HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/2001, PH 1 - A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH AN EXCEPTION TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; A USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPM Ccouncil M°�� °°44/0 1
A Acjcnc)a 12Epol2t dem Number 1
C I T Y O F SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH AN EXCEPTION TO THE
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; A USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF 5 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
ZONE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR A PROJECT AT 2290
SANTA YNEZ (LLA 79-01):
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution "A", approving the project, with the following components:
1) A lot line adjustment and lot combination with an exception to the Subdivision Regulations
for minimum street frontage.
2) A use permit to allow development of five single-family homes, subject to conditions of
approval and code requirements; and
3) A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Staff is recommending approval of a project that would permit development of five single-family
homes in an undeveloped portion of the Monterey Heights neighborhood. The project would
solve a major development constraint for the property by reconfiguring existing lots to provide
street access to Santa Ynez. Staff believes that further development of Loomis Street to provide
access to these lots is not preferable because of the steep slopes involved. The project site is part
of a hillside planning area identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Staff believes
that the proposal is consistent with the City's hillside development standards, and Architectural
Review will be required for each home in the project. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the project identifies potential impacts in the areas of aesthetics, geology, hazards, hydrology and
noise, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than
significant levels in each of the issue areas.
DISCUSSION
Situation
Lot line adjustment applications are normally acted on by the Community Development Director
without the need for a public hearing. When exceptions are requested, the Subdivision
Regulations require the application to be acted on by the City Council. The Community
/-1
Council Agenda Report
LLA 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez)
Page 2
Development Director has referred the proposed Administrative Use Permit and Mitigated
Negative Declaration directly to the Council to be considered at the same time as the lot line
adjustment.
Site Description
The project site is at the northeastern fringe of the City, in the Monterey Heights Neighborhood.
The project site is perched above Loomis Street and Highway 101, as it winds into town. This
section of the highway is designated as a scenic corridor in the City's Circulation Element. At
the end of Loomis Street is Cuesta Regional Park, which is a County park facility. The site is
bordered by residential development on the west, north and southwest. Undeveloped hillsides
border the project site to the east. Beyond the City Limit to the east, the land is generally used
for grazing and other agricultural activities such as beekeeping.
Data Summary
Address: 2290 Santa Ynez
Applicant/Property Owner: Michael Villarreal
Representative: Central Coast Engineering
Zoning: Low Density Residential, Special Considerations (R-1-S)
General Plan: Low Density Residential
Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the Community
Development Director on October 25, 2001 and revised on November 2, 2001.
Project Description
The project is a lot line adjustment and lot combination that would reconfigure eight lots of
record into five home sites. The home sites would have vehicular access from Santa Ynez via a
common driveway. The applicant is proposing to prepare the lots for individual sale to
prospective developers or homeowners. This would involve building the common driveway and
extending utilities such as water, sewer, natural gas, cable television and electricity to each home
site. The proposal also involves an application for an Administrative Use Permit, which is
required prior to establishing any new use in the Special Considerations (S) zone. The
Administrative Use Permit would act as a master use permit, permitting development of each lot
with a single-family home.
Evaluation
This evaluation includes an analysis of the project components and an overview of the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. The proposed use permit would
entitle the applicant to develop the necessary common driveway and extend utilities to each home
site. Architectural Review Commission approval would still be required prior to development of
each lot.
/—Z
Council Agenda Report - �\
LLA 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez)
Paee 3
Lot Design
The proposed lot design is intended to solve the major development constraints facing the
property — topography and access. The property was originally subdivided when the property
was in the County and, although the downhill lots are adjacent to a paper portion of the Loomis
Street right-of-way, a street has never been developed in this area. The Assessor's Parcel Map
(Attachment 2), and recent title reports, indicate that the project site includes eight distinct lots of
record, some of which are under common ownership. This project would combine four of these
lots and reconfigure the lot lines as shown on the Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Map,
resulting in a total of five lots (Attachment 3).
Lot Line Adjustment-Exception
The City's lot dimension standard, SLOW 16.36.160, requires each lot to front on a street. The
paved portion of Loomis Street is actually the old Highway 101 and does not provide access to
this property. The project site is adjacent to a paper street, which staff believes is impractical to
develop because this area is the steepest part of the project and driveways would be more visible
in this location than any other. The minimum standard for street frontage is 20 feet to provide for
adequate driveway width. Lots 3 and 4 would not have any street frontage and would be
accessed via the common driveway.
In order to approve the Lot Line Adjustment, the Council must make a general finding that the
project will not create additional lots and that the project is consistent with the City's Subdivision
Regulations. In order to approve the requested exception to the Subdivision Regulations, the
City Council must make four specific findings (SLOMC 16.48.020), as listed below. Staff has
provided analysis for each finding in italics.
A) That the property to be divided (adjusted) 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.
The property is clearly impacted by topographical conditions, primarily steep slopes that
make development of a standard street in the Loomis right-of-way problematic. This area
is the steepest part of the project and driveways would be more visible in this location
than any other. Access via Buena Vista Street is impacted by similar topographical
constraints. The proposed common driveway is the most logical way to provide street
access to the reconfigured lots.
B) That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not
the sole reason for granting the modification.
Staff believes that the proposed exception results in a better lot configuration for the
property than the existing, conventional lot configuration. The lot combination that is
proposed would reduce the number of developable lots from eight to five, resulting in
larger lots that are more compatible with adjacent development. Topography, and not
1-3
Council Agenda Report
LLA 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez)
Page 4
the cost to the subdivider, is the main reason staff recommends approval of the lot line
adjustment.
C) That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or
be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity because the proposed exception will result in
five lots that more closely resemble existing, developed properties in the neighborhood.
In addition, the development project is subject to environmental review. The results of
staff's analysis indicate that all potentially significant development impacts can be
mitigated to a less than significant level (See Attachment #.i).
D) 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.
The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Subdivision Regulations. In particular, the proposed exception would "enable
innovations in the subdivision procedures which facilitate development that will best
reflect the capability of the land to support a desirable living environment" (SLOMC
16.04.020) because the proposed driveway will cut across the project site in a way that
reduces the visibility of the driveway. The proposed driveway design also allows for
drainage from new impervious surfaces to be conveyed to an approved point of disposal
in the Santa Ynez right-of-way, reducing the potential for the project to have erosion
impacts.
Lot Line Adjustment—State Law
A new State law recently enacted by the Governor limits lot line adjustments to four or fewer
lots. This new law goes into effect on January 1, 2002. The current application is valid,
provided that the City Council acts on the lot line adjustment prior to the effective date of the
new law. If Council does not act on the project before the end of this year, the applicant would
have to eliminate one lot from the project or re-subdivide the property. Re-subdivision would
require a new planning application for approval of a tentative tract map. Additional standards
would apply to a re-subdivision of the property, including the slope/density standards discussed
in this report.
Administrative Use Permit
The property is within an existing neighborhood but has remained undeveloped because of its
hillside location and inaccessibility. The property was designated with the Special
Considerations overlay zone as part of the City's hillside planning program. The project site is
adjacent to the Cal Poly—Cuesta Park hillside planning area, as identified by Figure 6 and Policy
6.2.6.A of the Land Use Element. This policy states that development should be protected from
highway traffic noise and should have adequate fire protection. The policy also states that lots
Council Agenda Report �
LLA 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez)
Page 5
fronting Loomis Street should have Architectural Review. Each of these issues are discussed in
the attached Initial Study of Environmental Impact, and mitigation measures and monitoring
programs are recommended to insure that potential impacts are reduced to insignificant levels.
As part of the use permit, the applicant is proposing building envelopes (Attachment 4). The
envelopes include building restrictions that are greater than the standards contained in the Zoning
Regulations. Setbacks are proposed to be a minimum of 10 feet adjacent to each property line.
Building heights for the downhill lots are restricted so that view corridors will not be impacted,
and to insure compliance with mitigation measures for aesthetics. Architectural review for each
lot will insure compliance with the proposed building envelopes.
Steep Slopes and Density
The project site includes steep slopes, in some areas up to 50%. Lot I and Lot 5 have relatively
flat building areas of 11% slope and 9% slope, respectively. The flat area of Lot 2 is outside of
the applicant's proposed building envelope because this area is well suited for yard space. Lot 3
and Lot 4 are steep and have a uniform slope of 33%and 39%, respectively.
The Zoning Regulations contain standards for density that reduce building potential as slope
increases (SLOMC 17.16.010, Table 1). However, the Zoning Regulations also say that
"...density standards shall not prevent construction of a single dwelling unit where otherwise
permitted by this chapter" (SLOMC 17.12,020.D). The table below is provided to illustrate the
development potential of the property under the current standards. As a single property, 1.54
dwelling units, or one single family home, would be allowed. These density standards would
apply if the property were re-subdivided, although the Zoning Regulations include provisions for
an exception to the reduction of density with slope with the approval of an Administrative Use
Permit (SLOMC 17.16.010, Table I (text)).
Slope/Density Calculations
Lot No. Size of Lot Avg. Cross Max. Dwellings Density Unit
Slo elper Acre2 Value3
1 14,144 27% 1 .32
2 15,006 40% 1 .34
3 15,986 33% 1 .37
4 10.013 39% 1 .23
5 12,254 30% 1 .28
As a Single 67,403 34% 1 1.54
Pro ert
1. Source: Project Plans submitted by applicant.
2. Source: Zoning Regulations, 17.16.010,Table 1
I Source: Zoning Regulations, 17.16.010.A.2.d
The Council should note that this project will not create any new lots, and development of a
single dwelling on each lot is permitted by the Zoning Regulations. The project site has the same
/-S�
Council Agenda Report ` J
LLA 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez)
Page 6
topography as the surrounding neighborhood and there are other examples of development on
steep slopes in the City, including in the Ferrini Heights neighborhood, and on Royal Way and
Spanish Oaks Drive.
Inclusionary Housing Requirement
The project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing requirement because it is a residential
development of more than four units (SLOMC 17.91.030.B.1). The applicant has proposed a
unique method for compliance with the ordinance, which may result in development of an
affordable dwelling on the project site. The proposal is to build one of the homes with a
Secondary Dwelling Unit that would be rented under a contract of affordability with the City.
Staff supports this proposal and is recommending conditions of approval to insure its
implementation (Attachment 6).
The Inclusionary Housing Requirement must be met prior to occupancy of the first dwelling on
the project site. In order to meet this standard, the developer will be required to submit a
financial guarantee in the amount of the in-lieu fee for the project, which would be deposited into
the City's Inclusionary Housing Fund in the event that the first unit built in the project does not
contain a Secondary Dwelling Unit. The in-lieu fee, $45,000, is based on a 2,139 ft.z home per
lot. considered to be the average house size for the project. The developer of the first unit in the
project would be responsible for obtaining all of the necessary approvals for the Secondary
Dwelling Unit, including an Administrative Use Permit and Architectural Review.
Environmental Review
The following is a summary of the potentially significant impacts of the project. In each case
mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts to less than significant levels
Aesthetics
The applicant submitted a visual analysis as part of the application. The analysis identifies two
primary conditions that would be considered significant impacts. These conditions include
obscuring views of Cerro San Luis Obispo with structures and silhouettes of buildings projecting
into the skyline. The perspective evaluated is from Highway 101 north of the project site,
looking south. This perspective is chosen because the Circulation Element identifies the
Highway in this area as a road of high scenic value.
Two mitigation measures are recommended. The first will insure that architectural review is
required for each lot. This mitigation measure will also insure that no more than 15% of any
structure on Lot 2 will silhouette the skyline. According to the study, Lot 2 is the only lot with
the potential for creating a skyline silhouette. The second mitigation measure is intended to
encourage low profile building designs that "step down" the hillside. This is consistent with
policies in the Open Space Element that encourage development to be designed to minimize
grading and visual impacts on hillsides. The requirement limits exposed building walls to no
1 -6
Council Agenda Report
LLA 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez)
Page 7
more than 40% of any structure. This requirement will be met primarily by building designs that
cut into the hillside instead of cantilevering out. Landscaping may be used to screen exposed
building walls to a lesser extent.
GeoloQv
The soils report for the project concludes that the site is suited for the proposed type of
development. Specific recommendations are made in the report, and individual soils engineering
reports are required for each lot. The mitigation measure for geology is intended to insure
implementation of the recommendations in the soils report.
Hazards
Hazards from Wildland fires have been identified. The Fire Marshall has evaluated the project
plans and has determined that lots 2, 3 and 4 may represent the ultimate wildland/urban interface.
Mitigation measures are recommended to insure that appropriate building techniques are used.
The Fire Marshall will determine exactly which lots the mitigation measures apply to, as
development is proposed. The Fire Department has established a development limit line on lot 4,
which is 300' from the Santa Ynez driveway approach. It is Fire Department practice to require
an on-site hydrant and emergency vehicle turn-around if any structure on a project site is greater
than 300' from an approved access point. No structures are permitted outside of this line, which
is called out on the site plan. The site plan also shows stairway access to the rear of lot 2 from
Buena Vista, which was required by the Fire Marshall.
