Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2002, PH-1 - CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AT 303 FOOTHI council j ac Enda Report CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct r Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner '"'//vv//'' SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AT 303 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (MS/ER/176-01) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution: 1) approving a mitigated negative declaration and; 2) approving a tentative parcel map with exceptions to the subdivision regulations, based on findings and subject to conditions. DISCUSSION Background An application was received to subdivide a parcel in the R-1 district located at 303 Foothill Boulevard (see vicinity map, attachment 1). The site consists of an approximately 30,000 square foot parcel, containing one existing single-family residence located close to Foothill Boulevard. The remaining portion of the property is vacant, containing several significant trees, including a large native oak. The applicant is requesting to subdivide the existing parcel into four lots, ultimately allowing three new single-family homes in addition to the existing residence (see proposed map attachment 2). In most cases, a minor subdivision (involving four or fewer parcels) is exempt from environmental review and can be reviewed and approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer. However, when exceptions are requested, a minor subdivision is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, according to the Subdivision Regulations, requires review by the City Council rather than the Planning Commission. In order to create adequate driveway access to the proposed new lots, the applicant is requesting an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance. The exception will allow a reduced setback between the existing house and proposed driveway/accessway serving the new lots. Analysis The three primary issues associated with this project are: 1) neighborhood compatibility; 2) consistency with City policies and standards; and 3) consideration of the requested exception. Staff supports flag lots and similar minor subdivisions as an efficient way of accommodating infill development, provided site development is consistent with the neighborhood and meets all City standards. 1r/ Council Agenda Report — MS 176-01 (Scarry, 303 Foothill Boulevard) Page 2 The proposed subdivision meets all standards regarding minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the R-1 district. The proposed lot configuration will result in three lots to the rear of the existing residence. The Subdivision Ordinance contains additional requirements for flag lot subdivisions, including the requirement for a 10-foot wide setback from the accessway (see flag lot requirements attachment 3). Since the rear lots are separated from the street by one or more parcels, these lots are not subject to a "street yard" setback. Instead the lots are subject to an accessway setback. The "accessway" consists of the driveway and it's accompanying easement that serves one or more flag lots. In this scenario the accessway will serve three lots and will be owned in fee by the lot furthest from Foothill Boulevard. Proposed Subdivision and R-1 district Standards Code Requirements Proposed Project San Luis Obispo Zoning Code Feb.2000 San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations Building Setbacks: (as provided for existing residence-not (mown for future development) Accessway: 10 feet 6.6 feet(exception requested here) Side Yards: 5 feet+ 10 feet Rear Yard: 5 feet+ 5 feet Minimum Lot Size: 6,000 Square feet Each lot is greater than 6,000 square feet Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet 90 feet or greater Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet 55 and greater Minimum Street Frontage: 20 feet 20 feet 1. Neighborhood Compatibility The location of the proposal is within an established residential neighborhood with single-family residences on lots ranging from approximately 7,000 square feet up to 30,000 square feet and greater. The lot immediately east of the subject parcel contains a church and pre-school on an approximately 50,000 square foot lot. Although the proposed subdivision design will vary in shape and design from existing adjacent lots, the proposed lot sizes, at greater than 6,000 square feet, will be consistent with the R-1 district requirements. Approval of a subdivision will not grant special privileges to the property and any new lot created will be subject to all applicable standards of the R-1 Zoning District relating to lot coverage, density, and other standards. The proposed subdivision appears to be consistent with the existing neighborhood and the R-1 district. Since the new lots will be developed as infill sites at the rear of an existing lot, the future residences may be in close proximity to the existing rear yards of other established residences. Although the proposed lots meet the R-1 standards, staff recommends adding conditions of approval to ensure continued neighborhood compatibility. In addition to designating resulting lots as "sensitive" sites requiring architectural review as specified within the recommended project mitigation measures, recommended conditions of approval propose the following site /--a Council Agenda Report �- MS 176-01 (Starry, 303 Foothill Boulevard) Page 3 development limits: • Minimum of 800 square feet of useable outdoor open space • Maximum building height of 25 feet (consistent with R-1 district), measured from actual ground level prior to construction rather than average ground level. These conditions will help ensure compatibility with the neighborhood and consistency with General Plan polices. Setting site-specific development limits on flag-lot subdivisions helps to ensure development that meets zoning regulation objectives for adequate separation between buildings, provision of landscaped areas, air circulation, protection of views, and solar access. (Section 17.16.020.A.1). The primary focus of performing architectural review on future residences will be to address viewshed, overlook, setback, parking, and architectural compatibility issues. 