HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1998, 3 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP MS 79-98 (COUNTY MAP NO. SLO 98-093): CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE LOT, INCLUDING MINOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER O Council °° ;-zl- gg
j acenba aEpoRt N.O.
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director 0 4o,
Prepared By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner FK
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map MS 79-98 (County Map No. SLO 98-093): Consideration
of a tentative parcel map creating two lots from one lot, including minor exceptions to the
subdivision regulations, for property located on the northeastern comer of Alicita Court and
Margarita Avenue (3165 & 3195 Alicita Court).
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Draft Resolution A, approving the tentative parcel map creating two lots,based on required
findings,and subject to conditions,and approving requested exceptions.
DISCUSSION:
Situation
The applicant has submitted a tentative parcel map to divide an existing 15,000 square-foot parcel
into two separate lots:Lot 1 would contain 6,080 square feet;and Lot 2 would contain 8,081 square
feet. The new lot line is proposed in generally the same location as a previous lot line that existed
up to 1976. Access to the already developed lots is provided by a central driveway off of Alicita
Court that serves the existing apartments. Both parcels have lot areas that exceed the minimum
requirements of 6,000 square feet for the R-3 zone contained in the subdivision regulations.
However, minor exceptions to the subdivision regulations need to be requested for the comer lot
(Lot 1) in conjunction with the parcel map because the lot area and width requirements for comer
lots are greater than for interior lots.
SLO Municipal Code Chapter 16.48(subdivisionregulations)outlines the process for consideration
of subdivision exceptions. The code stipulates that subdivision exceptions shall be concurrently
reviewed with the tentative map and acted on by the City Council.
Data Summary
Address: 3165& 3195 Alicita Court
Subdivider: Micael Tilden
Zoning: R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential)
General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential
Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration on environmental impact was approved by the
Director on June 25, 1989.
Project Action Deadline: August 18, 1998
Council Agenda Repu__ Tilden Tentative Map (MS 79-98)
Page 2
Site Description
The project site is located on the northeastern comer of Alicita Court and Margarita Avenue. It
is developed with apartment buildings on either side of a central driveway and parking lot area.
Surrounding land uses include other apartments, single-family homes and condominiums.
Staff Analysis
The applicant has submitted the tentative map to re-establish a lot.line that was eliminated when
the two original lots were merged in 1976. The property is already fully developed. Therefore,
creation of the lot line will not influence the development potential of the site, but will allow for
separate ownerships to be established.
The proposed lot line will be placed at a slightly different location through the center of the site
than the lot line that existed prior to 1976. The reason for the new location is to allow each lot to
meet all applicable property development standards including density. An easement for shared
parking and a common driveway needs to be established with the creation of the new lot line.
The map requires the approval of the City Council since exceptions are technically required for
the comer lot for width and area. The subdivision regulations require that the lot area for a
comer lot be 15% larger than otherwise required (6,000 sq. ft. normally required; 6,900 sq. ft.
required for a comer lot), and the lot width be 10 feet wider than otherwise required (60 feet
normally required; 70 feet required for a comer lot).
Conclusion
The proposed comer lot, Lot # 1, will be 6,080 sq. ft. in area and average 62 feet in width. The
proposed lot area and width exceed normal requirements for the zone, but are slightly smaller
than those required for a comer lot. Greater standards for comer lots in terms of width and area
were established to insure that new development could adequately meet property development
standards with the further constraints of additional frontages. Therefore, the concern that
standards could not be meet with the creation a slightly non-conforming lot is not relevant here
since the sites are currently developed to nearly their full development potential. The
recommendation section of this report provides the required findings to approve the requested
exceptions.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt draft resolution B denying the tentative parcel map with findings that the site is not
physically suited for the type and density of development proposed and that proposed
exceptions are not wan-anted.
2. Continue review to allow revisions to the map or presentation of additional information.
Specific direction should given to the subdivider and staff.
3-2
Council Agenda Report-1__en Tentative Map(MS 79-98)
Page 3
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW
No other department has objected to the approval of this project. The concerns of other
departments have been incorporated into recommended conditions of parcel map approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Draft Resolution A which:
A. Concurs with the Community Development Director's determination of a negative
declaration based on the finding that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
B. Approves the tentative map based on required findings, and subject to recommended
conditions and code requirements.
C. Approves requested exceptions to Sections 16.36.160 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Draft Resolution A approving the tentative map
Attachment 2: Draft Resolution B denying the tentative map
Attachment 3: Vicinity map
Attachment 4: 8 1/2"x 11"copy of tentative map for MS 79-98(County Map No. SLO 98-093)
Attachment 5: Information from the subdivider
Attachment6: Initial Study ER 79-98
Enclosed(Council&reading file): Full Size Tentative Map
33
Draft Resolution A
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP MS 79-98
(COUNTY MAP NO. 98-093).INCLUDING EXCEPTIONS FOR LOT WIDTH AND
AREA FOR LOT 1,FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3165 &3195 ALICITA COURT
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 21, 1998, and
considered the applicant's request for a tentative parcel map to re-establish a lot line that existed
prior to 1976, and exceptions to lot width and lot area for Lot 1, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan, the Zoning Regulations,and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subdivision will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment as documented in Initial Study ER 79-98.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Tentative Parcel Map
No. 79-98 (County Map No. SLO 98-093), staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1. The design of the subdivision is consistent with the general plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-3
zone.
3. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of property within)the proposed subdivision.
3•�
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
5. A Negative Declaration was prepared by the Community Development Department on
June 26, 1997, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project
development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment.
SECTION 2. Conditions. Tentative Parcel Map No. 79-98 (County Map No. SLO 98-
093) is approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
Conditions
1. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall
be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used
and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map.
All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
2. The parcel map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English
System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g.-all record data shall
be entered on the map in the record units,metric translations should be in parenthesis), to
the approval of the City Engineer.
3. The subdivider shall record a grant of easement and agreement for common driveway to
accommodate the shared driveway and parking areas for the two lots to the approval of the
Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works. The document shall
also include an easement for drainage and utilities,if needed,and shall outline maintenance
responsibilities.
Code Requirements
1. Each parcel shall be served with individual and separate utilities services/laterals(water,
sewer, gas, electricity,telephone and cable TV).
2. One street tree is required for every 35 feet of street frontage. Existing street trees are
credited against the total number of trees required. If the total number of trees required
exceeds the number of existing street trees, additional trees shall be planted prior to
recordation of the parcel map (species may be selected from the Master Street Tree list).
SECTION 3. Exceptions. That the requested exceptions to Sections 16.36.160 of the
Subdivision Regulations be approved along with the tentative map for Parcel Map MS 89-317 as
follows:
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
1. That the property to be divided has a similar size, shape, and topography to other lots
similarly developed in the same vicinity, and that it is impractical, in the particular case,
to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16,
Subdivisions, of the SLO Municipal Code) and still comply with the zoning regulations
requirements for density (which is the reason for the specific placement of the proposed
lot line).
2. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not
the sole reason for granting the modification.
3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or
be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these
regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans
or other plans of the city.
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 . 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Kim Condon,Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'///"".A'���"V�-
ty o y 21eJorgensen
J�
Draft Resolution B
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP MS 79-98
(COUNTY MAP NO. 98-093), INCLUDING EXCEPTIONS FOR LOT WIDTH AND
AREA FOR LOT 1,FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3165 & 3195 ALICITA COURT
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 21, 1998, and
considered the applicant's request for a tentative parcel map to re-establish a lot line that existed
prior to 1976, and exceptions to lot width and lot area for Lot 1, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of Tentative Parcel Map
No. 79-98 (County Map No. SLO 98-093), staff recommendations,and reports thereof makes the
following findings:
1. The site is not suited for the type and design of the subdivision.
2. The property to be divided is not of such size or shape, or is not affected by such
topographic conditions,that is impossible,impractical or undesirable,in the particular case,
to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16,
Subdivisions,of the SLO Municipal Code).
3. The modificationwill be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare,or be injurious
to other properties in the vicinity.
4. Granting the modification is not in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations,
and is not consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other
plans of the city.
SECTION 2. Denial The request for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 79-98
(County Map No. SLO 98-093) and requested exceptions to the subdivision regulations are hereby
denied.
3-r
Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of 1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Kim Condon,Acting City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
3-8
Mate: 1 L
� ___-_ __- - I as s, i• v sa- o ff :1 Le . It .e n
x u"" " a -OJAI DRIVE
W
L, ie L, It jf f{ /fa • 11 e0 a1 aL
/t JNr. T� Wr \ r I
M•f-'►"GLS 1I
,'1..6IDa1L a X•f Y2tiiL CO L1 •S= St SG SS a� SS ss SI S• et re a,
S _ " O CACHUMA • DRIVE
�N a it La r s NE41 K . N ,.
:% '9 7-14
• 'M O
Iz
a.
•i 4.0 O
f�CM,•>t
aae.: s
!3 vi: tj Y1. M =♦ of ei s1 8. Tt T/ a7 W.
sa<ae.a � •�•^••
GUYAMA DRIVE
pi Sej I" ws .el.
a ®w � •ra j
• oo a O O '
s YhIT9 i
.., ._,
0
;
R � �
Or
•i .Yas1r yws� I o Q
AvE N V E
J J
J7� =pi A iia
• ami• Y ••rar =a•rip _ .
q 'wea � 't�' .•. zra�p0! N �2"
•' L� a ;baa !>1 �O�La,� '"..•.o :., us s ZZs n
IK
A fts
i// .:
.
42,
VV•e
• . 4Y•// 34 2 ,may
t3Ea-gz asl s» se.::.>
w tas V
VICINITY MAP 3165 ALICITA CT. NORTH
S79-98 - - (COUNTY MAP NO. 98-093)
ATTACHMENT 3
i e a a �13 E 4a i ii
flit
,trm�sll YIDS
_ qqi 9 •,i z�I 4 ag F33 33 !E3 I i !E j Sa
.mss uir W it'-ESim
.7(
Ci
oLa�'
. vl
• -of On i 1y J ~7 � m I '
2 aa. I•i m � � ,/�
�. I ] L • r I r •. I
n
w so 7' I 2• J L
0 1w
a
1 L
2
' • W
o a L 1 i d L.
fa
ir
-V
� s
` p
`` - �� •' - a d 2 ei
SCI V
i
I I s
�r � s—
� ^ 8
- : Its
ATTACHMENT ,-4 3_,a
Application -
For
Minor- Parcel
Division
SLO - 98 ==.093
ATTACHMENT
INDEX
9 Overview of application
2 Parcel map prior to 9976
3 Parcel map after 9976
4 Request by Reeder Development to revert lots 83 and 84 to single
parcel
5 Assessor's map
6 Land use information
7 Area Map
8 Preliminary title report
9 AutoCad Lot size calculation
90 Planning Application
3-/z
Overview of application
Reason for application:
Financing for apartments of 4 units or less is currently running at 6.675%,fixed.Interest on 5 or
more units is considered a commercial loan and rates are currently running at 8.5%to 9.5%variable.
I will save a significant amount on financing charges should I be able to split property prior to
close of escrow.
The value of the land is currently$460,000.The lot split would allow smaller investors to acquire
the parcels. Smaller investors are more likely to live in at the property. Small investors are more likely to
maintain the property and to give back something to our community,as opposed to large,absentee,
landowners.
History of lots:
Lots 83 and 84 were combined into lot 32 in 1976.The apparent reason for combining the lots was
that it was simpler than a lot line adjustment The lot line would have needed to be adjusted to make parcel
84 conform to density requirement
I would like to reinstate the lot line moved 1.68 feet to the South and parallel to the old lot line.
Moving the lot line would make both lots fully conforming.
Zoning and land use:
No changes are planned to the R3 zoning. Land use currently,consists of one four unit apartment
complex and one three unit apartment complex No changes are planned to land use.
Lot 4T2 will have an acarge of.18551.Allowable density is 3.33 units.The current 4 unit complex
on the property uses 332 units.
Lot#1 will have an acarge of.15884.Allowable density is 2.512 units.The current 3 unit complex
on the property uses 1.98 units.
Lot#2 will conform to density requirements after the split.
Lot#1 will have a square footage of 8081 sq 1 Lot size must be greater than 6000 sq ft in R3.
Lot#1 will have a square footage of 6081sq ft Lot#1 is a comer lot,therefore it must have 6000
sq ft plus 15%or 6900 sq R I would Uke to ask for a variance on the size of the lot
Irf-7
Improvements and Landscape Modifications-
Trees
od cations:Trees may be planted as requested and all water utilities will be cut and caped as they cross the lat
line.
Ezeinptions to design standards:
Wg will ask.fora lot size exemption..
Retaining walls:
There are no retaining _
walls on propertyoradjacent to the property..
Sincerely;
Nlichael B.Tilden
y; L"
Y.
CA IV AVIV -VAr/r*wO
99 V
Imo• 8
;
` �
„
y "q.. L. � � �at0.00• I I us
14
ti La.�.JO 'b1• � P� 7/�..�JLe.�i!• 9 t�� t P • 0
s :281.
i I
�J •Tio tr I
� �/ � t �ttoy• � •P � : ?�
PL.4
7_ =,
77
G
Baa„• ..
1
949.6v;, A.01r. 00/SIP a.:: :.va'OUR'sAN. .'TitACT
HIGUERA STREET
Y Slrs llfl
P
ei
1 e `
�4 • fD b
o n
~ ur r
r
a p I /ia°r .ie m
10
m
y x m 11 Ly, I Qd
m _ ti ago I / 9'•° .+y, w 4
2 D Ai �}• r
ro m ` AUCITA CT.
p CA 8 r1
GO
N m N m\N
C H V N \
m lo
-j
W O m Q 0
lot
Q om' ;' ar Am ° •y Icm
n m a mo .»e
'CAMELLIA CT 5
.ac vlr s ?
N — T ;! $ •'mow
r y�
C V Ot
goo .
Ju 4 O
- O
f
q � i
SO • r q LST OI
b y
P
•1
T
m °ESTELITA CT. r�' » "xe ^ e s
a) )1¢ sns• � t1
Z K R ��8 n� e•n Lgs m m
co W
O m cc-
76
m
T O fA
D m a z ezm°i O uxs
m
y0co
Om m
zw N
0
r+
LOT 9I .a03p�'V29PC
e�♦`g
1 �_—__,r. . � Na2^s�t'S4� 7tG:3�� 1 `4¢�o a�••a I�, :is
l a +a
Ilk
1� ¢� nam �v ma CS2
IN ft
m � 65.90'R •CO(/QT I BQ/1'i'R ly �e,�°o a� *i
Aq � � ♦ -- - _,cpm; i �
Z.A
p n
� °e�o.�� xro•1,d w �oa mu �°. �� � °off A
lb
�' R$rn �4H •� I t`
we
a
ii ��' '1'a9 b�E,\� ®/�Nm•�'.a�F�22S/9'R � "� .u.���•.. .
LOT 81 / LOT 60 ; LOT
re
10
k L^ 9 A A €�� OLD �° n �� �'� ��' 9 ��t � � � •C
917 + Ca
y
-4
' � 9 Glp flag
a t:`�;� `;'•'..
uj 3 n Y
€g
< �Y
= e t a •� i � y e 6 . .li � a
a D
0$°,P.� ,
a
a D 8 s
p C-11
a4mC1 a '' rna p �Y 8PH B
a� i a
o ar
,,� ♦g0 �+ •'� � II�7
el r
N.: Aa
o zed
ic
5- 7
Wo Planning Commission.
IRONS Planning Director
SUBJEiC`S Reversion to ecreagn portion of Tract 400, S. Higuera St.
The applicant is requesting to revert Lots 74 thru 91 zoned R-H
and the east 44 ft, of Lot 92 zoned C-.Y, to two lots.
Zt is aroposed that the two. eristing.cul-de-sacs remain and the
property be developed as two large ,parcels.
The staff has no objection to reverting these lots to acreage,
however, the east 44 ft. of Lot 42 should be rezoned to R-H-S.
RDYS eg
Mclosure
12/28/71
Vic
d
RGO
a,
R2TY
.0'OY
m
45.9052'
.>
L�e Rry N ar
Frontage:77.15 ft
Trees required:2.2
45.00000 Lot areQ 076 sgft
4
z
e
13.0200
8.8020"
3 .3475 Frontage;152.61 _
Trees Required!4.36
t 61.7700 Lot area:6080.19
90.00000 � 61.7700
4.3500
3�9
�►����Il�ll�l�ll �1°►��III
�IIIII �lll
cityo san l�u�s oB�sly
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 934013249
INITIAL STUDY ER 79-98
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Tilden Tentative Map MS 79-98 (County Map No. 98-093)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Pamela Ricci (805)781-7168
4. Project Location:
3165 & 3195 Alicita Court
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Michael Tilden
770 Meinecke Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
6. General Plan Designation:
Medium-High Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)
ATTACHMENT 6
OThe Qty of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. �J�
Tilden Tentative Map (N._ /9-98)
Page 2
8. Description of the Project:
The applicant wants to re-establish a lot line that was eliminated
through a lot merger in 1976. He is also asking for exceptions to lot
area and width for the corner lot.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant has applied to the City for environmental review and a
tentative map.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located on the northeastern corner of Alicita Court
and Margarita Avenue. It is developed with apartment buildings on
either side of a central driveway and parking lot area. Surrounding
land uses include other apartments, single-family homes and
condominiums.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits,
financing approval, or participation agreement).
None.
get/
Tilden Tentative Map (n,. /9-98)
Page 3
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.
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 �` ', -
a, n
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, X
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a 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 standard
and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions o
3�
Tilden Tentative Map (16. 19-98)
Page 4
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
June 25, 1998
ignat re Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name 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.
3�
Tilden Tentative Map (N. 79-98)
Page 5
EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
The applicant has submitted the tentative map to re-establish a lot line that was
eliminated when the two original lots were merged in 1976. The property is
already fully developed. Therefore, creation of the lot line will not influence the
development potential of the site, but will allow for separate ownerships to be
established.
