Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2000, 3 - CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 1129 GEORGE STREET (MS/ER/A 57-00) council j acEnoa Report "3" CITY O F SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0 FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director Prepared By: Whitney McIlvaine,Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT 1129 GEORGE STREET (MS/ER/A 57-00) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution: 1) approving a mitigated negative declaration; 2) a tentative parcel map with exceptions to the subdivision and grading regulations; and 3) a use permit to allow an exception to the reduction of density with slope,based on findings and subject to conditions. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 1129 George Street Applicant/Property Owner: John Evans Zoning: Medium Density Residential (R-2) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Environmental status: The Community Development Director issued a mitigated negative declaration on April 27, 2000 Site Description The site consists of two lots, each approximately 7,490 square-feet in size (see Attachment 1- vicinity map). The lots are located near the middle of the block bounded by George, Ruth, Ella, and Henry Streets. Both slope downward from Ella Street to George Street. The westerly lot (closer to Henry Street) has a single family house and separate garage on it. The other is vacant. Both contain significant trees(discussed below under Environmental Review). Project Description The applicant wishes to create four lots from two existing lots, each able to accommodate a two- bedroom house in a manner similar to a previous small-lot subdivision at the Henry Street end of the same block(MS 91-192,approved by City Council in August, 1992,Attachment 3). Review Procedure Normally minor subdivisions are reviewed at the administrative level. However, Council approval is required when exceptions are proposed. 3-1 Council Agenda Report MS,A,ER 57-00(Evans, 1129 George Street) Page 2 Requested Exceptions A. Subdivision Standards: The proposed subdivision requires approval of exceptions to lot width, depth and area standards. Lot Component Required Dimension/Area Proposed Dimension/Area Minimum Lot Area 6,000 square feet 3,744—3,746 square feet Minimum Width 60 feet 49.99 feet Minimum Depth 100 feet 74.92 and 74.99 feet Minimum Frontage 30 feet 49.98 and 50 feet B. Grading Ordinance Standards: Grading standards limit the amount of grading that can be done on steeper lots. Since specific site development plans have not been submitted, the proposed amount of grading is not yet known. However, without an exception to grading standards, grading for driveways, level yard area and building footprints for the upper two lots would have to be confined within 1500 square feet of the lot area Any approval of an exception to the grading standards should specify the maximum site area that can be graded (either cut or filled). Lot Affected % Average Cross % of Lot Area to Remain Staff Recommendation Slope Category in a Natural State Parcell 11-15% 40% 40% Parcel 2 16-20% 60% 40%excluding 1,250 building footprint Parcel 3 16-20 % 60% 40%excluding 1,250 building footprint Parcel 11-15% 40% 40% C. Residential Density Standards: Since the resulting slopes on the.upper lots will exceed 15%, approval of an administrative use permit would be required to enable construction of anything more than a studio residence on each of these lots. Lot Affected % Average Maximum Density Allowed Proposed Density Cross Slope (density units per acre) Parcel 1 0- 15% One 2-bedroom dwelling One 2-bedroom dwelling Parcel 2 16-20% One studio dwelling One 2-bedroom dwelling Parcel 3 16-20% One studio dwelling One 2-bedroom dwelling Parcel 4 0- 15% One 2-bedroom dwelling One 2-bedroom dwelling existing 3-2 Council Agenda Report MS,A,ER 57-00 (Evans, 1129 George Street) Page 3 Evaluation The three primary issues associated with this project are: 1) neighborhood compatibility; 2) consistency with City policies and standards; and 3) precedence for future small-lot subdivisions and development on small lots. Staff supports small lots as an efficient way of accommodating the City's growing population,provided site development is proportionately reduced. Without any exceptions or further subdivision, each existing lot could be developed with 2 two- bedroom houses. The proposed project would result in the same development pattern. The number of exceptions requested is due primarily to the applicant's wish to develop the site with single family houses on separate lots. A.Neighborhood Compatibility The project site is located in a well established older residential neighborhood where double- frontage (street-to-street) lots are common. Many of these double-frontage lots have been subdivided into two small single-frontage lots or developed with two houses, each with its own frontage. Most of the existing homes were built prior to 1930 and are small in scale, exhibiting design elements typical of Victorian and early California bungalows. • Conditions of approval are recommended to ensure site development will be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Several neighbors have indicated their support for this project on a letter included as Attachment 8. B. General Plan Consistency This small-lot residential subdivision is consistent with the Land Use Element (LUE) goal of maintaining a compact urban form. LUE policies encourage new development within existing neighborhoods to be compatible in scale and character with the neighborhood. They also state that residential projects should be designed to provide adequate privacy and useable outdoor area, and should respect existing site constraints such as size and topography. Housing Element policies state that there should be a variety in the location, type, size, tenure, cost, style and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live within the City. • Recommended conditions of approval would require architectural review and establish project-specific site development standards to ensure consistency with the General Plan. C.Requested Exceptions to City Standards Subdivision Standards: Approval of smaller lots requires approval of exceptions to lot dimensions established by the subdivision regulations. The requested exceptions are almost identical to those approved with the small-lot subdivision at the Henry Street end of this same block (MS 91-192,Attachment 3). 3-3 Council Agenda Report MS, A, ER 57-00(Evans, 1129 George Street) Page 4 • Staff supports approval of the requested exceptions, subject to site development limitations to ensure consistency with General Plan residential development policies, and to avoid the granting of special privilege. Grading Standards: Construction of modest-sized housing (a maximum area 1,800 SF with a limit of 2 bedrooms) on the two steeper lots requires approval of an exception to the grading ordinance standards. • Minor subdivision MS 91-192 allowed grading of approximately 60% of the steep interior lot, exclusive of a 1,250 building footprint. Staff recommends the same condition apply to the steeper lots for this subdivision. Zoning Regulations: Table 1 in Section 17.16.0 10 specifies the maximum residential density for parcels based on slope. The maximum allowed density is less for steeper lots. Zoning regulations allow the Council to grant an exception to the reduction of density due to slope through use permit approval. Where a steep lot is surrounded by density at least as dense as the proposed development, an exception can be granted to allow development on a steep lot comparable to development allowed on a level lot. • Since surrounding development is as dense as what is proposed for this subdivision, staff recommends approval of the slope/density exception. D. Site Development/Precedence Site development standards (setbacks, height, coverage, etc.) in the Zoning Regulations were established for lots that meet minimum subdivision standards (size, depth, width, etc.). Staff feels it is reasonable to reduce the inaxi um, three-dimensional building envelope for lots which are significantly smaller than the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size otherwise required by the Subdivision Regulations. In addition to designating resulting lots as "sensitive" sites requiring architectural review, recommended conditions of approval propose the following site development limits,to which the applicant has agreed: • Maximum floor area of 1,800 square feet including the garage • Maximum building footprint of 1,250 square feet • Minimum of 750 square feet of useable outdoor open space • Maximum building .height of 25 feet, measured from actual ground level prior to construction rather than average ground level These conditions will help ensure compatibility with the neighborhood and consistency with General Plan polices. They also continue the precedent set by the previous small-lot subdivision at the Henry Street end of this block, thereby discouraging over-development of small lots. Setting site specific development limits on small-lot subdivisions helps to ensure development 3-4 Council Agenda Report MS, A, ER 57-00 (Evans, 1129 George Street) Page 5 that meets zoning regulation objectives for adequate separation between buildings, provision of landscaped areas, air circulation,protection of views, and solar access. (Section 17.16.020.A.1) Environmental Review The initial environmental study is attached. It addresses issues related to land use, biological resources, and aesthetics. Mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Measures specifically address consistency with City land use policies and regulations regarding residential neighborhoods (as discussed above)and preservation of trees on site. Tree Removal: The tentative map shows removal of an 8-inch Coast Live Oak and a 24-inch Gray Pine in addition to several fruit trees. Installation of utilities and frontage improvements on George Street, as proposed, would seriously damage a 24-inch Monterey Pine. After meetings with the applicant, the City Arborist, and the City Engineer, the following approach is recommended: • The proposed 8-inch Oak on Parcel 2 shall remain. • The Deodor Cedar on Parcel 2 would be removed, subject to Council approval. If removal of the Cedar is approved, the driveway for Parcel 2 will be relocated toward the westerly property line. • The sewer lateral for Parcels-2 and 3 would be installed in the existing driveway on Parcel 4 to avoid unnecessary damage to the Monterey Pine on Parcel 1. • Installation of the sidewalk adjacent to the Monterey Pine would be postponed, subject to Council approval and recordation of a standard covenant requiring the property owner to install the sidewalk when the existing tree is removed or deteriorates and becomes a nuisance, as determined by the Public Works Director. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department concurs with recommendations regarding tree preservation and postponement of sidewalk installation in front of Parcel 1. The Building Division noted that new residences are required to be served by underground utilities. The Fire and Utilities Department had no concerns with the project Comments from other departments and agencies are attached to the environmental initial study. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the tentative parcel map with changed findings and/or conditions. 2. The Council may deny the tentative parcel map based on findings. 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. 3-5 Council Agenda Report MS, A,ER 57-00 (Evans, 1129 George Street) Page 6 Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduction of proposed subdivision tentative map 3. Reduction of site plan for a similar project(MS 91-192) 4. Draft Resolution of Approval—environmental, subdivision,use permit 5. Draft Resolution of Denial 6. Initial Environmental Study, ER 57-00 7. Tree Removal Application 8. Letter of support from neighbors Separate plans have been provided to the City Council and are available for review at the City Clerk's Office. WMcIlvaine/CC/MS 57-00 Evans 3-6 Attachment 1 Idle .0 7 '00e Ile\ \,do' -Ile .01 'Ile 00 4K 100� %% C2 "A 110 Or 100' 100" loe Ole N pu -0� vz' ^4r 0 7-7 00, OK '000, 100 .100, '000� 'Of W-2 Vidn4X�hft 1129 George N WIER/A 57 00 0 60 100 150 Feet - 3-1 - Attachment 2 ...d. — __ as -_- -- - -- - '----- ------------------------------ - --- - - a- OEORoGE . S ��` S53b9'42W (152.35m) R a p= 499.83' "S/l9S OF _. .. ... 3$ 9EARM s=.0115 • ^R iF $ 30.468m� ._. -. . Al SLZ _ _ _ ^,� I oriVr ^ 6: iz 3- to • L' NI V r +1 � q p � p � N S K �ns� � I `Y •]i ♦ 1r I �• $33'1 r 4n $ �_51593Tn) 4496' (152MM) 46.90' s' f €.■ ���-_ ♦ .N1 - 4440 3 Co 2 aBm _ ^ C om w..aasaays...asa.c'a.asaava �•- r-• r.:.'• :!}.�:. t`'. _ E L L A .. N53'I1'010E i(152.39m) 499.97' 4°: Eg n 'P 3-8 o Atf9chment 3 , GEORGE!' 