R 3229
,-
RESOLUTION NO. 3229
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE HEREBY ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, INSTRUCTING THE CITY CLERK TO ALE
A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, AND APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 97-554, AT 769
AVENIDA DE DIAMANTE; APPLIED FOR BY BILL HARRER
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has considered Conditional
Use Permit Case No. 97-554, filed by Bill Harrer, for a 526 square foot attached
second residential unit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held public hearings on
this application in accordance with the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found that this project is consistent with the General
Plan and the environmental documents associated therewith; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed this project in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQAl and has determined that a Negative
Declaration can be adopted; and
- WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, the
following circumstances exist:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit Findings:
1. The proposed use is permitted within the Rancho Grande PD-1.2 zone pursuant
to the provisions of Section 9-03.050 of the Development Code, and complies
with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals and
objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and
standards of the City.
2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in
which it is to be established or located because the architectural style of the
attached second dwelling unit matches the existing residence and is compatible
with the appearance of other residences in the neighborhood.
3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is
proposed because the size of the attached second residential unit combined
with the size of the existing residence are consistent with other residences in
the neighborhood.
4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure the public health and safety because no moratoriums exist
and the applicant is required to pay impact mitigation fees.
5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity
because the proposed project would not create adverse environmental impacts.
Further, there is no evidence that the proposed project would decrease property
values in the neighborhood.
Resolution No. 3229
Page 2
Department of Fish and Game Required Findings of Exemption
1. The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an initial study pursuant to Section
15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
for Conditional Use Permit Case No. 97-554.
2. Based on the initial study, a Negative Declaration was prepared for public
review and adopted by the Planning Commission.
3. After holding a public hearing pursuant to State and City Codes, and
considering the record as a whole, the Planning Commission adopted the
negative declaration and found that there is no substantial evidence of any
significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife
resources as defined by Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code or on the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends as a result of development of this
project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVeD that the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby adopts a Negative Declaration, instructs the Secretary to file a Notice
of Determination, and approves Conditional Use Permit Case No. 97-554, with the
above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Attachments If A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Council Member Fuller, seconded by Council Member Tolley, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
A YES: Council Members Fuller, Tolley, Lady, Runels and Mayor Dougall
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of May, 1997.
-
ATTEST:
t1 a.~
NANC~IS, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
"
K I
. I Iti-----
n' ~ I - .
t .).).~, .tT '-' tLW;
ROBERT L. HUNT, CITY MANAGER
------------"---.--- ~--_..._....._- - -~-- ----.._-
Resolution No.
Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I, NANCY A. DAVIS, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the
foregoing Resolution No. is a true, full and correct copy of said Ordinance passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the Arroyo Grande City Council on the 27thday
of May, 1997.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 11thday of
June, 1997.
'-11.~ {2. ~
NANCY A. ~VtS, CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT "An
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 97-554 .--
Bill Harrer I
769 Avenida De Diamante
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This approval authorizes a 526 square foot attached second residential unit.
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with an Federal, State, County and
City requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Conditional Use
Permit Case No. 97-554.
3. This application shall automatically expire on May 27, 1999 unless a building
permit is issued. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the
applicant may apply for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of
expiration.
4. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented
to the Planning Commission at the meeting of May 27, 1997 and marked
Exhibit "A". !
!
5. The applicant shall agree to defend at his/her sole expense any action brought
against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because
of the issuance of said approval, or in anyway relating to the implementation
thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall
reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and
attorneyls feels which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be
required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but -
such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this
condition.
NOISE
6. Construction shall be limited to between the hours of 7am and 10pm Monday
through Friday and between 8am and 5pm on Saturday or Sunday.
DEVELOPMENT CODE
7. Development shall conform with the Rancho Grande PD 1.2 requirements
except as otherwise approved.
8. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the
development plans, Exhibit "A", except as specifically modified by these
conditions.
-1-
SECOND DWELLING UNIT
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit. the applicant shall record a deed
restriction and an agreement affecting real property regarding the second
dwelling unit in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-11.140 of the
Development Code, and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the
Community Development Director.
BUILDING AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
UBC/UFC
10. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California State
Fire and Building Codes and the Uniform Building and Fire Codes as adopted by
the City of Arroyo Grande.
SPECIAL CONDITION
11. All doors and/or openings between dwelling units shall be one (1) hour fire
rated.
FEES AND BONDS FOR ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS
The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following:
12. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT
a. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time
of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 C.S.,
Resolution 3021.
b. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the
time of building permit issuance, in accordance with Ordinance No.. 346
C.S., Resolution No. 1955. -
c. Construction Tax. the applicant shall pay a construction tax pursuant to
Section 3-3.501 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.
-2-
~..- --- --
Hearing Date: 5/6/97
Agenda Item No. III.A.
PLANNING COMMISSION r-
i
HEARING TO BE HELD IN THE i
i
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
215 EAST BRANCH STREET
APPLICANT: Bill Harrer
FILE/INDEX: Conditional Use Permit Case Number 97-554
PROPOSAL: Construction of an Attached 526 Square Foot Second
Residential Unit
LOCATION: 769 Avenida De Diamante
REPRESENT A TtVE: Kevin Hunstad
37 Hearing Notices sent on 4/15/97. Staff Report Prepared by Bruce Buckingham.
Site Inspection by Bruce Buckingham and Craig Campbell on 3/31/97.
Parcel Size: 19,950 Square Feet
Terrain: Lot Slopes Downward to the Street
Vegetation: Residential Landscape
Existing Land Use: . Single Family Residence
General Plan Designation: Rancho Grande P._ D. #186
-
Existing Zoning: Rancho Grande PO 1.2
Surrounding Land UselZoning/General Plan Designation
North: Single Family Residencel Rancl10 Grande
P01.2/Rancho Grande P.O. #186
East: Single Family Residence/ Rancho Grande
P01.2/Rancho Grande P .D. #186
South: Single Family Residence/ Rancho Grande
P01.2/Rancho Grande P.O. #186
West: Single Family Residence/ Rancho Grande
P01.2/Rancho Grande P.O. #186
-------.-- .-.--...- .---
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Case Number 97-554
Applicant: Bill Harrer
May 6, .1997
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
This site is located within the Rancho Grande planned Development. The property is
currently developed with a 2,637 square foot single family residence with three car
attached garage. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 526 square foot
attached second residential unit.
State Law and Development Code Section 9-11.140 regulates the construction of
second residential units. State law requires local agencies to allow the construction of
second residential units, within the standards established by the agency, unless it can
. be found that the second unit creates a health, safety, or general welfare problem.
Second residential units require approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
In order to provide the Planning Commission with some background on their scope
of review for CUPs, the following information is provided.
Puroose
A CUP is intended to allow the establishment of those uses which have some
special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding environment
cannot be determined in advance of the use being proposed for a particular
location. The CUP application process allows for the review of the location and
the design of the proposed use, configuration of improvements, and potential
impacts on the surrounding area from the proposed use. The review shall
determine whether. the proposed use should be permitted, by weighing the public
need for and benefit to be derived from tl1e use against any adverse impact it may
cause.
Authoritv
The Planning Commission has the authority to approve CUPs, subject to conditions
of approval (contained in the Resolution), and 'findings that the project is
consistent with City policies and standards. The Planning Commission may deny a
CUP application if the findings cannot be made (e.g., the project would be .
detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare).
If issues arise at a public hearing that were unforeseen, the Planning Commission
has the discretion to. add conditions that are not' included in the draft resolution of
approval (all resolutions are considered draft until adopted by the Planning
Commission) . Conversely, the Planning Commission has the authority to strike
conditions contained with the draft resolution of approval, if in the Commission's
judgment they are not required.
Findings
The Planning Gommission may approve a CUP application, in whole or in part, only if
all of the applicable findings of fact can be made in an affirmative matter (reference
the first page of the Resolution).
------- --_.^~.._- ----------.. ..---
Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Case Number 97-554
Applicant: Bill Harrer
May 6, 1997 r-
I
Page 3 I
;
I
I
Canditians af Aooraval
In granting a CUP, the Planning Cammissian shall require that the use and
develapment af the praperty canfarm with a site plan, architectural drawings, ar
statements submitted in sup part of the applicatian or with such madificatians
thereaf as may be deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, ar
general welfare and to secure the objectives of the General Plan.
Revisions/Madificatians
Revisions or modificatians to CUPs may be requested by an applicant. The
Planning Commissian may also chaase to add a conditian of appraval to.
periadically review a CUP to ensure that it is being operated in a manner
cansistent with canditians of approval.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant is prapasing to construct a 526 square foat attached secand residential
unit. The proposed unit would consist of a kitchen, bedroom and bathraam. The
exteriar appearance of the second dwelling unit is propased to. match the. existing
architectural style of the residence.
The prapased second unit meets all setback, lat coverage and flaar .area ratio. as
required by Sectian 9-11.140 of the Development Code. This includes such
requirements as minimum lat size (6,000 square feet required far an attached unit),
and maximum size (640 square feet allawed, 526 square feet propased). The
prapasal also. meets the parking requirements of the Development Cade. This requires
one cavered parking space provided within the existing garage and one uncavered
parking space lacated in the driveway, directly in front of the garage.
As part af the CUP process for second residential units, the Cammunity Develapment
Directar is required to. consider the adequacy of water, sewer, drainage, fire and
emergency services, and the impact of additional dwelling units an traffic flaw. In
consultatian with other departments, the Community Develapment Direetar has
determined that this propased second unit wauld nat have a significant effect on the
listed areas of concern.
ISSUES:
Cansistent with Develapment Code Section 9-11.140, conditian no.. 9 requires that
the praperty owner must reside in either unit in order to rent the other. A deed
restrictian shall be recorded against the property to ensure that the current and future
praperty owners are aware of this restriction.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A public notice was sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
praject, and a public notice was placed in the Times-Press-Recorder. Staff has nat
received any comments or correspondence to date.
Pianning Commission
Conditional Use Permit Case Number 97-554
Applicant: Bill Harrer
May 6, 1997
Page 4
ARCHITECTUARL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) has reviewed the proposed project and
recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project as shown on Exhibit
"A".
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CECA Guidelines and the City of Arroyo Grande Rules and
Procedures for Implementation of CECA. Based on the review, staff does not
anticipate that this project will have a. significant effect on the environment.
Therefore, staff has p~epared a negative declaration for adoption by the Planning
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Staff Advisory Committee (SAC), which consists of representatives from the
Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation
Department, Police, Fire and Building Departments, reviewed the proposed project.
The SAC recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project subject to
the standard conditions.
Attachments:
Resolution of Approval
Negative Declaration
Financial Interest Form
Exhibit II A"
.
bb\cups\harrer\staffrpt
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
- INITIAL STUDY -
r-
I
f
;
i
!
1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit Case No. 97-554
2. Lead Agency Name &. Address: City of Arroyo Grande
P.O. Box 550/214 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
3. Contact Person &. Phone #: Bruce Buckingham, Associate Planner
(805) 473-5420
4. Project Location: 238 West Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
5. Project Sponsor's Name &. Address: Bill Harrer
769 Avenida De Diamante
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
6. General Plan Designation: Rancho Grande Planned Development #186
7. Zoning: Rancho Grande Planned Development 1.2
8. Project Description:
Attached second dwelling unit.
9. Other Agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed): -
None
.
.
DETERMltIIA TION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. and a NEGA TtVE X
I)ECLARA TtON will be prepared.
find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a
3ignificant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGA TtVE DECLARA TtON 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 proposal MAY have a significant effect(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, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or .potentially significant unless mitigated". An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
~~ 1 !1S'jq1
Signature Date
::NVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
7he environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. involving at least one impact that is a
.?OTENTtALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACr or "POTENTtALLY IS SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED", as indicated by the checklist
.jn the following pages.
o Land Use and Planning o Biological Resources o Public Services
Population and Housing o Energy and Mineral Resources o Utilities and Service Systems
Geophysical o Hazards o Aesthetics
~ Water o Noise o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Mandatory Findings of Significance . o Recreation
o Transportation/Circulation
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequateJysupported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact. question 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 operations impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact. is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant. or is the lead agency
lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact. entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" 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 ievel (mitigation measures from Section
XVII, "Earlier Analyses", may be cross referenced. I
~ Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CECA process, an effect has been
~
..
adequately analyzed in an earlier SR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3HDI. Earlier analyses are discussed in
Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
5. , Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). A Source Ust should be attached and other sources used or individuals should be
cited in the discussion.
,,-_., --.-----------
.
PotentiaJIy
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Information Sourcesl: Significant Unless SlgnifHulnt No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposaJ:
al Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(source Its): 1,2,3,4) X
bl Conflict with applicable environmental plans or pOlicies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
(source #(sl: 1,6) X
cl Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land usesl1lsource #lsl: 11 I X
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minoritycommunity)7 (source #(sl: 2,4,11 I X
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the proposal:
al Cumulatively exceea official regional or local population
projections? (source #(sl: 1,5,9) X
bl Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructurel?
(source #(sl: 9,101 X
cl Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (source #(sl: 9,10," I X
III. GEOPHYSICAL: Would the proposal result in or expose
psop/e to potentia/Impacts involving:
al Seismicity: fault rupture?lsource #(sl: 5,61 X
bl Seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction?
(source #(sl: 5,6) X
cl Seismicity: seiche or tsunami? (source #(sl: 5.61 X
dl Landslides or mudslides? Isourc~ lIs): 5,61 X
el Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soils
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
(source #(sl: 101 X -
f) Subsidence of land7 (source lIs): 5,61 X
g). Expansive soils? (source I(sl: 5,6) .
X
hi Unique geologic or physical features?lsource #(sl:
5,6,10.111 X
IV. WATER: Would the proposal result in:
al Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (source lIs): 101 X
bl Exposure to people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?lsource #(sl: 81 X
'cl Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g.. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity? (source #lsl: 91 X
dl Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (source #(s): 9. 101 X
el Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
-.----
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Issues (and Supporting Infonn8~ion Sources): Significant Unless Signilbnt No
Impact Mitlgatttd Impact Impact
movements? (source #Is): 9, 10) X
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
(source Its): 9, 10) X
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(source '(5): 9, 10) X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (source #(sl: 9,10) X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies?
(source #(sl: 61 X
V. AIR QUALITY: Would the fJI'Oposa/:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(source 'Is): 7, 13) X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
(source '(sl: 10, 11) X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (source#ls): 9) X
d) Create objectionable odors? (source #(sl: 9.10) X
VI. TRANSPORT A TION/CIRCULA TION. Would the proposal
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Isource
Its): 13) X
b) Hazards to safety from design features le.g.. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipmentl? (source #Is): 9.. 10) X
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
sites? (source Its): 9. 10) X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (source
Its): 3, 9, 10) X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(source Its): 9, 10) X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative -
transportation (e.g., .bus turnouts. bicycle racks)?
(source Its): 9, 10) X
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in .
impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants. fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (source #(sl: 6) X
bl Locally designated species le.g.. heritage trees)?
(source Its): 10, 111 X
c) Locally designated natural communities le.g., oak
forest. coastal habitat)? (source #(sl: 10, 11) X
d) Wetland habitat le.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pooll?
(source Its): 11)
X
el Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
(source Its): 11) X
-. --.-----.--
-
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(source 'Is): 1. 6) X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wastefiJl and r--
,
inefficient manner? (source 'Is): 9. 10) X i
I
!
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: I
a) A risk of accidentat explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil.
pesticides. chemicals or radiation? (source 'Is): 9) X
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (source 'Is): 9. 10)
X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? (source 'Is): 9. 10) X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (source '(s): 9.10,11) X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush.
grass, or trees? (source 'Is): 10, 11.1 X
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (source '(sl: 1. 91 X
bl Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(source '(sl: 9. 10) X
XI. PUBUC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon. or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the fol/owing areas:
al Fire Protection? (source '(sl: 6) X
b) Police Protection? (source 'Is): 6) X
c) .Schools? (source '(sl: 6) X
d) Maintenance of public facilities. including roads?
(source #(s): 6) X
e) Other governmental services? (source '(s): 6) X
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations
to the following utiOties: ·
a) Power or natural gas? (source #(sl: 9. 10) X
b) Communications systems? (source lI(s): 9. 10) X
-
cl Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (source 'Is): 6) X
d) Storm water drainage? (source #(sl: 6) X
el Solid waste disposal? (source '(5): 6) X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
al Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
(source '(sl: 1. 10.11) X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
(source '(s): 9. 10. 11) X
cl Create light or glare? (source #(5): 9.10) X
--".-- _._._~..
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (source #(sl: 6, 11) X
b) Disturb archaeological resources (source #(s): 6, 11) X
c) Affect historical resources? (source #(s): 6, 11) X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (source
'Is): 1 1 ) X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (source #(sl: 10, 11) X
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? (source #(sl: 1, 31
X
bl Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(source #(s): 1, 5) X
XVI. MANDA TORY 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 community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory ? X
bl Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals 7 X
c) 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 past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
proj~cts.) X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? X
XVII. EARLJER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program 8R, or other CECA process, one or more effectS
have been adequately analy~ed in an earlier 8R or negative declaration. Section 15063(cH3HD). In this case, a
discussion should identify the following of' attached sheets:
al Earlier anafyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
bl Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed by earlier documents.
cl Mitigation Measures. For effects that are . potentially significant- or - potentially significant unless mitigated.,
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.
_~: P\IbIIc "-C8e Code s.ca- 21083 _ 21087.
"'.,.._: Public 1I.......C8e Code s.ca_ 2t0801cl. 21080.1. 21080.3.21082.1.21083.21083,3. 2t083. 21084, 2t161; Sund8trom... C_ of M_-' 202 <:41. AIID. 3d 2"
1881: u-ff v. Mon,.,.., B_ 01 ~ 222 C.... Ap... 3d 1337 It 9101.
SOURCE LIST:
1. City of Arroyo Grande General Pian
2. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Land Use Map
3~ City of Arroyo Grande Development Code
4. City of Arroyo Grande Zoning Map
5. City of Arroyo Grande Existing Setting and Community Issues Report
6. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan EIR
7. Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan
8. FEMA - Flood Insurance Rate Map
9. Project Description
10. Project Plans
11. Site Inspection
12. Ordinance 431 C. S.
13. Institute of Traffic Engineers UTE} Trio Generation Manual
EXPLANATIONS:
VI. Traffic
The site is currently developed with a single family home. The applicant is proposing to construct a 526
square foot attached second dwelling unit.
The proposed second dwelling unit is expected to generate approximately six (6) additional trips per day.
Though, the increase in the number of trips would be insignificant, payment of the City's standard traffic
mitigation fee of $328.21 is required to mitigate the additional vehicle trips.
-
.
- ----------------~---~---,.._-_...~--