn't exist) are unaccounted for as to time, place and person who
made them,. We find it appalling .and improper that such
"determinations" can be assumed in any instance by verbal fiat,
without any written documentation whatsoever of the thought process
and factual considerations involved. Such imperial decision-making
is doubly incredible in the present case, where the facts so clearly
do not support many of the alleged "determinations" .
Is it this Council 's intent to sanction such sloppy and improper
decision-making procedures? By approving this tract and planned
development, the Council would seem to be saying "Yes. "
Listed below are areas we believe constitute "major" nonconformities
between Tract 1750 and the Edna-Islay Specific Plan.
1. Intrusion of bike/pedestrian path into the core of the Creek
Preservation Area. The Specific Plan states that preservation
areas are nature preserves planted aggressively so as to keep
people out. Planned human _s cause not to be allowed.
Bike/pedestrian paths are norma permitted use.
Instead of remaining outside of the creek preservation area, as
CPA, Page 3
O shown on the Specific Plan map, the developer now proposes to
build two bridges into the preservation habitat and to run the
bike path down the center of the peninsula between the two creeks.
This area constitutes the core of the preservation area. The
violaton of the Specific Plan's preservation intent could not be
more flagrant.
No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change.
The change is major because it significantly alters a planning
concept (creek preservation areas) spelled out in the Specific
Plan. The change is also major because it alters design standards
(creek preservation areas) with the effect of significantly
changing the stated intent of the Specific Plan. Furthermore, the
change is major because it would significantly increase
environmental impacts (riparian plant and animal species,
candidate endangered species, wild qualities of the preservation
area) . Public hearings are required for major changes to the
Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been
conducted.
This change would not even have been proposed had the City seen to
it that the previous adjacent tract, Tract 1376, was built with
the bike/pedestrian path located where both the Planning
Commission and City Council conditioned its location -- along the
westerly side of the creeks, outside the creek preservation area,
O as shown on the Edna-Islay Specific Plan map.
2. Railroad buffer zones are reduced in width, overall area and
extent. These zones are clearly shown on the Specific Plan map
and constitute one of its key land use concepts. Discussion in
the Specific Plan text makes clear this is a land use designation
with multiple purposes: noise buffer, dust buffer, landscape
value, wildlife habitat, open space, and physical separation of
incompatible uses.
Portions of the buffer are narrowed, others are entirely
eliminated, and the Housing Authority apartments lie practically
entirely within the buffer shown on the Specific Plan map.
No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change.
The change is major because it involves a change in the layout of
land uses involving more than one acre of land. It is also major
because it involves changes to design standards (multiple purpose
railroad buffers) which significantly change the stated intent of
the Specific Plan. It is major, furthermore, because the change
significantly affects a planning concept (multiple purpose
railroad buffers) spelled out in the Specific Plan. Finally, the
change is also major because it could significantly increase
environmental impacts (noise, dust, reduction of visual landscape
and open space amenity, reduction of wildlife habitat. ) Public
hearings are required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No
Opublic hearings on the change have been conducted.
3. Housing and roads are to be higher on Islay Hill than shown in
CPA, Page 4
Othe Specific Plan. As proposed, development extends above the
development limit line on the Specific Plan map. No Specific Plan
amendment has been processed for this change. The change is major
because it involves changes to the layout of 'land uses (change
from public open space to residential development) involving more
than one acre. It is also major because it is a change that could
significantly increase environmental impacts (visual, slope
stability, fire safety) . Public hearings are required for major
changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change
have been conducted.
4. Single family residential lots back onto the Islay Hill open
space instead of a public road's forming the urban edge. This
deprives the public of the Specific Plan' s envisioned direct
visual, psychological and physical access to the public open space
on the mountainside. No Specific Plan amendment has been
processed for this change. The change is major because it alters
the Specific Plan's street system so as to significantly alter
land use and circulation concepts of the Specific Plan. It is
also major because it significantly affects a planning concept
(public access to public open space) spelled out in the Specific
Plan. Public hearings are required for major changes to the
Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been
conducted.