1 � ilk F I I ��.- `�-� ^ \\\ �\� �� ��:—'.—~T _ •1311.':i^''`I�_f� Zi. —_:�_� •`rte Y �iL \f _—_1_ r _ — — — — ` EL41111[ET�—� mom gill !j .iia:}fl 1 mac- a= O Cf2 a a I ;3:.ril 17P(T7!/]I'rlILSAL�f�AavCinlcs _ -H•4v Attachment 4 RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP AND USE PERMIT FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1129 GEORGE STREET MS/A/ER 57-00 (SLO 00-045) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 6, 2000 and has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff; and WHEREAS, minor subdivisions with requests for exceptions require City Council review and approval; BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: 1. Retaining walls shall be constructed on Parcels 2 and 3 to avoid smothering the roots of trees to remain on the lots. Retaining walls shall be constructed in conjunction with driveway installation prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. The location of the retaining walls shall be subject to approval of the City Arborist. 2. Four inch perforated pipes shall be installed beneath filled areas to the satisfaction of the City Arborist to improve aeration and drainage for affected tree roots on Parcels 2 and 3. 3. Potential impacts to the Monterey pine will be reviewed by the City Arborist and City Council. If possible the tree should be retained. If the Council determines the tree should be removed in favor of sidewalk installation, two replacement street trees shall be planted as part of subdivision frontage improvements. 4. Lots resulting from this subdivision shall be designated as sensitive sites for purposes of architectural review to ensure that site development is compatible with existing development in the neighborhood in terms of building size, architectural design, spacing, privacy, useable outdoor open space and solar access. S. To ensure continuity of neighborhood character in terms of the scale and pattern of existing development, and to minimize the need for grading on the sloped portions of the site, 3-10 ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution No. (200 Series) MS/A/ER 57-00(Evans Minor Subdivision) Page 2 consistent with the residential development policies in the Land Use Element and the City's subdivision,zoning, and grading ordinances: a) Development on each parcel shall be limited to a floor area of 1,800 square feet including the garage. b) Development on each parcel shall be limited to a maximum building footprint of 1,250 square feet. c) Development on each site shall be limited to one two-bedroom house upon approval of a use permit for an exception to the reduction of density with slope. d) Each parcel shall provide a minimum of 750 square feet of useable outdoor open space in the form of decks, patios, and yards, outside of required setbacks with a maximum slope of 5% for yard areas and a minimum dimension of 10 feet at ground level and 6 feet above ground level. e) The maximum area that can be affected by grading cuts or fills on Parcels 2 and 3 shall not exceed 60% of the lot area, exclusive of the building footprint. Grading on Parcels 1 and 4 shall comply with City Grading standards and not exceed 60% of the lot area. f) Maximum building height,measured from actual grade and not from average grade, shall not exceed 25 feet to ensure compatibility with the scale of neighborhood development which is primarily single story. g) Setbacks shall be as required by the zoning regulations,unless otherwise approved as part of architectural review for the purpose of protecting existing trees or minimizing grading. 6. Mitigation measures 4 and 5 shall be noted on the parcel map. SECTION 2. Fes. That this Council, after consideration of a request to subdivide two lots into four lots with exceptions to the subdivision and grading ordinances and with a use permit request to allow an exception to density with slope per Zoning Regulation Section 17.16.010.A.l.vi, and staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: Use Permit Exception to Reduced Density with Slope 1. There is surrounding development as dense as the density proposed for the parcels resulting from this subdivision. 3-11 ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution No. (200_Series) MS/A/ER 57-00(Evans Minor Subdivision) Page 3 Minor Subdivision 2. As conditioned, the design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan and its policies which call for compact urban form and a variety of housing types compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 3. As conditioned, the site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed . in the R-2 zone since project specific standards will limit the scale of development that can occur on each of the resulting parcels in this small-lot subdivision. 4. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since all but one of the significant trees on site will be retained. 5. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within)the proposed subdivision. Exceptions to Subdivision Standards for Lot Area, Width, and Depth 6. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16, Subdivisions, of the SLO Municipal Code); and 7. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and 8. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and 9. 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. Exception to Grading Standards 10. Site grading is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity. 3-12 ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution No. (200_Series) MS/A/ER 57-00(Evans Minor Subdivision) Page 4 I l.There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property and lots resulting from the proposed subdivision such that strict application of grading limitations would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Tree Removal 12. Removal of the Deodor Cedar on Parcel 2 is reasonable since it would obstruct proposed driveway improvements and since all other significant trees on the project site will be retained. Deferral of Sidewalk Installation 13. Deferral of sidewalk installation adjacent to the Monterey Pine on Parcel 1 is reasonable in order to avoid seriously damaging the tree. SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of the minor subdivision and use permit (MS/A 57-00) to allow creation of four lots from two existing lots with exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.36.160 requirements for minimum lot width, depth, and area; and with an exception to the grading standards in the Construction Code Appendix Table A-33- A1 to allow additional site grading; and to allow an exception to the reduction of density with slope per Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.010.A.l.vi, for property at 1129 George Street, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. The subdivider shall dedicate additional necessary right-of-way to accommodate driveway ramps and sidewalks to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Improvements for parking and the means to convey utilities and drainage through the easement on parcel 4 shall be completed as part of the subdivision improvements. Any improvements crossing over proposed lot line should be eliminated or placed in an easement prior to recordation of the parcel map. 3. The subdivider shall install curb, gutter and sidewalk to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, except that in the immediate vicinity of the Monterey Pine tree, sidewalk installation shall be deferred subject to recordation of a covenant to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 4. The 8-inch Coast Live Oak, Gray Pine, and Monterey Pine shall be retained and protected. Subdivision improvement plans and site development plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Arborist for compliance with this condition. 3-13 n ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution No. (200_Series) MS/A/ER 57-00(Evans Minor Subdivision) Paoe 5 5. The sewer laterals grouped together on George Street must provide adequate separation (approximately 3 feet center-center) at the point of connection to the public sewer main, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Dept. & Public Works Inspector. The laterals shall be extended to the respective parcels, as well as the other typical utilities, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Code Requirements: 1. Each parcel shall be served with separate utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone & cable TV),to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Street trees shall be planted in conjunction with development of each parcel, with credit for existing trees,to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 3. Traffic impact fees, per City ordinance, shall be paid at the time of building permits for new residences. 4. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 5. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 6. The parcel map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g.-all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2000. 3-14 ATTACHMENT 4 Resolution No. (200_Series) MS/A/ER 57-00(Evans Minor Subdivision) Page 6 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: *Io #ffgcnsen 3-15 Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP AND USE PERMIT FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1129 GEORGE STREET MS/A/ER 57-00 (SLO 00-045) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 6, 2000 and has considered testimony of interested parties, and considered the applicant's request for a tentative parcel map to create four lots from two existing lots with exceptions to Subdivision Ordinance Section 16.36.160 requirements for minimum lot width, depth, and area; an exception to the grading standards in the Construction Code Appendix Table A-33-A1 to allow additional site grading;.and an exception to the reduction of density with slope per Zoning Regulations Section 17.16.010.A.Lvi, for property.at 1129 George Street, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff.; BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: That this council, after consideration of Tentative Parcel Map No. MS 57-00 (County Map No. SLO 00-045), staff recommendations,and reports thereof makes the following findings: 1. The site is not suited for the type and design of the subdivision. 2. The property to be divided is not of such size or shape, or is not affected by such topographic conditions,that is impossible,impractical or undesirable,in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16, Subdivisions,of the SLO Municipal Code). 3. The modification will be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare,or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 4. Granting the modification is not in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision ordinance,the Zoning Regulations,and the City Construction Codes, and is not consistent with the general plan or other City adopted plans and standards. SECTION 2. DeniaL The request for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. MS 57-00 (County Map No. SLO 00-045)and requested exceptions are hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-16 ATTACHMENT _6 Resolution No. (200_Series) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of ,2000. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: ty to y ffJ ensen A 3-17 ��II011��1111111�1111111►11�� �Illlllllllllf 11111 IIIII jL city of sAn luls onsoo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attachment 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Minor Subdivision MS/ER 57-00 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number. Whitney Mcllvaine (805) 781-7164 4. Project Location: 1129 George Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: John Evans, 1136 George Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-2; Medium Density Residential 8. Description of the Project: Request to subdivide two parcels into four parcels with exceptions to lot depth, width and area. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of a minor subdivision. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Residential neighborhood with single- family homes and apartments 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activais 18 Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. WTACHMENT J -NVIRONMENTAL 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. X Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources X Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services , ti fr r a R Transportation and Utilities and Service s a `_ Circulation I Systems There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on IBJ' t fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. 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. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the.environment, 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheets X have been added to the project 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 significant effect(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, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed 2 3-19 ATTACHMENT 1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. April 27, 2000 Signature o Date Pamela Ricci,Acting Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages.where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 3 3-20 TTA Issues and Supporting Informati,.. Sources Sources Potent. Potentifly Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 57-00 mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2, X 10, b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 11 X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X soils. or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? The proposed subdivision would create 4 lots from 2 existing lots. The project meets criteria for a categorical exemption from environmental review except that resulting lot areas and dimensions will be less than the minimum standards required in the Subdivision Regulations. Without approval of additional exceptions, grading and residential density standards would limit development of the two steeper lots fronting on Ella Street The applicant must apply for administrative use permit approval for an exception to the slope density standards. At the Henry Street end of the same block a similar small lot subdivision was approved in 1992 (MS91-192). That subdivision is fully developed and can be viewed as a prototype for lot development likely to result from the current proposal. CONCLUSION: City Council approval is required for minor subdivisions that include exceptions to subdivision Ind grading standards. City Council can also review requests for exceptions to slope density standards if the applicant chooses to apply for an administrative use permit Exceptions associated with this subdivision proposal are primarily an issue of neighborhood compatibility and aesthetics. Mitigation is recommended below under Aesthetics to address these concerns relative to adopted policies and existing neighborhood character. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1 X projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X The project would create two additional housing opportunities by creating two new lots. This is consistent with Land Use and Housing Element policies encouraging a variety of housing types, efficient infill development, and compact urban form. This is not an unusual configuration for this neighborhood where several double frontage lots have been divided into two lots or developed with two houses, one facing each street CONCLUSION: No significant impacts on population and housing are anticipated as a result of this project 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts ving: a) Fault rupture? 1,4,5 X b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) X X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading,or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X 4 3-21 Issues and Supporting Informati_.. Sources sourcTisgn . h No icant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact ER 57-00 mitigation Incorporated h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? I X There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. CONCLUSION: A Geotechnical report was prepared for this project by Geo Source Inc. It is incorporated herein by reference. Building and grading plans will be required to comply with recommendations in the report No further mitigation is necessary. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 1,5 X rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality(e.g.temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through X direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? The project will reduce the amount of permeable surface when houses are constructed, but not by more than would be allowed under current zoning regulation provisions. CONCLUSION: Less than significant S. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 8 X existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? d) Createobjectionable odors? X The Air Pollution Control Districts 1998 Clean Air Plan encourages infill development as a means of reducing impacts of development on air quality. CONCLUSION: Not significant. S. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 1 X b) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses 5 3-22 ATTACHMENT10 Issues and Supporting Informat.. ., Sources Sources Potent potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 57-00 Issues Impact mitigation Incorporated (e.g.farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail,waterbome or air traffic impacts(e.g. compatibility X with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual estimates that single family homes generate 10 vehicle trips per day. This project would enable two more homes than subdivision standards would otherwise allow. Existing street systems are capable of handling the additional trips. Futhermore, the site is within reasonable walking distance from downtown. CONCLUSION: Not significant 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants,fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g. oak forest, X coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X :) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X The project will require removal of several trees. Of particular concern are a Deodor cedar and a Monterey pine.. Removal of the cedar is unavoidable in order to accommodate driveway access to proposed Parcel 2. A Monterey pine on proposed Parcel 1 could be seriously damaged by the installation of a sidewalk across this lot This tree is in very good heath. It was occupied by several species of birds when staff visited the site, including a Red-Shouldered Hawk. Significant trees to remain include a large Gray pine and a Coast Live oak_ MITIGATION MEASURES Retaining walls shall be constructed on Parcels 2 and 3 to avoid smothering the roots of trees to remain on the lots. Retaining walls shall be constructed in conjunction with driveway installation prior to recordation of the Parcel Map.The location of the retaining walls shall be subject to approval of the City Arborist. Potential impacts to the Monterey pine will be reviewed by the City Arborist, the Tree Committee, and City Council. If possible, the tree should be retained. If the Council determines the tree should be removed in favor of sidewalk installation, two replacement street trees shall be planted as part of subdivision frontage improvements. Four inch perforated pipes shall be installed beneath filled areas to the satisfaction of the City Arborist to improve aeration and drainage for affected tree roots on Parcels 2 and 3. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? The project is consistent with the City's Energy Element which encourages concentrations of residences close to 6 3-23 Issues and Supporting Informat.— Sources Sources Potent Pote I t Significant Significant Significant Ihipact ER 57-00 Issues Impact mitigation Incorporated concentrations of employment CONCLUSION: Not significant S. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion'or release of hazardous 9 X substances(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass or trees? CONCLUSION:The proposal does not involve potential health hazards. Not significant 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? 1,3 X b) Exposure of people to"unacceptable" noise levels as X defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element? CONCLUSION: The project will result in residential development in a residential neighborhood and is subject to Noise Element and Municipal Code standards. Not significant. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 9 X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X CONCLUSION: The additional two homes enabled by this project will not have an adverse impact on existing public service resources. Not significant. 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or . supplies,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 9 X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water supplies? X CONCLUSION: The project can be adequately accommodated without overloading local utilities and service systems. Not significant 13.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 1,6, X 10 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X The main issue associated with this subdivision proposal is its potential impact on existing development within the 3-24 ATTACHMENT Issues and Supporting Informat,_.. Sources sources Potent. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 57-00 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Incorporated neighborhood. Land Use Element policies states that housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. (LUE 2.2.10) New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing, and variety. (LUE 2.2.10A) New buildings need to respect the privacy and solar access of neighboring buildings. (LUE 2.2.106) Residential development should also respect site constraints such as size and slope. (LUE 2.2.11) Housing Element goals call for providing a variety of housing types within the City and preserving the quality of existing neighborhoods. (HE Goals 4 &6) To ensure that lot development is compatible with the neighborhood and meets the intent of the General Plan, the proposed lots, if approved, should be designated as sensitive sites for purposes of architectural review. The size of building footprints and overall size of the buildings should be limited by a condition of approval similar to the one placed on minor subdivision MS91-192, which created lots of a similar size and configuration in the same neighborhood. Minimum setbacks should be established as a condition of subdivision approval. To address concerns with aesthetics related to the proposed small-lot subdivision in an existing neighborhood, the following mitigation is recommended: MITIGATION MEASURES Lots resulting from this subdivision shall be designated as sensitive sites for purposes of architectural review to ensure that site development is compatible with existing development in the neighborhood in terms of building size, architectural design, spacing, privacy, useable outdoor open space and solar access. To ensure continuity of neighborhood character in terms of the scale and pattern of existing development, and to minimize the need for grading on the sloped portions of the site, consistent with the residential development policies in the Land Use Element and the City's subdivision,zoning, and grading ordinances: ➢ Development on each parcel shall be limited to a floor area of 1,800 square feet including the garage. ➢ Development on each site shall be limited to one two-bedroom house. Each parcel shall provide a minimum of 750 square feet of useable outdoor open space in the form of decks, patios, and yards, outside of required setbacks with a maximum slope of 5% for yard areas and a minimum dimension of 10 feet at ground level and 6 feet above ground level. D The maximum area that can be affected by grading cuts or fills and building footprints on each lot shall not exceed 60%of the lot area. ➢ Maximum building height, measured from actual finished grade and not from average finished grade, shall not exceed 25 feet to ensure compatibility with the scale of neighborhood development which is primarily single story. Setbacks shall be as required by the zoning regulations unless otherwise approved as part of architectural review for the purpose of protecting existing trees or minimizing grading. These conditions of site development shall be noted on the parcel map. 14.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 7 X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X 8 3-25 Issues and Supporting Informal. . Sources Sources Potent. Po i. Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 57-00 Issues Unless Impact mitigation Incorporated would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? CONCLUSION: The project is on less than an acre and is not in a sensitive archaeological area. Not significant. 1S.RECREATION. Would the proposal: f) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 1,3 X or other recreational facilities? g) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X The project is too limited in scope to have any noticeable affect on demand for recreational facilities. The additional two lots created by this subdivision will be subject to park in-lieu fees. CONCLUSION: Not significant 16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all the issue areas checked in the table on page 3. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? Short and long term goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually X 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 future projects) The incremental effects of tree removal are impacts which are individually limited, but considerable when viewed in conjunction with the effects of other past, current and future projects. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. 9 3-25 ER 57-00 ATTACHMENT 10 m7. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 3. City of San luis Obispo Municipal Code 4. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas. 5. Geotechnical Report prepared by Geo Source Inc., February 2000 6. City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Guidelines 7. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines 8. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan, 1998 9. Project comments from other departments and agencies 10. Resolution 8053 for MS 91-192 11. I Description of requested exceptions to standards 18. MITIGATION MEASURESIMONITORING PROGRAM 1. Retaining walls shall be constructed on Parcels 2 and 3 to avoid smothering the roots of trees to remain on the lots. Retaining walls shall be constructed in conjunction with driveway installation prior to recordation of the Parcel Map.The location of the retaining walls shall be subject to approval of the City Arborist 2. Four inch perforated pipes shall be installed beneath filled areas to the satisfaction of the City Arborist to improve aeration and drainage for affected tree roots on Parcels 2 and 3. 3. Potential impacts to the Monterey pine will be reviewed by the City Arborist, the Tree Committee, and City Council. If possible the tree should be retained. If the Council determines the tree should be removed in favor of sidewalk installation,two replacement street trees shall be planted as part of subdivision frontage improvements. 4. Lots resulting from this subdivision shall be designated as sensitive sites for purposes of architectural review to ensure that site development is compatible with existing development in the neighborhood in terms of building size,architectural design, spacing, privacy, useable outdoor open space and solar access. 5. To ensure continuity of neighborhood character in terms of the scale and pattern of existing development, and to minimize the need for grading on the sloped portions of the site, consistent with the residential development policies in the Land Use Element and the City's subdivision,zoning, and grading ordinances: ➢ Development on each parcel shall be limited to a floor area of 1,800 square feet including the garage. ➢ ' Development on each site shall be limited to one two-bedroom house upon approval of a use permit for an exception to the reduction of density with slope. ➢ Each parcel shall provide a minimum of 750 square feet of useable outdoor open space in the form of decks, patios, and yards, outside of required setbacks with a maximum slope of 5%for yard areas and a minimum dimension of 10 feet at ground level and 6 feet above ground level. The maximum area that can be affected by grading cuts or fills and building footprints on each lot shall not exceed 60%of the lot area. ➢ Maximum building height, measured from actual finished grade and not from average finished grade, shall not exceed 25 feet to ensure compatibility with the scale of neighborhood development which is primarily single story. 10 3-26 ER 57-00 ATTACHMENT Y Setbacks shall be as required by the zoning regulations unless otherwise approved as part of architectural review for the purpose of protecting existing trees or minimizing grading. 6. Mitigation measures 4 and 5 shall be noted on the parcel map. MONITORING PROGRAM Compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the parcel map and improvement plans; architectural review; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant toagree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. ATTACHMENTS: VICINITY MAP REDUCED PLAN APPLICANTS STATEMENT SUMMARY OF EXCEPTIONS DEPT.ANDF AGENCY COMMENTS RESOLUTION 8053 AND REDUCED COPY OF MS 91-192 TEXT EXCERPT FROM GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 3-27 'N HREMT Aor RT Izz X, Nrl M,,%nfty \ 1129 George N MS 57-00 A 0 60 120 180 Feet 3-28 . _ATACHMENT Ip I Eel CR f ,d � � ft■a�Z� a� i � �� >l�i :ai 2 tai ' tj All `(3-14Z i I I dF ara ��1t� �a aes 7� �e I i _.....�i-.-.--�.— ... y. e .....�.�_..... .—_._ ...._ ��' �6l-At� 1t4t LLSN YZZH JW I � - T W0�9[ _.......� o . ._................... ._... S _._.-__.._._.-- - ATTACHMENT JOHN W. EVANS March 24, 2000 Mr. Arnold Jonas Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Application, SLO-00-045 Dear Mr. Jonas: Please find the attached for the above referenced Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Application: • Vesting Tentative Parcel Map SLO-00-045, (12)24"x36" copies, (1)8'A"x11" reduced copy • Application Form Preliminary Title Report • Check for$6,134.00 ($4,932.00 +$1,202.00) • Assessor's Parcel Map with property highlighted Tentative Parcel Map Application Checklist Initial Study of Environmental Impact Checklist • Slope and.Density Calculations • Soils Report • Photos of SLO-00-045 George and Ella Street frontages, (3) copies • Resolution No. 8053 (1992 Series), Corrected Copy, dated 1-27-93 • Letter from Mr. Devin Gallagher re: underground and overhead utilities Photos of MS 91-192 George and Ella Street frontages, (3) copies. Existing and Proposed Land Use The Vesting Tentative Parcel Map application, SLO-00-045, requests a four parcel split from two existing lots at 1129 George Street. The property, in the R-2 zone, currently consists of a lot with a two-bedroom house (to remain) and a detached two-dar garage (to be removed); and a vacant lot. Three new two-bedroom houses.are planned for Parcels 1, 2 and 3. 1 have included a copy of approved Resolution No. 8053 for reference as I am requesting similar exceptions to the City's Property Development Standards that were granted to MS 91-192 located at 1105 George Street. 3-3U 1136 GEORGE STREET San LUIS Oe1SM,CA 93401. PHONE: (805)549-8262 Fa805)76FaxIT a.•( ATTACHMENT Requested Exceptions I am requesting the following exceptions: An exception to required width, depth, and size dimensions. I believe that the granting of the lot width, depth and size requirements will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. I also believe the granting of the exceptions is in accord with the intent and purposes of the subdivision and zoning regulations, and is consistent with the general plan. I have included a copy of approved Resolution No. 8053 for reference as I am requesting similar exceptions to the City's Property Development Standards that were granted to MS 91-192 located in the same block as SLO-00-045. Proposed Improvements and Landscape Modifications The estimated time of completion of the proposed improvements is prior to the recordation of the Final Map. The proposed improvements include the following: 1. One new water service manifolding to two new water meter stops will be installed on Ella Street to Parcels.2 and 3 per City Engineering Standards. 2. One new water service will be installed on George Street to Parcel 1. 3. Three new sewer laterals for Parcels 1, 2 and 3 will be installed on George Street per City Engineering Standards. 4. One new gas service for Parcel 3 will be installed on Ella Street. Based on discussions with the Gas Co., Parcels 1 and 2 can be served from connections near existing gas meters on the northerly adjacent properties. 5. Parcels 2 and 3 will obtain electrical, phone, and cable'TV service from new underground conduits installed behind the new sidewalk and connecting to an existing power pole south of Parcel 3. 6. Electrical, phone, and cable N service for Parcel 1 will be provided by overhead lines. Based on discussions with PG&E,the existing overhead distribution system can accommodate a new residence on Parcel 1 from an existing pole on George Street. Currently, all residences on the block, including the four most recently constructed following the approval of MS 91-192, are served with overhead lines. The corrected copy of Resolution No. 8053, Section 5,.Item 4 (attached) shows that the written request(letter attached) by the applicant of MS 91-192 for an exemption from the underground wire utility requirement was granted by Jerry Kenny on January 27,1999. 1 request this same exemption for Parcel 1. 7. Curb and gutter currently exists along the Ella Street frontage and along half of the George Street frontage. New 4-foot wide sidewalks and 8-foot wide driveway ramps will be installed on Ella and George Streets. An existing low rock wall will be -.2- 1136 GEORGE STREET SAN LUIS OBISM. CA 93401 PHOW: (805)549-8262 F=(805)78FNUT 3-31 ATTACHMENT �o removed on George Street and new curb and gutter will be installed in its place. Currently, all existing sidewalks on the George and Ella Street frontages are 4-foot wide. 8. Existing street lights on Ella and George Streets and should be sufficient to satisfy City requirements. 9. Existing trees to remain include one 24"diameter pine and one 24" diameter redwood on Parcel 1, one 16"diameter Diadora and one 3"diameter Coast Live Oak on Parcel 2, and one 24" pine on Parcel 3. The pines, oak and Diadora will be used as street trees. 10. Four existing fruit trees on Parcels 1 and 2 and one existing 8" diameter Coast Live Oak on Parcel 2 will be removed. The dose spacing between the oak and the Diadora necessitates that one or the other tree is removed to allow for a new driveway ramp. The oak is directly in front of the proposed driveway ramp. Two new Coast Live Oak street trees will be planted along the Ella Street frontage to replace the removed oak. 11.The planting of new street trees will be deferred until after the site grading and lot developments are completed to avoid damaging newly planted trees. Based on discussions with City Engineering staff, Ella Street is currently scheduled to be repaved in May or June of 2000. It is my hope and intention to obtain City approval to install the new utilities in Ella Street prior to the repaving. Additional Items For the future residential development on Parcels 1, 2 and 3, 1 request that a building area of at least 1,800 gross square feet, including garage space, be allowed. Upon review of the General Plan Noise Element it appears SLO-00-045 is outside any noise problem areas. Finally, I would like to request Whitney Mcllvaine as the staff planner for this project as Ms. Mcllvaine was involved in the preparation of the staff report and Negative Declaration for MS 91-192 and is therefore familiar with the unique aspects of this neighborhood. If you have any questions, please contact me at 544-7407. Respectfully submitted, o n W. Evans -3- 1136 GEORGE STREET SAm Luis Own. CA 93401 PHon: (805)549-8262 Fnx:(805)78FAXIT 3=32 RWAOM 4iMENT fig MS 57-00 requested exceptions to standards: Subdivision Standards: The proposed subdivision requires approval of exceptions to lot width, depth and area standards. Lot Component Required Dimension/Area Proposed Dimension /Area Minimum Lot Area 6,000 square feet 3744—3746_ square feet Minimum Width 60 feet 49.9 feet Minimum Depth 100 feet 74.92—74.93 feet Minimum Frontage 30 feet 49.9 feet Residential Density Standards: Since the resulting slopes on the upper lots will exceed 15%, approval of an administrative use permit would be required to enable construction of anything more than a studio residence on each of these lots. Affected Lot %Average Cross Slope Maximum Density Proposed Density Allowed (density units per acre) Parcel 1 0- 15% One 2-bedroom dwelling One 2-bedroom dwelling Parcel 2 16-20% One studio dwelling One 2-bedroom dwelling Parcel 3 16-20% One studio dwelling One 2-bedroom dwelline Parcel 0- 15% One 2-bedroom dwelling One 2-bedroom dwelt existing Grading Ordinance Standards: Grading standards limit the.amount of grading that can be done on steeper lots. Lot Affected %Average Cross Slope Category %to Remain in a Natural State Parcel 1 11-15% 40% Parcel 2 16-20% 60% Parcel 3 16-20% 60% Parcel 4 11-15% 40% Without an exception to grading standards, grading for driveways, level yard area and building footprints for the upper two lots would have to be confined within 1500 square feet of the lot area. A more realistic scenario would limit grading to 60% of the upper lot areas or approximately 2250 square feet, thereby retaining 40% in a natural state. Any approval of an exception to the grading standards should specify the maximum site area that can be either cut or filled. 3-33 ATTACHMENT J Building (Site Grading) 1. Parcels 2 and 3 will require drainage improvements through the drainage easement down to George Street. It seems that the means to convey the runoff and sewage through the easement to George Street should be installed before improvements to parcels 1 and 4 are initiated. It appears that on site parking and a driveway to parcel 4 will be required as part of the subdivision. Installing the underground improvements prior to other surface improvements will eliminate the need to cut,remove and replace those surface improvements. Determination as to the size of drainage improvements should be based upon a 10 year storm. A means of conveying the runoff through the curb to the street should be provided. It appears the underground improvements may be trenched adjacent to the pine and redwood trees. 