HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2007, PH2 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT DEPTH STANDARDS (271 i
council A6
j aGEnaa izEpoin
CITY OF SAN L U I S 0 B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Jaime Hill, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSAL FOR A FIVE LOT SUBDMSION
WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT DEPTH STANDARDS (2710 AUGUSTA
STREET,TR/ER-104-06).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving a tentative tract
map and Negative Declaration of environmental impact for a five-lot subdivision with exceptions
to lot depth standards, located at 2710 Augusta Street (TR/ER 104-06).
DISCUSSION
Background
The applicant would like to re-subdivide the existing three parcel deep-lot subdivision at 2710
Augusta into five parcels, creating two additional developable parcels. The undeveloped area
adjacent to the street would become a separate parcel served directly from Augusta with a new
driveway, while the new lot at the center of the site would share the existing common access
driveway with the two already developed properties at 2710 and 2720 Augusta and the existing
vacant lot (Attachment 2). The proposed map includes an exception to the lot dimension
standards, MC 16.18.030 of the Subdivision Regulations. Because the lots would be oriented
towards the common driveway rather than the street, all of the lots, including the lot adjacent to
Augusta Street, would not meet the lot depth standard (90 feet) for the R-1 district. On January
10, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and determined that the proposed
project was consistent with the neighborhood pattern and unanimously recommended approval
of the subdivision map and environmental document to the City Council (Attachments 3, 4, and
5).
Data Summary
Address: 2710 Augusta
Property Owners/Applicants: John Ferguson and Jeremy Fissell
Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential)
General Plan: Low-High Density Residential
Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared
for the project and a Negative Declaration was recommended by the Deputy Director on
December 20, 2006 (ER 104-06, Attachment 6).
Council Agenda Report -
TR/ER 104-06 (27 10 Augusta)
Page 2
Site Description
The project site is on the east side of Augusta Street, and is completely surrounded by single-
family residences. The existing three parcel deep-lot subdivision is rectangular in shape and
encompasses less than an acre. The terrain is relatively level, with a slight slope from east to
west (towards Augusta Street). The property closest to the street (2710 Augusta) contains one
single-family residence with an attached garage, the center parcel (2716 Augusta) is vacant, and
the rear parcel (2720 Augusta) is developed with a legal non-conforming duplex. Vegetation on
site includes several trees, including palms, pines and other assorted landscape trees.
Project Description
The project includes re-subdividing the existing three parcel deep-lot subdivision into five lots,
as shown in the exhibit below.
3 5
2 3 4
� 2 �
1 `
Existing Lot Layout Proposed Lot Layout
Lot 1 would be a vacant 6,549 square foot site with frontage along Augusta Street; Lot 2 would
be a 8,223 square foot site encompassing the existing residence at 2710 Augusta; Lot 3 would be
a 6,286 square foot vacant site; Lot 4 would be a 6,067 square foot vacant site, and; Lot 5 would
be a 12,460 square foot site, including ownership of the common driveway, and developed with
a non-conforming duplex unit. In order to improve visibility and access, the applicant would
improve the existing driveway from Augusta, providing landscaping, a vehicle turn-around area
and trash-collection site. Development of the new lots is not proposed as part of this application,
however, the applicant has included examples of the types of homes which could be developed
on the lots (Project Plans, Attachment 2).
Evaluation
Subdivisions are reviewed for compliance with the General Plan, Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations, and Community Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission has considered each
of the project's issue areas prior to making a recommendation of approval on the subdivision and
negative declaration of environmental impact to the City Council. The Planning Commission
found the subdivision consistent with General Plan Policy and determined that the lots
orientation towards the common driveway rather than the public right-of-way was consistent with
the established neighborhood pattern, and therefore recommended approval of the project, as
—,z
Council Agenda Report
TR/ER 104-06 (27 10 Augusta)
Page 3
conditioned. A complete review of the issue areas summarized below can be found in the
Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 5.
1. General Plan
The site's Low Density Residential land use designation is intended to accommodate dwellings
having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood
cohesion. Consistent with several General Plan Land Use and Housing Element policies, this
plan proposes to locate additional housing in an existing neighborhood, close to services and
transit, with lots which will support development of homes similar in scale to those in the
immediate vicinity. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff report, the project was found
to be consistent with Land Use Element Policies 2.2.5 and 2.2.12, and Housing Element Policies
3.2.6, .6.3.9, and 7.2.1. These policies relate to neighborhood compatibility, infill development,
and residential project objectives.
2. Subdivision Regulations
The tentative tract map is subject to processing under the City's flag lot standards of the
Subdivision Regulations, which includes specific standards that are designed to minimize
impacts to adjacent properties. In this case, the proposal will not create a new flag lot, but instead
it will utilize an existing flag lot driveway to achieve access. With approval and development of
the proposed subdivision a total of four units will take access from the common driveway, the
maximum allowed by City standards. Because of the age and design of existing development,
necessary improvements to create logical access and buffering are already largely in place. The
width of the accessway will allow for a decorative pedestrian pathway along the driveway,
additional landscape buffering adjacent to the neighboring rear yards, and installation of "trash
can corral," to reduce the number of bins placed on the street for collection.
Because the lots are orientated towards the common driveway rather than the public right-of-way,
they will not comply with the lot depth .standards established in the Subdivision Regulations.
However, this is typical of deep-lot subdivisions (flag lots) and is consistent with the established
neighborhood pattern.
3.Property Development Standards
As previously mentioned, at this time no plans have been formalized for the development of the
proposed lots; however, the applicant has provided tentative site plans and home designs as
examples of what could be developed. Trash collection, site drainage and reasonable building
envelopes can all be accommodated.
At the rear of the site, on what has been proposed to be lot 5, is an existing legal non-conforming
duplex unit with no developed parking. The applicant has proposed to retain the structure, and
has provided tentative plans for how the building can be modified into a single-family residence
consistent with the R-1 zoning and where required parking can be provided. Modifications to this
structure will be required to be completed prior to recordation of the final map.
2 -3
Council Agenda Report
TR/ER 104-06 (27 10 Augusta)
Page 4
Environmental Review
The Planning Commission has recommended a Negative Declaration for the project. The Initial
Study has been included as Attachment No. 6 to this staff report.
Next Steps
Tract maps are a two-step process made up of a tentative map and a final map. The applicant
must satisfactorily complete all conditions of the tentative map before City consideration of the
final map. Final maps are brought back to the Council for action on the Consent Calendar.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works and Fire Department have reviewed the project and found the proposed project
layout, drainage plan, and driveway access to be acceptable. The Utilities Department provided
specific comments on the location of trash collection, and the final design of the required
landscape screening will be reviewed by staff with the final tract map. Additional discussion can
be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the proposed subdivision with specific direction to the applicant.
2. Approve a resolution denying the proposed subdivision, based on findings of inconsistency
with the Subdivision Regulations and/or General Plan Policies as specified by the City
Council.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Reduced Size Development Plans
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Resolution
Attachment 4: Planning Commission meeting update
Attachment 5: Planning Commission agenda report
Attachment 6: Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Attachment 7: Draft Resolution approving a negative declaration and tentative map'
G:UHi1KSubdivision\MS-ER 104-06(27 10 Augusta)\Council Rpt 104-06.doc
rpl,
VICINITY MAP file No. 104=06
! 27109 27169 2720 Augusta
R
-Attachmet 2
Lamus visnsnv
------------------T.------
Olt U—
al s
om
74
VI
I
LA
Ei p U c x 0 M o
13.
0
C,7
3.i4bsNNpf
---- --- --- ------ — ---- -Auachme t 2
mals v.Lsnonv
I �
— ---- -- —T — �— — —
/ r �u
1 n I o jEASE EN IB
> �
J� I 1
O -
IM
FhSEMENT2 n mil
: I m I -
m
30
I� LO I.
' I I �----------- 1.
RO)CO CO) IO
w
co M"o
zD
CACA
° a "�+ =m U ( �
mm u� mm amm
m mm aimm
-4 -i <m 1
_ m
N N C m + � 0 D
nv =3 �
m=D mom
�d y � y N(D
CD
y 7 pp d ('�� 150vOd'9 _LLZ.IMN 4
OT
V
m � \CP_
m m N N Q V \y 15 v15110M
N � W
4
�t 2
Att
0
or$PzT m
Jk r 8oe:o A g` �'
e O $ a tN D °4� D
a p RSG
m -� C "N4F
X • �u
m
' I -
I
I
eak ?$ > — —
a" n
Baa � � h
Au -M emm _
3 SAH lr O
ITI _
7 :€ Ln
y
Bg. V)
HIS
,* . .
I�
RM C rn I = Z
`G
1rri
n N�
mm o
D c` tij'o r� I
J.
Lh
s ;u
a A o n n vo
5� n � �{ b 0 Tri \ I
tW m f1 Z hh
la -�C ��' '� A�.,;
Al, cis
Ln
RN I A F
Am
�Sy�kF�y3+�R3 F
A C)
=a'�a R
aR� ggg C cI
l 2
� ass
Ri
O aaWA
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PIAN
o s_� $F ERIC J. GOBLER d'.4 m.
$e JOHN FERGUSON & JEREMY FISSELL CIVIL ENGINEERING -\� w' _
'?°' 4. �i
• IPAti 18B].IDI I,1,]..a s. .IPM:Ooh7B1-OBp,089,DIO
° '
Z 2710. 2716 & 2720 AUGUSTA STREET 9110 ATASCADERO AVE
C/lYOF SAN LU/S OBISPO ATASCADERO, CA. 93422 �T. .NMY`ID t w
� g ��'
p M Llr Joel.aa-ssee au FkG
Affameet 2
i
I
I
I �
I
I
!
i
I ,
I
i
I
pp <p P��� 4`
-
G ^ 41pg$'�_ ��$x a {Q0 g+ A. Y • $ .11A^61
,Yp
g��E
11,11
c gg E 8 E Aqs '
I $ � � �� �R���B A RAE �& t aF � Y�� �fg•A ��
>>>> @@ 4g® ]aP
4111,
3 `ga
k A €q P 3E qI 33 a" -all �
Hoe
�P � At RA's H
I ^
Nil!F i' s CE F@�Sa 95A4 lh E $ 11511l; �� R .5% T 0 A� R a, € a ai
q�q� �$ A48E� � � • 33@B ap'�p %R � a' Y�e^ ¢g �8
'A B 1 R� g g3Y, 8 � d J8��pq A
a jyy�• yg as s �� p 9 xg aP €S �4 ® E€j Pal
€E g i €E 0 p € t t'�,
1 7 x g9B$ ;p 6Fgq akp Y 9 a ga
PH
.4P HIP E� 8� ,€ R� ��� � E�gPgit
114
fill
a �aaR� €P� 55d��
:o Y € �@p fi p Pi ag &a � aa e3 oy
IF
yjdgk � g 5� E. yg �p7¢ a gq;a8 11� a Ss �1g RggE �r y�
.__'Pi•S3p g� a�
€ �R Svia
$q
s € y9 pi A 511zI
a UR
Ed 3 $ gieaaa pppSa� g5€ apF�nE
E
PRELIM/NARY GRADING ANO DRAINAGE PLANERIC J. GOBLERJOHN FERGUSON & JEREMY FISSELLCIVIL ENGINEERINGt.2.].a t s. Mt:oo M-060.018,0)o2710 2716 k 2720 AUGUSTA STREET 91IO ATASCADERO AVEATASCADERO. CA. 91422CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOg _ e b o{. taW2.»-m uu thssuo. Y�
I
� _ 9
I
ATTACHMENT 2
I '
AQ 41
i
I
• ._ —_—__ _ —^_ _ ` - -_ __ —__ _— &9a$ $ �E3EEB 33Eg.�gAg R1i6'Agg ! alt 4,!!�� l g l4 � �333g S� a 6 ' O�
fI A
j JAI
gMil . 5
�3"
a$�$Fl�Ge�e3
PES= $. s a gPkP` pig �. g
P I` y�y t; a PR I Psi( : ag$galai ta ,�apla . F § $ PRl 3
a ig P� tP ! @�pjy a �43 �$Qy"�G11 1� IgE
�RaR"P S Raa3� g
$a Y �� �3�m; � 'C � 6
: G pp
��Ilt SIE
iPIPe
I
'PI
i
it
!g'
' �P p �• �± #g I��
lix jig
7I . A! RF : 11
o
fit
5q G@ Y
i I PRlI
Y
Age R'6
fit
i111:IP N'�!1-i 41 E�=e9�q$ til tag � 940$1a$R K . 1E
i
II PI _ l s A
Pi
l F P
p e EEgg
ig 8 p" 1e�i�' i at .1
�Iloe 8a ¢, n ° a! 14 :I!
v Ell `t If d �I g1, I
� E SkgdR !; R°x SS
all Y R Ilit
PR£UM/NARY GRAOWG AND DRAINAGE PLAN ®- a
W F Y� —; 3 'Tr ERIC J. GOBLER �a�, cu°h�� wv p8
4o a JOHN FERGUSON & JEREMY FISSELL CIVIL ENGINEERING ice . e 0
e W - TUC 2OZ IDT 1.2.].4 a s. .we oN-1@-00.069.ma `"�:.,�� j S:_h
.,
p A
u S H 2710, 2716 G 2720 4000STA STREET 9110 4TASCADERO AVE :.i
gg _ CITY OF SAN LU/ ArnscA '" t 3
01 Y . $ ODISPO 1�TDEOCA. 93622
Attacnment
E '
�� a e' s• a` 3' i99 9 $ 5 a3 9
gR y 'u 5 E E
§
g= a
II '
I i `
i g 3
AUGUSTA_STREET _ \�'. �) i -. „✓I:_u.. __-_ zc
� 1
�. IMG t�{ -t �..1 ^� �\
z �• EE $9
-- -y'
a [ _
°Y � :`At• �E E�� w,S$a ,��.� i 'nr gSaE
I __ �� �� ;gas �• a g g j # g_
E' 4 `i
all al I
�• `.7{• w p. g d� ° 5i5pap q�R� AE Ria agg q54
�q5� f� a• a o.�a.-. �4��.,,.— � t:a 5�@��g50 3 gA ���� �a� A ��
Q• �. yds v Kq .o• —'se..- �@ q8G S�R� @3a� ��a � �EsS
Y _• n G ..q a �. ® C Oft Elj� 4a� pAN
pill 13M 10"
5 s
�`
Lo1
ag ` 4 f E
o I a1'��
�a •. i. / it § t5f3�1 � ta�aFaa ppa
F E5 .SyR �� 3y
' a 1pyp-' � - - . . py�1#g .•Q i.i h �E� � 4
Iia
PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANd --
ERIC J. GOBLER `m ctTiiYly
....o.. 2 .. d,.
[Q JOHN FERGUSON & JEREMY FISSELL CIVIL ENGINEERING
' + 5 • 1RAC1 IDES.LOT 1,2.1.•1 S. EPX:EO•-]82-U W.069•010 �'6 ° `•�I� d$�� o
• J 9 C 2710. IJt6 k 2J20 AULUSf4 STREET 9110 ATASCADERE AVE �•; :•¢ • n S
/ ? ATASCAOERO. CA. 9}422 r�: :�� •�:
q 8 �, C?Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO cenm w-auz r 4i�°o'•:"a„�'Y: HG•Ganm n:
9 uImIN. V
I
1 I
I
I
i
I
I
I
j
I
I
I _
I
I
AUGUSTA SMEEI
I
I o $g
�Y .mJu.•mlm� _
I. J19, 9999
sv
�a I
-- -'
Jam, 1. � _j — f T-'1 -• I ... I _ I
a k i
' I I
L
I
PRELIMINARY GRAWNG AND DRAINAGE PUN
U7 2 6 7 € ! IC J. GOOLER
JONN FERGUSON & JEREMY FISSELL CVRiL ENGINEERING
p dd ^
c IY pp 9 WO M2.LO7 T.2.0.1 A S. AD,:004-782-061.089.070 _ _ _-
9 3 2710. 2716 R 2720 AUGUSTA STREET 9110 ATASCADERO AVE
A ATASCADERO, CA. 93122
€€ C C/7Y 4OF SAN LUIS OB/SPO
-
. n V
Attachment 2
I
III
I
AUGUSTA STREET
31
CX
I S•�orJJY1.. .I
-I �
I • �
t
I E
r � �
� ll
ll
If a,yQ4iT __
..I FAL I I 'i t ag99P4 � � o
pp
o
GE iEY
ON. $ 7 8@ $6 I_..
\ aa �
T 1 PREZIYWARY CR40WG AND ORIINAG£PLAN
01 - a 3 -E ERIC J. GOBLER
s JgONN� z FERGUSONxr,s& JEREMY
un mam.lon,070 L CIVI
L ENGINEERING
ow
? 2710. 2716 d 2720 AUGUSTA STREET 9110 ATASCADERO AVE j•[ °�•/ $°O $ f
r d 4TASCAOERO. CA. 92422
a) F p $ E, CITY F SAN LUIS OB/SPO
a nluloL tew>.,.-�..cJu h�w�oS
Attachment 2
tR-1
j II 1111
-9
f �'
0
I IN
LLW
TE
1A
ro
jj
Attachment 2
+ m
I
±p
z m .1—
p .
i rn m I I
9 X -
i r
8 p 1~ = p O I I
m $
Fri
I
F•ii •ttlihi' 2
I yic
x6 ]SAJfi3zs:S ,_J �Oc
1i f�•{SES�IN. I '� �'Dln
I
{ yy C
T y s tl
0 1T�ti H"t' '"C 4't i f i � `• 4, /
i�i ( N •up, � 1 W
-------
617E PLAN
{I S I f2f }"�1� IllG1 CM MDMCOIr°Y Mnt a coa hn
s t \\v
Au6uafa swot Rool{luneo I ,.�., � ../] ...... ..
Attachment
O
7 m
Z
I T
E T.�"�
------------------- T
tt A'D-
-Di
------------
I 11,t Q t: i l .-1 9 it. 5 t t T UZ Z -1-21 lt?t 22- Z
a :"j
Fas; Tg I
11 - M.,
11 tit I I
029
Lit
AqiV il!ll iP;
02
64
Ell Z
2 it
1 11 � I i it
It
it I! it it T.
4 it; 11t.i 1 51 1 0.
it
: . Z
V,rz
Wilt
1i"
z
irl, 1;:
p
RN
IN
Im C
r 2
tip t�t A
Oil
-14
tit
R�Flpa:e °t�tzl5iac S IAtfFp
i I iL2 1!, 2 J1 I
FLOOR PLM(a.RtmL oxp
Attachment 2
4161-
7u
T
•
---------I
----—--- ------
Ell 3 p jul- i
iij
A
z
5!11
pgi
.. . .. . . .. .. .
3q
f
af
oz
I Bji
:4-4
t A•
g
a'
IS
1; H I,, , il ;,' It
r -ill U
lu
I r itit to, i
I t2
l
FLOOR PLAN(LEVEL TWO) it,
too
Augusta SUset Rosideme 1
Attachme,it 2
z °
m y a y y + m
a s a a
I
I
i
i
A - A
W N �
°o s , a
r
H m azT
O r
3 0
i A R
I VS., ➢ sa -
t
Sz
i O34
1..
j s�Gd P 's 3 jd
i 1=�
is
^ gga 4'!Y9 9Y49�
f s:fi•i
jR ddiF"s.d,FYF
f Radit f s9" '
R � � ' v u •1, lul
1 140
(
a 9
SITE PLAN.
I � e $= p i 5` \ arxyw.c�wsunu.n.sgq a naynts
`v Mi g I i 1 J i A I;wta Str l Resi/nnw 2
Attarhaual
0
L7Fi
1. V,
i L;j F2—i
------------
4
---------------- 1.V
. - -- - !i U.-
4
TT i
I' a Xylr7la .7Fr
%; J
-'11'i
is
I's i
'ji f!og
'P. it
if
R," el
oil t
I if
7111-,PH 11 121 . . . . ... .. . ..
I' I if
q I
C.g' if I
I bel If I 'i
70
IF
s;if. i
jf�
q q
iE
fL f 1 45 f
-se
I Zo
Fj 5
f FLOOR PLAIN(LEVEL ONE)
Augmto SS t ft.Woa 2
Attachment 2
I —
I
I
I
I
- 1 --- —=— -----------------
- __=--
E / d �al v°�' T a R%•,�I• .o of (• •I j
skL V
I y i
XI-11"a, !Vi ! I
*- R
i
6:i9f ¢IteEi Yn27:F:a gIn!•y65F�g y�
' ,31 .d g • .S-�aR�E '�Lag9gS g9 eR4i439 111
2E3 § hod `e9�
L �C S Figgg9ggg' : g E C f 'a
I ae9Z � c e e � e ; E
j $ F7-7 = dia itrv:aec a:R$`• :7' N ° • ® • r o
3 ^ lie 1 It e s IF �} C .. . ... .a x ..
116 gl HI -s:a; `Safes p§ai•? �" 3 9;EF°$ a:§ i3¢ zDd �I� IEI Q
IIII iS:. .Fa t is i4. ga
#I � d Isrlsrl aqF i s 71pp d $$75$ €[[gt s $i : r M
•95 S�f
I�l-�pl-� r 33 g r
i.° $_i ��.� i a ]] O !{{iii°-[ E E xjjv a° °J3A{t(aJg/r, m ER ER S'•° rc Ir Y 1
I j� � I q �g3 2� 8' C CaA§, y}i �•�R Sa�S" � S�.diu6 F N n h 3 � $ fE �a �; � g
I ' I I I Sc ° € r $i .d[`a7•'�a C:°g�e �i�°i.dt F� �$� $"k!. S � r§a ° i
z'� Rt' I•cCd m aEti, f EEyF§••af qCS r; t r.da dT.�..°
';+ r r �-^ gg ffq r n i Lp§x i e7•pB:Iw � " I
.I 4k X811 1 E k s ; S is I.; i; SS L cp. r n S SO R n 7
e�F�{g )
6Sit'
I [ t I c ((r r � sg :� ` :. q:' r.;:• t? SF F E • EEE.
yr 3 I�il S a � '2 �q 5 ?•a C $ ° S � iaGv49
l g g t
FLOOR ULAN(LEVEL TWO)
o
Ros"ftw 2
air rsueem.n...1no a o.w.1..
"
i
Attachment
® m
N
® O
i
.+n
D
9
0
u a S v n O
o3 03
Oset
L1 oCloset O
Bathroom m Z
n
® m
N LA
- n Z
T
0o Q
m lJ
m rno Q
w A.
Z ® O
Ln
ILI❑ GZ1
I io �z D
3
n
Bathroom r
<
s �
Ln
=�
Bathroom q� �0 0 o w m
n
a m
m
X
N
� m
r n p v
H p O
8 V V
iN
i
i Bamroom 3 i � o Q � $n Z
y p 9 T
R
O�
r
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 5470-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION.
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTATL IMPACT AND TENTATIVE TRACT_MAP
TO RE-SUBDIVIDE THREE LOTS INTO FIVE LOTS
WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULARIONS
FOR PROPERTY AT 2710 AUGUSTA STREET; TR AND ER 104-06 (TRACT 2882)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
January 10, 2007,for the purpose of considering application.TR and ER 104-06, a request to re-
subdivide a three parcel deep-lot subdivision into five parcels; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project, and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findin¢s.
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 compact urban form and a variety of housing
types compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This is because the proposed new lots are
within an existing neighborhood, located along an existing common-access driveway, and are
surrounded by urban development.
2. As conditioned, the site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed
in the R-1 zone, since the proposed lots meet area standards as required within the R-1
district and project conditions will require architectural review for new development.
3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious
health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat since the project does not involve significant tree removals, it does
not interfere with creeks or wetlands, and the site is surrounded by urban development.
Attachment 3
Resolution No.-5470-07
• 2710 Augusta Street
Page 2
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of
property within) the proposed subdivision since all adjacent properties are accessed
independently and the proposed lots, as conditioned, will gain access from the existing
shared driveway.
Exceptions to Subdivision Standards for Lot Depth
5. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic
conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform
to the strict application of the regulations codified in the Subdivision Ordinance. Approval
of this subdivision in accordance with the lot depth standards would require demolition of, or
moving an existing residence. General Plan policy discourages the demolition of sound
housing and there is no public benefit to require the existing house to be moved; and
6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole
reason for granting the modification. It is City policy to conserve existing housing and
prevent displacement of occupants; and
7.. As conditioned, the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the modification will only
result in a reduced lot depth, and orientation of the lots towards the common-access
driveway. If the lot depth were measured from the proposed flag lot access driveway these
lots would meet all standards of the Subdivision Ordinance; and
8. Granting the exception 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 since it does not grant special privileges or modify allowable land uses within the
existing R-1 district.
9. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
December 19, 2006. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the project's
Negative Declaration adequately identifies that there is no foreseeable potential for
significant environmental impacts by the proposed project.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Commission hereby recommends approval of the tentative tract map for five residential lots
and adoption of said Negative Declaration (TR/ER 104-06), with incorporation of the following
project conditions:
1. The new parcels shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall be considered "Sensitive Sites"
and construction shall be subject to architectural review to consider neighborhood
compatibility.
2. Prior to recordation of the final map, the non-conforming duplex on lot 5, addressed as 2720
Augusta, shall be modified to conform with standards for the R-1 district, as a single-family
dwelling with three parking spaces, at least one of which is covered.
'� ~}
• Resolution No. 5470-07 Attachment 3
2710 Augusta Street
Page 3
3. The existing driveway approach and any new approach shall comply with current City and
ADA standards.
4: Lots 2 thru 5 shall share a common driveway approach to Augusta Street, and each residence
shall be designed in consistency with City Standards for deep-lot subdivisions.
5. A landscape plan shall be prepared as part of the subdivision improvement plans. An
adequate quantity of screening shrubs shall be planted at the edge of the accessway adjacent
to the existing residence on the property and along the opposite edge of the accessway where
it adjoins neighboring properties. Additional trees and shrubs may be necessary as required
by Community Development Department. Landscape tree varieties shall be a minimum size
of 15-gallon nursery stock.
6. The subdivider shall provide a 4-foot wide band of stamped concrete to differentiate a
pedestrian path within the driveway from the sidewalk to the rear of the lots.
7. All subdivision improvements expressed within the project, and project conditions, shall be
completed prior to the recordation of the final map, unless a bond in an amount sufficient to
ensure improvements has been posted for the project..
8. Prior to recordation of the final map the driveway access to lot 2 (which spans lots 2 and 3
and is covered by an access easement) shall be modified as necessary to meet City standards
for afire truck and vehicle turn-around.
9. In addition to the easements listed on the tentative map, an easement shall be recorded over
the driveways on lots 2 and 3 for vehicle and fire truck turn-around. This easement shall
include a stipulation that vehicles may not park in this area for any duration of time.
10. Fire Department Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code
(CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a.
surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
11. 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 or employees to attack, set aside,
void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto,
including but not limited to environmental review.
12. 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.
13. Impact fees shall be paid at the time of new development. Impact fee credit may be
available for the demolition of the existing legal unit in accordance with the related
ordinances for Water, Sewer, and Traffic Impact fees.
Attachment 3
Resolution No. 5470-07
2710 Augusta Street
Page 4
14. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent
with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
15. 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.
On motion by Commissioner Stevenson, seconded by Commissioner Ashbaugh, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson,Miller, McCoy, Stevenson, Gould-Wells
NOES: None
kEFRAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 10''day of January, 2007.
Doug David on, Secretary
Planning Commission
—=�L-57
Attachment 4
Meeting Update
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
January 10, 2007 Wednesday 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
OATH OF OFFICE: Swearing in of new Commissioners, Amanda Brodie and Diana
Gould-Wells
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Amanda Brodie,
Diana Gould-Wells, Jason . McCoy, Vice Chairperson Carlyn
Christianson, and Chairperson Andrea Miller
All Commissioners were present.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as written.
MINUTES: Minutes of December 13, 2006. Approve or amend.
The minutes were approved without modification.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There was no public comment on items not on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 137.44 and 1386 Pismo Street. AP/MS 137-06: Appeal of the Hearing Officer's
a royal of a tentative parcel map creating a 4 lot common interest subdivision. R-2
zon Howard Nicholson, applicant; Evelyn Talmage, appellant. (Phil Dunsmore)
The Planning\Commission voted 6-1 (Stevenson) to deny the appeal and uphold the
Hearing Officers approval of a parcel map creating a 4-lot common interest subdivision
from two existing`l�ts. Testimony and discussion focused on parking issues and the
improvements proposed at the end of Pismo Street, which terminates at the railroad in
this location. \
2. Downtown Core Area. G\PA and ER 50-06: Discussion of recommended General
Plan amendments to revise policies and programs relating to Downtown building
height, intensity limits and flodrNarea ratio in the downtown core, and environmental
review; City of San Luis Obispo,applicant. (Continued from December 13, 2006).
(Michael Codron)
The Planning Commission continued their discussion of downtown building heights and
intensity limits and recommended approval of proposed General Plan Amendments
and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environme'&,V Impact on a 6-1 vote (Ashbaugh).
The Commission re-opened the hearing for publtestimony and heard from four
'e-2-—"-2-�e
Planning Commission Agenaa Attachment 4
Page 2
additionals_�peake-rs'-wbo were not present at the December le meeting. The
Commission's discussion focc- se he features that would be required of projects
that are allowed to build taller than the curren t limit of 50 feet.
3. 2710, 2716 and 2720 Augusta Street. TR and ER 104-06: Consideration of a
tentative tract map to resubdivide a three parcel deep lot subdivision into five lots,.
with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for depth-to-width standards, and
environmental review; R-1 zone; John Ferguson, applicant. (Jaime Hill)
The Commission recommended approval of the proposed subdivision to the City
Council. Discussion focused on the improvements proposed as part of the project,
which include conversion of a non-conforming duplex on the site to a single-family
home, additional landscaping, a fire-truck turnaround, a garbage collection area and
three new residences. Several members of the public spoke, primarily in support of the
project. Concerns were raised regarding privacy, pedestrian safety on the common
access driveway, and the potential for future access at the back of the site to an
adjacent lot that may be subdivided. The Commission approved the project on a 7-0
vote, with a condition added to require a 4' wide pedestrian path along the driveway to
be delineated with stamped concrete.
4. 11143,EI1a Street. TR and ER 21-06: Consideration of a tentative Tract Map
creating -1-6�rspace residential condominiums and environmental review; R-2 zone;
Brian Rolph, Applicant. Leveille)
The Planning Commrss�on�unanimously recommended approval of the proposed
subdivision of an existing 16-unit apartment project. The City Council approved the
condominium conversion for the apartments in 2006. As part of that process, the
applicant is required to proceed through the subdivision process. Before making their
recommendation, the Commission discussed the-potential for covered parking, disabled
access, and the improvements associated with the pub is path to Terrace Hill.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
CO SCUSSN:O
5. Staff
A. Agenda Forecast
Staff provided the Commission with an update of upcoming agenda items.
6. Commission
ADJOURN to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990
Palm Street.
Presenting Planner(s): Michael Codron, Phil Dunsmore
® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
=:2—.=)- 7
Attachment 5
- ;
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM# 3
-B1': Jaime Hill, Associate Planner(781-7165) 'r'H MEETING DATE: January 10, 2007
FROM: Doug Davidson,Deputy Director-Development Review
FILE NUMBER:=FR/ER 104-06 ---- —
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2710 Augusta
SUBJECT: Review of a proposed tentative tract map, with exceptions to the standards for lot
depth contained in the Subdivision Regulations, to create five lots from three existing parcels on
Augusta Street, between Gerda Street and San Marcos Court, and the associated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
and tentative tract map to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant would like to re-subdivide the existing three parcel deep-lot subdivision at 2710
Augusta into five parcels, creating two new parcels and three new vacant lots. The undeveloped
area adjacent to the street would be served directly from Augusta with a new driveway, while the
two new lots at the center of the site would share the existing common access driveway with the
two already developed properties at 2710 and 2720 Augusta. The proposed map includes an
exception to the lot dimension standards, MC 16.18.030 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Because the lots would be oriented towards the common driveway rather than the street, all of
the lots, including the lot adjacent to Augusta Street, would not meet the lot depth standard for
the R-1 district.
Data Summary
Address: 2710 Augusta
Applicant/Property Owner: John Ferguson and Jeremy Fissell
Zoning: R-1 (Low-Density Residential)
General Plan: Low-Density Residential
Environmental Status: An initial study of environmental review has been prepared for the project
and staff has determined that the project will result in less than significant impacts when developed
in accordance with City standards (Attachment 5).
Attachment 5
TR 104-06 (27 10 Augusta)
Page 2
Site Description
The project site is on the east side of Augusta Street, and is completely surrounded by single-
family residences. The existing three parcel deep-lot subdivision is rectangular in shape and
encompasses less than an acre. The terrain is relatively level, with a slight slope from east to
west (towards Augusta Street). The property closest to the street (2710 Augusta) contains one
single-family residence with an attached garage, the center, parcel (2716 Augusta) is vacant, and
the rear parcel (2720 Augusta) is developed with a legal non-conforming duplex. Vegetation on
site includes several multiple trees including palms, pines and other assorted landscape trees.
Proiect Description
The project includes re-subdividing the existing three parcel deep-lot subdivision into five lots.
Lot 1 would be a vacant 6,549 square foot site with frontage along Augusta Street; Lot 2 would
be 8,223 square feet in area and encompass the existing residence at.2710 Augusta; Lot 3 would
be a 6,286 square foot vacant site; Lot 4 would be a 6,067 square foot vacant site, and; Lot 5
would be a 12,460 square foot site, including ownership of the common driveway, and
.developed with a non-conforming duplex unit. In order to improve visibility and access, the
applicant would improve the existing driveway from Augusta, providing landscaping, a vehicle
tum-around area and trash-collection site. Development of the new lots is not proposed at this
time.
EVALUATION
The proposed tentative tract map will result in five lots, which would conform to City standards
in terms of their overall area and access. However, because of their orientation towards the
common driveway rather than the public right-of-way, they would require an exception to the lot
depth standard. Because this type of subdivision and lot orientation is consistent with the
established neighborhood pattern, and numerous General Plan policies would be implemented by
the project, staff is supportive of the subdivision proposal. The following discussion evaluates
the project in terms of City policies and standards.
1. General Plan Consistency
The project site is designated as "Low Density Residential" in the General Plan Land Use
Element (LUE) map and located within the R-1 Zoning District. The General Plan contains
policies to insure that new housing development is consistent with established neighborhood
character and patterns. These policies are listed below in bold print and staffs analysis follows
in italics.
��9
Attachment 5
TR 104-06 (27 10 Augusta)
Page 3
Land Use Element
LU 2.2.5 Street Access
New residential developments, or redevelopments involving large sites, should be designed
to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and medium-or high density housing to
driveways accessible from collector streets. Major arterials through residential areas shall
provide only limited private access or controlled street intersections.
Staffs Analysis:Augusta Street operates as a residential collector, with moderate traffic volumes
and relatively low traffic speeds. Increasing the residential density on the access driveway, and
adding an additional single-family driveway is not likely to create any traffic or safety issues. As
proposed, four residential units would utilize the existing driveway access, which conforms to
City standards, and one unit would utilize a separate standard driveway off Augusta Street.
LU 2.2.12: Residential Project Objectives
Residential projects should provide:
A)Privacy,for occupants and neighbors of the project;
B) Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds, and oriented
to receive light and sunshine;
D)Pleasant views from and toward the project;
G)Adequate parking and storage space;
I) Design elements that facilitate neighborhood interaction, such as front porches, front
yards along streets,and entryways facing public walkways.
Staffs Analysis: Although the site's flag lot configuration and shared driveway make it more
difficult to design residential units that easily comply with the objectives contained in General
Plan Policy LU 2.2.12, the project is consistent with the established neighborhood pattern.
Although units for the undeveloped lots have not been proposed at this time, the applicant has
provided examples of home designs that could be developed in compliance with City standards.
The plans depict the homes which maximize lot coverage, and it is likely that the actual homes
will be significantly reduced in scale. The project's consistency with each objective is evaluated
in the following paragraphs:
A) Developing additional residences at this site will not reduce privacy for neighbors of the
project, since a landscape buffer at the edge of the driveway near private backyards will be
maintained.
B) Standards for lot depth are intended to insure that there is reasonable private outdoor area,
and that homes are oriented toward the street. As designed, all of.the units without frontage
on Augusta will have a comparable layout, fronting the common driveway. The unit with
frontage on Augusta will have ample yard area to the south of the home.
D) Where surrounding residential development exists on adjacent parcels, the subdivision
regulations require that new parcels served by flag lots be declared as "Sensitive Sites,"
thereby requiring Architectural Review of proposed development. This review will evaluate
proposed development design to protect adjacent properties from overlook, encroachment of
} Attachment 5
TR 104-06 (2710 Augusta)
Page 4
solar access, and adequate protection and privacy.
G) Due to limited street frontage, parking demand issues within flag lot subdivisions are
common. The subdivision regulations require that each of the lots within a flag lot
subdivision provide one additional parking space than required by code. In this case, the
tentative site plans for the new lots has demonstrated that it is possible to place additional
parking on separately owned, developed lots.
I) As demonstrated by the tentative home plan for the lot fronting Augusta, the site can be
developed with a front entry and pathway directly from the street.
Housing Element
HE 3.2.6 Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and
quality of life of established neighborhoods.
Staffs Analysis: Because there is an existing access driveway which can be utilized, which will
be improved with landscaping and a garbage can corral, the quality of the setting will not be
compromised. The existing driveway is 22 feet wide and bordered on one side by a landscape
screen, and on the other side by existing residences. The plans propose to add some additional .
landscape along either side of the driveway. The driveway improvements also include a garbage
can corral to reduce the number of bins placed on Augusta on garbage day, and a vehicle/fire
truck turn-around.
HE 6.3.9 Balance City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing as much
on infill development and densification within City Limits as on annexation of new
residential land.
Staffs Analysis: The proposed project provides an opportunity to locate additional housing in an
existing neighborhood, close to services and transit.
HE 7.2.1 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.
Staffs Analysis: As demonstrated by the tentative home plans, the proposed lots would support
development of homes similar in scale to those in the immediate vicinity. Architectural review
will ensure that the new units do not undermine the quality of life within the neighborhood.
2. Subdivision Regulations
The tentative tract map is subject to processing under the City's flag lot standards of the
Subdivision Regulations (MC 16.18.060, Attachment 5). Flag lots must be designed to conform
to specific standards that are designed to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. In this case, .
the proposal will not create a new flag lot, but instead it will utilize an existing flag lot driveway
to achieve access. Because of the age and design of existing development, necessary
Attachment 5
TR 104-06 (2710 Augusta)
Page 5
to achieve access. Because of the age and design of existing development, necessary
improvements to create logical access and buffering are already largely in place. The following
discussion highlights the proposed project's consistency with applicable code requirements. The
pertinent sections of the subdivision Regulations are summarized in bold followed by staff's
analysis in italics.
MC 16.18.060 B. The original lot shall have frontage on a dedicated street of at least the
minimum dimensions required by these regulations (20 feet).
Staff's Analysis: The frontage for the original lot adjacent to Augusta Street(2 710 Augusta) is
110 feet wide, which exceeds current standards. Although a new lot would now be located
between 2710 Augusta and the street, the new front lot would maintain the long frontage. The
existing developed lot would no longer have any frontage.on Augusta, and would utilize the
existing easement over the flag-lot driveway to achieve access.
MC 16.18.060 C. The accessway to the rear shall be at least 20 feet wide. Driveway width
and paving shall be determined by the City parking and driveway standards and is subject
to approval of the Community Development Director.
Staffs Analysis The existing accessway is 22 feet wide, with a 20 foot wide paved driveway. The
Parking and Driveway Standards would require a driveway of this type to be a minimum of only
16 feet wide to accommodate two-way traffic.
MC 16.18.060 D. Accessway driveways greater than 300 feet in length may be required to
provide two way vehicle access and fire truck access, and shall provide appropriate turn-
around areas for standard vehicles to exit the driveway in a forward motion.
The 20 foot wide driveway is suitable for two way vehicle access. The Fire Department has
authorized the use of the existing driveway for lot 2 (which spans lots 2 and 3 and is covered by
an access easement) as a vehicle/fire truck turn-around, consistent with City standards. A
condition of approval has been recommended to require that improvements to the driveway
surface necessary to facilitate this use, including an access easement, is completed prior to
recordation of the final map.
MC 16.18.060 E. Each lot shall have yards as required by Zoning Regulations. A
landscape area with sufficient width to plant screening shrubs and trees (minimum of eight
feet) shall be reserved between the access driveway (and any required turn-around areas)
and existing or proposed residential structures.
Staffs Analysis: This code requirement was designed to implement General Plan Land Use
Element Policy 2.2.12, to ensure that existing residential yards and bedrooms will not be
impacted by vehicles entering or exiting driveways. As mentioned previously, the existing
accessway is 22 feet wide, with a 20 foot wide paved driveway. The applicant has shown some
additional landscaping in this area, which will help beautify the accessway from the street
1 Attachrnent 5
TR 104-06 (27 10 Augusta)
Page 6
prospective and increase privacy of the adjacent rear yards. This treatment could be continued
the length of the driveway, further reducing any impact on adjacent residents. Staff has
recommended a condition of approval that the final tract map include a landscape plan for the
entire length of the driveway. Landscaping and screening of units for the proposed lots will be
evaluated as pan of the architectural review of the dwellings.
MC 16.18.060 F. For each residence served by a flag lot driveway, one additional off street
parking space shall be provided. The parking space may not be within the street yard or in
tandem to other required parking spaces.
Staffs Analysis: Lots 2-5 are required to supply a total of three parking spaces each, in addition
to a fire-truck turn-around (Lot I will be served by a private driveway off Augusta Street and
have access to street parking). As demonstrated by the tentative site plans for the lots it would be.
possible to accommodate the additional parking spaces for the lots taking access from the}lag
lot driveway. The existing dwelling on Lot 2 is already developed with two covered and one
uncovered parking space.
MC 16.18.060 H. The lot farthest from the street shall own the accessway in fee. Other lots
using the accessway shall have an access easement over it.
Staffs Analysis: The lot farthest from Augusta Street would continue to own the accessway in fee.
3.Property Development Standards
No plans have been formalized for the development of the proposed lots at this time; however,
the applicant has provided tentative site plans and home designs as examples of what could be
developed. The development layout on lots 3 and 4 would be somewhat restricted by the need to
have the driveways designed to also function as a vehicle/fire truck turn-around per City
standard. However, there is an opportunity to have a shared driveway between these two units,
which would reduce the total amount of hardscape and allow for additional landscape area. Trash
collection, site drainage and reasonable building envelopes can all be accommodated.
At the rear of the site, on what has been proposed to be lot 5, is an existing legal non-conforming
duplex unit with no developed parking. The applicant has proposed to retain the structure, and
has provided tentative plans for how the building can be modified into a single-family residence
and has shown where required parking can be provided. Modifications to this structure will be
required to be completed prior to recordation of the final map.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
and tentative tract map to the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES
39
Attachment 5
TR 104-06 (27 10 Augusta)
Page 7
1. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or project modifications required.
2. Recommend denial of the map based on findings.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Lot Dimensions MC 16.18.030 and Table 3: Minimum Lot Area&Dimensions
Attachment 3: Flag Lot standards, MC 16.18.060
Attachment 4: Initial Study of Environmental Review ER 104-06
Attachment 5: Resolution recommending approval of the tentative tract map to City Council
Enclosed: Full-size project plans.
G:VffflMubdivision\MS-ER 104-06(27 10 Augusta)\TR 104-06 PC rpt(1-10-07).DOC
� �y
Attachment G
iillllllilll�� 11 �� tuigbaspoc, o san
Community Development Department•919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 104-06
1. Project Title: Tentative Tract Map TR/ER 104-06
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Jaime Hill, Associate Planner (805) 781-7165
4. Project Location: 2710, 2716 and 2720 Augusta Street
City of San Luis Obispo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: John Ferguson
192 Country Club Drive
San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401
Jeremy Fissel
2760 Tenbrook
San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-1;Low Density Residential
8. Description of the Project:
Request to re-subdivide a three parcel deep-lot subdivision into five parcels, with exceptions to
the Subdivision Regulations for lot depth and width requirements.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site is on the east side of Augusta Street, and is completely surrounded by single-
family residences. The existing three parcel deep-lot subdivision is rectangular in shape and
encompasses less than an acre. The terrain is relatively level, with a slight slope from east to
west (towards Augusta Street). The property closest to the street (2710 Augusta) contains one
single-family residence with an attached garage, the center parcel (2716 Augusta) is vacant, and
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781=7410.
Attachment 6
the rear parcel (2720 Augusta) is developed with a legal non-conforming duplex. Vegetation on
site includes several trees, including pines and a variety of landscape trees.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Request to re-subdivide a three parcel deep-lot subdivision into five parcels, with exceptions to
the Subdivision Regulations for lot depth and width requirements.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISFO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 6
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing rMh ,` ,Z
Resources
.., 'i"xY.e .y�a.yy. ;��.n kh�4FLt"
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
x and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment &
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:.
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL RAPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
December 20,2006
Signature Date
Doug Davidson,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
.issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required..
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)_(3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify_the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address sits-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
� 39
Attachment 6
• 1
Issues, Discussion and SupportiL`4,' nation Sources Sources Potl_..4 Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) .Have a substantial'adverse effect on-a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,inclading,but not ; 1,11 X
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and 8ist(jric
buildings•within•a local orstate scenic highway? ,
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual.charactdr,or quality of 1,7, X
ithe site and its surroundings? - 11,25
il) 'Create a iaew source of substantial light or glare Which would 1,11, X
adversely effect rla :or nighttime views in,the area?_7 z_. 25
Evaluation
a), b), d) The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista or a local or state scenic highway, nor are there any
other scenic resources on the site such as significant trees, rock outcroppings,open space or historic buildings. The site is
designated for single family development,which will not create substantial light or glare.
c),d) The proposed project will facilitate the development of three additional single-family residences,one at the front of
the site adjacent to Augusta Street, and two between the existing single-family dwelling and duplex unit. The project will
also significantly reduce the buildable area of the rear-most lot, which is developed with a legal non-conforming duplex.
Although new construction is likely to produce only negligible aesthetic impacts, new construction will be subject to
architectural review to ensure aesthetic compatibility of the project to the site and its surroundings. The Subdivision
Regulations require that newly created parcels surrounded by existing residential development that are served by flag lots
be designated as "sensitive sites," requiring architectural review of future development to evaluate tree removals and
compatibility of new development with adjacent residential uses.
Conclusion: All of the new lots will be designated as"Sensitive Sites."Requiring that construction of the new parcels does
not negatively effect adjacent residential uses.No further mitigation is necessary.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project.
`.Xnvert. rt meFaimland,Un queFaimland,or atxstlan$of 19 X
et;:,�aStatewSde,Imptirtattee`(Farm apd),>ss shown tea
')sutsuant to the Fatland,Magptrig and Monitoring�'sogram ofi4:s
ie CalrfornraResources Agency,to-non- All, ism
lwonfltbe, vrth existing zoning or agrico.tural 16-or a.
�4 10 X
'*W, ' A(
f
e) 'fitvoTve t t ler eTignges in tbd A9dog cnvjr0W z*•which;dui tdI i X
their locationir ntudre,couhtresult in conversion of`Farmland -e
.,. - rtW
t4 on-a cnitural tue ...
Evaluation
a), b), c) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as
Urban Land. There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site.
Conclusion: No impact.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
Violate any air quality standard of contixbuie substantially to an` : 9,20, X
existing 4 projected aur,giLalii violation? * . :' 21,25
r,> onfjYet with o'r obstrtu tnrtiplamentaC,ion of the aj plieable air 9, 15,
Walilan? X
9- tY P 16,21
;t$2 ose,sensthve=rec� ors to substantial ollutatit °� 11,21
X
CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 6 INRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
V0
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and SupportinL .. ation Sources Sources PotenI otentially Less Than ' No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
-concentrations?' � !
d)' Create objectionable odors affecting a•substantial ntunb,@r of ; 11 g
I people?,
e) ,Result in a cumulatively considerable net uicrease o'f an criteria' 9, 15, X
polhitantfor which the project Tegi0ii under.an-: 16,21
Applicable kederal o :state ambient ait gualitystandard
(including rel*ing emissions which exceed glial tative
;' thrzSholdsQfor-pzotie: fccursoxs
Evaluation
a)b)c)e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMto(fine particulate matter 10 microns
or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors
be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo
County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a
comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources,as well
as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air
Plan.
d) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project.
Conclusion:No impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
have asytastantral adverse effect;er i,cltrer :lr tnuectly oT:, .5, 10 X
..
ftoa-gb bAbxtat mOdifibatioi s,on,any species, td'enl3 6 �as a
f
antdate;sensxhve;.bx spee3al status spet3tes In local or regional
,, b; l- s i F
P r Tans �U ipteSr or,reguW1o�snOi by;tlle�Calrfaipia`pegprtinent
1f N&Iihd�e or ULS Tish,and Wirdltfe SetV' de
3av ,sttlas it#iai adve 73cct,axtarip�t to 'abttat, 41 5, 10 X
�otfterl �risi£iveattlracoifttt tderimapie0 a�
r
•�l�rts,pobeles,or re ulaTonsj,otY�y tlie, 12pepartin�nt`r
Vdm- 8bar t lame Oro,
S;'F+>$l yand v t d e? irk?s r
c �x c� rtfity)01plici_tiYardinze pt �fli�ga 5, 10 X
µ a"b�610gt0a1°riresources;,sittafias'3 �e�r�ese �,�tc � f ...
y"3,,�°�ozdrn dr,?`r(e�,���"Tr���� .•�"�' '�r� 3��?��{z�,���'
d3 afeereLsiibsturittly wrfh Jhe move'tli€aty�patrvasdrlC ' 5110
Grmtgr�dtoty s o>�zvilrltfe(s' te§,orytttetabwis](eJ�[iyg; X
w resider ar=Bt a�o�y wtle0>�adors;.or tfrtpede the use pfr '
dltfe nu�sttgs? ` ` t °
9 of ainntlitcrwi tfie pr't vrsions,df an adopted)abtfal,C6bK&�vatk6n' " 5, 10 X
` 1 Natural Cohiwuridj 1G�ortservatttiIta)fa off"o%er apxpYovd
fsacal,3eg3onai•oi state.habitat cocl�ervattonp'lan7 f " < �. ,�;
J' ,.p,p ,nom ��;
� Iays t#rsps tta1 adverse eeAt on Federally+�rotgsced 5, 10 X
rvetlan asdefin�d n'SecuonA04 ot�e CTe°atLater ,ct'Y
✓" 42'
Mneludmg,ibui not lla3rteil to�Ymarshes net F gbeJ tc� �
�yf't}irbugh$i�ctretiio'val,fillxrig,�hydrtiao�_ ca1h11�ed`v�stton;or "'J s,
s, �f
-thej-illeanS��
Evaluation
a),b According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game,there are nos ecies
CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
v �L
-�► Atdachnnnt 6
Issues, Discussion and Supportint It: •ation Sources sonrce5notenl�,-� :otentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site,nor is riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified.
c) No tree removals are proposed with the tentative tract map.
d) The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the division-of the property will not interfere with the
movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor.
e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat
conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state.habitat conservation
plan.
fj The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands.
Conclusion: No impact.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) —Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 10,14, X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 16
'b) Cause a substantial'adverse change in the stkiiificance•of-an 10, 15 X
art:haeolggical resource?(See GEQA Guidelines 15064:5);
e) ':Directly or indirectly destroy a urgite paleonfalogical resource•, 5, 10,
X
pr Site pr unique geologic feature? 11
,,d) 1D4turbany hiuman remains;including those interred outside of1.11 5, 17 X
` formal�ceneteries? "
Evaluation
a),b)Based on review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System,the project is not located on or near
a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource.
c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site.
d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites.
Conclusion:No impact
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project.
erg 'tt) tiConfct.vith adiQ en5p . X
b2', Vse non-renewable resources-1h a wasteful and ine$liereot.'- " 56,12 X
y.. �
c) Result"e.loss of availability of a known irrineral resour tl : 5 X
that would be of value to the region and'the;es dents Q the: '
State?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OetsPo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
s'
Attachment E
Issues, Discussion and Supportir 1,n, nation Sources Sources Poted�_.,• Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
In orated
Evaluation
a),b) The project is consistent with the City's Energy Conservation Element which encourages concentrations of residences
close to existing infrastructure.
c) No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity.
Conclusion:No impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
aj• Expose regple or structures to potential substantiril adverse;
effects#utcluding risk.cf loss,injury or death rnvroNing;
L Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delideated in'the 22 X
most recent Alquist-Pr olo Earthquake fault Zomng;Map
issuaby the State Geologist for the azei,;of 6ased"on'other
substantial evidencevf a known fault?
II 'Strong seismic ground shaldhg? 22 X
M Seismic zelated'iground farlur'e,including liquefaction? 22 X
-hv, Landslides or mudflows,? 10 X
b) Result insubstantial soil'ergsion or the loss of topswl.% 11, X
f
18;25
t;) . Be located on a geologic unit or soil.that is unslaFile,or that, 25 X
vnuld.becotne unstable as a result o
the Pro�dct;:and,potendallyi
-,result in ori•'o> Off siiedandslides,let@rel spr8ading�,xtibsiderl e,
liquefaction,gY collapse?
;gid) Be locataiin expansive sort;as defined in Table 1,84-B,ofthe 9 X
Vnifori4tbldtng bode(1 94),creating snbstaiilaal raslcs tb'llfe
Evaluation
a),c)San Luis Obispo County,including the City of San Luis Obispo,is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic
Province,which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive
folding,faulting,and fracturing of variable intensity. In general,the folds and faults of this province comprise the
pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act,the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special
studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to
constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies
Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults.The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line,near
Los Osos Valley Road.According to a recently conducted geology study,the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos
Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this
fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los Osos fault are
considered"active". Other active faults in the region include:the San Andreas,located about 30 miles to the northeast,the
Nacimiento,located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon=Hosgri fault zone,located approximately
12 miles to the west.
Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic
Hazards,"specifically Seismic Zone 4,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected
to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact, the
Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
Crry OF SAN Luis OBISPo 9 INITIAL SiuDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supportik nation Sources Sources Pots•._ Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inc orated
earthquake.
b),c)The project will not result in the loss of topsoil as most of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces or planted
with vegetation. A soils engineering report including specific recommendations to insure that foundations are designed to
withstand settlement will be required with development applications of the individual lots.
d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true
for most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(2001).
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
S. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Pro'ect:
a .create a significant,hazard t6ithe public or the env'tr6gm6t i1'° - 25 X
through the roufine.use,transport or disposal.of'hazardbus
tnaterlalS? ,
rb) Create a signtficanc hazard tothe public or the erivxronigelti 25 g
throyghseasonably for�ses;abie upset and acctdenY ednt)ttto�ns
nvolv3itg the're7ease of hazardous matertals to fo ttte%?
envronmint? ` Z.4
Emit hazardous 6missigs+pi,bandle' azaxdotts of atcttkel 5, s 25 g
hazaYdott.materials;,subs#_aces,or wase entlYtptotte
�'°1i211us of�A, ittsling or proposed school?
�l)a + xpo$eople or structures toextsdng sources.,of Iiazartlous �. 11 X
1 ~; mtssaops orhazardous or acutel`q;hazOdaus matertais, kn,
substances;oI wastd
�n.
5$ Ioca€e� 4,lute- rjniwt,rs.includ�ed bna hs t o£hazardbus n" 10 X
aitatertals}•sites aompaledr�purstant to Gm'veti3t�tifsCtttItiiSe?bt}atx`.i:
Cr59bL 5 sod,as a;result,xt Would create a,�tgnifit sill tlSZa t0
-
nl?ozap7gjetlncteciwthtaanatrpprt- addrtte�pa�pswvAShtn 10 X
'two m%) oPublc atrpoit;would the>ptb�ct�euivt a safety'"
;'lazatc tib people xestdtng oz wot�cit�+tTi` proeei area?
�y n�5a}ii tix{gletxtentat on of,or pfi to llj'rote e .'att__hT' ' ,A' 4,12 X
"ado�edrkgency reSp0n5e'plati`ii• ite,-p'el 'nTMe9.aOUaftOn,�r .
(•"i ��_ f�lr�,'1'y . 0 " t0 { �,.y� •( M� .. .•mit nr. "+. i ,y �w� {+J,�+;
i ,icpe peiea�r stcucturesa a§acatiE dslt of]ose'� un� i 4 X
{car dea
ttiXolYig waldla =lues,tbcfutlm`'vueie wdt]latids are.
n ,
' �addaeent c�iu'�a�si�tl'areas,or w;bererresrdettts ar�mt`ecmi'zed
+��''.'!v�u+1 ?
V�FalHn _ �. Y Yn ''�4.. : .<. �'1 i!' 4wCu•
Evaluation
a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials.
b),c),d) The division of land will not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code§65962.5.
t) The project site is more than 2 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use Plan
Area.
g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
�y�
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and SupportiriL A. cation Sources Sources Potel Potentially Less Tiuw No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
evacuation plan.
h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires.
Conclusion: No impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a)1{ 'Violate ady water quality standards or waste disehaig" ` .*,i 12 X
requirements? -
W, Subslant ally,deplete groundw ter stappltes 06hterfe>eUa 12,18 X
substantially Vvitb groan Water recharge such fbat there"wduld
`'14e a net di~ficit in aquifer y9lume or a lowering of the local
.�grourid'water ta>gsmng-
anbatby.vvells woud;drop toFa,levej v¢llclu wauild'ttbt xupo}tt +`
' '.•extstin iandusesforwbic� � � ' s
g gem�tts have bee,n:granted),.
c) Crea0z or contribute runol-water which wotrld,exceed the tJ 12,18 X
Ic opacity of ekisflng`nr piapned slo>ui waie�'°" nage s}+SfeatsGbr;x`i
Prov. d&addtttopal sources ofnmj)ff iiito surf 6,waters , �'•
{ ;(trrcludtng 6fit dot 1'n¢nfed'to,wetlands,riparian areas,�bnds; '
}.3pnngs,eree7rs,stpreams,nyers,lakes;estttaanes;:hdal�areasr „'�'
`4��af
#1) itantx lly.alte"r the existing 19,25 g
µafro an a `n3a>ti@r wbtch wouldze� I etanf"1 erosi`on'.gr x
or omite?r;�
b ySttbSfaYl }aiter the extstiiagtlralnageiat btlie s""ttoF 18,25 X
. {�tjx } ►a mann♦�8r wtuch Would result m substantIII flc)2 dutg,v�est
S1W5. ,I4 +C.
wtIb1I1 a r,ygaLd�'.�aaia.�S ��SnF: 10
EaZar ��utlar3r 3u Flood"lns`iiranoe I�a�ap; X
OF'3?;heCf� la, 2r(yltd ��itle<1t1dt1D13p�..�s � ' � A.''; 3y
jOb tazatd aW T 10
s# liteh'" r�
• " r X
A.
�rw rnttodueetyi0al stptnr> ater prsllutants�fnt4 c f - 12 X
x
A� a 1dtr � � r grbttrud. ��ilrRDl]r�aCn�6ter tlualSt s P 25
t:tern t solved 'enF�3r�"'bidt� � � "
Evaluation
a), b), c), d),e), h), 1) The project site is partially built-oust and served with water by the City's Utilities Department. The
subdivision will create the potential for two additional single-family residences, which will not deplete groundwater
resources,interfere with groundwater recharge or alter ground and surface water quality.
f),g) The project is located out of the 500-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map. Therefore,structures on the property will not impede or redirect flood flows.or occur within a 100-year flood hazard
area.
Conclusion: No impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the roiect:
a)' ota2.Wtkt,MappheablIhSid�esy�glari,Ppitc) or rggul� t}an o1r 1,7, X
y4,an�agenc Y th It to�tlorR+o erg teNpm�ect do ted-.,:Jblr the' 9,25
s�df3rdin ., .antffi 'af3n an emuottine tat+effe$t�2,5'
CITY of SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
_ Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supportiri<6 A, ration Sources Sources Pot et -Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
lnc ornted
b) Physically divide an established community? 1,10 }{
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,5 X
community conservation planO.
Evaluation
a) The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed subdivision would create
five lots from three existing parcels,which requires an exception to the Subdivision Regulations for lot depth and width.The
exceptions do not affect the project's ability to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed lots will meet all
other subdivision requirements.
b) The project would result in a lot layout common to the neighborhood,because there are several deep-lot subdivisions in
the immediate vicinity with lots in a similar configuration.
c) There is not a habitat or natural community conservation plan adopted for this area,therefore,the project would not
conflict with such.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact. City Council approval is required for tentative tract maps that include exceptions
to subdivision standards.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) ]xlttsstire of people toor generation.pf'4tnacceptabie"noise 325 X
i'et is as`,defined by the San•Luis Obispu General Planmeise
r" Dement,or geti'eiai poise levels'itt excess Of stabdafds,
establkhe4 i�•the Noise Ordinance?
b,) Aaibstantial temporary,penodre,or permanent increase in r.. 25 X
h '• #0#0 nt ridlse levels in the'g7rCfdeci vtth itty'ab the Xet�e3&a iS�iug�
ithloh .the ptojecf? _. =
L sutie of'Orsotis to or gederation of excesaive g'rauitidlioratil A' 3,25 g
t ,c�'brgfion"fir gi vugdb*66 noise levels? ? x
"Por a g%p eo
ted'Al rt anatrpolt lhtit4 usa iiap10 X
n
tw6910. t�4a public*porp or public use aitpot't,yvt'roidd the "
,Pm
jbctexppnse Pe6?1e xestding or working ux the area to
VI
Evaluation
a) The land division will not generate unacceptable noise levels. The City's Noise Element and Noise Guidebook does not
identify Traffic Noise Exposure Calculations for Augusta Street as it is a residential collector street.
b),c) The project will not raise ambient noise levels in the project vicinity as the site is developed.
d) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area, therefore, the project will not result in exposure of people to
excessive noise levels from aircraft operations.
Conclusion:Less than significant impact.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
aInduice siggtantial pop"uiatio'h growth in an'area, eithii ditet:tly 12,30 X
(for example by T4posing;.pew 'bones gr.bU$W- esses)
i4directt <(f r example, through extetastori.r51 rQatls or-'othel;h
his j}ce:substantial numbers,of exishrl ho ii x'. eo le_ 30 X
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 12 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attad,,f'.•ent 6
Issues, Discussion and Supportin' 1i ration Sources Sources Potea .'otentiaby Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
necessitating • the construction of replacement housing,
elsewhere?
Evaluation
a) The project would result in the creation of two additional developable parcels,which could each be developed with single
family homes.This amount of new housing, in combination with other known separate residential projects, is not considered
substantial population growth,and is consistent with growth rates contained in the City's General Plan.
b) The existing duplex on Parcel C will be required to be converted into a single-family dwelling,to come into conformity
with the standards for the Low Density Residential(R-1)District.The loss of this unit is minor,and will be more than offset
by the additional development allowed by the project.
Conclusion:No impact.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) jPire protection? 12,25 X
,b) Police.rotection?; 9 X
c) School's? T. ,, . 9 X
d)'',Parks? 9 X
o) Roads and other.trausportation i fi?astructure?. 9, 12 X
Other ;ublicTacilities? , 12,25 X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The characteristics of the project do not present situations or conditions that would create potentially
significant impacts to services for fire,police,schools,-parks,roads or other public facilities. The project has been evaluated
by the City's Fire Marshall, Chief Building Official, Public Works Department and Utilities Department, and no resource
deficiencies have been identified.
Conclusion:No impact.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a)`.Inerew,the tse of existing izeigbborhood er reglonatj$arks or 30 X
-'other r&-reational facilities such thai substantial,physical
deterioration_of ft faeillty would.occur or be accelerated?•
,b) Include repreAjlonal facilities orrequire,theconsttucggn or 30 X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might havian°
adverse physiew effect oh the environment?
.. .0.n
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INRULL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Jk_ .nation Sources sources Potent,_.. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Evaluation
a)Residents of the project will likely use Johnson Park and Sinsheimer Park recreation facilities for their park and recreation
needs.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. Additionally, park in-lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space,
maintenance or equipment in the vicinity.These fees are set at a level to offset the effect of the additional demand.
b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small open space yard areas. The
construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment because of their small scale.
Conclusion: No impact.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a)' Cause amincrease 3n traffic which is sµbstanttal in ielatioti'to•the,, 2,12, X
existing traffic load and capacity of the streetsystein'?' 25
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of sdivace ` 2,12 X
-standard established by the county'c(ingestiorf management '
agency for.designated'roads and highways?
e duio design featreCe.ubstantiallyinor6asfisharp 12,25 X
curves or dangetoas intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. . '
farm equipment)?
d) Restilt in inadequate emergency access? 12,25 X
e) Result ininadequateparldngcapacity.onsiteoroffstie7 .e 9 X
f) .'Conflict'W#h'adopted policies supporting alter6afti, 2,12 X
ttansportatiori{e.g.bus tuttroats;-b cycle racks)?
A) Conilictwlih the with San Luis Obispo County Fairport Land
10,25 X
tsePlao'resaltiugin substaptial safety, risks fromlin
ito�se,4-a k n a in air traffic patteriis?-_
Evaluation
a),b) The land division will not increase traffic on Augusta Street nor exceed the level of service standards established by
the County congestion management agency for nearby streets and highways because the project will allow the development
of only two additional single-family dwellings,an incremental increase that is considered negligible.
c) There are no hazards which the project would be subject to or create.
d) The project complies with the Fire Department's requirements for emergency access.
e) City parking standards will apply to both the existing dwellings and any new construction proposed on the resulting
parcels.
f) The project does not conflict with alternative transportation policies in that the project does not impede any existing or
proposed bike baths,transit stops,etc.
g) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area, therefore,there is no conflict with the Plan that would result in
substantial safety risks from hazards,noise or a change in air traffic patterns.
Conclusion: No impact.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
} Exdedd T%gjtwaf r sti ea ppent regttiremenks of'4lie;applicabl'e 12 X
Ae 'onal W�atet ii Control E�sard?.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBtsPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
�—
7 U
Issues, Discussion and Supportins A, ation Sources Sources Potenotentially Less an No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#104 06 issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
'b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 12 X
treatment,wastewater treatment,-water quality control,or storm
drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause "
significant environmental effects`?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 12 X
from existing entitlements and resources,or.are new and
expanded,water resources needed?
d) Result in-a determination by the wastewater trbatmentpropid'er• 12 X
which serves or may setve the project that it has adequate
'Capacity to serve the project's projected demand iti,addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e), Be served by a landfill with sufficient Permitted capacity..4-0. " 9 X
accomtaodate the project's solid waste disposalnerds?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations" 9 X
zelated'ta solid waste? .
Evaluation
a),b)The project has been review by the Utilities Department staff.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 subdivision would increase the anticipated build out of the site from one additional dwelling to three
dwellings.Though-this exceeds the anticipated build out of the site at the time the WWME was adopted,the actual water
demand increase for the site will be minimal.
d) The wastewater treatment plant and existing sewers in the vicinity have adequate capacity to serve this development.
Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water Reclamation
Facility.The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project
e),f)Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Californians 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 expected to reach its capacity in 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 materials is
required to be submitted with the building permit application.The project will also include facilities for both interior and
exterior recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling
Element
Conclusion: No impact.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
). t oes:the pzo)ect hgve the potspttal 0A6grade tlic yuality,of ihi 4.' X
environment.,substantially-reduce the babttat bf.a fish bi'Widlife.•
spebies,:cause ti fish.or wildlifegopuiation'to.drop•below self-
Spstainirtg levels,-threaten'to eliminate a plant or aminal
cstttimuni y reduce thb nujnber or restrict thi;'range Of a rare or
endangered plantar animal or eliiiitinate.important examples of
the majQr ods of California hist' :or. 'rehiit .?
CITY OF SAN Luis 019mPo 15 INITIAL SruDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supporti6L_1 _ ,Iabon Sources Sources Poteiij Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
As discussed in the biological section of this study, there are no species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. With
regard to historical resources, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource.
There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site,and the project site is outside of
the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited"but g
htrmuladyelyconsiderable? ("Cumulativelyconsiderittle
.,'Means that the 14cremental effects ofa pxajeaf ate cD s clesable
when viewed in eoruieetion-with;he effects of the past projects,
the effects of other gurrtht projects,and the effects:of probable
future ro'ects)
The proposed project's cumulative impacts are insignificant for the same reasons discussed in this study for project-specific
impacts.
} Does ft' roject lime environmenial gffects which will cause }f
substantial adverse effects on humin Beings;either,drrectly;or
jndkectl
There are no environmental effects identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
I&EARLIER ANALYSES.
J)eearlier annglysis may=tie used tivhere,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process;:one or more effects have
adequately analyzed in`an earlier E1R oar.,NftahYe Deal ration ;; ecft n 150613 (sIn this case a dtseiission.
�sbquididintifytbefbllqvvingiteii*..,.
rfigraiaal s ed.FJtiemfi eiz aysi st>= ; _ .
A$� �,h .liv ,6fW <M-
N/A
H) "acts Vade4otely adds '3den'fy,vatiich eft t0 fropwerevuithiil the scope of and
r�acle 64y analyzed,'.inan', dgc+imelt pgrsua*:Ifi'apphcabae legdl staiadar8s;and$tate whet}ie such effects..were,-
'.
' «s.•�ds�lz ,� afioti measuies$afied,on+tlie earhaf s[nal"sts:
N/A —
t rJ a *t�In measures FoY effects that a L ;€6'att i icanf viKtls tipattotr ficoipQr ted;" desc3ib She a�t taxop
a ?u tires;t3h>c{h were mcoarporated o'•rr�nexl Sein•Flte ear ier do>ttirietft anfl tb� of its 4*l c t.they address #e,speei ic.
_4ftditit iof tfte pfoject' ' `. _ ,. °_, - �`.,.�:;.••• -
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,May 2006
6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996
7. Ciry of SLO Subdivision Standards,March 2006
8. City of SLO Parking&Driveway Standards
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database
11. Site Visit
12. Comments from City Departments
13. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6 Edition,on file in the Community
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
11 Attachment 6
Issues, Discussion and Supportin�_lII, .iation Sources Sources Potek.�j'. eoten&uy Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# 104-06 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Development Department
14. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development
Department
15. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community
Development Dep artment
16. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma
17. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma -
18. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis,prepared by Erie J.Gobler Civil Engineering,November 2006
19. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
h ://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FNEvIP/
20. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo,County,Air Pollution Control District,,2001
21. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District,2003
22. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990
23. San Luis Obispo County ort Land Use Plan
24. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
25. Tentative Traci Map and Project Description
Attachments:
Tentative Parcel Map
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2006
_5/
—� Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO.####-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT TO RE-SUBDIVIDE THREE LOTS INTO FIVE, WITH EXCEPTIONS TO
THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2710
AUGUSTA STREET (TR/ER 104-06)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
January 10, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR and ER 104-06, a request to re-
subdivide a three parcel deep-lot subdivision into five parcels, and recommended approval of the
subdivision map to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of
the applicant, interested parties; and evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff;
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. 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 compact urban form and a variety of
housing types compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This is because the proposed
new lots are within an existing neighborhood, located along an existing common-access
driveway, and are surrounded by urban development.
2. As conditioned, the site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed
in the R-1 zone, since the proposed lots meet area standards as required within the R-1
district and project conditions will require architectural review for new development.
3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the project does not involve significant tree
removals, it does not interfere with creeks or wetlands, and the site is surrounded by urban
development.
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of
property within) the proposed subdivision since all adjacent properties are accessed
independently and the proposed lots, as conditioned, will gain access from the existing shared
driveway.
Resolution No.####-07 Attachment 7
2710 Augusta Street 104-06
Page 2
Exceptions to Subdivision Standards for Lot Depth
5. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic
conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform
to the strict application of the regulations codified in the Subdivision Ordinance. Approval of
this subdivision in accordance with the lot depth standards would require demolition of, or
moving an existing residence. General Plan policy discourages the demolition of sound
housing and there is no public benefit to require the existing house to be moved; and
6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole
reason for granting the modification. It is City policy to conserve existing housing and
prevent displacement of occupants; and
7. As conditioned, the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the modification will only
result in a reduced lot depth, and orientation of the lots towards the common-access
driveway. If the lot depth were measured from the proposed flag lot access driveway these
lots would meet all standards of the Subdivision Ordinance; and
8. Granting the exception 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 since it does not grant special privileges or modify allowable land uses within the
existing R-1 district.
9. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
December 20, 2006, and recommended by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2007/.
The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately
identifies that there is no foreseeable potential for significant environmental impacts by the
proposed project.
SECTION 2. Action.
The Council hereby approves the tentative tract map to re-subdivide three existing parcels into
five residential lots, and adoption of said Negative Declaration (TR/ER 104-06), with
incorporation of the following project conditions:
1. The new parcels shown on the Tentative Tract Map shall be considered "Sensitive Sites" and
construction shall be subject to architectural review to consider neighborhood compatibility.
2. Prior to recordation of the final map, the non-conforming duplex on lot 5, addressed as 2720
Augusta, shall be modified to conform with standards for the R-1 district, as a single-family
dwelling with three parking spaces, at least one of which is covered.
3. The existing driveway approach and any new approach shall comply with current City and
ADA standards.
a
Resolution No.####-07 Attachment 7
2710 Augusta Street 104-06
Page 3
4. Lots 2 thru 5 shall share a common driveway approach to Augusta Street, and each residence
shall be designed in consistency with City Standards for deep-lot subdivisions.
5. A landscape plan shall be prepared as part of the subdivision improvement plans. An
adequate quantity of trees and screening shrubs shall be planted at the edge of the accessway
adjacent to the existing residence on the property and along the opposite edge of the
accessway where it adjoins neighboring properties. Additional trees and shrubs may be
necessary as required by Community Development Department. Landscape tree varieties
shall be a minimum size of 15-gallon nursery stock.
6. The subdivider shall provide a 4-foot wide band of stamped concrete to differentiate a
pedestrian path within the driveway from the sidewalk to the rear of the lots.
7. All subdivision improvements expressed within the project, and project conditions, shall be
completed prior to the recordation of the final map, unless a bond in an amount sufficient to
ensure improvements has been posted for the project.
8. Prior to recordation of the final map the driveway access to lot 2 (which spans lots 2 and 3
and is covered by an access easement) shall be modified as necessary to meet City standards
for fire truck and vehicle turn-around.
9. In addition to the easements listed on the tentative map, an easement shall be recorded over
the driveways on lots 2 and 3 for vehicle and fire truck turn-around. This easement shall
include a stipulation that vehicles may not park in this area for any duration of time.
10. Fire Department Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code
(CFC). Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 13' 6". Access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be provided with a
surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
11. 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 or employees to attack, set aside,
void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto,
including but not limited to environmental review.
12. 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.
13. Impact fees shall be paid at the time of new development. Impact fee credit may be available
for the demolition of the existing legal unit in accordance with the related ordinances for
Water, Sewer, and Traffic Impact fees.
OL
—��
Resolution No.####-07 _ Attachment 7
2710 Augusta Street 104-06
Page 4
14. The applicant shall pay Park In-Lieu Fees prior to recordation of the Final Map, consistent
with SLO Municipal Code Section 16.40.080.
15. 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.
On motion by , seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2007.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo Lowell, City Attorney
GAMMSubdivisionNS-ER 104-06(27 10 Augusta)Touncil Reo 104-06.doc