5. Residential densities in multi-family areas along Tank Farm
Road exceed maximums called out in the Specific Plan. The
Edna-Islay Specific Plan says medium density shall mean a range of
6 to 12 units per acre. The condominiums have a density of 13.4
units per acre. The Housing Authority apartments have a density
of 15.3 units per acre (on "free land" taken from the railroad
buffer) . To justify this excess density, the developer has
requested a 25% density bonus. Even with that bonus, however, the
Housing Authority density cannot be justified. It is unclear from
the Specific Plan that such exceptions from maximum densities are
even permitted. If they were to be permitted, however, they would
clearly be major, since they affect fundamental concepts (density,
amenities, increases in environmental impact) of the Specific
Plan. No Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this
change. Public hearings are required for major changes to the
Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been
conducted.
6. The storm water detention basin concept has been changed. The
Specific Plan had a sophisticated conceptual detention system,
which would detain storm flows, and "meter" their release. The
developers propose a paperwork transfer of storm flow from one
drainage basin to another, the effect of which is to reduce the
size of the detention basin in Tract 1750. Since the basin was to
have provided a dry-season recreational area as well as all-year
/ landscaped buffering along the railroad, this isnot simply an
v issue of hydrological feasibility. No Specific Plan amendment has
been processed for this change. The change is major because it
CPA, Page 5
O involves changes to planning concepts of the Specific Plan (method
of hydrological control, multiple use of detention areas) . It is
also major because it involves significant changes to the land use
layout (from detention basin/recreation to residential) in excess
of one acre. Public hearings are required for major changes to
the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the change have been
conducted.
7. The "master tract" approach of Tract 1750 was found by the
previous Community Development Director to be inconsistent with
the Specific Plan. This is because the Specific Plan permits
processing subdivisions for no more than two phases at a time. No
Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change despite
the fact the previous CDD stated one would be necessary. The
change is major because it involves changes to planning concepts
(phasing, growth management) contained in the Specific Plan.
Public hearings are required for major changes to the Specific
Plan. No public hearings on the change have been conducted.
8. The optional equestrian center has been replaced with
residential uses. The Specific Plan shows an optional equestrian
center at the foot of Islay Hill by the railroad. In addition to
the horse facility itself, this area was to provide railroad
buffering and an open space amenity. Most of the area designated
equestrian facility is now shown as single-family residential. No
Specific Plan amendment has been processed for this change. The
O change is major because it involves changes in land use in excess
of one acre (recreation/open space to residential) . It is also
. major because it could significantly increase environmental
impacts (placing homes nearer railroad and nearer landslide areas
on hill; and encouraging a possible equestrian center within the
public open space easement higher on Islay Hill) . Furthermore,
the change is major because it affects a planning concept (urban
equestrian center amenity) . Public hearings are required for
major changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on the
change have been conducted.
The above items represent areas of nonconformity with the Specific
Plan for which no Specific Plan amendments have been processed.
In addition, there are several areas of nonconformity for which the
Community Development Director made determinations that the changes
were "minor" but which the Specific Plan clearly calls out as
"major. " These are the following:
1 . A private recreation area of 1 .4 acres next to the railroad has
been eliminated from Tract 1750's plans. This is major because it
involves a change in the layout of land uses (elimination of the
category of private recreation, change from recreation to
residential) involving more than one acre. Public hearings are
required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public
Ohearings on the change have been conducted.
2. Medium density residential areas have been substantially
CPA, Page 6
altered in location and type of unit envisioned. The Specific
C' Plan map shows two separate medium density areas, one along Tank
Farm Road, and one along the creek east of the railroad. Tract
1750 changes the latter area to a substandard small lot single
family residential subdivision. The change is major because it
involves land use layout changes larger than one acre. It is also
major because it significantly affects a planning concept of the
Specific Plan (housing type mix, renter vs. owner, affordability) .
Furthermore, it is major because it will significantly increase
environmental impacts due to increased grading required, and due
to plans to pad the small single family lots, with vertical grade
changes from lot to lot of up to 12 feet. Public hearings are
required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public
hearings on the change have been conducted.
