HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2002, PH2 - CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AT 1655 ALRIT t.'
council M"ting°
j acEnaa Repojzt
CITY OF SAN LUIS 0BISP0
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct ll,
Prepared By: Philip Dunsmore,Associate Planner ((,,✓✓JJ//,,
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, WITH EXCEPTIONS TO
THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AT 1655 ALRITA (MS/ER/139-02)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution: 1) approving a 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 1655 Alrita Street
(see vicinity map, attachment 1). The site consists of an approximately .38 acre parcel,
containing one existing single-family residence and a detached garage. The applicant is
requesting to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots, ultimately allowing one new single-
family home 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. The applicant is requesting an
exception to the lot depth requirement, to allow a 71-foot deep lot where the Subdivision
Ordinance normally requires a 90-foot deep lot. Staff is also recommending approval of an
exception that would allow a 12-foot wide driveway where a 16-foot wide driveway is normally
required. The exceptions will allow the applicant to create two lots that meet or exceed the
minimum lot size standards while retaining the existing house in it's present location on the
property.
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.
The proposed subdivision meets all standards regarding minimum lot area for the R-1 district
with the exception of depth for the front lot. The proposed lot configuration will result in one lot
a- i
I � �
Council Agenda Report
MS 139-02 (Strong, 1655 Alrita Street)
Page 2
to the rear of the existing residence. The rear lot will have a 20-foot wide, 70-foot deep
accessway that reaches Alrita Street, with net lot dimensions of 65 feet wide by 130 feet deep.
This rear lot would be considered a "flag lot". Typically, flag lot's frontage is measured from the
access drive. As defined within the Subdivision Ordinance, lots that front a public street,
however, measure the lot width from the public street frontage, while the depth is measured
perpendicular to the public street. The parcel remaining at the Alrita Street Frontage will contain
the existing residence and a proposed lot size of 71 feet deep and approximately 100 feet wide. If
this lot's frontage were measured at the access driveway it would meet all standards and not
necessarily require an exception to be approved. The applicant is asking for an exception to the
standards to approve the reduced lot depth, although both lots will meet minimum size standards
of at least 6,000 square feet.
Staff has added a condition of approval to this project to utilize a single driveway as access to
both properties. The proposed access portion of the new lot is actually located just north of the
existing driveway location. Development of a driveway approach for the new lot would result in
two driveways side by side and an unnecessary expanse of paving. The resulting lots should
utilize an easement to allow access to both lots from one driveway. The Subdivision regulations
stipulate a minimum driveway width of 16 feet for flag lot driveways, with a minimum setback
of ten feet from the driveway for any structures. Since the proposal only includes the
development of one additional property with a relatively short driveway distance, a driveway
width of 12 feet would be sufficient. It should be noted, however, that a 12-foot driveway width
does require approval of an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance flag lot standards (Section
16.36.230- see attachment 3). If both lots were to use the existing driveway in its present
location, the driveway may not comply with the flag lot setback requirements. Staff recommends
the construction of a new driveway, with an exception to the driveway width requirements that
will serve both properties within the proposed access portion of the new lot.
Proposed Subdivision and R-1 district Standards
Code Requirements Proposed Project
San Luis Obispo Zoning Code May 2002
San Luis Obispo Subdivision Regulations Parcel 1 Parcel 2
Building Setbacks:
Flag lot accessway: 10 feet 20+ feet (No development plan)
Side yards: 5 feet+ (No development plan)
Rear yard: 5 feet+ (No development plan)
Minimum lot size: 6,000 Square feet 7,029 square feet 8,000
Minimum lot depth: 90 feet 71 feet as measured from 129 feet
Alrita Street
Minimum lot width: 50 feet Approx. 100 feet 64 feet
Minimum street frontage: 20 feet Approx. 100 feet 20 feet
Driveway width(pavement): 16 feet Staff recommends a common 12-foot wide driveway to
Drivewa width (easement): 20 feet serve both parcels within a 20-foot wide easement.
a -a
1
Council Agenda Report
MS 139-02 (Strong, 1655 Alrita Street)
Page 3
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 12,000 square feet and
greater. The subject parcel is approximately 16, 500 square feet, which is unusually large for the
neighborhood. 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. Development on the property will
therefore be consistent with the existing neighborhood and the R-1 district.
