HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-13SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
August 14, 2013 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: - Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Charles
Stevenson, 1 Position Vacant, Vice -Chairperson — Position Vacant,
and Chairperson Michael Draze
ELECTION: Election of Vice -Chairperson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items
MINUTES: Minutes of July 24, 2013. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
1. 323 Grand Avenue. MS/ER 25-13: Review of minor subdivision of 323 and 353
Grand Avenue to create four parcels with exceptions to the minimum lot depth and
area requirement and adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact;
R-1 zone; Ryan Petetit/John Belsher, applicants. (Marcus Carloni)
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this
agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street,
during normal business hours.
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
2. City -Wide. GPI 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements Update: Continued
review of Task Force -recommended alternatives to the Land Use Element update;
City of San Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept., applicant. (Kim Murry)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planners: Marcus Carloni & Kim Murry
inThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
. city of Meeting Date: August 14, 2013
sAn Luis OBISPO Item Number: 1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of proposed minor subdivision of 323 and 353 Grand Avenue to create four
parcels with exceptions to the minimum lot depth and area requirement and adoption of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact
PROJECT ADDRESS: 323/353 Grand Avenue
BY: Marcus Carloni, Assistant Plannerytic—_
Phone Number: 781-7176
E-mail: mcarloni@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: MS/ER 25-13 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Directory
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), which grants final approval
to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant
Ryan Petetit/John Belsher
Representative
Matt Pries$, Engineer
Zoning
R-1(Low-Density Residential)
General Plan
Low Density
Site Area
`"23,000 square feet
Application
May 24, 2013
Complete
Environmental
Initial Study determined
Status
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY
44
MCCOLLUM
FREDERICKS
a
z
a
a
HOPE
The applicant has submitted an application for a flag lot subdivision to create four parcels from two
existing parcels. Potential footprints of the four future residences and preliminary grading plans
have been provided and ultimately the project will require submittal of an architectural review
application. The proposed minor subdivision includes a requested exception to the Subdivision
Regulations' minimum lot area and lot depth requirements. The Subdivision Regulations require the
Planning Commission to review exceptions from the standards.
Staff supports the project based on compatibility with the neighborhood in terms of size (multiple
substandard lots in the neighborhood), configuration, density, and development pattern, and
recommends adoption of the attached draft resolution.
MS/ER 25-13 (323/353 Grand Avenue)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The applicant is requesting an exception to the Subdivision Regulation's minimum lot depth and
area requirement. In most cases, a minor subdivision is reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing
Officer. However, when exceptions are requested, the City's Subdivision Regulations require the
Planning Commission to act on the project.
The Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 17.23.020.A) specify the Planning Commission must make
the following findings before any exception is authorized:
1. That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic
conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform
to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and
2. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the
sole reason for granting the modification; and
3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and
4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations,
and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans
of the City.
The attached resolution (Attachment 1) includes staff's recommendation for approval of the
requested exceptions and details the required findings.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
Site Size
—23,000 square feet
Present Use & Development
Two R-1 parcels with one single-family residence each
Topography
Flat: —4 percent cross slope
Access
Grand Avenue
Surrounding Use/Zoning
North: Single -Family Residence (R-1 zone)
South: Single -Family Residence (R-1 zone)
East: Grand Avenue + Single Family Residences (R-1 zone)
West: Single Family Residences (R-1-Planned Development zone)
The project site encompasses two parcels; 323 Grand Avenue (12,032.63 square feet) and 353
Grand Avenue (11,099.33 square feet). The project site is located on the west side of Grand Avenue
between McCollum and Fredericks Streets. The two parcels are in the Low -Density Residential (R-
1) zone and are encompassed by R-1 zoning with single-family residences (Attachment 2, Vicinity
Map).
MS/ER 25-13 (323/353 Grand Avenue)
Page 3
The project site is gently sloping (approximately 4% average cross slope) and is developed with two
single-family residences; one per parcel. Each parcel has a driveway providing access from Grand
Avenue and minimal other improvements. Attachment 3, Project Plans - Tentative Map, shows the
sites existing conditions (structures, trees, hardscape).
2.2 Project Description
The project is a flag lot subdivision creating four parcels from two existing parcels (Attachment 3,
Project Plans). The two existing parcels contain one single-family residence each which are to be
demolished and replaced with four new single-family residences (one per proposed lot).
Proposed lot 1 will be accessed via the existing curb cut from Grand Avenue. Proposed lot 3 (the
flag lot) will take access from a new Grand Avenue curb cut, and proposed lots 2 and 4 will take
access from proposed lot 3's 20-foot wide Grand Avenue access -way (the flag pole); see
Attachment 3, Project Plans.
The project proposes an exception to the Subdivision Regulations' minimum lot depth and
minimum lot area requirements as detailed in the below table. The proposed mean lot area is 87
percent of the standard (or a 12% reduction) and the proposed mean lot depth is 80 percent of the
standard (or a 20% reduction).
Min. Lot Area Min. Width Min. Depth Min. Street Frontage
(sq. ft.) (feet) (feet) (feet)
fi 4 r�rn�nt (iC-� zone)
tQWO
RQ
a
Proposed Lot 1
5,166
69
74
69
prpp�sed. Lat.2;
5553
75
Proposed Lot 3
5,202 (7,382 gross)
73
79
20
Propa$ed Lot 4>
5 031
7$
05
20
*Bold font indicates compliant with standards
Potential footprints of the future residences and preliminary grading have been provided
(Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet C-1). The applicant proposes additional off-street parking
spaces for users of the site beyond the Zoning Regulations' minimum requirement of two parking
spaces per single-family residence. Proposed parcels 1 and 4 can accommodate five off-street
parking spaces each (2 garaged, 2 driveway, 1 guest space) and proposed parcels 2 and 3 can
accommodate at least six off-street parking spaces each (2 garaged, 2 driveway, 2 guest spaces).
A complete architectural review application will be required for future construction of the four
residences.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The site and the surrounding neighborhood is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential). The purpose of
the R-1 zoning district is to provide housing opportunities for people who want private open space
associated with individual dwellings (Zoning Chapter 17.24). The intent of the R-1 zone is to
preserve existing single-family residential neighborhoods, provide for compatible infill development
MS/ER 25-13 (323/353 Grand Avenue)
Page 4
in such areas, and prescribe to the overall character. of newly subdivided low -density areas. The
proposed exception to the Subdivision Regulations requests a mean lot area reduction of 762 square
feet per lot (a 12% reduction) and a mean lot width reduction of 18 feet (a 20% reduction). The
proposed total lot area for all four lots will be 23,132 square feet while the minimum total lot area
required for a four lot subdivision is 24,000 square feet (not including the flag lot access -way).
The project site is within an already developed residential subdivision representing an infill
development opportunity. Within the immediate neighborhood (approximately 500 foot radius
around the project site) are twelve sub-6,000 square foot lots developed with single-family
residences (Attachment 4, Neighboring Properties Map). The applicant has provided data showing
157 sub-6,000 square foot lots within one-half mile of the project site (Attachment 5, Substandard
Properties List) and 1,700t sub-6,000 square foot lots citywide (not attached).
The proposed lots will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the R-1 zoning district since the
proposed subdivision minimally conflicts with the lot depth and area requirement of the Subdivision
Regulations and the resulting lots will be consistent with the size, configuration, density, and
development pattern of the neighborhood. Additionally, exclusive of the proposed exceptions, the
project will be consistent with the flag lot requirements of the Subdivision Regulations (Attachment
6, Flag Lot Regulations).
3.1 Environmental Review
Minor subdivisions are normally categorically exempt from environmental review. However, when
exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations are requested an Initial Study of environmental impacts
must be prepared (Subdivision Regulations, Table 1, level of review by subdivision project). The
Initial Study (Attachment 7) did not identify significant environmental impacts associated with the
project and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared.
4.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Public Works and Utilities Departments have reviewed the project and have provided
comments that are incorporated into the resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1. Approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions of approval.
5.2 Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
5.3 Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Plans
4. Neighboring Properties Map
5. Substandard Properties List
6. Flag Lot Regulations
7. Initial Study (ER 25-13)
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
MINOR SUBDIVISION (CREATING FOUR LOTS FROM TWO) WITH EXCEPTIONS
TO LOT AREA AND DEPTH REQUIREMENTS AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED AUGUST 14, 2013
(323/353 GRAND AVENUE - MS 25-13, ER 25-13)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
August 14, 2013, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under MS/ER 25-13, Ryan Petetit and John
Belsher applicants, and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The design of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed subdivision is consistent with the development pattern established in the
neighborhood and the resulting parcels allow for residences with sufficient usable outdoor
space.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone,
since the resulting parcels require minimal exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations and
resulting development will meet lot area coverage requirements of the Zoning Regulations.
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of
property within) the proposed subdivision since all parcels will have adequate access from
Grand Avenue.
4. The design of the tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious health problems,
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-13
WER 25-13 (323/353 Grand Avenue)
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
areas for fish and wildlife, is surrounded by urban development, and has already been
developed with two dwellings and associated site improvements.
5. The property to be divided is of such size that it is impractical/undesirable, in this particular
case, to conform to the strict application of the standards codified in the Subdivision
Regulations because the property is 154-feet wide with an area of 23,132 square feet where
180-foot width and 24,000 square feet of area would be required to create conforming lots.
6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole
reason for granting the modification, because other findings are made to support approval and
the exceptions relate to existing physical conditions of the project site.
7. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the minor exception is for a property that is
already developed with single-family residences, and there are numerous examples of similar
subdivisions and development in the immediate vicinity.
8. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is
consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the
City, because the exceptions are consistent with other properties in the vicinity and the project
does not grant special privileges or modify allowable land uses within the existing R-1 zoning
district.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission finds that the project's
Negative Declaration adequately evaluates and identifies all of the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed project and herby adopts said Negative Declaration.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve application MS/ER 25-13
subject to the following conditions:
Planning Department
All parcels shall be designated "sensitive sites" to ensure that future development will respect
existing site constraints, privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, and be compatible
with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood. An application for architectural
review will be required for development of each parcel.
2. Plans submitted for architectural review shall provide an access driveway with the narrowest
feasible width (to reduce the extent of hardscape) and the plans shall indicate a landscape area
with sufficient width to plant screening shrubs and trees (minimum of eight feet) between the
access driveway and existing or proposed residential structures, consistent with Subdivision
Regulations section 16.18.060.E.
3. The line separating the accessway and proposed parcel three shall be deleted so that the
accessway is part of, and owned in fee by, proposed parcel three.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-13 ATTACHMENT 1
MS/ER 25-13 (323/353 Grand Avenue)
Page 3
4. All proposed fencing shall comply with City fence height requirements (Zoning Regulations
17.16.050).
Fire Department
5. In addition to the address numbers on the buildings, a monument sign showing the address of
each building shall be prominently located as to be clearly visible from Grand Avenue.
Public Works Department
6. The map may be recorded prior to construction of the required public and/or private
subdivision improvements. If so, the map conditions or code requirements may be satisfied by
the preparation and approval of a subdivision improvement plan and supported by a
subdivision agreement and surety in accordance with the subdivision regulations.
7. The building plan submittal may be used to show all required public and private subdivision
improvements. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate
encroachment permit and associated inspection fees based on the fee schedule in effect at the
time of permit issuance. A separate subdivision improvement plan review fee and subdivision
map check fee will be required for the Public Works Department review of subdivision
improvements and final parcel map in accordance with the most current fee resolution.
8. Park in -lieu fees shall be paid prior to map recordation. Credit for the demolition of the
existing dwellings will be applied to the calculated fee.
9. Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Grand Ave except at approved driveway
locations shown on the tentative map.
10. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10-foot wide street tree easement and public utility easement
(P.U.E.) across the Grand Ave frontage of Lot 1 and Lot 4.
11. A public pedestrian easement is required for the ADA sidewalk extensions located behind the
new driveway approach. The easement shall be shown and labeled on the final parcel map.
12. The final parcel map shall show and note all required public and private easements as
necessary for access, turn. -around, utilities, and drainage improvements. Any common
driveway agreements and/or common maintenance agreements shall be recorded prior to or
concurrent with map recordation.
13. A Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement shall be recorded prior to final inspection
approvals for the proposed stormwater system improvements. A separate Operation and
Maintenance Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the development plans.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-13
WER 25-13 (323/353 Grand Avenue)
Page 4
ATTACHMENT 1
14. The final grading and drainage plan and drainage report shall comply with all City Codes,
Standards, and Ordinances. The final drainage report shall comply with the Waterway
Management Plan Drainage Design Manual.
15. Tier 2 interim low impact development standards as shown on the preliminary plans shall be
incorporated into the final development plans.
16. The project soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans and Low Impact
Development (LID) improvements. The soils report shall include specific recommendations
related to site development, utility, and building pad/foundation construction related to the
proposed LID improvements.
17. An erosion control plan shall be included with the improvement plans and/or building plan
submittal for demolitions, grading, and new construction. A Water Pollution Control Plan
summary shall be completed for the project in a format provided by the City.
18. Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer and storm drains shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and Utilities Department. The
final location, configuration, and sizing of service laterals and meters shall be approved in
conjunction with the review of the building plans, fire sprinkler plans, and/or public
improvement plans.
19. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be
served to each lot/parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and serving utility
companies. A private sewer main may be proposed to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
Utilities Engineer, and Public Works Director.
20. Unless approved for re -use by the Building Division, Public Works Department, and Utilities
Department, the existing water services and sewer laterals shall be abandoned at the mainline
per City Engineering Standards.
21. Underground wiring is required for all wire utilities to all new residences. The requirement
for undergrounding shall be achieved with no net increase in the number of utility poles
located within the public right-of-way.
22. The final development plans shall show and note compliance with the parking and driveway
standards and City Engineering Standards related to site development, driveway materials,
parking space provisions, and maneuverability., Except for the Grand Ave access to the garage
for Lot 1, all covered and uncovered parking spaces shall be capable of being entered in one
maneuver and shall be designed so that standard vehicles are able to exit to Grand Ave in a
forward direction in not more than two maneuvers.
23. The building and/or demolition plans shall show and label all trees. Labels shall include the
diameter and species of every tree. Tree canopies shall be shown generally to scale for
reference. The plan shall clarify what trees will remain and what trees are to be removed.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-13
MS/ER 25-13 (323/353 Grand Avenue)
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
24. Tree removals may require the approval of the Tree Committee if not otherwise approved by
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
25. The building removals are subject to the Building Demolition Regulations including the
additional notification and timing requirements for any structure over 50-years old.
26. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the parcel map. All coordinates
submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A computer disk, containing the
appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic
Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer.
27. The parcel map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the city's
Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel
map shall use U.S. Customary Units in accordance with the current City Engineering
Standards.
Code Requirements
The following code requirements are included for informational purposes only. They serve to give
the applicant a general idea of other City requirements that will apply to the project. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive list as other requirements may be identified during the plan check
process.
Utilities Department
1. The proposed water service manifold for lots 2&3 will require a 2" water service line.
Fire Department
2. Approved address numbers shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position to be
plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. Numbers shall be a minimum
of 5" high x 1/2" stroke and be on a contrasting background.
3. Fire protection systems shall be installed in accordance with the CFC and the California
Building Code. An approved NFPA 13D systems will be required for each project building.
Shop Drawings and Specifications shall be submitted for review and approval prior to
installation.
4. All new structures shall have ignition resistant siding, Class `A' roof coverings, and eave and
attic vent protection from ember intrusion complying with Chapter 7A of the building code in
conformance with the City's General Plan —Safety Element.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-13
MS/ER 25-13 (323/353 Grand Avenue)
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
5. Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with
Chapter 14 of the CFC.
On motion by , seconded by and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 14th day of August, 2013.
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
R1
1001010
t3
w
N h ma O " aJ11 QL. L. L� O� w °s
a o cV �M�z¢�ppo C-�xLL r
0 ,4 Li
m�
J d L M W H ¢
(Am �
o �WpWiZP. x�,W z
Z ~ W
o o ui rwn N `� Qo .aJ- g w ? _ �Mp �UD��
O N m a wpm F HooW3W�? u`m
O s rc w h 4 a d w q Er a >0. =rl l7Wp Woa rw-
m n o C) you a �r-=¢_j�
d n a .Ai vi w c v s A
3aa zmu 0 I O Pa Q lep N o- U W W am ¢
a$o z �Na o S �� o U Hw Nap��r rya zz�q u
Z rN
cwi'�^ �in�d- 1; a d mom VI OO11 w O n Q a. Q N p uuuau K ¢� r�^ { Q"'-'O J zmo ) O
♦ y F�--1 W CU d'<W ED plt-j Q ¢ x
aa�
cn�Y„
O O
J Z
O
Z
O
Z
O
Z
oagU
a
w
dma
N qq iW
O
c
N
Z
O�¢33
xaz
n
Ln p
p
7
7
V,
O��
0 6Nm�O n
U
Q
� cxiV NFtl �
U Fes-
F-
H
mzaz a
0_ `- O
N O
N1 0
O
2
w
m
W i-- VI
Q oo
1- 0
O
H VI
O
H 0
O
e a A V Q M V U. ✓
NIVA3b Ol NIVM b3M3S .9
NIVW38 01 NIVW b3LVM „9 (3)
NIMR Cl NNN
-
,00 OZI
`v Kl 4L
LL
It f"ODA
r
o
U
w
n
�
N
j
Nw,-
SOB G
N
3
\
OB 3 lb ,LO .ON T ,-_.� T —{ 98'£L 3,{4 ,LO .pN '
i
r�
I I
pwwq watYN
a ° a
S Join����rvw� w 9 i¢
a40 pw aap�Z
FOO
zp Oww2yj u"F'W Sl,dw
vzzmowOQwa
O N� zZ�OwVa aji K�igN
F L; �ar �aa ❑... gz 0. Lqwb¢CC<< -Lgj «TJ uW~w
v da���o �-_Hwc7
p qa4 NOZ U000N� ygjgaw I
w-F�a 'ow,y q z
2wNofNjw wN�aWa�o�Q
a �n��¢w�uuaa z_4iuonwv�a
a
Zz
W
I s I
I I
G
I3 Y ONY i I
I � I
I I
AY1 N3N
c
A MNLYN
a
m
a
m
}r W
O o
}.: F
U
xo _F LO
LO
No
o
a�
U_
N Q_
r � �
e
r
M'0'b
a Cl ,' o�l q i I N 'v 'x �utiz rn:t 1�Ib Id `J1�IIQF72I`J L2I� I�IIIIII I32Ic1 h
^C�rJn7CLN7� �r� 6 4 K nsz �;) U
�-0
wW�aoe
per=-=
5'w�,�
-]AV GNV21�) a=�
J � �
N
n a
_ _ o
_ _ p v o Soft
a=wad
M Hae
1
W
w
m
A A V N N V N J
Cl)
=3
— " ulvw3tl O1 Wvw tl31vM .B (31 k'�
Ws.
t
_
�
ILL
se
I i
'
61 6L oCi.
tltlu 9c 9[
I
(T
I
v,
I
W.
