HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC-1068-2023 (ARCH-0040-2021 -- 841 Patricia Dr.)RESOLUTION NO. PC-1068-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND
ACCESS BRIDGE, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION
FROM REQUIRED CREEK SETBACK, AS REPRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 25, 2023
(841 PATRICIA DRIVE, ARCH 0040-2021)
WHEREAS, on January 25th, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a public hearing on in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-0040-2021,
Eric and Julie Michaels, applicants, to consider construction of a single-family dwelling,
Accessory Dwelling Unit, and exception to creek setback requirements, proposed under this
application; and
WHEREAS, notices of said hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings regarding the project:
1. The proposed project is not consistent with policies and programs of the City’s General
Plan for the preservation of wildlife habitat and corridors set out in the Conservation and
Open Space Element (Policy 7.3.3, Program 7.7.8) and for the conservation and
development of residential neighborhoods set out in the Land Use Element regarding
preservation of natural site features and respect for site constraints (Policies 2.3.7 &
2.3.10). A creek crosses the subject property and a wildlife corridor travels through the
vicinity of the project site, as depicted in Figure 9 (Creeks and Wetlands) and Figure 3
(Wildlife Corridors) of the Conservation and Open Space Element. The proposed project
includes a 12-foot wide access bridge crossing the creek channel for ongoing use by
pedestrians and vehicles to connect development on each side of the creek, involving fill
activities to install the bridge abutments and removal of riparian vegetation to
accommodate the bridge, disrupting the existing intact and contiguous riparian corridor,
impacting the opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. As further
described in Findings 3-7 below, the access bridge proposed under the current project
design does not meet the required findings for granting of an exception to the creek setback
requirements which implement the resource protection policies of the General Plan.
Resolution No. PC-1068-23
841 Patricia Drive, ARCH-0040-2021
Page 2
2. The location and design of the feature receiving the exception from creek setback
requirements requested under this application, the access bridge proposed to be installed
into and across the channel of the creek that traverses the project site, will not minimize
impacts to riparian habitat (Zoning Regulations §17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(1)). Interruption of
the riparian by the presence and use of the access bridge will impact opportunities for
habitation, rest, and movement of wildlife. Where the existing riparian corridor is currently
intact and contiguous, the bridge structure will cross and interrupt it, involving clearance
of riparian vegetation to accommodate its twelve-foot width, fill soils in the setback area
for the support abutments, and use of this portion of the creek channel for access between
the primary residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit.
3. There is no evidence that there are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape,
or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning,
that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with
the same zoning (17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(4)). The subject property lies within an R-1 Zone, in
which permitted land use is limited to a Single-Unit Dwelling (Zoning §17.10.020,
Table 2) and physical development must conform to the Development Standards set out in
Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.16. The most accessible western portion of the site, wholly
outside of the required creek setback area, measures more than 24,000 square feet in area,
four times larger than the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area requirement applicable in
the R-1 Zone (Zoning §17.16.020(A)), and much larger than the typical area of surrounding
lots. The required creek setback does not deprive the property of development with a
single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling
Units, in the manner enjoyed by properties in the vicinity under applicable use limitations
and development standards, and no other circumstances have been identified that would
deprive the property of such development.
4. There is no evidence that site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign
of the project. (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(7)). No evidence has been presented that the eastern
portion of the site is the only feasible location for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
proposed under this application, or that an access bridge of the design proposed in project
plans is the only feasible means to provide access to the ADU from the primary dwelling.
As described in the staff report presented at public hearing for this item, there is no
evidence in the application record demonstrating that a project redesign to achieve
development of this site with a dwelling and ADU would in fact be infeasible.
5. There is no evidence that redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable
use of the property (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(8)). Development of a single-family dwelling and
associated accessory structures (including an Accessory Dwelling Unit), consistent with
applicable development standards, represents reasonable use of property in the R-1 Zone.
While development of the eastern portion of the property is constrained by its location
across a creek channel from the western portion of the property and by a sewer easement,
and development of the central portion of the property is constrained by the presence of a
creek and required creek setback, the western portion of the site is comprised of a
developable area approximately half of an acre (24,000 sq. ft.), and is much larger in size
to other property in the vicinity.
Resolution No. PC-1068-23
841 Patricia Drive, ARCH-0040-2021
Page 3
6. The information and materials provided with this this application do not provide clear and
substantiated evidence for conclusively and affirmatively making several of the required
findings for a creek setback exception set out in the City’s Zoning Regulations, including
findings regarding the minimization of impacts to riparian habitat
(§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(1)), existence of circumstances that deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(4)), feasibility of
a redesign of the project to accomplish site development (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(7)), and the
potential for reasonable development of the property (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(8)).
7. The proposed project design is not consistent with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines (CDG) for Creekside Development (CDG §7.1), which direct that no structure
other than a path or trail may be located within a creek setback, including a road, parking
access or space, or paved area (CDG §7.1(B)(2)), and that no grading or filling or removal
of native vegetation shall occur within a creek setback (CDG §7.1(B)(3)). The proposed
project includes a bridge structure designed in part for vehicle access within the required
creek setback, involving fill soils with installation of the bridge abutments and removal of
willow and oak trees, along with other vegetation, from the riparian corridor.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. Denial of the proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review, as a
project which a public agency disapproves, as described in the Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) §15270
(Projects Which Are Disapproved).
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny application
ARCH-0040-2021, based on the findings set out in Section 1 of this Resolution.
On motion by Commissioner Jorgensen, seconded by Commissioner Hopkins, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Cooley, Houghton, Jorgensen, Munoz-Morris, Vice Chair
Hopkins and Chair Kahn
NOES: None
REFRAIN None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 25th day of January 2023.
_____________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission