Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - SBDV-0626-2017 (600 Perkins) Perkins Subdivision Exception-signedMeeting Date: December 20, 2017 Item Number: #2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a tentative parcel map to create two parcels, with a requested exception to the minimum lot size requirements (SLO 17-0013), including a Negative Declaration of environmental review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 600 Perkins Lane BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7524 E-mail: kbell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: SBDV-0626-2017 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which grants final approval to the project, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Neils Grether Complete Date June 28, 2017 Zoning R-2-S, Medium Density Residential within Special Considerations Overlay General Plan Medium Density Residential Site Area ~10,827 square feet Environmental Status Initial Study determined Negative Declaration SUMMARY The applicant has applied for a subdivision to create two parcels from one existing lot . The existing property contains one single-family residence which is proposed to be demolished and replaced with two new single-family residences. The project site is located on the north side of Perkins Lane on the corner of Perkins and Rockview Place within the Medium-Density Residential (R-2-S) zone within a Special Considerations Overlay. Special considerations for the area include: substandard street width, drainage concerns, creek setbacks, slope, and compatibility with Service-Commercial (C-S) zones (Attachment 2, Ordinance 715 (1977 Series)). The use permit requirement has been waived as the property’s ‘sensitive’ status is addressed through the proposed subdivision application in accordance with Zoning Regulations Section 17.56.040. The proposed minor subdivision includes a requested exception to the Subdivision Regulations’ minimum lot area for corner lots. DD PC2 - 1 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW In most cases, a minor subdivision is reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing Officer. However, when exceptions are requested, the City’s Subdivision Regulations require the Planning Commission to act on the project. The attached resolution (Attachment 1) includes staff’s recommendation for approval of the requested exceptions and details the required findings specified in the Subdivision Regulations Chapter 17.23.020A. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting Site Size ~10,827 square feet Present Use & Development Single-Family Residence Topography Relatively Flat Access Perkins Lane Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1-PD (Stoneridge Single-Family Planned Development) South: R-2-S (Three unit Multi-Family Development) East: R-2-S (12-unit Multi-family Development) West: R-2-S (Single-Family Residence) Project Description The project is a corner lot subdivision creating two parcels from one existing parcel (Attachment 1, Project Plans). The existing parcel contains one single-family residence which is proposed to be demolished and replaced with two new single-family residences (one per proposed lot). Proposed parcels A & B will be accessed from Rockview Place where a portion of the property along Perkins Lane (south property line of parcel B) will be dedicated to the public right-of-way (approximately 175 square feet). An exception is requested for parcel B to establish a smaller parcel size for the corner lot for approximately 5,592 square feet (excluding the area to be dedicated to the public right-of-way) where 5,750 square feet is normally required, as detailed in the table below. Project Statistics Min. Lot Area (sq. ft.) Min. Width (feet) Min. Depth (feet) Min. Street Frontage (feet) Requirement (R-2 zone) Corner lot (+15%) 5,000 5,750 50 80 20 Parcel A 5,060 57 88 56 Parcel B - Corner lot 5,592 63 92 155 3.0 PROJECT EVALUATION The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed corner lot (parcel B) has a parcel area of 5,592 square feet (5,750 square feet minimum required for a corner lot). The project site is within an already developed residential subdivision representing an infill development opportunity. An exception is required due to a portion of the property required to be dedicated to the public right-of-way, approximately 175 square-feet, without this requirement of dedication an exception would not be required. PC2 - 2 The proposed corner lot is only 158 sq. ft. under the parcel area requirement of the Subdivision Regulations and the resulting parcels will be consistent with the size, density, and development pattern of the neighborhood and can accommodate the existing and proposed site improvements without exceptions to the City’s property development standards. Staff has evaluated the proposed parcel map for conformity with the City’s Subdivision Regulations for minimum lot dimensions, street frontage, and area for the R-1 zone. No development is proposed at this time and the resultant parcels and proposed easements would leave the two parcels with adequate on- site access. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Minor subdivisions are normally categorically exempt from environmental review. However, when exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations are requested an Initial Study of environmental impacts must be prepared (Subdivision Regulations, Table 1, level of review by subdivision project). The Initial Study (Attachment 2) did not identify significant environmental impacts associated with the project and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Public Works and Utilities Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments that are incorporated into the resolution as conditions of approval and code requirements. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Regulations or other policy document. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Ordinance 715 (1977 Series) 3. Negative Declaration – Initial Study 4. Project Plans PC2 - 3 RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE TWO LOTS, WITH A REQUESTED EXCEPTION TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS (SLO 17-0013), INCLUDING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2017 (600 PERKINS, SBDV-0626-2017, EID-0628-2017) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 15, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SBDV-0626-2017, Neils Grether, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (SBDV-0626-2016), based on the following findings: 1.The design of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision is consistent with the development pattern established in the neighborhood and the resulting parcels allow for residences with sufficient usable outdoor space. 2.The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-2 zone, since the resulting parcels require minimal exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations and resulting development will meet lot area coverage requirements of the Zoning Regulations. 3.The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision since all parcels will have adequate access from Rockview Place. 4.The design of the tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the site does not have any creeks or other potentially significant PC2 - 4 Attachment 1 habitat areas for fish and wildlife, is surrounded by urban development, and has already been developed with an existing dwelling and associated site improvements. 