r7
I
m^
_
f
O
JL"-
1
N
w�
6
a
�o
n
e=a
_
MIN
Attachment 5
LL
C0 0 0 0 Ln O O O O O O O O O La O O of lqr N 0 0 0 0 Ln LO tT 0 0 0 0 0 0
v 00 N N N W LD Ln O O O M O Q r 1 M 0 OM Ln O O N O LD op LD cV 0 0 0 0
N Ln In 0Ln 0M In Vl LD lD Ln W ICT Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln RT Ln Ln � M LD Ln Vl Ln Ln M -�r Ln Ln Ln
N
O
J
rn 0 M Ln Ln Ln 1�r r-L Ln r-I rl LD m . i Vl r-1 r-I m r-i
LO O Ln O o O:T 0 0 0 0 o N O M 0 0 r l O
Q LO KTI:T V RT It�ICT KT Ktlqr LD ItT LD RTI:T O:T
(ter N Lt'1 M M M M M CO Pn M M rn PV Cn Ln M M LD M
mOl LT 0) LT LT 0) Ql Ql O1 Ol LT LT LT 00 LT 0) 0) a)
Q1
m
N QQ
u u u u u U U U V u U U u U Q u u u U
4-
'avu y y it �.t y it y Iv y sJ it
°° 0,000 0 0 0 0 0 .c O_ 0 0 m 0
L_ ut L V) V) O Ln V) V) V) VI O Ln ut of
J J J J CL
O J J J J J m J J _i J
.m C C C C C SZ C C C C C C C C C m C
m m m m m m m m m m m m aJ m m L m
Z V) Ln Ln Vl Ln in Ln cn Vl Ln Q N in Ln Ln Ln Ln
aW of a w rn +�
c �- O Y = L_v �
Ln N 3 L O w Ln
o Ln c " x c. c o a c
1 obo .n c L °C M> a O O •c L O
rN.r z Ca w= a• a l%1 U a 0 u 2 s Y
LW Ln N n LD � Ln qr 00 N Ln t LD 00 Ln N r, ri
-a r-r M 00 Ln It r\ LD O w r L L'n LD m 00 Ln LD Vl LD
-a r4 Ln N M Ill PV '* N ri l0 lD 00 LO Ln LD LD M LD
Q O �" L r-I r L r-I r L M ri
cc-I N ri
2
ri ri c-L " " " ri r-I ri " r-I O "
O O O O O O O O O O O ('4O
M M M m M m M M M M M M m
Ql 01 01 lJl Ql Ol 01 lT Ol Ol Ol Ql 01
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
u U U U U u u U U U U u u
y a -Ld y -.L �— y y m -W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0
Ln L L vi L w L�2 Lw A n
C C C C C C C C C c C 00 c
m m m m m m m m m m L- m
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln cn V) Ln to in Vl Q 0
aa: a c c c
Ln L In (% > J J J Ln
w w v w v Q CL Q a a v }'
E L� > O v L = _ - O> 00 Ln
_ _ m —
a=_ (� = a a a a C7
rl O O O LD 00 r, La r, Ln w m N
ri 00 Ol n n m Ln Ln O r-I �* m r-I
TT tD lD LD LD LD LD LD w LD r M LD
ri ri rl .-r " " " r-L
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ill Vl Ln ri ri r, r-1 ri r-I r-I ri ri r-I " r-L r, H H r-j r, ri r-I ri r-I r-I r-I " rl
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a m mran m m m m m m m m m� m m It m m m m m r�rt m m m
N m m m Ol Ol m m m 0) LT m m m m m m lT m m LT m LT m m m m Ol 01 Ol m m m m
a
In
aJ
m
a�
Y Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q
Ln u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
y y Al— y y -- y y y y y — y y y-�.d y --W-W y y y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V) V) N (n V) V) V) Ln V) V) V) V) o V) V) V) V) V) Vf V) Ln V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) Ln VI
U J J J J J J .J J J J .J J .J J J J J J J
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c C C c C c C c C C C C c C C C C C
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
V) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln V1 V1 Ln Ln Ln Ln Vn Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Vl Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
a a a Q, a a; W
v>- a >• >- m> a Q }, 4- .m }. 4- L41 `a a 0- +, ,, a s a c c c m
L, m m m m m m >. Ln Ln C Vl Vim) Ln Ln > v7 Ln 0 H Ln Ln H> J -a J L i
N L L L L C L L m LU a) O` v CO O ` L a O O N v L 0) N L Q G. 0. CL cu Ln V1 ++ ++ ++ ++ Ql >O >O `� ,.� v) V u V L In .� >O u v L� ` - = = O =
mil= x==L,==�um("D =a33t�==i�c�=aaaac�
L� CT 00
ri r\ M rl rN O M M Ln Ln M � N i rri ri LD O O O LD Ln r\ r\ Ln 00 LD N
- N m �* Ln �r O Vl 00 r-I ri m n m m ri V) LO ri LD ':T N 00 Ol r� r- N Ln Ln O r-I t O r-1
'a Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD W W LD LD LD LD LD LD LD N LD LD
a c-L r-L ri c-i ri ri r-I ri ri e--1 ri ei ri ri ri ri
Q
O O O LD m 0 0 0 0 w O O O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O Ln O N m 0 Ln Ln O m O 0 C) 0 0 0 0 r• O O Ln O O m LD O 0 0 Ln O O O O O
O N Ln LD r-1 Ln " N 0 00 " ':T Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 N O RT N O O N N N r-I Ln r, 0 0 LD LD rV
n M N
Ll`n Lf) mt Ln Ln Ln � Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln � Ln Ln t Ln u') .1Ln Ln -* Ln R:T Irr V Ln
LD r-I Ln r-I r-I r,� M LD 00 Ln N O . . ri r-I r*, r-L .-I r-I r-I r-I ri ri r-I ri ri r-I ri ri (�
0 0-t 0 011* u•) LD Itt r%j O rV 0 0 0 0 0 LD O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
LV -T Itt LD -1 Ln I�r r-I r- Ln m q c* O O 1* ItT qt 'T I RT Rt qr O
M m cr) m M N M m Ln Iq r` m m M m ri Ln m m CO m m m m m m m m m O
rn rn rn L7) LT LT m L?) LT) rn rn rn L7) rn rn LT rn rn L71 rn rn rn L7) rn LT LT rn rn rn t7) LJ1 LT
a a a a a a a a a a aCIC a a a a Q a Q Q a a Q Q Q Q a a a a a Q
u u u_ u u o u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
0 0 O O o� c m
Lv +, M O v O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O °J
Ln Ln L Ln Ln w C m N a Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln vL Ln Ln Ln vL Ln in N Lu
•� •� O •O •3 C O O C •O •� •3 u •7 •� O 7 7 7 Lu O �7 7 7 7 00
J J O J J C C ...� Lp J J J m 4 J J J J J J J X J J J J J Q
C C a) C C C C C L •�• C C C V C C C C C C C C L C C C C C of
m m a)m m O m �' m Lu v1 m m m m m m m m m m m m N m m m m m O
V) Ln J LPL Ln 2 Ln d d Ln m Q Ln Ln Ln Ln Q (n Ln Ln V) to L/) Ln Ln m Ln Ln (i) Ln Ln J
OLu C = a) u 0 ` Q 7t �m Al ++ .D Ln <+J p Lu J
Ln GJ +`,, v lL0 }, X l�0 C L7p Q V X p N U) L% � L 1 Q c +J +� L 1 L1
O m C C L m+ O ;� C p— vL v m O vL LU O. Lu a 2 Lu O LP1 L/ L a v N
LL
o L`o v aa) o o oco s i o •� o s o o c o m E o o
a a U 2 V Ln H l7 a Y Ln ¢ J ° ° 2 LL a ° = a C7 l7 Ln C7 LO a a l7 0
O O) r, rV r-I O O I:zr Li) LD m r-I Ln O O 00 00 Ln ri r-I N r-L m 00 00 r-L O V tT
m w N Ln W 00 0 00 " m 11* 00 m w N ri LD r, rl LD m qT LD o r- Ln ri N M
r- lD LD ri H r` ri 00 m -zt 19T LD N LD m lD Ln Ln f` r- N 00 Ln M �* L1) 00 00 00
r- 00 lzr ri r-I r-I r-I r-I ri ri r-I r-L m
,-i ri r-I r-I r-I r-I Ln Ln r-I Ln r-I r-I r-1 ri r-i I H r-L ri ri ri r-L r-I r-I H r-I ri ri r-I ri r-I r-I r-I ri
0 o O 0 0 C) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 O O O o 0 0 0 0 C) C) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0
m m m m m m M M M m M m m m m m m m m M m m M m m M m m m m m m m m
tT p) t7) t7) Q) tT Q) m 0) 0) m m m m m M M M M M M M M M M m (T Q) (T Q) m LT 0 m
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
i � — -LA 1 1 J 1 J 1 -- y y y y y — y y y y it it y y .a-t
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N Ln H Ln 2 Ln Ll) LI) LA L^ Ln Ln Ln V2 N) Ln N) Ln LA Ln M LA h N Ln L4 Ln N) Ln In VI VI LA LA
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C c C C C C C C C C C c C
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ra m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
In Ln V) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln V1 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln V) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln (A Ln Ln Ln LPL V9 v1 N LPL Ln V) Ln Ln N
7 7 7 7 W
N a) O (/) O ? >• to > J J Q a J N to a Q Q ++ .M J +.I ++ +., +1 41 ++
Q > > L � >` m m -0m L,) „) C C -a C C c V) C Ln Ln Ln ++ ++ Ln Ln CA
a s Lu 3 3 3 fl a° ,°� ❑ m o 0 0 o` a v v �) m �) �, cn v v Lu
C ,C ,C oc L L 3 L = — c C _ 3 }� C C C > 4- - > > > E E > > >
m m a) m a) m m O m t t L L O O L L L O — 0 0= 0=— — 0 0 0
U G a l7 2 2 2 2= a a°° a = o O o LD u a l7 L7 l9 L1 a 0 C7 C7
Ln O LD r- O r-I Ln Q) m LD O w m ri O O 4:T O 00 w r-r qt Ln ri ri 00 ri M r-I W ri O tT O
fV CO N N Ln LT V) Ln * Ln O r- LD 00 Q) o0 m N LD .-I M N r" r-I LD r- lzt 00 W i\ Ln r-L N V
r� r� r� W LT to Lo Ln LD Ln rV N LD LD N LD LD LD LD LD n r- Ln r- r- � 00 rqi -1 -* Ln 00 00 00
r-1 r-I r1 ri
Ln O Ln O Ln Ln O O O O O O Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�* �D Ln
�o Ln O O w 00 O O O O O O�o r� O O Ln O Ln r- Ln O O O O O r-i O O O O N":t N
m N m O r- n .-i n O O Rzr O r� LD O O w r- r- LD n O O O O O W r-I ri Iq Ln � tD r-
zt v Ln Ln v Ln m tD La Ln Ln 19t Ln LD tD Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln �D Ln Ln tD Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln It Ln IZT
O LD ri M O ri Ln M rl ri 00 Ln 'zt Ln Ln r-1 Ln H N Ln ri Ln Ln r-I
rV O O�T N 0 0 0 N O N 0 r, O O o O rn cv o o 0 0 0
ri T a ct v m r-1 C-1-it N-:i V q r- v � 4 Ki 4 V
Ln m m m m m m m g m m m m m m m m 00 m m m m m m m
rn rn rn rn L71 fT rn rn LT L71 rn rn rn rn m LT rn r` rn L?1 01 rn rn rn m
a Q a a a Q Q a a Q a a a a a a a x a Q a a a a a
u u u u u _u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
.0 y .L LC •C
0 0 M(DL O O u 0 0 O O O O L- 0 0 0 00
N 0 N_ (U N C VI M 0 VI Vl Ln N_ LA Ln VL VI VI
p 7 03 O > ` 7 7 CJ 7 C 7 '� 7 7 7
OJ J LL J -� J J J J J u J J J p J J
C C C C C cE C C C d. C C
Ln Ln to to Q Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln U Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Q Q Ln Ln Ln Z Ln Ln
Li L,D > .O c0 L v M C Lb 0
3 rn a o o o •L0 '-' > U Ln o 0 3� �M
cu xx Ln u C L 'L o != L=-0 Ln L% LA c o x Q n
f° L u U L° a c c Ln LA a ,� 3 '� p a Lo
O O m C a cv O M M> La M m m OC p i
U a F- U F- a Ln >> u Ln Ln Q l7 = m x U Ln m J a Q l7
N V N Ln fV r-I ct O r4 O O O LD cY tD ICT Ln Ln er Ql Ln :* cV
TT LD LD ri rn (14 O Ln tD 00 LD ri LD N fV 'cT r-I O t-I 0) N Ln LT
00 00 M r� cn rn m O1 O LT 00 r-I 00 O 00 Q1 01 N r-I N N
lD N r-I ri m O ri ri ri Ln r-1
r-I H
O 0 Ln Ln " Ln
r-�NOOmo0o
tD ri � o n v 4
N Ln m m m m m m
rn rn rn rn a, Q1 Q1 1T
a a a a a a Q a
u u uu u u u u
fO _
a O O O 0
V) VL
4� J J M C J J
O C C C cxa1 C c
LL Ln Ln Ln O LL. Ln Ln
C > ~O w
° a n 3 c
W o v tA
LY
a c> LJi c OL C
++ M M
U m U)a w S LL
N M R � r-I cr) r-i
kD N N � a) LD
- r-i - ri ri r-i ri ri ri r-I Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 Ln Ln o o Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln o o o o Ln o o o Ln
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m m m m m m m M m m m m m M m m m m m m M m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Ql LT Q1 Q1 O1 l71 lT Q1 Ql Q1 Q1 Q1 Ql Ql Ol Q1 Q1 01 Q1 L?1 171 Q1 Ol Q1 lT O1 O1 Q1 Q1 Qt lJl 01 Ol l71
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u v u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
Lt Ja 1f y Lt y L•
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In Ln VL Ln -LA VL V1 VI .4 VI LA .!0 Ln Ln V2 Lin N N VI V) V) VL VI LA VL V) V) L^ Ln VI LA N VI LA•� •O •O •D •� •� •O •0 •� .3 •3 •� •O •3 •_ •� •� •� •� •O •� '7 '� '3 �7 •7 •7 •_ 'D 'D •O •7 7
C C C C C C C C C c C C C C C C c C C C C C C C c C C C C C C C C C
cL7 fC LC f0 M M M M M c0 M M c0 M @ M M c0 M M M c0 M cc m M c0 M m M M M M M
Ln Ln Ln N Ln LPL Ln 0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln (n Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln N Ln