H dy rology
Hydrology concerns are related to erosion. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure that
Best Management Practices are employed wherever soil is disturbed to prevent erosion. A
hydrology study for the project shows that the drainage area that is tributary to the cut slope
above Loomis Street is actually being reduced. This is because drainage from the homes will be
able to be directed back to the driveway through the use of roof drains. A mitigation measure is
recommended to require a drainage easement at the bottom of lots 4 and 5 in the event that a
particular house design will require drainage to be conveyed to Loomis Street. The Preliminary
Lot Line Adjustment Map has been amended to include this easement.
Noise
A noise study prepared for the project concludes that development can occur in compliance with
the standards contained in the City's Noise Element. In general, outdoor use areas are
recommended in areas that would be shielded from Highway 101 noise by buildings. Interior
noise levels can be reduced to acceptable levels by following the recommendations contained in
the City's Noise Guidebook.
��7
Council Agenda Report '
LLA 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez)
Page 8
CONCURRENCES
The project was routed to Public Works, Fire, Building, Utilities, and Natural Resources.
Comments from these departments have been incorporated into the discussion and, where
appropriate, included as conditions of approval or mitigation measures.
ALTERNATIVES
I. The Council may deny the lot line adjustment request if the Council finds that the project is
not consistent with the Subdivision Regulations or Zoning Regulations; or the project may
be denied if the Council is not able to make one or more of the four required findings for an
exception listed in this report.
2. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should
be given to staff and the applicant. The Council should note that the new law regarding lot
line adjustments discussed in this report would prohibit the Council from acting on this
application in its current form after January 1, 2002. As a result, the Council should
consider acting on the lot line adjustment if there is support for the proposed lot design. If
additional information is necessary regarding the Administrative Use Permit or Mitigated
Negative Declaration, staff could return to Council at a later date with those components of
the project.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Assessor's Parcel Map of Project Site
Attachment 3: Reduced Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Map and Reduced Site Plan
Attachment 4: Proposed Building Envelopes
Attachment 5: Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Negative Declaration with
attachments
Attachment 6: Draft Resolution"A", approving the project
Attachment 7: Draft Resolution`B", denying the project
Attachment 1
Cit Limits
McCOLLUM. - -- — _ --
_ i•. t1E
_ VISTA CO
� O
W0
Z v
— Z
O� C:j
VidInity,fMap: LLA/A/ER 79
-01
2290 Santa Ynez
A0 300 600 900 Feet
/-1
fttachment 2
LOt
I� h�
\J o , A r y33O
.� °j p•Pf W ar,� m i
09ccr
g �. �ra p !f �i qpOda (0
�d
O O
O p W
ul o a� WY
\r!i300•YS !+e ` $�IIpSR' \ r �m\ O v
yaw °� �a 49 SANTA
O�o: °i °n ^\d W n 7150 7960 O� • v =
s
10
04 n
1 4 M h \ wf U
f5 a s F m"' C — N ^� sDro s•
5 a� w or OSta 1 5
_xiiz�r
V-- pso og SO
¢�
pO
NJ
888. a p -Gal 2*
z
z W g� 0(yY W N
'w
94r AL
co VI
09
09i ri
AVE.x •03.05
x 68'0
N �t M W C0 s°. czr
irr m ,•� . '7.
' $O O '� O[ I • ' I m�l
W
m - q — I � r1' •� ' I I oaR�
—— — sr• c6 - c g 06 y 8 8
dao
Attachment 3
�� sssss e
la
F, o
a
�x� �g9g��g a�a� o ssssssss � � � b �a
, $iirrrrr�rr 89
a MOM
ilgilili
�6 92; . '.
g o
N
.r m O
C
T
cc
m
9 d
II °o
g a mx
o a a°
L)i y'3o p
+� m
A _i
it
c.
XC
8
u a -+
e
Attachment 3
� � a
jppj@ 4 ; : a
M4
iG z $1
Al, �a jb egsasspssos �
J� 01 w�bb LC�L���C
elf a3��5 rrrrrrrr = �a
a k'm A'a 9 1 * a �da �a ♦ �����$ i i i i � � � �' c o� a
LMMw g °
Po
w o.8
° q0
L MM
UMPI
a
�9
as r"�Z
BUILDING ENV"LOPS and HEIGH . RESTRICTIONS
Attachment 4
LOT 2
10' setback along four sides.
Varying setback along fifth side.
No height restriction per this map.
a
N p
LOT 1 s ` • e o v s n ng n n n 'n�
10' Setbacks along three sides.
35' Setback along one side.
No height restriction per this map.
Bl1ENP-
490 _ /
445
44° - — LOT 2 LOT 3
395
LOT 1
396 ` ,LOT 4
]85
380
CO
LOT 5
365 — i i r^
`\
\W
355
N LOT 3
LU350
10' Setbacks along three sides.
Z
z 3.5 300' building limit from Santa Ynez
346 along fourth side, per SLOFD requirements.
Q
F— No height restriction per this map.
Z ]]5
Q 330 LOT 4
U)
10' setback along all sides.
No part of the structure shall exceed elevation 415' per this map.
0 40 80 120 LOT 5
Feet 10' setbacks along all sides in two locations.
No part of the structure shall exceed elevation 405' per this map.
r-is
Attachment 5
��I�aBllllllll�H I Ipllllllllll cityof sAn suis OBIS
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 79-01 (Revised)
1. Project Title: 2290 Santa Ynez
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7175
4. Project Location: 2290 Santa Ynez, above Loomis Street in the Monterey Heights Neighborhood
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Michael Villarreal
3101 Rockview Place
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-I (Low Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project:
The project is a lot line adjustment and lot combination which would reconfigure eight lots of
record into five home sites. The home sites would have vehicular access from Santa Ynez via a
common driveway. The applicant is proposing to prepare the lots for individual sale to
prospective developers or homeowners. This would involve building the common driveway and
extending utilities such as water, sewer, natural gas, cable television and electricity to each home
site. The proposal also involves an application for an Administrative Use Permit, which is
required prior to establishing any new use on property in the Special Considerations (S) zone.
The Administrative Use Permit would act as a master use permit, permitting development of
each lot with a single-family home, subject to conditions of approval and other restrictions such
as pre-defined building envelopes.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 1—/4
Attachment 5
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
The project site is at the northeastern fringe of the City, in the Monterey Heights Neighborhood.
The project site is perched above Loomis Street and Highway 101, as it winds into town. This
section of the highway is designated as a scenic corridor in the City's Circulation Element. At
the end of Loomis Street is Cuesta Regional Park, which is a County park facility. The site is
bordered by residential development on the west, north and southwest. Undeveloped hillsides
border the project site to the east. Beyond the City Limit to the east, the land is generally used
for grazing and other agricultural activities such as beekeeping.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The applicant is requesting approval of a lot line adjustment and lot combination which would
reconfigure eight lots of record into five home sites. Approval of the lot line adjustment requires
an exception to the City's Subdivision Regulations because the lots will not have the minimum
required street frontage of twenty feet. An administrative use permit is required as part of the
project review because the property is within a Special Considerations zoning district.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
Revisions
Revisions were made to this initial study based on new information submitted by the applicant in areas
of Aesthetics and Hydrology. Mitigation measures related to Hazards from wildland fires were modified
based on new information submitted by the City's Fire Marshall.
Aesthetics: Changes were made to clarify screening of the structure on Lot 5, which will require a
greater amount of landscaping than other lots because of its elevation relative to the obscuring ridge on
the project site (see Exhibit B of the attached Visual Study).
Hazards: It is impossible at this time to determine which lots will represent the wildland/urban interface
because there is no timeline for development of this property. As a result, the Fire Marshall will
determine which lots represent the wildland/urban interface as development is proposed.
Hydrology: The applicant has submitted a hydrology study (attached), which shows that the historic
flows toward Loomis Street will actually be reduced because of the construction of the driveway and the
ability of home on lots 3, 4 and 5 to direct drainage to the common driveway.
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
/ -/,5'
-/,5'
Attachment 5
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources X Hazards& Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources X Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
/-!4
Attachment 5
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,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
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 "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
November 2,2001
gnature Date
Ron Whisenand, Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director
Printed Name for
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1-17
Attachment 5
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
�i! CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Mnachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources rot. .y Potentially LessThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
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 1,2 X
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings? 2 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area? F 7F 1
Evaluation
a), b) The project is located above Highway 101, which is designated as a "road of high scenic value" in the area of the
project, as shown in Figure 6 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The boundary of the project site is
approximately 300 linear feet from the centerline of Highway 101. The buildable areas on the project site are approximately
22 meters (72 feet)above the roadway. Because the project site is visible from a road of high scenic value,the applicant has
prepared a visual study to help staff determine to potential impact of the project on views. The results of the study indicate
that mitigation is necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to this viewshed. The study includes guidelines for rating
visual conditions at the project site and determines that uncharacteristic features appear incongruous and compete for
attention with the inherent features of the area. This condition exists in one primary location, which is traveling south on
Highway 101 to the north of the project site. As shown in photograph VC-3 and Exhibit 3 of the visual study (attached), a
small portion of the view of San Luis Mountain is obscured by potential future development of lots 4 and 5. The study
recommends mitigation measures, which can be implemented as part of the City's standard architectural review process, to
reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
The study indicates that the only area where a building might project into the skyline from this perspective is lot 2. The study
concludes that this visual condition has already been established by surrounding development and that the silhouette would be
less than 15%of the structure. Architectural Review shall insure that silhouette from structures on lot 2 are minimized and no
greater than 15%of the structure.
c) The existing visual character of the site is predominantly of an undeveloped hillside area. However, the site is devoid of
significant trees and has been graded in the past to the point that it is obviously altered from its natural state. Tracks and trails
created by off-road vehicles and associated litter are visible and the site appears to have been somewhat neglected over the
years. The proposed project would ultimately provide for the development of five single family homes on the site. Staff does
not believe that the project will substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings
because each home will require architectural review by the City's Architectural Review Commission,which routinely reviews
projects and makes modifications to proposed building designs to insure that new structures are architecturally compatible
with the site and surroundings. The project is bordered by other residential development to the north,west and southwest.
d) The project will not create a new source of substantial light and glare effecting nighttime views in the area because lighting
associated with single-family homes is typically low level lighting used to illuminate walkways, drive aisles and yards. These
lights typically shine downward and do not result in illumination of the night time sky.
Mitigation Measures
I. House designs shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission prior to building permit
issuance for each lot in the project. Silhouettes into the skyline on lot 2 shall be minimized, and shall not exceed 15%of the
structure.
2. Future development of each lot in the project shall be designed so that no more than 40%of any building profile is visible
from the southbound lanes of the 101, north of the project site. The point of view used to determine compliance with this
mitigation measure shall be per Photograph VC-3 and Exhibit C of the visual study. Compliance with this mitigation measure
`® CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY EWRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1—
Hnamment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supportmd Information Sources Sources Pot. Ay Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
shall be achieved primarily through an.architectural design that incorporates a stepped foundation system that conforms to the
hillside, as opposed to a single level foundation that projects out over the hillside. Landscaping may be used to meet this
requirement to a lesser extent,except on lot 5 where topography will require a greater extent of landscaping for screening.
Conclusion
The project site is located on a steep hillside and adjacent to a roadway of high scenic value. As such, the site should be
considered sensitive and architectural review by the Architectural Review Commission is required for each home in the
project. The recommendations of a visual study have been evaluated as part of this Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
study identifies the impacts as blocking of views of Cerro San Luis,a potential skyline silhouette of a structure on lot 2, and a
change in the visual condition of the hillside due to visible building walls. The mitigation measures listed above are adequate
to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Fartnland of
Statewide Importance(farmland);:as,shownonthe maps X
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 3
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,ora X
Williamson Act contract? 4
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?
Evaluation
a) The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency classifies the project site as Urban or
Built-Up Land, which is defined as "land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or
approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel."
b) The project site is zoned for residential use and is designated for residential development by the City's General Plan. No
Williamson Act contract exists for the project site.
c) The project will provide for the development of residentially zoned land with residential uses and will not result in the
conversion of other Farmland to non-agricultural uses. Property in the County east of the project site is used for agricultural
purposes, but structures developed as part of this project would be set back significantly from the City's Urban Reserve Line
and should not conflict in any way with agricultural uses on adjacent land.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 5 X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerablenet increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non=attainment.under an
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
r—W
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supportn y Information Sources Sources Pot. ly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation
a, b, c, e) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and 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 1995 Clean Air Plan(CAP) for San Luis Obispo
County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)to meet that requirement. The CAP is a
comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well
as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air
Plan.
During project construction,there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associated with construction and grading activities,
as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty construction equipment.
According to the Air Pollution Control District's(APCD)"CEQA Air Quality Handbook," land uses that cause the generation
of 10 or more pounds per day (PPD) of reactive organic gases, oxides or nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, or fine particulate matter
have the potential to affect air quality significantly. A 50-unit apartment complex generates over 10 pounds of these
pollutants. Since the site is proposed to be developed ultimately with five single-family homes, the project is of a size that is
below APCD's air quality significance thresholds. Therefore, the project and resulting development will not generate a
significant impact on long-term air quality impacts.
d) The project is a residential subdivision and will not create objectionable odors.
