HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/1989, 1 - APPEAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVED BY THE SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER ALLOWING SUBDIVISION OF ONE Original Agenda Rep from May 2, 1989 Council meet'
ISI p�� IMEETING DATE:
Illh�� =l�,l city O f Sa n 1 uI S OBI SPO 5/16/89
MInGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT I NUMBER
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared By: Greg Smith
SUBJECT: Appeal of minor subdivision approved by the Subdivision Hearing Officer
allowing subdivision of one lot into two lots on the north side of Royal
Way, west of Los Osos Valley Road.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Deny.the appeal, and approve the minor subdivision subject to the findings and
conditions adopted by the Subdivision Hearing Officer.
DISCUSSION:
The Subdivision Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on the minor subdivision on
March 31, 1989. Various neighbors testified against the project, and a petition opposing
it was submitted. The hearing officer approved the subdivision subject to findings and
conditions noted in the attachments, and on April 6 an appeal was filed.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS:
A negative declaration has been approved for the project. No significant fiscal or other
impacts are expected.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the council upholds the appeal, the proposed minor subdivision may be denied or
modified to create two lots rather than three. The subdivider or future owners may or
may not decide to remodel or demolish the existing house. Zoning Regulations would allow
two additional houses to be built on the existing lot if an administrative use permit
were approved, although it is questionable whether such a permit would be approved
subsequent to denial of the subdivision.
j
I111111111111M)lcity of San suis OBISPO
All� COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Data Summary
Address: 1550 Royal Way
Subdividers/Owners: Patrick Meissner
Representative: Robert C. Tartaglia
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low density residential
Environmental Status: Negative declaration approved by Director.
Action Deadline: May 18, 1989
Site Description
21,400 square-foot irregular lot with 184' frontage on Royal Way. The site is developed
with a wood frame house built in 1960 and two small sheds. The site is fairly flat,
although a portion of the site is depressed several feet, and drains away from the
street. The depressed area corresponds to the former course of Prefumo Creek, which was
re-routed in the 1960's. Numerous large mature trees are located on the site. With the
possible exception of a sycamore near the northwest corner of the site, all appear to
have been planted within the last 30 to 40 years. The lot is surrounded by other single
family residences, with apartments across the street.
EVALUATION
The proposed tentative map proposes splitting the existing lot into three lots which
would all meet minimum standards for the R-1 zone. The existing house on the site would
be demolished. Demolition would be subject to the approval of the Architectural Review
Commission, but staff is not aware of any notable architectural or historic significance
to the structure (see below).
Staff suggests the council review the issues outlined below in determining whether to
approve the subdivision. The letter of appeal and an earlier petition opposing the
subdivision are attached for council reference, as are the Hearing Officer's conditions
of approval and the minutes of the March 31 Subdivision Review Hearing.
1. General Plan Policies
The Land Use Element encourages infill development at efficient density, consistent with
the existing character of the neighborhood (Land Use Element page 9 and 12, attached).
The Housing Element indicates city policy is for new housing construction to keep pace
with enrollment and employment growth and help reduce commuting (Housing Element, page
7).
I
1111 iwiliq pwip city of San `Luis OBlspo --
=08a7a COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
2. Comnliance with Ordinance Standards
The proposed subdivision complies with minimum standards for subdivision •in the R-1 zone,
as indicated in the following table. The lots are also compared with the "Neighborhood
Average", which was calculated using data from 16 lots in the surrounding R-1 subdivision
(Tract 408, approved in 1971; cul-de-sac lots are excluded from the calculations, since
they have unusually narrow frontages).
Avg.
Area Width Frontage
Min. Requirement 6,000 sf 50' 20'
Proposed Lot I 6,067 sf 54' 66'
Lot 2 7,235 sf 52' 59'
Lot 3 8,094 sf 52' 59'
Project Avg. 7,132 sf 53' 61'
Neighborhood Avg. 6,386 sf 61' 66'
Note that the proposed lots are larger than the neighborhood average, although average
widths and frontages are narrower. The existing lots which front on Royal Way (Lots 1-4)
are smaller (avg. 6150 sf) than either the proposed subdivision or the neighborhood
average, but have wider frontages (avg. 76').
3. Traffic Volume and Safety
Studies based on surveys in numerous locations in the country indicate that a single
detached residence generates between 4 and 21 "trip ends" per day. (A single round trip -
leaving and returning to the residence - generates two trip ends). Most studies indicate
trip generation rates in the range of 6 to 14 trip ends per day, and engineering estimates
an average of ten trip ends per new residence. The proposed subdivision would thus result
in only twenty additional trips per day on Royal Way and Los Osos Valley Road.
With an existing traffic volume of 1270 vehicles per day in this block of Royal Way, this
subdivision and others approved at the westerly end of Royal Way (including four new units
outside the city limits) would result in an ultimate traffic volume of approximately 1690
vehicles per day. While this would be a 30% increase in traffic volume, it is still about
half the volume found on residential collectors such as Murray, Oceanaire, or Southwood
Streets. The volume would be roughly 15% lower than on San Luis Drive east of the
California Blvd intersection.
No speed studies have been done for this area, but sight distances are more than adequate
for the existing speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Trimming of shrubs and low tree
branches to meet city standards would improve sight distances further. Police Department
records show only one reported accident on Royal Way in the past five years; that incident
involved a drunken driver who collided with a parked car.
No impact from additional traffic will be discernible: at the Royal Way/Los.Osos Valley
Road intersection, either from this project or from cumulative impacts of all new Royal l�3
������„��►allailpn � `� city of san'Luis ogispo
AlWaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
One of the conditions of approval adopted by the Hearing Officer requires garages and
driveways on the new lots to be built in such a way that cars can enter Royal Way in a
forward direction, in order to further mitigate any concerns about sight distance
problems. Neighbors have expressed concern that such a condition would result in
horseshoe driveways and extensive front yard paving.
Lots 1 and 2 could easily meet this requirement by providing side-entry garages similar to
those found in various R-1 neighborhoods throughout the city. Meeting the requirement
could be more difficult for Lot 3, but several options are feasible:
A. Build the garage and turnaround toward the rear of the lot, behind the existing
trees and/or behind the new house.
B. Adjust the lot line to make Lot 3 slightly wider at the front; this would not
affect the feasibility of meeting the exiting requirement for Lot 2.