2. General Plan Consistency The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) encourages maintaining a compact urban form while maintaining open space areas. Infill development, when done in accordance with City standards, is an opportunity to accomplish these primary General Plan goals. Additional LUE policies encourage new development within existing neighborhoods to be compatible in scale and character with the neighborhood. They also state that residential projects should be designed to provide adequate privacy and useable outdoor area, and should respect existing site constraints such as size and topography. Housing Element policies state that there should be a variety in the location, type, size, tenure, cost, style and age of dwellings to accommodate the wide range of households desiring to live within the City. The proposed subdivision will allow the creation of four parcels, each with a minimum size of at least 6,000 square feet within an underutilized. generally flat, yard area that is otherwise surrounded by urban development. However, as mentioned earlier, it is important for development on these infill lots to be considered through the architectural review process in order to maintain General Plan consistency. General Plan policy LU 2.4.5, which describes the areas low-density residential land use designation states: "Development should be primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them". Subdivision of the property, as conditioned by staff, will be consistent with General Plan Land Use Element goals with respect to City Form. 3.Requested Exceptions to City Standards The exception requested will allow a 4.6-foot setback between the existing house and the proposed access easement and a 6.6 foot setback to the edge of the proposed common driveway (the actual paved driveway will be 16 feet in width centered inside of a 20 foot wide accessway as required by the Subdivision Regulations). The Subdivision Ordinance describes the accessway setback to be measured from the edge of pavement and not the edge of the access 1-3 Council Agenda Report MS 176-01 (Scarry, 303 Foothill Boulevard) Page 4 easement. In this case the setback will be 6.6 feet from the pavement instead of the required 10 feet. The requested setback exception is not anticipated to negatively impact the existing neighborhood, cause a health or safety concern or set an unusual precedence. The portion of the existing house closest to the proposed accessway will be the kitchen, which is probably the least sensitive portion of the house to be located near a driveway. Recommended conditions of approval require the addition of screening landscape, consisting of screening shrubs, to be located on both sides of the common access driveway, thereby providing screening for the existing residence and adjoining property. The Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 16.48, specifies the following additional findings that must be made in order to approve exceptions: A. Before any exception is authorized, all of the following findings shall be made: 1. That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and 2. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and 3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and 4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the city. B. In granting any exception, the council shall impose such conditions as are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and assure compliance with the general plan, with all applicable specific plans, and with the intent and purposes of these regulations. The requested subdivision exception at 303 Foothill appears to meet the required findings and is therefore supported by staff. Refer to findings in the resolution of approval. Environmental Review As mentioned earlier, minor subdivisions consisting of four or fewer parcels are generally exempt from environmental review unless exceptions are requested. Since an exception is requested, an initial study was prepared for the proposal. The initial environmental study (see attachment 4) addressed issues related to Aesthetics, biological resources; and Hydrology. Mitigation is recommended to reduce impacts to a less than significant.level.. /— I Council Agenda Report MS 176-01 (Scatty, 303 Foothill Boulevard) Page 5 CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department concurs with recommendations regarding tree preservation and the planting of street trees at the existing street frontage. The Building Division noted that new residences are required to be served by underground utilities. The Fire Department had no concerns with the project. The Utilities Department noted that water allocations are still currently available on a first-come, first—serve basis. Code requirements from each of the departments are attached to the resolution of approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the tentative parcel map with changed findings and/or conditions. 2. The Council may deny the tentative parcel map and or the requested exception if the necessary findings cannot be made. 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. Attachments: 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduction of proposed subdivision tentative map 3. Flag lot requirements 4. Initial Environmental Study, ER 176-01 5. Draft Resolution of Approval—environmental determination and subdivision (A) 6. Draft Resolution of Denial (B) Separate plans have been provided to the City Council and are available for review at the City Clerk's Office. 1 Attachment 1 U ET71 o FOOTHILL uu rn 303 Foothill MS 176-01 Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Single Family N I 7i i (,OSY1/!) �p0,OS6PN ,OS �9169! 'ni Wi9L'9l I �a O \ OSI �K� 8 K t 'Lt M.00,O9 h C Az 11(OZD 6c I rips � s � mom- A IN CM 76 7VU00-1N luewqoe:av Hit l Attachment 3 16.36.230 Flag lots (deep lot subdivision) Flag lots may be approved for subdividing deep lots where development would not be feasible with the installation of a standard street, either alone or in conjunction with neighboring properties, or where justified by topographical conditions. Such subdivision shall conform with the following: A. The accessway serving the flag lot(s) shall not be included in the determination of required lot area for any lot. B. The original lot shall have frontage on a dedicated street of at least the minimum length required by these regulations for the zone in which it is located, plus the accessway required to potential rear lots. C. The accessway to the rear shall be at least twenty feet wide (with sixteen feet of pavement) for residential and conservation/open space zones, except where the accessway is more than one hundred fifty feet long it shall be at least twenty-four feet wide with twenty feet of pavement. For all other zones, the accessway shall be at least thirty feet wide with a paved roadway at least twenty-four feet wide. D. Each lot shall have yards as required by the zoning regulations. A ten-foot yard shall be provided along the access road pavement. E. The lot farthest from the street shall own the accessway in fee. Other lots using the accessway shall have an access easement over it. (Ord. 934 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code § 9107.3(1)) Attachment 4 City Of SAn LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Minor Subdivision MS/ER 176-01 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Philip Dunsmore (805) 781-7522 4. Project Location: 303 Foothill 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: David Scarry, 1130 Grove Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1; Low Density Residential 8. Description of the Project: Request to subdivide one parcel into four parcels with exceptions to flag lot standards in relation to access width and setbacks. Minor subdivisions that require ordinance exceptions are not exempt from environmental review. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of a minor subdivision. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is bounded by Foothill Boulevard to the north and by residences to the south and west, and a church to the east. The property is rectangular in shape and encompasses less than an acre. The terrain is relatively level, with a slight slope from the south end of the lot and leveling out at the north end. The property contains one single-family residence, an attached garage and two paved driveways at the north end of the lot. Vegetation on site includes several significant trees including native oaks and non-native elm and eucalyptus.. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. l- 9 ATTACHMENT 4 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' or a "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation is Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources 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)). ATTACHMENT 4 Issues, Discussion and Support. .,[formation Sources Sources Po, y Potentially Less Than No Signincant Significant Significant Impact ER # 176-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, X there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL 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. January 15,2002 ignat Date Ronald Whisenand Deputy Director of Community Development For: John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name ii3i CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo INITIAL STUDY ENvIHONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 /-/ I A Issues, Discussion and Supporb._ .hformation Sources sources POI ly Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# 176-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1 -/a 7TACHMENT 4 Issues, Discussion and Support. _ .nformation Sources Sources Po .ly Potentially Less Than No -" Sigmttcant Significant Significant Impact ER # 176-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? The subject property is currently surrounded by urban uses and is not within a vista or within a scenic corridor The project may result in impacts or removal of trees therefore impacting off site views from surrounding residences. The proposed project will result in the entitlement to build three additional single-family residences on a site containing one residence. All new residences will be at the rear of the lot behind the existing residence. The property is surrounded on all sides by existing residential development, including a large church and pre-school located on an adjacent lot to the east of the subject property. Since the new properties have the potential to create compatibility conflicts with existing, adjacent developed properties, new construction should be subject to architectural review. The designation of the new lots as "sensitive sites", requiring architectural review is appropriate considering existing trees on the site and existing adjacent residential rear yard privacy that could be affected by new residential development on the proposed lots. MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting. B. The new parcels 2, 3 and 4 as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall be considered "Sensitive" and construction on the new parcels shall be subject to architectural review to consider neighborhood compatibility. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? The project is located on a site that is not considered prime farmland, or farmland of unique or statewide importance as indicated on City maintained maps created pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is too small to be considered important farmland and furthermore is surrounded by developed urbanized uses. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 1-13 A77Al'c�1490E! 4 4 Issues, Discussion and Supports. nformation Sources Sources Po, ty Potentially less Than No Sigmncant Significant Significant Impact ER # 176 Ol Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 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 considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? The Air Quality Handbook finds that a project that produces 10 pounds a day of emissions will have a significant effect on air quality. The construction of 35 homes may result in the production of 10 pounds of emissions per day. The proposed project will ultimately allow the construction of three additional homes. It is anticipated that less than significant air quality impacts may result from construction of the three new residences and an access road. Minor increases in air pollution may occur during project construction phases, however following construction air quality impacts will be less than significant. CONCLUSION: Less than si ni cant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) C.-nflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? The subject parcel contains a small seasonal creekway approximately 15 feet outside of the south property line. No significant riparian vegetation exists within or adjacent to the creekway since it is located within developed residential properties. The parcel slopes away from the existing creekway; therefore development of the parcel will not introduce additional drainage impacting the creekway. The City Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot 6 `/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 ATTACHMENT 4 Issues, Discussion and Support,.__ information Sources Sources Po, iy Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 176 Ol Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated building setback away from this creek. Subdivision of the property is likely to create less than significant impacts to the creekway or any related riparian habitat resources. The project will allow new lots to be created close to one or more significant trees. Existing trees on site include Eucalyptus, Coast Live Oak, Elm and a variety of small non-native landscape trees. The proposed project provides for preservation of significant trees on the site including a 30" diameter Coast Live Oak that will be adjacent to the proposed new access road serving three residences. MITIGATION MEASURES Biological Resources A. All oak trees (Quercas agrifolia) shall be preserved and protected on site during any on site construction of public improvements or private residential construction. B. All new construction including residences, private garages or accessory structures shall remain outside of the drip line of any oak tree on site. C. No solid paving, parking areas, or significant construction shall occur beneath the drip line of any oak tree on site. D. Paving for driveways and trenching for utilities within the drip line of any oak tree shall only be allowed under the following circumstances: 1. When approved by the Community Development Department; a minimum of ten feet from the trunk base of the tree; and any paving shall be constructed of pervious materials such as concrete pavers or similar. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 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? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? The existing residence on the property is not considered a historic resource, and furthermore will not be modified with the proposed subdivision. The existing property does not ,ontain any historic.or prehistoric archeological resources as identified on City maintained resource maps. No known archeological resources exist within the project vicinity. Surrounding properties are already developed and contain structures that are between 40 and 45 years old or less. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted,energy conservation plans? 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 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The project is consistent with the City's Energy Element which encourages concentrations of residences close to concentrations of employment. The housing will be an infill project surrounded by existing urban development, thereby reducing energy impacts that could be created by placing additional housing further from existing development. No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 /.J 1 Issues, Discussion and Support. nformation Sources Sources Po ly Potentially Less Than No Signusant Significant Significant Impact ER # 176 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? A geotechnical investigation was prepared by GSI Soils Inc. who reported the following findings: "Soils consist of dark brown to medium brown,fine to medium grained sandy clays to a depth of 3 to 6 feet underlain by a highly weathered bedrock. The potential for liquefaction for these soils is low to negligible. An expansion index of 58 was obtained for the soils on this site." There are no known fault lines on site or in the immediate vicinity. However, 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 Uniform Building Code. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will require a City building permit, and therefore require construction that will meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. A Geotechnical report was prepared for this project by GSI Soils Inc. It is incorporated herein by reference. Building and grading plans will be required to comply with recommendations in the report in addition to current building code standards. No further mitigation is necessary. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the r('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 CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 /6 77 4 5cH Al E Iii L Issues, Discussion and Support. .nformation Sources Sources PO .ly Potentially Less Than No mttc - Sigant Significant Significant Impact ER# 176 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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. X or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? The project proposal does not involve hazardous materials or hazardous conditions. The new lots will result in the future development of three new residences. The subject property is adjacent to an existing pre-school site,however it is anticipated that new construction and proposed residences will result in less than significant hazards to the adjacent school. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 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 X 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 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 that would exceed the capacity X of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X The existing project site slopes at approximately 5% down towards Foothill Boulevard, and existing arterial roadway. The project site is not within a flood zone, and does not contain significant drainage courses or creekways. The project will ultimately result in the construction of three new residences, parking areas, driveways and related accessory construction. The existing drainage pattern of the site will be modified from the introduction of new impervious surfaces and new structures. Construction of the site will require the review of a grading and drainage plan that results in adequate site drainage. CONCLUSION: The project construction will be required to meet current building code standards and require review and approval of a grading and drainage plan. On site drainage impacts are anticipated to be less than CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 211111 /-/ '7 Issues, Discussion and Support. nformation Sources Sources Pc tyPotentially Less Than No Signtttcant Significant Significant Impact ER# 176 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated significant with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. MITIGATION MEASURES Hydrology and Water Quality A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping immediately following commencement of final site grading work. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? The project proposal complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed subdivision would create 4 lots from I existing lot. The project meets criteria for a categorical exemption from environmental review except that resulting access width for proposed flag lots will be less than the minimum standards required in the Subdivision Regulations. The proposed exception to the Regulations will allow a 4.5- foot setback where a 10-foot setback is normally allowed. The reduced setback will not reduce the ability to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed lots will meet subdivision requirements for depth, width and minimum square feet. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. City Council approval is required for minor subdivisions that include exceptions to subdivision standards. Exceptions associated with this subdivision proposal are an issue of neighborhood compatibility property aesthetics, safety and fire access. The City Fire Department and Public Works Departments have reviewed the proposed subdivision for access widths and fire-fighting capabilities as discussed later. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable" noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundbome noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan.or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is outside areas identified as "unacceptable" noise level areas as defined by the General Plan Noise Element. The project will ultimately result in the entitlement to construct 3 new residences. New construction will increase noise levels for temporary periods. All new construction will be required to conform with the City's Noise Ordinance that restricts noise producing construction activities to daytime work hours. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. �•i CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 /I/e c_e� _ Issues, Discussion and Suppor, nformation Sources Sources Pc Ay Potentially Less Than No Signmcant Significant Significant Impact ER # 176 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project would create three additional housing opportunities by creating three new lots. This is consistent with Land Use and Housing Element policies encouraging a variety of housing types, efficient infill development, and compact urban form. The proposed subdivision meets City Zoning Standard density and lot size calculations for the R-1 Zoning district. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 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 protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Three additional homes on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to public services. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 14.RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Three additional homes on this property are not likely to create significant impacts to recreation services in the City. Final approval of the new lots will also be subject to impact fees designed to support park acquisition (Quimby fees). CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the ro'ect: 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 X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X 11 Oji CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 AT F MENj . Issues, Discussion and Support, riformation Sources Sources Po ly Potentially Less Than No Sigmncant Significant Significant Impact ER # 176 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a chane in air trafficpatterns? The project is designed to create three new residential properties served by a single 16-foot wide driveway. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual estimates that single-family homes generate 10 vehicle trips per day. Existing street systems are capable of handling the additional trips. Furthermore, the site is within reasonable walking distance from shopping, schools, and services. The new driveway design does intersect with an arterial roadway. Driveway designs should be constructed to allow all vehicles to enter the arterial roadway(Foothill Boulevard) in a forward position. MITIGATION MEASURES Transportation/Traffic A. All future residential driveways intersecting with the primary new accessway that enters Foothill Boulevard shall be designed to allow vehicles to exit individual properties in a forward position with minimal manuevering. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the miect: 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 X treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 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? IF) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? At this time the City can supply water to three additional residences without significant impacts or without exceeding existing water resources. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. The City currently has water to allocate, and does so on a"first-come, first-served" basis. Water is allocated at the time building permits are issued and the Water Impact Fee is paid. Three new residences are not likely to create significant to available City Utilities and Service Systems. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or �i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 X ATTACHMENT 4 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, nformation Sources Sources Pc ^ Ay Potentially Less Than No Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact ER# 176-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California-history or prehistory? N/A b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable When viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and.the effects of probable futureprojects) N/A c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause _ X substantial adverse effects on humanbeings,either directly or indirectly? N/A - - 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 ideriffy the following items:. a) Earlier analysis used: Identify earlier anal ses and state'where-ft _are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis. - N/A C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 3. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 4. Geotechnical Report prepared by GSI Soils Inc., September 2001 5. City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Review Guidelines 6. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines 7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan, 1998 8. Project comments from other departments and agencies 9. Project Description and proposed Parcel Map.. 10. Description of requested exceptions to standards Attachments: 1. Project Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Parcel Map REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS CITY OF SAN Luis OsispO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLLST 2001 lay AT TAUKMtlml 4 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, information Sources Sources PC !ly Potentially Less Than No Siginticant Significant .Significant Impact ER # 176 01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. Mitigation: Aesthetics A. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting. B. The new parcels 2, 3 and 4 as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall be considered "Sensitive" and construction on the new parcels shall be subject to architectural review to consider neighborhood compatibility. • Monitoring Program:. Compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check; and occupancy release.The new parcels sensitive status shall be recorded against the deed of each new parcel, indicating the requirement for City architectural review. 2. Mitigation: Biological Resources A. All oak trees (Quercas agrifolia) shall be preserved and protected on site during any on site construction of public improvements or private residential construction. B. All new construction including residences, private garages or accessory structures shall remain outside of the drip line of any oak tree on site. C. No solid paving, parking areas, or significant construction shall occur beneath the drip line of any oak tree on site. D. Paving for driveways and trenching for utilities within the drip line of any oak tree shall only be allowed under the following circumstances: 1. When approved by the Community Development Department; a minimum of ten feet from the trunk base of the tree; and any paving shall be constructed of pervious materials such as concrete pavers or similar. s Monitoring Program: Compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans;building and grading plan check; and occupancy release. 3 Mitigation: Hvdroloov and Water Oualip, A. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. B. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping. • Monitoring Program: Compliance with these mitigation measures will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check;and occupancy release. 4. Mitigation Transportationfrraffic A. All future residential driveways intersecting with the primary new accessway that enters Foothill Boulevard shall be designed to allow vehicles to exit individual properties in a forward position with a minimum amount of maneuvering. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 as ATTIC IT a Issues, Discussion and Suppor, ,nformation Sources Sources Pt .ly Potentially Less Than No Sigmmtant Significant Significant Impact ER # 176-01 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated o Monitoring Program: Compliance with this mitigation measure will be accomplished through final review of the project improvement plans; building and grading plan check;and occupancy release. i0 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 a3 uN■�i � i '� N �rrgcH �uT"� a a p q4, g�g v' v Z � (osro!!)UVGS Er 3.00,OS69N 6y, ,OS X916:9! 