5.The property to be divided is of such size that it is impractical/undesirable, in this particular case, to conform to the strict application of the standards codified in the Subdivision Regulations because the design will result in a more efficient use of the land, an exception is required due to a portion of the property required to be dedicated to the public right -of- way, approximately 175 square-feet, without this requirement of dedication the property could be subdivided to conform to current standards. 6.The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification, because other findings are made to support approval and the exceptions relate to existing physical conditions of the project site. 7.The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the minor exception is for a property that is already developed with single-family residence, and there are numerous examples of similar subdivisions and development in the immediate vicinity. 8.Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations and is consistent with the General Plan because the exceptions are consistent with other properties in the vicinity and the project does not grant special privileges or modify allowable land uses within the existing R-2 zoning district. 9.The subject property has been designated as a “sensitive site” by Ordinance No. 715 (1977 Series) because of concerns relating to substandard street width, drainage concerns, creek setbacks, slope and compatibility with Service-Commercial (C-S) zones. The use permit requirement has been waived as the project is consistent with the General Plan and the property’s sensitive site status is adequately addressed through the proposed subdivision application in accordance with Zoning Regulations Section 17.56.040. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission finds that the project’s Negative Declaration adequately evaluates and identifies all of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning Division – Community Development Department 1.Plans submitted for a building permit shall comply with all construction related requirements identified by APCD letter dated October 19, 2017 (Exhibit A), including but not limited to naturally occurring asbestos, demolition/asbestos, dust control measures, construction permit requirements, and residential wood combustion. Compliance with PC2 - 5 these standards shall be monitored during the building permit plan check process and by field inspections conducted by Building Division inspectors. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department 2.The subdivision shall be recorded with a parcel map. The parcel map preparation and documentation shall be in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map shall use U.S. Customary Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards. 3.The parcel map exhibits and legal descriptions shall be prepared by a California Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. 4.The parcel map submittal shall clearly label the proposed parcels of the subdivision, all public and/or private easements, and dedications. 5.Park in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to map recordation. The fees shall be based on the fee resolution in effect at the time of map recordation. 6.The subdivider shall dedicate right-of-way to create a 26’ right-of-way along Perkins Lane. The dedication shall be finalized prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the parcel map. 7.Public improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval unless otherwise included in a building plan submittal. The plans shall be approved prior to map recordation. Public improvement plans and specifications shall comply with the City Engineering Standards and Standard Specifications in effect at the time of submittal of the improvement plans. Separate subdivision improvement plan review fees, inspection fees, and map review fees shall be paid at the time of application and plan/map approvals. 8.Any required building permits for utility installations, relocations, or building alterations shall have all work completed and receive final inspection approvals to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 9.The existing structures, building service equipment, and pertinent utilities shall be demolished, moved or altered to comply with building codes and zoning setbacks to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department prior to map recordation. 10.Complete frontage improvements shall be constructed along the property frontages per City Engineering Standards as a condition of map recordation. Existing frontage improvements shall be altered or upgraded to comply with current ADA and City Engineering Standards to the satisfaction of the City. PC2 - 6 11.The City will support the design exception for a reduction in sidewalk width from the standard 6’ integral sidewalk to a 5’ integral sidewalk in accordance with ADA minimum requirements along the Perkins Lane frontage. The reduced sidewalk width shall maintain a free and clear width of 4’ to any sign post, hydrant or other obstruction. Additional sidewalk widening and public pedestrian easements shall be provided if necessary. 12.A separate exhibit showing all existing public and private utilities shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director prior to recordation of the map. The utility plan shall include water, sewer, storm drains, site drainage, gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV, water wells, private waste disposal systems, and any utility company meters for each parcel if applicable. The relocation of any utility shall be completed with proper permits prior to recordation of the map. Utilities shall not cross proposed property lines unless located within suitable easements. Easements, if proposed, shall be shown on the final map or shall be recorded concurrently with the map to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, Public Works Director, and serving utility companies. 13.Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each lot/parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Wires to the new buildings shall be underground. Undergrounding shall be completed without new utility poles within the public right-of-way. 14.Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to or concurrent with the map recordation as applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket easements. 15.The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and public utility easement (P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 16.The development of the parcels shall be subject to the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites. 17.Street trees are required as a condition of development. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 lineal feet of property frontage. 18.The City Arborist supports the tree removals required to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Perkins Lane. Compensatory 15-gallon trees shall be planted on-site or off-site at a 1 to 1 ratio to the satisfaction of the City. 19.All existing on-site and off-site trees shall remain and be protected until development plans are approved except those in the area of the required frontage improvements. Tree PC2 - 7 protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Utilities Department 20.Sewer main extension shall be made along Rockview Place, and sewer laterals shall be provided for Parcel A and B from the new sewer main per the engineering design standards, and to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. 21.The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards effective at the time a building permit is obtained, and shall have reasonable alignments and clearances needed for maintenance. Indemnification 22.The applicant 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 project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of November 2017. _____________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission PC2 - 8 Exhibit A PC2 - 9 Exhibit A PC2 - 10 Exhibit A PC2 - 11 Exhibit A PC2 - 12 ORDINANCE NO. 715 (1977 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP OF THE CITY TO REZONE PROPERTY IN THE EDNA /AIRPORT NEIGHBORHOOD). WHEREAS, the boundaries of that certain area known for planning and zoning purposes as the "Edna /Airport Neighborhood of San Luis,Obispo" and the present zoning of the property within that neighborhood are shown on the map attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the properties within said Edna /Airport Neighborhood be rezoned; and WHEREAS, the map attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference shows the proposed amended zoning designations for properties within the Edna /Airport Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, said rezoning has been processed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 65800 et seq. of the Government Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The Official Zone Map of the City of San Luis Obispo is amended to reclassify the properties in the Edna /Airport Neighborhood as shown on the attached Exhibit "B ". SECTION 2. Said Exhibit "B" is adopted as a part of the Official Zone Map of the City. SECTION 3. For reference purposes the Edna /Airport Neighborhood is more specifically described as follows: 0 715 Attachment 2 PC2 - 13 Ordinance No. 715 1977 Series) The Southern portion of the City, 'bounded on the West by the City limits to the Los Osos Valley Road interchange with Highway 101, following Highway 101 to Elks Lane, then along Elks Lane to Higuera Street. The Northern edge then goes East to the City limits, follows the City limits until they run South, proceeds along Broad Street to the intersection with Orcutt Road, and follows Orcutt Road to the City limits. Otherwise, the area boundary follows the City limits. SECTION 4. This Ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published once in full, at least three (3) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram - Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of August , 1977, on motion of Mayor Schwartz , seconded by Councilman Dunin and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz NOES: Councilmen Gurnee and Jorgensen ABSENT: None ATTEST: C' J.H. Fitzpatric Approved as to content: Approved as to form: WENDT, MITCHELL,, SINSHEIMER, de la MOTTE & fFLLEY City Attorney By Allen Grimes City AdministrativN icer Commun' Deve opment Depar ment by Ass ate Planner Attachment 2 PC2 - 14 FINALLY PASSED this 30th day of August 19 77 , on motion of Mayor Schwartz seconded by Councilman Dunin on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz NOES: Councilman Jorgensen and Gurnee ABSENT: None ATTEST: i atrick, CITY CLERK I Attachment 2 PC2 - 15 EDNA AREA i EXISTING ZONING Attachment 2 PC2 - 16 EDNA AREA loll* 1,/ AIRPORT AREA EDNA AREA NEW ZONING loll* 1,/ Attachment 2 PC2 - 17 RESIDENTIAL OTHER R 1 Low density Professional f 0 office R -2 Medium density. Manufacturing R-3 Mediumm -hi gh density A / ® Manufacturing /: - f research R - High density ,. K , k;' ti r _Agriculture/ A / v conservation R- Highdensity I F Publicfacility i COMMERCIAL U Unclassified C -T Tourist COMBINING DISTRICTS C- I Neighborhood. S r P+ Specific plan C- R Retail H Planned, development V 1 Mobile home park C1 1 Service S Special considerations Attachment 2 PC2 - 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For EID-0684-2017 1.Project Title: 600 Perkins Lane Subdivision EID-0684-2017 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: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner kbell@slocity.org (805) 781-7524 4.Project Location: 600 Perkins Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 004-581-007 5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Neils Grether 600 Perkins Lane San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 Projects Representative Name and Address: Leaha Magee 3563 Sueldo Street San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 6.General Plan Designation: Medium-Density Residential PC2 - 19 7. Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2-S) zone with the Special Consideration Overlay 8. Description of the Project: The project is a corner lot subdivision creating two parcels from one existing parcel (Attachment 2, Project Plans). The existing parcel contains one single-family residence which is proposed to be demolished and replaced with two new single-family residences (one per proposed lot). Proposed parcels A & B will be accessed from Rockview Place where a portion of the property along Perkins Lane (south property line of parcel B) will be dedicated to the public right-of-way (approximately 175 square feet). An exception is requested for parcel B to establish a smaller parcel size for the corner lot for approximately 5,592 square feet (excluding the area to be dedicated to the public right-of-way) where 5,750 square feet is normally required, as detailed in the table below. Min. Lot Area (sq. ft.) Min. Width (feet) Min. Depth (feet) Min. Street Frontage (feet) Requirement (R-2 zone) Corner lot (+15%) 5,000 5,750 50 80 20 Parcel A 5,060 57 88 56 Parcel B - Corner lot 5,592 63 92 155 *Bold font indicates compliant with standards 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site encompasses one lot; 600 Perkins Lane (10,827 square feet). The project site is located on the north side of Perkins Lane on the corner of Perkins and Rockview Place. The project site is gently sloping (approximately 6% average cross slope) and is developed with one single-family residence. The parcel is located in the Medium-Density Residential zone with the Special Considerations Overlay (R-2-S) and is surrounded by R-1-PD and R-2-S zoning with single & multi-family residences. Adjacent land uses and zoning are provided in the table below: Zoning Land Use North R-1-PD* Stoneridge Single-Family PD* West R-2-S 3-Unit Multi-Family Development South R-2-S 12-Unit Multi-Family Development East R-2-S Single-Family Residence *PD: Planned Development PC2 - 20 10.Project Entitlements Requested: The proposed project requires Tentative Parcel Map approval from the Planning Commission due to the requested exceptions from the Subdivision Regulations; minimum lot area, due to the area dedicated to the public right-of-way. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None 12.Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? YES__________________________________________________ Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality. PC2 - 21 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Transportation & Traffic Cultural Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise Tribal Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish 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. X 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)). PC2 - 22 PC2 - 23 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 parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, 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)). 