C. Provide a common driveway between Lots 2 and 3. Staff would note that common
driveways in R-1 zones have proven unpopular with developers because of
anticipated conflicts between driveway users.
D. Allow removal of one or two trees near the east property line.
Staff would also note that horseshoe driveways would require an exception to the City's
Parking and Driveway Standards, and would not likely be approved if the council indicates
opposition to the concept.
4. Other Issues
The letter of appeal cites several areas where the proposed project will contribute to
development which will be incompatible with desirable neighborhood growth patterns:
A. Tree removals. In staff's judgement, all major trees on the site can be saved
without unusual site planning measures or development costs. Perhaps half a
dozen of the smaller fruit trees and shrubs on the site would likely be removed.
A two-lot subdivision, as proposed by the appellant, might facilitate
preservation of several of these smaller trees.
B. Construction of Incompatible Houses, Rental Use. The sight is in a neighborhood
where one-story houses predominate, with floor areas of 1500 to 2000 square
feet. In staff's experience, new houses in infill subdivisions tend to be
slightly larger than those surrounding them, and two-story houses are not
uncommon. Staff believes that property values are unlikely to decrease as a
result of development of this site, and may increase slightly.
Any proposed development which the Community Development Director determines is
incompatible with the scale or character of neighboring structures will be
subject to architectural review. The council may also adopt a condition of i
approval for the subdivision requiring ARC review of any development on the lots.
r
Staff has no data to indicate whether new houses are more or less likely to J
become rentals than existing ones. There is no city policy or regulation
city of san Luis oBispo
MOGA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
C. Water Availability. Construction of homes on new lots will be subject to water
allocation regulations, as on any other lot in the city. One house would be
allowed to replace the existing one; additional houses would have to provide 2:1
water savings by retrofitting existing units or wait until new allocations are
made by the council, after mandatory conservation is terminated.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
As noted above, neighbors testified in opposition to the proposed subdivision at the
previous hearing. Minutes are attached.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may approve or deny the tentative map for the proposed minor subdivisions.
Specific findings are required for approval or denial by state and city subdivision
regulations, as reflected in the attached draft resolutions. The draft resolution for
approval reflects the findings and conditions as approved by the Subdivision Hearing
Officer. The council may also adopt new or modified conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the council adopt the attached resolution approving the tentative
- map for Minor Subdivision 88-184, subject to the findings and conditions approved by the
Subdivision Hearing Officer.
If the council believes they are appropriate, the appeal may be upheld in part, and one or
both of the following conditions added to the resolution approving the subdivision:
1. Lot 3 shall be widened at the street frontage to accommodate vehicles exiting to
the street in a forward direction, in accordance with city Parking and Driveway
Standards and Subdivision Lot Dimension requirements, and to the approval of the
Community Development Director.
2. All lots shall be designated sensitive sites, subject to review by the
Architectural Review Commission.
If the council favors a two-lot subdivision, as suggested by the appellant, staff
recommends the council deny this tentative map application and direct the subdivider to
file a new application:
Draft Resolutions
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Tentative map
Appeal
Petition (3/22)
Minutes - 3/31 Subdivision Hearing
General Plan Excerpts
Engineering Staff Traffic Memo
gts4:ms8907cc
i
t
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER'S
ACTION TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION 89-07 LOCATED AT 1550 ROYAL WAY
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Hearing Officer approved the tentative map for Minor
Subdivision 89-07 at a public hearing on March 31, 1989; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1989, appellant filed an appeal requesting that the council deny
the tentative map; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo denies the appeal and takes
an action to approve the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 88-184, subject to the
— following findings and conditions:
SECTION 1. Findings
1. The design of the minor 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
R-I zone.
3. The design of the minor 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 minor subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with
easement for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed minor subdivision
will not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative
declaration.
i 1
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Minor Subdivision 89-07
Page 2
SECTION 2. Conditions.
I. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval and recordation.
2. Final map shall note that all existing trees 12 inches in diameter or larger shall be
preserved. Said trees shall be safety pruned to the satisfaction of the City Arborist
prior to final map approval.
3. The existing house and accessory structures shall be removed prior to final map
approval. Request to demolish the existing house must be approved by the city
Architectural Review Commission.
4. Final map shall note that all new driveways serving the parcels shall be designed to
accommodate vehicles exiting in a forward direction onto Royal Way, in accordance with
city Parking and Driveway Standards, and to the approval of the Community Development
Director.
SECTION 3. Code Reouirements. That 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. Existing -�
trees may qualify as street trees, as determined by the. City Arborist.
2. Subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water, and utility services to all
parcels. New utilities shall be underground.
3. Subdivider shall pay water acreage and frontage fees, as determined by the City
Engineer, prior to final map approval.
4. Subdivider shall pay park-in-lieu fees for two parcels, prior to final map approval.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
Minor Subdivision 89-07
Page 3
The foregoing document was passed and adopted this _ day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
`..City Adm`utistrative Officer
City Attorne
Community Development Director
s
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER'S
ACTION TO APPROVE THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION 89-07 LOCATED AT 1550 ROYAL WAY
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Hearing Officer approved the tentative map for Minor
Subdivision 89-07 at a public hearing on March 31, 1989; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1989, appellant filed an appeal requesting that the council deny
the tentative map; and
WHEREAS, on May 2, 1989, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council of the City of San Luis Obispo upholds the appeal and
takes an action to deny the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 89-07, subject to the
following finding:
1. The design of the minor subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Element Policies calling for development consistent with the existing character of the
neighborhood.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing document was passed and adopted this _ day of 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1
f
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
' Minor Subdivision 89-07
Page 2
APPROVED:
`r
City A 'inistrative Officer
City Attorn
eX
Community Development Director
NO
Ow
PF R-3
%
OOo
Q y,
O� '�f i�*i
o coC 3 (4� tf
. ........
................
. .... ... ......
........ ..
..........
-17-R WAY
. Q 00 ,J �C%
'� � o � 00 � �` � ��
R-3
O O
=100'
, .; O Flo
0
^� O
F-17-L F 1L3-i-
i I
� b � W
J
J d W
i
orfv
9
v v W
CC
t F
''`•kc)�'a ti zaQgtO° is 38. � V
LU
16
WCO
\ e .
wl�
IT �.
� 1
III t f III city of sAn luis onu)ls
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of Director's Subdivision. Hearing rendered
on March 31, 1989 which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed):
1. I disagree with the decision reached at the Director's Subdivision
Hearing on March 31, 1989 regarding Minor Subdivision Number MS 89-07.
This decision will allow the property at 1550 Royal Way to be divided
into three lots. As a stipulation, trees having a trunk diameter of
at least 12 inches must be left standing, and, although the finding
was that this subdivision would not impact the traffic flow on Royal
Way, driveways of the resultant properties would be required to allow
forward egress.
2. I submit that leaving the property undivided and building a new home,
or, at most, allowing a subdivision of the lot into two smaller lots
and building two new homes, would lessen the impact on the neighborhood,
street parking and traffic safety, and on _the existing topography and
vegetation on that lot; while still providing a substantial profit for
the developer and an increased tax base for the city.
3. Attachments.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Greg Smith on April 5, 1989.
Appellant: ,-
Date Appeal Received: Daniel N. Baiicki �omeowaer
ame i e
R E C Eft V EQRepresentative
V
^r. . R9
r 1583 Cucaracha Court SLO
CITY CLERK IeSS
SAN LUIS nalcnO C:
071 S mD _ (805) ,544-1082
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Calendared for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
City Clerk
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
ON SUBDIVISION OF 1550 ROYAL WAY
(ATTACffiMENTS)
BASIS OF APPEAL:
I appeal to the San Luis Obispo City Council to overturn the decision to
subdivide the property at 1550 Royal Way into three lots based the potential:
o negative environmental impact on the topography, flora and fauna currently
existing on the property, as well as to the people in the area
o incompatibility with desireable growth pattern of neighborhood
o traffic safety and parking problems caused by multiple residences on a
fairly sharp curve in a residential area
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
One issue at stake for my family in this proposed subdivision is quality of
life. I have lived in this neighborhood for about 10 years without speaking
out on any of the many projects that have been constructed around us. I find
that it is time to speak up before unrestricted development completely erodes
the quality of life I have come to know here in San Luis Obispo.
Both of my children have grown up looking at the roses, birds and trees on
that property when we have taken them for stroller walks past that old house.
There is a family of possums living in the vegetation back there and a large
black raven perches in the tall trees and stands guard. At times, a woodpecker
raps a tattoo on that elm. That property has a "green belt" effect on our
neighborhood and calms the eye. and the soul. We need more of that in our world
and that is one of the reasons I came to San Luis Obispo to live instead of South
E1 Monte or Daly City. This patch of ground is not just a "large R-1 lot, Lgna
Lk area, w/structure, cld be dmished, poss subdivd," it is a fragile part of my
`- family's environment, too. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, when they
start building back there, some of those "trees with a diameter greater than
12 inches" are going to be in the way, and MOST of the Cypress is going to be
in the way. Please don't pave paradise ander in a circular driveway.
INCOMPATIBILITY:
My basis for appeal did not state incompatibility with "planned" growth pattern
for the neighborhood, because I have no idea what the "plan" is, if any. if
there is one, perhaps it should be reconsidered to take into account the
sensibilities and sensitivities of the current residents of the area. Instead,
I stated that the project was incompatible with "desireable_" growth pattern of
the area.
Several "desireable" projects have been constructed in the past few pears with,
it seems to me, very little thought of planning as to how they should be
engineered to accomodate commuters, residents, automobiles, children, tourists,
businesses or growth. Only after the projects are built are the police saddled
with increased enforcement or traffic lights installed to control traffic
problems created by less than adequate planning. I cite:
o, cutting Los Osos Valley Road through to South Higuera, then installing a signal
to control the danger created
o freeway exit at Los Osos Valley Road where Russian Roulette entry to LOVR is
controlled by traffic cops hiding in the weeds
o widening of Los Osos Valley Road (as in the case between Foothill and Diablo
where the widening was negated by bike lanes, or on the freeway overpass where
widening didn't seem to do anything at all for increasing the width of the
road)
o construction of Sesloc on a heavy-traffic, school cross-walk corner with NO
entrance to the (inadequate) parking lot from E1 Tigre Court.
INCOMPATIBILITY (cont. );
In the Laguna Lake area, there seems to be some kind of competition on to see
how many homes can be slapped up on the least amount of land, how many "compact"
parking places can be painted into a supermarket lot and how many cars can be
herded down Los Osos Valley Road at 70 mph to screach through our school zones.
I have no quarrel with development, I suggest that perhaps it has gotten a little
out of control due to the amount of money involved. After the construction is
done, after the monstrosity is built, after the bell is rung, who is left to
live with these projects? The developers have moved on to a new challenge, the
city council can't 'unring" the bell. The residents are stuck with all of the
problems because somebody didn't just sit down and say, "what benefit is this
project to the community? What are we trying to accomplish? Is this a
SOLUTION, or is this going to be part of the future's PROBLEMS?"
If we are attempting to stop urban sprawl and maximize the potential of our
precious resources, perhaps there is a better way than to simply chop tip the
land in smaller and smaller pieces and build high-density TOWN homes in the
country.
With water an extremely important issue, perhaps we need to STOP and
rethink our position. We-may have water next year, and the next. What does
the City Council's cryystal ball say about 3 or 4 years down the road? The
folks that buy these lots are going to have money and voting power and they are
going to want water whether San Luis Obispo has it or not and they are going to
feel disenfranchised if they are not allowed to build. At the hearing, the
chairperson, Mr. Ren Bruce, stated that this hearing was to split the lots and
allow the existing structure to be demolished, not to grant water to buyers of
the property, they would have to go through the process; water was not the
issue. What are we going to do? Let that property sit there for three or four
years as a dirt lot? What is the plan? What is going to be done? What about
the future? Is this project compatible with anything or is is just being done
for profit and to increase the tax base of the city? If this is to allow more
homes to be built within the city limits without annexing more property, wh
are we not waiting until our water situation improves? Nobody can get permits
for building on those lots right now, right? Right? Or...can they? Or...do
they? Are we still building during a water shortage while my rates double and
triple without hope of ever normalizing because who in the world REDUCES rates
once they've got them up there where some money can be- made?
Is this subdivision compatible with desireable growth patterns and rates?
I suggest that it is not, although I am sure it is compatible with SOMEBODY's
plan, regardless of the best interests of the neighborhood. Why doesn't the
developer build himself a big, beautiful home on the lot and live there? Why _
not split it into two smaller lots and build two, medium-sized homes and live
in one and sell or rent the other, or sell both for a substantial profit? Why
split it into three small lots on a blind curve and build three small (or, even
worse, two-story) houses that will go for no less than $200,000 and will
probably be rented out like most of the small homes on small lots in that
neighborhood.
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING PROBLEMS:
At the hearing, Mr. Bruce stated that traffic flow would not be impacted
due to this subdivision, yet he qualified his decision with a requirement that
driveways for the subdivided properties allow forward egress into Royal Way.
If these subdivisions would not impact traffic, why require any stipulation at
all? He also stated that apy traffic problems at that curve in the past were a
matter of "enforcement". I imagine the San Luis Obispo Police Department will
be happy to hear that. Let's put the problems the Planning Commission can't
solve in the police department's lap. Why build trouble areas that require
increased enforcement when the trouble can be foreseen? Any tax benefit to the
city would be negated by ONE SINGLE FATALITY automobile accident at that curve
in the future that could have been prevented now.
1
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING PROBLEMS (cont. ):.
C/ Each vehicle that is parked on that curve will incrementally decrease the
visability of drivers navigating the curve and at the same time, provide hiding
places from which young children can dash into the street. Make those vehicles
the transportation of choice, these days: MOTOR HOMES; and you have all the
ingredients for a major catastrophe. What is the answer to that? Put up NO PARKING
signs?
CONCLUSION:
I feel that it is not in the best interest of the community to allow this
subdivision. I think that a substantial profit can be made for the developer,
an increased tax base can be realized by the city and a safer, more beautiful
environment for our neighborhood can be accomplished through a more prudent
disposition of this property.
l
RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 1989
Gtr pi$an LUIS 00.w
Communoy De+dopmenf
i�
/_r l
PROTEST Or THE PFJ__PCJ5ED 111LIMiR
h e t-i riders] a r e.•ci ccl.i.t e s t that: '1:i g ti.-- I-Ci(TI[TI 1A I'1 1 t:
Director reiect. L'hr req -.--st for 1-h,. s request. Lo
+af-ijilv lot at I.55k_) Wa,, into three lots tcjr
reasons:
-0 The locatioro' this lot or, Royal Wav is at
group of 129 Zaitiilv homes .-)n the stre4�-t
QLIL�i I C_t P.�r t i, i dne Dr . � Fairwa. Ur . Rcj.ial
?
There is no othE...i imr,trGrice or -i: i I: I-o thE- homes Of.
In addition . -:; group ct1' 3 homes -ire it-, the plarin, ni.l
west end of Ro%,,,: j !Ac,v Ch Wi I I r eSUl t 11-I 1_?.b of fit'.l.e-
homes bievond 1555: t!-jis I-eciarri :,je
cQncerns: F7.r-st 'the a ITI ID U n t 04 t't- ci+ C:
tlji� is =_Ubst,:,n1Js- J 3rvl two additional drivevja,.. -_ d11
the h cj rj) wA i J cons;. c!rrr .L j
R
o I-,o e s t 4 on al' '_UnL O - Wal 51_'C on d 'this t 1 c:-,
1 o ri o i s on Sharp cut r Ro
e that + he r i J ewc, r(.it
ave beer -z or e�! i =ti na d
is on ti-le _=ide -ji' the property away r 0 m the cut- c o C I I do
ric.A. have z. form6J trs-F-Fic: stud,./ of this araC . *has C- i7 1!fj 1
t 1-1 a t C:UrVe attest ;.hat.hat /ehicles general I v travel a
high rates at SMeed around that Curve. In Fyci , the
15 and 155 e n d 1 16'% Rova I all retest t c h a . i n o L c)s ;rl! j
I
cjoq= and cat= dut+..- to Erie traffic At this location. lie U F
t t-,e t
to ziD] i I-- the lots, driveways w i 11 havtF, t1 he lil aci
Jire:ctl .'. in the ;-jrirsl- ' ocdtion o+ this Ro,al 1+1 c' F
c_4i; i ho -add i t i on' , f �cc i dents andai n I y i ('071' eRaS I r1C. k:01 iC]E=, ZA
lot -1-t 1,551 R'c, 0 1' t F e f4? h t .j
jJ r cUl ar h yS c dd d e d eI
ol t FG an t ria,L e t_11 E-
W --k r e z,. I A. MDO=7,1 V)I e tel cit I o t d i .'i sio.-, Wi I t
ees and
Fh=- lQt- F-,,o -,,i IvJczv is bordered li,.
I t 1, S-p aZ i c-U S r d s that are beyond rhis, icj`
Ihz�vc• 1 h i division , which is ob,ious�
e,;s i b e o n I v bec.ai,;se of the OR-Mer-al rise in the G s t D
Sjii n Lu4 =_ Cibi :snc% 'Lit, - IS nolt a 000d prF_-cp:-cJpr1t 17)r
r Irl at I h ur I TOGA r,Cj! tor .3,�4n Lu.is Ub.i =-po Citv tr-
r t c=!;:I e1`;
a n p 1
n a c— th r-, h a r act e r j+ k Ur
'
| )
P�OTEST OF THE PR0POSED Nc0R Si/BDI;|u Nu. U�~o.' `
We-- L undersigned -eqoest that the L.cmo^IF. ` t, I"e 'e�
Director reject the requeSi for thi regt i.�
f ,,mjlv Lot at 1550 Roval Wainto three lots for thc- -jlloWxna
reasons� `~
* The location of this iot on Roy*i W a� is at the entrance n �
q,'oop LD;: L "S sing1Er Fami � / homes on the streetof Quazi D" '
���i I Ct . , Partridge Dr . ` Fairway Dr ' Royal [t. , and Rova| Wa, .
There is no other entrance or exit to the horries on these treets.
1� addition ^ i�i group of 8 homes are ir the plannincj s th�
*est end of Royal War which L-iill resuIt jn 136 sing1e + ami � ~
homes beyond 1550 Roy�l Way. In this reqard we have twm
concerns: First ` the amoont o-f traffic that nzl��ses i5��
Wa,v is substantial and two additional grivew�ye re ec ,-e
to these ]36 homes will considerab | � increase oenti =1� � � c
conqestion around 155,..) Royal Wa�. Seccind . t|`c2e palrticI.' | �'
1ocation of | 55'} R,0yal Way is on a sInarF- .z,r , e i n
ha,e been fortunate that the existino dre*a . :or
is on the side of theproperty away froii� the corv�^
nct have a formal traffic study of this rer, . thrjse ii . .ea: i
thot curve attest that vehicles genertravel at on�c - e��a|�! `
hi ph rates of speed around that curve. In f*c, , the - esiJe''' �
and 1559 and 1567 Royal all a' test t , i inq losjp / e
doqs and catdue to the traff4. c l_hiIocation1 oe
here is that to split the 'lots , d; ewsys w l l have tC, be p ( e�
directly in the worst iocation of ' |' is R W�_ sIb� ,
caosinq additional *cci rlents and cert �' 'cree�jn�
+ The lot at 1550 Royal Way ees. \ u .
particular has a added � sense of beaoto entrance .r i:
0aareaIt seems impossible th�l l ot :Ii �zsi on w
Lrees and their beauty.
* The lot at 1550 Royal Wav is fiordered L� 01 �
aith 5paci0us yards. All 129 if-imes th�t er be�oco
have spacious yards. This division ^ whicn i =- obvi oos! -Lj
feesible onlv because ot the generL,l rIse ir. the cCs/
in5an L;is Obispo is not s good precedent �o,� c�� s
nei �:inborhood nor for 5sn Lyis Obj spn tn neneri�l
neoely chanoes i"e character our neiohuorr/000
ci t � .
name eddress L
/
�/- � ��
�``{,' ^�Y ' '
' /�� /
_ ��
/'Z~/y ` ` '� �� ° �
� _ '/
7���`�
r
/ '�/
u
,
« " "
�
PR,u [E--ll u| /H - �ROPuCED 1 NO1 T;l1l| 1 | k".
L|.e t/n�sr - ' �/.ca ' -�L3uest t|j thp `.06u1W u'` ej�..' �.
~ i`irec �c)r t�? ' m:ct /1ve,--st for o/'est� }/ . / `|�
1 --1mI | , | o/ � i i�5' �� /a] [AJ�v in+c, 1, ts
° The ] oczc/ j. s lot Dn Rovea. iS. ��;te t�o/ . +'c+ i ., �
oroup o+ 1.2CO s1nqe familv homeon tht:-- streets u{ uU1 �/. . .
Ouai ] Ct . , ��rtr � .�qe Dr . . Fazrwav Dr , Ru . 11 [t. , 14� ' .
lhere is no ot�er ent.rance or exit to the homes oo
In addition . a Q/ i7,up of 3 homes are in Lf-le p] armz /.q �� ^u�-
west end of Royal Na, ahich *ill t in i3c' si //q1e |
homes beyonci 155,' Ro.aL Way. ln t|/zs reqard
concerns-, First ` the amount of traffIc that p.,=;ses / 55. � [�a
ma` IS substantial and two additional driveways at the e»�rance
tZ� the--e hofiies Will con=-zderablv increase residential traffzr,
conqestior, arOund 1550 RC-J',/al Wa�. Second , the particu1ar
locati�� of 155[' �ova/ Wav is on , =harp c"r 's in Roal N�� . me
have been fortun�te that the e� istzriq dr5 /ewa, 1Or
is on the =-ide o+ the property awa,� fro� the ,�ur^eo| . w do
not have traffic study, of th� s area , those lz no ie,'
that cur /E- attest Lt'at . ehzcles oener�livel t un" i -!��au]
hiqh rateE� of spee(J around that cu, �e. 1.n +ect ` the ' ei en� s
and i55r7' and 15 7 Ro,al :A � est I-c, ha , no losI u� � , 1 p! �
doqs and cat=- due �o the traffic at thic� lociti L7jr. . | he I ==oe
here zs that t split the lots , dri will 1:u |,,F !�lac,d
Jirectl ; i /1 the worst location of thxs Roval Wa, curve ou-sib1 .
-` causinq sdJzI- ionaI accidents and cer �ainlincreivsoc� 17�/`uest/ oo .
lhe 1ot �t 1556 Royai Wav hes 24 iiai c-,: t, ee=.
particular lis- -,- added a sense o+-
Way
fWay area, It seems impoeszb1e t�At jot di �� sior. �� ll s� � � nese
trees �--nd their beautv.
* The lot at 155o Roval Wa� is borde, ec' u, s^ ..ne amz1
with SpaciGus vards. Hll 12� momes tn,:,t are ,o`-d
have spacious vards. rhis division , whzc�+ is ob;loo�=-! ow
feasible onl ~ beceuse of the general rise zn +he cost co+ | q
in San Lui -z Ot. is�o �-4ty " I =- not a oorjd o/ , h.I �
oeiqhborhoc,cl no, ,or -161-1 | ,is ubispo
�/eqati`'el . coes the character of our
c�t� .
n�me �ddress
�� C� �� ���
�
" � ���-�
-
1 T'u rE,=, r r,;- THE F'R(W'0,-E D M I rq"-!F' SUB!) I ,,, I It III I 1"j. 86
Cc L• :- i_. i�1.I,_.i:1 1 !A at , 5 n : ;I I i D r ;7 1 ji,iiiim?I I
i . Z�I t7t C-1 L I •FL F. t C.I i �z r e q i e s 1:a A i Me 4 1)u n i . q 1
_i. 1 F.1 i r •--'m m- r Qi t p t.11 I --!.I I rIV
e 5 SCC.2
!_I i(--. I C- t.; .]r'. C, t h 1 s lot. nn L;:c.) We the =r: C
Dr SLIP Q T i ju =: Ia. & t a m i I v hominis or, t1-5e str Emonto n A ;a i I ol
M10 1 1,1_ , P r-- r 1 170E D- . . Fai onjav, Dr . Rov a 1 ; t: i-,d , .-j 1
7 1 :LL.r & 1 a I i c! oti ei nt r arl t':e CD r P.�� I o t 1-1 o. r,n,t7_7. i-, S LZ' 'Z;I C,
fl zt,d J 1 1 LWI r M U P of B hr.-imess ar-Q- tri mv- p I yimifto SI ac.,e lie
Liszt end W Pouval W a a tqh i ch L97. 1 1 f:?su I t: I I-, I =i r1'71 7--fri 1
c bL2%.cr, 1J5! Roj a! Way. I rl thilS r re a; r-cl L,,I? I�d v cn I ^I c,
C C r-1-Z Em'-71 F: F1 ];lUhe nMOLJIlt of t r a+jl' I(_ that to a S,Si3S 5ff'' I"i
:i s u u s t p i t i :=. , and two additioneki. d. at - he eflil: r1 C F
z a 1. _` a men V,1 1 3 c-ons i d e.r a i ncreose -A;n3 d an 1 1 x att i a
-JIZ'l r7 G t 1 LY! 0; (OLIAC' 1 55A Roy,_41 W a v Second , Me P.. t i c;La 1 0;
_::. _: ! I -,c :all W a , is on a snarp C:.1r- 'F- in Ro I 'i to
est: _lr:z;sltn that the a,.! i s I-j.n q d r I -, or I R'0%, 141'.
Is i d e pr op e r- 'from t h cm I-, ,,Bd
1 imi i a no a f. rn.�k I- + f-L C: S1:tj CI-v ro t 1-i i z m4 r e e Il C, C-. I j I I;cj ea.
Ut a e ,t C-n t_h f p S?1-1 1 C I e n o 11 t-C'1 1 , h I '7�v 4n I i .-1 r)-?r.:C e p t R i
I., Q ; .-. 'Ba .tet opawk ar unind that stir ie. I. , r art . t1dEr,t=
i 7j�,.7 _rid J' 5 a I-,c, 1,�6" Rf.:),7;'Z.,I al ; :t' ' e---1- i c::, 1-1'.-•'i nu 1 t , t-
duoa -arid =£,t5 d LL F to t!':`_ 1:r-a+Jr i f7 rt t f1; S �!c z t I nr. h I C F.i IE
!lor
F:-
!-,cnr e i. _ the I- to n.p I it Erle tot=_ , d r I :e vj�' -,3: -11 I I r.e e o tr- i" 1 Z�i C -
C t I 1n t 1-1 e 'j C-.r St iGl-at.i 0 F-1 Of 1-: 1 1 E Fan 01 :via . cy it r- Vin:,-;HHl Al
e d d i t: j an a 1 ac c .1 e n t s a n d I-a i F-, i lc'rCAs Q!
him t a t I 55t � Ro j a 1 Way has ;4 we or I. r rye=.
I C : '1 ii 7= a added ser,se ri !_JG-�Ltt em 1-1 t t :rl C I L En C) k�. R'C , a I
d I '�_tiIt F ie cc,s i ,r,p 09"i 4 b I g- t 1,o I I cot &1 1 s I L in QII To KeME-
inon ar1G the; r
1 1 1 55t.1 Rr:'%V& I tijai _; 1:1 Or'd d ce r-e0 W. 3; .1X71
- -.-, ori ClA I!, Rps" IQUE MIMS;. oil 1 129 hun , -
pthat eL� ;:i
� :e_ E p a C. I 11-i S "�r'dz This d i , i cn I nn . vih i 1-1-• n 1171 Iz F-1�:j
a�z s 1 IL I c- Cl rli b ec..,i I e C' he f
in man in; ; 4 ma -,D, i I , R
r11Ei cillbcDt, mur L:'If San W! S Db Z I Sp Q t (qt f�?t
n F_' 1 -7 h R F-I a in�S t h r-- 1--.c,r r71c:t e W- -11 0�ir -.'ml c3hh -' �'00t'I
141le
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES
FRIDAY MARCH 31, 1989
Minor Subdivision No. MS 89-07. Consideration of a tentative
parcel map creating three lots from one lot; 1550 Royal way; R-1
zone; Patrick Meissner, subdivider.
Greg Smith presented the staff report, noting the request is to
subdivide one existing lot to form three lots; the three lots would
be in compliance with all city standards regarding the width, depth,
lot area, and would be similar in size and frontage to the majority
of the R-1 lots in the adjoining blocks. He further noted that a
petition has been submitted in opposition to this subdivision. The
petition cites concerns with traffic congestion caused by added
traffic and possible hazards from traffic on Royal Way. Mr. Smith
explained that the City Engineering staff has been consulted, and
that a memo from the traffic engineer has been received, indicating
the level of hazard created by the subdivision would not be
significant. Further addressed were the traffic volumes on Royal
way, noting they are substantially lower than in many other
residential areas of the city, and that the sight distances for the
development of this property are no different than those typical in
other subdivisions, and those which already appear in this
i' subdivision, without causing any significant traffic hazard.
Mr. Smith clarified that this project does not involve any exceptions
to the Subdivision Regulations, so the action of the Hearing Officer
is final unless appealed to the City Council. He stated that he is
recommending approval of the subdivision, subject to three conditions
which he outlined.
The public hearing was opened.
Bob Tartaglia, subdivider's engineer, spoke in support of the
request. He said he has no objections to the staff-recommended
conditions, as read.
Dan Balicki, 1583 Cucaracha Court, said that for the past ten years,
that area from Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera Street has been built
up and traffic has increased from about 25-30 mph around the curve to
about 45-50 mph. He noted that many families with children hive in
this area and has concerns with future development of the area and
the increase in traffic which will result. He felt that adding two
or three more driveways would certainly add to the traffic and
increase hazards.
Shari Porter, 1586 Royal Way, noted that she has lived at this
address for the past 12 years, and in that time period, there have
' been five accidents on the corner, and had concerns with the traffic.
John McCombs, 1559 Royal Way, said he disagreed with the finding that
there would be no significant environmental impact in the area
because changing from the present park-like character of the lot to
/-024�-
one that is densely packed urban-like setting. He said he feels this(
is most definitely an impact on the environment. He also felt this
would have an impact on the value of surrounding properties. He
explained that appraisers use is "comparable sales" ; to split this
lot into three small ones would lower the average and lower the value
of his property. He also disagreed with the finding that states the.
lot frontages are essentially the same size. He felt that they are
smaller than existing lots on either side of the proposed
subdivision. He further disagreed. with the city engineer' s report
that the traffic is of no concern; especially since it is on a curve
that is the only entrance to 150 houses. This, along with another
proposal of about 22 other houses will create a worse impact.
Mr. McCombs then noted that this is the only road entrance into an
area where a city deviation was issued which allowed the mobile home
park to be put in eliminating one planned road entrance to this
area. He further expressed concern about the traffic, especially
since there isa curve existing, and the number of accidents that
have occurred there. He also expressed concern regarding on-street
parking, and the number increasing. He explained that a traffic
signal was installed five years ago at Los Osos Valley Road and Royal
Way because of the traffic from Royal Way, and if the city installed
a signal, traffic must certainly be an issue. Peak hours, Mr.
McCombs added, are exceptionally busy.
Marilyn Reinman, Cucaracha Court, said the back of her lot abuts two
of the proposed lots. She agreed with Mr. McCombs, and felt the area'.,
is already overcrowded. Relocation of the existing house on the site
would be undesirable.
Mr. Bruce explained that the existing house is to be demolished, not
relocated on the site. For the record, Mr. Bruce explained that a
petition was received from people in the neighborhood that note three
issues: (1) Traffic on Royal Way and the awkwardness of getting out
onto the street; (2) the significant trees on the site, and (3) the
issue of adding more lots to an already over-burdened street. Twenty
people signed the petition.
Bob Tartaglia, subdivider's representative, explained that
neighboring Lot 3 is approximately 6000 sq. ft. ; the back of that lot
has a width of 32 . 49 feet. Neighboring Lot 4 is 5450 sq. ft. with a
frontage of 50 feet and a back width of 48 .46 feet. The smallest lot
in the proposed subdivision is 6000 sq. ft, and the largest one is
approx. 8000 square feet which is the same size if not larger than
most existing lots.
John McCombs, 1559 Royal Way, said he has a map of theexisting
subdivision, and Lot 3 frontage is 89 . 07 feet long along the curve,
Lot 4 is 72 . 59 feet long; the two remaining lots are the smallest of
the entire subdivision, so calling them "typical" is not accurate.
Mr. McCombs explained for comparison purposes, the entire subdivision
should be looked at. Lot 2 has a rear dimension of 46. 45 feet and
the front is 74 feet; Lot 1 is 52 . 5 feet in the rear and the front is ,
68 feet. He felt the frontages, after they get out of the curve, and
/_4
Page 3
back on Cucaracha Court have a different square footage (and a
pie-shaped lot) . He did not feel that 6, 000 sq. feet is not that
typical ; Lot 7 is about 7, 600 sq. ft. , Lot 8 is 61659 sq. ft., and so
on.
Dan Balicki, 1583 Cucaracha Court, said his water rates doubled since
June, and was opposed to the subdivision because of the water
shortage. He felt that since all residents are having to cut back,
the subdivision should not occur.
The public hearing was closed.
Ken Bruce asked if this property is the original ranch estate for
this area? He wondered why other subdivisions go around this
particular property.
John McCombs said this was part of the original ranch estate.
Cucaracha Court was under construction when the original subdivision
went in.
Ken Bruce approved the tentative map, based on the following findings
and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The design of the tentative map 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 R-1 zone.
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.
4 . The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not
conflict with easement for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed tentative map will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has granted a negative declaration.
Conditions
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation.
2 . Final map shall note that all existing trees 12 inches in
diameter or larger shall be preserved. Said trees shall be
safety pruned to the satisfaction of the City Arborist prior to
final map approval. /�
Page 4 `
3 . The existing house and accessory structures shall be removed from
the site prior to final map approval. Request to demolish the
existing house must be approved by the Architectural Review
Commission.
4. Final map shall note that all new driveways serving the parcels
shall be designed to accommodate vehicles exiting in a forward
direction onto Royal Way, in accordance with city Parking and
Driveway Standards, and to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
Code Requirements
1. Subdivider shall install street trees in accordance with city
standards. Existing trees may qualify as street trees, as
determined by the City Arborist.
2 . Subdivider shall provide individual sewer, water, and utility
services to all parcels. New utilities shall be underground.
3 . Subdivider shall pay water acreage and frontage fees, as
determined by the City Engineer, prior to final map approval.
4 . Subdivider shall pay park-in-Lieu fees for two parcels, prior to
final map approval.
Ken Bruce explained that this decision is final unless appealed to
the City Council within ten days of the action. Anyone may file an
appeal.
�I
The City Council may exempt an annexation propos from meeting some
of these criteria if it determines that the annexat' n will provide
compensating public benefits that outweigh an ' ability to meet one
or more of the criteria. Compensating publi benefits include:
a) Housing affordable to tow-income p ple, managed by a public or
nonprofit agency.
b) Mitigation of significant pre fisting environmental problems.
c) Actions that significant( improve the quality of life within
existing neighborhood .
d) Open space whic may be of less area than the usual standard (four
times the devel able area) but which is of high value to the
community; amples would be prominent visual or aesthetic
features, s sifive habitat areas, areas with special recreational
potentia, areas with sensitive historical or archaeological
resour es or areas especially vulnerable to imminent development.
If th city has adopted a development moratorium because of limited
wa r supply, the City Council shall not exempt a minor annexation
oposal from the requirement to provide on-site water source or
off-site water service reductions.
C. The City should provide for infill, intensification, and expansion
within the present City limits and provide for future minimized
outward urban expansion within the unincorporated urban reserve which
can be efficiently served by urban "infrastructure" improvements.
Urban development should be programmed to assure that adequate water
supply, sewage treatment, fire and police,schools and recreation
facilities and other public facilities will be available to serve the
composition and configuration of uses provided in a safe and
efficient manner.
-- The County should prevent scattered rural residential, ' dustrial or
other nonagricultural developments outside the urb reserve. within
the unincorporated portions of the urban reserve a County should
work jointly with the City to assure that dev pment proposals are
consistent with growth management and la use objectives of the
General Plan.
-- The City should coordinate its an xation of any additional territory
and its approval of any urban velopments in expansion areas within
the corporate limits with the i provements if urban service systems.
A specific plan shall be re ired prior to annexation. No
annexations of major u ' corporated expansion areas should be
authorized until wate supply and treatment and sewage collection and
treatment facility eds can be met in addition to the planned urban
use capacity of ' corporated areas. No commitments to urban
development incorporated expansion areas should be authorized
until water ewer, access and other public facilities and services
can be vided concurrently.
n
T�L.LFM-E�4T
e. Areas designated for interim agriculture/r dential expansion and
rural industrial within the urban reser should be encouraged to
remain in agricultural use. In the a at nonagricultural use such as
rural industrial, rural residentia r rural planned development is
pursued, the following polici should be employed:
- The County should co tder minimum five- to tel
parcelization
or equivalent rural nned development only when it is demonstrated,
prior to land divi "on, that individual on water and septic
systems will b dequate to serve the intended rural residential
uses, and th subdivision (or parcel map divisions) are consistent
with an opted 'property development plan'. The property
develo ent plan should show an appropriate pattern of present and
fut a local and collector streets, planned utility system
gnments, and how each separate five- to ten-acre parcel can be
tndividually used in the future, without cooperation or combination
of individual parcels.
2. Residential Land Use Objectives
The politics outlined as Growth Management Objectives should serve as
general principles in review of residential development proposals. In
addition, the following policies shall guide both new development and
redevelopment:
a. The City should encourage residential development, promoting
efficient urban densities and diversity of design consistent with
prevailing or proposed neighborhood character, to enable adequate
choice of location, type, tenure, design and cost by families and
individuals working in or enrolled near San Luis Obispo.
--The City should coordinate residential development with employment,
enrollment or other economic base alterations to assure that persons
or families Working, attending schools, or conducting other
activities in San Luis Obispo, have appropriate opportunity to reside
herr rather than commute.
--The City should establish minimum as well as maximum density and
property development standards for all residential land use
classif ications:
Low density shall be from 4 to 7 dwelling units per net acre;
Medium density shall be from 7 to 12 dwelling units per net acre;
Medium-high density shall be from 13 to 18 dwelling units per net
acre;
High density shall be from 19 to 24 dwelling units per net acre;
t
13
i
C --Residential developments which achieve maximum densities of 7, 12,
18, and '24 dwelling units per net acre in areas designated for low,
medium, medium-high, and high density, respectively, shall be
considered consistent with the General Plan, provided that design and
placement are compatible with prevailing or proposed neighborhood
character and the availability of adequate infrastructure, public
facilities and circulation.
b. Low-density residential development, allowing a maximum of 7 dwelling
units per acre, will be encouraged within neighborhoods clearly
committed to this type of development and within identified expansion
areas at the periphery of the city.
C. Medium-dcnsity residential development, allowing a maximum of 12
dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in close proximity to
neighborhood and community.commercial and public facilities, where
utilities, circulation, and neighborhood character can accommodate
such development. Medium-density projects should be designed to be
compatible with neighboring low-density development.
d. Medium-high-density residential development, allowing a maximum 18
dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in areas substantially
committed to this type of development, close to community commercial
centers and public facilities.
e. High-density residential development, allowing a maximum 24 dwelling
�—' units per acre, shall be encouraged in. areas adjacent to major
concentrations of employment, college enrollment, or business
activity, where existing development of similar character, as well as
utilities, circulation, and public facilities, can accommodate such
intensity. High-density development should be designed to provide a
transition between less intense residential uses and nonresidential
uses.
F. Residential densities are expressed as the number of dwellings per
net acre of site area. Based on unit occupancy characteristics, the
population impact within multifamily areas shall be equalized so far
as possible by relating densities to a 'standard dwelling unit" of
two bedrooms. More or fewer units will be allowed according to the
type of units proposed, aiming for population densities of
approximately 25, 40 and 55 persons per acre for medium-,
medium-high- and high-density multifamily residential areas,
respectively.
g. Residential neighborhoods should be separated from incompatible
nonresidential land uses and buffered from major circulation
facilities. New residential developments or redevelopments involving
largescale sites (expansions of existing neighborhoods or major -
infill and intensification areas) should be designed tc orient
low-density housing to local access streets and medium- or
high-dcnsity housing to driveways accessible from collector streets.
14 /��
f
MEMORANDUM
- /89
TO: Greq Smith
VIA: John Hawley,„K
FROM: Barbara t.yncw.
SUBJECT: Parcel Map 89-007. 15-50 Roval Way.
RE: Protest of Minor Subdivision in regards to traffi =..
Royal Way currently carries 1270 vehicles on an average week:day. In
comparison., Chorro at Murray carries 10, _80 vehicle=_ per day. There have
been no reported accidents in the area, in at least fire years, with the
exception of a drunk. driver who collided with a parked car three years
ago. Trip generation rates for residential use is an average 10 trip ends
per day. This means a resident leaves home. 5 timer _. day.
Royal Way is not any where near being congested as we would define it
usina. levels of service. The additional 20 trips a day is less than the
normal day to day fluctuatuion in traffic.
The accident situation is unlikely to change dramatically. There has bL-,=!n
no indication of any problems at this point. The driveways will be on a
curve where visibility is not as good as it would be on a straight away.
The visibility will be similar to the visibility for the existing driveway
at 1550 and the neighboring driveways on the curve.
We do not have any speed surve'v=_ for the area.
viEET1NIV A ib UF1
DATES; ITEM #
city of Sabi tuts oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
RESPONSE TO APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by TiR Mgp?e
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereb appeals
from the decision of T)irP(-tnr rendered
on March 31 , 1989 which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
Respondent owner agrees with the decision of the Director
and responds to appeal of Daniel N. Balicki , as follows:.
Environmental Impact :
1. Appellant ' s concern about roses , birds and trees is
comendable but misplaced. Respondent and most residents
of San Luis feel as Appellant does. The city planners
decided that the optimum lot size for a well maintained
neighborhood to be the size Respondent proposes and of the
size that .presently exist in the subject neighborhood.
Appellant assumes that bigger is better and in so assuming
neglects to consider whether a homeowner can more beautifully ,
►�, conveniently and economically maintain a six to eight thousand
square foot lot (Respondent' s approximate size) .as opposed to
22 thousand feet.
Appellant ' s desire that the occupant at1550 Royal ;Jay
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Greg Smith on approximately April 18, 1989
3 f Denotes action by Lead Person �
lant: Me.v/C -4Tis'f-rtc.le 0*e .5.4nc,✓
R by:
9�poi=i A7
L�
es on en Owner f�0 Name/Title p
ti I� Gity �Atty.
RECEIVED Cle*.
� ,�T f' Representative
,K.KctGTA�I
APR 21 198911VFeE 602 South Street SLO Ca
City of San Luta ODwo
Address
l Community Developmem
Imo_[ 543-4149
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
} Calendared for:-5-2----.89 copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
City Clerk
_ �_ Jo