HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/1991, 5 - MINOR SUBDIVISION 91-022-CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO DIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST END OF GROVE STREET ADJACENT TO SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK. �������►�►iifillNllllllii►��►�►►' �I city of san L.41S osIspo
aIle
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report, MS 91-022
Page 2
(CEQA) regulations, and has been granted a mitigated negative_
declaration. The lot split would allow separate ownership of a new
office planned for the vacant portion of the site, but would not
increase the site's development potential or change its appearance.
The office was approved by the Architectural Review Commission in
December 1990 (site plan and minutes attached) .
CONSEQUENCES OP NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the tentative map is denied, the subdivider would not be able
to split the lot into two lots as proposed. This would not affect
previous approvals for the new office, since city standards allow
the second office on the existing lot. The property owner could
still pursue the objective of separate ownership units by applying
for an office condominium subdivision.
DATA SUMMARY
Subdividers/Property Owners: Marc R. and Kathleen E. Johnston j
Representative: Dan Lloyd, Engineering Development Associates i
Zoning: 0 and C/OS-5
General Plan: Office and Conservation/Open Space j
Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Action Deadline: August 30, 1991
Site Description: The site is located at the southeast end of
Grove Street, adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek. It is bounded by
a hotel on the east, houses and offices on the north and northwest,
and San Luis Obispo High School across the creek to the south. The
east portion of the site is undeveloped, and has several mature j
trees, including a 42" diameter Eucalyptus, 24" Live Oak, and j
several small fruit trees. The Oak and Gum trees are to remain;
the fruit trees are to be removed. About one-third of the site is
within the creek floodway, and that portion is zoned
Conservation/Open Space - 5 acre minimum.
EVALUATION
Request for Subdivision Exceptions
Two exceptions are requested: 1) to allow reduced street frontage
widths for Parcels 1 and 2 ; and 2) to allow a narrower accessway
for Parcel 1 than would normally be allowed.
Reduced Street Frontage
Subdivision Regulations require that the original lot have a street
frontage of at least 40 feet, plus the required 30-foot accessway
width to the rear lot -- a total frontage width of 70 feet. The
existing lot has a street frontage of only 53 feet. With the
uili�indlldll�lllllll11111, IJN city of san L.Ais osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report, MS 91-022
Page 3
proposed lot split, Parcel 1 (the rear lot) and 2 (lot nearest the
street) would both have narrower street frontages than required -
- 22.81 and 30 feet, respectively. The subdivider needs exceptions
to allow a 52 .81-foot wide street frontage where 70 feet is
normally required.
Accesswap Width
I
For deep lot subdivisions, the rear parcel must own a 30-foot wide
strip of land to the street, with a paved driveway at least 24 feet
wide. The tentative map shows the accessway varying in width from
40 to 23 feet, with a 20-foot wide paved driveway. Although both i
the accessway and paved driveway are less than required by
Subdivision Regulations, this design meets city Parking and
Driveway standards which require 20-foot wide driveways for office
uses.
Staff believes this driveway layout will provide safe vehicle i
access, given the constraints of lot shape, size, and existing
development. Exceptions to subdivision design standards seem
warranted since:
i
■ The lot's unusual shape and creekside location narrowly restrict
the available street frontage, and installation of full-width
frontage improvements would encroach into riparian habitat;
I
■ The lot originally met frontage width requirements. However, a
30 ' X 95 ' portion of the Grove Street right-of-way was abandoned
by the City in 1967, making this lot non-conforming in terms of
frontage width. The abandoned portion of the street was within the
San Luis Obispo Creek and existed only as a "paper street" ;
i
■ The existing lot is already non-conforming in terms of frontage
width, and the proposed lot split would not reduce the site's
street frontage or physically change the site's relationship to the
street in any way; and
■ Approval of exceptions would not be detrimental to public health
or safety, and would be consistent with Subdivision Regulations'
intent to provide permanent, safe access to both parcels in a deep
lot subdivision while preserving creek habitat.
Creek Protection
As a condition of previous office approvals, the Johnstons have
granted an irrevocable easement for creek maintenance and
preservation over about one-third of the site's area, and have
granted a 10-foot wide public pedestrian access easement along the
top of creek bank, then linking up with Grove Street. Previous ARC
��������jj��►Illililllij"111113U city of San L..AIS OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report, MS 91-022
Page 4
approvals included landscaping along the _.top of creek bank to_
protect the riparian habitat and prevent erosion.
Parking
The existing office has a gross floor area of about 2700 square
feet, and requires 13 parking spaces. The approved office building
requires 11 parking spaces, for a total parking requirement of 24
spaces. 22 parking spaces are proposed, plus additional bicycle
and motorcycle parking spaces to qualify for a two-space parking
reduction per City standards. As a condition of subdivision
approval, a reciprocal driveway and parking easement would be
required to ensure that both lots have adequate access and parking.