Since the new flag lot will be developed as an infill site at the rear of an existing lot, the future
residence may be in close proximity to the existing rear yards of other established residences.
Although the proposed lot meets the R-1 standards, staff recommends adding conditions of
approval to ensure continued neighborhood compatibility. In addition to designating the
resulting lot as a "sensitive" site requiring architectural review, recommended conditions of
approval propose the following site 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 one additional parcel with a minimum size of
at least 6,000 square feet within a rear yard area that is otherwise surrounded by urban
development. However, as mentioned earlier, it is important for development on these infill lots
a -3
Council Agenda Report
MS 139-02 (Strong, 1655 Alrita Street)
Page 4
to be considered through the architectural review process in order to ensure neighborhood
compatibility as called for by the General Plan. 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 would allow a 71-foot lot depth where 90 feet is normally required. The
Subdivision Ordinance requires lots in the R-I district to have a minimum depth of 90 feet and a
minimum width of 50 feet. By definition in the ordinance, depth is measured from the portion of
the lot that fronts the street. As measured from the street, the proposed lot nearest Alrita Street
will have a depth of 71 feet, although the width of this lot will be over 100 feet. The requested
lot width exception is not anticipated to negatively impact the existing neighborhood, cause a
health or safety concern or set an unusual precedence. If the lot's frontage were measured from
the accessway for the rear lot, the lot would meet all standard dimensions for a lot in the R-1
district. It would be possible to divide the lot without any exception if the existing residence
were moved or demolished. General Plan policy discourages the demolition of-sound housing
and there is no public benefit to require the existing house to be moved. The location of the
existing residence in relation to the proposed property lines will still provide adequate setbacks
and private yard area for the occupants, consistent with standards established for R-1 districts.
As a second exception request, staff is recommending the use of a 12-foot wide driveway instead
of a 16-foot wide driveway as required by the Flag Lot Requirements, Section 16.36.230 c.
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
a -�
Council Agenda Report
MS 139-02 (Strong, 1655 Ahita Street)
Page 5
plan, with all applicable specific plans, and with the intent and purposes of these
regulations.
The requested subdivision exception at 1655 Alrita Street appears to meet the required findings
and is therefore supported by staff. It would be possible to divide the lot without any exception if
the existing residence were moved or demolished. General Plan policy discourages the
demolition of sound housing and there is no public benefit to require the existing house to be
moved. Both lots will meet minimum square foot requirements for the R-1 district (6,000 square
feet). The subdivision will provide a reasonable infill opportunity and the flag lot design, when
implemented with staffs recommended conditions, will not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Refer to project specific 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 the project and resulted in a recommendation for a negative declaration.
FISCAL IMPACTS
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact.
CONCURRENCES
The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and has included a list of code
requirements that are standard for minor subdivisions. 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.
a ��
Council Agenda Report '
MS 139-02 (Strong, 1655 Alrita Street)
Page 6
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map
2. Reduction of proposed subdivision tentative map
3. Flag lot requirements (Section 16.36.230)
4. Initial Environmental Study, ER 139-02 -
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.
G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Subdivisions\MS 139-02(1655 Alrita)\MS 139-02 Staff Report.doc
_' U
Attac ment 1
�P5
FSO
JoNNSON
VICINITY MAP MS 139-02
N
1655 Alrolta A
a-�
Attachment 2
4
ZE
Q O .. �cd E26 fo <
lit
wE- p 6 e E J O bl t4
y ® W N 8—moi 3�
--Eo Oma ^ a s
°ES
�� $Fa 631 I'll p ` g ab is
W $R�bmw
�i
J s $�Q <cxo <
w �
58< nq a sae•
S 36 i �z
at
m< g $ice j,
< 85^
��> / 1 { \ �� �°` � �\��•@a. ��1 of 1
R /
/ / II/� e /7 .cam \J� �•py+y.� 11 \ /��\\\\�\ ,-/, � //
( 1� �.� + / ♦ � -.1 ted,6 I A 11"1t. .t ��� \ /�
o
ol
Ya\Ar
c� `
Its
51
IS
SP fE.
45 Y.E g $En 6� o •§ F
�E8
5;aEll
.Sqg gp Z oa !"2
6$8$8e B88 "5 ap �q Z i6a
a y
z
f,.¢vuffaW6Y':ila'iYltil:1 :..,.. .n 'iVr••"
t
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(I))
a ^q
Attachment 4
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#139-02
1. Project Title: Minor Subdivision, 1655 Alrita Street
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, Associate Planner
805-781-7522
4. Project Location: 1655 Alrita Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Audrey Strong
3605 SW 9151 St
Portland, OR 97225
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential)
S. Description of the Project: Subdivision of a .38-acre parcel into two lots, with an exception to
the Subdivision Regulations to allow the front lot to be 71 feet deep where 90 feet is normally
required.
9. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of a tentative parcel map, with an exception.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is substantially surrounded by single-
family residential development of a similar character.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): None.
Crry OF SAN Luis Osispo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
, -- I
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.
Aesthetics 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
Si nificance
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))..
1101112i/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OsISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Q- I 1
` 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. X
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
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.
October 7,2002
igna a Date
Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Printed Name
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a - �a
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.
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings 1, 11 X
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
1 _ __t
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
The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista or a local or state scenic highway. The visual character of the site
and its surrounding will not be significantly impacted by the development of a new residence, as there is similar
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Q- i3
Issues, Discussion and Support. iformation Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Less Than No
Signinvant Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER #139-02 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
development in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The development of one additional single family residence is not
likely to create a new substantial source of light or glare, or create overlook issues, if the residence is developed in
accordance with required Zoning Ordinance Standards. To ensure adequate review of the new home site at the rear of the
existing residence, the Community Development Director has determined that the lot is a "sensitive site" and architectural
review will be required for further development of the rear lot.
Conclusion
The designation of the lot as a "sensitive site," requiring architectural review is appropriate because of the sensitive nature
of development in deep lot subdivision situations. The Architectural Review Commission and the Community Development
Director routinely review these types of projects and require conditions of approval to insure compatibility of new designs
and to insure privacy for occupants of the project and for neighbors.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
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 12X
to non-agricultural use? F
Evaluation
The site is too small to be considered significant farmland and is currently within a developed residential neighborhood. The
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency designates this property as Urban Land.
There is no Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site.
Conclusion
There are no known impacts to agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
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 X
concentrations? 12, 30
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 ozoneprecursors)?
Evaluation
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
Ctry OF SAN LUIS Osispo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Q, - +�
ATTACHMENT 4
issues, Discussion and Supporti. iformation Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Less Than No
Signu,cant Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139 02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
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. Compliance with these standards is monitored
during the building permit plan check process and by field inspections conducted by Building Division inspectors.
Conclusion
The project may create temporary impacts,considered to be less than significant,due to the construction of a new residence.
Once completed,the project will not introduce additional air quality impacts to the project vicinity.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
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. The City's creek map, which is based on USGS mapping data,does not
identify a creek,drainage swale or other waterway on or near the project site.
c)No tree removals are proposed at this time. If tree removals are proposed with the development of the rear lot, the issue
will be addressed as part of the Architectural Review process, as provided for in the City's Tree Ordinance.
d)The property is completely surrounded by urban development and the division of the 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.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a- is
ATTACHMENT 4
issues, Discussion and Supporth tformation Sources Sources Pon I Potentially cess Than No
Signinwnt Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
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
The project is not likely to result in any impacts to biological resources.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 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
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. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic
features on the project site. The project site is outside of the areas designated on the City's Burial Sensitivity Map as
potential burial sites.
Conclusion
No impacts to cultural resources are known or have been identified.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
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
The project is consistent with the City's Energy Conservation Element that 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. No known mineral resources exist within the
project vicinity.
�M CITY OF SAN Luis OBtsPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a - ►to
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporti, (formation Sources Sources Pot 1 Potentially Less Than No
Sigm....ant Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street incorporated
Conclusion
No impact to energy or mineral resources have been identified.
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
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other 25 X
substantial evidence of a known fault?
H. Strong seismic ground shaking? 25 X
III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 13 X
IV. 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
or property?
Evaluation
a)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 site is substantially landscaped. If development occurs in the future,the City routinely requires landscape
plans to be submitted with building permit applications. The installation of landscaping will prevent significant loss of top-
soil on the project site.
c),d) The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a moderate 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
�S CITY OF SAN LUIS OSISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a-+-�
ATTACHMENT
Issues, Discussion and Supportir.- ,formation Sources Sources Pott Potentially Less Than No
Signincant Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
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
Less than significant impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pr Ject:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine use,transport or disposal of 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 are 4 X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
The project does not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. The division of land and future
construction of a single-family residence would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The
project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5. The
project site is more than 2 miles north of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, outside the Airport Land Use Plan Area. The
project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshall and will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from
wildland fires.