3. Overall dwelling unit density exceeds that permitted in the
Specific Plan. The developer has requested a zone change from R-2
to R-1 for the medium density area near the creek shown in the
Specific Plan as. a way to obtain greater density than allowed in
the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan allows 498 equivalent
density units in the area covered by Tract 1750. With the zoning
designations indicated in the Specific Plan, the density proposed
by the developer would be 521 equivalent units, which exceeds the
maximum permitted in the Specific Plan by 23 units. However, by
rezoning the medium density area to R-11 actual units rather than
equivalent units are counted in that area, and Tract 1750's
n density is reduced on paper to 473 units without in fact altering
the true number of units. This rezoning, however, is totally
deceptive, for the "single family" lots are as small as 4, 100
square feet, which is smaller than the minimum R-1 lot size (6,000
square. feet) . The rezoning is being done solely for the purpose
of altering the density calculation to bring it within the
Specific Plan's limits. This is a major change because it
significantly affects a planning concept of the Specific Plan
(density, type of housing, rental opportunities) . It is also a
'major change because it may significantly increase environmental
impacts (grading, greater population in less space, more trips
generated, greater environmental stress) . Public hearings are
required for major changes to the Specific Plan. No public
hearings on the change have been conducted.
4. The resulting substandard small lot R-1 subdivision meets
neither the low density nor the medium density standards of the
Specific Plan. For example, low density areas are to meet
property development standards defined by the City's R-1
standards. On its face, this is impossible for a substandard
subdivision. Medium density areas, on the other hand, "should
promote a variety of housing types. " This substandard subdivision
promotes only one housing type -- the free-standing single family
house. No Specific Plan Amendment has been processed for this
change. The change is major because it involves a fundamental
change in important Specific Plan concepts (housing type mix,
demographic mix, neighborhood variety, affordability, and
development standards) . Public hearings are required for major
CPA, Page 7
O changes to the Specific Plan. No public hearings on this change
have been conducted.
We believe that all of the above areas of nonconformity should be
subjected to the "major" change public hearing amendment process
described in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. Since no public hearings
on these changes have been conducted, the City is in serious violation
of its own Specific Plan procedures.
B. We remain firm in our belief that the environmental review of this
project is inadequate and flaunts the law.
The fundamental premise of CEQA is that decision-makers are to have
all the relevant environmental facts before them prior to making a
project approval so they can use those facts to shape a project that
will minimize adverse environmental impacts.
Council by its own action, in approving a project and then requiring a
27-month post-approval turtle habitat study (to determine the
project's effects on several candidate endangered species) , admits
that it lacks all the facts it needs prior to approving the project.
We object to approval of Tract 1750 on the following environmental
grounds:
1 . The approval, based on clearly incomplete information, flaunts
the purpose and intent of CEQA.
2. The City has been presented with ample documentation of the
seriousness of the endangered species issue, and has failed to
respond meaningfully.
3. The City has chosen to pay attention to input that helps advance
the cause of immediate project approval, while ignoring or
discounting input that supports additional study prior to approval.
We believe this selective use of input is a political act and
constitutes an abuse of CEQA.
4. By choosing to deal with the endangered species issue by doing an
addendum to the original EIR instead of doing the Subsequent or
Supplemental EIR recommended by planning staff and requested by
numerous citizens (and, we believe, required by CEQA) , the City has
deprived citizens, who have demonstrated their intense interest in
the subject, of the opportunity to meaningfully assist in shaping
the document, as is required of EIRs and Supplements by CEQA. We
believe this deprivation of interested parties of their
participatory right is deliberate on the City's part and is
improper.
5. Among other reasons, we also believe an Addendum is the improper
vehicle for handling the endangered species issues because it
violates Sections 15162, 15163 and 15164 of the CEQA Regulations.
The endangered species are "new information" and Section 15162
CPA, Page 8
mandates a Subsequent EIR or Supplement for new information, while
C Section 15164 specifically prohibits use of Addenda for
circumstances covered by the previous two Sections.