55 �H9L'91 I • i gly \\\ a U >A yy A / a mit L4 � / x tz m tnu 1M.0010% d� �� 33„f Q I / H \ J�bl j • I I~r for i M 000ss9 ar IFT I � I •� \I s `� ;os eIt 1 r 5 • / — ———— y� L ,OS'Ol! W799YT'2 .OS69N C � I I PY wm a I yyyyyq ao nauw � ^ Na� $`3r CC 5 y �tl � a Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 303 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MS/ER 176-01 (SLO 00-095) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January, 22nd 2002 and has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff; and WHEREAS, minor subdivisions with requests for exceptions require City Council review and approval; BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: 1. Aesthetics 1. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any tree on site shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting. 2. The new parcels 2, 3 and 4 as shown on the Tentative Parcel Map shall be considered "Sensitive" and construction on the new parcels shall be subject to architectural review to consider neighborhood compatibility. 2. Biological Resources 1. All oak trees (Quercas agrifolia) shall be preserved and protected on site during any on site construction of public improvements or private residential construction. 2. All new construction including residences, private garages or accessory structures shall remain outside of the drip line of any oak tree on site. 3. No solid paving, parking areas, or significant construction shall occur beneath the drip line of any oak tree on site. 4. Paving for driveways and trenching for utilities within the drip line of any oak tree shall only be allowed under the following circumstances: 1. When approved by the Community Development Department; a minimum of ten feet from the trunk base of the tree; and any paving shall be constructed of pervious materials such as concrete pavers or similar.. /�6 ATTACHMENT 5 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 176-01 (Scarry Minor Subdivision) Page 2 3. Hydrolozy and Water Quality 1. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite drainage to an adequate point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. 2. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping. 4. Transportation/Traffic 1. All future residential driveways intersecting with the primary new accessway that enters Foothill Boulevard shall be designed to allow vehicles to exit individual properties in a forward position with a minimum amount of maneuvering.. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to subdivide one lot into four lots with an exception to the subdivision ordinance, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: Minor Subdivision 1. As conditioned, the design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan and its policies that call for compact urban form and a variety of housing types compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This is because the proposed new lots are infill lots, located within an existing rear yard of a developed residence. Furthermore, the property is surrounded by urban development and is within close proximity to shopping and transportation sources. 2. As conditioned, the site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone, since the proposed lots meet all size and dimension standards as required within the R-1 district and project conditions will require architectural review for new development. 3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the project does not involve significant tree removal, it does not interfere with creeks or wetlands, and the site is surrounded by urban development. 3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision since all adjacent properties are accessed independently and all new proposed lots will contain access easements as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. l a7 ATTACH fI ENT 3 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 176-01 (Scarry Minor Subdivision) Page 3 Exceptions to Subdivision Standards for Accessway Setback(flag lot standards) 5. The property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in the Subdivision Ordinance. Approval of this subdivision in accordance with the setback standards would require demolition of, or moving an existing residence; and 6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification. It is City policy to conserve existing housing and prevent displacement of occupants; and 7. As conditioned, the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the modification will only result in a 3.4 foot reduction in the required 10 foot setback adjacent to the side of an existing residence. Potential impacts from the resulting 6.6 foot setback will be further reduced by the addition of screening landscape within the setback area as required by project conditions ; and 8. 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 since it does not grant special privileges or modify allowable land uses within the existing R-1 district. SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of the minor subdivision and use permit (MS/A 57-00) to allow creation of four lots from one existing lot with an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 16.36.230 flag lot requirements, for property at 303 Foothill, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: Conditions: 1. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall be valid for two years after its effective date. At the end of the period, the approval shall expire and become null and void unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request received prior to the expiration date. 2. The Tract map shall be subject to additional fees for park or recreation purposes (QURvIBY Act) as required by City Ordinance. 3. The granting of this entitlement shall apply to the property located at 303 Foothill Boulevard (APN 052-141-053) regardless of owner. - ATTACHM- EN, T 5 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 176-01 (Scarry Minor Subdivision) Page 4 4. A final map drawn in substantial conformance with the approved tentative map, and in compliance with all conditions set forth herein, shall be submitted for review and approval in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 5. All new parcels created by this subdivision shall be considered sensitive sites, therefore requiring architectural review prior to approval of a building permit for new construction. Each residence shall maintain a minimum of 800 square feet of quality private open space. The height of each residence shall not exceed 25 feet, as measured from natural grade to the highest point on the structure. 6. A common address identification sign located at the intersection of the driveway and Foothill Boulevard shall identify each of the residential lots. Individual lots shall be identified with an address sign at the driveway intersection of each private lot and the main access driveway. The design of the address signs shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 7. All subdivision improvements as shown in project concept and expressed within project conditions shall be completed prior to the recordation of the final map, unless a bond in an amount sufficient to ensure improvements has been posted for the project. 8. A landscape architect shall prepare a project landscape plan as part of the subdivision improvement plans. Landscape tree varieties shall be a minimum size of 15-gallon nursery stock. An adequate quantity of screening shrubs shall be planted at the edge of the accessway adjacent to the existing residence on the property and along the eastern edge of the accessway where it adjoins the neighboring property. At least two street trees will be required at the front of the property adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. Additional trees and shrubs may be necessary as required by Community Development Department. 9. The subdivider shall dedicate additional necessary right-of-way to accommodate driveway ramps and sidewalks to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 10. The subdivider shall install new curb, gutter and sidewalk as necessary to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, new driveway shall be designed to meet ADA standards in regards to sidewalk. 11. All trees shall be retained and protected unless noted on the site plan and permitted for removal by the Community Development Department and approved by the City Arborist. Tree protection fencing shall be installed when performing construction near the canopy of the 30" live oak tree. Subdivision improvement plans and site development plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City Arborist for compliance with this condition. �a9 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 176-01 (Scarry Minor Subdivision) Page 5 12. Street trees are required to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 13. Final parcel boundary for parcel 3 is subject to modification to minimize the narrow sliver at its northeast cornet 3 to using 1 or 2 angle points be used, instead to simplify the property boundaries for fencing, etc., to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 14. A "common driveway" easement agreement is required, in accordance with City standards for Parcels 2, 3 and 4, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director. The common driveway shall be constructed as a parcel map condition. 15. Provisions must be made to accept and convey offsite tributary drainage to an adequate point of disposal,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. 16. All utilities shall be extended to the respective parcels, as part of the subdivision improvements, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Director. Code Requirements: 1. Each parcel shall be served with separate utilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone & cable TV), to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Street trees shall be planted prior to recordation of the final map, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 3. Traffic impact fees, per City ordinance, shall be paid at the time of building permits for new residences. 4. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 5. All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. 6. The parcel map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g.-all record data shall be /-30 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 176-01 (Scarry Minor Subdivision) Page 6 entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: tty ornJ J ensen 1-31 j3 Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 303 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MSIER 176-01 (SLO 00-095) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 22nd, 2002 and has considered testimony of interested parties, and considered the applicant's request for a tentative parcel map to create four lots from an existing lot with an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance Section, Section 16.36.230 flag lot requirements, for property located at 303 Foothill Boulevard, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: That this council, after consideration of Tentative Parcel Map No. MS 176-01 (County Map No. SLO 00-095), staff recommendations, and reports thereof makes the following findings: 1. The site is not suited for the type and design of the subdivision. 2. The property to be divided is not of such size or shape, or is not affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16, Subdivisions, of the SLO Municipal Code). 3. The excerption will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. 4. Granting the exception is not in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision ordinance, the Zoning Regulations, and is not consistent with the general plan or other City adopted plans and standards. SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. MS 176-01 (County Map No. SLO 00-095) and requested exceptions are hereby denied. l-3� ATTACHMENT � Resolution No. (2002_Series) Page 2 On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of , 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen I-33 Mrr-TING AGENDA Dr,, -5 -0 ITEM#�_ Re: The Spirit of the low-density single family home designation for these parcels. I strongly encourage the City Council to maintain the owner-occupied or single family home(family members renting)belief alive in this project. This meeting may only be about a lot split,but is obviously a step towards increasing resale value or developing multiple units on the site. Iinmediately after this property's purchase through an inheritance/estate transaction was finalized,David and Maridy Scarry terminated the lease with the existing residents,as is their right. The rent was then approximately doubled causing the tenants to vacate. Subsequently,as a Landlord,he has been unable to keep his new tenants from having bonfires in the backyard,occasional parties that use the church as a parking lot,and people overflowing the interior of the home to party outside causing neighborhood noise. Many weekends,the church is picking up beer bottles and trash just to have a presentable front entry for the church on Sunday morning. Besides the `Poly Royal' riots that shutdown that longstanding tradition,and the recent Mardi Gras post parade mayhem,the third largest out-of-control party recently was at 303 Foothill about 1 ih years ago. Kids were parking as far away as the intersection of Ramona and La Entrada to walk down there. I drove down Foothill and surrounding streets to eyewitness this. That night saw police stationed at two or more intersection to stop inebriated college kids. This may have been the third largest parry response call by SLO PD to a single residence party in the past 5 years. As a City Council I urge you to promote responsible infill development for any SLO property. Keep your guard up that this project does not create,intentional or not,a tucked away off street party haven where the City Council may not be able to see.the overcrowding of students,cars,or garage bedroom remodels in the future. Thank You, Frank Merson 195 Ramona Dr. S.L.O. RECEIVED COUNCIL DD DIR (SLO Native and Poly Graduate) I&�A0 ❑ FIN DIR 547-9885 ,� ;� }? SAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF FEE, U •- 20 ,- M-AfTORNEY ❑ PW DIR &<L'ERK/ORIf3 ❑ POLICE CHF SLO CITY COUNCIL ❑ PT HEADS IJ REC DIA UTIL DIR HR DIR p.s. Christine Mulholland...This property may already have a garage bedroom conversion in the existing house. Lots of lumber was put in there one weekend. Privacy not invaded since it is highly visible from the main street. (I had to e-mail this since I may not be able to attend until after 8:45pm) R�DUNCIL DD DIR Eric o [I FIN DIR METING AGENDA A0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF RNEY ❑ PW DIR DATE ITEM # L5WORI© ® POLICE CHF ' Dear Mr. Mayor and City Co D9 4.0 Ago 9IR U'PIL DIR Regarding item MS/ER 176-0 1� M bO OIC Council continue discussion for additional information. These are a few abbreviated notes to be read along with your review of the staff report. Towards neighborhood compatibility,you should stipulate/mitigate that the R-1 designation not be amended now or in the future on any of the four parcels to allow increased density. You should in this context, insist that the General Plan Policy LU 2.4.5 be strictly adhered to. Neighborhood Compatibility should also stipulate that these single-family homes stay low- density single-family homes or be owner occupied to reduce density and trips. In regards to the access setback exception,you should stipulate that the maintenance and continued existence of the screening landscape be assigned to the lot furthest from the street as is the ownership of the accessway (Subdivision Ordinance 16.36.230 flag lots)to assure continuous compliance with this ordinance and the requested exception as outlined in 16.48(B) (page 1-4) of this agenda report MS/ER 176-01. Also the exception for the driveway width and apron should not encroach upon the existing power pole in the sidewalk or significantly reduce the access to the church via their existing driveway. This screening needs to be kept in place throughout the entire length of the east property line (276+feet) to ensure the compatibility with existing surrounding uses. Since the back of the existing home on the front of the lot has been at least 186 feet from the rear of the property line for almost 70 years,this infill project will have a definite impact on surrounding residences, the church, and the preschool. I encourage the council to accept the recommendation portion stating parcels 2,3,4 be considered"sensitive" so the Architectural Review process stays in place and open to future public review and comment. Environmental Impact 415...adding 3 residences to where none existed before will generate an additional 30 vehicle trips per day where there may have been 5 or less due to current home being serviced by two existing driveways. Future plans should stipulate that no permanent structure, fence, wall, or vegetation obstruction be allowed to get higher than currently exists between the street and existing front of home on parcel #1. (existing Oaks exempted) This will help maintain the unobstructed view of eastbound traffic that will be merged into from the back three parcels. A clear line-of-sight over the front yard of parcel#1 as viewed from the driveway proposed for exception in this MS/176-01is necessary for the safe entrance and exit from the parcels into 40 MPH traffic on Foothill Blvd, especially 6:30am-9:30am and 4pm-6pm weekdays. Also for arterial safety on Foothill. RECEIVE® Thank you for your time and attention. FEB 05 20 012 Sincerely, Just a neighbor and long time resident of the SLO, and the Foothill Area. SLO CITY COUNCIL Anonymous, by sincere, since I am close with developer, realtor and the neighbors. MEETING AGENDA February 3, 2002 E ITEM #_�% TO: Mayor Settle and Council Members RE: Proposed subdivision of an R1 residential property located at 303 Foothill Boulevard. Our family protests the above subdivision proposal as yet another attempt to turn an R1 neighborhood into hi-density student housing for the following reasons: • If approved it will legally allow up to 20 young people under the age of 21 to disrupt the nearby residents, as well as 20 vehicles to impact a roadway that is already over capacity. I am sure the proposed development will not accommodate five off street parking spaces on each of the proposed four lots. The developer is also requesting a setback exception as the property is not wide enough to accommodate the necessary fire lane for emergency access. • If approved it will create a dangerous entry onto Foothill Boulevard from the resulting subdivision roadway in a area that brings small children to the adjacent preschool. The property in question,formerly with a grove of mature trees in the rear, was for over fifty years a good fit for the neighborhood until the ownership changed. Since that time it has been rented with no interest in upkeep by the present owner. Installing a horse shoe pit in the front yard when there is a large back yard illustrates an utter disregard to the neighborhood by the current landlord. It was obviously purchased for perceived development opportunities even though it is zoned R1 and legally not wide enough for a subdivision. This house and its surroundings have been allowed to deteriorate. The cottonwood trees as well as other mature species have been removed as at least nine stumps over twelve inches in diameter could be counted from looking in from the church parking lot. We have had to live with loud parties,broken bottle glass to step over when wanting our grandchildren home from the preschool and the likelihood of additional automobile accidents and near misses at that location. Why does this type of behavior have to be rewarded? The present owner knew the rules when the property was purchased and felt that he could avoid them. The proposed subdivision is too much for the neighborhood to absorb. Having lived here for many years and watched the changes I feel that a lot of the problems can be directly related to the following: • Off-site property owners that cause up to five unrelated young people, often all under the age of 21 years,with five vehicles to live in RI neighborhoods, stuffing them in small houses that were not meant to accommodate this intensity and at the same time refusing to maintain the property. • A large increase in the college and university population that threatens to overrun the City of San Luis Obispo with little support from the institutions that are the cause. Incidently,I like living with a mix of young people,family households and the older retired community. Unfortunately the mix has tilted with student housing overtaking the others. This small house at 303 Foothill Boulevard is now a speculator's dream property, do not make it our nightmare. Please do not allow the subdivision. Help us save our neighborhood. Sincerely, NCIL CDD DIRI ZrCbZ El FIN DIR .1 20AGA45- RECEIVED -❑ FIRE CHIEF FEB 0 4 2002 Betsy Bertrando for the Beruando f RNEY p__PW DIR 267 Foothill Boulevard, SLO 93405 1 giltLERK/ORIG, 1 POLICE CHF SLO CITY CbUNQL 543-7831 -betsyb@thegrid.net 13 QJ PT EAD.S:. ❑ AEC DIR UTIL DIR 0],HR DIR