7 L • .
L 41 O1 N w N w w w N w Q) C LL C
> > > > > > > > > > p > > E O
Lny cLnLn —
�aa �,QQaaaaaaQ� V)aa
�., Ln O }, � c0 C Ln Ln Ln Ln of Ln v1 ut Ln }' L Ln VI � (n L
Ln (U Ln s .c Ln Ln J -n w "O "O v a� LU LL t3 >7 n Lu Ln (U a Ly
— > o c u U L C CL C C Ln 0> >> > C C C C> Ln D >>
p L s m M== c L- ca L cLs LC >> >• M m M LL3 co M M M Lo Q >� C M M u a C
O O W W (fl O L lC L L M M @ L L L L L L L L L p co 0) L L U O (L
cD F- , r1 L2 : Ln U U u 0 0 2 2 x 0 lD 0(D(D(D 0 ID= x 2 0 Q 2 m x
m N LD LO N N O O m ri N R O tD Irr R;r q ri ri Ln r-1 O O ct N 0 O ri " O O m O m
" M Ln O O M Ln LD N LD M r\ r-I tD cV M V M O LD cr Ln qt r-L M cr * ri * M to
LD 00 LD r� M M M M O M ri ri r-I r-I 00 00 00 ri ra r-I r-I N N N N N q0 M N N M Ol Ol M
r-4 r-I r-4 r-I r-I f 4 ri ri r-I ri ri r-I r-I ri
m o O M Ln Ln O O o O M 0 0 LD O O r- O c'L') O O O o-�r 0 0 0 o O N O M 0 0
m o o LD r N O N M Ln m LD O o O O m O ri O H Ln O LO n W O r'i Ln M O N O o
'qt Rt 0) 01 LO C) LT r� MV N n m C) C)n O
cRT Lr� O O 0l r� r� N Ll 00 N Ln 0) Ln Ln n r� m
N Lo M N M N M Ln M Ln Lr) RT Ln W Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln � Ln Ln T * Ln Rttt Ln Ln r ,t Ln
Ln i` r-I Rt i` Ln LD -* LO LD -* tD Ln Ln Ln Ln M LO Ln Ln r-r Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ol Ln Ln O LO Ln
O v ri � N O O O O N wo 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0* o o m 0 0
m m m m m o m Lei) m m m m m o00 m m Lr) N M m m TT t M m m m m m m m
rn O1 rn L71 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn tT rn rn rn rn rn rn L71 rn O1 rn rn rn Qi Qi rn rn rn� 01
a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
+.+ 0! .6 — c Ln � it y y y.t it y y Lv y.t y .Le .tt it it y.t
0 B "� G O v 5 0 r- 0 0 0 0 0 O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
0 Co O Ln w+ Ln a) &n Ln Ln V) Ln U Ln Ln Ln v) Ln Ln N Ln m N LM
4' 3 �3 = E 3 3 '3 '3 3 G 3 •3 �3 3 7 O 3 3 O 3 3
J O Y L Q1 J LL J � m J J J J J J J J C J J J J J J J
C Ln G le L C LC C C C V C C C C C L C C C pap C C G G G C C C G G
m M M +-' L0 m m M M L0 L0 L0 LC L9 LC L9 L0 LO f0 fD f0 f9 L0 LI7 L9 LO
Lna_ N 0 a N cn v) d Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Y Ln Ln Ln J Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 4 V) Ln = Ln Ln
N I- N a L0 M ON N Lin l�n y I� >r G! .` ^� lL 'C 'C 'ti N N
IV
41 .--I f9 C }, Y 7t r-I Ol C ri m 3 3 f0 C LO LO f0 01 O, 3
O Co G lU L1 C LLif m O 0J lL 0) �' L m +' p i i +�+ O L Co0
O O •� O +L.+ O m O O ``_ C a+ C C C C C C C a G C ++ C
o Ln cs. a S m a � C7 a m m m Ln a a Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln w Ln in � a Ln
r- ri Nr O 00 RT o Ln LD 00 (.D Ln r-r �* 0) Itt n O W m " 0) r-I LO fV
tV Ln r� IRT O LD r L r, lqr N 00 C) LT 00 ri N n n TH N ICT qt O a) rl 00
0) O N O 00 N ri M M ri LD M M Ln M M N M M N m f'n r- m
r 1 ri N N r-1 N N M
Ln Le) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LLLLn LLLLLLn LLL) LnLLLLLn LnO Ln
o O O O O O O O O O O
14- RT 1*
M M m m m m m M M M M M m M M M m m M M M M m M M M m m m M M M M M
L71 LT LT LT 0) 0) 0) a) Ol 0) 0) 0) M 0) 0) LT 0) 0) Ol Ol Ol LT 0) 0) a) Q) 0) a) Ol 01 01 Ol 0) LT
u u u u u u u u u U U U U u u u u u u u u u U U u u u u U u u U U U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N Ln Ln Ln LA LA N N V_) Vf N Ln LA Ln N Ln N N Ln N Vf M M Ln Ln Ln Ln LA Ln Ln N of
•� •� .M •: •: .O •O •O •3 3 •3 .� .3 .� 13 .� •� •� �3 ��7733 �3 �3 �3 �3 73
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
C C C G C C C C C C C C C C C G C G C C C G C C G G C C G C C C C C
m m m m m m m m m L0 L0 L0 m L0 m m m m m m m L0 L0 m m m m m m m m L0 L0 m
to V1 to Ln V1 V) V1 Ln Ln Ln V) Ln Ln Ln (A V) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln V) Ln (A Ln V) Ln Ln Ln V) Ln Ln Ln Ln
... C C iZ r.`+ -' �+ ++ ++ �+ N -.; N
E O O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln v) v w IV 0) 7 aj M (D M m 0NJ N j
Ln a)L- Ln Ln Ln Li `- Li > > > > > > } po pn pn �c pry Cao ao } }
0 O 'C v N w w p N C C O r_ C G G i C m gym, ������ � G� �� Y m
O cV 01 O O O O a1 O 7 CV 7 7 m 3 (Gp (Gp (Gp LGA m m m m m m m m m m m m
m m C m m m CO V) m V) Ln Ln Ln Ln V) Ln Ln Ln Ln V) Ln Ln N to V1
01 O 00 O LD R* Rt O M ri LT ri Ln LD �T LD N LD "1 11 00 -* r- C)LD M O LD 0)" wRT N
fV Ln m -i Ln Ln -4 -4 LD N Ln 0) N R* n (V O 01 r-oo r-r m r, r, ri N Rt Ln LD C) 0) 't m 00
0) 0) N O O O O M C)Rl m O rn M M M"
m N M M M M M N M M M M M M N N M
r-Ir-IN N N
O Cq Ln LSD LLD n n LLnn O O t i O LLnn .r-I Km) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (OD Lo mt O
Ln -It M m w��qr v m 0 0 .1 0 r•i LD O O O M Ln O O O O O O O O O O r-1 r� N M
Ln Ln qT M 1"n N N N N M Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LD LD to ,:t tt LD Ln LD (D Ln Ln (D Ln Ln tD Ln 't -1 Ln
O Ln ri Ln N Ln Ln ri Ln O tD ri qt:r O m ,:r O m ri tD O o li- LD N H m tD m m m n m Ln
LD O O O O O O r-1 0 LD O Ln .--r Ln O N N N O O N� n N N 0 0 RT 0 a) M N O LO
O 41 lqr 41�III, mt H d O m tD O Ln lqr OR:r r-IRt Rt r- LD N Ln R:r RtR:T R:T Rt LD C) r-I � N r
* m m M co m r'n rn m Ln -t N Ln -f m* rn Ln M M O N rn 'tt M M M M M Ln O Ln M M
0o a) rn all rn rn a) ai ai rn (n a) ai rn (n (n M rn (n a) rn rn rn a) am am m rn am m rn rn a) am
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
O O O o 0 0 m O U a, m c 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 O O O
J J J Q J J 1 J � j a " J a �LA m U Ln
` � J J "� L j N J J O J O a J
C C C Vt C C C C C C 010 C V) O" C C C C C m C C ut C O
m m m m O m m m m m@ m O? m O m m m O O 7 m +, m m m Lo O m m O
C. V) V) In J V) V) on V] V) ❑ J V J V) J Q V) V) V) d' S f- Q Q V) Vn d. V) J V) V] (n
- v_+ Q ` m VI
o v1 (/ ) L G >, L- _ ❑ x � Cm _ N a �e a Lf)r, M, J N a; Q V (n p cn ei
x p ❑ O •L -, a, m .L Q C d X C X m C Ln � N = L (U '_^ X
O m c M o o '^ a, E Ln o_ '� y L '^ O .Q o m aa, v p
m a C v Leo Leo c v ^ E ,� °L_iD v (v E v m v a y m c 0�> a r-` 0 m
o 0 O m +, +, L m p m L m m >. O +� J O m M p c O c O O
n. m U ]e m V1 (n LL LL Ln N V> LL a m (n D_ ? LL, d to S J O (D C 2 C J Cl.