That the endangered species are "new information" is evident from
the following facts:
a. They did not have candidate endangered status when the EIR was
done in 1.982;
b. None of the three species are discussed in any meaningful way
in the EIR;
c. Only one of the species, the Pacific pond turtle (Clemmys
marmorata) , is mentioned in the EIR, and here is the sum total of
what is said about it: "Species expected to occur in this area
would include the. . . Pacific pond turtle. . . " (p. 27) . The EIR's
research, in other words, was so superficial that .the
environmental document could not even state as a fact the
existence of the turtle on the site. We do not believe such
superficial mention supports the City's claim that impacts on the.
turtle were covered in the EIR.
d. We can find no references whatsoever in the EIR to the other
two species, the red-legged frog and. the two-striped garter snake,
under either their common or their Latinate names. Discussion of
these species is therefore totally new information.
`J 6. The endangered garter snake is addressed in neither the EIR nor
the Addendum.
7. The Addendum is inaccurate on its face since it claims the EIR
discussed the frogs.
8. The Addendum offers no scientific facts to support its
conclusions and recommendations regarding the turtles and frogs. It
appears to base its conclusions solely on a letter from the
political arm of the Department of Fish and Game, which was
solicited in person by the developer and his agent. It totally
ignores contradictory written recommendations in the City's
possession from expert biologists, including the Department of Fish
and Game's own riparian habitat expert and a nationally-recognized
Pacific pond turtle expert.
9. The Addendum glosses over the fact that under the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan human activity is prohibited within creek preservation
areas. The Addendum makes it sound as if the principal issue with
the bicycle path traversing the core of the creek preservation area
is the new designation of two riparian inhabitants of the perserve
as candidate endangered species, when, in fact, it is nonconformity
with the explicit directives of the Specific Plan that is the
significant issue. The bike path does not belong within the creek
C perservation area. The Addendum should analyze the "mitigated
project alternative" (i.e. , locating the bike path elsewhere) as
CPA, Page 9
well as the "no project" alternative (no bike path) . Both would
have less significant environmental impacts. Neither has been
studied.
10. The Addendum mis-states the facts in saying, "The proposed
bicycle/pedestrian path enters an area. . . which may be suitable
habitat for the two species. " This area is KNOWN habitat. In fact,
plans show the path's easterly bridge going directly over one of the
main turtle ponds. How the bridge and the sewer line beneath it can
be built without destroying the pond and its inhabitants is not
mentioned in the Addendum.
11 . Nowhere does the Addendum address the issue of turtle nesting
habitat, which studies show may be some considerable distance
overland from the stream. The Addendum is also mute on how it
determined, in advance of doing a habitat and nesting area study,
that the only relevant habitat area outside the creek area will be
on lots 184 through 206. These are north-facing lots. Existing
turtle research suggests turtles use south-facing slopes as nesting
sites. Since this issue is not addressed, the Addendum does not
have the opportunity to address the fact that nesting habitat may be
obliterated by development being approved as part of Tract 1750.
12. The Addendum fails to identify a principal concern about houses
being built higher on Islay Hill than permitted on the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan map, with backyard fences rather than a street forming
the. urban edge, namely: the fact that the hill will become in effect
private backyard rather than public open space. The result is a
reduction of the public visual open space amenity, a "chilling
effect" on public use and enjoyment of open space areas near private
yards, and a corresponding reduction of public access and enjoyment
opportunities. No mitigation measures pertaining to this proposed
privatization of public open space are included.
13. In its discussion of the houses higher on the hill than
permitted in the Specific Plan, the Addendum should have discussed
the "Preserve Islay Hill" alternative project examined in the EIR
(Section 4.4) . This is essentially a "no project" alternative for
the entire hill, and it shifts the burden of development off the
hill, and also away from the presumed turtle habitat. Again, the
Addendum fails to look at alternatives, and instead serves as a
further rationalization for development as proposed by the
developer.
13. The Addendum fails to deal with the visual and erosion impacts
of a fire break which will have to be maintained behind the back
yard fences of homes backing up to Islay Hill. This is a serious
environmental impact which can be completely avoided by following
the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, which shows a public street forming
the urban edge.
14. The Addendum' s discussion of the change from medium-density
residential shown in the Specific Plan to small lot single family
residential fails to mention the major environmental impact of this
CPA, Page 10
change: the necessity to grade the land heavily to make padded lots
with vertical grade elevation changes between the small (5,000
square foot average) lots of up to 12 feet. Townhouse or apartment
construction would allow mitigation of this environmental impact
since larger areas could be contoured more gently. The original
land use designation envisioned apartments or townhouses, not
single-family houses disguised as medium density development. The
Addendum's conclusion that "no significant environmental effects
will result from the change" is therefore totally false and
misleading. The Addendum simply chose not to discuss the very
obvious significant environmental effects.
15. The Addendum' s discussion of the railroad buffer reduction from
what is shown in the Specific Plan is inadequate because of the
following:
a. It fails to mention the impact of building 20 low income
apartments almost entirely within the area previously shown as
buffer. This reduces natural planted area, and also has effects
on residents due to noise, vibration, diesel exhaust and dirt.
b. It assumes the buffer's only function is for sound attenuation,
whereas the Specific Plan makes clear the buffer is a multi-use
concept: sound attenuation, dust control, visual relief, physical
separation of incompatible uses, and wildlife habitat area. The
Specific Plan Technical Appendix contains a letter from the
Department of Fish and Game which points out the buffer's
importance if planted densely with species useful for wildlife
food and cover, to help mitigate for loss of bird and animal
habitat in built-over areas. The Addendum does not address the
environmental impact on wildlife of substantially reducing the
size of the buffer area.
c. The Addendum fails to provide technical analysis to prove its
contention that small segments of soundwalls near houses (far from
the railroad) "perform equally or better than the concept shown in
the specific plan. " In fact, it is a well-known noise control
principle that the nearer to the source noise is controlled, the
more effective the control. The walls by houses may adequately
control railroad sounds in adjacent bedrooms, but they will do
nothing for the neighborhood as a whole. The original Specific
Plan concept of a continuous sound wall or berm at the railroad
right of way, on the other hand, has been shown from long
experience to be a correct solution for the entire neighborhood.
A continuous sound wall's appearance will be mitigated by the
dense buffer plantings called for in the Specific Plan, and can be
turned into a community visual asset by planting drought tolerant
vines (native clematis, bougainvillea, etc. ) along the wall.
16. The Addendum is is a poorly fabricated document. It is nothing
more than a political rationalization for proceeding immediately
with the project without meaningful environmental analysis. we
Obelieve it should be totally rejected as inadequate.
CPA, Page 11
17. Among the environmental issues that remain unexamined is the
need for analysis of the health effects of building homes close to
C1 high power transmission lines such as the major feeder line that
traverses part of Tract 1750 . The 100-foot wide easement called out
in the conditions is simply a restatement of the minimum requirement
of the Specific Plan. There is much new information on this subject
since the EIR of 1982, which doesn 't even mention the issue. Houses
may be within 50 feet of this line. Does the City have any evidence.
that inhabitants will not be exposed to the undue health risks that.
have been so widely discussed in recent literature on the subject?
What happens to residents 50 feet from one of these lines if a wire
snaps or arcs? What sort of radio and television reception will
neighbors have? Since the proposed Tract 1750 shows more houses
near the lines than the Edna-Islay Specific Plan would have allowed,
why was this issue not analyzed as one of the areas of nonconformity
between the tract and the Specific Plan? Why has it not been
analyzed as new information since the original EIR? No mitigations
are proposed because the issues presented by the powerlines have not
been examined.
We believe the Addendum is a very poor document. Its main function is
not to shed light on environmental issues, but to pay lip service in
as quick away as possible to the legal requirement for environmental
study.
It appears to our. organization thane Addendum's actual function is
to rationalize development as proposed by the developer. The continual
Crefusal of those who completed the document to look at alternatives
other than those proposed by the developer proves this point beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is an affront to the intelligence and concerns
of the citizens of San Luis Obispo. The Adendum should be rejected
out of hand as inadequate to deal with the problems presented by
Tract 1750 .
Again, we urge the City Council not to approve this project until the
proper and complete procedures -- both the major Specific Plan
amendments via public hearings and a Supplemental EIR that will place
ALL relevant environmental information on the table PRIOR TO PROJECT
APPROVAL -- have been completed.
Since ly�
/
Fred Frank
President
O