Conclusion
No impact.
Crry OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
^ ^ l0
Issues, Discussion and Supportil formation Sources Sources Pott Potentially Less Than No
Signit,�ant Significant Significant impact
MS/ER#139-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrlta Street Incorporated
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
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
The applicant will be required to dispose of wastewater to the City's sewer system. The project will be served with water by
the City's Utilities Department and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater
recharge. The proposed redevelopment of the site will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site and may affect
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. 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.
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.
Conclusion
The project does not have the potential to significantly impact hydrology or water quality.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the 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 conservationplans? 1, 12 X
CnY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPo 10 1NrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
,=� - I
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supportil formation Sources Sources Pon j Potentially Less Than No
Sigm�.,.ant Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139 02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
Evaluation
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 front lot is only 71 feet deep where 90 feet is the minimum standard. The exceptions do not affect the project's ability to
avoid or mitigate an environmental effect. The proposed lots will meet all other subdivision requirements and will be subject
to current Zoning Ordinance standards. 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,all of which are routinely dealt with through the Architectural Review process.
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 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 30
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne X
vibration or ground borne noise levels? 3, 18
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?
Evaluation
a) The proposed project itself will not generate unacceptable noise levels, only temporary, short-term increased noise levels
during construction as discussed below. The City's Noise Element and Noise Guidebook does not identify Traffic Noise
Exposure Calculations for Akita Street as it is a local residential street. At build-out, exterior noise levels are not anticipated
to reach the 6013b threshold. Maximum noise exposure for a residence is 45 dB for indoor spaces and 60 dB for outdoor
activity areas.
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. These activities are subject to the City's 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 theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
CD—W
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues, Discussion and Supporti, iformation Sources Sources Pot ✓ Potentially Less Than No
Signi.._ant Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139 02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
(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
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.
As there are no dwellings 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
f) Other public facilities? 12 X
Evaluation
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 theproject:
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 require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse 30 X
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
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a-�+
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues;Discussion and Support) (formation Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Less nan No
Sign..._�nt Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
(Quimby fees)and development.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
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 a 27 X
change in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a), b) Traffic generation associated with an additional single-family lot will not significantly increase traffic, nor exceed the
level of service standards established by the City's General Plan for nearby streets and highways. A typical single-family
residential use generates 10 trips/day which would be an insignificant increase not affecting LOS.
c) There are no hazards which the project would be subject to or create.
d) The project complies with the Fire Department's requirements for emergency access and any new dwelling will be
required to be equipped with fire sprinklers per existing City code.
e) 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 ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? 12 X
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?
M CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a-aa
ITTAr.NMENT
Issues; Discussion and Support, iformation Sources Sources Poi y Potentially Less Than No
Sign...-ant Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
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 permitted capacity 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
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 not jeopardize 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 new residence 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.
Construction of a new residence on the proposed parcel will require demolition of the existing garage. This will 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
No impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISFo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a^0
ITTACHMENT
issues, Discussion and Supporti formation Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Less Than No
Sigt. st Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
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 animal X
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. 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
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
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,or a residence 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.
I I City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,August 1994
CITY OF SAN LUIS Oaispo 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
'D—�4
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues,Discussion and Support; iformation Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Less Than No
Sign._ .nt Significant Significant Impact
MS/ER#139 02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
1655 Alrita Street Incorporated
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 Count
14. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
htt onsrv.ca. ov/dl /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
18.. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996
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 Ma
23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma
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 Ma (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 1: Tentative Parcel Map 139-02 (SLO-02-0210)
CITY OF SAN Luis Osis PO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Q'OJ
ATTArHMFNT 4
Issues,' Discussi g
MS/ER#139-02 i /� `g Ila 1 g
1655 Alrita Strefo—E ! a$3 a 19 � �
LIJ 'do
g d N
<
a
e
bl-
Pow
Wab �85
1' ¢3
a
116
n r"c•' y/�� �'. / -<� � I! � �/./�it /r, '�+b`b
Lit
• -1?;ti;!,\' .\`,-� ,t /..- .1
? �c
I
/ e
1 \
\a gasses, ;ehy?�,lid
��`
e.s 99m 3/
Ya'••'gE- .b��
x' sem' es 1!85g Bad . ,
-t'€.;aN f. 4� gaa o
SES
Ilk
E^ 8 SNy
v��P sa i�SO � �y Sj-� �Ep
z 01 I3 6
jE; ga
1� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
a^�
A i
Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) _
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE TENTATIVE MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
MINOR SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 1655 ALRITA STREET
MS/ER 139-02 (SLO 02-0210)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November, 11th 2002 and
has considered testimony of interested parties and the evaluation and recommendation of staff;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft 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 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 Negative Declaration.