00 r� LT " " (D Ln Ln " Ln " Oo (D O m m r-i n -;I r-I r-I C)M Ln rLn 00 n 00 Ln C)00 00 O ro M M LD Ln -1 N ri �t r- N " O O a) �t O 00 " O (n fV �qr LD " H LD
r, to r-I N N 00 m ri ri r-I M n It Ln 0) to m a) a) ri to LT N -1 00 00 00 ri
r-I r-I fV r-I r-I ri O r-I r-I r-I r-I ri rl a) r-I r-I 00 Ln N
r-4 r-I r-I .--4
0 Ln Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln L!) Ln Ln LP) Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
M M M M M M M M m M M m M M m m m M m m M M M M M M M M M m M m m M
0) 01 al 0) a) (3) 01 a) a) C) Cr) a) a) a) a) a) al a) a) a) a) a) 0) a) 01 al a) a) al a) a) a) a) a)
Q Q a a Q Q Q a a Q Q a a a a a a a a a a a a a Q a a a a a a a a a
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
sr s� sA 1/ JJ y y �, s, y y �, y y y d ,u — iia t t y y y r y d dd y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V) Vf N lA T Ln V1 V) Ln T2 VI V) V) LA LAV1 (n V1 LA V) nLALA LA LA V1 LA LA LA V) LA Vf !C V)
.? .7 .� •.j .? •_ •? •_ •: .j .? •_ . LA •� . LA •_ .j •� •� .j ._ •� .? •� •� .: . LA
J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
V] (/1 Ln (n In (n (n t^ V1 (A (n LN Ln V1 (n Ln Ln V) Ln V1 V1 V) (n (n Ln (n Ln (n N Ln Ln (n Ln Ln
iv C C C C N C
Q V) (A Lyn V) 0V) ut a, N +, +, > +, O O O +, p > p +, +, +, +,
bA (gyp LO 'a V 'O y +, +, +, V N IA a Ln V') V] V)
U U U N a/ a, •Ln N H (n Ln
o cmoo>cc ccoo ° o a o c cc� o m o o
Ln Ln S S Ln Vl Ln V) LL on J J .J J LL. M C9 l7 J J 2 (D J M 2 2 J 2 U= J J J J
O LD (D O o0 N (D -* Ln Ln n 'i (O 00 O ri O O M r- r-I O 00 H Ln LT O r-I CO O N O O O
a) N O m M M m M Ln --t H N H N N LD m r-I M m N LV a H Mtt m r- --t m N (D m
M rn m� N N N N m M m m M m r, 00 � 4 00 00 a) -i a) -44 m-T 4-1 r I ri ri r-4
H H H ri " H ri ri ri H H ri H N N N N
O O o O m 0 0 Ln M Ln O
Ln O N O 00 0 0 f- 00 00 O
ri w M ri O m m Ln LD 'i l0
Ln Itt I�t I:T � Ln LO M Ln 1* Ln
tt O O O O M p p p 1*
m m m m m m c`rn LLn
rn rn m rn rn rn m am 0) 0)
U U U (-d U (i U U U U
y y y 4.4 —
O O O O O O CP
H h h
CU o J J J J J J •�
•� m C C C- C C C LA
m m m m m fC m m 0
d Q V) V) Ln LL V) V) V) Of
Q N N N 0
C m C C C 0 N L J
O } } } E L
J C C C O to
w l7 L'ii N Ln m 2 m co
O Ln ri 0) rn O Ln Ln w
01 l0 w Ct' m Oo Oo O
N ri ri ri N rn N N r-
Ln N N N m ri
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln V) Ln o Ln
O O O O O O O O O O O
�t 1* [t [t �t it qt
m m m m m m m m m m m
rn rn rn o) rn rn a) rn rn a) rn
U U U U U U U U U U U
O O O O O O O O O O O
N H N H Vf A lA N n A N
J J J J J J J J J J J
C C C C C C C C C C C
m m m m m m m m m m m
V) V) N (n Ln V1 V) V) 0 V) V)
N N N N N N N V)
C C C C C Ln V) C C Ln Y
C C C C C O O C C O C
m m m m m O 0 m m O v
V) (A 0 0 V) J J V) N J X
0) Ln r-I 0) ") -' N 0) rl O m
Z' Ln O) tD 00 O O O) -' N m
ri r q
N N N N N N N N N N
Attachment 6
Should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other
an with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City.
Wher pplicable it may be necessary to provide safe routes to school at locations other than major r -
ways. Wh e new subdivisions that are adjacent to open space, public schools, adjacent street Sys s or
other public ces, adequate pedestrian (or pedestrian and vehicular) access shall be provid from the
new subdivision the public spaces. In some cases, it may be necessary to gain easeme through ex-
isting private prop
nd such costs shall be the responsibility of the subdivider.
16.18.030 LOT DIMENSIONS
Except as otherwise approved as rt of a Specific Plan, Planned Develo,Went zoning, or Common Inter-
est Subdivision, each lot shall have th%irn�imumrea andZdimensionsdicated in Table 3 for the zone in
which it is located.
16,18.04TIONINES
A. Side lot lines should generally be perpendicular t street on straight streets, or radial to the street
on curved streets, unless another angle wou provide tter building orientation for solar exposure or
more lot area to the south of the likely bui ng site.
B. Lot lines shall be located within a ropriate physical locations su as the top of creek banks, at ap-
propriate topographical chang (top or bottom of slopes etc.) or at ations which clearly separate
existing and proposed Ian ses. Lot lines shall not be configured to ma ' ize development capacity
at the cost of illogical lolilatterns.
C. Contiguous with listing zoning boundaries. \
D. On corneplots, the lot lines adjacent to streets shall be rounded in accordance with the dius ap-
prove at the street intersection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
E. No lot shall be divided by a taxing district boundary. City, County, school, other district, or other taxi
agency boundary lines may not divide a lot.
16.18.050 DEPTH -WIDTH RELATIONSHIP
Lots with a ratio of depth to width greater than three shall not be permitted unless there is adequate assur-
ance that a deep lot subdivision (a flag lot subdivision) will not occur or that deep lot subdivision and sub-
sequent development will be accomplished without detriment to adjacent properties.
16.18.060 FLAG LOTS (DEEP LOT SUBDIVISION)
Flag lots may be approved for subdividing deep lots where development would not be feasible with the
installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring properties, or where justi-
fied by topographical conditions. Such subdivisions shall conform to the following:
A. The accessway serving the flag lot(s) shall not be included in the determination of required lot area for
any lot.
65
B. The original lot shall have frontage on a dedicated street of at least the minimum dimensions required
by these regulations (Table 3, page 101) for the zone in which it is located, separate from the access -
way required to rear lots.
C. The accessway (access lot, not driveway width) to the rear shall be at least twenty feet (20') wide for
residential and conservation/open space zones, and 40 foot wide for commercial zones (except the C-
D zone which is 15 feet). Driveway width and paving shall be determined by the City parking and
driveway standards and is subject to approval of the Community Development Department Director
based on use, distance, number of parking spaces and/or units served.
D. Accessway driveways greater than 300 feet in length and driveways for most commercial subdivisions
may be required to provide two way vehicle access and fire truck access and shall provide appropriate
turn -around areas for standard vehicles to exit the driveway in a forward motion without performing
more than two turning maneuvers.
Access Driveway
Street Frontarla
Accessway
Original lot must meet minimum
area and dimensions
-1
Flag ("L-Shaped") Lot must meet minimum
' area dimensions without accessway, and must
own accessway in fee.
E. Each lot shall have yards as required by the zoning regulations. A landscape area with sufficient width
to plant screening shrubs and trees (minimum of eight feet) shall be reserved between the access
driveway (and any required turn -around areas) and existing or proposed residential structures.
F. For each residence served by a flag lot driveway, one additional off street parking space shall be pro-
vided. The parking space may not be within the street yard or in tandem to other required parking
spaces.
G. Where surrounding residential development exists on adjacent parcels, new parcels served by flag lots
may be declared as a "Sensitive Site" by the Community Development Department. A sensitive site
shall require Architectural Review to review the proposed development design and protect adjacent
properties from overlook, encroachment of solar access, and adequate noise protection and privacy.
H. The lot farthest from the street shall own the accessway in fee. Other lots using the accessway shall
have an access easement over it.
16.18.070 MULTIPLE FRONTAGES
Singl amity residential lots with frontage on more than one street, other than an alley, are discoura d,
except corner lots or where topography makes a single frontage impractical. The City may requi the
release of cess rights on one frontage which shall be noted on the subdivision map.
16.18.080\STREET LAYOUT AND ALTERNATIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Street construction kecifications, dimensions, and alternative standards can be found i the City's Engi-
neering Standards. T City encourages the use of alternative standards in order to duce construction
costs, provide flexibility d minimize right-of-way widths, pavement widths, turnar nd dimensions and
intersection curb radii. It is Iso the intent of this Code section to maintain safet standards, provide for
more pedestrian -friendly stree environments, afford appropriate access for bic lists, and facilitate imple-
mentation of the General Plan.
The circulation and street pattern of\ineare-a
subdivision shall con' m to the Circulation Element of
the General Plan, and shall:
A. Logically relate to the existing stradjoining the roposed subdivision; and
B. Enable access to future land divif adjoining ndivided property; and
C. Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists,
Transportation Plan: and
D. Accommodate public transit facilities; and
the City's Pedestrian Plan and the Bicycle
E. Be designed to meet City Engineering St lards to the satis ction of the Public Works Director, with
regard to street cross sections/an
lengthrner radii, intersection set, the
space, slope, sight trian-
gles, lighting, signalization etc.
F. In order to implement Generalicy, streets should be designe with the following considera-
tions:
1. Streets shall be no w" er than the minimum width needed to accommoda the typical and usual
vehicular mix that t street will serve (including necessary fire access).
2. Residential sfr ets may be built at a variety of widths, depending on their fun\tran
in
the street sy, em.
3. The str t design shall facilitate the use of alternative transportation modesng,
or wa ing. Streets should be designed with all users in mind, including bicyns
(no -motorized travel).
M.
