HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1995, 2 - MS 117-95 (SLO COUNTY NO. 95-087): MINOR SUBDIVISION TO DIVIDE ONE 7,500-SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS, WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT SIZE, WIDTH AND DEPTH REQUIREMENTS, ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF GEORGE STREET AND SOUTHERLY SIDE OF IRIS STRE MEETING DATE:
����►�►►�Ilul�ipp ►IIUIII city of San lues OBIspo — 7 —
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Nu
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Dev opment Diir
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner `SUBJECT: MS 117-95 (SLO County no. 95-087): subdivision to divide one 7,500-square foot
parcel into two parcels, with exceptions to lot size, width and depth requirements, on the
northerly side of George Street and southerly side of Iris Street, east of Ruth Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution adopting the negative declaration of environmental impact and approving the
subdivision, with the exceptions requested, based on findings.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The applicant wants to divide a 7,500-square-foot lot into two lots, one 3,450 square feet (50' X 69') and
one 4,050 square feet (50' X 81'). The subdivision regulations require lots in the R-2 zone to be a
minimum of 60' wide, 90' deep, and to have a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. The applicant is
requesting exceptions to these requirements. Exceptions to subdivision standards are acted upon by the
City Council.
Data summary
Address: 1236 George Street and 1243 Iris Street
Applicant/Property owner: Robert and Nancy Burke
Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
General plan: Medium-Density Residential
Environmental stains: Negative declaration, with mitigation, published on October 4, 1995
Project action deadline: December 26, 1995
Site description
The site is a rectangular lot, of regular topography, sloping at about 5% from George to Iris Streets.
It lies near the northeasterly end of Iris and George Streets, immediately south of "Villa Bianca", a 15-
unit condominium subdivision. The site is near the easterly edge of the R-2 zone in this neighborhood,
close to abutting the Office zone associated with French Hospital. The neighborhood contains many older
and more recent homes, most of which are detached. The site is developed with two separate residences
of differing eras and styles, each facing opposite streets.
Project description
The request is to divide the site between the two residences. Plans show a division into two rectangular
lots, but the applicant has agreed to revise the lot line to meet City density standards (see discussion on
density, below). No changes are intended to be made to the property.
►�����Hi�111111111P°1 IIIIIIICity of San L"IS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 117-95
1236 George Street
Page 2
Evaluation
1. The exceptions requested. The applicant wants exceptions to the subdivision regulations. The
subdivision regulations require lots in the R-2 zone to be 60' wide, and the depth to be 90'. Area
is required to be 6,000 square feet minimum. The parcels are proposed to be 50' wide and from 69'
to 81' deep, and to have areas of 3,450 and 4,050 square feet, although these areas are likely to be
adjusted somewhat (see discussion on density, below).
2. Some history. The proposed division would create lots similar in shape and size to many existing
lots in this older neighborhood. Several similar lot splits (about eight) were approved prior to the
adoption of the City's most recent subdivision standards in 1982. The resulting lots were all similar
in area to the proposed lots. Since 1991 the Council has approved two similar subdivisions in this
area (both on Iris and George, the first immediately southwest of this lot), creating a total of four
3,750-square-foot lots. As part of its action on the first such newer subdivision, the Council asked
that staff return with a proposal to change the zoning of the area to Low-Density Residential (R-1),
because development in,the area includes primarily detached smaller homes. When such a proposal
was returned to the Council as part of the Land Use Element update, it was rejected. A change to
R-1 without a density bonus or similar action would have created lots that were inconsistent will
general plan density standards (seven units per acre for the R-1 zone) and would have resulted in a
large number of nonconforming buildings, because of the many multi-dwelling lots in the
neighborhood.
The Council's support of these lot splits was based on the following factors:
a. The lots are street-to-street, allowing for development without flag access strips or other awkward
configurations.
b. The splits create additional opportunities for buyers of modest-sized homes. The lots are expected
to sell for more than would a similar-sized condominium unit, but less than a similar-sized home
on a larger lot.
c. The zoning is Medium-Density Residential, which will allow each small lot to be developed
consistent with density standards (unlike Low-Density Residential lots).
There are a limited number of lots that are medium-density and street-to-street, therefore appropriate
for this type division (approximately two dozen), most of which are in this neighborhood.
3. To grant an exception. The Council must make all of the following findings to grant any exceptions
to subdivision standards:
a. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic
conditions, that is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform
to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title.
city Of san LUIS OBISPO
Im COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 117-95
1236 George Street
Page 3
Comment. The above history provides some justification for approval of small lots,
where certain conditions are met. If the Council determines that the public good is served
by subdivision of this lot, then there is no alternative but to grant the requested
exceptions, because no split can be made without them. In that case, the Council may
find that it is undesirable to conform to the strict application of the regulations.
b. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole
reason for granting the modification.
Comment. Creating a subdivision from this lot and selling the two lots is likely to be
more profitable to the applicant than the sale of one lot with two homes. However, staff
is recommending approval of the subdivision because it is likely to increase the number
of small single homes availableto low- and moderate-income buyers.
C. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
Comment. The subdivision would not affect the physical appearance of the site in any
way. There will be no change to the density allowed (see discussion below) and no
change to the number of persons expected to live at the site. The environmental initial
study concludes that there will be no significant effects, if density effects are mitigated.
(see attached initial study).
d. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and
is consistent with the general plan and all applicable specific plans or other plans of the city.
Comment. The Land Use Element says that the Medium-Density Residential zone should
have "primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both
individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them, but in
a more compact arrangement than Low-DensityResidential. Such dwellings are generally
one- or two-story detached buildings on small lots, or attached dwellings, with some
private outdoor space for each dwelling... " (emphasis added). Development of the site is
currently consistent with these policies, and would continue to be consistent if split.
There are no specific plans for this area. The proposal is consistent with general plan
policies. .
All required findings for the requested exceptions can be made.
4. To approve a subdivision. To approve a subdivision, the Council must find that it is consistent with
the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The Subdivision Map Act (Section 66474) also
includes findings for denial of a subdivision, which, reversed, may be used as findings for approval.
These findings, then, are:
��►��►bNi�lllllllllp° l��lll City of San I-LAS OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 117-95
1236 George Street
Page 4
a. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
Comment: The proposed map in this case is consistent with the general plan, because
it is a subdivision consistent with allowed density and zoning, as conditioned.
b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans.
Comment: The design is consistent with the general plan, as noted above, because it is
a subdivision of detached homes on small lots.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
Comment. The site has no unusual characteristics and can support the proposed type of
development which already exists on it. No changes are proposed.
d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Comment: The site is already developed at the proposed density. Site development is
consistent with neighboring properties and with citywide medium-density development.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Comment. The site is not environmentally sensitive. The initial study concludes that
there will be no.negative impacts, as mitigated.
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public
health problems.
Comment: There are no unusual characteristics of this site that would result in serious
health problems if the map is approved.
g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
Comment. According to the title report, no easements exist on the property.
Each of these findings can be made in this case.
I
��������N►�IIIIIIIIIP��u�q�UIN city of san pais oBispo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 117-95
1236 George Street
Page 5
5. Density. The map design shows two lots of different sizes. The new lot line was drawn to separate
both buildings and provide the required rear yard area for each. However, the lot area shown for
the smaller lot is not adequate to support the existing density (one two-bedroom house). The area
is short by 180 square feet. There is no feasible way to approve an exception to the density allowed
in this case (see attached initial study). Therefore, the lot must be increased in size. The difficulty
in doing this is the existence and location of the two homes on the site. To create a lot line that is
straight and perpendicular to the side lot lines would require that it be closer than three feet from the
larger home, which is unacceptable from a building code standpoint.
Staff supports a lot line that makes a jog around the existing garage that serves lot 2 and maintains
a five-foot separation from the residence on proposed lot 1. A jog in the lot line that is 15' square
would add 225 square feet to proposed lot 2, while maintaining adequate area within proposed lot 1.
The modification would also allow the retention of the existing garage.
Such a lot design would be unusual for a standard lot, but similar to the odd designs of many
condominium small-lot subdivisions. It would allow for adequate small outdoor use areas on both
lots.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may approve the request with modifications to the suggested findings or conditions.
The Council may deny the request, if it finds that it is inconsistent with any City goals or policies.
The Council may continue action, with direction to staff and the applicant.
Attached: In packet: Subdivision map
Resolutions
Vicinity map
Site plan
Environmental initial study
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING APPROVAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 117-95
(COUNTY FILE 95-087) , DIVIDING ONE LOT INTO TWO
WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT WIDTH, DEPTH, AND AREA,
AT 1236 GEORGE AND 1243 IRIS STREETS
BE IT. RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of the tentative map of MS 117-95 and staff
recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements
are consistent with the general plan, because they implement
Medium-Density Residential policies of the Land Use Element.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
zone.
3. The design of the subdivision 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, because the site will
remain unchanged and there will be no change to density or
intensity of use as a result of the subdivision.
4 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement
will not conflict with easements for access through, or use
of property within, the proposed subdivision, because there
are no recorded easements.
5. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by
the Community Development Department on September 27, 1995,
that describes significant environmental impacts associated
with project development. The Community Development
Director has reviewed the environmental initial study and
filed a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, with
mitigation. The initial study concludes that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, subject to the mitigation measures being
incorporated into the project, and the City Council hereby
adopts the Negative Declaration and finds that it reflects
the independent judgement of the City Council.
Resolution no. (1995 Series)
MS 117-95 (County 95-087) 1236 George Street
Page 2
6. The property to be divided is of such a size and shape, that
it is impossible and undesirable, in the particular case, to
conform to the strict application of the subdivision and
zoning regulations because 1) no subdivision of the. site is
possible without some exception; and 2) creation of two
small lots with small homes will increase the number of
small homes available for sale in the city, while not
decreasing significantly the rental opportunities.
7. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance
with the subdivision and zoning regulations is not the sole
reason for granting exceptions to lot width and depth-to-
width standards, but rather the primary reason for granting
the exceptions is the city's interest in providing
opportunities for citizens to own modest homes.
8. The lot width, depth, and area exceptions will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity, because the
proposed lots will be similar to many others in the
vicinity, which have been developed similarly, and are
therefore consistent with neighborhood patterns.
9. Granting exceptions to lot width, depth, and area standards
is in accord with the intent and purposes of the subdivision
regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and all
other plans of the city, because it allows continuation of a
neighborhood development pattern and is consistent with
general plan policies for the Medium-Density Residential
zone.
SECTION 2. Conditions. The approval of the tentative
map for MS 117-95 is subject to the following conditions:
1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the City for
review, approval and recordation. The map shall be prepared
by, or under the supervision of, a registered civil engineer
or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared
in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and Subdivision
Regulations.
2 . All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline
intersections, BC's, EC's, etc. , shall be tied to the City's
control network. At least two control points shall be used
and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with
the final parcel map. A 5-1/4" diameter computer floppy
disk, containing the appropriate data for use in autocad for
Geographic Information system (GIS) purposes, is also
required to be submitted to the City Engineer. Any
c:2-7
Resolution no. (1995 Series)
. MS 117-95 (County 95-087) 1236 George Street
Page 3
exception to this requirement must be approved by the City
Engineer.
3. . The subdivider shall provide individual electrical, cable
television, and natural gas services and metering for each
lot to the approval of affected public utility agencies and
the City Engineer.
4. The subdivider shall provide separate sewer and water
service to each lot. Easements will be required for
drainage, sewer lateral connections, water services and any
other utilities that are located on the proposed adjacent
lot.
5. Street trees shall be planted on each lot, to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist. Credit may be granted
for existing trees.
6. Plans shall be revised to provide a minimum of 3, 630 square
feet on each lot, while maintaining at least five feet side
and rear yards for existing buildings. Final lot design
shall be to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
On motion of ,
seconded by and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1995.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
dA
*iA n
�—O
RESOLUTION NO. (1995 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP
FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 117-95
(SLO 95-087) AT 1236 GEORGE STREET
(MS 117-95)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION I. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the subdivision request MS 117-
95 (also known as SLO 95-087) , staff recommendations and reports
thereon, makes the following finding:
1. The design of the tentative map and the proposed
improvements are not consistent with the general plan.
SECTION 2 . The tentative map for Minor Subdivision 117-95
is hereby denied.
On motion of '
seconded by and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES: .
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1995.
a- 9
_ 1
I
Resolution no. (1995 Series)
MS• 117=95: 1236 George Street
.Page 2
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
--
41
/Z Z .0*
re RDS I69-70
.,..-,.
OPV
�` A.Its
Q�,
km
op
TOWE
th
1.100 I-els
- \ • ,eys
� � ` la\a t,,r _ Dom.: � '•t.
g ^>
_2_�
ki
o O o
,•`'✓`Y'` ".O� V S�, �t�, ID �r b ��
. � . 11 �.ev�
q> S
10
C> � U
Op q ••c
jP..9� ',•�� ny11'� \O e ass.
fCRISTY
a�
//\ � I,ql wYD aYre ayaS•
� A � rae IIIV �,�r•���� /
1i,d ti+ R=6lmPD
• ' ._._—.
VICINITY MAP MS qs, NORTH
d N
F
0
jar a. ,
1� 3g?�o399ScZ1 � �j-r
s
g � �
1 r
:4 01
1t y a ;3
.L—i
3� p �•,�r -� � �k -`X1 a u JC
z� c• S p � �$ � � 0 .
4
z
I �
E
Wicrn,SJA
436,
��NI cors —�'� �•
i l
►�►I�I I IIIII III I II�I������������@IIIIIIIIIIII� `IIIA• City of SM WIS OBIS
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1236 George Street
ER 117-95
Parcel map to divide one lot into two, with exceptions to lot size, width, and depth
1 . Project Title: Parcel map MS 117-95 (County # 95-087)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of SLO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Judith Lautner (805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
1236 George Street
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Robert & Nancy Burke and others
731 Pacific St. #52
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Medium-Density Residential (R-2)
8. Description of the Project:
The project is a map to divide the property into two parcels, one 3,450 square feet
in area, the other 4,050 square feet in area. An existing one-car garage would be
removed, but no other physical changes are proposed. If approved, each small lot
would contain an existing two-bedroom house.
NThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. c2-
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
' 1
i►►������������������ii�►�►►►►IIIIIIIII����'��►►����� IIIICityo son WIS OBIS Nakao
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The older neighborhood contains many street-to-street lots similar to this one, and
several lots which have been divided into small lots approximately the size of
those proposed.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, x
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
r� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
�C✓� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
f
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." 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,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
September 27, 1995
na ure Date
Ronald Whisenand evelopment Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the 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) "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 CEOA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2 X
See attached discussion and recommended mitigation.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? x
The existing development on the site will remain, except that the existing garage may be removed. If the homes
were to be removed in the future, new development of the same density only would be allowed. Property
development standards would apply to the new lots, which means that yards, heights, and other development
characteristics would be consistent with the existing development in the neighborhood.
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact x
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an x
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
ieveral lots in the vicinity are of similar size to the proposed lots, and several other street-to-street lots contain the
potential for such a division. Whether or not the lots are divided, the development is similar: typically two small
detached homes on similar-sized sites. The proposed subdivision would not introduce a different type of
development to the established neighborhood.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population x
projections?
The subdivision would result in no change to the development potential of the site, and therefore no change to the
potential to change the population.