2. Improvements for parking and utilities to parcel 4 should be completed prior to the lot split. Any improvements crossing over proposed lot line should be eliminated or placed in an easement prior to the subdivision being agreed to. 3. As far as the overhead electrical service to parcel 1 is concerned,we require that new residences be served by underground services unless it can be demonstrated that an underground service is infeasible or impractical. We do not have any information at this time to make a determination of infeasibility or impracticality. 3-36 ATTACHMENT T hnieal erServices The RECEIVED Mght of Way Desk Gas Company® APR 14 2000 U 1 y Ur -',DAN LUia Uol,WrO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT April 13, 2000 Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo' Attn: Arnold Jonas SouthernCalifornia 990 Palm Street Gas Company San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1171 More Road Golaa,California Subject: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Application, SLO-00-045 Mailing Addrez.- Bar 818 Dear Mr. Jonas: cokta.CA 93116-0818 The Souther Califoria Oras Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gras service to the project could be provided from existing gas mains located in George Street and Ella Street. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the Califoria Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non-utility laws and regulations(such as environmental regulations)which could affect actual construction of a main or service line extension(for example, if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). Those, of course, can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction is begun. If you need assistance choosing the appropriate gas equipment for your project, or would like to discuss the most effective applications of energy efficiency techniques, please contact your area Project Manager, Kevin Blaser, at(805) 434-1198. Sincerely, Rey X. ,gdai Technical Services Northern Region 3-37 Community Developmenf apartment Project ReviewCity of San Luis Obispo 'SJPalm Street �({Luis Obispo, CA 93401 T" 'ity has received the following application apd would like your comments. Project Address 1129 GEORGE Parcel# 003-573-005 Date Printed:03129/00 Routed to: Building(Sfte Grading)(1 copies) Application Number 57-00 Pacific Bell(1 copies) Legal Description CY SLO BUENA VST ADD BL 5 LTS 5&6 Southern California Gas(1 copies) PG&E(1 copies) Zoning 1 R-2 Zoning 2 School Districts(1 copies) Property Owner CLINE ANNA C TRE Fire Department(1 copies) In Care Of Utilities(1 copies) Owner Address 1129 GEORGE ST Public Works(1 copies) SLO CA 93401-4113 DIP ,Applicant Name JOHN EVANS Day Phone(805)5447407 5�..a caApplicant Address 1136 GEORGE STREET SLO CA 93401 )�, llr >aRepresentative Name Day Phone( Representative Address 04 EREnv.Impact Determination for a 4 parcel subdivision First action date: 06/06/00 CC MS tentative map with exceptions to subdivide two lots into four parcels of MS00-045 First action date: 06/06/00 CC approximately 3748 square feet each. Resource Deficiency Certification: wn Certification:-1p ('P� .(�r�V1 m rr�,•� COWV"NO-1045 4 This project can be adequately accommodated without overloading the citys facilities and resources. (Municipal Code Chapter 2.44) _This project cannot be accommodated because of utility deficiencies explained here or attached. (Municipal Code Chapter 2.44) Signed G�iirw " Date 4-10-00 Return with comments toHITNEY MCLVAINE by 0427/00 Although not required, comments and conditions are encouraged to be sent to*2--"-Aove planner via e-mail utilizing Microsoft Word format. ATTACHMENT ] Public Works Comments The sewer laterals grouped together on George Street must provide adequate separation (approximately 3 feet center-center) at the point of connection to the public sewer main, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Dept. & Public Works Inspector. The laterals shall be extended to the respective parcels, as well as the other typical utilities,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Conditions 1. The subdivider shall install a 1.2m-wide (4') sidewalk behind the existing driveway ramp serving Parcel 4 in accordance with City standards and 1.35m(4.5') sidewalk along the remainder of both frontages,to meet ADA requirements. The subdivider shall dedicate necessary right-of-way to accommodate said ramp and the driveway ramp serving Parcel 1, as well as the 4.5' sidewalk, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. The 8"oak tree on Parcel 2 shall remain. The Deodora cedar is subject to approval by the Tree Committee and, if approved, a permit from the City Arborist. Code Requirements a. Each parcel shall be served with separate utilities(water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone& cable TV),to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. b. Street trees shall be planted in conjunction with development of each parcel,with credit for existing trees,to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. c. Traffic impact fees,per City ordinance, shall be paid at the time of building permits for new residences. 3-35 CORRECTED COPY ATTAC RESOLUTION NO. 8053 (1992 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS Q VVV OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 91-192 LOCATED AT 1105 GEORGE STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision No. 91-192 , and the Community Development Director's recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the General Plan. 2 . The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2 zone. 3 . The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4 . The design of the tentative map or the type of improvement will not conflict with easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision. 5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative declaration, and the City Council hereby approves the negative declaration. SECTION 2 . Exceptions. Approval of exception to required lot dimensions - width, depth, and size - based on the following findings: 1. The property to be divided is of such size and shape that it is impractical and undesirable in this particular case to conform to the strict application of the subdivision regulations. 3-38 R-8053 Resolution No. 8053 ATTACHMENT / Page 2 2 . Site development standards are specified in the conditions of approval to ensure site development that is representative of and compatible with the scale and character of existing development in the neighborhood, to ensure consistency with the general plan; to enable adequate useable outdoor space; to minimize the necessity for topographic modification; and to ensure that the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the exceptions. 3 . The historic nature of the existing house, to be relocated onto Parcel 1, merits exemption from the square footage and footprint limitations required for houses on Parcels 2, 3, and 4 . 4 . Granting the exceptions to the lot depth, width, and size requirements will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 5. Granting the exceptions to lot depth, width, and size requirements is in accord with the intent and purposes of subdivision and zoning regulations, and is consistent with the general plan. SECTION 3 . Exceptions. Approval of exception to grading standards, based on the following findings: 1. The exception hereby granted -- to allow grading of approximately 63% of Parcel 2 and 42% of Parcel 3 , exclusive of building footprints, where the Grading Ordinance would otherwise allow 20% -- is subject to such conditions as will. assure that the additional grading authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity. 2 . Because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict literal application of the grading limitations is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 3 . Under the circumstances of this particular case, the exception is in conformity with the purposes of the grading ordinance as set out in Section 15.44 . 020. SECTION 4 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 90-286 be subject to the following conditions: 3-39 Resolution No. 8053 ATTACHMENT47 Page 3 MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street 1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for . review, approval, and recordation. 2 . The existing house shall be relocated onto Parcel 1 prior to final map approval. 3 . The final map shall note that Parcels 1, 2, 3 , and 4 are determined to be sensitive sites, and that development on these lots shall require architectural review prior to the issuance of building permits. New development shall be compatible with the prevailing character of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of scale, massing, architectural style, yards, and height. 4 . Parcels 1, 2 , 3 , and 4 shall be addressed as assigned by the Community Development Department. Addresses for all lots shall be posted at the street frontage to the approval of the Community Development Department. 5. All boundary monuments and lot corners must be tied to the city's control network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map along with a 5-1/411 computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data for use in Autocad for geographic information system purposes. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6-foot public utility easement and a to-foot street tree easement along all street frontages. 7. The subdivider shall provide streetlighting per city standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 8. The subdivider shall install standard frontage improvements (6-foot wide integral curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway ramp) and street pavement along street frontages to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. . (4-foot wide sidewalks are approved for Ella Street; full street pavement required on Henry Street; paveout required on George and Ella streets. ) 9 . The existing wall on George Street shall be removed from the public right-of-way. 10. To ensure consistency with residential objectives contained in the general plan regarding provision of adequate, private, useable outdoor space, all parcels shall provide a minimum of 750 square feet of qualifying open space as defined and described in Section 17 .82. 110 J, K, and L of the condominium development regulations. To qualify as open space, yards cannot exceed 5% slope. A street yard of no less than .10 feet shall be provided along 3-40 Resolution No. 8053 ATTACHMENT I Page 4 MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street the Ella Street frontage of Parcel 3 , for the sole purpose of allowing the applicant to meet the minimum open space requirement. Any structure on Parcel 3 shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from Ella Street and 10 feet from Henry Street. This condition shall supercede condition 1- of use permit AlGG-92 . il. To assure consistency with residential objectives contained in the general plan regarding provisions for privacy, second story decking shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the nearest property line. 12. To better ensure that site development is compatible with the prevailing single family residential development in the neighborhood, which is primarily single story, the absolute maximum height, measured from finished grade to the highest point -on the roof, for buildings on each of parcels shall be 25 feet. 13 . To ensure continuity of neighborhood character in terms of the scale and pattern of existing development, and to minimize the need for grading on the sloped portion of the site,- consistent with the intent of the city!s subdivision and grading regulations: a. Building footprints on Parcels 2 and 3 shall be limited to a maximum of 1,250 square feet; b. Development on Parcels 2 and 3, for which an exception to the slope/density reduction standard is being requested, shall be limited to a maximum building area of 1, 800 gross square feet, 'including garage space. C. Development on Parcel 4 shall be limited to a maximum building area of 1,800 gross square feet, including garage space. • Provisions of the condition shall supercede condition 3of use permit A100-92 . 14. Consistent with the City's density standards, development on each of the four parcels shall be limited to 1 two-bedroom house. 14 . Conditions 10 through 14 shall be noted on the final map, and the subdivider shall submit CC&R's for each of the parcels created to the Community Development Director for review, approval, and recordation, which clearly describe the noted conditions. 3-41 _ Resolution No. 8053 ATTACHMENT Page 5 MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street 15. All trees to be removed as a result of site grading and development are to be replaced at a ratio of two to one to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. 16. The two Coast Live Oaks, which are otherwise proposed for removal, shall be hand dug by qualified personnel, burlapped and balled, and relocated on .the site to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 17. The planting of street trees shall be deferred until after site grading and lot development are completed to avoid damaging newly planted trees. SECTION 5. Code Requirements. a following are required by city. co—des.; " aod. ze m nts are listed: 1. All structures on Parcels 1, 2 , 3 , and 4 shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. 2 . All applicable water and sewer fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. ' 3 . Street trees shall be installed to city standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The subdivider shall install individual sewer, water, and utility services for each parcel. New utilities shall be ., underground. 17. 'if JVa,-A 5. New lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 6. The subdivider shall pay park-in-lieu fees as determined by the Community Development Department prior to final map approval. r 7. All lots must be sewered to Either Ella or George streets. b � On motion Of �Crnunrilmam}�er Rappa , seconded y Councilmember Pinard and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Rappa, Pinard, Reiss, Roalman, and Mayor Dunin NOES: None A ENT: None 3-42 T Resolution No. 8053 ATTACHMENT Ip Page 6 MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 18th day of August , 1992. Mayor Ron ATTEST: )A City C erk, Pam ges APPROVED: ity Adm'nistrative officer ttr e i.C.� Community Devel Vent Director 3-43 AITACHMENT o GCORGL STREET I ;- � __� ,r � \ \ �' �;:• �\ RFs /c r:. ti:• ii•w 1 \� \ }II11 _ N I 11 n n - _ L �. \ !. •� = n if r — � �_I \ � \\ '•.. 1 I!'�I�I I'�' ��—moi I• _��.( \\\ \\\ -1r S„'• ---^LST,, �'. 1 1 I ` [LL.STREET 1_ 1 ll�l�l !• � k. � � �i ns �. as I I !lT TSI 1; Psi to -0.511 • is w-11 ; 6�'o y9 1 STSox f F, 1 o I I ;jy.�j� .17e1t41�1Na�tCAL.�6A�ClaIPS � � � � � � • � � � -• _ 111 , ,.-ter f. � e 1�I . il•r1 Sy��y� ���1`l� SJ�r rV � n t Ky' ��� � op / LL, t �✓' 1 � s j � •atm++-+�-�.-.+4» 'fi�-.% �'V'iyFr _ .,?�� IL ♦I �*,.IL nnt �Y � ._Yr• I,. y ATTACHMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................:........................................................................ 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................... 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS................................................................:................ 2 4.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................•.............. 3 4.1 General.................................................................................................................. 3 4.2 San Andreas Fault..........................................:..................................................... 4 4.3 Earthquake Accelerations................................................................................... 4 4.4 Liquefaction.......................................................................................................... 5 4.5 Ground Rupture................................................................................................... 5 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................. 5 5:1 Clearing and Stripping ........................................................................................ 6 5.2 Preparation of Building Pad ............................................................................... 6 5.3 Preparation of Paved Areas................................................................................ 8 5.4 Structural Fill........................................................................................................ 8 5.5 Foundations.......................................................................................................... 9 5.6 Slab-0n-Grade Construction............................................................................ 10 5.7 Retaining Walls.................................................................................................. 11 5.8 Pavement Design............................................................................................... 13 5.9 Underground Facilities Construction.............................................................. 14 5.10 Surface and Subsurface Drainage................................................................... 14 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS.................................................... 16 FIGURES AND TABLES Site Location Map Site Plan Drainage Recommendations Hill Side Grading UBC Seismic Coefficients Table 1 APPENDIX A Soil Classification Chart Logs of Exploratory Borings APPENDIX B Direct Shear Test Expansion Index Tests Optimum Moisture/Maximum Density 3-46 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PM SLO-00-045, 1129 GEORGE STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA PROJECT 0-0074 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development to be located on George Street in San Luis Obispo, California. A site location map is presented in Figure 1. The property is bounded by George Street to the north, Ella Street to the south and residences to the east and west. The terrain slopes upward from north to south, varying from approximately 275 feet to 295 feet above mean sea level. At the time of our field exploration the site was covered with native grasses, weeds and a few trees. An existing residence and garage are located in the northwest comer of the property. It is our understanding that the development will include three (3)wood-framed residences. The two residences adjacent to Ella Street will be cut into the hillside with a garage above the basement level. The residence adjacent to George Street will have a garage slab located close to exiting grades. The Ella Street residences will also incorporate retaining walls. Grading is expected to include cuts on the order of 5 feet and fills up to 3 feet. Footing loads for the building are presently unavailable. For the purpose of this report, maximum loads on the order of 10 kips (columns) and 1.0 kips per lineal foot(continuous) have been estimated. The project description is based on a site reconnaissance performed by a Geo Source, Inc., engineer and information provided by the client. The plan provided forms the basis for the "Site Plan", Figure 2. In the event that there is change in the nature, design or location of improvements, or if the assumed loads are not consistent with actual design loads, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, if required. Evaluations of the soils for hydrocarbons or other chemical properties are beyond the scope of the investigation. 1 3-47 ATTACHMENT ] February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this study was to explore and evaluate the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the site and to develop geotechnical information and design criteria for the proposed project. The scope of this study included the following items. 1. A review of available published and unpublished geotechnical and geologic data pertinent to the project site. 2. A field study consisting of a site reconnaissance and an exploratory boring program to formulate a description of the subsurface conditions. 3. A laboratory testing program performed on representative soil samples collected during our field study. 4. Engineering analysis of the data gathered during our field study, laboratory testing, and literature review. Development of recommendations for site preparation and grading, and geotechnical design criteria for foundations, slab- on-grade construction, retaining walls, pavement design and underground facilities. 5. Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project site. 3.0 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS The surface materials to a depth of 3 to 4 feet consisted of dark brown sandy clays with occasional gravels. These materials were encountered in a moist to very moist state and in a soft to firm condition. Laboratory testing indicates that the near surface clays are highly expansive. The surface materials were underlain by similar sandy clays in a firm condition over severely weathered sandstone bedrock that became less weathered with depth. No free ground water was encountered during our field exploration. A more detailed description of the soils encountered is presented graphically on the"Exploratory Boring Logs," B-1 through 2 3-48 ATTACHMENT '14,9 February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 B-3, Appendix A. An explanation of the symbols and descriptions used on these logs are presented on the "Soil Classification Chart. The soil profile described above is generalized; therefore, the reader is advised to consult the boring logs (Appendix A) for soil conditions at specific locations. Care should be exercised in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond trenches and borings. On the boring logs we have indicated the soil type, moisture content, grain size, dry density, and the applicable United Soil Classification System Symbol. The locations of our exploratory borings, shown on Site Plan, Figure 2, were approximately determined from features at the site. Hence, accuracy can be implied only to the degree that this method warrants. Surface elevations at boring locations were not determined. 4.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The site is in a seismically active region of California, and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of the structure. Seismicity analyses were conducted to evaluate strong ground motion hazards and to develop input parameters to be used for the seismic design of the proposed structures. The analyses essentially consisted of a review of quakes on nearby faults, and the level of strong ground motion that each active or potentially active fault is capable of generating at the site. 4.1 General The San Andreas fault, located approximately 36 miles northeast of the site, dominates both the structure and seismicity of this region. However, faults reflecting a closer source, also have a significant potential to generate earthquakes and strong shaking at the project site. These include: 1) the offshore group, including the Hosgri and Santa Lucia Bank (Purisma and Lompoc)faults; and 2)the Los Osos and San Luis Range faults. In addition, the Los Alamos- Baseline-Lions and Casmalia-0rcutt-Little Pine faults may be active or potentially active and pose a significant potential to generate earthquakes. 3 3-49 ATTAC1iMENT February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 4.2 San Andreas Fault The San Andreas Fault zone (Mojave section) is the largest active fault zone within a 100-mile radius of the site (located 36 miles northeast). The San Andreas fault is recognized as a major transform fault of regional dimensions that forms an active boundary between the Pacific and North American crustal plates. Cumulative slip along the San Andreas fault has amounted to several hundred miles, and a substantial fraction of the total slip has occurred during late Cenozoic time. The fault has well-defined topographic expression, generally lying within a rift valley or along an escarpment mountain front, and having associated sag ponds, low scarps, right-laterally deflected streams and related manifestations of recent activity. The most recent episode of large-scale movement along the reach of the San Andreas fault that is closest to the San Luis Range occurred during the great Fort Tejon earthquake of 1857. Geologic evidence pertinent to the behavior of the fault during this and earlier seismic events was studied in great detail by Wallace (1968 & 1975). Other active and potentially active faults have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed site. A list of the faults discussed above and other local faults are presented in Table 1 =Seismicity Table. 