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 the 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 do cument and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Refer ence 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 indi viduals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance PC2 - 24 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 1,11 X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,11, 28 X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,12, 30 X Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista or a local or state scenic highway. The proposed land division is in an already urbanized area and represents an infill development pr oject. Any subsequent development project would need to be compatible with surrounding development as required by the Community Design Guidelines. No additional light or glare is anticipated from the land division. No impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 14 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 10 X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 14 X Evaluation a), b), c) The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. 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. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland, and may relieve pressur e to develop similar land outside of the City’s Urban Reserve Line. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. No impact Conclusion: No Impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 15, 16 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 15, 16 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 15, 16 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 30 X PC2 - 25 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 12, 30 X Evaluation a), b), c) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PM10 (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 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. T he 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 1.14.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan. Less than significant impact. d), e) The proposed land division would create parcels consistent with the neighborhood development pattern and with density of neighboring development. The project would not exceed any air quality thresholds or be inco nsistent with the Air Pollution Control District CEQA Guidelines, or the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan. No objectionable odors will emanate from the project. No impact. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 10 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 10, 11 X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 10 X d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? 10,11 X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 9 X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 5 X Evaluation a), b) According to the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by t he California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparia n habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. No impact PC2 - 26 c) The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. No impact. d) The property is completely surrounded by urban d evelopment and the proposed condominium project will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. No impact. e) The project proposal includes the removal of fifteen trees and preservation of nine trees on site. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has recommended methods of preservation for the trees to remain, and supports t he removal of the fifteen trees, no tree removal permit is required , in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 12.24.090F. The City Arborist has determined that the replanting plan to provide seven street trees and six on-site trees is appropriate for the project. Less than significant impact. f) The proposed condominium project will not conflict with any local polic y protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 10,21, 22 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 21,22 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 11,21 X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 23 X Evaluation a) The project site does not contain a listed historic resource and is not located within or near a historic resource Historic District. No impact. b), c), d) The project site is not located within or near areas designated as burial sensitivity areas and the project is not considered an archaeologically sensitive site as described in the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.. There are no known paleontological resources on the project site and there are no unique geologic features on the property. No significant grading or excavation is proposed or required to complete the land division or subsequent development on the parcel. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 25 X II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 25 X III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 13 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 10 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 13, 30 X PC2 - 27 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 13 X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 13 X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 7 X 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 specia l 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 Stu dies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study (source 16), the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Lo s 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 Seis mic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. New structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the Uniform Building Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The project site is not in an area designated as having high landslide potential and is not located on steep slopes Less than Significant Impact. b), The project site is substantially landscaped. No impact. d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true f or most of the City, and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001). A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with the California Building Code Chapter 18, any issues identified in the report will be addressed through site construction techniques. Less than significant impact. e) The project site has access to the use of City sewers. No impact. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1, 9 X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 1, 9 X PC2 - 28 Evaluation a), b) The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions. The remaining project CO2 emissions are primarily from building heating systems and will slightly increase regional power plant electricity generation due to increased number of dwelling units. The proposed project will result in infill development, located near to transit, services and employment centers. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s CAP also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions. Based on the project’s consistency with the 2012 CAP and results of air emission modeling, the project would not result in cumulativel y considerable generation of GHG, and impacts would be less than significant. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 29 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 29 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 29 X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 4 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 27 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 27 X g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4 X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? 4 X Evaluation a), b), c), d) The proposed subdivision is not located on a site with any known haz ardous materials and improvements necessary for the proposed land division would not result in the emission of any hazardous materials or substances. No impact. e), f) The project site is located approximately 1.3 miles north of the San Luis Obispo Count y Airport. According to the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the consideration of airport safety factors has led to the delineation of “safety areas” with respect to aviation safety risks. Please refer to the City LUCE Update EIR, Figure 4.8 ‐3, for a depiction of the airport safety zones as delineated through the ALUP. As shown, the project site is located within Airport Safety Zone S-2, identified by the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1,000 feet PC2 - 29 above ground level. The subject location is not within a specific plan area which does not include policies or standards for airport safety zone densities; therefore, defaulting to the Zoning Regulations Airport Overlay Zone requirements, per Zoning Regulations Section 17.57.020.A. The proposed project complies with Airport Overlay Zone maximum allowed persons per acre (Chapter 17.57 Table 10) and would therefore not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proje ct area. Less than significant impact. g), h) The project site is not within an area of fire hazard severity and is not adjacent to wildlands, and would not interfere with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans. No impact. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 30 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. The production rate of pre -existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? 19 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? 30 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? 30 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 19 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 30 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 26 X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 26 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 26 X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 26 X Evaluation a), b) The project site is within an area of an already developed residential subdivision and is served with water by the Cit y’s Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources, interfere with groundwater recharge or alter ground and surface water quality. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid . Water will need to be provided by the City’s Utilities De partment and it must be shown that supplying the project will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact. c), d), e), f) The project will require architectural review approval. The Public Works Di vision will provide conditions of approval on the architectural review application regarding site drainage which are required to be addressed at the time of building permit submittal. The project will need to comply with the Waterway Management Plan Draina ge Design Manual, engineering standards, water pollution control plan requirements, Post Construction Stormwater Requirements, and adopted building and grading codes for water quantity/quality analysis. No mitigation measures are necessary. Less than significant PC2 - 30 impact. g), h), i), j) The project site is not located within the 100 -year flood hazard area, is not located near a levee or dam, is not downstream from a levee or dam, and is not located in an area where there is risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 8 X b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 10 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans? 5 X Evaluation a) The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The project proposes an exception to the City’s Subdivision Regulations minimum lot area requirements. The proposed subdivision would create 2 lots from one existing parcel, which requires an exception to the Subdivision Regulations for parcel area. The proposed corner lot (parcel B) has a lot area of 5,592 square feet (5,750 square feet minimum required for a corner lot). The project site is within an already developed residential subdivision representing an infill development opportunity. An exception is required due to a portion of the property required to be dedicated to the public right-of-way, approximately 175 square-feet, without this requirement of dedication an exception would not be re quired. The proposed subdivision minimally conflicts with the parcel area requirement of the Subdivision Regulations and the resulting parcels will be consistent with the size, density, and development pattern of the neighborhood. Less than significant impact. b), c) The proposed subdivision is an infill project in an already developed urban area resulting in a development pattern consistent with both the Zoning Regulations and General Plan and would not physically divide an established community, nor conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans. No impact Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 10 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 10 X Evaluation a), b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. No impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 3, 18 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 3, 18 X PC2 - 31 vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 30 X d) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 30 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 9, 27 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 9, 27 X Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project site is not located near any noise sources which would exceed noise t hresholds of the Noise Element. Site development will result in increases in ambient noise levels but not to significant levels because policies in the City’s Noise Element regulate potential noise impacts. Noise increases that would affect ambient levels are to be reduced to thresholds determined to be acceptable in residential areas. Construction activities also generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction, including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes thresholds for noise generation from construction equipment and limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant impact. e, f) The project site is located outside of the 50 dB contour identified in Figure 1 of the San Luis Obispo County Airport ALUP. The project is a residential development, and the project location has not been identified as an area subject to noise sources above the City’s thresholds. In addition, interior noise levels of less than 45 dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction techniques. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant Impact. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 6 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 6 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 6 X Evaluation a) b) No impacts to population and housing will occur as the project does not involve modifications to th e City’s policies on residential densities. No impact Conclusion: No Impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facili ties, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other PC2 - 32 performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 12 X b) Police protection? 12 X c) Schools? 12 X d) Parks? 12 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X f) Other public facilities? 12 X Evaluation a), b), d), e), f) As an infill site, adequate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infra structure, and other public facilities) are available to serve the project. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State regulations and building permits will be issued to insure consistency with these requirements. Less than significant impact c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to be adequate mit igation for all school facility requirements. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigat ed by the district’s collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 30 X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 30 X Evaluation a), b) The project is not expected to produce such a volume of new users that any nearby parks or recreation areas will be significantly impacted or deteriorated. No significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with redevelopment of the site, as the project includes the development of only one additional dwelling unit. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? 2 X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? 2 X c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 30 X d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 30 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 30 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 2 X g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a change in air traffic patterns? 27 X PC2 - 33 Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f) The project site is served by existing transportation infrastructure and the proposed project will res ult in improvements to the City’s circulation system. The project will dedicate public right-of-way to provide for sidewalk improvements and vehicle access. The project has been evaluated by the Fire Department for adequacy of emergency access and no impacts have been identified. The project does not conflict with any plans or policies regarding public transit, bicyc le, or pedestrian facilities. The project is in conformance with City’s plans and policies regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The project will provide a benefit for public transportation for the City. No Impact. g) The project will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan. No impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 22 X b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 21, 23 X Evaluation On August 31, 2017, local Native American tribal groups were formally noticed that an Initial Study of Environmental Impact was being completed for the proposed project at 600 Perkins and invited to provide consultation on the proposed project. No tribal representatives requested formal consultation, and the project is not located within an archaeologically sensitive site, or near areas designated as burial sensitive areas. No impact. a), b) The project site does not contain any structures that are: listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register as defined in Public Resources Section 5020.1(k). The site does not contain any resources considered significant by any California Native American tribe. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 12 X b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment, waste water treatment, water quality control, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 12 X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 12 X PC2 - 34 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? 12 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitment? 12 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 24 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 24 X Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project is an infill development project within an existing residential subdivis ion which is already served by drainage, sewer, and water facilities and is already served with solid waste service. The incremental increase in demand on these facilities and services is not considered to be significant. Future site development on the newly created parcel is subject to impact fees to ensure new development pays its fair share of the cost. The City’s existing fee structure is intended to offset any of the incremental impacts of each new residential unit. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X As discussed in the biological section of this study, there are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special s tatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. Wi th 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 cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) X The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed Project, all environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: air quality, biological and cultural resources, geological, hydrology and water quality, hazardous materials, and noise. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Implementation of the proposed Project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings, all environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed projec t would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, hazardous materials, and noise. PC2 - 35 20. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions of the project. N/A 21. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element, April 2006 6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, February 1987 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 2014 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. Staff Knowledge 13. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 15. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001 16. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, 2012 17. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, on file in the Community Development Department 18. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook, May 1996 19. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 20. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 21. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map 23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department 25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 26. Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 0603100005 C) dated March 5, 2007 27. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 28. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines PC2 - 36 29. 2001 Uniform Building Code 30. Project Plans All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California (805) 781-7188. Attachments: 1. Reduced scale project plans PC2 - 37 Attachment 1PC2 - 38 Attachment 1PC2 - 39 Attachment 1PC2 - 40 Attachment 1PC2 - 41 Attachment 1PC2 - 42 Attachment 4 PC2 - 43