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or x
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? x
The lot division has the potential to attract home buyers rather than renters. Generally, rental housing is more
affordable than purchased housing. However, the sales price of the homes is expected to be lower than it would be
for similar-sized homes on larger lots, and therefore more likely to be affordable as "starter" housing. It is also
possible that different owners will rent out the dwellings. Therefore, no significant change in the amount of
affordable housing is likely as a result of this subdivision.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
x
a) Fault rupture?
x
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? x
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? x
e) Landslides or mudflows? x
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil x
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
Some modifications to the existing topography may be necessary to assure that drainage flows to both streets.
Alternatively, a drainage easement across lot 1 could accommodate drainage from lot 2, as it has traditionally. Any
such changes to this almost-flat site (it slopes at about 5% toward Iris) to address drainage concerns would be done
in conjunction with grading regulations and would not cause significant changes in topography.
g) Subsidence of the land? x
h) Expansive soils? x
i) Unique geologic or physical features? x
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the x
rate and amount of surface runoff?
If the property is graded to assure that each lot drains to the adjacent street, the drainage pattern will change.
However, these changes will not result in an increase in total runoff, and the water will continue to end up at the
sewage treatment plant.
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards x
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of x
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water x
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water x
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through x
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? x
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? x
it Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater x
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5 cm,2—/7
ie i
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources potentially potentially Daae Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Union Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an x
exiting or projected air quality violation?
No change to uses allowed, or to the density of the site, are proposed. Therefore there will be no intensifying of
El
existing uses and no contribution to air quality degradation as a result of the subdivision.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? x
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause x
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? x
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? x
h) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp x
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? x
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? x
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative x
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility x
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats x
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? I x
None of the trees on site are significant from a historical point of view.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, x
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? x
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? x
6 ��0
,• r
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? x
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and x
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral x
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous x
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan x
or emergency evacuation plan?.
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health x
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential x
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, x
grass of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? x
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? x
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fre protection? x
b) Police protection? x
W Schools? x
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x
e) Other governmental services? x
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? x
C �y
issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Communications systems? x
C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution x
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 4 x
Each new parcel must be served by its own sewer line, according to the City's subdivision regulations. The City's
sewer system can accommodate the change (there will be no change to total sewage). Sewer laterals must be
designed to provide positive flow to the line in the street. If the elevation of the line makes such a flow difficult,
then the line may cross the new lot line, provided an easement is recorded as part of action on the final map.
e) Storm water drainage? x
Each lot should be graded to direct water to the adjacent street. If the existing homes .make such grading an
unusual hardship, an easement can be created, before the final map is approved, to allow drainage to cross the lot
line.
f) Solid waste disposal? x
J) Local or regional water supplies? x
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? x
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x
c) Create light or glare? x
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? x
b) Disturb archaeological resources? x
c) Affect historical resources? x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the x
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks x
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources potentially potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality x
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- x
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually 3 x
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
The project is one of several to create small lots from average-sized lots, in exception to standards in the
subdivision regulations. As noted in Initial Study 20-91 (reference # 3), about 24 lots inside the city had potential
for this type of division in 1991. All of these lots are street-to-street and in a medium-density area near the site.
Since 1991, three of these lots have been divided in a similar manner to this one. Therefore, a precedent has been
set for the creation of small lots with limited development potential. Even if all.24 lots were divided in this manner,
the effect on the city would not be significant.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will x
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
9 07 cz/
r i
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
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.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1 General Plan Land Use Element, City of SLO, 1994, pp. 26, 29, 30, 31
2 Zoning Regulations, City of SLO, August 12, 1994, M.C. Section 17.16.010
3 City of SLO Environmental Initial Study ER 20-91, adopted 6/18/91
4 City of SLO Subdivision Regulations, M.C. Sect. 16.36.250(J)
5
6
7
8
9
Attached: Discussion of conflict with general plan designation or zoning (3 pages), including recommended mitigation
measures.