This is a fairly common arrangement for office projects, and is an
appropriate and workable design.
Suitability For Development
When actual buildable area is considered, Parcel 1 is a relatively
small and unusually shaped site for office use. Excluding creek
area and required sideyard setbacks, the parcel ' s actual buildable i
area is about 6700 square feet -- slightly larger than the 6000 sq.
ft. minimum lot area in office zones.
However even when the smaller, buildable lot area is used, the
proposed office building' s coverage (2162 sq. ft. ) is less than the
maximum coverage allowed by city standards. The new office will
cover about 32 percent of the lot's buildable area (11 percent of
the total lot area, including creek area and setbacks) , well below j
city standards which allow offices to cover sixty percent of a j
site.
i
i
Provided that lot coverage is restricted to less than the normal
60 percent coverage allowed by Zoning Regulations for typical
office-zoned lots, and provided that any future development is
designed to "fit" the site's unusual shape, staff feels the lot
split is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the
Subdivision Regulations. To limit the actual buildable area of the
site (in the event the approved office project is not built) , a
building envelope should be designated on Parcel 1 which will limit
the size, location, and intensity of development to approximately
the same area shown in the ARC approved plan (see reduced site
plan, Exhibit D) . This is a sensitive site due to its creek
location, and any other projects or changes to the approved project
require ARC approval to ensure compatibility with the site and its
surroundings.
utilities
Before a new lot is created, it is the city's policy to require
tY f iS OBISp0
Cl O Sd11 �.,�
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report, MS 91-022
Page 5
that the lot be adequately served by water. and sewer mains. The_
mains must be publicly owned, or the private main must be located
and designed to the approval of the City Engineer. The sewer in
Grove Street which serves this property is private. A new 6"
diameter public sewer main is proposed to be extended from the
existing sewer main in Grove Street to the site frontage, and then
extending as a private 4" main to serve the existing and proposed
lots. A new 4" public water main and fire hydrant is also
necessary to meet fire service requirements for the new lot. These
improvements are shown on the tentative map, and are to be
installed by the subdivider, to the approval of the City Engineer.
I
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item with direction to the subdivider on changes
or additional information needed, but not later than the !
regular hearing date of August 20, 1991; or
2 . Deny the subdivision exceptions and tentative map subject to j
the findings listed in the draft resolution, Exhibit "B. "
The subdivider could, as an alternative strategy, submit a
new application for "airspace" office condominiums. This
would eliminate the need for exceptions, since city standards
allow much greater flexibility in the size, shape and layout
of condominium "lots.." However the subdivider prefers to have
conventional ownership lots, and staff feels either approach
is acceptable.
i
RECOMMENDATION j
Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached resolution
approving the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 91-022, including
the requested subdivision exceptions, and subject to the findings
and conditions recommended by the Subdivision Hearing officer.
I
Attachments:
i -Draft Council Resolution, Exhibit "A"
-Draft Council Resolution, Exhibit "B"
-vicinity Map
-Tentative Parcel Map SLO 91-022
-Subdivider' s Statement
-Reduced Site Plan - ARC 90-82 (Exhibit D)
-Initial environmental study ER 21-91.
-Hearing Officer's Action
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. MS 91-022 LOCATED AT 1150 GROVE STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration
of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision No. 91-022 , and the
Community Development Director' s recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are
consistent with the general plan.
2 . The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the 0 zone.
3 . The design of the subdivision 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.
4 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will
not conflict with easements for access through, or use of
property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has evaluated the proposed
subdivision under the California Environmental Quality Act and
the City's Environmental Guidelines, and has granted a
negative declaration with mitigation measures included. Said
measures have been incorporated into the project design.. The
City Council hereby approves the negative declaration with
mitigation measures.
SECTION 2 . Exceptions. Approval of exceptions to the
Subdivision Regulations to allow street frontage width of 52.81
feet where 70 feet is. required; and to allow a 22.81 foot wide
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
accessway with 20 foot wide driveway where 30 foot wide accessway
and 24 foot wide driveway is required, based on the following
findings:
1. Due to the site's unusual shape and creekside location, and
due to the previous partial abandonment of Grove Street, it
is impractical and undesirable to conform to the strict
application of the Subdivision Regulations.
2 . The costto the subdivider of strict or literal compliance
with the standards is not the sole reason for granting the
exceptions.
3 . The exceptions will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the
vicinity.
4 . Granting the exceptions is in accord with the intent and
purpose of the Subdivision Regulations, and is consistent with
the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or
other plans of the city.
