The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/16/2003, PH1 - MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT AREA, WIDTH AND DEPTH, 1124 GEORGE AND 1121 IRIS STREETS council j acEnba izEpont �N C1.TY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT AREA, WIDTH AND DEPTH, 1124 GEORGE AND 1121 IRIS STREETS (MS/ER 89-03). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt draft Resolution "A," approving a tentative parcel map with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations and approving a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 1124 George and 1121 Iris Streets Applicant: Judith Bartels Representative: Cannon Associates Zoning/General Plan: R-2; Medium Density Residential Environmental status: On August 18, 2003, the Deputy Director of Community Development approved a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project(ER 89-03). Situation The City has received an application to subdivide an existing lot at 1124 George and 1121 Iris Streets (double frontage), in the R-2 zoning district (see Vicinity Map, Attachment 1). The site includes 7,490 square feet and is developed with two 2-bedroom residences, parking and landscaping. The applicant is requesting to split the existing lot in half where each residence has separate street frontage and access (see Tentative Parcel Map, Attachment 2). In most cases, a minor subdivision (involving four or fewer parcels) can be reviewed and approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer. However-, when exceptions are requested, the City's Subdivision Regulations require the City Council to act on the project. The applicant is requesting an exception to the City's lot area, width and depth requirements. Site Description The project site is located in a medium density, residential neighborhood and is adjacent to residential development that has been subdivided in a similar manner. The lot has two street frontages bordered by George and Iris Streets. The project site slopes downward from George to Iris approximately 5-feet and is developed with two 2-bedroom homes, landscaping and various Council Agenda Report—MS/ER 89-03 September 16,2003 Page 2 other site improvements. There are two mature redwood trees that would not be affected by the proposed land division. Proiect Description The project is a map to subdivide an existing 7,490 square foot site into two lots of 3,716 square feet and 3,774 square feet in a manner similar to previous small-lot subdivisions approved in the immediate vicinity. Based on the site's existing development, the density values of the resulting parcels are considered "built-out No additional development or impacts to the existing neighborhood are anticipated with the proposed land division. Utilities services including gas, electricity, cable TV and water currently serve the project site. Evaluation The site and surrounding neighborhood is zoned R-2. The purpose of the R-2 zoning district is to provide alternative housing opportunities for people who want compact residences close to commercial and public services. If all R-2 zoned properties were subdivided and built with single-family residences, the purpose provided for the zone would not be served. However, the project site and immediate neighborhood are unique from other R-2 zoned areas because of the double-frontage (street-to-street) lot pattern. The majority of these double-frontage lots have been subdivided into two small single-frontage lots or developed with two houses, each with its own frontage. Overall, staff supports the project because the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the resulting lots are compatible with other properties in the vicinity that have been subdivided and developed in a similar fashion (MS 57-00 and 91-192, Attachment 3). No non-conforming situations will be created from the land division in terms of building setbacks, parking, lot coverage or density. The evaluation provided in this report considers two primary issues, including the proposed exceptions and consistency with the General Plan. A. Requested Exceptions R-2 Zoning District Standards Municipal Code Requirements Proposed Project Parcel l Parcel l Minimum lot size: 6,000 square feet 3,716 square feet 3,774 square feet Minimum lot depth: 90 feet 74.35 feet 75.50 feet Minimum lot width: 60 feet 49.99 feet 49.99 feet Minimum street frontage: 30 feet 49.99 feet 49.99 feet Density: 12 units/acre for slope< 16% 1.02 density units 1.04 density units The exceptions requested for Parcel 1 include a lot area of 3,716.square feet, lot depth of 74.35 feet and lot width of 49.99 feet, where the Subdivision Regulations require a minimum area of Council Agenda Report-MS/ER 89-03 September 16,2003 Page-3 6,000 square feet, a lot depth of 90 feet and a lot width of 60 feet. The exceptions for Parcel 2 include a lot area of 3,774 square feet, lot depth of 75.50 feet and lot width of 49.99 feet. The proposed exceptions for Parcels 1 & 2 are consistent with the development pattern established in the neighborhood as evident by the assessor's parcel map shown below. 9D - a/.OF 1X JO 1JO' I 6.6 1104 1110 If26 1136 I 1166 - _ 0 1 RIS roject Site ST. n M 73 0100'[ 1147 12217 6 sy 9 I C.C. .R. 00--025328AQ m 572 �O ¢ �� 9 � 6s� 17arc � I I I,• lk ; a�.� O MO O� 1 f2 ; 10 1 `o O 6 3 x = 00- .. n -- 1124 1 1 "- 1214 of M4 124 STI 1121 1127 1 1161 1107. _ 1136 1206 1216 /227 am 70 70 is Je Jo Is , 573 4. ! & to s 5760 4: 9 O ;O ;O a a I = t1 / Z v 3 s n 4aw ! 8 , i g j 1 1 2 3 1 r 4 _ ro rr ' 121 cc0 0 Oa P. 1 i i 0 a0 Jp' 70 70 5 m6 It 1ne IYYt 1234 $ ELLA ST. 26 of 39 lots in the surrounding neighborhood have substandard lot areas,widths and depths. Hatched areas indicate Council approved subdivisions. The Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 16.48, specifies that the Council must make the following findings in order to approve exceptions: 1. That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and 2. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and 3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and 4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the city. 1 - 3 Council Agenda Report-MS/ER 89-03 September 16,2003 Page 4 Draft Resolution "A" (Attachment 5) includes staff s recommendation for approval of the requested exceptions and details the required findings. In summary, these finding discuss consistency with the density standards established for the zone, compatibility with other approved subdivisions in the immediate vicinity and the unique double-frontage (street-to-street) lot pattern common to the neighborhood. B. General Plan Policies General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.4 establishes density categories for the various General Plan designations. As previously discussed, the density of the resulting parcels would allow for one 2-bedroom dwelling on each lot. This is consistent with the existing development of the site with each 2-bedroom unit having separate street frontage and access. LUE Policy 2.4.6 further states that Medium-Density Residential development should be primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion with one or two story buildings on small lots. The resulting parcels from the land division are consistent with the small lot development pattern established in the neighborhood and meet density standards established for medium density residential properties. Environmental Review Minor subdivisions are normally categorically exempt from environmental review. However, when exceptions are requested, an Initial Study must be prepared. The initial environmental study (see Attachment 4) did not identify any potentially significant impacts of the project and the Community Development Director is recommending approval of a Negative Declaration for the project. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Utilities Departments have reviewed the project and provided comments that have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as conditions of approval or code requirements. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan,it has a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the tentative parcel map with modified findings and/or conditions. 2. The Council may deny the tentative parcel map and or requested exceptions if the necessary findings cannot be made. Council Agenda Report—MS/ER 89-03 September 16,2003 Page 5 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Reduction of Tentative Parcel Map 3. Reduction of site plans for similar subdivisions in vicinity (MS 57-00 and 91-192) 4. Initial Study of Environmental Impact 5. Draft Resolution "A" as recommended by staff 6. Alternative Draft Resolution`B" to deny the proposed project GAtcorey\CC\MS-ER 89-03\MS-ER 89-03 rpt.doc I �� i Attachment 1 �5 H O-S R R H tP9 9 _3. �O �9 R-3-H / R-2. �G �y -Z R-2 -S d+O� `,,I►J�G e' R-2 PF-H C-R Fy GAO R-S-H �J Z a .2 R-2 JENNIFER R-1-PD PF-H J W S R-2S VICINITY MAP MS 89-03 N 1124 George A� � nhNmiWwwViwlV•+wW.rwwWTMwru� >-mw Ixmror. R.� m f 7 m E zg om a Attachment 2 . i 1n m2 r �9 ZEZgm G e 1, lag Cg5j Y a n S Y Q go a y .d r�lwa.e RLyyy...�,,,• •';'t_ [Q[ :.�-':.., u .•^io�.l r +I wNN � FF.. \ ♦ 9 SL..fll� 00� 2 �KJC i s L I j 8 I I O u 0 BLOCK 3 I Ca I N HENRY STREET --------- J#\ MM9RaaY1 609- [I°0Aa•J I � y I R 1 I � I .rmRmmRmRmR\t\ a I I 555 — I I I I I I r I [W] DWI 6.G9Em 6.0.91m `� I 9AI - 9.14M ox j I I \ w �O kl LL 1q � I �m •a �g� �V ; G„ , I � I � a \ I I 0 lv � 7 Lsa•«II Wscs sr a _iEp•syl: __—" vL] a UxvL]wz99zz p� A I rs p ,y I{/ •. V.Y: :. 172 —1 I F a (A � 3r rn cg `I ' e t p wM 'G1St•L[�.:uP692t^^1•° 3 I a a 2 iy- $ let s9 O) `'PSi°,P �vvivvvunvv\vav ' I � °R`Os B� y (JZ I j I I j I n 4 gY j I I X219"°" RUTH STREET 602— [+=An j Attachment 3 -----------------------------------------'------ --- - -- - vsvvv.vva..vv.lee.aev vaavea...........----- MEORGE - —_ s S53009'42,W m K - o' e q--__ (152.35m) A ' " 499.83' "BASIS OF BEARINGS` . , e ,q - a . --'Z2.'^'—-------t•.«.—-----:-�' _8' S-.0115 - - 1J----------------------- 30.468-s8 j-9 9o °x- q . RIB- Co I 'e n a A a m o L�• nl V ]_ m O v N 3 y b b I ro e p Sm.. % •� I ' — i - - 1 I 1 m Y ;_�13.237m) 49.99' y (15.237m) 48.98' �s' 1 �'• ! t y 1 �• v B !j v �a-_ V ZY ld 74 V 3 a C ID 88m _ _-,u. - ----- ------- -- --------- --- ------------- ----- �` _ EL_ L A jsr. r° Y E� N53'11'01'E e*(152.39m) 499.97 Aa �S 57-DD Attachment 3 GCO=OE ETIICCT , I � Y IN♦• •.-T � rr h tt• �' fill so —�Y^� I !{ I {. Ij \.`` � � •II•ISI I •a 1 � Z \r I —•Ja I�� ,� \ E 1 r+::. •� ,..—__:lam 1 y� _ \ 4 _� ::�\\• \ p _ _�d!t 1�1 ^• \\�\ iJ \- r >.L .1 \ FLU STIICCT e > MY �alJ ifl i 3' { L 4. �.r py • aO i �R vi I I til t�� -� o'r I n RU aQa .Q. ' Lya�B a.`'. '•" s I ;S�Lrt;llt;1 • J Z5= Go mom I- ft14��(+ —1�z I ' � e s Iim, e;l 1!l'!t'Jinl1wKAL/�FiiLCV�CuIICS JJJ4- Attachment 4 ��I�NNNII>IIII�IIII��IIINI�IIII II Cl of san vuIs OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 89-03 1. Project Title: Minor Subdivision MS/ER 89-03 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: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician (805) 781-7169 4. Project Location: 1124 George Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Judith Bartels 1124 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 one parcel into two parcels with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for lot depth, width and area requirements. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The 7,490 square foot site is developed with two, 2- bedroom homes, parking and landscaping with each residence having separate street frontage and access. The surrounding area is residential in nature with a mix single-family homes and apartments. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of a tentative parcel map with exceptions. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. �� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a`Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. a Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Si cance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources - FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a 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. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). Cmr of Sew Luis 0131SPO 2 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT 2003 t -- 11 _ Attachment 4 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be reared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant' impact(s) or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. August 18,2003 gnattue Date Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 (- I J Attachment 4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative.as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CRY OF SAN Luis OBMPO 4 INMAL STUDY ENvmoumENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 1 - 13 Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporhr,y ,formation Sources Sources Pote. Potentially LmsThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89 03 issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited 1,11 X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1,11, X the site and its surroundings? 28 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,12, X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 30 Evaluation a), b), c),d) The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista or a local or state scenic highway. The project site is developed with two 2-bedroom units, parking, landscaping and various other site improvements. The density values for the proposed parcels are built-out, only square footage could be added to the existing units (excluding bedrooms) upon conformance with Zoning Regulation requirements. No additional light or glare is anticipated from the land division. Conclusion: No Impact. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 14 X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a 10 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 12 X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Evaluation a), b), c) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Conclusion:No impact. 3. AIR QUALM. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12,15, X existing or projected air quality violation? 16,30 b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 12,15, X quality plan? 16,30 c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 12,30 X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 12 X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 12,15, X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an 16,30 applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? �r CRY OF SAN Luis Omspo 5 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 1 - 14 Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supporting .formation Sources Sources Pote, Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89 03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation a)b)c)e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMto(fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter)air quality standards.State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained.The 1998 Clean Air Plan(CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. d) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project. Conclusion:No impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 12 X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 12 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 12 X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident 12 X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation 5,12 X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected 12 X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation a),b) According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game,there are no species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site,nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. c) No tree removals are proposed with the tentative parcel map. d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the division of the property will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. �r Crry OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 I � J Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supportit.,, ,formation Sources Sources Pott Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. f) The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. Conclusion:No impact. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 10,21, X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 22 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 21,22 X archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 11,21 X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of 23 X formal cemeteries? Evaluation a),b)Based on review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System,the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. Conclusion: No impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro"ect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient 6,12 X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 6 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? Evaluation a), b) The project is consistent with the City's Energy Conservation Element which encourages concentrations of residences close to concentrations of employment. c) No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. Conclusion:No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 25 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? CITV OF SAN Luis OsisPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 1 -- ICP Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supportir.y ...formation Sources Sources Pote. Potentially I t.essThatt No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89 03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11. Strong seismic ground shaking? 25 X III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 13 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 10 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 13,30 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 13 X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 13 X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or ro err ? Evaluation a),c)San Luis Obispo County,including the City of San Luis Obispo,is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province,which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding,faulting,and fracturing of variable intensity. In general,the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act,the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults.The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line,near Los Osos Valley Road.According to a recently conducted geology study(source 16),the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include:the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast,the Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone 4, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. b) The project site is substantially landscaped. c),d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,which is true for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001). Conclusion:Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr Ject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 29 X through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 29 X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 8 lwnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 1 , Qr) Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supportit.,, .tformation Sources Sources Pott Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89 03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 29 X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous 29 X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 12 X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659625 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 27 X two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the 4,12 X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, 4 X or death,involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials. b),c),d) The division of land will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§ 65962.5. f) The project site is more than 2 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 12 X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 12,19 X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 12,19 X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY Ew=NmENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 - t� Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supportit a Aormation Sources Sources Pote. y Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ocean,etc.)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 30 X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or 30 X area in a[Wanner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 26 X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 26 X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into 12 X ground or surface waters? i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity? Evaluation a),b),c),d),e),h), I) The project site is built-out and served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources, interfere with groundwater recharge or alter ground and surface water quality. Additional site construction is not anticipated from the tentative parcel map. f), g) The project is located out of the 500-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, existing structures on the property do not impede or redirect flood flows or occur within a 100-year flood hazard area. Conclusion: No impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1,8 X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 1,10 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,12 X community conservationplans? Evaluation a) The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed subdivision would create 2 lots from one existing parcel,which requires an exception to the Subdivision Regulations for lot depth,width and area.The exceptions do not affect the project's ability to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed lots will meet all other subdivision requirements, b) The project would result in a lotting pattern common to the neighborhood because the majority of parcels in the immediate vicinity are of a similar size and configuration as the resulting parcels. c) There is not a habitat or natural community conservation plan adopted for this area,therefore,the project would not conflict with such. Conclusion:Less than significant impact. City Council approval is required for minor subdivisions that include exceptions to subdivision standards. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENT/LL CHECKLIST 2003 f � l� Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supportil._ Aormation Sources Sources Pott. jr Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise 3,18 X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in 30 X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 3,18 X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within 27 X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation a) The land division will not generate unacceptable noise levels. The City's Noise Element and Noise Guidebook does not identify Traffic Noise Exposure Calculations for George Street as it is a local residential street. However, at build-out, exterior noise levels are anticipated to exceed the 601)b threshold. The main noise source is identified to be the railroad located approximately 250-feet towards the west of the project site. Maximum noise exposure for a residence is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Standard construction practices prescribed by the Uniform Building Code translates to a Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of 15db for interior noise. Based on this information, further db reduction may be required and the Noise Guidebook provides standard mitigation that can be included with new construction projects to reduce interior noise to the 45db standard. b),c) The project will not raise ambient noise levels in the project vicinity as the site is developed. d) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area, therefore, the project will not result in exposure of people to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations. Conclusion:Less than significant impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly 12,30 X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people 30 X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Evaluation a) The project site is currently built-out and public improvements are installed. b) There are currently two 2-bedroom dwellings on the project site,which are proposed to remain. Conclusion:No impact. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios response times or other CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNEcicusT 2003 ldo Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supportil iformation Sources Sources Pore j Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER#89-03 Mitigation Incorporated performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 12 X b) Police protection? 12 X C) Schools? 12 X d) Parks? 12 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X f) Other public facilities? 12 X Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f) The characteristics of the project do not present situations or conditions that would create potentially significant impacts to services for fire, police, schools,parks, roads or other public facilities. The project has been evaluated by the City's Fire Marshall, Chief Building Official, Public Works Department and Utilities Department, and no resource deficiencies have been identified. Conclusion:No impact. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or 30 X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or 30 X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a), b) The project site is currently built-out, therefore, no impacts to recreational services or facilities are anticipated by the land division. Conclusion:No impact. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 2,12 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 2,12 X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp 30 X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 12,30 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2,12 X transportation(e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land 27 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 1 r Attachment 4 issues, Discussion and Supporth iformation Sources Sources Pote Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated Evaluation a), b) The land division will not increase traffic on Johnson Avenue nor exceed the level of service standards established by the County congestion management agency for nearby streets and highways because the project site is developed with two 2- bedroom units, which is build-out for the resulting parcels. c) There are no hazards which the project would be subject to or create. d) The project complies with the Fire Department's requirements for emergency access. e) City parking standards will apply to any new construction proposed on the resulting parcels. f) The project does not conflict with alternative transportation policies in that the project does not impede any existing or proposed bike baths,transit stops,etc. g) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area, therefore, there is no conflict with the Plan that would result in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise or a change in air traffic patterns. Conclusion:No impact. 16.UTELrMS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 12 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 12 X treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 12 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider 12 X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 24 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 24 X related to solid waste? Evaluation a), b), d)'The project site is currently served by City water and sewer and no additional public improvements are anticipated by the tentative parcel map. c) The project site is connected to City water and no additional water allocations are anticipated from the land division. e),f) No new construction or demolition is proposed or anticipated by the tentative parcel map. Conclusion:No impact. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X Crr y OF SAN Luis 0stspo 13 INITIAL STUDY EN=oNmENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 1 - aa Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Supportir,_ .formation Sources Sources Pote. PotentiallyLess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89 03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 California history or prehistory? As discussed in the biological section of this study, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. With regard to historical resources, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site,and the project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X 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 ro"ects) The proposed project's cumulative impacts are insignificant for the same reasons discussed in this study for project-specific impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? There are no environmental effects identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. 18.EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with-Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. I City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 14 INrmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2003 1 -a3 Attachment 4 Issues, Discussion and Support. :�.iformation Sources Sources Po, ., Potentially Less-rnan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER#89-03 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR.1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11.. Site Visit 12. Staff Knowledge 13. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service;Soil.Survey of San Luis Obispo Count 14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.go-4/dlrp/FMMP/ 15. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District,2001 16. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003 17. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6 Edition,on file in the Community Development Department 18. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 19. 2002 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 20. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 21. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 23. City of San Luis Obis o Burial Sensitivity Ma 24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 26. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 27. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 28. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 29. 2001 Uniform Building Code 30. Project Plans Attachments: Tentative Parcel Map CITY OF SAN Luis OstsFo 15 INMAL STUDY ENviRONMENTAL CNECKUST 2003 Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE LOT AREA,WIDTH AND DEPTH REQURIEMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1124 GEORGE AND 1121 IRIS STREETS (MS 89-03; SLO 03-0223). WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 16, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff; and WHEREAS, minor subdivisions with requests for exceptions require City Council review and approval; and 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 identifies and evaluates all of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to subdivide one lot into two lots with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for lot area, width and depth, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision is consistent with the development pattern established in the neighborhood and the resulting parcels meet density standards. 2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2 zone, since the resulting parcels meet the density requirements of the existing development. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision since all adjacent properties are accessed independently and the resulting parcels will have separate street frontage and access from George and Iris Streets. Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 2 4. The design of the tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant habitat areas for fish and wildlife, does not involve tree removals, is surrounded by urban development and has already been developed with two 2-bedroom dwellings, parking and landscaping. 5. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in the Subdivision Ordinance because the property has a double-frontage, is less than 6,000 square feet in size, 180 feet in depth and 60 feet in width and cannot accommodate two lots that meet these standards. 6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification, because other findings are made to support approval and the exceptions relate to existing physical conditions of the project site. 7. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the exceptions will result in a reduced lot area, width and depth for a property that is already developed, and there are numerous examples of similar subdivisions and development in the immediate vicinity. 8. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City, because the exceptions are consistent with other properties in the vicinity and the project does not grant special privileges or modify allowable land uses within the existing R-2 zoning district. SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of the Minor Subdivision (MS 89-03) with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for lot area, width and depth, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements. Conditions: 1. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. 2. A revised tentative map shall be provided to show all existing and proposed overhead and underground utilities. Otherwise, provide a site utility plan as an exhibit to be approved to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. Utilities to be shown shall include but are not limited to water services,building sewers, electrical, phone, and cable services, storm drainage;gas services, and related utility company meters and appurtenances. Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 3 l � 3. A separate building permit shall be obtained for the upgrade, alteration, and/or relocation of any on-site utilities. Any required utility alterations shall have all work completed and final inspections approved to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 4. Access to the public right-of-way, utility shut-offs, and building service equipment shall be provided for each parcel in accordance with the current building, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing codes to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 5. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, drainage, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map or recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across all frontages. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. T The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across all frontages. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 8. One 15-gallon street tree may be required for each 35 lineal feet of frontage. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 for site specific requirements and to evaluate any existing street trees. 9. Existing frontage improvements shall be upgraded, repaired, or replaced to conform to current city standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The existing driveways off of George Street and Iris Street shall be upgraded, altered, or replaced to provide a sidewalk extension in accordance with current ADA and city standards. 10. An existing drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Show all existing improved and historic drainage courses if applicable. 11. Drainage easements shall be provided for any existing waterways or improved drainage systems and for the safe overflow of the same to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Permits for any upgrade or alteration to the drainage improvements shall be completed with proper permits prior to recordation of the map. 12. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor in accordance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act, the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision City's Regulations. j , � Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 4 13. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format, please call prior to submitting electronic data- 14. ata14. The final 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. Code Renuirements• 1. A separate encroachment permit is required for any work in the public right-of-way. Work requiring an encroachment permit includes but is not limited to utilities, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, driveway approaches, sidewalk underdrains, street tree planting, street paving, and pedestrian protection or construction staging in the right-of-way." 2. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. Existing water and sewer services shall be properly relocated and resized, if necessary, to ensure that each parcel is appropriately served in accordance with City standards. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16`h day of September, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2003 Series) Page 5 ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ci ey Jonathan Lowell I � � Attachment 6. RESOLUTION NO. . (2003 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE LOT AREA,WIDTH AND DEPTH REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1124 GEORGE AND 1121 IRIS STREETS (MS 89-03; SLO 03-0223). WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 16, 2003 and has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff; and WHEREAS, minor subdivisions with requests for exceptions require City Council review and approval; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1.Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to subdivide one lot into two lots with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for lot area, width and depth, staff recommendations, public testimony, 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 and the Zoning Regulations, 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 89-03 (County Map No. SLO 03-0223) and requested exceptions is hereby denied. � � u Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2003 Series) -. Page 2 On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 16`h day of September, 2003. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attomey.Jonathan Lowell t ^ �