The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/03/2002, PH3 - MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT DEPTH AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, 530 SERRANO (MS/ER 110-02) council Mce°°`°d° oa j Ac,Enda RepoRt N.Nu.b CITYOF SAN LUIS 0 B 1 S P 0 FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development DirecOr Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner SUBJECT: MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT DEPTH AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS,530 SERRANO (MS/ER 110-02). CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt draft Resolution "A," approving a tentative parcel map with exceptions to the subdivision regulations and approving a negative declaration of environmental impact, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. DISCUSSION Situation The City has received an application to split an existing lot on 530 Serrano Street, in the R-1 Zoning District (see Vicinity Map, Attachment 1). The site includes 17,390 square feet and is presently developed with a single-family home at the front of the property. The applicant is requesting to split the existing lot in a "flag-lot" configuration, ultimately providing for the development one new single-family home at the rear of the project site (see Project Plans, Attachment 2). The applicant has not provided a house design for the rear lot at this time, and it is anticipated that the rear lot would be sold and developed at a future date. In most cases, a minor subdivision (involving four or fewer parcels) can be reviewed and approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer. However, when exceptions are requested, the City's Subdivision Regulations require the City Council to act on the project. The applicant is requesting an exception to the City's lot depth requirement to allow the front lot to have a depth of 75 feet, where normally lots are required to be 90 feet deep. The applicant is also requesting approval of a setback exception because the existing house is located 9 feet from the access way driveway, where normally a 10-foot setback is required. The exceptions will allow the applicant to create one conforming lot at the rear of the property while retaining the existing house in its present location. Despite the exceptions, both lots will contain the minimum amount of land area required by City standards for the R-1 zone. Data Summary Address: 530 Serrano Applicant/Property Owner: Brad Morrison Representative: Steven Frank, RCE Zoning/General Plan: R-1, Low Density Residential Environmental status: A Negative Declaration was approved by the Director on 9-16-02. Council Agenda Report MS 110-02 (530 Serrano) Page 2 Site Description The project site is located in a low-density, residential neighborhood and is bordered by residential development that has been subdivided in a similar manner. The site slopes down between 20 and 30 feet from Serrano Drive to the rear property line.. A single-family home with an attached two-car garage is developed at the front of the lot, and an additional detached two-car garage is developed at the rear of the lot. There is an existing driveway that leads to the rear lot. The property has numerous trees on it including several oak trees, eucalyptus trees, a 48" palm tree and fruit trees. Proiect Description The project is a map to subdivide an existing 17,390 square foot site into two lots of 6,000 square feet and 11,390 square feet. Utilities services including gas, electricity, cable TV and water will be provided to the rear lot through an easement that would be retained along the western property line of Parcel 2. A new sewer lateral will be extended to the rear lot through the driveway. A sump pump will most likely be required with development of the rear lot because the slope of the property will make a gravity-fed sewer system difficult to achieve. Evaluation Overall, staff supports the project because the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the lots are compatible with other properties in the immediate vicinity of the site that have been developed in a similar fashion. The project has been designed so that the new lot will completely conform to the City's Subdivision Regulations and Property Development Standards, with minor exceptions applying to the existing development. Staff is recommending that the rear lot be deemed a "sensitive site" so that when development is proposed in the future, architectural review will be required (SLOMC 2.48.050). The evaluation provided in this report considers three primary issues, including the proposed exceptions, neighborhood compatibility and consistency with the General Plan. R-I Zoning District Standards and Neighborhood Compatibility Municipal Code Requirements Proposed Project Parcell (Proposed) Parcell(Existing) Building Setbacks: Flag lot accessway: 10 feet (No development plan) 9 feet Side yards: 5 feet min. (No development plan) 15' Rearyard: 5 feet min. o development Ian 10' Minimum lot size: 6,000 Square feet 11,390 s.f. Gross 6,000 square feet 9,890 s.f.Net drivewa Minimum lot depth: 90 feet 98.9 feet 75 feet as measured from Serrano Minimum lot width: 50 feet 100 feet 80 feet Minimum street frontage: 20 feet 20 feet 80 feet Density 7 ur its/acre for slope 16% 4.45 units per acre 7.26 units per acre 3 -9 Council Agenda Report �— MS 110-02 (530 Serrano) Page 3 The City's Zoning Regulations contain standards that reduce the allowable density of development as slope increases (SLOMC 17.16.010). No reduction in allowable density occurs unless the average cross-slope for a project site is greater than 16%. The engineer for this project has provided calculations showing that the site has an average cross-slope of 11.3%. This calculation factors in the existing building footprints with a 0% slope. Staff has calculated the average cross-slope of the project to be 1.4.75% by assuming a natural slope for the existing building footprints. Both calculations result in an average cross-slope of less than 16% and no reduction in density occurs because of the steepness of the property. The Subdivision Regulations require all flag-lot developments to have a minimum setback of 10 feet from the common driveway. The existing house was built on a skew and a very small portion of the building encroaches into the required driveway setback by approximately 1 foot. Overall, the area of the existing house that encroaches into the required driveway setback is less than 15 square feet and the exception should be considered minor. Similar exceptions have been granted for in-fill projects in the past, most recently at 501 Foothill Boulevard. The other exception requested is to allow the front lot to have a depth of 75 feet, where the Subdivision Regulations require 90 feet of lot depth. Despite a lesser depth, the front lot will contain 6,000 square feet and will provide adequate yard area for the existing dwelling. Assessor's parcel map below compares the proposed lot depth to existing lots in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision. ___) UPS, vrl.e7 77r.,a o �M ^1172.73 �LUNETA ST. a� �.. - 1. O a •7 60.?d w8 _s'u PM20.B9 Weis>7 O PIM.T-7 .Y.3-89 ^ �a 16 ® PAR.3 V 4. O Y •{ ,�Q ' 2. O� \ a P.M p Ib'O W. wedre"6 4 o CJ 31 2. �o .2 7 ®•ss't • msa O © 0 /os.Ai .wePs's^-s e7.a+ w O ^ O O/ 0-02. 24 PARI zz AC ` °0 29 e. 1 O Bo.% PM 26-33 cc i M 23 O L rs/ P m P 0 C1 J R n J Q M.N., 4 d00 /pp.0/ a 0695 76fa }p L 0i SERRAU0 DRIVE Project Site SW COR.OF NW V4 OF NE 1/4 OF / sEc. zT `� PTN NW I/4 OF NE I/4, SEC 27, T30S,R12E Lots 21,33,7,34,and 25 all have substandard lot depths, ranging from 75 feet to 80 feet.. 3 -3 Council Agenda Report - MS 110-02 (530 Serrano) Page 4 The primary difference between the proposed subdivision and the existing neighborhood pattern is that in most of the cases shown on the above map, the rear lot is the one that is substandard in terms of lot depth. In this case, the rear lot would have a conforming lot depth and the front lot would be 15 feet too shallow. Staff supports the proposed lot configuration because it will provide more flexibility for the design of the house on the rear lot, which will help to insure a compatible design. This flexibility is an asset for the neighborhood because it will help the designer of a future house, as well as the Architectural Review Commission, insure that impacts with respect to overlook and building massing are minimized. The existing garage on the project site may be utilized in the future development of the rear parcel, or it may be demolished. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that will require the building to be demolished before the final map is recorded, unless it can be shown that it meets all building code standards, to the approval of the Chief Building Official. The Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter 16.48, specifies that the Council must make the following findings in order to approve exceptions: 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. Draft Resolution "A" (Attachment 4) includes staff's recommendation for approval of the requested exceptions and details the required findings. General Plan Goals and Policies The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) contains goals for the City Form (GP Digest, Pg. 5) such as maintaining "existing neighborhoods" in order to "assure that new development occurs as part of a neighborhood pattern" (Goal 29), as well as a goal that encourages the City to make decisions that maintain a "compact urban form" (Goal 31). These two goals are often in conflict where in-fill development is proposed within an existing neighborhood. In this case, the neighborhood pattern includes several similarly developed properties and this project represents an opportunity to meet both LUE goals. The LUE also includes Residential Project Objectives (LUE Policy 2.2.12). This policy states that residential projects should embody a range of qualities including privacy, adequate useable outdoor area, pleasant views from and toward the project, adequate parking, etc. LUE Policy 2.2.10 states that housing built in an existing neighborhood should respect existing buildings in 3-q � I Council Agenda Report - MS 110-02 (530 Serrano) Page 5 terms of size, spacing and variety. Staff is recommending that the project site be deemed "sensitive' so that any future development would be subject to Architectural Review. Architectural Review will focus on the residential project objectives listed in LUE Policy 2.2.12, to insure that future development of the site is also consistent with the General Plan. Architectural Review will also ensure that any new development is architecturally compatible with the project site and with buildings on adjacent properties, consistent with LUE Policy 2.2.10. Environmental Review Minor subdivisions are normally categorically exempt from environmental review. However, when exceptions are requested, an Initial Study must still be prepared. The initial environmental study (see Attachment 3) did not identify any potentially significant impacts of the project and the Community Development Director is recommending approval of a Negative Declaration for the project. 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, Utilities Department and Building Division have reviewed the project and provided comments that have been incorporated into the recommended resolution as conditions of approval or code requirements. The Fire Department has no concerns with the project because the new house would be required to have fire sprinklers and would be located within 300 feet of the street. The Utilities Department noted that water allocations are still currently available on a first-come, first-served basis. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny the tentative parcel map and or the requested exception if the necessary findings cannot be made. 2. The Council may continue discussion if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant. Attachments: Attachment 1: Vicinity map Attachment 2: Project Plan Attachment 3: Initial Study and Negative Declaration, ER 110-02 Attachment 4: Draft Resolution"A,"approving the project Attachment 5: Draft Resolution "B," denying the project LACOUNCIU530 Serrano(MS l 10-02).doc 3-S -4 FOOTHILL Attachment 1 ER-4R-4 R-4 c-r ARA R-4-PD PAMONA R-1 R-4-PD m � a o R-4-PD a W a � o � R-1 R-4 wNETA R-1 R-1-PD R-1 -1-P SERRMO FT R-1 � N R-1 C/OS-20 VICINITY MAP MS 110-02 N 530 Serran ® A 3�� Attachment 2 - Q k O N i P4 ^2 cWi9 d VN = a^ `+ lVq I i. V a; �Ia c v B'.: 7 \R F a i � y •ti �aey ro � •� f � n •N '� - V 4 • 4 d 0 L n 1< t k O - ll Z w Cal I ao z a I I { /I � `� n.:•Y JJ%- i� a I � 9 TT IvwT I e yl 1 v�<j � . v r i. �_�• _ J � I i to moi`.., .�• $ ` 3,w o < y ry. _ f n.rxy iz .�,•� / Si IJ i n V �• 0 co i l 3°I ce 91.0 � v oas i �` �z I �1 a tF] ti bZ o=� \ 1'� \ J f g - o� i J `a h 3 - 9 Attachment 3 �I►IId�Bl�11111181111�� I�UI�� IllllllIIII a oSM luls OBI 11,A.A S 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#110-02 1. Project Title: Serrano Minor Subdivision 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: Michael Codron, Associate Planner 805-781-7175 4. Project Location: 530 Serrano Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Bradley S. Morrison 720 Tanglewood Road Eureka, CA 95503 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) 8. Description of the Project: Division of a 0.4-acre parcel into two lots, with an exception to the Subdivision Regulations to allow the front lot to be less than 90 feet deep and to allow the existing house to be located 9 feet from the access road pavement, where 10 feet is normally required. 9. Project Entitlements Requested: Approval of a tentative parcel map, with exceptions. 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. `i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 The 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. 3-,R Attachment 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 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 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)). �Y CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3-9 Attachment 3 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. September 16,2002 Slgnatur Date Ron Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development For:John Mandeville,Community Development Director Printed Name tea/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3- 1D Attachment 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. 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. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3 - il Attachment 3 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,an&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 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day or nighttime views:in the area?,_:_ 12,30 Evaluation a), b), c), d) The project site is not located in the area of a scenic vista ora 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 development in the immediate vicinity of the project site. 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. The development of a new single family home will not create a substantial source of light or glare. 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(Faimland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of 14 X the California Resources Agency,to no 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? Evaluation a), b), c) 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 will be no impact 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? 1 12 X e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of an criteria Cm OF SAN Luis OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3- ia Issues, Discussion and Suppor, Information Sources Sources pot y Potentially t Sign..-ant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 PMIo(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. 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 No impact. 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 mil CITY of SAN Luis Oatspo 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3 -15 Issues, Discussion and Suppol Information Sources Sources Po y Potentially Sign....ant Significant Significant Impact ER #13 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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) 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 developmentand 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. 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 will have no impact on 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 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. d) 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 resource have been identified. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3 - ILS Issues, Discussion and Suppoi, 'Information Sources Sources Pot y Potentiallytoss pan 3 Sign._-_"nt Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER #13-02 Mitigation Incorporated 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Conflict with adopted energy co-nservation 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 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' 1. 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? II. 