10
Supplement to Initial Study 117-95
1. Land use and planning:
a. ) Would the proposal conflict with general plan designation or
zoning?
Compatibility:
Section 2.2 .10 of the Land Use Element (LUE) says
Compatible Development Housing built within an existing
neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that
neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-
living facilities should be compatible with any nearby, lower
density development.
The proposal is to retain existing housing and to create a lot line
that would allow each existing home to be on its own lot.
Retention of existing housing is consistent with this policy.
conclusion: No impact.
Density:
Section 2.4 of the LUE defines density categories. The "dwelling
unit" is defined as a two-bedroom dwelling, and maximum density in
the Medium-Density Residential areas is defined as 12 dwelling
units per acre.
Section 17.16.010 of the Zoning Regulations implements the LUE
policy on density, again stating that 12 dwelling units would be
permitted in the Medium-Density Residential zone. The zoning
regulations further define unit types as follows:
Studio apartment: 0.5 unit
One-bedroom dwelling: 0.66 unit
Two-bedroom dwelling: 1.00 unit
Three-bedroom dwelling: 1.50 units
Dwelling with four or more bedrooms: 2.00 units
The regulations say that "any combination of dwelling types and
numbers may be developed, so long as their combined unit values do
not exceed the maximum potentia _" (emp asis added)
The proposal would split the lot so that proposed parcel 2 would
contain 3,450 square feet in area. This size lot would allow
3,450/43,560 X 12 = 0.95 dwelling units. This means that only a
one-bedroom dwelling would be allowed on the lot, where a two-
bedroom dwelling now exists. Approval of the lot would be in
conflict with density restrictions.
Page 1
Supplement to ER 117-95
The placement of the existing homes on the lot limits how the lot
can be divided. The house facing Iris Street is set back 27 ' from
the property line and angled to accommodate a storm drain easement.
The result is that the house, although not. large, extends to about
76 ' back from the street property line. Creating a rear lot line
at the required five-foot setback from this one-story house means
the lot line is placed 76 + 5 = 81' from the street property line,
and results in the two unequal lots, one 4, 050 square feet and the
other 3,450 square feet.. And as noted above, the smaller lot is
not large enough to permit a 2-bedroom dwelling.
Conclusion: Significant impacts to general plan and zoning
regulations, unless mitigated.
Recommended. mitigation: The proposal must be modified to meet
density regulations, through one of the following alternative
methods or another that is acceptable to the City Council:
Alternatives:
1. Create a jog in the lot line. For example, the line could
parallel the walls of the house itself, on the southerly side
of the house, staying at least five feet away from the walls
of the house. A jog 15 ' X 12 ' would add the necessary 180
square feet -to the smaller lot. This design would have the
unexpected advantage of allowing the existing garage to remain
but also has the consequence of eliminating any meaningful
yard area on the southerly side of the house on lot 1.
2 . Create a lot line that angles across the lot. To be
successful in creating a larger lot, the lot line would have
to come closer than 5' to the existing house on proposed lot
1, which would require that another exception be approved as
part of the action on this project. The benefit would be that
the lots would have a configuration closer to "normal", in
that each would be trapezoidal in shape. Disadvantages would
be that 1)another exception would be required, to allow the
house on lot 1 to be closer than five feet from the property
line, and 2)that this lot line too would effectively eliminate
any yard area on the southerly side of the house on lot 1.
3 . Grant an exception to density. The subdivision regulations
allow exceptions to be granted to its standards if certain
findings can be made. However, density is not a subdivision
standard, but a zoning standard. Exceptions to density,
according to the zoning regulations, can only be granted in
cases where there is a slope-imposed reduction of density or
if a density bonus is warranted because a project meets
certain affordability requirements. Because the site is
almost flat, there are no slope-imposed reductions, and it is
unlikely that the project can meet affordability requirements.
Page 2
Supplement to ER 117-95
4. Require that the residence on lot 2 be modified so that it
contains only one bedroom. Such a requirement would eliminate
the density concern. However, it is probable that the house
would be reconverted (illegally) to two bedrooms eventually.
Requiring that an agreement be signed and recorded, limiting
the use on the site to a one-bedroom dwelling, could make
conversion less likely.
5. Require that the house on lot 1 be modified so that the lot
line can be moved sufficiently (3.66 feet) to the northwest to
provide an additional 180 square feet to lot 2, yet maintain
a five-foot yard for the house on lot 1. This alternative
would create lots that both can accommodate two-bedroom homes.
However, it would be physically difficult to make such a
change to the newer house on lot 1.
6. Deny the subdivision. The subdivision may be denied based on
finding that it is inconsistent with City zoning regulations,
specifically density standards. The two houses would remain
on one lot under one ownership.
Lot size exceptions:
The LUE defines "Medium-Density Residential" development as
"primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a
sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion of the
households occupying them, but in a more compact arrangement than
Low-Density Residential . Such dwellings are generally one- or two-
story detached buildings on small lots, or attached dwellings, with
some private outdoor space for each dwelling. . :Medium-density
development is appropriate as a transition from low-density
development to higher densities." (LUE Section 2.4.6, p. 31)
(emphasis added. )
The proposal is to create small lots, on each of which will be a
two-bedroom dwelling and private yard area. The proposal is
consistent with this policy of the LUE.
Conclusion: No impact.
Page 3
Supplement to ER 117-95
MITIGATION MEASURE AGREEMENT
Environmental Review ER 117-95
1236 George Street
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and Robert and Nancy
Burke on the �� day of EOc,—Tt L,.1995. The following measures are included in the
project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign this original and return
it to the Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Mitigation measures:
The proposal must be modified to meet density regulations, through one of the following alternative
methods or another that is acceptable to the City Council:
Alternatives:
1. Create a jog in the lot line. For example, the line could parallel the walls of the house itself,
on the southerly side of the house, staying at least five feet away from the walls of the house.
A jog 15'X 12'would add the necessary 180 square feet to the smaller lot. This design would
have the unexpected advantage of allowing the existing garage to remain but also has the
consequence of eliminating any meaningful yard area on the southerly side of the house on
lot 1.
2. Create a lot line that angles across the lot. To be successful in creating a larger lot, the lot
line would have to come closer than 5' to the existing house on proposed lot 1, which would
require that another exception be approved as part of the action on this project. The benefit
would be that the lots would have a configuration closer to "normal", in that each would be
trapezoidal in shape. Disadvantages would be that ])another exception would be required,
to allow the house on lot 1 to be closer than five feet from the property line, and 2)that this
lot line too would effectively eliminate any yard area on the southerly side of the house on lot
1.
3. Grant an exception to density. The subdivision regulations allow exceptions to be granted
to its standards if certain findings can be made. It is uncertain that the first finding can be
made: "that the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such
topographic conditions,that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case,
to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title".
4. Require that the residence on lot 2 be modified so that it contains only one bedroom. Such
a requirement would eliminate the density concern. However, it is probable that the house
would be reconverted (illegally) to two bedrooms eventually. Requiring that an agreement
be signed and recorded, limiting the use on the site to a one-bedroom dwelling, could make
conversion less likely.
5. Require that the house on lot 1 be modified so that the lot line can be moved sufficiently (3.66
feet) to the northwest to provide an additional 180 square feet to lot 2, yet maintain a five-
foot yard for the house on lot 1. This alternative would create lots that both .can
accommodate two-bedroom homes. However, it would be physically difficult to make such
a change to the newer house on lot 1.
6. Deny the subdivision. The subdivision may be denied based on finding that it is inconsistent
with City zoning regulations, specifically density standards. The two houses would remain
on one lot under one ownership.
If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation measures are
ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of
the original measu
Arnold B. Jonas
Community Development Director
Robert Burke
Project Applicant
•L
Nancy . ur e
Project'Ap icant