4.3 Earthquake Magnitudes and Accelerations We have analyzed the possible earthquake magnitudes and accelerations at the site and, in our opinion, the largest ULE at the site would be a 7.8 moment magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault Such an event could produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration on the order of 0.198. The largest LLE at the site would be a 7.6 moment magnitude earthquake, also on the San Andreas Fault Such an event could produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration on the order of 0.179. Due to the relative location of the Los Osos, Oceanic, Hosgri, Rinconada and San Luis Range faults to the site, higher ULE accelerations may be expected from these faults. Based on our study, accelerations of 0.49 (Los Osos), 0.48 (Oceanic), 0.29 (Hosgri), 0.41 (Rinconada) and 0.46 (San Luis Range) could be anticipated. Although higher accelerations may be experienced on the site from these faults,the recurrence interval for such events is much longer than for an event on the active San Andreas Fault Zone. In addition, several of these faults are Quaternary without Historic displacement or Pre-Quatemary without recognized Quaternary displacement. Based on these findings, it is our opinion, the most significant acceleration at the site would be 0.49g on the Los Osos Fault. This value is higher then the probabilistic value of 0.30 to 0.40g determined by Peterson and others (1996)for this area, for 4 3-5.0 ATTACHMENT to February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years. The high acceleration from this fault is due to its close proximity to the site. Design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions and standard practices of the Structural Engineer Association of California. 4.4 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which soil temporarily loses strength due to a buildup of excess pore-water pressure caused by seismic shaking. Liquefaction occurs in loose to medium dense saturated sand, typically within the upper 50 feet of ground surface. Blow counts observed during our field exploration indicate that the density of the upper 20 feet of soil varies throughout the layer, but the layer can generally be described as firm in the upper 5 feet and very stiff to hard below this depth. Our preliminary liquefaction analysis indicates that ground accelerations of 0.49g could cause loose sand layers to liquefy, if saturated. However, surficial clay soils over bedrock were discovered during our field exploration. Based on this information we feel the potential for liquefaction is low. 4.5 Ground Rupture Based on the lack of known active or potentially active fault traces through the site, we conclude that the likelihood of ground rupture due to faulting is low. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. 2. All grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by Geo Source Inc., hereinafter described as the Geotechnical Engineer, prior to contract bidding. This review should be performed to determine whether the recommendations contained within this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. 5 3-5.1 ATTACHMENT J February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 3. The Geotechnical Engineer should be notified at least two (2) working days before site clearing or grading operations commence, and should be present to observe the stripping ofdeleterious material and provide consultation to the Grading Contractor in the field. 4. Field observation and testing during the grading operations should be provided by the Geotechnical Engineer so that a decision can be formed regarding the adequacy of the site preparation, the acceptability of fill materials, and the extent to which the earthwork construction and the degree of compaction comply with the project geotechnical specifications. Any work related to grading performed without the full knowledge of, and under direct observation of the Geotechnical Engineer, may render the recommendations of this report invalid. 5.1 Clearinq and Stripping 1. All surface and subsurface deleterious materials should be removed from the proposed building and pavement areas and disposed of off-site. This includes, but is not limited to any buried utility lines, loose fills, septic systems, debris, building materials, and any other surface and subsurface structures within proposed building areas. Voids left from site clearing, should be cleaned and backfilled as recommended for structural fill. 2. Once the site has been cleared, the exposed ground surface should be stripped to remove surface vegetation and organic soil. The surface may be disced, rather than stripped, if the organic content of the soil is not more than three • percent by weight. If stripping is required, depths should be determined by a member of our staff in the field at the time of stripping. Strippings may be either disposed of off-site or stockpiled for future use in landscape areas if approved by the landscape architect. 5.2 Preparation of Building Pad 1. As indicated previously, the upper residences adjacent to Ella will be on cut pads with excavations up to 5 feet. With these excavations most of the soft soils will 6 3-52 ATTACHMENT � February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 be removed, however, highly expansive soil will still be present across the slab area. After excavating to pad elevation, two additional feet of the expansive soils should be removed and replaced with non-expansive soils such as decomposed granite or Class 111111 base. Prior to placing the fill the exposed native soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted to 90 percent. For the residence adjacent to George Street the building pad area should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 2 feet. The bottom of the excavation should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to 90 percent(ASTM D1557-91). The removed soil may then be replaced and similarly compacted to 90 percent The upper 24 inches of the pad should be capped with a suitable non-expansive material such as decomposed granite or Class II/111 base. The lateral limits of overexcavation, scarification and fill placement should be at least 5 feet beyond the perimeter building and footing lines. Where fill extends on to slopes exceeding 10 percent, benching will be required: Benches should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, with a minimum 2 percent gradient back into the slope (see Figure 4 for hillside grading recommendations). Fill and cut slopes should be constructed at a maximum slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). 2. In order to help minimize potential settlement problems associated with structures supported on a non-uniform thickness of compacted fill, the soils engineer should be consulted for specific site recommendations during grading. In general, all proposed construction should be.supported by a uniform thickness of compacted soil. 3. The above grading is based on the strength characteristics of the materials under conditions of normal moisture that would result from rain water and do not take into consideration the additional activating forces applied by seepage from springs or subsurface water. Areas of observed seepage should be provided with subsurface drains to release the hydrostatic pressures. 7 3-53 ATTACHMEMT �0 February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 4. The near-surface soils may become partially or completely saturated during the rainy season. Grading operations during this time period may be difficult since the saturated materials may not be compactable and they may not support construction equipment. Consideration should be given to the seasonal limit of the grading operations on the site. 5. All final grades should be provided with a positive drainage gradient away from foundations. Final grades should provide for rapid removal of surface water runoff. Ponding of water should not be allowed on building pads or adjacent to foundations. 5.3 Preparation of Paved Areas 1. Pavement areas should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches below existing grade or finished subgrade. The soil should then be wetted to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted with heavy vibratory to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum dry density. 2. The upper 6 inches of subgrade beneath all paved areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Subgrade soils should not be allowed to dry out or have excessive construction traffic between the time of water conditioning and compaction,and the time of placement of the pavement structural section. 5.4 Structural Fill 1. On-site soils free of organic and deleterious material are suitable for use as structural fill. Structural fill should not contain rocks larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, and should have no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches in greatest dimension. 2. Import should be free of organic and other deleterious material and should have low expansion potential, with a plasticity index of 12 or less. Before delivery to 8 3-5.4 ATTACHMENT February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 the site, a sample of the proposed import should be tested in our laboratory to determine its suitability for use as structural fill. 3. Structural fill using on-site inorganic soil or approved import should be placed in layers, each not exceeding eight inches in thickness before compaction. On-site inorganic or imported soil should be conditioned with water, or allowed to dry, to produce a soil water content at approximately optimum value, and should be . compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-91. 5.5 Foundations 1. Conventional continuous footings and spread footings may be used for support of the proposed building. Spread footings should be connected with grade beams spaced at a maximum of 15 feet on center. All of the foundation materials should be competent after preparation in accordance with the grading section of this report 2. The perimeter footings should be at least 15 inches wide and embedded 21 inches below pad grade or below adjacent finished grade, whichever is lower. Grade beams should be at least 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep. The reinforcement for the footings and grade beams should be designed by the structural engineer, however, a minimum of one (1) No. 5 rebar should be provided top and bottom for continuous footings. Dowels (#3 rebar @ 18"o.c.) should also be provided to be the footings and grade beams to the slab. An allowable dead plus live load bearing pressure of 1,800 psf may be used. A total settlement of less than 1-inch is anticipated, and differential settlement should be 50 percent of this value. 3. The above allowable pressures are for support of dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind and seismic loads. 9 3-55 ATTACHMENT f4 February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 5. Lateral forces on structures may be resisted by passive pressure acting against the sides of shallow footings and/or friction between the soil and the bottom of the footing. For resistance to lateral loads, a friction factor of 0.30 may be utilized for sliding resistance at the base of the spread footings in undisturbed native materials or engineered fill. A passive resistance of 250 pcf equivalent fluid weight may be used against the side of shallow footings. If friction and passive pressures are combined, the lesser value should be reduced by 50 percent. 5.6 Slab-0n-Grade Construction 1. Concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should not be placed directly on unprepared loose fill materials. Preparation of subgrade to receive concrete slabs-on-grade and flatwork should be processed as discussed in the preceding sections of this report. 2. Where concrete slabs-on-grade are to be constructed, the slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of clean free-draining material such as clean sand or permeable aggregate complying with Caltrans Standard Specifications . 68, Class I, Type A or Type B, to service as a cushion and a capillary break. Clean sand should have less the 3% passing the No. 200 sieve.A 10-mil Vsqueen-type membrane-should be placed between the cushion and the slab to provide an effective vapor barrier, and to minimize moisture condensation under the floor covering. It is suggested that a 2-inch thick sand layer be placed on top of the membrane to assist in the curing of the concrete. The sand should be lightly moistened prior to placing concrete. 3. Concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches oh-center both ways at or slightly above the center of the structural section. Reinforcing bars should have a minimum clear cover of 1.5 inches, and hot bars should be cooled prior to placing concrete. As an alternative to reinforcing bars, 6x6-6/6 wire mesh may be similarly placed. The aforementioned reinforcement may be used for anticipated 10 3-56 ATTACHMENT J February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 uniform floor loads not exceeding 100 psf. If floor loads greater than 100 psf are anticipated, the slab should be evaluated by a structural engineer 4. All slabs should be poured at a maximum slump of less than 5 inches. Excessive water content is the major cause of concrete cracking. For design of concrete floors, a modulus of subgrade reaction'of k = 125 psi per inch would be applicable to on-site engineered fill soils. 5.7 Retaining Walls I. Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral pressures from adjacent soils and surcharge loads applied behind the walls. Lateral Pressure and Condition Equivalent Fluid (Compacted Fill Pressure cf Unrestrained Rigidly Supported Wall Wall Active Case, Level-native soils 60 Drained Level ranular backfill 30 — At-Rest Case, Level-native soils — 80 Drained Level-sand backfill 45 Passive Case, Level 250 — Drained 2:1 Sloping Down 125 For stoping;tradcfal add 1.pd for eve.y 2 deg..(Active case):and 1.5%pd for,every2'deg;(At-rest case) 2. Retaining wall foundations or keyways should extend a minimum depth of 21 inches below lowest adjacent grade. An allowable toe pressure of 2,000 psf is recommended for compacted soil. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used between subgrade soil and concrete footings. 3. In addition to the lateral soil pressure given above, retaining walls should be designed to support any design live load, such as from vehicle and construction surcharges, etc., to be supported by the wall backfill. If construction vehicles are 11 3-57 ATTACHMENT February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 required to operate within 10 feet of a wall, supplemental pressures will be induced and should be taken into account through design. 4. The above-recommended pressures are based on the assumption that sufficient subsurface drainage will be provided behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure. To achieve this we recommend that a filter material be placed behind all proposed walls. The blanket of filter material should be a minimum of 12 inches thick and should extend from the bottom of the wall to within 12 inches of the ground surface. The top 12 inches should consist of water conditioned, compacted native soil. A 4-inch diameter drain pipe should be installed near the bottom of the filter blanket with perforations facing down. The drain pipe should be underlain by at least 4 inches of filter type material. Adequate gradients should be provided to discharge water that collects behind the retaining wall to an adequately controlled discharge system with suitably projected outlets. The filter material should conform to Class I, Type B permeable material as specified in Section 68 of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications, current edition. A typical 1" x#4 concrete coarse aggregate mix approximates this specification. 5. For hydrostatic loading conditions (i.e. no free drainage behind walls), an additional loading of 45 pcf equivalent fluid weight should be added to the above soil pressures. If it is necessary to design retaining structures for submerged Conditions, allowed bearing and passive pressures should be reduced by 50 percent. In addition, soil friction beneath the base of the foundations should be neglected. 6. Precautions should be taken to ensure that heavy compaction equipment is not used immediately adjacent to walls, so as to prevent undue pressure against, and movement of, the walls. The use of water-stops/impermeable barriers should be considered for any basement construction, and for building walls which retain earth. 12 3-58 ATTACHMENT February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 5.8 Pavement Design 1. The following table provides recommended pavement sections based on an estimated R-Value of 10 for the near surface soils encountered at the site. 2. All asphalt pavement construction and materials used should conform with Sections 26 and.39 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications, State of California, Department of Transportation. Aggregate bases and sub-bases should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent based on ASTM D1557-91. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS DESIGN THICKNESS T.I. AC.-In. AB.-In. 4.5 2.0 10.0 5.0 2.5 10.0 5.5 1 3.0 1 11.0 6.0 1 3.0 12.5 T-1= Traffic Index AC.= Asphaltic Concrete-must meet specifications for Caltrans Type 8 Asphalt Concrete AB.= Aggro Base-must meet specifications for Caltrans Class 11 Aggregate Base(R Value=minimum 78) 3. R-value samples should be obtained and tested at the completion of rough grading and the pavement sections confirmed or revised. A minimum of 4 inches of Class II aggregate base is recommended beneath all asphaltic concrete pavement sections and all sections should be crowned for good drainage. 5.9 Underground Facilities Construction 1. The attention of contractors, particularly the underground contractors, should be drawn to the State of California Construction Safety Orders for"Excavations, Trenches, Earthwork". Trenches or excavations greater than 5 feet in depth should be shored or sloped back in accordance with OSHA Regulations prior to entry. 13 3-59 ATTACHMENT February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 2. For purposes of this section of the report, bedding is defined as material placed in a trench up to 1 foot above a utility pipe and backfill is all material placed in the trench above the bedding. Unless concrete bedding is required around utility pipes, free-draining sand should be used as bedding. Sand proposed for use as bedding should be tested in our laboratory to verify its suitability and to measure its compaction characteristics. Sand bedding should be compacted by mechanical means to achieve at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test D1557-91. 3. On-site inorganic soil, or approved import, may be used as utility trench backfill. Proper compaction of trench backfill will be necessary under and adjacent to structural fill, building foundations, concrete slabs and vehicle pavements. In these areas, backfill should be conditioned with water(or allowed to dry),to produce a soil water content of about 2 to 3 percent above the optimum value and placed in horizontal layers each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness before compaction. Each layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test D1557-91. The top lift of trench backfill under vehicle pavements should be compacted to the requirements given in report section 5.3 for vehicle pavement subgrades. Trench walls must be kept moist prior to and during backfill placement. 5.10 Surface and Subsurface Drainage 1. Concentrated surface water runoff within or immediately adjacent to the site should be conveyed in pipes or in lined channels to discharge areas that are relatively level or that are adequately protected against erosion. 2. Water from roof downspouts should be conveyed in pipes that discharge in areas a safe distance away from structures. Surface drainage gradients should be planned to prevent ponding and promote drainage of surface water away from building foundations, edges of pavements and sidewalks. For soil areas we 14 3-60 ATTACHMENT 10 February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 recommend that a minimum of two (2) percent gradient be maintained with an increase to 4 percent for the first 5 feet adjacent to the footings. 3. Careful attention should be paid to erosion protection of soil surfaces adjacent to the edges of roads, curbs and sidewalks, and in other areas where "hard"edges of structures may cause concentrated flow of surface water runoff. Erosion resistant matting such as Miramat, or other similar products, may be considered for lining drainage channels. 4. Subdrains should be placed in established drainage courses and potential seepage areas. The location of subdrains should be determined during grading. The subdrain outlet should extend into a suitable protected area or could be connected to the proposed storm drain system. The outlet pipe should consist of an unperforated pipe the same diameter as the perforated pipe. 6.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to notify Geo Source Inc. a minimum of 48 hours before any stripping, grading, or foundation excavations can commence at this site. 2. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed during our study. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during grading of the site, Geo Source Inc.will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions. 3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his/her representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project, and incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The owner or his/her representative is responsible for ensuring 15 3-61 February 17, 2000 Project 0-0074 that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 4. As of the present date, the findings of this report are valid for the property studied. With the passage of time, change's in the conditions of a property can occur whether they be due to natural processes or to the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Legislation or the broadening of knowledge may result in changes in applicable standards. Changes outside of our control may find this report to be invalid, wholly or partially. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of three (3) years without our review nor is it applicable for any properties other than those studied. Thank you for the opportunity to have been of service in preparing this report. If you have any questions or require additional assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (805) 349-0140. Sincerely, GEO SOURCE INC. QROFESS/pyo J. �INr'�1 No.2184 m Aona J. Church 331-cs , Senior Engineer GE#2184 16 3-62 juAttachment 7 lDl'w� 4011A . ? city of sAn tuis OBISPC MMEM MaNdl 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mail or fax completed form to: PLEASE NOTE: If your tree is approved for removal and posted. please call the office at the end City Arborist of your posting period to arrange to pick up your 25 Prado Rd. permit San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Phone 781-7220 Fax 542-9868 TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION Applicant: .�fl�IN w• E11AArL$ Telephone: 544.7407 (wk.) Address: 13� G�Dr' e Sf • &DC Zip: 3 Ul Location of tree($): OWNS-, EM '`1' : 'tAe °f lot (o S of 4k 81C�a SLO Please indicated nearest cross street: S"I are fi>;le Ineau�SY L fOSS SCIS Important: A tree removal application will only be considered if accompanied by a sketch showing the street.structure(s) location and location of all trees proposed for removal. Please draw on the back of this form. �iuddtt� Cm�a,r - l� Tree Species:. Common name Botanical Name Reasons for removing: e ivt -Kae middle o-f a -Fulvre Yi a M4-%' rw dfiveuxc s cue ulred as -ate �ktto-•f as I -foc MS- 00- 045 s Gffi 2 �u lois i h0 4 „WS . The Prb ascd dAx bcoA� Inas V>no+►� ire Ln aA a �-ut $ u Dai Compensatory replacement proposed: 44�e slip rne+afl -oh ADM Is 7MwrN Todd e recomwrenol VVw6i &Vj lgnmr wl� IMrlp�l.lticit e ro rc lacmeees Wert due -10 a'he 9c s� of -7Kx wAor9 ftres Gird *e narrow ui of ire S• Comments: - „,cwt Id dove yarn s i ski Uecf b e ad of lux or earl lune i0 avoid a censtfuofi sr,&oduk cSv► Gc wclG� 1'kc (a'7ae� nece�Str '�+ �I",,J,"9 of F Ua st ppli wrier: Date: 4 26 DO (Sketch attached) F:rVaps/eeeesHese nmwvd appy ® 7e oommain+lrations Da�vlea br the. 4nolilUdethe dhabied In an of its semiam Programs a I 960• °1 inl i alL IL lu 1 J al 0 1 a1 ! t R In 1 {V l a 1 Ia I I I al Itl 1 I lig I tll lac 1 a0 ; R S I 1 11 1 Itl 1 IMpg u � IIN I 3 7 Exist. 1 a 1 al s In 1 In 1 Reswm ce I In, I ul i1i$ ExAd. 902 pp 1 A 1 mater V I p p e I 1 11 1 I nl Exist. woodI n ; ; { I i n i n1 n IB 1 I 45.674m) 149.$5• a 1 1 I f \- \ \ 74` 1 tE i`_c`aol ti' s i e i a \ \ \ I 8" dia. Oak tfibr I o so; r \ I 1 To RemainII I j 1° r E i I I motou n" ..�e + ) �t \ M� .. 800 : I 1 a 1Nlol 5-119' /� \ �0 1 Qek :: 1a 1 I I 1 P - 2 1 1 e ; I 4 v I t. I°°k ; 116" dia. Diadora Cedar E 1 _ 1 I To be Removed m :-: 1 I " ;o ; l I i i o tell (2) few rl* 1 I _`a (45.6Q�) i4SrB_� )I 1 1 w er metas ( . IT �W I y :� _ 7 1; t tldelydk 1° I r E 3" dia. OakV 1 Ta - To Remain w i I t 1 rj \ e i:: \ l � � � I 1 • ..a \ PEl s, sq FL r 31 VIA; 24" dia. Pine I ; ' I ; j CD %�l i Exist. To Remain I I F F I In 1,0GWCP No I I I 1 I I 11 I an naw j LL t I 1 la I ,.1 1qP r�'5 62 49:81 ca I I n i _ J/19 q : 1I9bX 1lght e po � 1 Exist. o i i Zu'' I serviee Gffap i uJ ; � 1 oil 1 u1 • = 1� i 14 I gab A a lu. l U 1 InstaO new eonduita for wire utiltxa o; 1 tll J;^ 1011 a l l a i 1 TREE REMOVAL SITE PLAN Dear Mr. Jonas: Attachment 8 The applicant of Minor Subdivision SLO-00-0450 Mr. John Evans, has explained the nature of the proposed four-lot subdivision and I believe it would be a beneficial development for this neighborhood. I encourage your approval of this project. Signatu Address Pais 5- C-) - tz3 toee crr,� 9 Cha I?Lw- L 5. CGL MuurPPn �ync,�. f SLO 5 -F, - OI kJIfil j aoAC� S 7. e - 60EALO VAUWAA+y 110 C-':O Cr' s.�+� S _ 1-06 s. Los Gal Ila1 �1lcn 5-4- . � -I`� - off 10. 3-65