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 P) 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 offsite landslides,lateral spreading_,subsidence, 13 X liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18=l-B of the Uniform-Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life- 13 X or 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 nuts in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City's westerly boundary. Because CITY OF SAN Luis OBISFO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CNECKLtsT 2002 3- IS Attach 3 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, Information Sources Sources Pot Potentially Less Than No Sigm.-_..nt Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 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 Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Inro'ect: 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 fres,including where wildlands are 4 X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 2 - (l0 ant Issues, Discussion and Suppor Information Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Liss Than No 3 Sign_ ant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 sues Minless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 CountyAiipoM 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. Conclusion No impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standaidi 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 ora 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_insubstantial erosion or 30 X siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe 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 aTederal 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 substantiall de a water 'uiali ?:_ _ _ 12 X Evaluation a),b),h) 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. 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 �r CITY OF SAN Luis OBISpo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3 : n Issues, Discussion and Suppor_ Information Sources Sources Poi y Potentially Les&J%W%,1 11pbul3 Sign.__Ant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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. 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. 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 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 and the front lot is only 85 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. 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,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;le-vels in the project vicinity,above levels existing. 30 `i CITY OF SAN LUIS OatsPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3-10 Issues, Discussion and Suppol Information Sources Sources Pot y Potentially Signi..,.ant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome X vibration or groundbome 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 increased noise levels during construction as discussed below. The City's Noise Element and Noise Guidebook does not identify Traffic Noise Exposure Calculations for Serrano Road as it is a local residential street. At build-out, exterior noise levels are not anticipated to reach the 60Db 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 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 theproject: 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 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 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3, 0 Attachment 3 ' Issues, Discussion and Suppo , . Information Sources Sources Po, y Potentially Less Than No Sigmncant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Parks? 12 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 12 X Other public facilities? 12 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 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 (Quimby fees)and development. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 15. TRANSPORTATIONnMAFFIC. 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? F c generation associated with an additional single-family lot will not significantly increase traffic on Johnson CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY EWRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3-� Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Suppor Information Sources Sources Pc ,y Potentially Less Than No Sigm,cant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Avenue nor exceed the level of service standards established by the County congestion management agency 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 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 theproject: 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? 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 CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Attachment 3 Issues, Discussion and Suppo'i. 'Information Sources Sources Pcy Potentially Less Than No Sigm,cant Significaht . Significant Impact. Issues Unless Impact ER #13-02 Mitigation Incorporated 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. Demolition of the existing garage, if proposed in the future, 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 No 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 animal X community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or aminal or eliminate important examples of the majoreriods 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_ roiect have environmental effects which will cause__ • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHEcKusT 2002 3, Atta mrrt 3 Issues, Discussion and Suppol , Information Sources Sources Po ,y Potrntially Lcss Than No Signnicant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact = Mitigation Incorporated substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X indirectl . 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 mitip,ation 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. 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/dhp/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,6h 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 Develo ment Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Site Ma 23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 el 3-a Atta . .'. Issues, Discussion and Suppoi ,Information Sources Sources Po y Potentially Less Than 907' ' } Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact ER #13-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 ort Land Use Plan 28. Architectural Review Guidelines 29. 1997 Uniform Building Code 30. 1 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. �r CITY OF SAN Luis DaisPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 3 -,* Attachment 4 Draft Resolution "A" - 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 WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT DEPTH AND DRIVEWAY SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 530 SERRANO DRIVE MS/ER 110-02 (MAP#SLO 02-337) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 3rd, 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 identifies and evaluates all of the potential 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 the project, staff recommendations,public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the general plan, because the proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern and has been designed to allow all new development to fully comply with the City's property development standards. 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 to insure that all new development has a compatible architectural design. 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 existing urban development. r , Attachnierd 4 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 110-02(530 Serrano) Page 2 4. 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 new proposed lot, as conditioned, will gain access from a shared driveway. 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 because the property is less than 180 feet deep in total and cannot accommodate two lots that are each 90 feet deep. 6. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification, because other findings are made to support approval and the exceptions relate to existing physical conditions of the project site and not to the costs of building the project. 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 exception will result in a reduced lot depth and driveway setback for a property that is already developed, and there are several examples of similar development in the immediate vicinity of the project site. 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, because the exceptions are minor and all new development will be able to fully comply with the City's Property Development Standards for the R-1 Zoning District. SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of the minor subdivision (MS 110-02) with exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for lot depth and driveway setback, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements: 1. The rear lot is hereby deemed a "sensitive site" and future development shall Architectural Review in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.48.050. 2. Each parcel is to have its own separate water and wastewater service laterals. 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 -2iv Attachment 4 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 110-02(530 Serrano) Page 3 3. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. Utilities to new residences shall be underground. 4. Development on Parcel 1 may require the installation of a sewer ejector pump. The pump shall be installed in accordance with the UPC and to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 5. The final map shall include any required easements required for the reasonable development of Parcel 1 and continued use of Parcel 2. Easements may include but are not limited to grading, drainage, water, sewer, storm drainage, access, vehicle turn-around, and utilities. Any maintenance or common driveway agreements shall be completed and recorded before or concurrent with final map approval. 6. Plans for development on Parcel 1 shall include.a grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer. Improved or diverted upslope drainage shall be directed in a non-erosive manner to an approved point of disposal to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. 7. A blanket drainage easement shall be provided over Parcel 1 to the benefit of Parcel 2 to accommodate the existing historic upslope drainage. The map may qualify that the easement is applicable to areas not otherwise covered by building structures.. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The existing driveway approach and any new approach shall be upgraded to comply with current city and ADA standards prior to map recordation. 11. Any required repairs or upgrades to the existing curb, gutter& sidewalk shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to map recordation. 12. 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. 3 -� I I Attachment 4 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 110-02(530 Serrano) Page 4 13. 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. 14. Street trees shall be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon tree for each 35 lineal feet of frontage on Parcel 2 with credit for existing qualifying trees, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to recordation of the map. Mapping Requirements 15. 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. 16. 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 e-mail, CD or a 3-1/2" high density disc containing the appropriate data for use with AutoCAD, version 2000 or earlier (model space in real world coordinates, NAD 83 - m). 17. 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) On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this P day of December,2002. 3- Attachrnent 4 Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 110-02(530 Serrano) Page 5 Mayor Dave Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: *iityoftffJ sen 3 Attachment 5 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION WITH EXCEPTIONS TO LOT DEPTH AND DRIVEWAY SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 530 SERRANO DRIVE MS/ER 110-02 (MAP#SLO 02-337) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on December 3rd, 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. Denial. That this Council, after consideration of the project, staff recommendations;public testimony, and reports thereof, hereby denies the request, based the following findings: 1. The project site is not physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone, because the existing parcel is less than 180 feet deep and cannot accommodate the proposed lot split and meet Subdivision Regulations requirements for lot depth. 2. Additional findings to be provided by Council... On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3 -50 AffachMent Resolution No. (2002 Series) MS/ER 110-02(530 Serrano) Page 2 the foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of December, 2002. Mayor Dave Romero ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen RQN RESIDENTS FOR QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS December 3, 2002 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Re: Minor Subdivision with Exceptions to Lot Depth and Setback Requirements, 530 Serrano. Meeting Date: 12-03-02 Item# PH -3 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, RON opposes the subdivision of the abovementioned parcel for the following reasons: 1. The current staff report fails to disclose a previous application for subdivision of this property that was denied by an Administrative Hearing Officer. The denial was based in part on the steepness of the sloped lot. 2. Because the previous application was not disclosed there is no way to determine whether there has been any substantial change that might merit a reversal of the decision. 3. The methodologies used by both staff and the project engineer to determine the average cross-slope of the property should have been provided or verified by independent analysis. 4. Due to the steepness of the slope this project does not seem consistent with the other subdivided lots in the neighborhood. 5. The existing residence is a student rental owned by the absentee landlord/applicant and there is fear among the residents that more of the same will cause further erosion of the quality of life in their neighborhood. 6. We are very concerned with what appears to be a concentrated effort to increase the density in and dilute the current zoning requirements for our low density residential neighborhoods. Therefore, we request that you deny this application. Sincerely, Cydney Holcomb Chairperson, RQN P.O.Box 12604•San Luis Obispo•CA•93406 www.rgnsio.org 11/29/02 FRI 14:26 VAX 605 W1. 6093 SB/ID Z001 - REGJED DEC n 21 200E RICHARD SCHMIDT SLO CITY CLERK (805) 544-4247 November 29,2002 Re: Agenda Rem 3 — 530 Serrano Lot Split The City Council 8 COUNCIL CDD DIR VI k FAX City of San Luis Obispo 2rCA0 6 FIN DIR 990 Palm St. E'ACAo K FIRE CHIEF !,��/A17ORNEY is PW DIR E San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CLERK/ORIo 2 PCUCE CHF RED FILE 17DEP HEADS Z REC.DIR ME ING AGENDA Dear Council Members: m 8 UTIL DIR fa' RLRLR pq I D ITEM #. R Please deny this application for a lots I�it. The staff report on this item is so poor, I wish to provide you with an alf-amative "report" to consider as you deliberate. There are numerous problems with the staff report, but suffice it to say two in particular stand out: 1. Important information and analysis is entirely omitted from the report. Had this information been included, it would have been m uch more difficult for staff to support its recommendation. 2. Some information which is included is manipulated and distorted in a manner that justifies the staff recommendation.rather than helps the council to make an independent, reasoned decision that is in the be:K interests of the cammunity. I shall try to provide some of the important missing information and aniilysis, as well as to highlight distortions that might lead the council dcwn a false pathway of reasoning. Issue Discussion 1. This action is entirety discretionary. In other words, there is no presumption of . entitlement to the lot split. The council has a clear cioice to say "yes"car"no." The council has as much right to say "no"to it as to say 'yes." One can argue furtherthat in order to say "res"the council must find there are positive benefits which outweigh the obvious negatives of the lot split. In weighing how to deal with this discretionary item, the council should: • Weigh whether this lot split, and those that will follow from its pof splitting 630 Serrano, Schmidt to council, Page 1 11/29/02 FRI 14:26 FAX 805 9F'A.,6093 SB/ID IM002 a very steep hillside lot, will be in the best interests of the neighbortiood, the project's future residents, the community as a whole, and the integrity of the city's long-term planning reputation. Weigh the effects of'this sort.of lot split on the overall health of thei city's human- centered environmental amenities -- amenities which make this pla,,,:e different for . people to live in than a dense urban area. • Whether the on-going erosion of R-1 zone's quality of life is some�hing you wish to promote by cramming more and more houses into the back yards of existing houses. Whether it violates the city's implied contract with residents who have bought R-1 properties to continually "densify"the R-1 zone around their homes. 'You might consider how you would feel if one of your next door neighbors canlie in with a project of this sort next to your R-1 zoned prope-ty. • That approval of this lot split bestows a very la-ge financial gift upon one individual at the expense of many other individuals. Is this fair? Is this what YOU as public representatives want to stand for? suggest that the project will come up lacking in many areas when analyzed in this way. 2. The staff report inexplicably neglects to tell the Council that th s same.project was peviously turned down. Failure to reveal this information colors the report in favor of staff's recommendation for approval, and withholds from the Counc l information which suggests continued denial is the proper coure. I stumbled upon the fact of this denial of the project by hearing officer Ken Bruce while talking to neighbors. John (Mandeville has independently confirmed this prior denial in correspondence with me (Exhibit D). It appears that Bruce's denial was based on the steepness of the lot,the inappropriateness of this subdivision -on upper Serrano, as well as on neighbors' objections. Comparing the lot sizes and the project descriptions, I believe that thu project rejected was the exact same grQject now before MU. One must ask: What has happened in the planning staff to cause a 180-degree reversal from staffs:previous stand? 3. Would approval of this project provide "much needed affordahlle housing?" It seems we hear this allegation over and over to justify overbuilding ow`city. So, let's look at the facts. There was an "open house"when this property was for sale earlier this- year, and we dropped in out of curiosity. My mouth dropped ope i when I picked up a flyer (Exhibit A) and saw the asking price of$725,000, for 1'd lookaJ at enough houses to recognize that the then-"fair" price of such a house in this neighborhood was about $500,000. 1 530 Serrano,Schmidt to Council, Page 2 11/29/02 FRI 14:27 FAX 805 96q,6093 SB/ID -� Q 003 approached the realtor, Marcie Zundel, and asked point blank how such a high price was justified for this house. `The value is in the lot split° she replied. And she infolded a plot plan purporting to show how a flag lot could be created in the back yard. I asked her what this paper represented, and she said it was a subdivision plan drawn up a numbsir of years ago. She said city planners had told her such a plan was possible. Our further conversation revealed that in her estimation the mere "Potential" for a lot .split added $200,000 onto the listing price of this house. This example shows what should be obvious to all who are familiar wit•► our current housing market: The city's willingness to approve lot splits, granny units, second units and the like in the R-1 zone is DRIVING THE COST OF HOUSING OUTOF REACH OF ALL BUT THE VERY RICH OR THE SPECULATOR/DEVELOPER CLASS. THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS HOUSING INFI-ATION BY AN ILL-ADVISED POLICY OF TRYING TO CRAM MOR AND MOR._ HOUSING INTO I-XISTING R-1 I\IEIGHBORHOODS. So, far from providing greater housing opportunities, approval of projects like this diminishes the affordability of our existing housing stock. So does the unwillingness to enforce existing second unit laws. Within a short distance of my home is a house, currently on the market, with an illegal second unit. The asking price of this very mundane house is approximately 9125,000 to $140,00 higher than it should be because of the existence of this illegal second unit. So, be very careful before buying the fool's gold tha: lot splits and second units create housing affordability, The opposite is in fact the case. if the council wis!ws to strike as blow for affordable_housing it glMul i consider dowr zoning existing,g[_neighborhoods to prohibit lot sprits and second units on all but the veU largest parcels 4. Does the proposed lot split conform to the citl's hillside densityv law? This is an extremely steep site. When I first walked it the day of the "op aril house," I was convinced merely by visual inspection that the city's hillside density lave,should prohibit subdivision. (See my letter to Mandeville, Exhibit C.;- It is my belief that the original lot size of this and adjacent parcels was based on a recognition that due V) steep slope, such sizes were appropriate. Staff says the hillside density law does permit;this subdivision, but stafl'F analysis is sloppy, and an independent analysis comes to a different conclusion. Furthermore,the staff report mistates important aspects of the hillside density law. The hillside density law prescribes maximum densities not to be exceeded. These 530 Serrano,.Schmidt to Council, Page 3 11/29/02 FRI 14:30 FAX 805 9616093 SB/ID [a 001 maximums are not permissive (meaning they do not establish any entitlement), but rather they are prescriptive limitis not to be exceede J. The Council has every right to demand higher density standards than the absolute minimum standard:;the law prescribes if it determines such higher standards aro appropriate. Le., the council has discretion to say that larger lot hillside standards are appropriately applied when a parcel is so close 110 requiring larger licit size that to claim it doesn't fall Into the law's grasp is tantamount to splitting lairs.Such Is the case with this project. So, here is a reanalysis of how the hillside lot size law applies to this project. A. Staff states that"No reduction in allowable density occurs unless the average cross-slope for a project site is greaterthan 16% " (Staff report Pago 3-3 near top.) This is incorrect. The kick-off point for mandatory lot size increase iS 15% not greaterthan 16%. This is clearly indicated both in the law (Exhibit Bp and in Mr. Mandeville's letter to me (Exhibit D). Note the apparent gap between lot size categories: it is clearly the law's intent that once -he top of a category is reached, the slope percentage is to be rounded upwards so as to fall into the ne)tI category. (See next item on rounding upwards.) B. Staff states, without providing methodology, tf,atthe cross-slope of the project is 14.75%. (Page 3-3) Note,that at 15%;the parte would fall within tt s reduced lot size requirement, and the lot split would be impe-nissible. Staffs 14.75% is a fractional number in conflict v4th the way the lain states slopes are to be denominated. Zoning code section 17.16.010.A ZAH states that fractional slopes shall be rounded up. That would mean thy: correct denomination of this slope, using staff's methodology, would be 15°k, not 14.75%. This difference is not hair- splitting, for it shows that the slope clearly corse;to the cutoff point where a larger lot size is required. (Zoning code excerpt provided in Exhibit B.) C. Is staffs slope measurement correct?As stated before, staff doer not explain its calculations. However, by using the perpendicular-to-contour technique prescribtid in the law, an engineer's scale and doing the simple math, I co-ne up with steeper slopes than staff. - Measuring. in a diagonal from the.330 foot elevation to the 300 foot elevation (SW to NE) produces an unrounded- up 15% slope. Measuring along the west property boundary produces a slope slightly in excess of 15%, which if rounded up as per the law would be stated as 15.510/a. So, it is clear that the 15%slope threshhold comes Into play fo r the site as a 530 Serrano,Schmidt to Council, Page 4 11/29/02 FRI 14:31 FAX 805 963 6093 SB/ID 16002 whole. (I should note that both staff and I take at face ve.lue the contour ms;p provided by the applicant, with no knowledge whether itis an accurate map.) . D. The individual lots being created have slopes steep enough to require application of the hillside density law. lf_one looks at the now-lots to be created rather tion the entire site. there is no doubt that their slopes s require larger lot size, •The lot nearest Serrano (Parcel 2), as mea::ured along its wes: boundary, has an unrounded-up slope of 16°x. •The downhill lot (Parcel t) measured the same way has a slops} of 15.5%. So,we would have an absurd situation if this lot split is approved: • We'd create.a new lot of 6.000 sguare.feet-(Parcel 21_where a.lot with minimum size of about 11.000 square feet Is oeauired bjli aw. Clearly, the need for a larger lot size due to slope must be considered by the Council.. if the Council intends to permit this lot split Dit9 tiffs re-analysis, it rr;ustdo so by granting a variance for minimum lot size for Parcel 2, and there is no way the Council could make the findings required for such a varianco - not mention that no variance has been applied for. 5. Is this subdivision consistent with the existing development paltern in the neigbhorhood? Staff says repeatedly that it is. To arrive at such a conclusion, however, staff has d stoned the facts and has substituted two-dimensional armchair analysis for giving out and looking at the neighborhood pattern as well as site conditions such as slopes. First off,the diagram at the bottom of Page 3-3-of the staff report purports to show that a flag lot on the site in question is typical of development patterns in tha "neighborhood." There are a number of flaws to staffs argument using this diagram: A. The diagram is a zoom-in view showing only a six-lot-long section of"the neigbhorhood:" It is deliberately selected and limited to sup oR rt stafif 530 Serrano,Schmidt to Coundi, Page 5 11/29/02 FRI 14:31 FAX 805 963 6093 SB/ID IgJ003 recommendation, not to oresent.an accurate ovorview B. The diagram is a two-dimensional picture of it three-dimensional situation. The slope down from Serrano to Luneta is very steel). Serrano and Lur eta are different neighborhoods! The proximity suggested on a trio-dimensional pli n view is completely misleading. Luneta is the edge of than high density studant ghetto at the bottom of the hill. Serrano is completely separated from that scene, both by steep separating topography and by the lack of street connections. To suggest that land division conditions on Luneta should be precedent-setting for Sermno is absurd and irresponsible. C. Staff further does not reveal that there are major differences between what one sees in the plan view on Luneta and what's beirg proposed on Serrano. On Luneta, the land was vacant when the flag lots were created. The.flag lots are the underlying subdivision pattern around which the area was built out. On Serrano, on the other hand, we're talking about re-subdividing already-developed parcels within an established neigbhorhood. Shoehoming new development into an axisting neighborhood fabric is a very different thing than starting with vacant:, unbuilt land. In conclusion by staff that the 530 Serrano subdivision jr, consistent with neigborhood development oatterns'is just olain wrong, To see this more clearly, look at the larger view (Ei:hibit E). Exhibit E shows all of Serrano above Palomar. lt shows there are 32 lots on Serrano above Palomar. of which only 3 ji[e flaws. So flag lots are not typical of the Serrano neighbor'iood's developmentpattern, Not only that,the three existing Serrano flag lots diler substantively fr rn what is proposed at 530 Serrano. Each of the three existing) fl� (the two near Palomar, the one at the very top of Serrano) are on land that slopes_very_gently from front to back: they are_essentially flat sites_ The existing flags are not steep, hard-to-develop and hard-to-service .cites like the rear of 530 Serrano. Approving a.subgIvision of 530 Serrano Is Indeed.precedent-settijog — for the Serreno'neighborhood: as well as for eyely othiar hillside nelghbaprhood In the g1�G. 6. Is it in the city's best interests to cram more and more development into already-developed R-1 districts? 530 Serrano,Schmidt to COL n0l,Page 6 11/29/02 FRI 14:32 FAX 805 963 6093 SB/ID Q004 One of the things that makes living in San Luis Obi,;po special is the amount of private open space that exists in yards and within the core of our historic residential blocks. Historically,this has been one of the things which attracts.people to live here. More and more, however, the city follows the false god of urban infill in encouraging the destruction of what Dale Sutliff calls "the green guts; of the city,"and thereby diminishes one of the environmental amenities that makes this place special in tha first place. believe this is a dreadful mistake. If this trend of building in every baclk yard continues, soon living in San Luis Obispo will be little different from living in most other paved-over places. Already, we see an alarming conversion of the green guts of our city info the all- house-and-no-lot paradigm. This is not a plea for sprawl; it is a plea to recognize what we have that's special, and to preserve it rather than to destroy it in worship of false gods. One of the main reasons people are fleeing San Luis Obispo is becau,:;e of the decline in the quality of life in the R-1 zones. One of the chief reasons for this decline in the quality of life is the overdensification of these zone:. These people me;ve out of the city seeking a better quality.of life,then commute back•:o the city each day to earn a living. It is counter-productive for the city to erode the quality of residential life within the city by approving ill-conceived over-densification such as the 530 Serrano project. 7. 1M11 the new flag lot be safe or desirable? • The extremely steep driveway down to the rear lol will make this"shoehomed-in" development difficult to service. How will day-to-day services like UPS work since trucks cannot traverse this steep driveway?In case of fire for example, staging will have to be done from the street, and then down the steep drive on foot since fire laehicles cannot drive in. How will fire personnel deal with a fire in the northwest comer of the development? Will they have to gain access over sleep terrain from noighboring yards? Perhaps from some other street down below? It is clumb.development to create.such problems. Totally missing from staffs analysis is any discuss.lon of whether shoe;.homed in dense non-street-accessible development on steep slopes high up on San Luis Mountain would be safe in the event of wild fire. This area is on the cite edge, and has a high wild fire potential. A swirling conflagration such as that in the Oakland/Berkeley hills several years ago is entirely possible here. There are huge amounts of vegetative fire fuel all around the site. There have been close calls in the recent past. is it responsible to shoe-horn in flag-lot development in such topographicalifire dangerous areas? •What about routine things like sewer service. Staff glosses over this ivith a glib statement about perhaps needing a lift pump. 530 Serrano,Schmidt to Council, Page 7 11/29/02 FRI 14:32 FAX 805 963 8093 SB/ID Q005 • How does sewage get up 20 or more vertical fe.:t to a city sewer it the street? • Does questionable development with such constraints make any s nse? • If there is malfunction, will city sewage follow gravity and flood a house on this downslope property?Who's liable if this happen:? 8. Are the legal exceptions justified? Whenever exceptions to lot size and setbacks are roquired for a project tike this to fly, a big red flag should be run up the flagpole. Although the exceptions may seem small,they are a signal that other Iirpblems exist. In this case, they are a signal that the entire project is flawed. If.the projefA were not on a steep slope , in a neighborhood where it is incompatible with existing dovelopment patterns,.they might be overlooked. Here, they are a sign of the fundamental wrongness of the whole project. In its previous review of this project, the city corre1ly said "no." In Conclusion: 530 Serrano is a very steeg lot: It.should be consid 2ged fully develOPALLUELALth today, and-the green cuts of its back yard slope ore served for the enjgyment.of future occupants as well as a buffer against what's do ill, Ken Bruce had it right the first time. Please support his action, not the current staff recommendation. Sinely, Richard Schmidt Attachments: A. House for sale flyer B. Hillside lot size law C. My letter to J. Mandeville re 530 Serrano D. J. Mandeville's reply E. Serrano subdivision pattern map 530 Serrano, Schmidt to Council, Page 8 11/29/02 FRI 14:33 FAX 805 963 6093 SB/ID 006 i� 530 SERRANO DR. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Outstanding hillside views 5 Bedrooms, 3 Baths 2 freestanding firepl acesm-LR ' FR Approximately 270() sq. ft., ,, story . Built around 1969/70 Possible lot split, approx. 17;000+ . Many trees on propE'rty _ 792 sq. ft. workshop behind.-J.-Iouse- Driveway & utilities) to shop . 2 car garage 2 water heaters Price includes refrigerator, Nk .'dryer . Stucco exterior/tile:roof $7259000:00 Ask for Marcie Zundel, Cold-well Banker vista Assoc. 544-7804 . 