SECTION 3 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative
map for Minor Subdivision No. 91-022 be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the City for
review, approval and recordation.
2 . Subdivision Improvement Plans shall show and final map shall
note a building envelope which limits buildable area on Parcel
1 to approximately the same area as approved by the City's
Architectural Review Commission as part of a new office
project (city file number ARC 90-82) , to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
3 . Subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water and utility
services for each parcel, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and Utilities Director. New utilities shall be
underground.
4 . Subdivider shall install a fire hydrant on the Grove Street
frontage near the driveway serving the site, to the
satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal and Public Works
5
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 3
Department staff.
5. Subdivider shall submit a common driveway and parking lot
agreement and final map shall show an easement, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City
Attorney.
SECTION 4 . Code Requirements. The following represent
standard requirements required by various codes, ordinances, and
policies of the City of San Luis Obispo, but are not limited to the
following:
1. Subdivider shall install street trees in accordance with city
standards and to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
2 . Subdivider shall pay water acreage and frontage fees as
determined by the City Engineer, prior to final map approval.
3 . Lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
On motion of seconded by,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1991.
Mayor Ron Dunin
5
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 4
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
APPROVED:
ity A inistrative Officer
C' to ney ,
Community Deve went Director
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTIONS AND DENYING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A
MINOR SUBDIVISION 91-022 AT 1150 GROVE STREET.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. That this council, after consideration of public
testimony, the minor subdivision request MS 91-022, the Hearing
Officer's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon, hereby
denies Tentative Parcel Map SLO 91-022 (City application number MS
91-022) subject to these findings:
Findings:
1. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed improvements
are not consistent with the General Plan.
2. The site is not physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the 0 zone.
3 . The design of the minor subdivision is not consistent with
Subdivision Regulations requiring the original lot to have a
street frontage .width of 70 feet; or the requirement that the
rear lot own a 30-foot wide accessway to the public street in
fee.
4. The requested exceptions are not necessary to reasonably
develop the property, since the property could be developed
with an additional office building as proposed under the
City's condominium development standards
On motion of seconded by
and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this
day of , 1991.
Council Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
Pam Voges, City Clerk
* * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVED:
ty A in strat ve officer
1 tq ne
Commun ty De a opment Director
5�
� I
c+
Y
%♦ / �p �O p40 lo 1
%GI/ �• �' / p p
�!/ /� ♦.�. p orb; LL.
th
60
A / !
{
s
.M1ti• %
� � o
v
i
U.•'
r✓' .>
e`C a �'� V ,^.. �a I kyr+,•
1
J / I
1
jadd s :\�
gjs
Ln t
n
%
T
� N3 €o
CD
�_! .+L_/ �._�• C-0•.
IIS
m
OL
RU
3+'
T
Ii ��� .- � '••�. ' '. � oma '
3a e a e
�E= MSl Lit IJJ
�=
a g
N 7 4n p> ;• ON O
'2..t c • :3o n 0 Co N CD
IL n Ll C O C .
om n o O wC � v ^
_ C 7 O
CD c A O 7 ff
�ur 3 n� rte. CDC1 CL SS
10 C-
CD
m 2 ►tis I ^ _. w 0 -Z -/
.s D u L1 /
g Q `� n o '"
H eo � R r"J cn
i S4T
OS O N e
� � »3
� i ;_ \ ice) \1 � , � 4•
HIX3
X .4 C.\CD
. �.
cn
CS
O i R I tt •�
�- �. 111; � , i � �� • •\^��i ' � —�
CD
Ulf
co
cri
O `
=I �
m
rrn
Z ual• i
•r � s 401s• � .� •` , . 51
K
EDA
ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES
May 21, 1991
Jeff Hook
Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Minor Subdivision MS 91-22, 1150 Grove Street
Developers Statement and Request for Exception to Subdivision
Regulations
Dear Jeff:
The property is presently split by two zonings; office (0) , for the
portion above the creek area, and conservation open space (C/OS) ,
for the portion within the creek area itself. This application
proposes no change in the zoning or the land use.
This lot split anticipates the development of a new office
structure and related parking. The office and site plan was
approved through the ARC and, as such, received all necessary
approvals to begin working drawings. In conjunction with this
project, there will be extension of city water and sewer service
to serve the new structure as well as provide fire sprinkler
protection for the new building. There will be improvements to
the landscaping and the trash enclosure will be relocated to
accommodate an additional parking space in front of the existing
building. Electrical service will be provided by adjacent overhead
facilities on the northwesterly boundary of the property.
Construction of this new structure is scheduled to begin in the
spring of 1992 and will be completed by late summer. All public
improvements needed in conjunction with the map will be installed
during this same time frame.
The proposed parcel layout requires the granting of an exception
to subdivision regulations. Specifically, Section 16. 36. 160
(Minimum Frontage) and Section 16. 36. 230 (Deep Lot Subdivision)
S00 �r
ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
1320 NIPOMO ST. ■ SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ■ 805-549-8658 ■ FAX 805-549-8704
744 - B OAK ST. ■ PASO R0BLES . CA 93446 ■ 805-237-1033 ■ FAX 805-237-3797
Jeff Hook
May 21, 1991
Page 2
establish two criteria that this subdivision cannot meet. The
following discussion establishes our rationale for the requested
exceptions.
Section 16.36.160 establishes a minimum lot frontage of 40 feet for
all new land divisions. The present underlying parcel has 52 .81
feet of frontage, however, only 22 .81 feet is directly accessible
to the street frontage of Grove Street. The additional 30 feet is
at the end of Grove Street and is not suitable for access. As a
result of dedicating an extensive area of this property to the city
as open space, we are not able to take access from what was
formerly the extension of Grove Street. In essence, the dedication
of open space has precluded our ability to have more frontage on
the public street. Considering that the development of this parcel
has received ARC approval, it would seem that all applicable
regulations pertaining to emergency vehicle access have been met.
This exception does not result in smaller than required lot size
or compromise access to the parcel. In conclusion, the unique
shape of this parcel in conjunction with the past dedication of
open space and abandonment of the Grove Street extension for that
open space, creates an impractical and undesirable alternative for
access.
Section 16. 36.230 establishes minimum access widths for new
parcels. The minimum accessway for this parcel is required to be
30 feet with a paved roadway at least 24 feet wide. We are
requesting that an exception be made to allow us to use the
existing paved accessway that was approved under the ARC review.
We understand the primary benefit of the larger width would be for
emergency vehicle access in the event of an emergency. In response
to concerns raised by the fire department during the review
process, the addition of building sprinklers mitigated the concern
regarding the access width. The drive aisles behind the parking
spaces are 24 feet wide; however, the existing sidewalk and planter
area adjacent to the landscaping has a section of improvements that
reduce the aisle width to 20 feet for a distance of approximately
25 feet.
In order to facilitate access and parking for the proposed parcels,
reciprocal parking, access, and utility easements will need to be
prepared. Parcel 1 will provide access and parking for parcel 2.
Parcel 2 will provide a parking easement in favor of parcel 1.
The parcels, while owned separately, will be utilized as if the
parking were accessible and useable by all patrons of the
facilities. Considering that the existing building on parcel 2 is
provided utility service over a portion of parcel 1, the easement
ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING ■ PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
1320 NIPOMO ST. ■ SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ■ 805-549-8658 ■ FAX 805-549-8.704
744 - B OAK ST. ■ PASO ROBLES , CA 93446 a 805-237-1033 ■ FAX 805-237-3797
Jeff Hook
May 21, 1991
Page 3
in favor of parcel over parcel 1 will include the use of parcel 1
for the provision of utilities. Parcel 1, on the other hand, does
not require use of parcel 2 for the provision of any utilities
serving its function. A sample easement agreement is provided for
your review.
In summary, this project proposes to create a separate parcel for
the existing office structure and the approved new office building.
Significant site improvements will be constructed in order to
accommodate the two structures and provision of city utilities will
need to be constructed in order to serve the new building. The
exception request is necessary due to the physical limitations
existing relative to access to the parcel. Past dedications
accomplished in conjunction with the road abandonment have limited
the access corridor to this property.
If you desire further clarification or need additional information,
please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES
Daniel R. Lloyd
8972B\728ROOK1.LTR r
ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING ■ PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
1320 NIPOMO ST. ■ SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 ■ '805-549-8658 ■ FAX 805-549-8704
744 - B OAK ST. ■ PASO ROBLES , CA 93446 ■ 805-237-1033 ■ FAX 805-237-3797
city o� San tins OBlspo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1150 Grove Street APPUCATION NO. EP 21-91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Reouest to divide one lot into ttlo lots, on a site adjacent to San Luis
Obispo Creel:, in the 0 and C/OS-5 zones. itinor Subdivision "IS 91-022
APPLICANT !iarc .n.. and Katheleen E. Menard Johnston
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY D ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Jeff sociate Planner DATE 5//28/91
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI ECTOR'S ACTION: tle \ DATE
ILA� -PL
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... NT one*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH............................................. `Imp
C. LAND USE ........................................................................ �Tan P
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ................................................ 'gnrne
E. PUBUCSERVICES ................................................................ 'Inne
F. UTIUTIES.................. ................................._tiavbey
• G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................... (One
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ..................... �Zon,—