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 Limprovements 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 lot is an infill lot, located within an existing rear yard of a developed
residence. Furthermore, the property is surrounded by urban development.
2. As conditioned, the site is physically suited for the type and density of development
allowed in the R-1 zone, since the proposed lot meets all size 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.
4. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
a-aq
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
MS/ER 139-02(Strong Minor Subdivision)
Page 2
of property within) the proposed subdivision since all adjacent properties are accessed
independently and the new proposed lot, as conditioned, will gain access from a shared
driveway with the existing property.
Exceptions to Subdivision Standards forAccessway 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 lot depth standards would require demolition of, or
moving an existing residence. General Plan policy discourages the demolition of sound
housing and there is no public benefit to require the existing house to be moved; 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 reduced lot depth of approximately 19 feet. If the lot depth were measured from
the proposed flag lot access driveway this lot would meet all standards of the Subdivision
Ordinance; 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 (MS 139-02)
to allow creation of two lots from one existing lot with an exception to the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 16.36.230 flag lot driveway width and subdivision lot depth requirements, for
property at 1655 Alrita, 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
(QUIMBY Act) as required by City Ordinance.
ATTACHMENT �
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
MS/ER 139-02(Strong Minor Subdivision)
Page 3
3. The granting of this entitlement shall apply to the property located at 1655 Alrita Street
(APN 004-683-016)regardless of owner.
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. 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 average
natural grade to the highest point on the structure.
6. 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. Street trees are required to
the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
7. The new parcel "2" 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.
8. 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.
9. All newly graded surfaces shall be protected from soil erosion with City approved
temporary erosion control methods or approved permanent landscaping.
10. Each property shall share a common driveway approach with Alrita Street, and each
residence shall maintain a ten-foot setback from the driveway edge of pavement. The
maximum driveway width serving each residence shall not exceed 12 feet. Driveway
shall be designed to allow vehicles to exit individual properties in a forward position with
a minimum amount of maneuvering.
11. Each property shall maintain on-site parking consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and
the City Parking and Driveway standards. On site Parking shall consist of two parking
spaces per residence.
12. 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
C �
ATTACHMENT
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
MS/ER 139-02(Strong Minor Subdivision)
Page 4
Community Development Department.
13. All subdivision improvementsexpressed 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.
14. A landscape plan shall be prepared 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 opposite edge of the
accessway where it adjoins the neighboring property. Additional trees and shrubs may be
necessary as required by Community Development Department.
Code Requirements:
1. The final map shall include any required easements required for the reasonable
development of Parcel 2 and continued use of Parcel 1. Easements may include but are
not limited to grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle turn-
around, and utilities. Any maintenance agreements shall be completed and recorded
before or concurrent with final map approval.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The existing driveway approach and any new approach shall comply with current city and
ADA standards.
5. Any existing 4' detached sidewalk that is damaged or displaced shall be repaired or
replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The existing 4' detached
standard is acceptable and any new or replaced sidewalk shall conform to the existing.
6. The existing detached garage shall be shown to comply with the building codes to the
satisfaction of the building official or shall be demolished prior to recordation of the map.
7. Verification of building setbacks, materials, and the abandonment or relocation of
existing utilities to the garage shall be completed by proper permits to the satisfaction of
the Building Official prior to recordation of the map.
Cg
ATTACHMENT 15
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
MS/ER 139-02(Strong Minor Subdivision)
Page 5
8. Replacement parking for the existing residence shall be provided to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and shall comply with the parking and driveway
standards. .The replacement parking shall be completed by proper permits prior to
recordation of the map. The common property line between Parcels 1 and 2 may need to
be adjusted to accommodate the required parking and setbacks.
9. Street trees shall be planted on Parcel 1 with credit for existing qualifying trees, to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to recordation of the map.
Mapping Requirements
10. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval, and recordation.
The map shall be prepared by, or under the supervision of a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor. The final map shall be prepared in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Regulations.
11. 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 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..
12. The final map shall use the International System of Units (metric system). The English
System of Units may be used on the final map where necessary (e.g. - all record data shall
be entered on the map in the record units, metric translations should be in parenthesis), to
the approval of the City Engineer.
13. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals.
a � aA
ATTACHMENTr
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
MS/ER 139-02(Strong Minor Subdivision)
Page 6
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:
mil+
,(Itottoyeyr J gensen
Exhibit A: Tentative Parcel Map SLO-02-0210, 1655 Alrita Street
a�3a-
- ' 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 1655 ALRITA STREET
MS/ER 139-02 (SLO 02-210)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 11, 2002 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, and considered the applicant's request for a tentative
parcel map to create two lots from an existing lot with an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance
Section, Section 16.36.230 flag lot requirements, for property located at 1655 Alrita Street, 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 139-02 (County Map No.
SLO 02-0210), 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.
C r
A
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:
ewtot regensen
RECEIVED
From: Ann Marie Alers <ann@sonicsensors.com> 2002
To: <asettle@slocity.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 12, 2002 11:37 AM SLO CITY CLERK
Subject: Council Meeting 11/12/02 Public Hearing Item-2
November 11,2002
RED FILE
TO: Mayor: Allen Settle
Council Members: MEETING AGENDA
Christine Mulholland DA tl 1' ITEM #-21-2-
Ken Schwartz
Jan Marx
John Ewan
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARINGS: ITEM 2
CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, WITH EXCEPTIONS TO
THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AT 1655 ALRITA(MS/WE/139-02.
Mayor Settle, Councilmembers,
I ask the council to NOT accept this proposed subdivision for the following
reasons:
1. A Negative Declaration should not be allowed. This parcel is on a
hillside and there is currently a drainage issue existing in relation to
the homes around and particularly below the existing parcel. The hillsides
above Johnson Ave are also known to have many natural underground
springs. If infill is allowed as this project before you is proposed,(
and springs do exist in this subdivision), this could exacerbate the
current drainage problem. An EIR would properly address the issues.
2. There are no other flag lots in the neighborhood. If two houses are
allowed to be built as proposed by allowing a flag lot, how do you address
the parking problems? The city housing ordinance currently allows 5
unrelated people to live in a R-1 house. If 5 people are allowed to live
in each of these houses there could be 10 cars. Where is the parking to
accommodate for these cars, and the friends and relatives that visit these
10 people? This property has an existing house and garage on it. The
Realtor selling it is advertising this as a lot for sale not a home? It is
being marketed as a builders/developers dream for
investment/speculation. This is an established pristine family
neighborhood. Allowing this subdivision acceptation of a lot split, could
be opening up a can of worms for more aoceptions. To be fair to one, you
must be fair to all of the others?
The realtor is asking for acceptions to subdivide this lot. This means
that the lot does not conform to current allowed building codes as it
is. Allowing these exceptions would severely compromise the charm and
character of this established pristine neighborhood.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, eCOUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
�!
(CAO El FIN DIR
{SACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Ann and Ron Alers ZATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
8 CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ DET FADS, ❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
Q �l ❑ HR DIR
Ann Alers
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
FAX: 805-544-2601
l Vt —
.
November 12, 2002
City of San Luis Obispo
OU
ATTN: City Council RECEIVED
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 'J� r Z U '
Re: MS/ER 139-02 (Strong, 1655 Ahita) I SLO CITY CLERK
Dear Council Members:
I currently live in an area which is zoned R-2. The proximity of the housing units allows the
conversations of others to be heard clearly. I don't just mean that voices are audible, 1 mean that
words are easily distinguishable. In the R-1 neighborhood that we are considering tonight that is
not the case. Sufficient front, rear and side set-backs are in place to provide privacy for families
living there. Yes, voices can be heard, but conversations cannot.
Dividing medium-sized R-1 properties in order to build additional housing units may have
already occurred in other parts of this city. Those are the areas where noise complaints are the rule
rather than the exception. This area, however, has retained its single-family character.