The proposed lot line will be placed at a slightly different location through the
center of the site than the lot line that existed prior to 1976. The reason for the
new location is to allow each lot to meet all applicable property development
standards including density. An easement for shared parking and a common
driveway needs to be established with the creation of the new lot line.
The map requires the approval of the City Council since exceptions are technically
required for the corner lot for width and area. The subdivision regulations require
that the lot area for a corner lot be 15% larger than otherwise required (6,000 sq.
ft. normally required; 6,900 sq. ft. required for a corner lot), and the lot width be
10 feet wider than otherwise required (60 feet normally required; 70 feet required
for a comer lot).
The proposed corner lot, Lot # 1 , will be 6,080 sq. ft. in area and average 62 feet
in width. The proposed lot area and width exceed normal requirements for the
zone, but are slightly smaller than those required for a corner lot. Greater standards
for corner lots in terms of width and area were established to insure that new
development could adequately meet property development standards with the
further constraints of additional frontages. Therefore, the concern that standards
could not be meet with the creation a slightly non-conforming lot is not relevant
here since the sites are currently developed to nearly their full development
potential.
Without the need to request the minor exceptions to lot width and area for Lot # 1,
the project would meet all of the requirements for a categorical exemption from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a Minor Land Division (Section
15315, Class 15, of the CEQA Guidelines). Furthermore, given the circumstances
of the sites being fully developed, the tentative map seems to meet the criteria
under Section 15061 .(b)(3) which stipulates that a project may be considered
exempt if it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity
in question may have a significant effect on the environment. This is the reason
that the following cited Section 15301 .(k) excludes changes to developed sites that
only involve the creation of separate ownership patterns from CEQA requirements:
Division of existing multiple family or single-family residences into common
J-0
Tilden Tentative Map (N._ 79-98)
Page 6
interest ownership, and subdivision of existing commercial .or industrial
buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt.
In terms of overall impact and effect, the proposed tentative map is consistent with
the intent of this categorical exemption since there will be physical changes to the
site with the creation of the lot line enabling separate ownerships. Any concern
with the impacts of the exceptions will be addressed with the City Council review
of the tentative map. However, the impacts of the exceptions could only be
viewed as a concern with consistency with adopted plans and policies, rather than
a direct environmental impact since no physical changes to site development are
proposed.
Michael B Tilden ME AGENDA
770 Mienecke Ave.
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93405 DATE / ITEM #
(805) 543-2348
July 14, 1998
VIA: HAND DELIVERED
RE• Minor Lot Division Calendar item of Tuesday the 21st of July
Dear Mayor Allen Settel,
Facts:
I am requesting a minor lot division. Exhibit A
This matter will appear before the Council because the comer parcel is 9 feet less in width
and 650 square feet smaller than the City of San Luis Obispo specifies for comer lots.
Y If the lot were not a corner lot it would be fully conforming.
Other lots in the area are too small to be divided or have other restrictions on division.
Lot was previously two parcels and was combined into one parcel. Exhibit A
Property is already fully developed with 2 apartment buildings.
There will be no physical changes to the property because of the division, as such there
will be no negative impact.
Pending the environmental review Planning supports the subdivision.
Reasons for division:
The primary reason for this request is based on financing concerns. If the property is divided I
will be able to finance the property with a residential 30 year, fixed rate loan verses a
commercial variable rate loan at a much higher interest rate.
The properties will also be more liquid after the division.
Due to the lower down payment the division would allow small investors to purchase and to
invest in the properties. Small investors are more likely to live at the property and since it is
their 'bread and butter'they are more likely to take better care of the property. These same
small investors, as cpposed to large commercial firms, are more likely to give something back
to our community and keep rental money in our local economy.
This request has no down side for the city. The request will not increase density or the need
for services. The request will solely add a lot line to an existing, already developed lot.
If there are any concerns or questions I hope we can meet prior to the 215c
Sincerely,
UNCIL DD DIR n /
❑FIN DIR
❑FIRE CHIEF Michael B. Tilden
�RNEY ❑PIN DIR
JQR
❑ Ria O POLICE CHF
f]HEC DIR
E _-_ O UM DIR
letter to counciLdoc 13 PW DIR
Exhibit A
Lot 16
n Lot 33
� I
I
I
1
I Lot 17
L
3
N u
I a
I U
Q New Lot ��ne
I
I
I Lot 18
I E
_ t _ MQ�94ritQ Ave.
l
_ Z _