Attachment 7
city of san tuis omspo
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 25-13
1. Project Title: Minor Subdivision & Environmental Review, City File #MS/ER 25-13
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Marcus Carloni, Assistant Planner
mcarloni@slocity.org
(805) 781-7176
4. Project Location:
323 & 353 Grand Avenue (APN: 052-224-004 & 052-224-006)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Representative
Matt Priess
8679 Santa Rosa Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
Applicant
Ryan Petetit/John Belsher
412 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Low -Density Residential (R-1)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
P
E
Description of the Project:
The project is a flag lot subdivision creating four parcels from two existing parcels (Attachment
2, Project Plans). The two existing parcels contain one single-family residence each which are to
be demolished and replaced with four new single-family residences (one per proposed lot).
Potential footprints of the proposed residences and preliminary grading have been provided
(Attachment 2, Project Plans, Sheet C-1). A complete architectural review application will be
required for future construction of the four residences.
Proposed lot 1 will be accessed via the existing curb cut from Grand Avenue and proposed lots 2
through 4 will take access from a new Grand Avenue curb cut. Proposed lots 2 and 4 will take
access from proposed lot 3's 20-foot wide access -way (flag pole). See attachment 2, Project
Plans. The project proposes an exception to the City's Subdivision Regulations minimum lot
depth and minimum lot area requirements as detailed in the below table.
Min. Lot Area Min. Width
(sq. ft.) (feet)
Proposed Lot 1
Proposed Lot 3
*,bold font indicates compliant with standards
5,166 69
5,202 73
Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Min. Depth Min. Street Frontage
(feet) (feet)
74 69
79 20
The project site encompasses two parcels; 323 Grand Avenue (12,032.63 square feet) and 353
Grand Avenue (11,099.33 square feet). The project site is located on the west side of Grand
Avenue between McCollum and Fredericks Streets. The two parcels are in the Low -Density
Residential (R-1) zone and are encompassed by R-1 zoning with single-family residences
(Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). Adjacent land uses and zoning are as follows:
Zoning Land Use
West R-1-PD* 6 unit Single -Family PD*
East N/A Grand Avenue
*PD: Planned Development
The project site is gently sloping (approximately 4% average cross slope) and is developed with
two single-family residences; one per parcel. Each parcel has a driveway providing access from
Grand Avenue and minimal other improvements. Attachment 2, Project Plans - Tentative Map,
shows the sites existing conditions (structures, trees, hardscape). See map below.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
MCCOLLUM
FREDERICKS
-------------
Map with project site highlighted in red
1 Project Entitlements requested:
The proposed project requires Tentative Subdivision Map approval from the Planning
Commission due to the requested exceptions from the Subdivision Regulations; minimum lot
area and minimum lot depth". Future development of the proposed lots will require architectural
review approval, per Community Desigp Guidelines Chapter 1.2A.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
�� CITY of SAN LUIS OBISPo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073 (a)).
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
X
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required.
Signature
Doug Davidson, AICP
Deputy Director of Community Development
Date
For: Derek Johnson
Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well
as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 25.13, 3231353 Grand Avenue
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorpomted
1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scer& vista?
2
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
X
buildings within a local or state scenic higbway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
Cie Site and its surroundings'?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, wluch would
adversely affect day or ni htt7me views in the area`?
Evaluation
a),b),c),d) The proposed land division is in an already urbanized Area and represents an infill development project. Any
subsequent development project would need to be compatible with surrounding development as required by the Community
Design Guidelines. The {proposed minor subdivision will have no impact on aesthetics. No impact
Conclusion: No Impact.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
1,2
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
X
pursuant to the Farnland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract`?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
X
to non -a ricultural use'?
Evaluation
a),b),c) No impacts to agricultural resources would occur with the proposed subdivision. The project is in an already
urbanized area and has no potential to affect agricultural resources. No impact
Conclusion: No Impact.
3, AIR QUALITY, Would the ra'ect:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
1, 10
X
quality plats?
X
b) Violate any air duality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attahunent under an
applicable federal or state anibient air duality standard (including
X
releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors at%cting a substantial number of
People?
Evaluation
a),b),c),d),e) The proposed laud division (four proposed parcels from two existing parcels) would allow development and
A CITY OF SAN Luis Oeispo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
sources
Potentially
potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 25-13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
lssues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorpomted
separate ownership of four parcels in an already urbanized area developed with existing single-family residences. The
proposed land division would create parcels consistent with the neighborhood development pattern and with density of
neighboring development. The project would not exceed any air quality thresholds or be inconsistent with the Air Pollution
Control District CEQA Guidelines, or the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan. No impact
Conclusion: No Impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or
1, 11
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service`?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
Policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
mid Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands
w
as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
X
resident or .migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Confliet with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
X
local, regional, or state habitat conservation tan?
Evaluation
a),b),c),d),e),f) No biological impacts would occur since the project site is located within an already developed neighborhood
and is surrounded by similar development on all sides. The project has no potential to adversely affect biological resources.
No impact
Conclusion: No Im act_
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
I, 11
X
historic. resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
X
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a),b),c),d) The project site is not located within or near areas designated as burial sensitivity areas and the project site is not a
listed historic resource. There are no known paleontological resources on the project site and there are no unique geologic
�� CITY OF SAN Luis Oetspo 8 INITIAL STLIDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources
SOUTM
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 25-13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
5ignsr1(;ant
significant
Significant
h„pact
Issues
Unless
hnpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
features on the property. No significant grading or excavation is proposed or required to complete the land division or
subsequent development on the parcel. The proposed land division has no potential to cause an adverse impact to cultural
resources. No impact
Conclusion: No Impact,
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
3
X
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
l_ Rupture of a known earthquake fault. as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
X
issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of known fault?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
III, Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction;'
X
X
TV. Landslides or tnuciflows?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
X
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse'?
d) Be located ou expansive soil, as defined in Table 1806.2 of the
California Building Code (2010), creating substantial risky; to
X
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewer's
X
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Evaluation
a),b),c),d),e) Although there are no fault lutes on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of
"High Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most
likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance
with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential
impact, the California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to renraill
standing in an earthquake. The project site is not in an area designated as having high landslide potential and is not located
on steep slopes. No mitigation measures are necessary. No impact
Conclusion: No Impact.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would theproject:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
1,9
:X
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the u ose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Evaluation
a), b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the density and development pattern of the neighborhood. The proposed
subdivision represents an infill development opportunity in an area of the City already served with transportation and utilities
infrastructure. The proposed subdivision is a project consistent with infill development policies and will not result in the
production of greenhouse gas emissions which could have a significant effect on the environment. No impact
Conclusion: No Impact,
�� CITY OF 5AN Luis 08ispo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHUCKLisT 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
sources
Potentially
Potentially
Lass Than
No
ER # 25-13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
significant
significant
significant
Impact
Issues
Unless
]mpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
8. HAZAPDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a signilicaut hazard to the public or the environment
3,11
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter
X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
X
working in the project area?
X
L ) impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of —loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The proposed subdivision is not located on a site with any known hazardous materials and improvements
necessary for the proposed land division would not result in the emission of any hazardous materials or substances. No
ifirpact
e), f) The project is not located within the Airport land use plan area and is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact
g), h) The project site is not within an area of fire hazard severity and is not adjacent to wildlands, and would not interfere
with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans. No impact
Conclusion: No Impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect.,
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1,4 X
requirements'?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would X
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
�� CITY O1= SAN Luis Oalspo 10 INITIAL STUdY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 25-13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
significant
Significant
significant
Impact
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site'?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off
site'?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stonn water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place !sousing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal FIood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of levee or dam?
i Inundation by seiche,_tsunami, or inudflow?
);valuation - -
N,
V
X
X
X
X
a), b) The project site is within an area of an already developed residential subdivision and is served with water by the City's
Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources, interfere with groundwater recharge or
alter ground and surface water quality. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is
paid. Water will need to be provided by the City's Utilities Department and it must be shown that supplying the project will
not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge- No Impact,
c), d), e), f) The project will require architectural review approval. The Public Worms Division will provide conditions of
approval on the architectural review application regarding site drainage which are required to be addressed at the time of
building permit submittal.. The project will need to comply with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual,
engineering standards, and adopted building and grading codes for water quantity/quality analysis. No mitigation measures
are necessary. Less than significant impact.
g), h), i) The project site is not located within the 100 year flood hazard area, is not located near a levee or dam, is not
downstream from a levee or dam, and is not located in an area where there is risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow. No Impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1-9
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the X
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation. plan or natural X
conmmnity conservation mans?
Evaluation
a) The project proposes an exception to the City's Subdivision Regulations minimum lot depth and minimum lot area
requirements. The proposed lots have a mean lot depth of 72 -feet (90 feet minimum required) and a mean lot area of 5,238
CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo I I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcKLis r 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
sources
potcitially
poiciltially
Less Than
No
ER R 25-13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
Significant
Significant
signiticant
Impact
Issues
CJuless
impact
Mitigation
1ncal a�reted
square feet (6,000 square feet minimum required). The project site is within an already developed residential subdivision
representing an infill development opportunity. Within the immediate neighborhood (approximately 500 foot radius around
the project site) are twelve sub-6,000 square foot lots developed with single-family residences, and the applicant has
provided data showing 157 sub-6,000 square foot lots are within one-half mile of the project site. The proposed mean lot area
is 87 percent of the standard and the proposed mean lot depth is 80 percent of the standard. The proposed subdivision
minimally conflicts with the lot depth and area requirement of the Subdivision Regulations and the resulting lots will be
consistent with the size, density, and development pattern of the neighborhood. Less than signiieanl.
b), c) The proposed subdivision is an infill project in an already developed urban area resulting in a development pattern
consistent with both the Zoning Regulations and General Plan and would not physically divide an established community,
nor conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. No impact
Conclusion; No Impact,
11. NOISE. Would the project result ilk.
a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise 7
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels'?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Eva luation
a) The project site is not located near any noise sources which would exceed noise thresholds of the Noise Element. No
Impact,
b), c) Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels but not to significant levels because policies in the
City's Noise Element regulate potential noise impacts. Noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to
thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Construction activities also generate noise, and may temporarily
raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels far the duration of construction, including groundborne vibration and
noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and mstiinium
noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance,
which includes thresholds for noise generation from construction equipment and limitations on the days and hours of
construction. Less than significant impact_
d) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of a public use airport.
No impact.
Conclusion; less than significant Impact.
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIFONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less -Man
No
ER # 25-13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Into oratcd
12. POPUL.ATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
2,6
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
X
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a) b) No impacts to population and housing will occur as the project does not involve modifications to the City's policies on
residential densities, No impact
Conclusion. No Impact.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
X
X
b) Police protection?
c) Schools'?
X
d) Pants?
X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?
X
f) Other public facilities?
X
Eva luation
a), b), d), e), 0 As an iniill site, adequate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infi•astructvre, and other
public facilities) are available to serve the project. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State
regulations and building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements. Less than signfficant impact
c) Tlae school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the
Costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to be adequate mitigation for all
school facility requirements. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be
mitigated by the district's collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance. Less than significant impact
Conclusion: less than significant impact.
14. RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
8
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect an the environment?
Evaluation
a), b) No impacts to recreational facilities and programs will occur with the proposed subdivision. No impact
Conclusion: No Impact.
�� CITY of SAN Luis OBispo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 25-13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject-
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
2, 5
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
X
transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit'?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand treasures, or other standards established by the county
X
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
X
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plaits, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
X
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
c) Conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use
Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or
a change in air traffic patterns?
Eva luation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The project site is served by existing transportation infrastructure and the proposed proiect will result in no
changes to the circulation system. The project has been evaluated by the Fire Department for adequacy of emergency access
and no impacts have been identified. The project does not conflict with any plans or policies regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities. No impact.
g) The project site is not located within the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan boundary. No impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 4 X
Regional Water Quality Control Board'?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, ar storm X
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X
Construction of which could cause significant environmental
e5ects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and ti
expanded entitlements needed?
4WAri CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
Issues. Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 25.13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Result to a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
t} Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
_
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project is an infill development project within an existing residential subdivision which is already
served by drainage, sewer, and water facilities and is already served with solid waste service. The incremental increase in
demand on these facilities and services is not considered to be significant. Future site development on the newly created
parcel is subject to impact fees to ensure new development pays its fair share of the cost. The City's existing fee structure is
intended to offset any of the incremental impacts of each new residential unit. Less than significant impact.
colleluSion: Less than significant impact.
17. MANDATORYFINDINGS DE SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a Fish or wildlife population to drop
below Self-tiustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
_
The proposed subdivision will not degrade the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
full-ireprojects)
No cumulative impacts are expected to occur fruni approval of the proaosed
_
subdivision.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on hurnmi beings, either directly or
X
indirectly?
The Fro2osed subdivision will not create environmental effects that will have an adverse impact on human beings.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ELR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
NIA
h) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
NIA
c) Mitigation ieasures. For effects that are "Lehs than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -
specific condition,, of the prQJect,
NIA
CITY of SAN Luis Osispo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 25-13, 323/353 Grand Avenue
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
19. SOURCE
REFERENCES
1.
City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, May 2006
2.
City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, September 2004
3.
City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2000
4.
City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Management Element, June 2004
5.
City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, November 1994
6.
City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element, May 2004
7.
City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Noise Guidebook, May 1996
8.
City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element, April 2001
9.
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, August 2009
10.
CE A Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2009
11,
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Inventory and Geographic Information System, current database
12.
County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan for SLO County Airport, May 2005
13.
City of San. Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations, August 2007. Table 1: level of review by subdivision project
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Reduced scale project plans
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2012
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ITEM # 2
FROM: Kim Murry, Deputy Director Community Developpmmeent MEETING DATE: 8-14-13
FILE NUMBER: GPI 15-12 Land Use and Circulation Elements Update
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
SUBJECT: Land Use and Circulation Alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue Commission review the land use and circulation alternatives
endorsed for further evaluation by the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
Update and provide input and revisions as appropriate.
DISCUSSION
Alternatives
The Planning Commission reviewed a portion of the Task Force recommendations on July 241h
and continued the discussion to the meeting of August 14, 2013. Commissioners should bring
their staff report packet from July 24th in order to review the remainder of the TF-LUCE
recommendations and supporting materials. Attachment # 6 from the previous staff report shows
the alternatives that were supported by the TF-LUCE for further evaluation. Staff will be
describing the alternatives in greater detail as part of the staff presentation.
Next Steps
The consultant team will begin a high level review of physical alternatives endorsed by the
Planning Commission for Council consideration on October 15t1i. Concurrently, the consultant
and staff team will be developing the legislative draft of policy updates and supporting research
materials for Task Force review beginning on September 18t1i. The policy updates will include
consideration of items identified in the Strategic Growth Council Grant that is funding the update
effort, updates necessary to respond to legislative changes, and modifications to address
community input, such as from the Community Survey conducted in 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
Continue Commission review the land use and circulation alternatives endorsed for further
evaluation by the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update and provide
input and revisions as appropriate.
Community wide survey previously provided to the Commission is available at:
hqp://'www. slo203 5.com/images/meetings/tf/'00_slogpu_survey_2012.09.16-rrr.pdf
T:\GPUpdate20l 2\StaffReports\PlanningCommissi on\PC-8-14-2013.docx
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 24, 2013
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, Charles
Stevenson, 1 Position Vacant, and Vice -Chairperson Eric Meyer
Absent: Chairperson Michael Draze
Staff: Director Derek Johnson, Deputy Director Kim Murry, Senior Planner
Phil Dunsmore, Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Natural
Resources Manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Andrea
Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of June 26, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS:
Eugene Judd, SLO, presented a gift to Commissioner Meyer for his work with the City
and for all he has done for Cal Poly.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 276 Tank Farm Road. ER 92-08: Introduction and review of the Draft EIR for the
Chevron Tank Farm remediation and development project: Chevron Corporation,
applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending the
Commission receive a presentation and public testimony and provide feedback on the
Chevron project Draft EIR. He noted that a letter from the Chamber of Commerce had
been received and was distributed to the Commission just prior to the meeting.
Commr. Multari clarified with staff that the development agreement is a part of the
project.
Commr. Multari asked if all open areas will be restored and whether non-native species
in areas not proposed for remediation will be removed.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 2
Mr. Dunsmore noted that the project description does not include addressing areas of
the site that are not proposed for remediation or development.
Commr. Larson asked why no homes are planned in the project area.
Mr. Dunsmore responded that the project area is in an airport safety zone.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Dan Sutton, San Luis Obispo, stated the project provides an opportunity for inclusion of
recreation for youth.
John Spatafore, San Luis Obispo, noted the opportunity for recreation, biking, and
development of a commercial area that would attract light manufacturing. He stated
that completion of Prado Road will improve emergency response times and provide
better transportation flow.
Doug Hoffman, San Luis Obispo, owner of a business at Tank Farm and Santa Fe,
reconsidered his opposition to the roundabout, viewing it as one of several workable
possibilities. He stated that the traffic flow all along Tank Farm Road should be
considered as a whole.
Dan Rivoire, Executive Director of the San Luis Bike Coalition, supports bike path
development but stated that he does not think a class 1 and class 2 bike lane need to
be parallel to each other on Tank Farm and that a protected class 2 would be preferred.
Connectivity issues within the project and throughout the city need to be examined,
especially the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road intersection and the roundabout. He said
the Bike Coalition is concerned but supports going forward.
Dave Garth, San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about the beneficial economic impact
for the community and found nothing in the environmental impact report on that subject.
He noted the opportunity to generate more head of household jobs.
Ken Kienow, San Luis Obispo supported bike lanes protected from traffic. He supports
development of the project under city jurisdiction.
Lea Brooks, San Luis Obispo, commended Chevron for taking on the project but
expressed concern that the draft EIR is deficient. She noted the need to emphasize
alternative modes of transportation and connectivity between Los Osos Valley Road
and Broad Street for bicycles. She pointed out that there was no mention of how
bicyclists will be affected by intersections and additional lanes on Tank Farm Road.
She stated that the plan has a motor vehicle bias.
Myron "Skip" Amerine, San Luis Obispo, supports bike lanes totally separated from
traffic and addressing complete streets. He stated that adding lanes to Tank Farm will
only cause higher speeds. He also expressed concern about concrete oil reservoir
floors and soil that will be brought in.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 3
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, was concerned about bike safety with the roundabout,
and about the potential for creating a "little Los Angeles." He stated that Broad Street to
the airport is a totally car -oriented route with no public transportation to the airport. He
asked if bicycle parking is addressed in the draft EIR.
Ty Safreno, owner of a property next to the project; was concerned about infrastructure
needs vs wants. He requested the source of data presented in support of roundabouts.
He stated that San Luis Obispo has an aging population that may not deal well with
roundabouts which he described as being contradictory for traffic flow in an industrial
area. He supports the development of a business park to cluster industrial businesses.
Tim Walters, principal with RRM Design Group, stated that RASP identifies a signal as
the ultimate solution with a roundabout only an interim solution. He noted that the
AASP breakdown of costs indicated that signalization was less expensive by about one
million dollars. He noted that bicyclists and pedestrians would be negatively impacted
by a roundabout in this particular location.
Ermina Karim, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, reaffirmed the Chamber's
support for annexation because it is critical for this corridor to be a part of the City. She
urged the city to enter into a suitable agreement with Chevron.
Deborah Hoffman, co-owner of a business at Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe with her
husband expressed concern with the roundabout the handling of traffic from Broad
Street to South Higuera. She stated that calming traffic to 15 mph will result in gridlock.
She noted a need for careful traffic study. She supported the proposed bike lanes but
saw a need to address bicycle traffic moving north and south.
Dawn Legg, San Luis Obispo, encouraged quick action for economic feasibility.
Neal Havlik, former city employee who worked on open space, supported the project,
and the deletion of the Unocal collector road. He stated that the open spaces make up
a majority of the project but are not clearly dealt with in terms of dedication. He
supported a conservation easement to preserve these open spaces.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about the appropriateness of the roundabout
and how it would work in this location.
Commr. Multari was concerned about accurate project description (including the
development agreement) in order to have a complete evaluation of potential
environmental impacts, and noted that an addendum or supplement may be required
later. He commended the draft EIR as a very good basis for the project. He stated
there is a need to analyze different forms of transportation. He asked Senior Planner
Dunsmore to elaborate on the presence of asbestos.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 4
Mr. Dunsmore stated there is a potential for naturally -occurring asbestos in serpentine
rock on a hill in the project area, and mitigation is designed to minimize health risks.
Commr. Fowler commended the project as part of the city. He expressed concern
about well contamination if the project were to be developed in the county. He was also
concerned about cultural impacts and the open space issue.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that the goal is to have it become public open space.
He noted that some areas need no remediation but it would be appropriate to address
the non-native invasive plant species.
Director Derek Johnson stated that the final project EIR will be clear on this issue.
Diane Kukol, Regional Water Quality Control Board, stated that it is highly unlikely that
there would be any drawing down of oily material into the water supply. She stated that
connection to the sewer line along Tank Farm Road for waste water disposal is
dependent on annexation.
Commr. Fowler stated that while there is no housing proposed, there is a nexus
between job creation and housing. He agreed with the need for a buffer for bicyclists.
He commended the draft EIR.
Commr. Stevenson gave compliments to staff on an excellent draft EIR. He
appreciated public comments about bike trails.
Commr. Larson stated a need to revisit the wetlands issue about whether environmental
impacts are Class 1 or 2.
Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager, stated that many state agencies will be involved
in the future but the draft EIR comes first.
Commr. Meyer, in general, expressed support for the future positive outcomes. He
pointed out that the draft EIR is inconsistent with the city bicycle plan and treats
bicycling only as recreation. He noted that Class 1 bike paths are dealt with by Parks &
Recreation while Public Works deals with Class 2 paths although, in San Luis Obispo,
bicycle journeys often combine business and recreation. He stated protected bike lanes
along Tank Farm should be a hybrid of Class 1 and 2. He stated there is a need to
address how to get across Tank Farm Road at points between Broad and Higuera. He
expressed concern about excess traffic capacity and excessive maintenance costs
when the Buckley Road and Prado Road extensions are added to lane expansion on
Tank Farm Road. He noted the need to consider all modes of transportation and ways
for pedestrians and bicycles to cross Tank Farm Road. He supports the city's Bicycle
Transportation Plan, and indicated that the Chevron's project will need some
adjustment.
Commr. Multari noted that the EIR process allows changes if the City makes findings
that there are community values that outweigh impacts. He gave the example of the
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 5
community deciding to not add lanes to Tank Farm Road and accepting the impact of
heavier traffic.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
2. City -Wide. GPI 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements Update: Study session
to review and discuss Task Force recommended Land Use and Circulation
alternatives for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; City of San Luis
Obispo - Community Development Dept., applicant (Kim Murry)
Kim Murry, Deputy Director, presented the staff report, recommending the Commission
review the land use and circulation alternatives endorsed for further evaluation by the
Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation in Elements Update and provide input and
revisions as appropriate.
Commissioners discussed how to handle Commr. Meyer's need to be recused on one
item concerning the Johnson/Broad area.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, seconded by Commr. Larson, that the item of
Johnson/Broad area be taken as the last discussion „item of the meeting.
AYES:
Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES:
None
RECUSED:
Commr. Meyer
ABSENT:
Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 4-0 vote.
Commr. Multari clarified the nature of alternatives.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the Planning Commission's recommendations will
receive high level review and be presented to Council in October. The City Council will
select a "preferred alternative" to the current general plan that will subsequently proceed
through full environmental review.
Slide 1 Foothill area: TF-LUCE recommendations include University Square transition
from general retail to mixed use. Properties on the southeast side of Foothill are also
included for mixed uses. Two sites owned by Diocese of Monterey were not
recommended for changes to their current land use designations. The Old Pacheco
School site was recommended by the TF-LUCE to consider for residential and park use.
Circulation recommendations include consideration of realignment of Chorro, Broad,
and Boysen as well as a separated bike and pedestrian connection across Santa Rosa
Street.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 1 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Sharon Whitney, resident of Pacheco School neighborhood, requested removing the old
Pacheco School site from consideration and was opposed to medium to high density
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 6
residential development for that site. She would have supported an alternative for use
of the site as a park.
Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce, supported increasing building heights in the
Santa Rosa/Foothill area and thought the area might be appropriate for a research park.
She stated that the Santa Rosa corridor is a gateway to the City and is an appropriate
location for tourism -supporting commercial uses. She spoke in favor of designating
Chorro as the alternative bike route to downtown and new, medium -density apartments
with a transition to low -density residential for the Old Pacheco School site.
Geoff Straw, Director San Luis Obispo RTA, cyclist, spoke in support of a
pedestrian/bicycle over/underpass for Santa Rosa Street. He advocated considering all
forms of transportation.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, commended the work done by staff with some
reservations.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 1 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Multari thought that B-4 was the most sensible and wanted the whole area
considered for mixed use. He supports policy discussions about parking and height
requirements. He was not in favor of a research park in this area. He noted that
planning for the Pacheco School site may be impacted by Cal Poly's master plan. He
stated that the shape and size of the park at this site should be flexible and that a policy
discussion was needed. He supported TF-LUCE recommendations for potential land
use and circulation changes in the area.
Commr. Stevenson spoke about B-4 and expressed a desire to see flexibility in mixed
use that could accommodate horizontal or other types of mixed use. He supported
serving student needs in this area. He emphasized the importance of understanding
the parks needs of the neighborhood around the Old Pacheco site. He expressed
opposition to the Chamber position for this site.
Commr. Multari stated that Cal Poly is considering building more housing with
commercial businesses included across the street. He suggested that perhaps a policy
decision, not a land use decision is needed for the Old Pacheco site.
Commr. Fowler commended the work done by the Land Use Committee. He supported
the pedestrian/bicycle alternative and residential development for the Pacheco School
site.
Commr. Meyer expressed concern about losing school sites. He agreed that the shape
of the park is only an approximation at this point.
Deputy Director Murry stated that Cal Poly is planning a 1400-bed housing expansion
on a campus parking lot across the street from the Old Pacheco site. She stated that
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 7
the City is looking forward 20-35 years to anticipate future community needs, however,
the school district may have more immediate needs even though they have yet to
formulate plans for the property.
On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Plannin
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations with consideration of the policy direction noted in the Commission's
discussion.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
Slide 2: Monterey/Downtown/Mid-Higuera Area
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager, presented the circulation alternatives shown
on slide 2. These involve exploring full or event -related closure of Broad and Monterey
streets near Mission Plaza; potential freeway ramp closures in neighborhoods and
expansion on interchange at US 101 and SR 1; location of the Transit Center on
Higuera near Santa Rosa; conversion of Marsh and Higuera to two-way streets between
Santa Rosa and Johnson; and re -alignment of Bianchi Ln to Pismo.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 2 OF THE PRESENTATION:
David Kuykendall, San Luis Obispo, indicated that on Pismo and Buchon Streets, much
of the traffic is cut -through and not local. He supports shifting traffic from residential
area to arterial streets. He expressed concern about the Johnson Avenue Housing
Project's traffic impacts to Johnson, Pismo, and Buchon and supports better utilization
of Marsh Street.
Bill Casella, San Luis Obispo, asked if there would be a right hand turn lane on Higuera
Street onto High Street. He supported two-way traffic on Higuera Street and Marsh
Street.
Eugene Jud, San Luis Obispo, stated he had mixed feelings about the process. He
indicated the June workshop had a carnival atmosphere and that people didn't
understand what they were voting on. Problems aren't defined and there hasn't been
criteria listed for how to evaluate alternatives He opposes one-way streets in residential
areas, a large interchange, and feels that Higuera Street should be pedestrian only.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 2 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Larson stated that it is convenient to have local ramps to get on and off
freeways.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 8
Commr. Stevenson supported the alternatives with the caveat that he is not entirely in
support of 7-3 — the larger closing of Monterey and Broad Streets.
Commr. Multari noted advantages of reducing traffic on Broad Street near Mission
Plaza. He stated that neighborhood on/off freeway ramps are inadequate but that he
has concerns about creating one large freeway interchange. He noted that 7-3 has
issues concerning access to businesses and to the parking structure. He supported a
policy discussion of what type of closure may be appropriate for this area.
Commr. Fowler stated that closing the off -ramp at Broad Street, is troubling as it is a
direct route to the airport, the Mission, and Downtown.
Commr. Meyer supported one-way traffic on Broad Street, diagonal parking, and closing
the street for events, options that did not get into the TF-LUCE recommendation and
were recommended by Ken Schwartz.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson to forward the
LUCE recommendations to theCity Council but with a policy discussion about the
nature and phasing of closure in 7-3
AYES: Commrs. Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, and Meyer
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion failed on a 2-3 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Fowler, the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternatives 3-2, 4-2, 5-3, 6-2, and 8-3 (_without alternatives 7-2
and 7-3).
AYES: Commrs, Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Planning
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternative 7-3 with inclusion of policy discussion regarding
desired outcomes and nature and phasing of treatment of the streets,
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 9
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
Slide 3: Monterey/Downtown/Mid-Higuera Area (continued)
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager, presented the circulation alternatives for
potential re -alignment of Madonna to form an intersection at Bridge Street across
Higuera. Deputy Director Murry described the Task Force recommendations for policy
discussions to address Upper Monterey, Downtown, and Mid-Higuera areas but that the
Task Force did not recommend land use designation changes for these areas. She
also explained the TF-LUCE recommendation to explore both Tourist Commercial and
some form of Mixed use for the Caltrans site at Higuera and Madonna.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON SLIDE 3 OF THE PRESENTATION:
There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS ON SLIDE 3 OF THE PRESENTATION:
Commr. Stevenson supports a large scale conference center at the Cal Trans site. He
indicated that the re -alignment of Madonna may be ok but that Mixed Use is probably
not appropriate for this location.
Commr. Meyer expressed a need to study the options of a conference center or
commercial use.
Commr. Fowler agreed with Commr. Stevenson and asked if the Chamber had any
comments.
Ermina Karim, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber has been an advocate
for a conference center for a long time and agreed with the Task Force findings
regarding mixed use.
Commr. Larson stated that the intersection of Madonna Road and Higuera Street is
awkward but does work. He added that this is a great location for a conference center
but asked if realignment of Madonna Road would reduce the size of the Cal Trans
property. He stated that use and circulation are linked closely. He thought the City
could do without the realignment.
Deputy Director Murry stated that the alignment concept was offered by a participant at
the December workshop. She further noted that the Cal Trans site is 13 acres in size
and that conference centers usually require approximately 4-6 acres.
Commr. Multari agreed with Commr. Larson about the intersection and was inclined
more to support H-3 but would like a policy discussion.
On motion by Commr. Multari and seconded by Commr. Stevenson the Plannin
Commission supports the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
recommendations for alternatives E F and G: and H-3 with a policy discussion that
would address circulation options and the possibility of incorporating more public open
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
July 24, 2013
Page 10
space. Land uses to serve as gateway uses on the Caltrans site should include a
conference center and other uses compatible with -a conference center.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5-0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Stevenson, and seconded „by Commr. Multari, to continue to
August 14.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
AYES: Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Meyer, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Draze
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast — Deputy Director Murry highlighted the August 14th and 28th
meetings to include the continued review of TF-LUCE recommended
alternatives, an update to the Bicycle Transportation Plan, and a Tentative
Parcel Map proposed for 323-353 Grand Ave.
b. Deputy Director Murry stated that the City Council will consider vacancies on
the Task Force on August 201h and asked the Planning Commission to appoint
a member in the event the Council opts to replace Commissioner Meyer as the
Planning Commissioner on the Task Force.
4. Commission
a. Commr. Multari agreed to serve on the TF-LUCE in the event the Council
wishes to appoint a Commissioner to fill a Task Force vacancy.
b. Commr. Meyer noted his resignation from the Planning Commission and his
desire to continue serving on the TF-LUCE as a resident.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary