HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2004, PH 7 - VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, WITH AN EXCEPTION TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, TO CREATE THREE PAR council D t c l�
acEnaa REpoat ,�N 9
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc
Prepared By: Buzz Kalkowski,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, WITH AN EXCEPTION TO THE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, TO CREATE THREE PARCELS AT 303 DEL
MAR COURT(MS/ER149-04; THOMAS SCHOFF, APPLICANT).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution: 1) adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and; 2) approving a Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map, including an exception to the Subdivision Regulations, based on findings,
and subject to conditions and code requirements.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant Thomas Schoff, has submitted a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (City # MS 149-04
and County Map # 04-0185) to subdivide a parcel in the R-1 district located at 303 Del Mar
Court (see vicinity map, Attachment 1). The site consists of an approximately 21,623 square
foot parcel. The lot contains two single-family residences. The applicant is requesting to
subdivide the existing parcel into three lots, and to remove the two existing residences, which
ultimately will allow construction of three new single-family homes (see proposed map
Attachment 2). Given the irregular shape of the site and narrow frontage, a flag lot configuration
is proposed to create complying driveway access to the proposed new lots.
In most cases, a minor subdivision (involving four or fewer parcels) is exempt from
environmental review and can be reviewed and approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer.
However, when exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations are requested, a minor subdivision is
not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and also requires review by
the City Council.
The exception requested to the Subdivision Regulations with this map is a relatively minor one,
which is to allow a 17-foot frontage for Parcel One where a minimum of 20 feet is required. The
existing lot while the largest on the block in terms of overall lot area has the least amount of lot
frontage, about 39 feet of curvilinear frontage. The flag lot regulations contained in Section
16.36.230.B of the Subdivision Ordinance require that the original lot maintain the minimum R-1
street frontage of 20 feet, in addition to the minimum 20-foot wide flag accessway. Because of
the curvature of the frontage skewing the frontage dimensions, maintaining the 20-foot minimum
accessway width actually requires more than 20 lineal feet of frontage. Therefore, the original
lot (new Parcel 1) nets approximately 17 feet of street frontage when the accessway width is
deducted, approximately 3 feet less than the required 20 feet.
Council Agenda Report
MS 149-04 (Scholl,303 MarCourt)
Page 2 of 7 --
DISCUSSION
Background
Flag lots and similar minor subdivisions can be an efficient way of accommodating infill
development, provided site development can be found to be compatible with the neighborhood
and conform to City standards. In addition to the flag accessway serving the proposed three lots,
it would also continue to serve the adjacent property to the north, 311 Del Mar. An access
easement exists in the northwest corner of the subject site and a portion of the proposed
accessway would continue to serve the adjacent property. Parcel 3, the rearmost lot, would
technically own the accessway in fee, although the underlying area does not count toward that
parcel's required lot area.
The proposed subdivision meets standards regarding minimum lot area, and lot depth and width
dimensions for the R-1 district as shown in Table A below. Though the proposed lots have
irregular shapes, the lot width and depth dimensions conform to City standards when averaging
is used as allowed in the Subdivision Regulations. The street frontage for Parcel 1 is slightly less
than 3 feet short of meeting the minimum standard, and requires Council approval of an
exception.
Table A
Applicable Subdivision Standards
Subdivision
Regulations Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3
Standards
Minimum lot size: 7,562 sq. ft. 6,005 sq. ft. 6,005 sq. ft. plus
6,000 Square feet 2,051 sq. ft. flag
Minimum lot depth: 94.6 feet 102.2 feet 120.1 feet
90 feet
Minimum lot width: 52.8 feet 77.3 feet 54.6 feet
50 feet
Minimum street
frontage: 17 feet N/A N/A
20 feet
Driveway easement: N/A N/A 20 feet
width 20 feet
Analysis
The three primary issues associated with this project are:
1) Consistency with the General Plan;
2) Neighborhood Compatibility; and
3) Consideration of the requested exception.
Council Agenda Report
MS 149-04 (Scholl, 303;- "Mar Court)
Page 3 of 7
1. General Plan Consistency
The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) encourages a compact urban form. It also has
numerous policies to ensure that new development "fits into' existing neighborhoods. Infill
development, when done in accordance with City standards, is an opportunity to maintain a
compact urban form consistent with General Plan goals. Additional LUE policies encourage
new development within existing neighborhoods to be compatible in scale and character with the
neighborhood(LUE Policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.10). 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 (LUE Policies 2.2.10 and 2.2.11).
The creation of three parcels, each with a minimum size of at least 6,000 square feet, within what
currently is an underutilized yard area surrounded by urban development on about 6,500 square
foot lots, conforms to the above referenced Land Use Element policies. However, since "flag
lots" do not always follow established neighborhood patterns, it is important that all future
development on the new lots be considered through the architectural review process in order to
maintain neighborhood cohesion (LUE Policy 2.4.5).
The General Plan Housing Element (HE) contains various policies that encourage the production
of new housing to meet the full range of community needs (HE Policy 6.2.1). Policies also exist
similar to Land Use Element policies referenced above that require new development to maintain
the neighborhood character(HE Policy 7.2.1).
As described earlier, the site contains two existing dwellings that will be removed since they will
cross the proposed property boundaries. The Housing Element encourages rehabilitation,
remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitable housing over demolition (HE Policy 3.2.1).
The Housing Element also discourages removal and replacement of housing that is affordable to
low and moderate income households, unless "(1) it can be demonstrated that rehabilitation of
lower cost units at risk of replacement is financially or physically infeasible, or (2) an equivalent
number of new units comparable or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced
is provided, or (3) the project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4)
replacement will not affect a designated historic resource" (HE Policy 3.2.2).
Although rehabilitation of the two older dwellings is possible, it may not be the best way to
implement all of the General Plan objectives that apply to the property. While rehabilitating the
existing residences would satisfy Policy HE 3.2.1, it would compromise the implementation of
Policy HE 6.2.1 that encourages the production of new housing.. Rehabilitation would eliminate
the potential to create a third residential parcel, thereby reducing the housing capacity of the site.
Staff and the project designer looked at alternatives that created parcel boundaries that would
"spare" the existing houses. However, the resulting building sites, access, and parcel
configurations required more exceptions that staff cannot recommend approval of.
Council Agenda Report _
MS 149-04 (Scholl, 303 1 Mar Court)
Page 4 of 7
On this property, replacing the one-bedroom and three-bedroom units will result in a greater
supply of housing in the neighborhood. The two existing houses would likely be replaced by
three or four bedroom units on each of the three lots. These units would be superior in terms of
quality of construction, size and amenities. The new housing, with more modem floor plans and
greater bedroom counts, may accommodate the needs of contemporary households better than
the housing that is being replaced.
The new houses would likely sell or rent for more than the existing houses. With respect to
implementing Policy HE 3.2.2, the new homes would not replace homes enforceably restricted
for rent or sale to low and moderate income households. The City's 2004 Rent/Sales
Affordability Standards place the maximum "Low Affordability" rentals for a 2-bedroom unit at
$833/month and 3-bedroom unit at $963/month, and maximum sale prices at $111,000 for a 2-
bedroom and $128,000 for a 3-bedroom house. The "Moderate Affordability" 2-bedroom
maximum rentals are placed at $1,526/month and 3-bedroom rentals at $1,765/month, with the
maximum sale prices at $199,950 for a 2-bedroom and $231,000 for a 3-bedroom house (The
single 21,623 square foot lot with two houses could not sell for more than $430,950 to qualify as
"Moderately affordable"). Under existing market conditions, the cost of the existing houses,
individually and collectively, could easily exceed the rent or mortgage affordable to low or
moderate income households. Policy HE 3.2.2 does not appear to apply in this case.
Although complaints of substandard housing have been filed for this address according to the
City's land use records, those complaints were either unfounded or corrected. The existing
homes cannot be classified as "unsafe." However, as shown in photographs of the property
(Attachment 3), the dwellings, which were likely built in the 1950s, could easily be classified as
"distressed"and out of character with other homes in the neighborhood.
The Council must apply and weigh the various General Plan policies as they apply to the
proposed subdivision and redevelopment of the property. The foregoing staff analysis supports
approving the request, however the Council may conclude differently.
2. Neighborhood Compatibility
The site is located within an established residential neighborhood that consists of single-family
residences with lots ranging from approximately 6,000 square feet up to 18,900 square feet, with
an average lot size around 6,500 square feet. Although the proposed subdivision design will
result in parcels that vary in shape and design from existing adjacent lots, the proposed parcels
comply with R-1 zone standards in terms of overall lot area and the dimensions of the parcels as
shown in Table A on Page 2. Approval of the proposed tentative map will not grant special
privileges to the parcels created, as they will be subject to all applicable standards of the R-1
zone relating to lot coverage, density, and other standards. Therefore, a finding can be made to
support the tentative map as being consistent with the "type and density of development allowed
in the R-1 zone."
The future residences may be in close proximity to the existing rear yards of other established
residences. Though the proposed lots meet the R-1 standards, staff recommends adding
Council Agenda Report
MS 149-04 (Scholl, 303' Mar Court)
Page 5 of 7 -
conditions of approval to ensure continued neighborhood compatibility. In addition to
designating resulting lots as "sensitive" sites requiring architectural review as specified within
the recommended project mitigation measures, the recommendation includes proposed
conditions of approval,which would further limit development as follows:
a. Minimum of 800 square feet of useable outdoor open space.
b. A maximum building height of 25 feet (consistent with R-1 district) without the
possibility of an exception to 35 feet approved by the Hearing Officer.
These conditions will help ensure compatibility with the neighborhood and consistency with
General Plan polices. Site-specific development limits, especially with a flag-lot subdivision,
help create development 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). The primary focus of performing architectural review on future
residences will be to address viewshed, overlook, setbacks, parking, and architectural
compatibility issues.
3. Requested Exception to Subdivision Regulations Standards
The requested exception will allow an approximately 17-foot street frontage where a 20400t
frontage is required (in addition to the required flag lot 20-foot wide access way). The requested
exception is not anticipated to negatively impact the existing neighborhood or cause a health or
safety concern.
The Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 16.48, specifies the following additional findings that must
be made in order to approve exceptions:
16.48.020 Required findings and conditions
A. Before any exception is authorized,all of the following findings shall be made:
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.
Finding No. 1. That the property to be divided is the largest in the immediate neighborhood,
but has an irregular shape and a narrow street frontage, that it is impossible, impractical or
undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the minimum 20 foot street frontage
requirement and still maintain the minimum 20 foot accessway as required for the flag lot
design, consistent with 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.
Finding No. 2. That the parent lot is sufficiently large to accommodate three additional lots
and potential dwelling units, but has street frontage that is less than the required total of 40
Council Agenda Report
MS 149-04 (Scholl, 303�' 'Mar Court)
Page 6 of 7 -
feet. Granting the exception is necessary to accomplish General Plan Policy Housing
Element 6.2.1 to increase housing opportunities in the City, 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
Finding No. 3. That the requested exception, given its minor nature, will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity
because the new houses will be built in conformance to current housing and building codes;
complying access will be provided for the three lots proposed as well as 311 Del Mar Court;
the access to the street will have clear visibility to both upper and lower Del Mar Court
traffic; and as conditioned, the development of each new lot will require a minimum of 800
square feet of quality private open space; each proposed residence will be limited to 25 feet
of height without the possibility of an exception to allow a height to 35 feet; and the three
mitigation measures agreed to and signed by the applicant require an architectural review
for each parcel development, require three parking spaces per proposed lot, and require
strict compliance with the Air Pollution Control District regulations during demolition of the
existing structures; 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.
Finding No. 4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of
these regulations because, as conditioned, a total of 9 off-street parking spaces are required,
3 more than what is typically required within an R-1 district, and an architectural review is
required for the development of each lot; and is consistent with the general plan and/or other
plans of the city (the site is not within a speck plan area) because it is consistent with the
general plan land use designation, allowed density, neighborhood character, and creates
new housing opportunities.
B. In granting any exception, the council shall impose such conditions as are necessary to protect
the public health, safety and welfare, and assure compliance with the general plan, with all
applicable specific plans, and with the intent and purposes of these regulations.
As mentioned earlier; the requested subdivision exception at 303 Del Mar Court is a very
minor one and in staffs opinion, the required findings can be made to support the proposed
subdivision (see Attachment 6—Draft Resolution for approval). Though the original parcel is
more than 3.5 times the minimum 6,000 square foot R-1 requirements, it has the constraint of a
narrow and curved 39 foot street frontage. In addition, the unique configuration of the
existing lot, with the "neck" access to Del Mar Court, creates challenges for providing
complying access while still meeting applicable lot standards. Therefore, the parcels have
unique shapes, but comply with lot area and required lot depth and width standards.
Council Agenda Report
MS 149-04 (Scholl, 303; Mar Court)
Page 7 of 7 '
Environmental Review
As mentioned earlier, minor subdivisions consisting of four or fewer parcels are generally
exempt from environmental review unless exceptions are requested. Since exceptions are
requested, an initial study was prepared for the proposal. The initial environmental study (see
Attachment 4) addressed issues related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, and Transportation and
Traffic. Mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Specific
mitigation measures are included as part of Draft Resolution.A.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department concurs with recommendations regarding street frontage
improvements. The Building Division noted that new residences are required to be served by
underground utilities. The Fire Department had no concerns with the project. The Utilities
Department noted that the demolition of the existing buildings triggers the Utilities Department
Sewer Lateral Abandonment Policy. Code requirements from each of the departments are
included in the recommended Draft Resolution for approval of the vesting tentative map.
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 and/or the requested exception if the
necessary findings cannot be made.
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 proposed subdivision tentative map
3. Housing Photos
4. Initial Environmental Study, ER 149-04
5. Flag lot requirements
6. Draft Resolution A—for approval of the environmental determination and subdivision
7. Draft Resolution B—for denial
Distributed to the City Council and available in the Council Reading File: full-size tentative
maps and color photographs
CD-PLAN/bkalkowski/Subdivisions/MS149-04(303Dcl Mar)Shoff/CC S1fRpt
SII/li■ ■ �Ir��� ::
1� . ��\11111111►/� . OEM
Evil min
NOUN
. �I
oil
17117�III
milli 11low
X11111111■ �i ;111 ��1�
. . . 11011 In I. 1111l1s�` .�1 .1 �■: ■
� ■ 111
111111111�� _� I!!I 11= _ 111 111 ■ a � _
_fl
1111 !1111111
all IIII■■111111 = ::�;•�
111111111111. IIIA _. .. .
�1111111�1111 111= w. " ■ ■ ■
111111111��' wn
IIIIIIIIII,fi��11111■■■1■ �C Elm I� ■ i- - .
111 .��QIIIIIIII ..� 11111■ ■
WA 11
;�A Sol
����i►���®SII■■I��: :. �■.
■��/I •
�/i!i Ir
Attachment 2
3
o
+I y
V)
..
U ° O x o z O
F- 0. y n w
w �
pNCoa
o � Uoo Q E
W � o � nZ ? roo - F aa E
o W7UU
U w � � wU � Nvo
< [°i Z Z 0 0 � (y, ci U
3 E Co m a v U s ¢
U.
4 O W H E Q
0 E r m Q o a UaCo3U) N CQ v v (3» D]
I o i bbbbbb N Y U tl
I U O 2 t
_ O O L
n..y fi99 J m —
a
eM I�RN N i (,fC�
Cu
Q u
1 J
/ I
I 1•, '' r a � 3 / I , � o
030%
LO ib
ODQ, /i I I I I NN
41+1
J 00I / Y
r I 11
i
ISS �
r-
� I I E + u
J tl
L
�iI•:7 I I I r
rh E
o. 1
_ L o co oj
f.00'CSD rIDS6 3L0 +,
Co Co O a
Ip J
1222�fjjj �
6 0
al 0 9
a
Attachment 3
'A •iy y, ,R, m �:
N: �'�. 'p.• .� rjf l Flo y. .7
r v �I yt
���
I �
1, 4
LUF e OW C t=
}r 1R .1
i ICY'.
7 ..
7 1. `
yq� r t,k s tt if
sr
L
O
LAI
t
i P Y
'� -lD
1+
.�' 4 a r
i
_ ' •ti M �� i
i _ }
r
t .
' V
:+r IL
i
�Ci:•S_ 9 � ut
5 J,
�,'I •r 1' � � d � 1's1'
'y . .
, i t
ul
e'
Aft,
\' Attachment 3
? . r
xle 10
if
ILI
js
It
* M
_ v -f�'�•j� ,fig`
.1
�r �•
Tom
to�ip
Id
S
r.
i SyC a
Jm
AMR
14,
rY
It
J
r
,1� _ •� rte, w �rjlk''� � ( .s i� '�"�•�
r
)t.�
•.:� d .. � { - � ' •,. rM �-v n�� ' .•per! 3 �,"1••y�,
� 1
#r1 ?4fn •r Tf:� `
,5 a
IN
r
. 1 It J �. � 5a. �• ry� ,, ..
I
� Cti�jj, i ,� �I ,•� t
•
• + •+ - -, _t.yam.
'•3
'. �y�:• �as` I
v', L
•: GV
fir,:.,•_ . _ �,,, �. .:-,��� ,"S�'
Jr
Nk-
Alp
1 ~� '.r..�J,� . ter•. •.piy ; —e _ -� •+
_.J; L,' , � '. .�' `' _ � }• .Tia��+•is . '4�\ �� s
• t
1
p 11-
4L
rf!. � a�,. I � 4' I ti.w'i, .'"' —.. � 1► �f— 1 1+.- II a .*,�' Mly kj.
Ir
Tw
.. /IT;j r� . •• PPP
r .iis
�.� "=
51
na—
d,
000px
_ a r
/ G
' r e
4L r%
i i•
Attachment 3
14
r • 041
N
TOall
i >s
oCo
!
, R
-....... ..0 0..0: .
' !w
a ■gni ,'•, l � �.• .�'r
'1 s i P
V.
r 4D i
d� r.� _� •y � �1.1
J r Y
t ' lit �j)
ON iL }.:#
WAR
�: "": R+k }• •may' r r � ",}'• .O
Pita
HIM
�� J}�'S[ •lA111 } �h`S •1 .�r�TV�$Y5(.
S 1,
MOWN
I L
CIM
w .,�y��•� t 1
1 t
f Y
� t
f 1
KIM �{ -
rLl. 4F
16 ; F��
Mo.f _
Attach7ent 4
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#149-04
1. Project Title: Schoff Minor Subdivision
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person end Phone Number: Buzz Kalkowski,Associate Planner, 805-781-7166
4. Project Location: 303 Del Mar Court, San Luis Obispo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Tomas Schoff, ETAL
T..Schoff Enterprises LP
303 Del Mar Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405-1505
6. General Plan Designation: Low-Density Residential
7. Zoning: Low-Density Residential (R-1)
8. Description of the Project: Flag-lot style subdivision of a single-family residential lot
into three parcels ranging in size from 6,005 square feet to
7,562 square feet, including an exception to the Subdivision
Regulations to allow approximately 17 feet of street
frontage for Parcel 1 where 20 feet is required.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is bounded by Del Mar Court along the
northwest corner and by residences to the south; west, north, and east. The property is
the largest in the immediate neighborhood containing approximately 21,623 square
feet. However, the site's shape is somewhat irregular due to its narrow f 39-foot
curvilinear street frontage. The majority of the site's terrain is relatively level, except
for a slope bank on the south steeply rising about 12 to 14 feet to level building/yard
pads beyond. The property currently contains two single-family residences and two
sheds. All existing structures are to be removed, along with three 24-inch palm trees,
and a double-trunk 24"tree.
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Vesting Tentative Parcel Map with an exception and
Environmental Review.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
Attach;rent 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.
X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
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 71.1.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
`� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STuoY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKI tST 2003
C-'
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
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be p=ared.
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 X
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE_DECLARATION will be
re ared. '
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 miti ation measures that are imposed upon the proposed vroiect, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Parr�la Ricci�r
Ronald Whisenand For: John Mandeville,
Printed Name, Community Development Director
CIN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
AttacS"'Iment 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. s'
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 docuunent and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
i� CITY OF SAN LUIS Owspo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST,2003
Issues, Discussion and Suppol Information Sources Sources Pc ly Potentially Less'Man No
SChoff,202 Del Mar Court Signaucant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic 1,2 X
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1 X
the site and its surroundings? -7
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area?
a)b)The eZentual development of three new homes will be of a scale that is compatible with surrounding development and
will not adversely impact any scenic vistas.
c) The proposed project will result in the entitlement to create three single-family lots. Future residential development will
have limited visibility from Del Mar Court,as the total street frontage of the original parcel has a t 39-foot outside radius
curve, and two of the new homes will be built behind the lot with the street frontage. The property is surrounded on all
sides by existing residential development,with the adjoining dwelling traits to the south being on building pads located 12
to 14 feet above the parcel being subdivided. Since the new properties have the potential to create compatibility conflicts
with some existing, adjacent developed properties, new construction should be subject to architectural review. The
designation of the new lots as "sensitive sites" requiring architectural review is appropriate considering new dwellings
would be introduced into the interior of an established neighborhood..
d) Because the proposed lots are surrounded by developed residential properties, all outside light should be directed
downward with appropriate shielding to prevent the casting of shadows beyond the property lines of each new lot.
MITTIGATION MEASURES: Aesthetics
1. The new Parcels 1, 2, and 3 as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall be considered "sensitive sites" and
construction on the new parcels shall be subject to architectural review to consider neighborhood compatibility. Issues
of privacy,overlook, lighting and parking shall be addressed.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps X
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
X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland X
to non-agricultural use?
a) b) c) The project is located on a site that is not considered prime farmland, or farmland of unique or statewide
importance as indicated on City maintained maps created pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency.
CONCLUSION: No identified impacts.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 6 X
existing or projected air quality violation? T
CITY OF SAN Luis Oatspo 5 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS2003
-54
Sources Potem._.y Potentially Less Than No
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources S;gnificant significant significant Impact
Schoff,202 Del Mar Court Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 6 X
quality per?
C) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors:affecting a.substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment X
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 6
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
a) b) e) During project construction, there will be short-term impacts associated with increased levels of fugitive dust
related to grading and construction activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy duty
construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management practices is contained in Municipal Code Section
15.04.020(Appendix Section 3307.2)will adequately mitigate short term impacts,no further mitigation is necessary.
The project size is below thresholds contained in the APCD's "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" for generating
significant amounts of emissions. Therefore,the project will not result in a significant impact on long-term air quality.
c) Demolition of the existing structures may involve materials such as asbestos or other potentially harmful contaminants.
A mitigation measure to control the release of such contaminants including construction dust and debris is necessary in
order to avoid exposure to adjacent residents.
Mitigation Measures: Air Quality
The following mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air pollution that might be associated
with the demolition of structures and future grading and construction on the site:
2. A demolition permit shall be required prior to commencement of any demolition activities at the property. The
demolition permit shall list detailed methods of handling potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos. If asbestos is
present, a demolition plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Air Pollution Control District prior to approval of a
City Demolition Permit. The demolition plan shall contain adequate measures for the removal and disposal of any
hazardous materials such as asbestos.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional X
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X
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
biological resources;such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with establishednativeX
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede theuse of
wildlife nursery sites?q"A
6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003 '
�/ CIT/OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ate'✓
J
Issues, Discussion and Suppol d Information Sources Sources PO ly Potentially Less Than No
SChoff,202 Del Mar Court
Sign...cant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved X
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) X
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
a) — f) The project site is not within, adjacent to, or near any known wildlife corridor, significant wildlife•habitat, creek or
wetland. The site is presently zoned R-1, developed with two houses, and is surrounded by other developed residential
properties. No known biological resources would be impacted by the proposed subdivision aed future development.
CONCLUSION: No identified impacts.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 11 X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
a)—d)The existing residences on the property are not considered historic resources. Surrounding properties are developed
and contain structures that are between 32 and 55 years old (1949— 1971, mostly in the late 1950s and early 1960s).
The existing property does not contain any historic or prehistoric archeological resources as identified on City
maintained resource maps. No known archeological resources exist within the project vicinity.
CONCLUSION: No identified impacts.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 7 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X
State?
a) — b) The project is consistent with the City's Energy Element which encourages development or redevelopment of
residences close to concentrations of employment. The new infill housing will be surrounded by existing urban
development, thereby reducing energy impacts that could be created by placing additional housing further from
existing development.
c) No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity.
CONCLUSION: No identified impacts.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 3, 14
�_� CIT'OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003^X`1 A
Issues, Discussion and Suppot_ d Information Sources Sources Poly Potentially Less Than No
SChoff,202 Del Mar Court Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
IL Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially 14,4 X
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
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life X
or property?
a) I. - IV. c) d) A soils engineering report for the property was prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. and is dated September
15, 2003. The report finds the site suitable for the proposed development and provides construction preparation
recommendations. There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. The Los Osos Fault is
approximately 3 miles to the west. 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. The subject
property is within an area bordering"moderate landslide potential" and"high liquefaction potential" as designated on
Figure 5 in the General Plan Safety Element. The property itself is virtually flat, though there is an approximate12
tol4-foot high fill area just beyond the subject property and on the developed residential lots to south. The
GeoSolutions report states that moderately expansive sub-surface materials exist. To ensure structurally adequate
development, implementing the GeoSolutions Report recommendations will help to ensure that future development
meets the geological considerations of the site. In addition, all new construction will require a City building permit;
the structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code;
and requires that all construction meet or exceed building code standards for expansive soils.
b) The property itself is virtually flat. Standard erosion control methods should adequately address any topsoil erosion that
might occur during construction.
The site is generally suitable for development. With the incorporation of the grading and foundation designs
recommendations made in the GeoSolutions report, and with grading operations done in accordance with the City's
grading regulations,the development of the parcels should not create any erosion or slope issues.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
R
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Suppo d Information Sources Sources Pt Ity Potentially Less Than No
SChoff,202 Del Mar Court Signwcant Significant Significant impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X
65962.5 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
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety X
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury,
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands X
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
b) a)—e)The project proposal does not involve the use of hazardous materials nor will it involve hazardous conditions. In
order to accommodate the proposed subdivision and future projects on the property the existing structures will be
demolished. Demolition of the existing structures may involve the possibility of encountering asbestos which was a
common construction material used in the era when they were built. Demolition permits will be required prior to any
demolition work on the property. The demolition permits will require a handling and disposal plan for the building
materials to be removed from the site. With appropriate removal and disposal of potential asbestos materials during
demolition, the project will result in less than significant impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure 2, under the Air
Quality section above, limits the potential exposure to adjacent residents. At this time the existing structures to be
demolished have not been identified as containing asbestos or any other hazardous materials.
g) The proposed subdivision will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with adopted emergency response
plans or emergency evacuation plans.
h) The majority of the City is within a `low" wildland fire hazard area. City provided fire prevention and suppression
services are adequate to meet the added demand associated with the development of the proposed parcels. A fire station
is within%mile of the proposed subdivision
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.-
9.
ignificant9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local X
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 granfed)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems-or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters X
(including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds,-
springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
-1-- A
Issues, Discussion and Suppo, d Information Sources sources Pc uy Potentially Less Than No
Scholl,202 Del Mar Court Signwcant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
bays,ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or X
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding X
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 5 X
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, X
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
a) The project entitlements has the potential for 3 dwelling units. Future development should not significantly impact
water quality or waste discharge policies. '
b) The project will be served by City water, proposes no well water use, and will not significantly interfere with ground
water recharge.
c) The project is a subdivision of a single-family lot (with two existing houses to be removed) into 3 single-family lots.
Development entitlements will occur on the individual parcels. The access driveway and new underground utility lines
required for the project are about 100' in length. The land is virtually flat. Most of the drainage is to the northeast,
where an existing drainage swale carries runoff to a concrete culvert about 150' from the property and near Ramona
Drive. The subdivision and future individual development will be reviewed by the Public Works Department in the
process of issuing building permits.
d)g)The project site is within a"C" flood zone as indicated on FEMA flood zone maps,which indicates that the site is not
within flood zone of either 100 or 500-year storm events. A visit to the site reveals that existing slope and drainage
would not likely result in the property being subject to flooding.
h) i) It is unlikely that future residential development and associated vehicle parking will introduce typical storm water
pollutants into ground or surface waters or alter ground water or surface water quality,temperature,dissolved oxygen to
any significant level.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 12 X
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservation plans?
a) Subdivision Ordinance § 16.36.230.B requires the original lot to have frontage on a dedicated street that at the minimum
includes the width of the flag access(20 feet for this subdivision)plus the minimum required R-1 frontage, which is 20
feet. The original lot has a concave curve street frontage of 39.06 feet. The frontage portion beyond the required flag
access is approximately 17 feet, about 3 feet short of the minimum 20-foot street frontage for an R-1 site. Subdivision
Ordinance § 16.48.010 requires that subdivision exceptions be reviewed by the City Council. Therefore, this
subdivision is subject to the Council approving this mitigated negative declaration, granting the subdivision exception,
and approving the parcel map.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OwsPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Suppok d Information Sources Sources Pc ily I Potentially Less Than No
Schoff,202 Del Mar Court Signmcant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
b) c) There are no known natural communities of significance on the property and will not conflict with any conservation
plans.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 8 X
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
a) The General Plan Noise Element(NE)Figure 1 sets the acceptable noise levels for areas of residential development at 59
Ldn, dB. The project site is outside the lowest indicated NE Figure 4b Noise Contour,which is 60 dB. Therefore,future
residents of the proposed subdivision will not incur any excessive noise levels identified in the General Plan Noise
Element.
b) c) Temporary noise and groundbome vibrations may occur during construction. However, limited daytime construction
hours and the limited construction of a small project render the noise generation as less than significant.
d) The project is located approximately 4 miles from the north end of Runway 29, San Luis Obispo County Airport and
outside the Airport Land Use Plan.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or 2 X
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing 13 X
elsewhere?
a) b) The May 2004 General Plan Housing Element(HE)has policies addressing"housing conservation" ( HE 3.2.1; 3.2.2;
and 3.2.6). The project is a subdivision of a large single-family lot into 3 single-family parcels. Although two smaller
existing 1950s-era, shed-roof dwelling units will be demolished as part of the project, three new and larger single-family
dwelling units will be constructed in their place. These units would be superior in terms of size and amenities than the
existing homes and would likely sell or rent for more. While there is the disadvantage of losing lower cost housing units,
there is an advantage to adding housing with more modem floor plans and greater bedroom counts to better accommodate
the needs of the typical contemporary household over the housing that is being replaced. In addition,the project is consistent
with general plan policies that promote infill development to maintain a compact urban form and to maintain housing near
areas of employment.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Suppol d Information Sources Sources Pc Ily Potentially Less Than No
SChoff,202 Del Mar Court Issues
Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
f) Other public facilities? X
a)b),d),e), f) No potential impacts have been identified to any public services because of the small scale of the project and
its location within an existing residential neighborhood.
c) The school districts in the State are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or
collecting any fees beyond those required by the school district itself,to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities.
Any effect that the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts
per square foot fees,charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence.
The project has been routed to City Departments for review and comments on the proposal. As part of each routing, the
reviewing department is required to certify that serving the project will not result in a deficiency to any City facility or
resource. All reviewing departments have indicated their ability to serve this project.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
14.RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the size of
the project and the expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with
development of this site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be collected, with credit given for the existing lot, to insure
adequate provision of park facilities for the new residents of the project,per existing City policy.
b) The project does not include construction of recreational facilities.
Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally, though not significantly, with the development of the
divided parcel.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management X
��agency for designated roads and highways?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Suppo. d Information Sources Sources Pt Ily Potentially Less Than No
Scholl,202 Del Mai Court Sign scant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. X
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, X
noise,or a change in air traffic patterns?
a) b) c) The proposed subdivision will result in three R-1 parcels, with the potential for 3 single family homes and 3
secondary dwelling units (studio apartments). Two dwelling units, scheduled for removal, currently exist on the
property. The potential for an additional single-family dwelling unit,and for the potential for 1 to 3 secondary units will
not significantly increase traffic on City streets. The single-point street-access for all proposed three parcels and 311 Del
Mar Court is located on the outside of a 90°curve in Del Mar Court,a court street,however,the access to the street has
adequate visibility of all the street's traffic.
d) The Fire Marshall will review the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determine that the site can be
adequately accessed by emergency vehicles.
f) Residents of the project will have access to transit stops on Foothill Boulevard.
g) The project is not within the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan area.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant.
e)The original parcel has less than 40 feet of street frontage and two of proposed parcels will not have any street frontage.
The access for all three parcels and for 311 Del Mar Court is a on a curve of the public street,which includes the 20-foot
wide flag lot configuration and the required 16-foot side driveway. The result is that no available street frontage exists
for parking vehicles. In addition, the configurations of the proposed lots are not square or rectangular. Therefore, to
ensure adequate guest parking and potential secondary dwelling unit parking,a mitigation measure is required.
CONCLUSION:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
MITIGATION MEASSURE:Transportation/Traffic
3. Each.parcel shall be developed with a site plan that provides a minimum of three vehicle parking spaces. Should any
future development plans include secondary dwelling units, a fourth vehicle parking space shall be required. In addition,
development plans shall include adequate vehicle turn-around areas so that all vehicles access Del Mar Court in a forward
direction. Because of the considerable land area required for parking and turn-around areas, all development will require
landscaping plans to be submitted along with their Architectural Review application.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm X
drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and 9 X
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Issues, Discussion and Suppc _ j Information Sources Sources p lly potentially Less Than No
Schoff,202 Del Mar Court
sig,...,cant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
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 10 X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
a) b) This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer. Comments note that the project is subject to water
impact fees,which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water
supply,treatment,and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City Water & Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000
people. The project site is included in the anticipated build-out. The population on January 1, 2003 was 44,350 '
people.
d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. The existing sewers in the vicinity
have sufficient capacity to serve the development. Impact fees will be collected at the time building permits are issued to
pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation Facility.
e),f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Califomians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90%of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater,
air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each
city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help
reduce the waste stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element,
recycling facilities must be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded
construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The project should include facilities for
recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling
Element.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or X
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?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable X
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X
indirectly?
�M CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 lNmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
'1 �33
Issues, Discussion and Suppo, j Information Sources sources Pt ily Potentially (Jess Than No
Scholl,202 Del Mar Court Signmcant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 149-04 Mitigation
Incorporated
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.
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.
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
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Attachment 4
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, June 2004.
2. City of SLO Land Use Element, July 2002.
3 San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990.
4. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, July 2000.
5. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 060310 0005 C) dated July 7, 1981.
6. APCD's "CEQA Air Qualit .Handbook", Aril 2003.
7. City of SLO Energy Conservation Element, April 1981.
8. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element and Noise Guidebook, May 1996.
9. City of SLO Water & Wastewater Element, June 2004.
10 City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Brown, Vence & Associates,
July 1994.
11. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory
12. City of San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations, April 1993
13. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element May 2004
14. Soils Engineering Report 303 Del Mar Court, GeoSolutions, Inc., September 15, 2003
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Mitigation Measure: The new parcels 1,2,and 3 as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall be considered
"Sensitive"and construction on the new parcels shall be subject to architectural review
to consider neighborhood compatibility. Issues of privacy, overlook, lighting and
parking shall be addresses.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed
plans submitted for building permits primarily by the Community Development
Planning Division staff.
2. Mitigation Measure: A demolition permit shall be required prior to commencement of any demolition
activities at the property. The demolition permit shall list detailed methods of
handling potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos. If asbestos is present, a
demolition plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Air Pollution Control District
prior to approval of a City Demolition Permit. The demolition plan shall contain,
adequate measures for the removal and disposal of any hazardous materials such as
asbestos.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed
plans submitted for building permits primarily by the Community Development
Building and Planning Division staff.
3. Mitigation Measurer Each parcel shall be developed with a site plan that provides a minimum of three
vehicle parking spaces. Should any future development plans include secondary
dwelling units, a fourth vehicle parking space shall be required. In addition,
development plans shall include adequate vehicle tum-around areas so that all vehicles
access Del Mar Court in a forward direction. Because of the considerable land area
required for parking and tum-around areas, all development will require landscaping
plans to be submitted along with their application of Architectural Review.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed
plans submitted for building permit by Planning staff.
- Attachment 5
Chapter 16.36
SUBDIVISION DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENTS
1636.230 Flag Lots (deep lot subdivision).
Flag lots may be approved for subdividing deep lots where development would not be feasible
with the installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring
properties, or where justified by topographical conditions. Such subdivision shall conform with
the following:
A. . The accessway serving the flag lot(s) shall not be included in the determination of required
lot area for any lot.
B. The original lot shall have frontage on a dedicated street of at least the minimum length
required by these regulations for the zone in which it is located, plus the accessway required
to potential rear lots.
C. The accessway to the rear shall be at least twenty feet wide (with sixteen feet of pavement)
for residential and conservation/open space zones, except where the accessway is more than
one hundred fifty feet long it shall be at least twenty-four feet wide with twenty feet of
pavement. For all other zones, the accessway shall be at least thirty feet wide with a paved
roadway at least twenty-four feet wide.
D. Each lot shall have yards as required by the zoning regulations. A ten-foot yard shall be
provided along the access road pavement.
E. The lot farthest from the street shall own the accessway in fee. Other lots using the
accessway shall have an access easement over it. (Ord. 934 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code §
9107.3(I))
i 1 Y/Y
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) Attachment 6
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 303 DEL MAR COURT
(CITY APPLICATION#MS/ER 149-04
AND COUNTY MAP#SLO 04-0185)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 16, 2004, and
has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff,
and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 16.48 of the City's Subdivision Regulations stipulates that 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the
following mitigation measures into the project:
Aesthetics
1. The new parcels 1, 2, and 3 as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall be considered
"Sensitive" and construction on the new parcels shall be subject to architectural review to
consider neighborhood compatibility. Issues of privacy, overlook, lighting and parking
shall be addresses.
1. Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permits primarily by the Community Development Planning
Division staff.
Air Quali
The following mitigation measures are designed to reduce temporary and intermittent air
pollution that might be associated with the demolition of structures and future grading and
construction on the site:
2. A demolition permit shall be required prior to commencement of any demolition activities at
the property. The demolition permit shall list detailed methods of handling potentially
hazardous materials such as asbestos. If asbestos is present, a demolition plan shall be
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Attachment 6
Page 2 of 7
reviewed and approved by the Air Pollution Control District prior to approval of a City
Demolition Permit. The demolition plan shall contain adequate measures for the removal
and disposal of any hazardous materials such as asbestos.
2. Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permits primarily by the Community Development Building and
Planning Division staff.
Transportation/Trafftc
3. Each parcel shall be developed with a site plan that provides a minimum of three vehicle
parking spaces. Should any future development plans include secondary dwelling units, a
fourth vehicle parking space shall be required. In addition, development plans shall include
adequate vehicle turn-around areas so that all vehicles access Del Mar Court in a forward
direction. Because of the considerable land area required for parking and tum-around areas,
all development will require landscaping plans to be submitted along with their application of
Architectural Review.
3. Monitoring Program:
Compliance with this requirement shall be monitored through the review of detailed plans
submitted for building permit by Planning staff.
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to subdivide
one lot into three lots, with an exception to the Subdivision Regulations, staff recommendations,
public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
Minor Subdivision
1. As conditioned, the design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent
with the General Plan and its policies that call for a compact urban form and a variety of
housing types compatible with the surrounding neighborhood: This is substantiated by the
proposed new lots being infill lots, which are surrounded by urban development within close
proximity to shopping and transportation sources. Furthermore, conditions are recommended
requiring architectural review of plans for site development to assure neighborhood
compatibility.
2. The replacement of the two existing substandard houses with three new dwellings with
modem amenities and improved neighborhood compatibility comply with Housing Element
policies related to housing retention.
3. As conditioned, the site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed
in the R-1 zone. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and dimension standards, as
required within the R-1 district.
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 3 of 7
4. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures, the design of the subdivision or the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site is relatively
flat and does not contain any unique or sensitive resources.
5. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
serious health problems, and the site is surrounded by existing urban development.
6. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision because the design accommodates continued vehicular access for the
residents at 311 Del Mar Court through the shared access way.
Exception to Subdivision Standards for required street frontage (flag lot standards)
7. That the property to be divided is the largest in the immediate neighborhood, but has an
irregular shape and a narrow street frontage, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable,
in the particular case, to conform to the minimum 20-foot street frontage requirement and
still maintain the minimum 20-foot accessway as required for the flag lot design, consistent
with the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and
8. That the parent lot is sufficiently large to accommodate three additional lots and potential
dwelling units, but has street frontage that is less than the required total of 40 feet. Granting
the exception is necessary to accomplish General Plan Policy Housing Element 6.2.1 to
increase housing opportunities in the City; and
9. That the requested exception, given its minor nature, will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity because the new
houses will be built in conformance to current housing and building codes; complying access
will be provided for the three lots proposed as well as 311 Del Mar Court; the access to the
street will have clear visibility to both upper and lower Del Mar Court traffic; and, as
conditioned, the development of each new lot will require a minimum of 800 square feet of
quality private open space; each proposed residence will be limited to 25 feet of height
without the possibility of an exception to allow a height to 35 feet; and the three mitigation
measures agreed to and signed by the applicant require an architectural review for each
parcel development, require three parking spaces per proposed lot, and require strict
compliance with the Air Pollution Control District regulations during demolition of the
existing structures; and
10. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations
because, as conditioned, a total of 9 off-street parking spaces are required, 3 more than what
is typically required within an R-1 district, and an architectural review is required for the
development of each lot; and is consistent with the general plan and/or other plans of the city
(the site is not within a specific plan area) because it is consistent with the general plan land
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
- Attachment 6
Page 4 of 7
use designation, allowed density, neighborhood character, and creates new housing
opportunities.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of the minor subdivision (MS 149-04)
to allow creation of three lots from one existing lot with an exception to the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 16.36.230 flag lot requirements, for property at 303 Del Mar Court, is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
Conditions:
1. Approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall be valid for two years after its effective date. At
the end of the period, the approval shall expire and become null and void unless an extension
of time is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date.
2. The Parcel Map shall be subject to additional fees for park or recreation purposes (QUIMBY
Act) as required by City Ordinance.
3. The granting of this entitlement shall apply to the property located at 303 Del Mar Court
(APN 052-142-074) regardless of owner.
4. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map, and in
compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in
accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
5. All new parcels created by this subdivision shall be considered sensitive sites, therefore
requiring architectural review prior to approval of a building permit for new construction.
Each residence shall maintain a minimum of 800 square feet of quality private open space.
The height of each residence shall not exceed 25 feet and shall not be granted an exception to
allow a height to 35 feet. As required by Mitigation 4, each parcel shall have a minimum 3
vehicle parking spaces, if developed with a Secondary Dwelling Unit, individual parcels shall
have a minimum 4 vehicle parking spaces, and each parcel shall have sufficient area to allow
for a vehicle with a maximum of two maneuvers to enter Del Mar Court in a forward
direction. A grading/landscape plan that provides adequate surface drainage and
neighborhood privacy shall be required with all development plans.
6. A common address identification sign located near the intersection of the driveway and Del
Mar Court shall identify each of the residential lots. Individual lots shall be identified with
an address sign at the driveway intersection of each private lot and the main access driveway.
The design of the address signs shall be approved by the Community Development
Department.
7. All subdivision improvements as shown in project concept and expressed within project
conditions shall be completed prior to the recordation of the final map, unless a bond in an
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Attachment 6
Page 5 of 7
amount sufficient to ensure improvements has been posted for the project.
8. A "common driveway" easement agreement is required, in accordance with City standards
for Parcels 1, 2 and 3, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public
Works Director. The existing common driveway and access easement to 311 Del Mar per
1474 OR 732 shall be formalized with a common driveway agreement prior to recordation of
the map. The common driveway shall be constructed as a parcel map condition.
9. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of
disposal, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official.
10. All utilities shall be extended underground to the respective parcels and as part of the
subdivision improvements, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Utilities
Director, and Building Official.
Code Requirements:
1. 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.
2. Some map conditions may be satisfied by the preparation and approval of a public
improvement plan so that the map may be recorded prior to completion of required physical
improvements.
3. The existing structures shall be demolished, moved or altered to comply with building code
and zoning setbacks to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department prior to
map recordation.
4. The existing driveway approach shall be replaced to provide disabled access behind the ranip
per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and city standards to the approval of the
Public Works Director.
5. Additional public right-of-way or public pedestrian easements may be necessary to
accommodate improvements required for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
compliance, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director
6. All public improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the most current City
regulations, City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications.
7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement and a 3m wide street tree
easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous
with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
Resolution No. (2004 Series) Attachment 6
Page 6 of 7
8. 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. Utilities to new residences shall be underground.
9. Street trees are required as a condition of development. Street trees shall be planted at the
rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage.
10. All lots shall be graded to preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and
drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
11. General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water
discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation
results in land disturbance of one or more acre. Permits are required until the construction is
complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land
where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form,
with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board. The WDID # from the
State Water Resources Control Board shall be included on all plans submitted to the City
involving ground disturbing activities.
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. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision
Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations.
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. 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.
15. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9 (b), the Subdivider shall defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City and, or, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding against the City and, or, its agents, officers and employees to attack, set aside,
void or annul,the approval by the City of this subdivision, Tract No. 41-04 (County tract No.
04-0119), and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review.
a
Resolution No. Attachment 6
(2004 Series)
Page 7 of 7
On motion of , seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16`h day of November, 2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7)1
ity A ey Jonathan Lowell
CD-Plan/bkalkowskUSubdivisions/Ms149-04/ResoApprove
���k3
1
Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 303 DEL MAR COURT
(CITY APPLICATION#MS/ER 149-04
AND COUNTY MAP# SLO 04-0185)
WHEREAS, the City .Council conducted a public hearing on November 16, 2004, and
has considered testimony of interested parties, and considered the applicant's request for a
tentative parcel map to create three lots from an existing lot with an exception to the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 16.36.230.B; flag lot requirement regarding the maintenance of a minimum
20 feet of street frontage, for property located at 303 Del Mar Court, 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 149-04 (County Map No.
SLO 04-0185), 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 it 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 excerption will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious
to other properties in the vicinity.
4. Granting the exception is not in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision
ordinance, 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 149-04
(County Map No. SLO 04-0185) and requested exceptions are hereby denied.
f `'f'1"
Attachment 7
Resolution No. (2004_Series)
Page 2 of 2
On motion of , seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 16`" day of November,2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
City Clerk Audrey Hooper
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jonathan Lowell
CD-Plan/bkalkowski/Subdivisions/Msl49-04/ResoDeny
Pae 1 of 2
RECEIVED
SLO Citycouncil - RE: 303 Del Mar Ct.Vesting Tentative Parcel Map P?IJV 1 5 2004
SM
From: "Keith, Karen" <Karen.Keith@thomson.com>
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org> Ci, ?'CDD D I R
Date: 11/14/2004 10:16 PM ICAO T=IN DIR
Subject: RE:303 Del Mar Ct. Vesting Tentative Parcel Map ��AcA, 0 >19E CHIEF
!•-A 7--QRk4E-Y ;-?wY 91Li —
RED FILE ; r'CLERK/0RIG �PCLICE CHF
d ❑
DE-TI HE,- DS �REC CIR
11/14/2004 _ MEETING AGENDA E uTIL CNIR
Rfi�,_ t1 i ITEM # � -`moi_-t� i•+' � i
Dear Honorable City Council-Me -
This letter is in response to Item #7 on the City Council Agenda for Tuesday, November 16, 2004:
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, with an Exception to the Subdivision Regulations, to Create Three
Parcels at 303 Del Mar Court(MS/ER 149-04: Thomas Schoff, Applicant).
My name is Karen Austin Keith. My husband, Trevor R. Keith, and I currently live at 254 Del Mar
Court, San Luis Obispo. This letter is written in response to the proposed development at 303 Del Mar
Court. We represent the youngest and most recent home owners on Del Mar Court, We chose to buy the
home we now live in based on the quality and characteristics of this close-knit neighborhood. The
neighborhood atmosphere of Del Mar Court is the quality of life that we want and hope to preserve for a
future family we plan to raise in our new home.
We feel the proposed project at 303 Del Mar represents a great potential for inconsistency with existent
neighborhood character. Also, we interpret the exception requested to the subdivision regulations as not
a minor decision, but rather a precedent-setting decision.
The proposed project seems inconsistent with several of the City's General Plan Policies. The Land Use
Element policies 2.2.6 and 2.2.10 encourage new development within existing neighborhoods to be `
compatible in scale and character with the neighborhood. We feel the proposed development at 303 Del
Mar Ct. does not meet these requirements because out of 24 existing lots on Del Mar Court, the average
lot size is 8404 square feet, and the proposal for each of the 3 new lots falls considerably short of this
neighborhood average.
In addition, the Land Use Element policies 2.2.10 and 2.2.11 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. However, the development does not ensure adequate privacy
and usable outdoor area based on a minimum of 800 square feet of useable outdoor open space. We feel
the proposed project would provide inadequate privacy for both occupants and the existing neighbors
with a lack of useable outdoor space for the planned homes that would have with three to four
bedrooms.
The Housing Element Policy 7.2.1 requires new development to maintain the neighborhood character.
Again, we feel the proposed development is not designed to meet the current neighborhood character for
reasons stated above.
In conclusion, we feel that the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan and is not
compatible with the existing neighborhood. If the exception to the Subdivision Regulations is granted,
the City will allow a poorly planned infill project to move forward.
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW 100001.H... 11/15/2004
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Karen Austin Keith
Trevor R. Keith
Homeowners & Residents, 254 Del Mar Ct., San Luis Obispo
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}OOOO1.H... 11/15/2004
Page 1 of 2
RECEIVED
Julie O'Connor- Please read before Tues.16th Council Meeting N,nv 1 r,
From: Denise Jenkins <SL04me@charter.net> LSLO CITY CLERK
To: <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>, <ahooper@slocity.org>, <dreynold@slocity.org>,
<joconnor@ slocity.org>
Date: 11/15/04 9:13 PM
Subject: Please read before Tues.16th Council Meeting
To:
Mayor Dave Romero FRED FILE
Vice Mayor Ken Schwartz
Council Member Allen Settle ME ING AGENDA
Council Member Christine Mulholland D_,T=I I ITEM ir`�)
Council Member John Ewan
From:
Denise Jenkins
283 Del Mar Ct. : COUNCIL !CDD DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ,�CAO %'-FIN DIR
CACAO
(805) 546-0564 C=IRE CHIEF
I ATTORNEY .�w DIR
lef'CLERKJORIG yPOLICE CHF
Re: Tues. 16th Council Meeting Item#7, 303 Del Mar Ct. Project ❑ DEPT HEADS T� REC D I R
�•.Trt .. n.L—? z'U IL DIR
15 November 2004 �-
Dear Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members,
Because I can not attend tomorrow's council meeting, I am writing to you in hope that you will give my
thoughts consideration as you make your decision regarding the proposed development at 303 Del Mar
Court.
I have lived on Del Mar Ct. for 9 1/2 years. When we purchased our home my husband and I were "first
time home buyers" and we fell in love with this quiet neighborhood. There is a saying amongst or
neighbors: "Once you move to Del Mar Court, you stay." We have seen this to be true. Many of our
neighbors have raised their families on this street and some are enjoying retirement in their 80's and
90's! All but 4 homes on our street are owner-occupied. My husband and I organize our annual "Del
Mar Court Block Party" where we all enjoy a pot luck barbecue at the end of the block. This year we
participated in a Del Mar Court block garage sale. We have recently completed a major remodel on our
home, adding 800 square feet to our house. We intend to raise our new family here, hoping to enjoy this
street through our 80's and 90's!
What I'm getting at is, this is not just a street, it is a close knit community of friends. As I review the
proposed development project I see that it will bring a change to our quiet street that I am unable to
accept without voicing my opposition.. Already the recent rental of 303 Del Mar Ct. has brought
significantly more traffic to our street on a daily basis, not to mention occasional group gatherings. If
this project is allowed, I can imagine how much more traffic and possible noise we may experience.
This property is located at a comer of our street where we have experienced safety issues already. It is a
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}000O1.HTM 11/16/04
Page 2 of 2
blind corner going uphill, and residents of 303 are crossing traffic as they arrive and leave. I see this as
an existing safety issue. Anything that increases traffic, even a minute amount, will make this area even
more unsafe. The additional curbside parking will also decrease visibility of pedestrians. As a safety
issue alone this project should not be considered.
I have a 2 1/2 year old son and a 6 month old daughter. My children will be riding bikes, playing
outside and walking to school in years to come. I view this project as jeopardizing the safety of my
children and those who live on our street. We chose Del Mar Court because it is a quiet cul-de-sac with
little traffic. I believe this project would change the nature of our street, and should not be allowed to
proceed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Denise Jenkins
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00001.HTM 11/16/04
Page 1 of 1
SLO Citycouncil-Council Meeting Item#7, Proposed project at 303 Del Mar Ct.
From: <HUFFAIA@aol.com>
To: <dromero@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <kscwartz@slocity.org>,
<jewan@slocity.org>, <slocitycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 11/16/2004 1:53 PM
Subject: Council Meeting Item #7, Proposed project at 303 Del Mar Ct.
November 16,2004 NOV 16 207
Re:?Tues. November 16th Council Meeting Item#7,303 Del Mar Ct. Project SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Mr. Mayor,Vice Mayor and Council Members, ^
It has come to my attention that the owner of 303 Del Mar Ct. has plans to intensify the development on his non-conforming lot. It is my
understanding that the existing two structures were built on the R-1 lot before zoning controls were in existence.
We currently own a home on Del Mar Ct.that we purchased approximately four years ago. We chose Del Mar Court because it offered
a close proximity to Cal Poly and it is a quiet neighborhood. We have met most of our neighbors in the court and have developed many
lasting friendships over the years. We have an annual block party which gives us a chance to catch up on each others lives and to
meet new families that have moved into our court. Del Mar Ct.is a special place as exemplified by many who have chosen to retire on
our block.
My wife and I graduated from Cal Poly in the early 1970s and have watched San Luis Obispo grow in a positive way for over thirty
years. We've seen new housing proposals developed in appropriate areas that seem to be compatible with the existing housing mix.
We have recently noticed projects on Foothill Blvd.that involved developing multiple units on very large single family lots. I believe that
many of these older homes had been small farm houses in the past. Development of this nature on major arteries seems to be
compatible with the general plan. The proposed development at 303 Del Mar Ct.does not have any similarities to the projects on
Foothill Road. Infill development,which is the current goal of many cities, needs to make sense with the mix of the neighborhood.The
current proposal for 303 Del Mar Court seems foreign to the existing housing on the court.
I have had an architectural practice for approximately 25 years and have been involved in many developments similar to the proposed
project. I have read the staff report concerning the new houses and have seen the proposed site plan. I have the following concerns:
1) 1 am confused over the statement in the staff report that refers to rehabilitating the existing two units on the property. Currently
they are one bedroom and three bedroom units. If the owner were to remodel both units to bring them up to neighborhood standards of
approximately three bedrooms each this would seem to accommodate staffs need for more housing (bedrooms)and still fit in with the
neighborhood. If this is not possible,due to the existing house siting on the lot,then one should look at an alternate of two new homes
(which still brings parking issues with the site and court).
2) It appears that the site plan with the proposed building envelopes and setbacks is very tight to the site and adjoining neighbors.
The rear yard setbacks seem to be five feet,which is far below the minimum setback. I would also like to see where visitors would park
for all three proposed homes. Usually impacted sites,.such as the proposed,are required to have at least two visitor parking spaces
per dwelling unit on site(NOT on the court). I would like to see the building layout of all three proposed homes.
3) It appears that staff has not considered any of the concerns of Del Mar residents as well as adjoining properties to the south and
east. Del Mar Ct. is a family neighborhood where quality of life is very important and should not be compromised by a staff report that
finds no adverse conditions that would result from the project. I feel that staff also has a greater challenge to preserve existing
neighborhoods from development proposals that seek to maximize profits by maximizing the density of existing parcels. If maximum
density is what staff is seeking then maybe residents of Del Mar Ct.and other quiet neighborhoods should investigate splitting their
oversized lots for the sake of maximizing infill housing.
In conclusion, I would like Council to reconsider this project based on the points that I have stated in this letter and understand that this
proposal is simply not appropriate for this neighborhood due to site constraints,increased traffic concerns and incompatibility with
existing residences.
Thank you for your consideration. OUNCII
Sincerely, -O.OAO ;e_ CDD DIR
y
RED FILE -1:4 AO FIN DIR Charles Huff AIA Architect C;-FIRE CHIEF:
MEETING AGENDA $CLERK/ORIG 2PW DIR
DATE `STEM #f D T HEgD ff PEC DIRC�F
9 j� ZUTIL DIR
-Z-Hp 018
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slouser\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 11/16/2004
RECEIVED y C
NOV 1 2 2004
SLO CITY CLERK
We the undersigned residents of Del Mar Court do not want the character of our neighborhood
to be negatively impacted by the proposed 303 Del Mar Court development. Specifically,if this
beomes housing for students,it will negatively affect and forever change the character of our
neighborhood by increasing noise, vehicular traffic,and street parking,disturbing the peace,
safety, and quiet that now exists. Our neighborhood is zoned R-1,of which 85% (23 of 27
houses)are of single family occupancy. We value our sense of community,the quiet and safe
character and family-oriented atmosphere of our street.
With no way of guaranteeing that the development will not become a student housing tract,the
issue we have is the potential density and number of people and cars that will be introduced into
our neighborhood. Combined with visitor traffic and the fact that being a flag lot,there is no street
frontage,the potential impacts are great. The developer has not indicated in anyway to the
neighborhood what the ultimate use of the project will be. The developer is seeking an exception
to the subdivision regulations to provide a driveway access to the proposed new lots. We are
resoectfullv vetitionine the council to denv the reauested exception.
3r�s �a 19� 15fITz37
3)A
maO
�COUNC L >CDD DIR
;ICAO -;?FIN DIR
R-ED FILE MACAO cFIRE CHIEF
I ' ATTORNEY -2pw DIR
POEETING AGENDA �CLERK/ORIG ?'POLICE CHF
3 C! DEPT HEADS l°'�
DATE 11 ITEM I - REc DIR
? UTIL D!R
1
We the undersigned.residents of Del Mar Court do not want the character of our neighborhood
to be negatively impacted by the proposed 303 Del Mar Court development. Specifically,if this
beomes housing for students,it will negatively affect and forever change the character of our
neighborhood by increasing noise,vehicular traffic,and street parking,disturbing the peace,
safety,and quiet that now exists. Our neighborhood is zoned R-1,of which 85010 (23 of 27
houses)are of single family occupancy. We value our sense of community,the quiet and safe
character and family-oriented atmosphere of our street.
With no way of guaranteeing that the development will not become a student housing tract,the
issue we have is the potential density and number of people and cars that will be introduced into
our neighborhood. Combined with visitor traffic and the fact that being a flag lot,there is no street
frontage,the potential impacts are great. The developer has not indicated in anyway to the
neighborhood what the ultimate use of the project will be. The developer is seeking an exception
to the subdivision regulations to provide a driveway access to the proposed new lots. We are
resvectfullv vetitionins the council to denv the reauested exceotion.
c,�.✓�� Z 8 by _ S- L• v
S�''f�•3o�° ' 30
:s LQ s t v 43yo�
/ / SY3 — 9 (, 37
161 Szu y 3 err,
i
AX4 27� P� C=T Ste- 2Z6q
1
We the undersigned residents of Del Mar Court do not want the character of our neighborhood
to be negatively impacted by the proposed 303 Del Mar Court development. Specifically,if this
beomes housing for students,it will negatively affect and forever change the character of our
neighborhood by increasing noise,vehicular traffic,and street parking,disturbing the peace,
safety,and quiet that now exists. Our neighborhood is zoned R-1,of which 85010 (23 of 27
houses)are of single family occupancy. We value our sense of community, the quiet and safe
character and family-oriented atmosphere of our street.
With no way of guaranteeing that the development will not become a student housing tract,the
issue we have is the potential density and number of people and cars that will be introduced into
our neighborhood. Combined with visitor traffic and the fact that being a flag lot,there is no street
frontage,the potential impacts are great. The developer has not indicated in anyway to the
neighborhood what the ultimate use of the project will be. The developer is seeking an exception
to the subdivision regulations to provide a driveway access to the proposed new lots. We are
resvectfullv vetitionina the council to denv the reauested exception.
GLt
� 1V � O
/V 4' Z 9S D& /Mu eT S13, 7,61
�►.� 50a 2�r� DQ;P vn Aa e� 5yy-1Coc�
e
"27�s3
Z'3 ! _ c 1V412 C7
� �
We the undersigned residents of Del Mar Court do not want the character of our neighborhood
to be negatively impacted by the proposed 303 Del Mar Court development. Specifically,if this
beomes housing for students,it will negatively affect and forever change the character of our
neighborhood by increasing noise,vehicular traffic,and street parking,disturbing the peace,
safety, and quiet that now exists. Our neighborhood is zoned R-1,of which 85010 (23 of 27
houses)are of single family occupancy. We value our sense of community,the quiet and safe
character and family-oriented atmosphere of our street.
With no way of guaranteeing that the development will not become a student housing tract,the
issue we have is the potential density and number of people and cars that will be introduced into
our neighborhood Combined with visitor traffic and the fact that being a flag lot,there is no street
frontage,the potential impacts are great. The developer has not indicated in anyway to the
neighborhood what the ultimate use of the project will be. The developer is seeking an exception
to the subdivision regulations to provide a driveway access to the proposed new lots. We are
resvectfullv vetitionin¢the council to denv the reauested excevtion..
/l'R.Y4•T//U]/�Q
/ _ A-rr (AI-I- rj 24.16 D6L M 2 Cr S4I - Sov
- �
sFU Gig(o-H oc ZD+ 1-11 t,JEZ�. FDa' . 28e
�1JL FC L� lo, Z� 1A b�'ET22S (a2.
CYDNEY HOLCOMB eos S64 0365 11/16/04 05:16pm P. 001
C RECEIVED
Nov 16 2c04
SLO CITY CLERK .
Q
RED FILE Residents for Quality NeighborhQ,os
P.O. Box 12,604 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 [�uU e�
AA ING AGENDA a-cou CIL TCDD DIR
D I) ITEM #� `CAO [ FIN DIR
to
CAO �-FIRE CHIEF
TTORNEY 2-PW DIR
DATE: November 15, 2004 EP7 � 'REC D RCHF
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council a'UTIL DIR
VIA: Fax to: 781-7109 O�HR DIR
RE: Meeting Date: November 16, 2004 - Item Number: PH. 7
SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, WITH AN EXCEPTION TO THE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, TO CREATE THREE PARCELS AT 303 DEL MAR
COURT (MS/ER149-04; THOMAS SCHOFF, APPLICANT).
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
RQN opposes the CAO recommendation to adopt a resolution approving an exception to the
City's subdivision regulations. This exception, if granted, would allow the creation of three
parcels, on an existing single lot, in an established R-1, low density residential
neighborhood.
303 Del Mar Court is located in an established, stable neighborhood of single-story, single-
family homes. The homes are on lots that are larger than the City's minimum lot size and
have generous street frontages. There are no multiple flag lot subdivisions in this
neighborhood or its surrounds.
The subject property, which includes two older homes, was purchased recently by the
applicant who is an absentee owner. This lot has the smallest street frontage in the
neighborhood. The frontage is entirely on a comer and is also the access way to the rental
units. It does not meet the City's minimum standards for street frontage and driveway
access which are requirements for a subdivision. The applicant is therefore requesting that
you grant him an exception to allow a street frontage that. is narrower than the minimum
allowed by the subdivision regulations.
There are several points that we feel are important for your council to consider with respect
to this application:
1. This in NOT an infill oroiect. Infill is defined in the Glossary of the General Plan
Housing Element, adopted March 30, 2004 as:
Development of housing on vacant lots within the City limits on property
zoned for such uses. [Emphasis added.]
2. The Proposed project is not consistent with the existing neighborhood: There are no
other flag lots in this neighborhood. Allowing flag lots at 303 Del Mar Court would set
a precedent for this neighborhood and for other similar R-1 neighborhoods in the
City.
CYDNEY HOLCOMB SOS S94 0965 11/16/04 OS:16pm P. 002
November 16, 2004
RQN - 303 Del Mar Court Page.2
3. The proposed proiect will not result in housing that most families can afford. "The
new houses would likely sell or rent for more than the existing houses". (Agenda
Report, p. 7-4.) In other words, this is a proposal to subdivide a lot within an
established neighborhood into precedent setting flag lots which are not consistent
with the surrounding neighborhood which will result in housing that it more
expensive than the existing housing on the lot.
4. The proyosed proiect is not consistent with the General Plan. Flag lots do not follow
the normal neighborhood pattern of this neighborhood and are therefore out of
character with the existing neighborhood. HE Policy 7.2.1 states:
Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a
character, size density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character
and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents.
Your Council has pledged repeatedly to preserve the character of the City's established
neighborhoods, including its "low density" and "larger lot" neighborhoods. This pledge is
meaningless if the reality Is that all existing neighborhoods are subject to being subdivided
down to the City's latest minimum lot size and each subdivision of an existing lot in an
established neighborhood becomes a precedent for further subdivision.
We respectfully request that you deny the application.
Cyddneyj�Holoco,m/b
Cy
Chairperson, RQN