545-9457/235-7558 cell 11/29/02 FRI 14:35 FAX 805 963 6093 SB/11) [in 012 B� approving an administrative use permit,the director 1."Density"is the number o dwell' g units per net may grant exceptions to %he reduction of density with acre. In the C/OS d R- nes,ea dwelling counts slope where the parcel ht question is essentially sur- as one unit In 0 e nes,d' rent size dwellings re ended by development at least as dense as the pro- have unit valu as fo ows: posed development. The tmception shall not authorize de nsitygreater than allow .1d for the category of less than a. Studioap rtment,0.50 uni , fifteen percent slope for it e a ppropriatezone. (SeesLso b. One-be oom dwelling,0 6 unit; Se ction.17.12.020D,Nonce:nforrning Lots-Regulations.) c. Two-b room dwelling; .00 unit; d. Three edroom dwelli g, 1.50 units; b. Determine the Net Ansa of the Site. °Net area" in- e. Dw 'ngwith four o are bedrooms,2.00 units. chrdes all the area within the property lines of the development site minus street right-of-way dedicated to r1and .Thefollowinocedure shall be used to determine th:city. Net area includes the area occupied by allowed hemaximum development allowed on a given Iot or.,.. ncnresidentialuses. area: C. Multiply the resulting i:rea (in whole and fractional a.Determine the Average Cross-slope of the Site. "Average aces) by the maximum c ensity allowed (in units per cross slope"is the ratio,expressed as a percentage of the ac-e)according to the tab:e in subsection A.La.of this difference in elevation to the horizontal distance be- section. tween two points on the perimeter of thearea forwhich slope is being determined. The line along which slope is d.'Meresulting number(it dwelling units,carried out to measure shall run essentially perpendicular to the con- thy:nearest one-hundredth, unit) will be the maximum tours. re:idential development potential. Any combination of dweliingtypesand number i maybe developed,so long as i. Where a site does not slope uniformly,average-cross th",ircoaibined unitvalues do not exceed the maximum slope is to be determined by proportional weighting of tenial. the cross slopes of uniformly sloping subareas,as deter.. [.po ---- mined by the city engineer. B. [len 'ty Transfer. ii. Cross-slope determinations shall be based on me . 1.I)ev opmentpoten alrnaybetransferred within the natural topography of the site,before grading. area ered by a pi ed development (PD)zone,in cor�fo ce with the egt:irements of Ch ter 17.50. tit.Slopes calculated to the nearest 0.5 percent shall e rounded up. 2.\Ph re a portion of lot is within a zone r zones that allow esidential use el Me rest of the Io is in a C/OS iv.No slope-rated density reduction is required in the zor e, nd the portion "thi n the C/OS zon is not Iarge OS,C-R,C-C or PF zones. enou to allow one weUng, the fractio al dwelling uni t p tential from th C/O S zone may be t nsferred to v.Th maan�'mum_development allowe foreach avera a the o er portion of t ie 10.1;without p ed develop- cross-slope ca egory is as follows: mere j ezoning. TABLE I CI)ersityAveraging. e!eportions of6 tarewithin MAXIAKUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR twc oz more different zonas that allow di erent maxi- CROSS-SLOPE CATEGORIES mu u ensities, and a ky porion is not o the size re- qui:ed for a lot in th zor.;e. density ma be averaged Average MaximumDensity over wholelot,wi eacllportiancont utingtothe Cross Slope (units per acre) ove ral maximum dev opn xait potential n proportion to is a ea and iDaximu n allowed densi R-I 11-2,0 R-3 R C-N C-T D. :fie sity Bonus for .-income an Moderate-in- coa.e ousing. Purl nt.ito Califo ' Government 0-15 7 12 18 2 Coe a tion 65915, t e c:ty may beg to a density 16-20 4 6 9 .1 bonus r other benef� in exchange f r provision of 21 -25 2 4 6 housin affordabletoIt us' holds with l or moderate 26 + 1 2 3 ina•me,asdefined inth Government 0 de. (Ord.1085 -1E x.A(part),1987,O d.11106-1(pan) 1984;Ord.941 3 19 11/29/02 FRI 14:33 FAX 805 963 6093 SB/ID 9 007 RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 1:805) 5444247 e-mail:rschmidt@calpoly.edu March 31, 2002 John Mandeville, Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street VIA FAX Sari Luis Obispo., CA 93401 Dear John: As you are aware, I have been concerned about watering down of glia city's once environmentally progressive planning programs. 1 have run into a situation.which makes me want to ask for additioneil information and clarification about the status of the city's hill:.ide planning regulftteons, specifically lot size adjustments upward from the minimum based upon slope. I'd like clarification since based upon information provided by a third Wirty, it sounds as if these regulations are being ignored — a fact of which I am not at all certain myself absent your clarification. The case in question is 530 Serrano Drive, a rather mundane houso which is currently for sale. Noting that the.house was priced at least $200,000 higher than comparable houses, I asked the agent why. She responded: "The value is in the lot split." She showed me a plan by which the 17.000 square foot hillside lot would be split, with somewhat more than 6,000 square feet going with the laxisting house, and the remainder going into a second flag lot ar d its lengthy and s':eep connection to the street. The agent told me: "Se%eral potential buyers have contacted the city and been told this is possible." 1 was shocked, for this is a very steep lot. I suspect the reason it's 17,000 square feet is because of its steepness. In my view, it makes no sense to G•eate "minimum sized" 6,000 square foot lots on steep slopes, and such harts would not be permitted under the planning regulations in fo•ce during my long work with them as a planning commissioner. So, my question: Are the lot sizetslope regulatior s still intact? Has the.city told prospective purchasers of 530 Serrano that a lot split is possible?if.so, how can this be? 11/29/02 FRI 14:34 FAX 805 963 6093 SB/ID Zoos Sincerely, Richard Schmidt cc: City Council PS to the Council. This case illustrates the fallacy, of the city's current mindless obiescance to the notion that infill of this sort is a good thing. I wouki note the following: • Infill in the form of perpetual lot splits till everything is minimalized will not stop sprawl. • This type of infill will simply destroy the green guts of the city, making central SLO like LA and other paved over places we don't want to live, whit« we also suffer from the consequences of sprawl. • Encouraging this sort of infill inflates the cost of housing in the city. "The value is in the lot split"will be the pricing mantra for every lot remotely capatAe of being split. That means more houses priced beyond they reach of any but tlrie rich. • This sort of infill will encourage greater, not less, commuting as it diminishes housing stock variety, and persons who want yards -- and there are many of them -- choose to commute from distant communities where they can havia them. • A better solution is to protect the land subdivisic n character of the oxistng central city, keeping the city green and environmentally special, while working to create better land use patterns in newly developed fringe areas. • "Smart growth'is "stupid growth" if we don't think through the total consequences of how we implement it. 11/29/02 FRI 14:34 FAX 805 9&3 6093 SB/ID [it 009 r�►�i��i��I�IIII�N111�lllll ��uirir4u�� III� SATI IUIS ()Bis o 990 Palm'Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 14, 2002 Richard Schmidt 112 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Subject: 530 Serrano Drive& City Slope Density Regulations Dear Richard: I have reviewed your letter of March 31, 2002 regarding 530 Serrano Dri+le and am happy to report that the City's regulations that set parcel sizes based on slope, are :Mill in effect. Your questions center on how the City's slope/density regulations relate to possible subdivision of the property and whether City staff is advising prospective purchasers that a subdivision is possible. You are correct that the City's zoning regulations establish larger minimum parcel sizes as slope increases: Single-family residential property from 0-15% may be developed at a density of seven units per net acre resulting in a parcel size of a 3proximately 6,200 square feet. Parcels between 16% and 20% slope may be developed with only four parcels (v rith an approximate minimum parcel size of 10,900 square feet). 21-25% :lope nets you two units per net acre and slopes of 26% or greater, limit you to a single unit per a:,re. So as you can sce,the calculation of slope is critical when the City evaluates new and infill development throughout the City. A few individuals have indeed contacted the Community Development D:;partment regarding use and possible subdivision of 530 Serrano. In all cas--s, department staff advised the inquirers of the property's zoning, development regulations (such as slope/density restrictions), and how the subdivision application process works. ' In no case, was anyone leeid to believe that a subdivision of the property was guaranteed or would receive staff support, especially since we haven't seen maps or plans that would show how the development would or would not comply with all of the applicable City development policies and standards. I have had my staff perform some additional research c n the property and ii.: vas discovered that there was at least one earlier attempt to subdivide the property in 1988. Tie subdivision would have created two parcels of 6,000 and 11,390 square Jeet in a flag lot configuration similar to other developments in the area. Based on neighborhood opposition and staffs negative recommendation to the City Council,the applicant witt drew the request. It is interesting to note that the average slope of the property was calculated :it 14.8%, which seems close to our own 2002 calculation. Assuming the topographic infomiation supplied witl: the earlier map is correct, it appears that the City's slope/density regulations would allow th,>xn up to two single family residential parcels. Of course, our calculations ire preliminary and do not factor in other site amenities, environmental conditions, physical constraints, neighborhood input, or conformance with the City's General Plan or other land use documents. 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. 11/29/02 FRI 14:35 FAX 805 963 6093 SB/ID IM 010 Richard Schmidt 4/4/02 Page 2 of 2 I hope that the above information addresses your questions. In addition, we will be happy to notify you if we receive any application for subdivision of the property thereby allowing you to get involved in the review and public hearing process. Please feel free to call my Deputy Director, Ronald Whisenand at 781-7177 or me if you :lave any further questions on the City's development standards. Sincerely, _...._....._ ....._------ hFrMandeville,......... --- --- ...... _ .... Community Development Director cc: Mayor&Council CAO ACAO Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney Ronald Whisenand,Deputy Director of Community Development G:\Groups\Comdev\CD-Plan\Rwhisena\Richard Schmidt response on 530 Sermno.c oc 11111 ■ � �� ..�� .►� / A I RED FILE AAE ING AGENDA RECEIVED DAT i ITEM # IN3 DEC 0 2 2002 SLO CITY CLERK November 27,2002 To: Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council From: Serrano Drive Neighborhood Re: Subdivision at-530 Serrano Drive. We,the undersigned, strongly oppose the"Minor subdivision"at 530 Serrano Drive. 1. Changed Neighborhoods. Increased building by way of lot splits in R-1 neighborhoods results in more rentals. This can have a negative and finalizing impact on this neighborhood. The attached letter by Pauline and Unny Menon and Margaret and Bill van Wyngaarden is a sad story. These neighbors from Luneta Street moved from San Luis because of the chaos, noise, abundance of parked cars , diminished property values and a decreased quality of life that came from more rentals in their neighborhood. What was once a residential area has become a rental-dominated area. Serrano and Luneta are back to back, and we are very familiar with their problems. With the building and subsequent renting that has already been approved for Serrano and the adjacent areas,we are experiencing Luneta's problems. Therefore we oppose a lot split, and the increased problems it will bring. 2. Lack of parking spaces. The house at 530 Serrano has five bedrooms,which typically mean five or more renters,usually with one car per renter, sometimes an additional motor cycle,truck or boat. An additional house at the rear of 530 Serrano Would,most likely, be a rental unit in today's market. The impact of two houses at 530 Serrano,plus the next-door rental, amounts to about a dozen cars. Many of us have made our home in San Luis Obispo for over three decades. Many of us intend to retire here. It would be a sad day if Serrano declines to the level of our neighboring street,Luneta. Therefore, we strongly oppose the exceptions that would allow a subdivision of 530 Serrano. 5 1 L COUNCI ;Z CDD DIR CAO ZFN DIR tJ .St�UA x-O 121 CACAO ZFIRE CHIEF / �� 12'A7roRNEY DPW DIR it CLERK/ORIG Z POLICE CHF WEPT HEADS a REC DIR Zr UTIL DIR HR DIR ��!��iL �l�L✓� � �U ;�c0^ran � �{3 i November 27,2002 To: Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council From: Serrano Drive Neighborhood Re: Subdivision at 530 Serrano Drive. We,the undersigned, strongly oppose the "Minor subdivision"at 530 Serrano Drive. 1. Changed Neighborhoods.Increased building by way of lot splits in R-1 neighborhoods results in more rentals. This can have a negative and finalizing impact on this neighborhood. The attached letter by Pauline and Unny Menon and Margaret and Bill van Wyngaarden is a sad story. These neighbors from Luneta Street moved from San Luis because of the chaos,noise, abundance of parked cars , diminished property values and a decreased quality of life that came from more rentals in their neighborhood. What was once a residential area has become a rental-dominated area. Serrano and Luneta are back to back, and we are very familiar with their problems. With the building and subsequent renting that has already been approved for Serrano and the adjacent areas, we are experiencing Luneta's problems. Therefore we oppose a lot split, and the increased problems it will bring. 2. Lack of parking spaces. The house at 530 Serrano has five bedrooms,which typically mean five or more renters, usually with one car per renter, sometimes.an additional motor cycle,truck or boat An additional house at the rear of 530 Serrano would,most likely, be a rental unit in today's market. The impact of two houses at 530 Serrano,plus the next-door rental,amounts to about a dozen cars. Many of us have made our home in San Luis Obispo for over three decades.Many of us intend to retire here. It would be a sad day if Serrano declines to the level of our neighboring street,Luneta. Therefore songly oppose the exceptions that wo allow a s 'vision of 5�0 j�jerrano. ' •��. L� da"L — - �SD S2��G10 ,��; � 'C�`�Se.v��cka ►�;1�� ;•"kJ 0 U-1 0 T o Wof 3 November 25,2002 City Council Members, San Luis Obispo,CA This letter is at the request of David Hafemeister.. It concerns the gradual deterioration of local neighborhoods due to the uncontrolled influx of students into these areas. We (Margaret and Bill van Wyngaarden ) bought our house at 425 Luneta in 1970. Pauline and Unny moved into the area in 1978 at 101 S. Tassajara at the corner of Luneta and Tassajata. At that time it was a very desirable area with lots of open space, within a 30 minute walking distance of Cal Poly and beautiful views of Mt. Bishop and the Santa Lucia range. Gradually the neighborhood started changing. Some older residents retired and families moved away to other areas. In several cases their houses were then purchased by out of town residents who converted them into student rentals. Also the large empty lots in the 500 block of Limeta,across from Valencia, were subdivided and several large houses were built at these sites which have now become mostly student rentals. The end result of all this was that often,especially on weekends but also during the week, large student parties were held which went on well into the morning hours. During these"events",noise,littering and drunkenness were typical and parking became impossible. Complaining to the students and/or the police had little effect. The situation has improved some after we managed to get restricted parking and after the city decided to levy] substantial fines for noise violations. as The area in the meantime had deteriorated to the extent that it was no longer a pleasant place to live in. As a result we decided to move. It was a difficult decision to make. Relocating in San Luis Obispo was beyond affordability and we , both the Menon and the van Wyngaarden families,ended up in Atascadero. To prevent this from happening on a regular basis we hope that the City will play a more proactive rather than a reactive role in the future. Impacted student housing in San Luis Obispo resulting in the decline of neighborhoods is an issue that warrants serious thought. Sincerely, Margaret and Bill van Wyngaarden Pauline and Unny Menon 9d pow" i RECEIVED DEC 0 ? 2002 SILO CITY CLERK December 2, 2002 To: Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council From: .john and Alice Jenkins, 111 Penman Way Re: Subdivision at 530 Serrano Drive Having just returned from a vacation, we missed signing the "Serrano Drive Neighbor- hood" leiter in opposition to the proposed subdivision. We do oppose this subdivision for the reasons mentioned in that letter. Although our address is on Penman Way, our house is at the corner of Serrano, two doors up the hill from 530 Serrano. We are particularly concerned about the parking problem mentioned. We hope this reaches you in time for the Council meeting. Sincerely, John and Alice Jenkins ,tom I�/ ' OCOUNCIL .2 CDD DIR Ia'CAO Zfl FIN DIR f'ACAO 7/FIRE CHIEF ,ZATTORNEY Z'PW DIR OCLERK/ORIG 2'POLICE,CHF ❑ Dom, Z RTC DIR Z UTIL DIR- "�� +SMR DIR RED FILE MEETING AGENDA DATE 'ITEM #.�b