The staff report describes this proposed property division and subsequent development as
"infill." According to the definition adopted in the city's General Plan, "infill" refers to the
development of a vacant parcel, not to creating additional lots by dividing existing developed ones.
Thus, the term"infill" is a misnomer for this proposed action.
The staff report, also, states that the property division and subsequent development are
consistent with the neighborhood. That statement discounts two factors, placement of the
proposed dwelling behind the existing one and the absence of garages.
1. Page 2-7 of the report shows one lot off of Johnson Avenue which was sub-divided into four
lots with two houses built directly behind two other houses—this is the only occurrence in this area
where one house has been built behind another off of the same street. Johnson is a thoroughfare
and consists of commercial as well as residential properties. It is not indicative of the neighborhood
we are considering here tonight.
2. Removing the existing 2-car garage from proposed Parcel #1 —and providing no replacement
for it—is a significant deviation from other properties in the neighborhood. Without seeing the
plan for the proposed Parcel#2, it is impossible to determine if it, too, will not be consistent with
the established neighborhood. (I walked about five blocks in the area around the 1655 Ahita
property and looked at each house. Of 48 properties, 46 had 2-car garages and the other two had
oversized carports capable of holding two cars. This includes the flag lots off Johnson; all four of
these houses had 2-car garages.)
V
i
The staff report mentioned that the proposed development of the site will "increase the amount .
of impervious surfaces on the site and may affect the absorption rate, drainage patterns and rate of
surface runoff" What was not mentioned was the topography of this proposed rear parcel and that
by building a structure at the rear of the existing lot, drainage of rainwater into the back yards of
Bahia Court and Flora Street properties would be aggravated.
It appears that both proposed lots will need a depth variance. The minimum lot depth as stated
in the code is 90 feet. The depth of the proposed front lot is 71 feet. It appears to me that the
depth of the proposed rear lot is smaller. (Both proposed lots exceed the width requirement, the
front being 90 - 100 feet and the rear being almost 130 feet.) The staff report states that the
dimensions for the rear lot are 64 feet wide by130 feet deep. When I looked at the parcel map, it
seemed to me that these dimensions had been transposed. The report further states, "Typically, a
flag lot's frontage is measured from the access drive." So then I spent several hours looking at the
codes and zoning regulations on the city's web site and I could find no reference to measuring a
flag lot's frontage from the access drive. I did find the statement that"each lot shall front on a
street" and several references to methods for measuring lot width along the public street frontage
and lot depth perpendicular to the public street frontage. The only exception listed was for lots
within condominium subdivisions. I also found a definition for the term"street" which states a
street is an avenue, boulevard, etc., but is not an alley or path. This made me think that a street is
not an access drive either.
The city code contains lot size, set-back, parking and other standards for various zones of the
city. In this R-1 neighborhood, houses meet or exceed those standards; waivers are not needed.
Also, a house must have a 2-car garage to be consistent with this neighborhood. It is not a wealthy
neighborhood, but it is a nice one. It would be a shame to set the precedent of relaxing those
standards in this or any other area of the city. Dividing the property this way eliminates the garage
which goes with the house, and no replacement garage is provided. This is a flaw in the pian being
shown to you tonight. By approving it you will be saying that this is acceptable.
The house at 1655 Alrita is currently vacant, the heir lives out of state, and the property is for
sale. It is interesting to note that the real estate agency has listed it under the heading"Lots and
Acreage," not under"Residences." According to the real estate agent, an offer has been accepted,
and the buyer has a plan for developing the property. Why isn't that plan included in this
application so that you can see the final result of the requested action? You are being asked to
decide one element of a development plan without knowing what that plan involves. Several items
are to be left to the Architectural Review Committee. Approving this request tonight may tie their
hands. Will further waivers be requested for situations that might have been avoided if full
disclosure had been provided at the outset of the project? Unintended consequences may result
from hasty approval of this request.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley
SLO
4h„ Vto
RECEIVED
z7- /G QejZA, C M 5/�P,/ a
SLO CITY CLIER
ta
7)2?
,Qoum
1)4
"'GfU✓ nl .Pir.da ,l�yJ fGC�G • �D !�! ��r»"�"''
j�2
Pap. Giar�rd,
,�lote,�G.�•,�- '� pa-4-,�-��� u�,�.e a 7.1� �-u�zZe�.�.l�..e� �
zg.
�`1
�' J
l/ ,