Conclusion
Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Code Section 15.04.020 V. (Sec. 3307.2) will
adequately mitigate short-term impacts. The potential short-term impacts are further mitigated by the likelihood that each
house will be developed individually, reducing the scale of the possible dust nuisances created by the project. The project
will not exceed the APCD thresholds for long-term air quality impacts. No further mitigation is required.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or
throughhabitat modifications,on arty species.identified as a
candidate,sensitive,of special',status,species`m'local or regional 6 X
plans,policies,orregulations,of'by the California'Department
of Fish and Game or.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural Community identified in local or regional X
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department 6
of Fish and Game or U.S..Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources;such as a tree preservation policy or X
ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with.established native X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of 4
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 7 X
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
Aga CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1-2,(
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Suppoi....j Information Sources Sources Po dy Potentially Less Than No
Sigmricant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Evaluation
a), b),c), d), e), 0 The project has been evaluated by the City's Natural Resources Manager who has determined that there are
no significant natural resource issues associated with development of the property. A large percentage of the project site has
been previously graded and there are no native trees on the site. Development of the site will modify foraging area for
raptors, such as native red-shouldered hawks, but the area involved is not considered significant and the Natural Resources
Manager has described the overall habitat value of the site as marginal. The project site does not include any riparian areas or
habitat areas. The project site is bordered by urban uses and the project will not interfere substantially with established
migratory wildlife corridors. There is no habitat conservation plan in effect to protect the habitat of any plant or animal
species found on the project site. The project does not have any wetland areas and does not contribute to any Federally
protected wetland in a way that would be impacted by the proposed project.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to significantly impact biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 8
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature? 9
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 10 X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) A Phase I Archeological Resources Inventory (ARI) was required as part of the application materials for this
project. The study was triggered because the site is over an acre in size and is undeveloped. The ARI for the project was
prepared by C.A. Singer and Associates. The ARI concludes that an evaluation of the print references and a site survey show
no evidence of either prehistoric or early historic occupation of the site. The project site does not contain and is not in the
vicinity of any site listed on the City's Inventory or Historic Resources. The project site is outside of the areas deemed to be
sensitive burial areas on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to impact cultural resources.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 1 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X
State?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
—LL
madunmeni o
Issues, Discussion and Support,..j Information Sources Sources Pot .,y Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
Evaluation
a) The development will not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans or promote the use of non-renewable resources
in an inefficient manner.
b)Any development on the site must comply with the policies contained in the General Plan Energy Conservation Element.
The Energy Conservation Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventional
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating,and illumination by means of proper design and orientation, including the
provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energy conservation goals through enforcement of the
California Energy Code, which establishes energy conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction.
Future development of this site must meet those standards.
c)There are no known mineral resources on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the
State.
Conclusion
The project will not have an impact on energy or mineral resources. There are no known mineral resources on the site and the
project will have to meet State requirements for energy conservation in residential construction. This is monitored through
architectural review and through the building permit plan-check process. Requirements included in this initial study to insure
that noise levels are reduced to acceptable levels in interior spaces, such as additional insulation of walls and sound rated
windows,also contribute to energy efficient design.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of known earthquake fault,as delineated in the 12
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
Il. Strong seismic ground shaking? 12,13 X
III. Seismic related ground4ailure, including liquefaction? 12 X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 12 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 12 X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or.soil that is unstable,or that 12
would become unstable as a result.of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, X
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life X
or property?
Evaluation
a) The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking
should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design
criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. To minimize this potential impact,the Uniform
Building Codes and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
According to a recently conducted geology study,the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a
northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced
sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 ears),portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active".
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
/-23
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Suppor,._j'Information Sources Sources Poi ly Potentially Cess Than No
Sigm,,cant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
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,the site is located in an area of high seismic hazards due to the location of
the San Andreas fault,which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive
eround shaking in the event of an earthquake.
The Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report prepared for this project determines that the site is suitable, from an
engineering geology point of view, for the proposed five-home development. The report indicates that there is a high
probability of sloughing and shallow landslides to occur in the areas of existing cut slopes,which are overly steep. The report
recommends planting of deep rooted vegetation in these areas to improve the slope stability. Liquefaction and settlement
have low potential to occur on the site.
b) The erodible nature of the soils on the site is listed as a primary geo-technical concern in the soils report. The report
recommends stabilization of surface soils,particularly those disturbed during construction,by vegetation or other means
during and following work on the project site. Run-off from improvements such as new driveways,flat-work and structures
must be collected and conveyed to an approved point of disposal in a non-erosive manner,per existing City standards and
practices.
Erosion control is a key concern of City Staff because of the steep hillsides on the project site. Retaining and maintaining
plant material is an important aspect of erosion control,but also conflicts with concerns for fire safety in wildland/urban
interface areas. As a result,all erosion control measures that are incorporated into the project must be approved by the Fire
Marshall and must be consistent with the required Wildland Fire Safety Plans, as discussed in Section 8 of this Initial Study.
Section 9 of this study discusses the potential for offsite erosion in detail.
c) The soils report identifies two areas where undocumented fill has been placed on the site(see the Trench Location Map,
Appendix A of the soils report). According to the report,this fill is not considered suitable for support of foundations and
improvements and should be completely removed and recompacted for use on the site. The areas of fill cross proposed
property lines on lots 1,2,4 and 5. The undocumented fill also extends onto adjacent residential lots. Removal and
recompaction of the fill may require coordination with owners of adjacent affected lots and should be done before any new lot
lines are established.
d) Appendix B of the soils report indicates that the expansion index for a sample boring on the project site is 27. Table 18-1-
B of the Uniform Building Code rates this expansion index number as"Low Potential Expansion." Expansive soils on the site
have been identified and recommendations included in the soils report are sufficient to mitigate potential hazards from
building in these areas. In general,the presence of expansive soils requires additional base for roadways and flat work and
deeper footings for building foundations.
Mitigation Measure
3. All recommendations of the Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report(soils report), prepared by Earth Systems
Pacific, July 31, 2001, shall be implemented as part of the initial project improvements where applicable, to the approval of
the Chief Building Official. Individual soils engineering reports shall be required at the time Planning Applications are
submitted for Architectural Review for each home proposed as part of this project.
Conclusion
The project is proposed in an area of steep slopes and where undocumented fill has been discovered. Shallow landslides have
occurred on the faces of cut slopes, although no landslides have been detected in areas with natural slopes. The soils report
for the project is detailed and appears to thoroughly address current site conditions and potential development of the site. The
soils report provides general recommendations for slab foundations, and specific reports will be required to address
development of each lot, particularly because it is anticipated that a variety of foundation types would be developed,
�Y CITY OF SAN LUIS Oe1SPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1-2v
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Support,# Information Sources Sources Po ly Potentially Less Than No
Signincant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
depending on individual house designs. Mitigation measures are recommended so that Architectural Review of each house
design will include an evaluation of the foundation system and erosion control measures, including landscaping, for each lot.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
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?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury,
or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are 14 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The site does not contain any know hazardous substances and is not located in an area of high risk. As a
residential subdivision the project will not emit any hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous wastes. The site is
not on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The project is outside of
the Airport Land Use Plan Area and over 2 miles from the closest airport.
g) The project will not impair implementation of any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
h) According to Figure 2 of the Safety Element,the project site has a low wildland fire hazard potential. However, the site is
adjacent to moderate wildland fire hazard areas and may represent the ultimate wildland/urban interface. As a result,the Fire
Marshall has determined that defensible space must be developed between wildland areas and proposed structures. This will
help to insure that fire fuel in the form of combustible vegetation is removed from the perimeter of the buildings to prevent the
spreading of fires from the wildland area to the urban area.
Mitigation Measures
4. The site plans submitted for Architectural Review for development of lots on the wildland/urban interface shall designate a
minimum 30-foot zone between the structure and wildland areas in which plants, shrubs and trees will be drought and fire
resistive. Maintenance of this area shall be governed by a Wildland Fire, Defensible Space Plan, to be submitted by the
property owner and to be approved by the Fire Marshall. The plan shall constitute an agreement between the property owners
�S CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1--25'
Hrrachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Support..., Information Sources Sources Poi y Potentially Less Than No
Signincant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
and the Fire Department to maintain the 30-foot zone consistent with the plan requirements. The plan shall include, at a
minimum, the following requirements: (1) Existing and proposed trees in this area must be limbed up (pruning the tree's
lower branches); (2) All dry, cured grass must be mowed below 6 inches; (3) There shall be no vegetation growing or
combustible storage under decking at any time; (4) No aerial canopies are permitted within 10 feet of a chimney spark
arrester; (5) Ornamental vegetative fuels or cultivated ground cover, such as green grass, ivy, succulents or similar plants are
allowed to be within the designated defensible space provided they do not form a means of transmitting fire from the native
growth to the structure.
5. Plans submitted for Architectural Review of homes on the wildland/urban interface shall meet the following criteria,to the
approval of the Fire Marshall and the Architectural Review Commission: (1) All roofing shall be fire resistive; (2) Eves,
balconies, decks or stilts shall be enclosed; (3) Limited combustible material shall be used for exterior surfaces and finishes;
(4)No aerial canopies are permitted within 10 feet of the chimney spark arrester..
Conclusion
The project does not generate,or cause the exposure of, any known hazardous materials. The project site is undeveloped and
there is no known contamination on the project site. The site is adjacent to the City's Urban Reserve Line and the
wildland/urban interface. As a result, the Fire Marshall has evaluated the proposal and developed mitigation measures to
insure that the risk of loss of life and property is minimized.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting X
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter-the existing drainage patfert of the site or
area in a manner which would result insubstantial erosion or 12 X
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding X
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map 15 X
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 15 X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), h) The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. All of the residences
will be served by the City's sewer system. Water collected from roofs and other impervious surfaces is not considered a
substantial new source of polluted runoff because of the nature of the residential use. The quantity of additional water run-off
generated by the project is insignificant and can be accommodated by the City's storm drain system. The project will be
served with water by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or
negatively effect water quality.
A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1-1G
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and SupporL,.I Information Sources Sources Pot iy Potentially Less Th an No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Future development will increase the amount of impervious surface on the site and affect the absorption rate, drainage
patterns and the rate of surface runoff, potentially contributing to significant erosion of the steep bank below lots 3, 4 and 5.
The soils report, discussed in Section 7, identifies erosion as a primary concern and makes recommendations to mitigate
potentially significant impacts from erosion. Those recommendations are adequate to deal with erosion around the perimeter
of buildings that may have an effect on the integrity of building foundations. The mitigation measures proposed below are
intended to insure protection of the steep slopes at the base of lots 3, 4 and 5 and to protect the slope bank above Loomis
Street, which could be impacted by increased concentrations and flow rates of surface runoff.
The applicant has submitted a hydrology study that shows all roof drainage from new structures on the project site directed to
the common driveway and disposed at an approved location in the Santa Ynez right-of-way. Because of the location of the
proposed driveway, and the ability of house designs on lots 3,4 and 5 to drain to the driveway, the amount of water flowing
toward Loomis Street, and the steeper slopes, is actually reduced. This study is based on assumptions regarding the proposed
building designs, which are intended to be the "worst-case scenario". In the event that an unanticipated house design is
proposed and drainage does need to be directed toward Loomis Street, the applicant has agreed to establish a 10' wide
drainage easement across the base of lots 4 and 5. There is an existing storm drain in Loomis Street that connects to San Luis
Creek. This easement will provide some flexibility for house designs on lots 4 and 5, so that drainage could be controlled all
the way to San Luis Creek if necessary.
Even though the amount of water that is tributary to the lower slopes of lots 3, 4 and 5, and the Loomis slope bank, will be
reduced, staff also has concerns about the character of the runoff that could be released down slope. Runoff from impervious
surfaces has the potential to be concentrated, resulting in greater erosion. To insure that new concentrated runoff will not be
disposed down steep slopes, a mitigation measure is recommended to correct the character of any overland drainage released
on these slopes. The mitigation measure would require a drainage device to return concentrated water flows to sheet flows
before being released from the property.
In addition, small-scale Best Management Practices for erosion control shall be employed wherever soil is disturbed during
construction of the project. Staff anticipates that soil disruption will occur in two phases. First, during construction of the
road, extension of utilities, and with removal and recompaction of the undocumented fill discussed in Section 7. Second,
during construction of each individual residence.
e), I), g) The project will not contribute to flooding offsite since drainage will be conveyed to an approved point of disposal,
as required by existing City code. The project site is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood
waters in a 100-year storm and will not impede or re-direct any such water flows.
Mitigation Measures
6. If new concentrated water flows are to be released down slope of lots 3, 4, or 5, the water will be directed through
appropriate easements (as shown on the Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Map) to the City's storm drain system in Loomis
Street, which drains to San Luis Creek. Any proposed over land flows of concentrated water must be returned to sheet flow
prior to being released down slope,by a method to be approved by the Public Works Director and the Chief Building Official.
7. The project shall employ small-scale Best Management Practices, such as listed in the handout attached to this initial
study, wherever soil is disturbed. Soil disruption is anticipated to occur during construction of the road,extension of utilities,
and with removal and recompaction of undocumented fill on the site. Soil disruption will also occur during construction of
each individual residence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, water quality and flooding will not be impacted by the proposed project. Impacts have been identified in the
area of on-site and off-site erosion. A mitigation measure is recommended to insure that drainage improvements are installed
to collect and properly dispose of concentrated runoff from lots 3,4 and 5 to prevent erosion. A second mitigation measure is
A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
/-27
• �aauVt II I ICI Il .7
Issues, Discussion and Suppon...' Information Sources Sources Po ly Potentially Less Than No
Signtricant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
recommended to insure that Best Management Practices, such as those listed on the attached Erosion Control Guidelines, are
implemented. With these features incorporated into the project, potentially significant impacts will be reduced to insignificant
levels.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the X
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? 4 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
a) The General Plan land use map designates the site Low Density Residential. Development of the property with five single-
family homes, as proposed,would not conflict with any plan or policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
b) The project site has an area of 67,403 square feet, or approximately 1.55 acres. The project will be served by existing
streets and will be bordered by similar residential development. The project will not physically divide an established
community.
c) The project will no conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.
Conclusion
The project will be developed with the type of improvements anticipated by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations and will
not create any impacts to land use and planning. No further mitigation is required.
IL NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 16,17
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards X
established in the Noise Ordinarice?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or p@rmanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity-above.levels existing X
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation.of excessive;groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a) A noise study has been prepared for this project by Don Asquith, PhD, a consultant in environmental noise who has
prepared other noise studies for projects in the City of San Luis Obispo. The study determines that each proposed lot would
be subject to noise in excess of the Noise.Element standard of 60dBA (Ldn) for outdoor use areas. According to the study,
standard construction techniques are probably sufficient to reduce interior noise levels to less than the 45dBA (Ldn)
threshold, but an evaluation of each proposed future residence is necessary to insure that this standard is met.
The study recommends mitigation measures to reduce exposure to highway noise in outdoor use areas. While lot I appears to
be protected by natural features, all other lots within the project will require some type of noise barrier in order for outdoor
CITY OF SAN LUIS O915P0 Is INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 (}
1-
- _� Attach 5
Issues, Discussion and Support...,!Information Sources Sources Pot ;y Potentially Less Than No
Sigmncant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
use areas to meet the City's 60dBA (Ldn)standard. The Noise Element provides a listing of preferred ways to reduce outdoor
noise, with the most preferred method being to provide distance between the noise source and the outdoor use area. The noise
study recommends outdoor use areas that are as far away from the noise source as possible for each lot. In addition,the study
recommends developing each site so that the buildings act as a noise barrier, in conjunction with the natural features on the
property. For lots 3,4 and 5,this means developing outdoor use areas between proposed private driveway and the residence.
The noise study indicates noise levels at ground level and provides upper-level noise measurements for portions of residences
above a first story. These areas do not benefit from noise-reducing effects of the local topography. Exterior use areas above
the first level would include primarily decks and balconies oriented to take advantage of views to the northeast, over the
highway and towards the Reservoir Canyon area. Provided outdoor use areas are provided on each site that do meet the
City's standard of 60dBA (Ldn), decks in this area could be developed without specific noise protection measures being
implemented. However, occupants of these dwellings may prefer to have deck areas enclosed with some form of noise
barrier,such as plexi-glass,so that these areas are more enjoyable.
b) During construction, there will be a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the
City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. Because the
project will be constructed in phases, increased ambient noise levels should not exceed Noise Ordinance thresholds, but will
occur over time until the project is built out.
c), d) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration. The project is
not within the County's Airport Land Use Plan area for San Luis Obispo Airport.
Mitigation Measures:
8. Outdoor use areas shall be screened from the highway by structures as recommended by the noise study for the project.
Outdoor use areas above the first level of proposed structures shall be designed to comply with Noise Element standards
unless another outdoor use area is provided on the lot,consistent with the recommendations of the noise study.
9. Interior spaces shall be designed to reduce noise levels to less than 45dBA (Ldn) using methods listed in the City's Noise
Guidebook. Individual house plans submitted for Architectural Review shall be reviewed by a registered architect or engineer
with knowledge of noise reduction measures,or a noise specialist,to insure that the 45dBA(Ldn)requirement will be met.
Conclusion
The location of the project, perched above Highway 101, would subject future residents to noise levels considered
"unacceptable" by the Noise Element without mitigation. The mitigation measures listed above are intended to insure that
noise levels in outdoor use areas and building interiors will be reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed
mitigation measures are consistent with Noise Element Policy 1.2.13 (Digest Numbering), which provides preferred ways to
mitigate outdoor noise exposure. The mitigation measures are consistent because they first provide distance between the
noise source and the recipient and then use site design so that proposed structures act as barriers, as opposed to relying on
sound walls. Planted earthen berms may also be used where feasible,but may be difficult to develop in this hillside location.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or 18 X
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1-29
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supportn,g Information Sources Sources Po. Aly Potentially LessT6an No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
Evaluation
a), b)The population added by this project is within the General Plan's projection and will not induce substantial growth into
the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is substantially surrounded
by urban development and the development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of
development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation
and parks. The project site is undeveloped and will not displace existing housing or people.
Conclusion
The population growth created by the project is considered to be less than significant since the development is on an existing,
residentially zoned, parcel of land and development of the project site has been accounted for in the population estimates
contained in the City's General Plan.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protectionT X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and.other transportation infrastructure? X
Other pubIic facilities? X
Evaluation
a) A large portion of lot 3 is located greater than 300 feet from the Santa Ynez driveway approach to the project site. The
City's Fire Marshall has indicated that the 300 foot line is the maximum extent to which a structure could be developed on the
project site and still have adequate fire protection. If any structure is proposed beyond the 300-foot line, which is shown on
the applicant's site plan, then existing City code would require an onsite hydrant and turn-around for emergency response
vehicle to enter and exit the site. As proposed by the applicant, no construction will occur beyond the 300-foot line shown on
the site plan. As a result,adequate mitigation is incorporated into the project design.
c) The school districts in the state are separate governing bodies with authority to collect fees to finance school construction
and parcel acquisition. Section 65955 of the Government Code prohibits the City from denying a subdivision or collecting
any fees beyond those required by the school district itself, to mitigate effects of inadequate school facilities. Any effect that
the additional children will have on school facilities will be mitigated in whole or in part by the districts per square foot fees,
charged at the time of building permit issuance for each residence.
b), d), e), f) The project will not result in a substantial adverse impact to any other public services because of the small scale
of the project and its location with in an existing residential neighborhood.
Conclusion
The City standard for fire protection is that no portion of a structure may be permitted to be built over 300 feet from an
approved point of access for the Fire Department. Lot 3 on the project site includes land that is located over 300 feet from the
Santa Ynez driveway approach. The site plan includes a note that identifies the 300-foot fire service limit line and restricts
building beyond this point. Architectural plans submitted for development of lot 3 will be evaluated in detail for compliance
with this requirement. No further mitigation is required.
A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
( -30
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Supporta._, Information Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Less Than No
Signiticant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 12290 Santa Ynezl Mitigation
Incorporated
14. RECREATION. Would theproject*
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse X
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) Cuesta Regional Park, a County operated facility, is within walking distance of the project. The project will add
incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the size of the project and the
expected number of residents,no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of this site.
b) The project does not include the construction of recreational facilities beyond small open space areas, a small garden
space and a picnic area with a barbecue. The construction of these facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the
environment because of their small scale.
Conclusion
Park and recreation facility demand will increase incrementally,and not significantly,with the development of the project.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e:g.sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e:g. X
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?.
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazard's,noise, X
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The project will incrementally contribute to an increase in traffic on Santa Ynez Street and Loomis Street. The
City's Transportation Planner has indicated that these streets are operating at acceptable levels of service and that they can
adequately accommodate the project's anticipated vehicle trips without changing the current level of service. The
Transportation Planner has also determined that the driveway configuration proposed for the project is acceptable and will
provide sufficient visibility from and toward vehicles entering and exiting the project site. The Fire Marshall has reviewed
the private drive configuration proposed for the project and determined that the site can be adequately accessed by emergency
vehicles. Fire trucks will not need access to the driveway.
e) Each dwelling will require a minimum of two parking spaces. No parking will be permitted along the private driveway.
On-street parking is fairly constrained due to the nature of the surrounding streets,which aresteep and narrow. Staff does not
anticipate a significant impact relative to parking, but each house design should provide parking on-site for guests.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
( -3/
Attachment 5
Issues, Discussion and Suppor, d Information Sources Sources Poly Potentially Less Than No
Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Each unit within the project will include garages that will be able to accommodate bicycle storage in addition to parked
vehicles. Residents of the project will have access to transit stops on Loomis and Grand.
e) The project is outside of the County Airport Land Use Plan area.
Conclusion
The project will add incrementally to existing traffic conditions in the City, but the City's Transportation Planner has
determined that development of the project as proposed will not have an effect on the level of service on adjacent streets.
Parking proposed by the project meets City Zoning Regulations requirements. No further mitigation is required.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, X
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and X
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
a), b) This project has been reviewed by the City's Utilities Engineer. Comments note that the project is subject to water
impact fees which were adopted to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing the water
supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it.
c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to insure that increased water use by new development and land use
changes do not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. To receive an allocation,the developer may
retrofit the plumbing of existing structures to save twice as much water as the projected annual demand. Compliance with the
provisions of the Water Allocation Regulations and the water impact fee program is adequate to mitigate the effects of
increased water demand.
The City Water& Wastewater Management Element projects the City water needs at its ultimate build-out of 56,000 people.
The project site is included in the anticipated build-out, because it was in the Urban Reserve at the time the element was
adopted. Each house in the project will have an annual water usage between .30 and.60 depending on the amount of irrigated
land proposed. For the total project, the annual water usage is estimated at 2.25 acre feet (.45*5 units). The 2001 Water
Resources Report indicates that there is currently 284 acre feet of water available to allocate. 142 acre feet is reserved for in-
fill development(development within the 1994 City Limits).
d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development. The existing sewers in the vicinity
have sufficient capacity to serve the development. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to
convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the
�i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
l-3Z
. �uat,lllll�ni �
Sources Pot. .y Potentially Less Than No
ISSUES, Discussion and Supportirrg Information SOUfCeS Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 79-01 (2290 Santa Ynez) Mitigation
Incorporated
standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code. Subdivision improvement plans and building plans will be checked for compliance
with UPC standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City's Water
Reclamation Facility. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the
project.
e), f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939)shows that Californians dispose of
roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90%of this waste goes to landfills,posing a threat to groundwater,air
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and
county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50%(from 1989 levels)by 2000. To help reduce the waste
stream generated by this project,consistent with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, recycling facilities must
be accornmodated on the project-site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be
submitted with the building permit application.The project should include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream
generated by the project consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
Conclusion
No impacts have been identified relative to utilities or service systems. The City has recently adopted a solid waste recycling
ordinance to insure recycling of construction debris.No further mitigation is required.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to'drop below self- X
susiaining 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 rehisto ?
Without mitigation,the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table
onPage 3.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable X
when viewed inconnection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
The impacts identified in this initial stud ares ecific to this ro'ect and would not be tate oriied as cumulative) si nificant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects:which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
With the incorporation of mitigation measures,the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
�! CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
/-33
- . Attachment 5
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a Earlier anal sis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan Element update and Final EIR can be found at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California.
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 earl ieranal sis.
Not applicable.
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
conditionsof the project.
Not applicable.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES—On File in the Community Development Department or attached to this report
1. Circulation Element of the General Plan, Figure 6, Scenic Roadways Ma
2. Visual Study dated 9/5/01,prepared by Central Coast Engineering, attached to this report
3. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program map of SLO County,http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
4. InfoSLO,City of San Luis Obispo,Public Geographic Information System
5. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,APCD, 1995
6. Memo from City of SLO,Natural Resources Manager,Neil Havlik,dated July 19,2001
7. Conservation Element,Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
8. City.of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Inventory
9. Archeological Resources Inventory, Phase I study, prepared by Clay Singer,dated June 26,2001
10. City of San Luis Obispo,Burial Sensitivity Map
11. Energy Conservation Element,City of SLO General Plan
12. Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report, Prepared by Earth Systems Pacific,dated July 31,2001
13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priola
Earthquake Fault ZoningAct,effective January 11 1990,on file in the Community Development Department
14. Safety Element of the General Plan, Figure 2, Wildland Fire Hazard
15. Flood Insurance Rate Ma (Community Panel 0603100005 C dated July 7, 1981
16. Noise Element of the General Plan
17. Noise Study prepared by Don Asquith, PhD,dated June 19,2001
18. Land Use Element of the General Plan
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Visual Study, prepared by Central Coast Engineering
Attachment 2: Noise Study, prepared by Don Asquith, PhD
Attachment 3: Memo from Natural Resources Manager, Neil Havlik, PhD
Attachment 4: Hydrology Study, prepared by Central Coast Engineering
Attachment 5: Erosion Control Guidelines
�r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1 -3({
muacnment 5
t
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
1. Mitigation
House designs shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission prior to
building permit issuance for each lot in the project. Silhouettes into the skyline on lot 2 shall be
minimized, and shall not exceed 15% of the structure.
o Monitoring Program:
The Community Development Director will designate each new lot as a"sensitive site"and staff will
incorporate this information into the land use record for each lot. Development of a sensitive site
requires Architectural Review per Municipal Code Section 2.48.170. The sensitive site designation will
be visible to all current and future City staff, and the public, researching development requirements for
the property. Plans submitted for Architectural Review of lot 2 shall comply with the above
requirement, to the approval of the Commission. The point of view used to determine compliance with
this mitigation measure shall be per Photograph VC-3 and Exhibit C of the visual study.
2. Miti ag tion
Future development of each lot in the project shall be designed so that no more than 40%of any building
profile is visible from the southbound lanes of the 101, north of the project site. The point of view used
to determine compliance with this mitigation measure shall be per Photograph VC-3 and Exhibit C of
the visual study. Compliance with this mitigation measure shall be achieved primarily through an
architectural design that incorporates a stepped foundation system that conforms to the hillside, as
opposed to a single level foundation that projects out over the hillside. Landscaping may be used to
meet this requirement to a lesser extent, except on lot 5 where topography will require a greater extent of
landscaping for screening.
• Monitoring Program:
The City will evaluate each application submitted for Architectural Review for compliance with this
requirement. Staff will make recommendations based on this evaluation to the ARC, who has the
ultimate authority for determining compliance with the standards set above.
3. Miti ag tion
All recommendations of the Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report (soils report), prepared
by Earth Systems Pacific, July 31, 2001, shall be implemented as part of the initial project improvements
where applicable, to the approval of the Chief Building Official. Individual soils engineering reports
shall be required at the time Planning Applications are submitted for.Architectural Review for each
home proposed as part of this project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST 2001
/- 3So�
Attachment 5
CENTRAL COAST 05 September 2001
E2463
ENGINEERING
396 Buckley Road,Suite 1
San Luis Obispo
Califomia 93401
(805)5443278
FAX(805)541-3137
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Tentative Parcel Map SLOAL 01-192 (Villarreal)
Staff...
Please accept the following visual study for the development of the lots shown on the
referenced parcel map.
A. Introduction. Tentative Parcel Map SLOAL 01-192 proposes to consolidate 8
legal parcels within the Monterey Heights area into 5 parcels, and at the same
time adjust the 5 parcels to take advantage of portions of the property that
provide the best scenarios for future construction. This visual study analyzes
potential visual impacts from future construction of residential dwelling units on
the adjusted parcels as seen from several key viewing locations along the
Highway 101 corridor at the north end of the City of San Luis Obispo. While
acknowledging that future dwelling unit design will be of high quality and
articulation, for the purposes of this analysis a 25' high x 60' long block was
used to represent building mass.
B. Criteria. Primary considerations of this study are whether future dwelling unit
construction will partially or totally block views of"high" or"moderate" scenic
value, or "skyline" silhouette, or change the visual condition of the project
vicinity. While the concept of determining whether future dwelling unit blocks
views, or silhouettes is relatively easy through use of the City's Scenic Highway
Element and cross sectioned exhibits, determining what constitutes significant
changes in visual condition of the project's vicinity is more difficult to
comprehend. For the purposes of this study, the following standard rating
guidelines are used.
E2463\visual study oomments
1-3G
nuacnment 5
i ' 2
VISUAL CONDITION RATING GUIDELINES
VC-1 a. All features within the field of view appear to be
characteristic of the region,
b. Or features appearing incongruous (out of place,
incompatible) are evident but would usually be
overlooked by the casual viewer (inconspicuous due to
such factors as size, distance, distribution, context,
screening, or the predominant orientation of views.
VC-2 a. Uncharacteristic features, appear incongruous, are not
easily overlooked, and may attract attention, but are
visually subordinate to inherent features,
b. Or, uncharacteristic features are subordinate to the
predominant characteristics of the area, but are similar
enough to the inherent features on the area to be
regarded as at least moderately compatible with them.
VC-3 a. Uncharacteristic features appear incongruous and
compete for attention (are distracting and co-dominant)
with those that are inherent features of the area,
b. Or, uncharacteristic features demand attention (are
visually dominant) but are moderately compatible with
features inherent to the area.
VC-4 a. Uncharacteristic features appear incongruous and
dominate the field of view. The primary character of the
area may be subdued by comparison and difficult to
recognize.
VC-5 a. Uncharacteristic features appear incongruous and so
dominate the field of view, due to their size and/or
distribution, that the character of the area is
unrecognizable or do not appear to be the same as that
for the rest of the region.
C. Impact analysis methodology. The CEQA guidelines state that a project will
have a significant effect on the environment if it will "conflict with adopted
environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located." For the
purposes of this study, if future dwelling unit construction partially or totally
blocks a view of"high" or"moderate" scenic values, or"skyline" silhouettes, or
changes the visual condition of the project vicinity as viewed from the Highway
101 corridor, it will be considered to have significant environmental impacts.
D. Project location and vicinity. The project site is located at the north end of
town, west of Highway 101 just above Cuesta Park (see Exhibit A).
Topography slopes down from Buena Vista towards Loomis Street and Santa
Yne�Avenue, and is characterized as steep (see Exhibit B). There is an eclectic
mix of architectural styles for the existing residential dwelling units adjacent to
the project site to the north, west and south west of the site. Dwelling units i
above, or to the north of the project site establish the visual condition for the !
E2463\visual study comments
/- 37
^udcnment 5
3
vicinity in that portions of the roof lines and projections of these buildings break
(silhouette) the ridgeline traversing the area. These portions equal 40% to 80%
of each structure. When seen from the north from the southbound lanes of
Highway 101, Cerro San Luis backdrops the site. Because Cerro San Luis is the
community's highest rated scenic element (refer to Scenic Highway Element),
this view is the primary focus of this study (see Photograph VC-2 and Exhibit
C). The site is not visible from the south, and can be seen briefly for the first
time when traveling northbound on Highway 101 when at right angles to the site
near Cuesia Park (see Exhibit A).
E. Project impacts. As stated above, the view of the project site from the
southbound lanes of Highway 101 is the primary focus of this study. Exhibit C
evaluates impacts from this view. This exhibit delineates 25-foot high
rectangles whose bases are set on the average elevation on each adjusted lot.
Each rectangle represents a worse case scenario dwelling unit because it lacks
articulation, and is at the maximum height for units in the area.
1. Block or Partially Block views of Cerro San Luis. No 25-foot high
rectangles block or partially block views of Cerro San Luis, or detract
from this predominate feature because of the relationship between
masses. Because of this, impacts are less than significant.
2. Skyline "Silhouette." A small potion of the 25-foot rectangle on Lot 2
(purple) silhouettes into the skyline. Because the amount of silhouette is:'
less than 15%, the impact is considered to be less than significant.
3. Visual Condition. Lots 4 & 5 (green and blue respectively) exceed the
visual condition of the vicinity established by the residential units above
or to the north the project site. Lots 1, 2 & 3 (pink, purple and red
respectively) do not exceed the established visual condition. Impacts on
visual condition by the future development of Lots 4 & 5 would be
considered significant if not mitigated. _
Because the site is not visible from the south when seen from the north bound
lanes of Highway 101, the project creates no potential impacts as viewed from
this location do not exist. The first glimpse of the project site from the
northbound lanes of Highway 101 occurs when the traveler is at right angles to
the project site near Cue.sia Park. Although visible from this point, visual
impacts are considered less than significant because the viewing time is seconds
of time, the angle of the view is sharp (upwards), and trees stand in the
foreground.
F. Mitigation measures. The following measures are designed to reduce project
specific impacts on the visual condition of the project site and its vicinity.
E2463\visual study comments
/-3�'
Attachment 5
4
1. Mitigations incorporated into the project design. Because of project ,
is a lot line adjustment that consolidates 8 legal lots into 5, the project
itself is beneficial environmentally because it sites future construction on
the least visible locations, and because it has removed 3 lots within the
foreground of the view of highest visual quality.
2. Site design. Future development of units on Lots 4 & 5 shall be
designed so that no more than 40% of the buildings are visible.
Acceptable methods include architectural design that steps with the
contours of the parcels, and/or landscaping with trees or shrubs that will
block all or portions of structures within 5 years.
Please accept these materials. If there are questions, contact me by phone. Thankx for
your time and consideration....
Dennis Schmidt
E2463\visusl study oomm=ts
/-3�
Attachment 5
v
wrf�N YCSUAL" ��
` CONDITION.
T i a
ht
w .
i ...� .. .'fit 'r►Y.:.i
SF _
Visual Condition. Dwelling units above, or to the north of the project site establish the
visual condition for the vicinity in that portions of the roof lines and projections of these
buildings break(silhouette)the ridgeline traversing the area. These portions equal 40%
to 80%of each structure.
nt 5
n
N
GRAND AVENUE
D co
rn rn
r �
rn
rn
dy��J llnD b
O ti��Y N bS�
D =�C
cn <
rn
MONTEREY
STREET rn r" end
-' dl/yyc �
rwi
\ E f \
E \
rn
F f�
rn
n
�'Y., zs�+°@9`-V Y >�.".ea=-�r�t '7. � 's i It 1j I �I r"T.'�• z.' ' .�_,:� ,, >�
�:p � �7-€a aaM rim° �,. t, .. il� •' -�`�y'tri< a - _'� •.Y
e
q i z
Y �
jti T+>. sX ty iirAu '` , �' i7` Illy;
,'. I ir�.w�`, tl rr L��' �•� >i •dk�r r
t
aarm
SII 1 • > 11 " 1 • • • • 11 • •
Attachment 5
/I.I lillllll�I II I// // O
1IIININI \ �. \
a
sTR —
EFr
z
D II I O X
-
9nd z9NA
z
o
0/
\/ II III\ O,`�/ ,\\\ �\`�\�� \���\\ELINE
Fn
= 0114 "
rn �\ ss
s7-
LJJ
I-�f3
Attachment 5
r' r
Cl C_
rn
70 _ 7c
� � c
r r
rn rn
r
rn
70 G
3 n
Li
w w I T w�pp I OOa a a a a a a
o O OI O 1 0 O O O O o 0
I �
r— a
O I �
t
Ia
A
rn
r
� C
I I
I
I I I
—
O
� rn < o0 029
y v rn - Nrn
rn T^ rn rn rn rn
1 rn
_ _ rn C) G) 0 20
rn rn rn
rn rn rn
m rn rn Fn =
A 03
m Di > D
Q G O O O D
_ > n u u
0 0 0 N
G C if 7, N (n Ln ('fY
Attachment 5
J
DONALD 0. ASQUITH, PhD
Consultant in Environmental Noise
362 Travis Drive
Los Osos, California 93402
805/528-2187
June 19, 2001
Mr. Michael Villarreal
3101 Rockview Pl.,#2
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Noise Investigation for SLOAL 01-192, City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Mr. Villarreal:
At your request, we have conducted an investigation of noise levels expected to be generated at the
proposed project by traffic on Highway 101. Terminology used in this report and the capabilities
of the instrumentation are discussed in Attachment A.
1. Existing Conditions
The project site is located near the northeasterly edge of the City of San Luis Obispo on a
moderately steep hillside to the northwest of and overlooking Highway 101, the dominant source of
noise in the area. Highway 101 is a divided freeway with two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction,
8-foot paved shoulders, on- and off-ramps, and has traffic in the range of about 35,000 trips per
day. The total width is about 100 feet not counting ramps. Various portions of the site have
differing exposures to the traffic on Highway 101, and the noise levels vary accordingly.
2. Noise Impacts on the Project
a. Project Characteristics
The proposed project is now defined only as to the boundaries of 5 lots, and the locations of pads
for future residences, 3 of which were previously graded on Lots 1, 2 and 3. The locations of noise
measurements were chosen to define the noise levels generally, and the variations due to these
existing topographic features. The analysis of the results assumes that the future residences will be
at least 2 levels because of the substantial topographic variation.
b. Measured Noise Levels and Adjustments for Traffic Conditions
Noise levels were measured at the site on June 11, 2001. The locations of noise measurements are
shown on the enclosed Map, and adjustments of these measurements to various levels of traffic are
summarized in Table 1 below. The procedure used in this analysis is to make a continuous
measurement for a fixed period, usually 5 minutes, and count the traffic during the period of the
measurement. With this data, the measured noise levels can be adjusted to any particular condition
for which the traffic is defined. The conditions most often referenced are "existing" and"future"
1
/-`/S�
Attachment 5
peak-hour traffic. "Existing" was the peak-hour traffic volume at the time of preparation of the
Noise Element (about 1990), and "future" is the peak-hour traffic volume for the year 2010 as
projected at that time.
The maximum and minimum 1-second noise levels are recorded by the meter and are included in
the table for informational purposes. Only the average levels (Leq) are used in the analysis of
impacts of transportation noise.
Table 1
SUMMARY OF MEASURED AND ADJUSTED NOISE LEVELS
Traffic Volume Adjusted Noise Levels
Period of Noise Levels WBA) During Measurement "Existing" "Future"
Location Measurement L.e4 Max Min Number Veh/Hrd( BA)1d( BA12
1 10:34-10:39 61.3 69.1 54.4 230 2,760 62.0 65.3
2 10:27-10:32 56.6 66.0 50.6 169 2,028 58.7 62.0
3 10:44-10:49 63.2 70.3 53.1 193 2,316 64.7 68.0
4 10:57-11:02 63.5 71.7 54.0 185 2,220 65.2 68.5
5 11:07-11:12 59.4 68.3 50.9 196 2,352 60.8 64.1
6 11:14-11:19 50.1 63.0 45.5 176 2,112 52.0 55.3
1 The"existing"traffic volume is defined in Appendix A of the Technical Reference Document of the
Noise Element(Segment 71) as an ADT of 33,000. The"existing" noise level is for peak-hour traffic
of 3,300 vph which equates to Ldn.
2 The"future"traffic volume is defined in Appendix A of the Technical Reference Document of the Noise
Element(Segment 72) as an ADT of 69,900. The"future' noise level is for peak-hour traffic of 6,990
vph(3.3 dB above"existing")which equates to Ldn.
c. Design Traffic Volume and Future Noise Levels
Traffic volumes to be used in the determination of "existing" and "future" noise levels are
specified in Appendix A of the Technical Reference Document of the Noise Element, Segments 71-
72, which indicate an "existing" ADT of 33,000 and the future ADT of 69,900 for the adjacent
section of Highway 101. Assuming the usual relationship that the peak-hour volume is 10% of the
ADT, then the "existing" and "future" peak-hour volumes would be 3,300 and 6,990 vehicles per
hour, respectively. The individual measurements are corrected to the "existing" peak-hour traffic
condition based on the traffic counted during the measurement, and "existing" was corrected to
"future" by adding 3.3 dB.
Ground Level: "Future" noise levels that are projected to be experienced by persons at ground
level at the site are shown on the attached Map. Noise levels at locations on the site exposed to
traffic on Highway 101 vary from 70 dBA near the easterly lines of Lots 3 through 5, to about 65
dBA near Buena Vista Avenue at the northwesterly boundary of the site. The levels are affected by
the 'Blocking Ridge" (See map) that substantially reduces the noise on Lot 1 and moderately so on
Lot 2. On the pads for these lots, the noise levels are the highest at the southerly edges where
exposure to Highway 101 traffic is the greatest, and less so in the back "pockets" where exposure is
less. A similar reduction is present from the southeasterly edge of the pad on Lot 3 to the rear of
the pad.
2
Attachment 5
Upper Levens): For levels above the 1st story, the noise-reducing effects of the local topography do
not apply, except on Lot 1, and effects on this lot will depend on the exact location of the structure.
"Future" exterior noise levels for portions of the site above the ground level are estimated as
follows:
Lot Number Upper-Level Noise(dBA)
1 64
2 65
3 69
4 68
5 68
3. Mitigation Measures
a. Exterior Areas
The Noise Element requires that proposed development be designed such that "existing" and
"future" noise levels not exceed 60 dBA (Ldn) in outdoor activity areas. Locations of outdoor
activity areas are recommended as follows:
Lot 1: Near noise measurement station 6 or to the west.
Lot 2: Behind (northerly of) the residence or to the west of it.
Lot 3: Behind (northwesterly of) the residence.
Lots 4 and 5: Behind (westerly to northwesterly of) each residence.
b. Interior Spaces
The Noise Element requires that proposed development be designed such that "existing" and
"future" noise levels not exceed 45 dBA (Ldn) in interior spaces. This objective can probably be
met using normal construction techniques on most of the lots. However, the designs of the future
residences should be reviewed by a registered architect with knowledge of noise reduction
measures, using the exterior noise levels noted above, to assure that the 45 dBA interior requirement
has been met.
If you have any questions on these recommendations, please call me at 528-2187.
Sincerely,
< ',r G
Donald O. Asquit
3
I'q7
Attachment 5
Firr Hrdrnnl�'
pr - '1 Pox="
' Re :ler
P,..i Pox
50'53'21- SII I( •i. o r�' o
!7 - 3353m
(11000.1
1 - 2P 76m I I I I ff I! •J• ' I
jV
12Curb—,
B�ockin ff, / /
I
Exj.,ting
--- - �.;•'�/�l/�/�/ 11
Concrete Wall aas
60�� _ 65.3
th
14. ----- - ,
68.0 .
h 55.3
n C 2.1 Slope' :. ,�/. /l' ' •1/
'r' l
O _ole. f
68.5
ssoo ) * a
(80.00') EM ting
35.26m Fire bydrantl _
(11.570)
Fater
valve
Manhole I �•.' _ - � �O� / •
I Q I tso S
0 40 80 120
FUTURE NOISE LEVELS (dBA, Ldn)
at Ground Level
Attachment 5
�i
ATTACHMENT A
INSTRUMENTATION AND TERMINOLOGY FOR
NOISE INVESTIGATIONS
INSTRUMENTATION
The subject noise investigation has been conducted using a Bruel and Kjaer (B & K) Model 2230
precision integrating sound level meter calibrated externally at the beginning and end of each period
of measurement using a B & K Model 4230 acoustic calibrator. In combination, these instruments
yield sound level measurements accurate to within 0.1 decibel (dB). The Model 2230 fulfills
standards of relevant sections of IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 651 and ANSI
(American National Standard) 51.4.1971 for Type 1 (precision) integrating sound level meters.
The microprocessor of the Model 2230 computes and stores/displays the following measurements:
The sound pressure level (SPL) is updated once each second on the digital display at a resolution of
0.1 dB, and 64 times per second on the analog display at a resolution of 2 dB, The mechanism of
averaging levels during the display interval may be "fast" or"slow". The setting is normally
"fast", as this is required for Leq and SEL discussed below.
The sound equivalent level (Leq) is the average sound pressure level for the period of measurement
based on equal energy. The meter internally computes a new Leq from the SPL (RMS) and
updates the digital display once each second. The measurement period is limited only by battery
life which is approximately 8 hours. This parameter is used primarily to describe environmental
noise.
The sound exposure level (SEL) is the constant level which if maintained for one second would
have the same acoustic energy as the total noise for the period of measurement. This parameter is
used primarily in determining the noise exposure in unusually noisy working environments or for
measuring specific events such as an individual aircraft flyover or a tram passage.
The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) sound pressure levels during the period of
measurement are updated once each second from the RMS average sound pressure level. For
periods of measurement in the range of 1 to 10 minutes, these values are reasonable approximations
of the sound pressure level exceeded 1% of the time and 99% of the time, respectively.
All of the above can be measured using frequency weightings of the "A" or "C" scales in
accordance with IEC 651, or a "linear" (20 Hz to 20 kHz) or "all pass" (10 Hz to 50 kHz) filter
settings. The "A" scale is weighted to most closely approximate the response of an average
human ear, and is the setting most used in conducting measurements of environmental noise.
A-1
/—JVT
Attachment 5
TERMINOLOGY
Noise, as used herein, is defined as unwanted sound. However, because the instruments that detect
the small changes in atmospheric pressure that are perceived as sound cannot distinguish between
that which is wanted (e.g., birds singing, waves on a beach, etc.) and that which is not (e.g., traffic
noise), measurements of "noise" are more accurately described as measurements of sound
pressure.
Changes in sound pressure normally experienced in the human environment extend across a very
large range. The sound pressures to an average room are in the range 1,000 times the sound
pressure at the threshold of hearing, and the sound pressure of a large truck is about 100,000 times
that threshold. Because of this large range, it is convenient to describe sound in terms of its energy
level with respect to that of the threshold of hearing. This method of description is called the
decibel scale (dB). In mathematical terms, the sound pressure level, SPL = 10 Log (p/po)Z dB,
where p0 is the sound pressure at the threshold of hearing (20 microPascals). In practical terms, it
is adequate to note that the decibel scale is logarithmic(like the Richter scale for earthquakes), that it
conveniently compresses the numbers involved from a range of 20-200,000,000 to a range of 0-130,
and that it is oriented to human response in that an increase of about 10 dB is normally perceived as
a doubling of the sound level.
In recent years, various methods and "scales" have been devised to describe noise in the human
environment. These methods have had two basic objectives: 1) to represent a physical condition
that is constantly changing over a wide range of values by a single numerical descriptor; and 2), to
adjust that descriptor in a way that most reasonably reflects the degree of annoyance of the varying
noise levels.
1. Statistical Descriptors
Statistical descriptors most often used to describe variations in noise level include:
1-90 The level exceeded 90% of the time during a specified period, usually 1 hour, 24
hours, or during the day or the night. In some instances, this value may be
considered the background level.
L50 The level exceeded 50% of the time during a specified period as noted above. This
value has sometimes been considered the average or median noise level.
1-10 The level exceeded 10% of the time during a specified period as noted above. For
traffic noise, this value has been considered the peak period level.
LI The level exceeded 1% of the time during a specified perlbd as noted above. This
value may be considered the peak noise level.
The most significant drawback to the use of these descriptors, particularly L50 as representing an
average, is that they do not take into account the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale and the
relatively higher energy content of higher decibel levels. That is, the average energy content of 50
dB and 60 dB for equal periods of time is not 55 dB, but rather 57.4 dB (i.e., the log of the average
of the antilogs).
A-2
/—S�6
Attachment 5
A parameter that more acurately describes average noise is the Equivalent Continuous Sound Level
(Leq), which is the continuous sound level having the same energy content as the varying level for
the period of measurement. Prior to the availablity of microprocessors at reasonable cost, the hand-
computation of Leq from a series of individual measurements was a tedious task. However, meters
are now available that internally compute Leq, continuously as with the Model 2230 discussed
above, or for a specified period usually one minute. Because of this technical advance,
measurements of Leq for various periods of time have become the basic parameter in evaluating
environmental noise.
2. Weighted Noise Levels
Because the same level of noise is more annoying to people if it occurs at night, scales have been
devised that weight nighttime noise at a higher level than daytime noise. The scales most commonly
in use are:
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level weights evening noise (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
by a factor of 5, and nighttime levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) by a factor of 10.
Mathematically, evening levels are increased by 5 dB, and nightime levels are
increased by 10 dB in computing a 24-hour geometric average.
Ldn Day-Night Equivalent Level is similar to CNEL but it does not include a
weighting factor for evening noise levels.
Of the above, CNEL came into use first, and it is the standard in regulating noise levels in the
vicinity of airports. Ldn is a simplification of CNEL, and is more commonly used in regulating
land use where traffic noise is a potential problem. These levels apply for a minimum period of 24
hours,but may be applied for periods as long as one year. The difference may be significant where
noise levels are near regulatory limits, and where there are seasonal or weekly variations in a noise
source of concern.
3. Practical Applications
From a practical standpoint,the Ldn noise level is essentially equivalent to the peak-hour noise level
for most situations involving noise from vehicular traffic, and the peak-hour Leq can be used as the
Ldn level, avoiding the costs of 24 hours of measurement.
A-3
/-S"1
Attachment 5
tan R-men
DATE: July 19, 2001
TO: Michael Codron. Associate Planner
FROM: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: 2290 Santa Ynez Street
Michael, per your request I have visited the site of the proposed residential development at 2290
Santa Ynez Street, and would describe the natural resources of the site as follows.
Roughly the western half of the site consists of disturbed ground, which appears to have been
quarried for road rock in the past. This area can be described as grassland dominated by a non-
native perennial grass species called fountain grass (Pennisetum cetaceum), with scattered other
annual grasses and some native shrubs. The eastern portion of the site has not bee graded and
can be described as annual grassland, dominated by false brome(Brachypodium distachyon) and
a prominent native forb species, cudweed (Gnaphalium sp.). There is a small patch of coastal
sage scrub in one area, with black sage, California sagebrush, poison oak, and California
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum).
There are no native trees on the site, but there is one eucalyptus and several pepper trees
(Schinus).
The grassland areas appear to be reasonable foraging areas for raptors, as there was evidence of
use of the site by gophers and voles or meadow mice. Overall, however, the habitat value of the
site could be described as marginal.
Although the site is steep and very visible, and there may be issues of visual impact of
development of the site, there appear to be no significant natural resource issues associated with
development of the property. The only real concern in this regard would be to ensure proper
conveyance of stormwater off the site to avoid erosion, and possibly a management program for
the small brushland area on the site, which protects the soil on one steep area but is also a fire
hazard. If the brushland should stay, there would need to be a setback from the brush for fire
safety purposes. I would recommend that both of these actions be required of the development,
and the Natural Resources staff would be pleased to work with the project sponsors to address
these matters.
miclwel codron memo.doc
/-5'Z.
Attachment 5
October 29, 2001
CENTRAL COAST E2463
ENGINEERING
396 Buckley Road.Suite 1
San Ws Obispo
California 93401
(805)544-3278
FAX(805)541-3137
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Attn: Michael Codron
Subject: Lot Line Adjustment SLOAL 01-192 (Villarreal)
Dear Michael,
The following is an explanation of the attached hydrologic study that addresses your
concerns regarding any additional (or concentrated) flows onto Loomis Street.
The only Lots addressed in this study were those whose tributary area impacts Loomis
Street (i.e. Lots 3,4, & 5).
Lot 3 has a possible finished floor elevation of 408 feet, which is below the lowest
contour of the building envelope for that lot. If the roofline were only one story high
(which would put the elevation at 417 feet) there would be adequate flow to the point
where the driveway for Lot 3 and the common driveway meet(at elevation 399.18).
Lot 4 has a possible finished floor elevation of 385 feet for the lower level. If that
section is only one story tall the roof line would be at elevation 394. The elevation at
the point where the driveway for Lot 4 and the common driveway meet is 390.87 feet
which will provide for adequate flow from the roofline to the driveway.
Lot 5 has a possible finished floor elevation of 381 feet, which is the elevation at the
lowest portion of the building envelope. If the roofline is only one story high (which
would put the elevation at 389 feet) there would be adequate flow.to the point where the
driveway for Lot 5 and the common driveway meet (at elevation 380.4).
As this study shows with the development scenario we are using, all the runoff from the
structures will easily be directed to the common driveway and the historic flows to
Loomis will actually be reduced.
E2463Vrydro duly om=en s
/-Y3
-%udcnment 5
2
If you have any questio or require additional information please call me.
Regards,
J .
Tim rawford
Project Engineer
E2463Vrydro swdy oommmrts
H>Zacnment
DRAINAGE STUDY
IMPACT ON LOOMIS ST.
10-26-01
PREPARED BY.-
CENTRAL
Y:CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING
396 BUCKLEY ROAD, SUITE I
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
H>1actlment 5
METHODS AND REASONING:
THE RATIONAL FORMULA (Q=CIA) WAS USED TO CALCULATE RUNOFF TO
LOOMIS STREET. THIS STUDY CALCULATED ADDITIONAL RUNOFF THAT
BEGAN OR PASSED THROUGH LOTS 3, 4, 5. IT MEASURED ADDITIONAL
RUNOFF DUE TO CONSTRUCTION VS. HISTORIC FLOW TO LOOMIS STREET.
CALCULATIONS:
Q = C.I.A.
INTENSITY, I:
AVERAGE RAINFALL IS 14" TO 18"
I(10) =2.9 in/hr, I(100) = 4.0 in/hr
(SHOWN ON EXHIBIT C)
AREA, A:
HISTORIC FLOW
AREA = .98ac
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
AREA = .70ac
C:
HISTORIC FLOW
C = .8
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
C = .8
*RED REGION, SLOPE > 50%
BLUE REGION, 40% < SLOPE< 50%
GREEN REGION, SLOPE <40%
WHITE REGION, FLOWS TO SANTA YNEZ OR NOT INVOLVED IN STUDY
(SHOWN ON EXHIBITS A & B)
FLOW, Q:
HISTORIC FLOW
Q(10) = (.8)(2.9)(.98) = 2.27 cfs
Q(l00)= (.8)(4.0)(.98) = 3.14 cfs
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Q(l0)= (.8)(2.9)(.70) = 1.62 cfs
Q(100)_(.8)(4.0)(.70) =2.24 cfs
/-.S(
Attachment 5
DRAINAGE STUDY RESULTS:
THE DRAINAGE STUDY REVEALS THAT LOOMIS STREET WILL HAVE LESS
RUNOFF DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. THE PROPOSED LOTS 3, 4, & 5 PRODUCE
HISTORIC RUNOFF TO LOOMIS STREET AT Q(10) = 2.27 cfs & Q(100) = 3.14 cfs.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION, THESE LOTS PRODUCE RUNOFF AT Q(10) = 1.62 cfs &
Q(100) = 2.24 cfs.
PRJECT TO t-� STREET Attachment 5
ffiSTORIC FLO1P TOM PROPO.SEE _O
B ✓r'yCk j t F; r . 1
rJ1 r + ti
450445
•i�.� _.4s? f r i {,F ,�r Fl }.' F Yr f, -..
LOT 2
10
- lr�r� r f r �'iIf 3 •} � �
` r ✓'� rt' 1,, ,
y, ✓'vow /. f� // \ 4 FiW !b - I
Y rr 1 Y ✓F " f r4. .f
y �
LOT 1
f r
w
f Y
I
♦ v r✓✓j
f /r
MUP2229 M17=
I
1 � 1 �
i
I 1
f 0 5 10 20 40
Meters
I Wo r" VIAWIOWQP�l
0 40 80 120
EXHICi(T 'a�
c s - . •
r_
F� JA.
POP
�� !�\W. /
1111i1ff%i��'"�tt•'V
/ •�.ice•• + '•i�•!
yr'✓ ii�ii���l ���/
-, 9
��_
l�IIJ
r
E............ ......E5eceEEoeEEBi2:E;BEiE
_ ------......................---.............-:EiEE e:eBee55EeeEi:eeiie:::ee:eEe..............................................
.._.:.,_...................-----...................------..............------.........................------..................
:i::::ii::iii:::ii::iii:i::i::iii:::iii::ii::ii�iCi:i:::::::e:::iiioiiii:::::::::::::::::::i::.................iiii:::i
• .;iiiiil:=iii%�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iii:iiiiiiiiiti■_ iiiiiiiiii :ii:i:iii
:i......iii::..... i � .:i::::::::i::::::::::::::::iii:v ::::iiiii
..o ouuvvv..•s.o�.-..on.•o.n...nna uuuu wu....uoum..vo.u...wm.no.vovu.u..uv.....rnn..........unnuun n.n
1/1111U111O111111C7p116:.11111..•1111...111111111111111Ot111111111111/111111111110••111v1111111111OOt11111111t11111I1111110.... .....1111111
.moss..-uuu.wu...v-o..l.-uuu.:.Im:.puouunnnnunun..luuuun.uuuu.uo.vuuumnnnnuuuuoonnvnnuuun
/////111111t11t1tt1Ion//\.Rltttt.:•111111:.11111:\1t11111tt111111tt11111111//1/ltttt11111t1111//s/1/111t11ttt11tIt11111111111111111111111111111111111
uuv.n.nm:•.n■uou•:`ouo.�nnn..:mi1�•uunnnunuuu1.1.11o1ounnmlluuununnununununlumm�unnnunw
• /////1111111t11111.:�/�//1t1t.:11111111.'111111.:'1t:�11ttttlt1111tIlIVIItI///1/tttt11111ttt111//11t11111tItt11111t111111111111111111111.1111111111111
• /�//11111/tltltlt111/\.��ltttttt.:11111111.'111111\��til111t1111111111t1111/////1tt1t1111t11111////1/1111/It111111t111H11111t111t11tItIt11111111111I1
..... M
ii:iii:::i ................ =iiii%iwi:iiiiilill:liil.•.oou.ov.u11111..1.. ..I.11111111111111........111111111111111.
.1111111111..111.111.■11111111.`111nnn11t1 �I■.��■..Y.1.111111 1111.111.11111111111■11n..n.111111n11n1
Iiiiiii „ii:iii:ila�i:iii•ii.i"iiii..
11111111111111111111■!■11111111111111..`111111111111111.�`•t111111.:.111I11■\�\11t11.�1111::•■/�■ 1111t1t111•IIt11111111111111.•111111111111111111
/nnmuuunulnnunnnununo:•nnnnnme.amm�wlmatm:�untn:!.in/._. nntnuuumlonuuumumumunm
• �U••1t•Iltttlt11111p//Ut1pt111t1..........................1:.111111110.:•11/1/tte_�tl�tllthl:_■• •t lnntltlutlmnmuuumm�uuumwl
:::::::::... — ............
i ^"EEecee
-- — --- --- — ::::::::... ......:::::::::::::::::::-:::::::.....:. :::
.IF.._-........................_.................
• iiiiiiiiiiiui�i:�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:�:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii: iiii.i.ii
. ..�..._._................... � ...-............................�..:
:ii:iiiiiiiniii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii::ii::i:iiiiiiii::iiiii::ii::iniiuun.o..ausuuo.n.es..``yy..��-:iii:iiiiinu n.:•gn.uuwou.n vu um
■■.11\11111.11111111■■■...1......1.11.1111111111111111..11111111.111111111.111■.■..`\11.111111.1■■■■CJ1' .111111111111111111.:.\/.1.1..111..111..`IIIII
• 1.111\1.1..111111111111111.1.1...n1rt1..1.1111111.............t1t1.1tIt1..........:..w1...111■■1.111111■■■1i1...�Y.I�I...tn.1t111.:.1..........1..11..:.1
-------------
-- - - ---- ����::::::i:::::::::::::::::::::i::.:i::::::::::::::::::_..• :::::::i::::i:::::::.:.--::::�::::iii'
___ __ __ ____ _ moos.vn..uu.....vuwnnuu.-._-o_.o_o_unu.n.__-_._-a_G:� • nuu.nu.u...m..Yn....
o
i .::::i:i::::i iii..uivi:i::i::�=:iiiiiii:ii i iiiii:is ii:i::::iu�=iiiii
.o.o.0 ouvnv..vu o uou.v.vnnnuu ouvonnunnvm....uuvoovo uu.uu o ovuvu.:vuuuuuoo.novo uu n...
• ..................11............1...111.1..t1111t1............11..1.1.111.1.................11............t......1..1.11111111.�\......1....1..1.11111
..s.uuvvnrman..uolu.unnnnnuuuutuuonnnunn.nun.uuuuuounuuououuuunnnmuunu..:vnunuunuuu
ui i iiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiiniiiinui ennui onii uunnnmwuluuuuunnuso oouunun n un nunuu un1.onuuuu n w
1111111111111111111/111/1111111t•11111/11111111t111/11111111111111111111111//11/111111111111111////11111/1111111111111111111111111111111.`111111111111
..ululunl..mu..uu..u.u.nunnnmm..o.uonnmmnnnl.uu.Dossnunn....u.nlnlmnnnmmnu.u..nuun:annm
1111111111111111111111111 N 1111/1.11.SM,1111111111111111111111111.111111111■■11■11111111.111111■■111111N 0111111I11111111111..11/..111..11.II.:.II11.
11111111111...11..11......11........1.11111111111111.11nn...n..111111111■111111.11..1.1..11..........1........1.11111111111.....1.1.11.111111..:•11
■/11/11111t11Itt1111////11 t■ttt tltlt1t11tllllllv1111tt1ttlt11111111111111111/1111t11t11tltttlll////1/1111 tlttlt11111111111111ttt 1t1tt1111tIt111111111:
• /////1t111ttIttlltlt////1ltttttttttt1l1t111tt11lllt1ttltttttlt111111I1111111/1■■1t1tt11tltttlll///■1ltttt11tt111111II11111111t1ttt1tt111t111tllltlt111
iiiiiiiiii ii iiiiiii iii iii iiiii iiiiiii ilii iiiiiiii i1 i iiiiliii1O11111t■11111111110111■1111111■■111■1tnO.01111IIIIIIInOO■t IOI11I n111 non
Will a nnnu nlluuu Dunn nu nu mnnuo ununnnannuouo.0 nmmmooll n1■m nen n nnnnnu uu unn a uu a nw
uluuu uonnuultuuuun uuuuun uunuuo nl nuuunnumloou.unnunml out nu m num n numuuuu anon nu u1 u
uouu 11 uuun uo1u1 uuouununnnuu uuu uuuunnun n u.olou.unuuuuu11to1 nonnu nn unmuuuounnunu noon
■///U1/11111.111111////111111111••11111 In11111111111111111111/.1111111111111111 u011111111111111t 11111111.1111111111111111111 u1n10u11111111111
■1111111111111111111////111111111111111111111111111/111111.111111.1111/1111///1/1111111111111111///1/1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111//11/111111111111////1111111111111111111111111111t111111t111111111111111///11■t111111111t1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/11111111
• /1//■111/tltllltlllll�//•••t•tttt111t11111111111111••tt•1111t111111111111111\1/••111111•tllttlll///•■■tttttlt1111tIt1111111111t1ttttlt11111111111111111
, I
Attachment 5
1.0 0.7
0.9
MAX. 0.8
0.8
G
0.7 LOAM, CLAY. OR ADOBE
ALONE OR IN COMBINATION
G
0.9
0.6
P
G
LOAM WITH SAND, 1.0 ^
GRAVEL. OR SILT
0.5 _
LJ
LJ
0.45 U
Z
z SAND. OR SAND
w 0.40 AND GRAVEL
U UI
Z
j 1.5 N
O Z
U 0.35
P
0.30 2.0
2.5
0.25
3.0
A=AGRICLILTURALI
R=RESIDENTIAL Jy MAX.=0.80
C=COMMERCIAL 4.0
0.20
5.0
0.15
APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER DATE M Qf
REVISIONS BY APP DATE RUN—OFF COEFFICIENT
Red_raum To CAD RdlH .t[DlI 1-95 OB,MO 3040
May 95 Edition
Hrtacnment 5
ht<OSION CONTROL GUIDEL.UvES
Erosion Control is required for all construction projects which involve grading or soil disturbance,
between the months of October and May. The City may require drainage and erosion control measures
to be in place for active permits between October 15 th and April 15th. These guidelines provide
samples of some typical erosion protection methods.
Erosion Control Methods for newly exposed soils
Drought tolerant landscape Diversion ditch at top of
plants suitable for slopes and slope carries water away
from bank to drivewav.
erosion control in .lf[r .
Shrubs
Wild Lilac
(Ceanothus) II • i' ,• /, /
Manzanita Use landscape
(Arctostaphylos sp.) groundcover %
Dwarf Coyote Bush plants whenever 7'
(Baccharis pilularis) possible to Jute Netting,Hydroseed or cover with str w to
Roekrose prevent soil loss
and erosion i _G prevent erosion on bare slopes
(Cistus sp.)
Dwarf Plumbago
(Ceratostigma plumbaginoides) - ,•r••;-••-••' •s•• y / ��� � t f� a r
Cotoneaster .1...........:...i{ �
(No botanical name) ......... i o I,
..
Lantana
(No botanical name)
California Buckwheat
Use straw tales or
(Eriogonum fasiculatum) --
Attachment 6
Draft Resolution "A"
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND AN
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED
AT 2290 SANTA YNEZ STREET (LLA/A 79-01).
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 4, 2001, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation
of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is consistent with the State
Subdivision Map Act, City Zoning Ordinance, Building Code and other applicable City
ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the project site is on a hillside and is zoned for Special Considerations (S),
and those special considerations, including noise, fire protection and aesthetics impacts, have
been adequately evaluated with the proposed Administrative Use Permit and Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact includes mitigation measures that will reduce all of the potentially
significant impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels, as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project
(LLA/A 79-01), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the
following findings:
1-63
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 2
1. The lot line adjustment will not increase the number of parcels and complies with Section
66412(d) of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Regulations.
2. The project site is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impractical and
undesirable, in this case, to build a street in the Loomis Street right-of-way and
conform to the strict application of the Subdivision Regulations.
3. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the Subdivision
Regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification because the project
will result in a better configuration of the proposed lots for access, due to topography,
and the total number of lots on the project site will be reduced from eight to five.
4. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Administrative Use Permit will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties
in the vicinity because the proposed exception will result in five lots that more closely
resemble existing, developed properties in the neighborhood and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is proposed to reduce all potentially significant development impacts to
less than significant levels.
5. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment is in accord with the intent and purposes of the
Subdivision Regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all
applicable specific plans or other plans of the City.
6. As conditioned, the proposed Administrative Use Permit is consistent with the
Hillside Development Policies of the General Plan because the project has been
evaluated for potential impacts in the areas of noise, Fire Department access and
aesthetics.
SECTION 2. Exceptions. That an exception to the Subdivision Regulations is hereby
granted, allowing Lot 3 and Lot 4 on the Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Map (SLOAL 01-192)
to be developed without the required 20 feet of street frontage, based on the findings listed in
Section 1.
SECTION 3. Environmental Review. The City does hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (ER 79-01) for the project, with the following mitigation measures and monitoring
programs:
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 3
I. Miti ag tion
House designs shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission
prior to building permit issuance for each lot in the project. Silhouettes into the skyline on lot 2
shall be minimized, and shall not exceed 15% of the structure.
• Monitoring Program:
The Community Development Director will designate each new lot as a"sensitive site" and staff
will incorporate this information into the land use record for each lot. Development of a .
sensitive site requires Architectural Review per Municipal Code Section 2.48.170. The sensitive
site designation will be visible to all current and future City staff, and the public, researching
development requirements for the property. Plans submitted for Architectural Review of lot 2
shall comply with the above requirement, to the approval of the Commission. The point of view
used to determine compliance with this mitigation measure shall be per Photograph VC-3 and
Exhibit C of the visual study.
2. Mitigation
Future development of each lot in the project shall be designed so that no more than 40% of any
building profile is visible from the southbound lanes of the 101, north of the project site. The
point of view used to determine compliance with this mitigation measure shall be per Photograph
VC-3 and Exhibit C of the visual study. Compliance with this mitigation measure shall be
achieved primarily through an architectural design that incorporates a stepped foundation system
that conforms to the hillside, as opposed to a single level foundation that projects out over the
hillside. Landscaping may be used to meet this requirement to a lesser extent, except on lot 5
where topography will require a greater extent of landscaping for screening.
• Monitoring Program:
The City will evaluate each application submitted for Architectural Review for compliance with
this requirement. Staff will make recommendations based on this evaluation to the ARC, who
has the ultimate authority for determining compliance with the standards set above.
3. Mitigation
All recommendations of the Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Report (soils report),
prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, July 31, 2001, shall be implemented as part of the initial
project improvements where applicable, to the approval of the Chief Building Official.
Individual soils engineering reports shall be required at the time Planning Applications are
submitted for Architectural Review for each home proposed as part of this project.
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 4
• Monitoring Program:
Building permits are required for all proposed grading activities and construction of common
improvements on-site. These building permits will be evaluated for compliance with the
recommendations of the soils report. Individual soils reports are required prior to the
development of each home. These reports will be required as part of the application for
Architectural Review for each house and pertinent sections of the reports will be forwarded to the
ARC for consideration.
4. Mitigation
The site plans submitted for Architectural Review for development of lots on the wildland/urban
interface shall designate a minimum 30-foot zone between the structure and wildland areas in
which plants, shrubs and trees will be drought and fire resistive. Maintenance of this area shall
be governed by a Wildland Fire; Defensible Space Plan, to be submitted by the property owner
and to be approved by the Fire Marshall. The plan shall constitute an agreement between the
property owners and the Fire Department to maintain the 30-foot zone consistent with the plan
requirements. The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following requirements: (1) Existing
and proposed trees in this area must be limbed up (pruning the tree's lower branches); (2) All
dry, cured grass must be mowed below 6 inches; (3) There shall be no vegetation growing or
combustible storage under decking at any time; (4) No aerial canopies are permitted within 10
feet of a chimney spark arrester; (5) Ornamental vegetative fuels or cultivated ground cover,
such as green grass, ivy, succulents or similar plants are allowed to be within the designated
defensible space provided they do not form a means of transmitting fire from the native growth to
the structure.
• Monitoring Program:
Complete applications for Architectural Review for proposed homes on wildland/urban interface
will require submittal of a Wildland Fire, Defensible Space Plan. The City's Fire Marshall will
determine which homes require submittal of plans and the Fire Marshall will evaluate the plans
for compliance with the minimum standards set in the mitigation measure. Site specific
measures may be required depending on the particular situation for each lot,to the approval of
the Fire Marshall.
5. Mitigation
Plans submitted for Architectural Review of homes on the wildland/urban interface shall meet
the following criteria, to the approval of the Fire Marshall and the Architectural Review
Commission: (1) All roofing shall be fire resistive; (2) Eves, balconies, decks or stilts shall be
enclosed; (3) Limited combustible material shall be used for exterior surfaces and finishes; (4)
No aerial canopies are permitted within 10 feet of the chimney spark arrester.
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 5
• Monitoring Program:
The City's Fire Marshall will evaluate applications submitted for proposed homes at the
wildland/urban interface for compliance with this requirement. The Fire Marshall will evaluate
and accept these plans prior to any action by the Architectural Review Commission on these lots.
6. Mitigation
If new concentrated water flows are to be released down slope of lots 3, 4, or 5, the water will be
directed through appropriate easements (as shown on the Preliminary Lot Line Adjustment Map)
to the City's storm drain system in Loomis Street, which drains to San Luis Creek. Any
proposed over land flows of concentrated water must be returned to sheet flow prior to being
released down slope, by a method to be approved by the Public Works Director and the Chief
Building Official.
• Monitoring Program:
Plans submitted for Architectural Review for individual lots must include drainage plans in
compliance with the requirements of the above mitigation measure, to the approval of the Public
Works Director and the Chief Building Official. In some cases a hydrologic study may be
required to insure compliance with this standard.
7. Mitigation
The project shall employ small-scale Best Management Practices, such as listed in the handout
attached to this initial study, wherever soil is disturbed. Soil disruption is anticipated to occur
during construction of the road, extension of utilities, and with removal and re-compaction of
undocumented fill on the site. Soil disruption will also occur during construction of each
individual residence.
• Monitoring Program:
Building permit applications submitted for common improvements and applications for
Architectural Review of house designs shall include landscaping plans that incorporate erosion
control measures, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
8. Mitigation
Outdoor use areas shall be screened from the highway by structures as recommended by the noise
study for the project. Outdoor use areas above the first level of proposed structures shall be
designed to comply with Noise Element standards unless another outdoor use area is provided on
the lot, consistent with the recommendations of the noise study.
/-67
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 6
• Monitoring Programa
Orientation of buildings shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review
Commission based on the recommendations of the noise study. If compliance with the general
noise study for the project is not evident, individual studies may be required, to the approval of
the Community Development Director.
9. Mitigation
Interior spaces shall be designed to reduce noise levels to less than 45dBA (Ldn) using methods
listed in the City's Noise Guidebook. Individual house plans submitted for Architectural Review
shall be reviewed by a registered architect or engineer with knowledge of noise reduction
measures, or a noise specialist,to insure that the 45dBA (Ldn) requirement will be met.
• Monitoring Program:
Plans submitted with building permit applications for individual homes shall include a statement
by the project architect, engineer, or a noise specialist indicating the sound control measures from
the City's Noise Guidebook that are employed to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels,to the
approval of the Chief Building Official.
SECTION 4. Action. That the approval of the project, LLA/A/ER 79-01, is subject to
the following conditions of approval and code requirements:
Conditions:
1. The lot line adjustment shall be finalized with either a parcel map or a lot line
adjustment agreement. If the agreement is pursued, the applicant shall submit a
"Declaration of Lot Line Adjustment", along with recording and processing fees, and
an 8-1/2 x 11 map exhibit suitable for recording, to the City Engineer for review,
approval and recordation, based on samples available in the Community Development
Department.
2. All utility services serving the existing property that cross the new property lines must
be removed (e.g water, sewer, telephone, cable, gas, and electric lines). All new'- �
utility services serving the reconfigured lots shall be underground.
3. All mitigation measures are hereby conditions of approval of the project.
4. The common driveway and related improvements (grading, retaining walls, separate
utilities, sewer, drainage, pavement, etc.) shall be constructed, and all easements and
maintenance agreements shall be recorded, prior to release of occupancy of any house
/-G�f
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 7
within the project.
5. The driveway shall be concrete due to the steepness, with a rough-broomed finish,
unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director and Building Official.
6. The driveway shall be designed to handle drainage from all lots, including roof drains
from Lots 3,4 and 5, and shall convey drainage to an approved point of disposal in
the Santa Ynez right-of-way, to the approval of the Public Works Director and the
Community Development Director.
7. All exposed portions of retaining walls along the proposed driveway shall be
constructed of split-face block, or shall have a cultured stone veneer or similar
architectural treatment,to the approval of the Community Development Director.
8. Landscaping of planters and slopes adjacent to the proposed driveway and within the
easement area shall be required. The maintenance agreement for the driveway shall
include provisions to insure that landscaping is adequately maintained.
9. The applicant may satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement through the
development of a secondary dwelling unit on one of the lots within the project, which
would be rented under a contract of affordability with the City of San Luis Obispo. In
order to meet the requirement, the lot with the secondary dwelling unit must be
developed and occupied prior to occupancy of any other lot within the project. It shall
be the responsibility of the developer to obtain all necessary approvals, including use
permit and architectural review,to develop the secondary dwelling unit. As an
alternative method of compliance with the inclusionary housing requirement, an in-
lieu fee in the amount of$45,000 may be paid, which would cover the entire in-lieu
fee for the proposed development. The in-lieu fee must be paid prior to the City
granting occupancy of the first dwelling in the project.
10. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the project, including
development of the common driveway and extension of utilities, the applicant
shall enter into a covenant agreement with the City to meet the City's
Inclusionary Housing Requirement as described in the above condition. The
agreement shall specify that a $45,000 financial guarantee shall be submitted
to the City, as a condition of use permit approval, and prior to the City
accepting any application to develop a residential lot within the project. The
form of the financial guarantee shall be a Certificate of Deposit or Irrevocable
Letter of Credit, to the approval of the Community Development Director.
The agreement will specify the circumstances under which the City would
either release the funds back to the applicant, or deposit the funds into the
City's Inclusionary Housing Fund.
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 8
Code Requirements: The following code requirements are included for information
purposes only. They are intended to give the applicant an idea of other City requirements
that apply to the project. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Any further
requirements that apply to the project will be identified during the building permit plan
check process.
1. Street trees shall be planted, per City standards, to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist.
2. Frontage improvements shall be installed,per City standards, to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director.
3. When the property develops, a water allocation will be required, due to the additional
demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be
obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division
can help in determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits.
Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is
directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of $150 per
bathroom retrofitted.
4. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued. Both the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees are charged on a"per residential
unit" basis.
5. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals.
6. By ordinance, the applicant is required to prepare a recycling plan for approval by the
City to address the recycling of construction waste for projects valued at over
$50,000. The recycling plan shall be submitted to the Building Department with the
building plans. The City's Solid Waste Coordinator can provide some guidance in the
preparation of an appropriate recycling plan.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
/-70
Attachment 6
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 9
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2001.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty orne Je y Cloorgensen
/-7/
Attachment 7
Draft Resolution "B"
RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND AN
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF FIVE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED
AT 2290 SANTA YNEZ STREET (LLA/A 79-01).
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 4, 2001, and has
considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation
of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
the [Subdivision Regulations], [General Plan], [Zoning Regulations], and other applicable City
ordinances; and
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 project LLA/A 79-
01, staff recommendations,public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:
[Council specifies findings[
SECTION 2. Denial. The Lot Line Adjustment and Administrative Use Permit at 2290
Santa Ynez Street (LLA/A 79-01) is hereby denied.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
- Attachment 7
Resolution No. (2001 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 72001.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
�- 73