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... 110np
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ............... 'T `
K. PLANT UFE...................................................................... 'IonP
LANIMAL LIFE.................................................................... `InnP
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ........... Maybe*
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... �Jnne
O. ENERGWRESOURCE USE .......................................................... `!nnP
P. OTHER ............................................................ ..........
1.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
?Litigated 'legative Declaration q
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT 5
Initial Study, ER 21-91
Page 2
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The subdivider has submitted a tentative parcel map to split an existing 39,000 square
foot lot with an existing chiropractic office. The map would create two lots of
approximately 19,500 square feet each, with the existing office on Parcel 2, adjacent to
Grove Street. The lot split is in anticipation of a new two-story, 2300 square foot office
being built on the site (ARC 90-82). Shared driveway access and parking are proposed
as part of the subdivision. Since the .tentative map does not meet the City's minimum
frontage and access width requirements for deep lot subdivisions, the subdivider requests
an exception from the City Council (subdivider's statement attached).
The site is located at the southeast end- of Grove Street, adjacent to San Luis Obispo
Creek. It is bounded by a hotel on the east, houses and offices on the north and
northwest, and San Luis Obispo High School across the creek to the south. The east
portion of the site is undeveloped, and has several mature trees, including a 42" diameter
Eucalyptus, 24" Live Oak, and several small fruit trees. The Oak and Gum trees are to
remain; the fruit trees are to be. removed. About one-third of the site is within the
creek floodway, and that portion is zoned Conservation/Open Space - 5 acre minimum
A similar subdivision request was reviewed and granted a negative declaration in
November, 1989 (ER 64-89).
II. POTENTL41 IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals: The City's Subdivision Regulations require that lots
in the O zone have a street frontage of at least 40 feet. The existing lot has a street
frontage of 53 feet, and due to. the lot's shape and creekside location, most of that is
adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek.
According to the city's subdivision regulations, the rear lot must have 20 feet of street
frontage. The front lot must have a street frontage of 40 feet, for a total street frontage
of 60 feet. As proposed, the rear lot would have a street frontage of 22.81 feet, and the
front lot would have a street frontage of 30 feet.
For deep lot subdivisions, City standards also require that the rearmost lot have a 30-
foot wide accessway to the rear lot, with a paved roadway of at least 24 feet. The
subdivider requests an exception to this standard to allow the existing accessway, which
varies in width from 20 to 24 feet, to remain. Since the proposed lot split does not meet
the above subdivision standards, the subdivider needs subdivision exceptions from the City
Council to proceed with the lot split.
Significant Impact: None
Recommendation: The subdivider shall secure City Council approval for an exception
to the Subdivision Regulations to allow creation of a deep lot without the required street
frontage.
L�
Initial Study, ER 21-91
Page 3
F. Utilities
Sewer Main
Before a new lot is created, it is the city's policy to require that the lot be adequately
served by water and sewer mains. The mains must be publicly owned, or the private
main must be located and designed to the approval of the City Engineer. The sewer in
Grove Street which serves this property is private. A new sewer main is required to be
installed in Grove Street to serve this property, unless the city accepts the existing sewer
as a public main. More information is needed to determine whether the existing main
can meet city standards, and city engineering staff is pursuing this.
Water
Demand for city water currently exceeds the safe yield of supplies. The city has
responded by adopting measures to restrict water use and development. The council has
initiated amendments to further limit allocation of water to development, so a balance
between safe yield and normal demand can be reached sooner as new water sources are
developed. These measures would apply to any further development or change of use
on any of these sites, and will mitigate potential water-use impacts. Approval of the lot
split would increase future potential water demand by an estimated 127 acre feet per
year if developed with offices, based on the city's Water Use Factors.
To receive an allocation, the owner of the new lot would need to provide water offsets
through retrofitting prior to receiving permits for any new construction water supply.
These measures are adequate to mitigate the effects of increased water demand, and no
significant impacts are likely as a result of the lot split.
Water Main
Based on preliminary study, the Fire and Utilities Department believe that the nearest
existing fire hydrant and water main is not adequate to serve new development on this
lot. To mitigate potential public safety and utility impacts, the subdivider should analyze
existing utilities, and install a new fire hydrant and connecting water service main if
necessary.
Significant Impact: Maybe
Recommendation: The subdivider shall submit additional information on size, location,
design, and condition of the nearest existing fire hydrant, water and sewer mains, to the
approval of the City Engineer. If the City Engineer determines that the sewer cannot
be accepted as a public main, the subdivider shall install a new sewer main in Grove
Street between the site and Higuera Street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If
5 �aa.
Initial Study, ER 21-91
Page 4
the nearest fire hydrant and connecting water main does not meet city standards,
subdivider shall install a new fire hydrant and connecting water service main,. to the
approval of the Fire Marshal and the Utilities Director.
H. Geologic and Seismic Hazards and Topographic Modifications: The city's Seismic
Safety Element indicates that this site is located in a zone of high liquefaction/settlement
potential. Recent alluvium underlies the site, and before the site can be developed,
engineering geology and soils studies should be done to evaluate seismic hazards. If the
site is developed, special site planning and construction measures may be required. The
studies and recommended mitigation measures would be required as part of the
environmental study for any new development on the site, and no geologic or topographic
impacts are anticipated from the lot split.
Significant Impact: None
J. Surface Water Flow and Quality: San Luis Obispo Creek crosses the site, and any
development is likely to increase surface runoff and sedimentation in the creek. The lot
split will not cause any physical changes to the site. When grading, paving or new
development is proposed, further environmental study will be required. Special drainage
and erosion control measures were required as part of previous architectural review
approvals (ARC 90-82) with construction of the new office building, whether or not the
lot split is approved.
Significant Impact: None
M. Archaeological/Historical: Creekside sites merit special archaeological interest, since
they were often used by the Chumash Indians for hunting or fishing camps.
Archaeological site maps prepared for the city show the entire San Luis Obispo creek
corridor as having a high potential for archaeological resources. The lot split alone will
not affect cultural resources. However, to the extent that it accommodates the planned
office project, the subdivider shall conduct a surface archaeological survey to the approval
of the Community Development Director, prior to any development of parcel 1. If
surface evidence of cultural resources exists, more exhaustive investigation and/or
preservation measures may be required to mitigate development impacts.
Significant Impact: Maybe
Recommendation: A qualified archaeologist will perform a preliminary surface
reconnaissance to determine if archaeological resources exist, and instruct the project's
construction contractors in how to recognize resources that my be encountered. If the
reconnaissance or excavations encounter archaeological resources, construction activities
which may affect them shall cease. The Community Development Director shall be
notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded
by a qualified archaeologist. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal
laws. A note concerning-this requirement shall be included on the final map and on
Initial Study, ER 21-91
Page 5
construction plans for the project.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Grant a negative declaration, subject to the following measures being included in the
project:
1. Subdivider shall comply with subdivision requirements for frontage width
and lot access, or secure exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations to allow
the lot split as proposed.
2. The subdivider shall submit additional information on size, location, design,
and condition of the nearest existing fire hydrant, water and sewer mains,
to the approval of the City Engineer prior to final map approval. If the
City Engineer determines that the sewer cannot be accepted as a public
main, the subdivider shall install a new sewer main in Grove Street between
the site and Higuera Street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If the
nearest fire hydrant and connecting water main does not meet city
standards, subdivider shall install a new fire hydrant and connecting water
service main, to the approval of the Fire Marshal and the Utilities Director.
3. A qualified archaeologist will perform a preliminary surface reconnaissance
to determine if archaeological resources exist, and instruct the project's
construction contractors in how to recognize resources that my be
encountered. If the reconnaissance or excavations encounter archaeological
resources, construction activities which may affect them shall cease. The
Community Development Director shall be notified. of the extent and
location of discovered materials so that they may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal
laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the final
map and on construction plans for the project.
4. If the Community Development Director determines that the above
mitigation measures are either infeasible or ineffective, the Director may
modify the measures or.add additional measures to better achieve the intent
of the original mitigation.
Attachments: Vicinity Map, Tentative Parcel Map SLO 91-022, subdivider's statement.
00
5
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY JUNE 7, 1991
1150 Grove Street .Minor Subdivision No. 91-022; Consideration of a tentative parcel
map creating two lots from one lot with exceptions to subdivision
standards;O zone; Marc and Kathleen Menard Johnston,subdividers.
Jeff Hook presented the staff report, noting that the city reviewed a similar minor
subdivision proposal on this site in 1989. This is a request, to split a large creekside
parcel into two smaller parcels to allow the development of a new medical office building.
He noted there is a medical office on the site presently. He recommended that the
hearing officer recommend to the City Council, approval of the request, including
exceptions for street frontage and accessway width, and approval of the tentative map,
based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined.
Mr. Hook noted that staff had concerns with the previous lot split proposal because of
the suitability of the new lot for development; mainly the issue was whether or not an
office building could be developed with all the limitations this site has such as creek
location and creek bank which limits the buildable area of the lot. Mr. Hook explained that
since the denial of the previous request, the city's Architectural Review Commission has
approved a new 2300 square foot medical office building on the proposed new parcel 1.
He said the new office is proposed to be single-story, small scale and complies with the
city's Zoning Regulations. Hence, staff's main concern about suitability of the site for
additional development has been addressed. He further noted that the only significant
change to staff's recommended action is that there be a building envelope line established
as part of the map process, which in the future would.limit the area of any building to be
built on the new lot. Otherwise, the subdivider has already granted open space and
maintenance easements in the creek area, as well as a pedestrian access easement that
is 10 feet wide, running along the top of the creek bank for the majority of the length of
the property.
Mr. Hook clarified the two exceptions being requested. The first is to allow less street
frontage than would normally be required. As proposed, Parcels 1 and 2 would have
street frontgages of about 23 and 30 feet respectively. Normally these frontages would
need to be a minimum of 40 feet. One of the difficulties in meeting this requirement is the
fact that Grove Street, which once extended along the entire frontage of this property, was
partially abandoned by the city, due to its proximity to the creek area. When the
abandonment occurred, the difficulty in meeting city standards for frontage was created.
Had it not been for the abandonment, this parcel, as well as the proposed new parcel,
would have been conforming in terms of street frontage.
The other exception is to allow a narrow accessway to serve the rear parcel; normally a
30-foot accessway width is required with a 24-foot paved section. In this case, Mr. Hook
explained the subdivider is proposing a 22-foot to 24-foot accessway. Mr. Hook said staff
feels that no public health, safety or welfare problems would result from the propoed lot
split.
Subdivision Hearing Minutes
June 7, 1991
Page 2
Ken Bruce asked if the:proposed site planning, including the new building and parking
layout, is the same as what the Architectural Review Commission approved, and is it
shown on the map as approved? Jeff Hook responded that it was.
Ken Bruce noted that, in putting in the new building and parking, and revising what is
presently there as part of the new project, part of the approvals required some
easements. He asked if those easements which were approved as part of the use permit
process are the same easements as those now shown on this map, and are those
easements already in place or are they proposed? e _ T.
Jeff Hook responded that the easements shown on-ttze map-for open space, creek
maintenance and preservation and for pedestrian access havebeen-secured as part of
previous approvals. However, he noted that this map:also-proposes..that there be a
reciprocal access and parking easement to serve the lots, which would be required as
part of this map approval. _ =i
Ken Bruce thought he remembered that one easement along the creek followed very
closely to the edge .of the parking lot all the way over to the existing building. He also
noted that much of the parcel sizes, both existing and-proposed, are non-buildable lot
areas (creek area). He asked Mr. Hook what the usable lot area would be for both of the
proposed new parcels.
Jeff Hook noted that Parcel 1 has an actual buildable--area (the area outside of top of
bank, not within creek) of approximately 6700 square feet. The buildable area for Parcel
2 where there is an existing office building is approximately 6600 square feet.
Ken Bruce asked if the top of bank definition includes the easement already in place. Jeff
Hook responded that buildable area was based on the physical top of bank of the creek,
and was not affected by easements. .
The public hearing was opened. y-
Dan t-loyd, subdivider's representative, spoke in support of the.-request., He noted this is
his second time before the Hearing Officer for this property., and:he felt,he had followed
staff s former recommendation of bringing back a specific development project on the site.
He said he has gone to great lengths to facilitate the best possible access, utility
extensions as well as parking and circulation to serve each parcel. He said he too feels
that perhaps a 10-foot pedestrian easement has not been provided ten feet back from the
top of bank, as shown on the map, as was Mr. Bruce's earlier concern.
Jeff Hook clarified that an easement was dedicated through the administrative use permit
process.
5
. a �
Subdivision Hearing Minutes
June 7, 1991
Page 3
Dan Lloyd said he supports staffs recommendation, and concurs with the proposed
conditions of approval. He said that because of the uniqueness of the site and the
adequacy of access, as well as the prior approvals, warrant approval of the request as
submitted.
Ken Bruce asked why the subdivider feels this project is better than the previously
proposed condominium project?
Dan Lloyd explained that the Department of Real Estate does not get involved with
commercial condominiums. He said he felt that the function and use of the two separate
buildings applies to two separate owners. He felt that with two units there is no real
conjunctive benefit beyond maintenance of the accessway for the purpose of each parcel
and their patrons, and that a condominium agreement between the two of them to jointly
maintain each others facilities would not be as prudent or potentially successful as two
separate owners with fee title, taking care of their own property. He also felt that because
of the idea that there are only two owners, the relationship to get them to participate in
a fund for common maintenance would not be as effective as an easement agreement for
maintenance of those common use facilities. He said that private ownership of the
individual structures would probably serve the community better from the standpoint that
the owners would be more involved and interested in maintaining their unit if they didn't
have to coordinate amongst themselves with the maintenance of exterior painting or
landscaping. He felt that functionally they will look the same; emotionally they feel better
if they are separate. From a tax basis, the city would get more in terms of tax revenue
than they would from a condominium and open space area.
Ken Bruce explained that in the last year or so, he has had many conversations with many
financial institutions as well as developers and, right now, it is very difficult to obtain
construction loans or any type of financing arrangement. Apparently the only types of
loans available are for property where the building will be on its own lot and owner
occupied or proposed to be owner occupied.
Dan Lloyd also stated that the subdivider does not have to segregate the parcels in order
to secure financing to construct the second unit. This is not an economic consideration,
but a long-term maintenance consideration. He also noted that the subdivider wishes to
move into the new facility because the existing facility is larger than he presently needs.
He also noted that previously, when the remodel was undertaken for the existing
structure, utilities or utility lines were installed and there was discussion with the city at that
time regarding future construction on the back of the parcel.
Dan Lloyd mentioned previous conversations regarding the suitability of development or
parcelization of this property in the past, and urged the Hearing Officer to view this as a
subdivision based on how it will function with or without subdivision.
5
a5
Subdivision Hearing Minutes
June 7, 1991
Page 4
Menzie Cliff, 1592 Higuera Street, spoke in opposition to the.-request. He noted that this
area is very congested already, and has serious concerns about safety, access and
parking. He explained that the cul-de-sac (1600 block of Grove Street) has cars parked
solidly on a regular basis, and children ride their bicycles in the area of Dr. Johnston's lot
and Dr. Renning's lot. He said he has called the police on several occasions because of
people running the stop sign at 40-50 miles per hour since this is an access route
bypassing California Boulevard and Johnson Avenue. He mentioned that if.nothing else,
it is essential that another stop sign be located there.
Mr. Cliff explained that one reason for the congestion in this area is because two street
cul-de-sacs end here. He also remembered when Quality Suites went up and the
neighbors were of the understanding that there would be access to the creek, then a wall
went up and there was no access to the creek. He noted his relief that this request
involves a pedestrian pathway. He strongly expressed his opposition to condominiums
because of access and parking issues.
Jeff Hook clarified that the request being discussed today is a request to split a lot. He
noted there had already been architectural approval to build a single-story, 2300 square
foot office on the vacant property, and that whether or not Dr. Johnston splits this lot will
not prevent the building of the structure. The two offices together will. provide enough
parking on-site to meet the city's requirements for on-site off-street parking, and will
provide driveway access as well. The issue is how the property is owned and how it will
be divided; The lot split would not affect the intensity of development, the number of
spaces or the amount of traffic generated.
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce explained that he is taking this item under submission, which means he has
an additional ten days to render a decision. He felt he would probably recommend the
council approve the subdivision, but wanted more time to evaluate all the issues, as well
as determining appropriate findings and conditions. He further explained that his decision
will be a recommendation to the City Council, and will be heard on July 16.
On June 11, 1991, Ken Bruce recommended the City Council approve the tentative map
for MS 91-022, based on the following:
Findings
1. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the
general plan.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the
O zone.
3. The design of the subdivision 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.
5 �
Subdivision Hearing Minutes
June 7, 1991
Page 5
4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with
easements for access through, or use of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has evaluated the proposed subdivision
under the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental
Guidelines, and has granted a negative declaration with mitigation measures
included. Said measures have been incorporated into the project design.
Exceptions
Approval of exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations to allow street frontage width of
52.81 feet where 90 feet is required; and to. allow a 22.81 foot wide accessway with 20
foot wide driveway where 30 foot wide accessway and 24 foot wide driveway is required,
based on the following findings:
1. Due to the site's unusual shape and creekside location, and due to the previous
partial abandonment of Grove Street, it is impractical and undesirable to conform
to the strict application of the Subdivision Regulations.
2. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the standards is not
the sole reason for granting the exceptions.
3. The exceptions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
4. Granting the exceptions is in accord with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision
-Regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific
plans or other plans of the city.
Conditions
1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the City for review, approval and
recordation.
2. Subdivision Improvement Plans shall show and final map shall note a building
envelope which limits buildable area on Parcel 1 to approximately the same area
as approved by the City's Architectural Review Commission as part of a new office
project (city file number ARC 90-82), to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
3. Subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water and utility services for each parcel,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Director. New utilities shall be
underground.
5
Subdivision Hearing Minutes
June 7, 1991
Page 6
4. Subdivider shall install a fire hydrant on the Grove Street frontage near the driveway
serving the site, to the satisfaction of the City Fre Marshal and Public Works
Department staff.
5. Subdivider shall submit a common driveway and parking lot agreement and final
map shall show an easement, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
Code Requirements
1. Subdivider shall install street trees in accordance with city standards and to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist.
2. Subdivider shall pay water acreage and frontage fees as determined by the City
Engineer, prior to final map approval.
3. Lot comers shall be staked by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.
r