The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/15/2002, PH4 - MINOR SUBDIVISION (MS 13-02) WITH EXCEPTION, AT 2915 JOHNSON AVE.; LACHEMANN, APPLICANTS council Md° D° j ac en ba RepojztP14-�� 14m Nm6n CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc Prepared By: Lynn M. Azevedo,Associate Planne SUBJECT: MINOR SUBDIVISION (MS 13-02)WITH EXCEPTION, AT 2915 JOHNSON AVE.; LACHEMANN,APPLICANTS CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution: 1) approving a mitigated negative declaration and 2) approving a tentative parcel map with an exception to the subdivision regulations, based on findings and subject to conditions. DISCUSSION An application has been received to divide an approximate half-acre parcel in the R-1 zone district; located at 2915 Johnson Avenue, into two lots, one having a flag lot configuration. The property, as it exists today, has built upon it a single-family dwelling and detached carport situated toward the front of the site, approximately 50 feet from Johnson Avenue. The new lot line would separate the house from the remainder of the parcel, resulting in demolition of the existing carport and construction of a common driveway to service both parcels. A replacement carport or garage would be required for proposed parcel 1 and proposed parcel 2 would likely be developed with a single-family residence. Minor subdivision applications are normally acted upon by the Community Development Director at a Director's Subdivision Hearing. However, an exception is being requested, and the subdivision regulations state that exceptions require Council action (§16.48.010). Also, when exceptions are requested, a minor subdivision is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In order to create adequate driveway access to the proposed new lot, the applicant is requesting an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a reduced setback (of 6 feet where 10 feet is required) between the existing house and edge of pavement of the proposed common driveway (§16.36.230.D). With regard to the required environmental analysis, a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. 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. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, flag lots have been commonly supported by the City as an efficient way of accommodating infill development, provided site development is consistent with the neighborhood and meets most City standards. A mitigation measure is proposed which would designate both lots as "sensitive sites," thereby requiring architectural review for any future construction. This mitigation is recommended considering existing trees on the site and Council Agenda Report MS 13-02 (Lachemann) Page 2 existing adjacent residential rear yard privacy that could be affected by the introduction of new residential development interior to the block. Consistency with City policies and standards is being met in that the proposed subdivision meets all standards regarding minimum lot area and lot dimensions for the R-1 district. The table below summarizes the consistency analysis. R-1 District Standards v. the Proposed Subdivision Code Requirements San Luis Obispo Zoning Code May 2002 Proposed Parcel 1 Proposed Parcel 2 Sao Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations Building Setbacks: (as provided for existing residence- not known for future development) From edge of pavement of 6 feet accessway: 10 feet (exception requested) Unknown Side Yard: 5+ feet 15 feet Unknown Rear Yard: 5+feet 20 feet Unknown Minimum Lot Size (net): 6,000 square feet 9,871 square feet 8,493 square feet Minimum Lot Depth: 90 feet 137 feet 126 feet Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet 66 feet 88 feet Minimum Street Frontage: 20 feet 68 feet 20 feet In addition, the width of the accessway to the rear parcel meets the minimum 20-foot width with 16 feet of pavement. However, with regard to the length of the accessway, §16.36.230.0 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that the accessway to the rear shall be at least 20 feet wide (with 16 feet of pavement) for residential zones, except where the accessway is more than 150 feet long, it shall be at least 24 feet wide with 20 feet of pavement. The proposed length of the accessway (common driveway) to proposed Parcel 2 is 154 feet which technically triggers the 24-foot wide access easement. However, the applicant is able to reduce the length of the accessway to comply with the 20-foot driveway width requirement. The final map shall reflect the correct dimension and compliance with this provision. With regard to the yard exception request, the Subdivision Ordinance describes the accessway setback to be measured from the edge of pavement and not the edge of the access easement. The paved driveway (accessway) will be 16 feet in width centered inside of a 20-foot wide access easement as required by the Subdivision Regulations. In this case, the setback would be 6 feet from the pavement instead of the required 10 feet. The requested setback exception is not anticipated to negatively impact the existing neighborhood or cause a health or safety concern, Council Agenda Report MS 13-02 (Lachemann) Page 3 and would not set an unusual precedence. Any building code issue that may arise as a result of the proximity of the corner of the house to the new lot line can be addressed through building improvements (i.e. one-hour rated eaves). General Plan Consistency The parcel map request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) in that the LUE encourages maintaining a compact urban form while maintaining open space areas. Infill development, as will be accomplished here, when done in accordance with City standards, is an opportunity to accomplish these primary General Plan goals. The LUE also states that dwellings in the Low Density Residential district are generally one- or two-story detached buildings with private outdoor space separating them from neighboring dwellings. The proposed land division would result in a lot size typical of an R-1 neighborhood and a lot configuration fairly common in this neighborhood specifically. General Plan Policy LU 2.2.10 states that "housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood." The existing dwelling, while approximately 50 years old, is not of local historic significance. The designation of the lots as "sensitive sites" would result in architectural review of any development proposal and is proposed as a mitigation measure considering existing trees on the site and existing adjacent residential rear yard privacy that could be affected by the introduction of new residential development interior to the block. Findings Section 16.48.020 of the City's Subdivision Regulations specifies the required findings and conditions for subdivision exceptions as listed below in italics. The Resolution of Approval, attached hereto as Attachment 5, describes how the proposed lot split meets these findings and provides the necessary conditions. 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. 1/13 i Council Agenda Report MS 13-02 (Lachemann) Page 4 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 speck plans, and with the intent and purposes of these regulations. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Potential areas of impact include aesthetics and geology and soils. The Initial Study, proposed Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring Program are attached to this report as Attachment 4. Addressing each potential impact area briefly, aesthetic issues have to do with the site's location along Johnson Avenue which is identified as a road of moderate scenic value. Two mitigation measures are proposed which would designate both parcels as "sensitive" thereby requiring architectural review for any new construction. There are also a substantial number of pine trees on the property, the removal of which could potentially impact views from the Johnson Avenue corridor and surrounding properties. The Tree Committee considered the removal of the 4 trees in the proposed common driveway and approved their removal at their August 26, 2002 meeting requiring the planting of street trees along the frontage of Parcel 1. With regard to soils and geology, the soil is rated as "medium" surface run-off. A mitigation measure is recommended which requires the preparation of a landscape plan to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance and installation of the landscaping prior to permit final to insure minimal surface run-off. CONCURRENCES -- The The Fire, Public Works, and Utilities Department support the project subject to compliance with code requirements and their recommended conditions as found in the draft Resolution of Approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may approve the tentative parcel map with modified findings and conditions. 2. The Council may deny the tentative parcel map and/or the requested exception if Council finds that the necessary findings cannot be made. 3. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed, and direction should be given to staff and the applicant. Council Agenda Report MS 13-02 (Lachemann) Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity map 2. Reduction of proposed tentative parcel map (MS 13-02) 3. Applicant statement 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration, ER 13-02 5. Draft Council Resolution of Approval 6. Draft Council Resolution of Denial Full-size map prints have been provided to the City Council and are available for review at the City Clerk's Office. G:\Groups\Comdev\Cd-plan\lazevedo\Subdivision\MS 13-02(Lachemann)CC Report.doc V_ .- 1 A chment 2 yt r d pL a t y fV 0 u E-CV - F, zeE w '7$k N < Xa [za�a" ,® ® Fkg mgz u`" g a w 33 VES z V) o^s s 14 3 h IBM 0laJ-3w 09 1 ny„le.Cl� . r WO X to 5 \ a$Pate w 8 \ \ e S.o m ms rill! uVI q G N gg -90L ) _`� � taa5 gra a= ega8 vis^^l tea" .cc -CN v 35 M �� 7 Attachment 3 YSTLAND COMPANY ONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERING&SURVEYING 75 ZACA LANE, SUITE 100 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 TELEPHONE:(805)541-2394 • FAX.(805)541-2439 February 4, 2002 Community Development Department c/o City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 RE: Vesting Tentative Map SLO 02-033 Dear Sir or Madam, Our clients,the Lachemanns, are applying for a subdivision of their property at 2915 Johnson Avenue in the City of San Luis Obispo. The proposed parcel map would create two (2)parcels; Proposed Parcel 1 will be 0.09 hectares proposed Parcel 2 will be 0.12 hectares. Access to propose Parcel 2 will be via the flag portion of proposed Parcel 2 to Johnson Avenue. Currently there exist a single family residence on proposed Parcel 1. In order to accommodate access to the rear parcel, Parcel 2, the carport, four(4)pine trees, one(1) fig tree and a hedge will need to be removed on proposed Parcel 1. The proposed access (the flag portion of Parcel 2) is 6.10 meters in width,the required minimum by code. This results in the existing residence on Parcel 1 to be 1.218 meters away from the access road/property line of proposed Parcel 2. We respectfully request that the City review this proposal and find that the setback of the residence from the flag portion of proposed Parcel two (2) acceptable and grant our client an exception. If you have any questions or concerns,please contact me at 541-2394. Sincerely, Pamela Jardini Senior Planner Attachment 4 II II II� city Of SAn tuiS OBISPO r 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#13-02 1. Project Title: Minor Subdivision 13-02 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 Lynn M. Azevedo,Associate Planner 805-781-7166 4. Project Location: 2915 Johnson Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Brad, Kristen& Marcell Lachemann 550 Spanish Trail Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: Division of an 0.52-acre parcel into two parcels with an exception to standards relating to structure setback from access road pavement (6 feet proposed where 10 feet required). 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Parcel Map 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Single-family residential to the east and west and across Johnson Avenue to the north. A large apartment complex, Terrace Homes, abuts the property to the south. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. �O CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 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. #_� 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" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic 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)). CITY OF SAN Luis CBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Al-16 Attachment 4 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 miti ation measures that are im osed u on the proposed vroiem nothiny,further is required. ?./ = _--%J/ September 12.2002 Signature Date Ron Whisenand.Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville.Community Development Director Printed Name dCtrs OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 I/'// Attachment 4 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 Code of Regulations. 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. �aY CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 I/-/Z Issues, Discussion and Support,,,y Information Sources Sources Pote, Potentially Significant Significant ER #13 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? I X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic 1, 11 X buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 11, X 28 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 12,30 X Evaluation a), b), c) The subject property is surrounded by urban uses and is located along Johnson Avenue which is identified as a road of moderate scenic value. General Plan Policy Cl 14.3.A states that"projects in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as `sensitive' and require architectural review." The project will result in the entitlement to build one additional single-family residence on the new parcel being created (Parcel 2) and require demolition of an existing carport and construction of a new covered parking structure at the rear of Parcel I. Associated with the development is the removal of 4 pine trees as part of construction of the common driveway and possibly additional trees with construction of the new residence. Tree removals could potentially impact views from the Johnson Avenue corridor and surrounding properties. The Tree Committee considered the removal of the 4 trees in the proposed common driveway and approved their removal at their August 26,2002 meeting. As there are no immediate plans for development on Parcel 2, no other tree removals are proposed at this time. The Tree Committee also required the planting of street trees along the frontage of Parcel 1. d) Any additional lighting would be that typical of single-family residential development which would not be a new source of substantial light causing adverse effect on day or nighttime views in the area. Conclusion The designation of the 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 the introduction of new residential development interior to the block. Impact is potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation Measures I. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any on-site tree shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting. 2. The lots shall be designated as "sensitive sites," and development on either parcel shall be subject to architectural review to ensure compatibility with the City's scenic roadway policies. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 14 X the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 10 X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland 12 X to non-agricultural use? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 qq3 Issues, Discussion and Support,.:y Information Sources Sources Pi Potentially Les sTnan No Significant Significant - Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER #13-02 Mitigation Incorporated AttactAIGRt w Evaluation �Y a), c) The project site is comprised of Los Osos-Diablo complex, 9 to 15 percent slopes which is not considered "prime" farmland or farmland of"Statewide Importance"by the U.S.D.A.Natural Resources Conservation Service. b) There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. Conclusion No impact. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 12,15, existing or projected air quality violation? 16,30 X b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 12,15, quality plan? 16,30 X c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 12,30 X d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 12 X e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard 12,15, X (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative 16,30 thresholds for ozone precursors)? Evaluation a),b),c),e)San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM,o(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. One way the City helps the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan is through the development and environmental review process. 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 results in the production of approximately 10 pounds of emissions per day.The proposed project will ultimately allow the construction of one additional home,therefore it can be assumed that less than significant air quality impacts will result from construction of a new residence and an access drive. During project construction,however,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. The City has addressed these construction related impacts through standards in the Grading Ordinance and mitigation measures in the General Plan EIR. Compliance with these standards is monitored during the building permit plan check process and by field inspections conducted by Building Division inspectors. d) No objectionable odors will emanate from the project. Conclusion Less than significant impact. �Y CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 4/,/x Issues, Discussion and Support ..y Information Sources Sources Potei. Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #13 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated AttachmenT 4 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 12 X 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 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department 12 X 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 12 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 resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of 12 X wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved 5, 12 X local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) 12 X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Evaluation a),b) According the Natural Diversity Database of the California Department of Fish and Game,there are no species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on or near the project site,nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. c) There are several non-native tree species on the property including 7 Pinus radiata and 22 Pinus halepetisis. Four Pinus radiata are proposed for removal as part of construction of the expanded driveway. Two of the trees are dead which will be permitted to be removed and the other two trees were considered and approved for removal by the Tree Committee at their August 26,2002 meeting. These removals do not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy. The Tree Committee has required the planting of trees,however,to compensate for the removal of the four pines. d) As the property has been developed for over 50 years with a residential use and has been completely surrounded by urban development for over 30 years,the division of the subject property and ultimate construction of an expanded driveway and additional residence will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. e) The proposed project will not conflict with any local policy protecting biological resources nor any adopted habitat conservation plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. f) The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. Conclusion Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 / ,) Issues, Discussion and Suppom,-,q Information Sources Sources Pote._ Potentially Less Than Ivo Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER #13-02 Mitigation Incorporated "qChAlOrI 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: t 4 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource?(See CEQA.G_uidelines 15064:5) 10, X 21,22 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064:5) 21,22 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site'or unique geologic feature? 11,21 X d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 23 X Evaluation a),b)Based on review of the City's Historic Site Map and Land Use Information System,the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. c) There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site. The project site is mostly developed,mostly paved and while bordering a tributary to Orcutt Creek,the proposed development will fully comply with creek setbacks. d) The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. Conclusion No impact. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 6 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 6, 12 X 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 6 X State? Evaluation a), b) The project is consistent with the City's Energy Conservation Element which encourages concentrations of residences close to concentrations of employment. The additional dwelling that will likely result from the proposed lot split would be considered an infill project as it would be surrounded by existing urban development, thereby reducing energy impacts that could be created by placing additional housing further from existing development. c) No known mineral resources exist within the project vicinity. Conclusion No impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the most recent Algpist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other 25 X mai CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 el-i� Issues, Discussion and Support,,., Information Sources Sources Pote' Potentially LessThan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER #13 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Attanhropr t4 substantial evidence of a known fault? lI. Strong seismic ground shaking? 25 X _ III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 13 X W. Landslides or mudflows? 10 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 13, 30 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in.on or off-site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, 13 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 13 X Pr property? Evaluation a),c) San Luis Obispo County,including the City of San Luis Obispo, is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province,which extends along the coastline from central California into Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding,faulting,and fracturing of variable intensity. In general,the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act,the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County,the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults.The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line,near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study(source 16),the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault,which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced-sediments within a geologically recent time(the last 10,000 years),portions of the Los Osos fault are considered"active". Other active faults in the region include:the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast,the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast,and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12.miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of"High Seismic Hazards," specifically Seismic Zone 4, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. 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 Code and City Codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. b) The project is a somewhat disturbed site as the existing single-family residence was constructed in approximately 1950. The amount of original topsoil left is unknown. The USDA NRCS Soil Survey states that the Los Osos-Diablo complex,9 to 15 percent slope soil is rated as medium surface run-off. As part of any future development on the site,the mitigation measure below should be applied to ensure landscaping is installed to minimize tun-off. c),d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction,which is true for most of the City,and the site contains highly expansive soils as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994). A soils engineering report will be required to be submitted as part of the building permit process to insure the integrity of the structures and infrastructure. Conclusion Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 17 Issues, Discussion and Suppq i Information Sources Sources Pc ly Potentially Less Than No Sig ant Significant Significant Impact ER #13 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4 Mitigation Measure 3. Any future construction shall require preparation of a landscape plan to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance,and landscaping shall be installed prior to final to insure minimal surface tun-off. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public-or the environment through the routine use,transport or disposal bf hazardous 29 X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 29 X environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 29 X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 29 X substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result;it would create a significant hazard to 12 X the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety 27 X hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 4, 12 X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands 4 X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a) The project does not involve the routine use,transport,or disposal of hazardous materials. b),c),d) The division of land and future construction of a single-family residence would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. e) The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5.. f) The project site is more than 2 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport,outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDYENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Z/-/F Issues, Discussion and Suppor Information Sources Sources Pot( y Potentially Less Than No Sigi. .At Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER #13-02 Mitigation Incorporated AttachTent 4 Conclusion Less than significant impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 12 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing 12, 19 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 stormwater drainage systems or 12, 19 X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or 30 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 30 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 26 X or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 26 X h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 12 X Evaluation b),h) A water allocation will be required for any additional residence creating addtional demand on the City's water supply. 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. Water will be provided by the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge. a), c), d), h) The proposed redevelopment of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and moderately affects the absorption rate,drainage patterns,and the amount and rate of surface runoff. To ensure that potential drainage impacts are minimized to a level of insignificance, redevelopment of the site will be required to be designed to meet all applicable City codes, including City grading and drainage standards. Site drainage will be evaluated with the grading plans as part of the required Architectural Review process. It is intended that the site would continue to drain into a private drainage channel at the rear(or bottom) of the property. Mitigation Measure #3 is imposed above (Geology and Soils) to ensure landscaping is installed with construction to minimize loss of topsoil from run-off. e) The project design does not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding on-site or off-site as the site is already partially developed and compliance with City grading and drainage standards would apply to any construction. f), g) The project site appears to be out of the 500-year flood zone per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, no future structure (i.e. house) on the property would impede or redirect flood flows or occur within a 100-year flood hazard area. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 y'/y Issues, Discussion and Suppol Information Sources Sources Pot, y Potentially Less Than No Sig[. "it Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Attachment 4 Conclusion The project does not have the potential to significantly impact hydrology or water quality. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 1, 8 X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans? 1, 12 X Evaluation a) The project complies with all provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The proposed subdivision would create 2 lots from one existing parcel.The project meets criteria for a categorical exemption from environmental review except that the required setback of a structure(the existing house)from the proposed access road pavement for the flag lot is less than the minimum standard required by the Subdivision Regulations.The proposed exception request to the Regulations is to allow a 4-foot setback where a 10-foot setback is required. The reduced setback does not affect the project's ability to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed lots will meet subdivision requirements for depth,width,and minimum size. b) The project would result in a lotting pattern common to the neighborhood and the eventual construction of an additional dwelling in a residential neighborhood. Therefore,the project can be considered infill and would not divide the established community. c) There is not a habitat or natural community conservation plan adopted for this area,therefore,the project would not conflict with such. Conclusion Less than significant impact.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. 11. 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 3, 18 X Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 30 X without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? 3, 18 X 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 27 X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? CITY OF SAN LUIS Oaispo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Z/— Issues, Discussion and Suppoi 'Information Sources Sources Pof �y Potentially Less Than No Sig.. nt Significant Significant Impact ER #13 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation 4 a)The proposed project itself will not generate unacceptable noise levels, only increased noise levels during construction as discussed below. The City's Noise Element and Noise Guidebook identifies Traffic Noise Exposure Calculations for Johnson Avenue as it is a residential arterial street. At build-out,exterior noise levels reach 60 dB at approximately 103 feet from the edge of Johnson Avenue. Maximum noise exposure for a residence is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor activity areas. Parcel#2 of the Parcel Map is approximately 137 feet from the edge of the Johnson Avenue right-of- way, therefore, noise exposure to any structure built on the proposed new parcel would not affected by "excessive" noise levels. In addition,the fact that Johnson Avenue is elevated in relation to the project site and that an existing residence exists between Johnson and any future development on Parcel 2, noise levels would be even less than identified in the Noise Element,as those circumstances further reduce sound attenuation. b), c) The project will not raise ambient noise levels in the project vicinity substantially. The project will,however,generate noise during grading and construction which activities are subject to the Noise Ordinance to minimize impact to nearby properties. d) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area, therefore, the project will not result in exposure of people to excessive noise levels from aircraft operations. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other 12,30 X infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing 30 X elsewhere? Evaluation a) The Parcel Map would result in the availability of a parcel for construction of a single-family dwelling unit. Such use is consistent with Land Use and Housing Element policies encouraging a variety of housing types, efficient infill development, and compact urban form. The possibility of one additional housing unit does not constitute"substantial population growth." b) As there are no structures on the proposed new parcel,no housing or people would be displaced as a result of the project. Conclusion No impact. 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? 12 X b) Police protection? 12 X c) Schools? 12 X d) Parks? 12 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X is CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 y-z/ Issues, Discussion and Suppo Information Sources Sources Pot `iy Potentially Less Than No Sig nt Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Attacbment f) Ocher public facilities? 12 4 X Evaluation a); b), c), d), e), f) The characteristics of the project do not present situations or conditions that would create potentially significant impacts to services for fire, police, schools, parks,roads or other public facilities. The project has been evaluated by the City's Fire Marshall,Chief Building Official,Public Works Department,Utilities Department,the local school district, and affected utility companies,and no resource deficiencies have been identified. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 14.RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical 30 X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or fequire the construction or expansion of recreational facilitiesi which might have an 30 X adverse physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a), b)One additional home on this property will not create significant impacts to recreation services or facilities in the City. Final approval of the new lot will also be subject to payment of the Park-In-Lieu fee designed to support park acquisition (Quimby fees)and development. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street.system? 2, 12 X b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management 2, 12 X 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. 30 X farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 12,30 X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? 9 X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?. 2, 12 X g) Conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,or 27 X A change in air traffic patterns? Evaluation a), b) Traffic generation associated with an additional single-family lot will not significantly increase traffic on Johnson Avenue nor exceed the level of service standards established by the County congestion management agency for nearby streets and highways. Johnson Avenue is designated as residential arterial street with a maximum Level of Service(LOS)of �! CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 y u- Issues, Discussion and Suppo Information Sources Sources Po� iy Potentially Less Than No Sig.. uu Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER #13-02 Mitigation Incorporated Attathmeet 4 D. The latest traffic count information dates to 1998 at which time 14,310 average daily trips were documented with a Level of Service B. Atypical single-family residential use generates 10 trips/day which equates to a 0.06% increase in traffic. This is an insignificant increase not affecting LOS. c) There are no hazards which the project would be subject to or create, as.Johnson Avenue is a 4-lane residential arterial street. d) The project complies with the Fire Department's requirements for emergency access. e) The existing garage is being removed in order to accommodate a common driveway serving both parcels.. To ensure adequate parking will be provided for the existing residence per the Municipal Code, a condition of the tentative map will require the off-street and covered parking requirement to be met prior to approval of the final map. City parking standards will apply to any new construction proposed on the new parcel. f) The project does not conflict with alternative transportation policies in that the project does not impede any existing or proposed bike baths,transit stops,etc. g) The project is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area, therefore, there is no conflict with the Plan that would result in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise or a change in air traffic patterns. Conclusion No impact. 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS._Would the project; a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 12 b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment,wastewater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental 12 X effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are.new and . 12 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 capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to 12 X the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permittedcapacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 24 X_ _ f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related.to solid,waste? 24 X Evaluation a), d) The City wastewater treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve this development, and the existing sewers in the vicinity have sufficient capacity to serve the development. 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 the project. Wastewater impact fees are associated with water usage, so determination of applicable impact fees will be made at the building permit stage. b) This project has been reviewed by the Utilities Department staff. 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 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Is INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 7 ��2,/ Issues, Discussion and Suppoi Information Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Less Than No Sigi. .nt Significant Significant Impact ER #13 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated -- mien - 4 supply,treatment and distribution facilities that will be necessary to serve it. c) The City has adopted Water Allocation Regulations to ensure that increased water use by new development and land use changes do notjeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers. 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. A water allocation is required for any new residence on the new parcel. 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. 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 accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application. The residences will be subject to subscribing to the City's trash collection service which provides receptacles for recycling and green waste materials consistent with the Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Demolition of the existing garage may trigger compliance with the City's construction debris recycling ordinance. This will be determined upon submittal of a demolition permit application. Compliance with this ordinance will require the applicant to prepare a plan to show how significant amounts of construction debris will be diverted from the landfill. The ordinance also requires reporting on compliance with the approved plan,which is verified by area recycling companies and through the. provision of receipts for recycled materials. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 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=sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or X animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in the biological section of this study, there are no 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 on or near the project site, nor is riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified. The four Pinus radiata proposed for removal do not serve as habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special status species, and their removal does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy. With regard to historical resources, the project is not located on or near a known sensitive archaeological site or historic resource. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the project site, and the project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as potential burial sites. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, X Ma CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 7Z Issues, Discussion and Suppor Information Sources Sources Pott Potentially Less Than No Signt,.,.ant Significant Significant Impact ER #13 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated AttarhAISA the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable4 future projects) The proposed project's cumulative impacts are insignificant for the same reasons discussed in this study for project-specific impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X indirectly? There are no environmental effects identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. While construction noise may affect persons in the vicinity of the property once construction of infrastructure,a residence or garage begins, it would last only for a relatively short period of time, and the City's noise thresholds must be met which have been determined to be acceptable noise levels. 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 analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation Element,July 1973 6. City of SLO General Plan Energy Conservation Element,April 1981 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11. Site Visit 12. Staff Knowledge 13. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 15. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 16. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Air Pollution Control District, 1995 17. Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,6'Edition,on file in the Community Development Department CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 I,/—2J Issues, Discussion and Suppoi. Information Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Less Than No Sigm„cant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4 18. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook, May 1996 Attac rIIe t 19. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 20. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 21. City of San Luis Obispo,Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Map 23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 24. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department 25. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 26. Flood Insurance Rate Map(Community Panel 0603100005 C)dated July 7, 1981 27. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 28. Architectural Review Guidelines 29. 1997 Uniform Building Code 30. Project Plans All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7172. Attachment: Mitigation and Monitoring Program CITY OF SAN Luis OBlspo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Z/'Z� Attachment 4 Environmental Review #13-02 Minor Subdivision #13-02 (Lachemann), 2915 Johnson MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM AESTHETICS 1. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any on-site tree shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting. • Monitoring Program: Compliance will be insured through final review of the project improvement plans, building and grading plan check, and occupancy release. Responsibility: City Arborist, Community Development Department Planning Division 2. The lots shall be designated as "sensitive sites,"and development on either parcel shall be subject to architectural review to ensure compatibility with the City's scenic roadway policies. • Monitoring Program: The parcels' sensitive status shall be recorded against the deed of both parcels, indicating the requirement for City architectural review, and so noted in the City's Land Use Inventory database. -> Responsibility: Community Development Department Planning Division GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3. Any future construction shall require preparation of a landscape plan to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance, and landscaping shall be installed prior to final to insure minimal surface run-off. • Monitoring Program: Compliance will be insured through final review of the project improvement plans, building and grading plan check, and occupancy release. Responsibility: Community Development Department Planning Division CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 11-27 7 1 - Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF,THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 2915 JOHNSON AVENUE MS 13-02 (SLO 02-033) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 15`x, 2002 and has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, minor subdivisions with requests for exceptions require City Council review and approval; and WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff. 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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. This determination reflects the independent judgment of the City Council, and the Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 13-02)with the following mitigation measures: Aesthetics 1. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any on-site tree shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting. Monitoring Program: Compliance will be insured through final review of the project improvement plans,building and grading plan check, and occupancy release. 2. The lots shall be designated as "sensitive sites," and development on either parcel shall be subject to architectural review to ensure compatibility with the City's scenic roadway policies. Monitoring Program: The parcels' sensitive status shall be recorded against the deed of both parcels, indicating the requirement for City architectural review, and so noted in the City's Land Use Inventory database. 41-.2JA -- Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS 13-02(Lachemann Minor Subdivision) Page 2 Geology and Soils 3. Any future construction shall require preparation of a landscape plan to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance, and landscaping shall be installed prior to final to insure minimal surface run-off. Monitoring Program: Compliance will be insured through final review of the project improvement plans,building and grading plan check, and occupancy release. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to subdivide one lot into two with an exception to the subdivision ordinance regarding setback of the existing house to the edge of payment of the common accessway (6 feet where 10 feet required), and after consideration of staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: Minor Subdivision 1. The tentative map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that the general plan and its policies call for compact urban form and infill which this map provides consistent with the existing neighborhood. 2. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that the proposed land division would result in lot sizes typical of a Low Density Residential neighborhood, lot configurations commonly found within the City and this neighborhood specifically, and promote more compact development consistent with both the general plan and the existing neighborhood. 3. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R- 1 zone and LD designation in that the proposed lots meet minimum size requirements as required within the R-1 district, the map creates lot sizes more typical of an R-1 neighborhood and is consistent with the lotting pattem in this neighborhood, and project conditions will require architectural review for new development to ensure architectural compatibility of any new residence(s). 4. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that the site is already developed with a single-family residence and surrounded by urban development, and the project does not contain sensitive habitat or interfere with creeks or wetlands. �9 Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS 13-02(Lachemann Minor Subdivision) Page 3 5. 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 the proposed lots will have access easements as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Exceptions 6. The property to be divided is of such shape that it is undesirable, in this particular case, to conform to the strict application of the subdivision and zoning regulations because to do so would require the demolition or relocation of an existing residence. 7. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the subdivision and zoning regulations is not the sole reason for granting exceptions to the lot width and yard standards, rather it is City policy to conserve existing housing and prevent displacement of occupants. 8. The exception will not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity, in that the 4-foot reduction in the required 10-foot setback from edge of pavement of the common accessway affects only a comer of the residence on the subject property which setback is not contrary to Uniform Building Code requirements. 9. Granting exceptions to yard setback standards 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, in that it does not grant special privileges or modify allowable land uses within the existing R-1 zone district. SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of the minor subdivision to allow parcelization of one lot to two with an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance §16.36.230.D for property at 2915 Johnson Avenue, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. This Tentative Tract Map shall expire within 24 months of the date of approval unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to a written request to the City Council received prior to the expiration date. 2. 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. �-30 Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS 13-02(Lachemann Minor Subdivision) Page 4 3. The final map and improvements plans shall show the 20-foot wide accessway (common driveway) to be no longer than 150 feet from Johnson Avenue as specified in §16.36.230.0 of the subdivision ordinance. 4. The final map shall reflect building code compliance for setback of the existing building with respect to the new lot line or the eaves shall be constructed as required for fire-resistive construction to the satisfaction of the Building Official. Any modification to the eaves for compliance with the Uniform Building Code shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map. 5. A demolition permit for the removal of existing carport and a permit for the replacement of covered parking for Parcel 1, including access to the new parking structure, shall be issued and all work completed to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the final map. 6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of- way lines bordering each lot. 7. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of- way lines bordering each lot. 8. The new driveway approach shall comply with current city standards. The current standard includes a 4' level sidewalk extension to provide disabled access around the ramp. The final map may need to reflect a public pedestrian easement to accommodate improvements .required for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 9. The existing driveway approach, north of the common driveway approach, shall be abandoned per City standards. 10. All lots if graded shall preclude cross-lot drainage, or, appropriate easements and drainage facilities shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Building Official. Final analysis of improved drainage, diverted, or concentrated drainage caused by land contour changes and/or driveway improvements shall be evaluated at the time of permit application for said improvements. 11. Two 15-gallon replacement street trees are required and shall be planted prior to recordation of the final map to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The street tree t/-3/ f Attache ment 5 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS 13-02(Lachemann Minor Subdivision) Page 5 species and planting locations shall be in accordance with city standards#8010, 8020, and 8240 and as required by the City Arborist. 12. All trees, other than those already approved for removal by the Tree Committee or City Arborist, shall be retained and protected unless permitted for removal by the City Arborist. 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. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 2. Existing water and sewer services shall be properly relocated and resized, if necessary, to ensure that each parcel is appropriately served in accordance with City standards. 3. Should any portion of a structure constructed on parcel 2 exceed 300 feet from Johnson Avenue, an on-site hydrant and fire department vehicle turnaround shall be required. 4. Development of Parcel 2 shall be subject to development impact fees for parks and recreation purposes (QUIMBY Act) and Traffic Impact Fees as required by City Ordinance. 5. The final map shall be submitted to the City for review, approval, and recordation. The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations. 6. The final map, public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The map shall be tied to at least two points of the City's horizontal control network, California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 5 (1991.35 epoch adjustment of the North American Datum of 1983 also referred to as "NAD 83" - meters) for direct import into the Geographic Information System (GIS) database. Submit this data either via email, CD or a 3-1/2" floppy disc containing the appropriate data for use with �/-3Z I Attachment 5 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS 13-02(Lachemann Minor Subdivision) Page 6 AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). If you have any questions regarding format, please call prior to submitting electronic data. 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: ij rie rgensen Exhibit A: ronmental Review 13-02 Exhibit B: Tentative Parcel Map SLO-02-033 33 Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 2915 JOHNSON AVENUE MS 13-02 (SLO 02-033) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 15, 2002, and has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact(ER 13-02)as prepared for a subdivision of this property. 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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. This determination reflects the independent judgment of the City Council, and the Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration(ER 13-02) with the following mitigation measures: Aesthetics 1. All trees shall be protected and preserved on the site unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist. Removal of any on-site tree shall require a City tree removal permit and mitigation to consist of on-site replanting. 2. The lots shall be designated as "sensitive sites," and development on either parcel shall be subject to architectural review to ensure compatibility with the City's scenic roadway policies. Geology and Soils 3. Any future construction shall require preparation of a landscape plan to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance, and landscaping shall be installed prior to final to insure minimal surface run-off. SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to subdivide one lot into two with an exception to the subdivision ordinance regarding setback of the existing house to the edge of payment of the common accessway (6 feet where 10 feet required), and after consideration of staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings:. Attachment 6 Resolution No. (2002_Series) MS 3402(Muniz Minor Subdivision) Page 2 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 exceptions 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 3. Denial. The request for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. MS 13-02 (County Map No. SLO 02-033) with an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance §16.36.230.D for property at 2915 Johnson Avenue, is hereby denied. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this_day of , 2002. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: cado ��U ty ,tto ey J gensen Z/- 3