HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/1989, 4 - APPEAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVED BY THE SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER ALLOWING SUBDIVISION OF TWO '11111111100111 city o f San Luis OBISPO Mss i6 DATE:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ganZa ITBM NUMeM:
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared By: Greg Smith
SUBJECT: Appeal of minor subdivision approved by the Subdivision Hearing Officer
allowing subdivision of two lots into three lots between Serrano and Luneta
Drives, west of Palomar Avenue.
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
April 14, 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 appeals were filed on April 19 and 21 by
neighbors.
The appeals and much of the testimony at the administrative hearing focused on whether
Luneta Drive should be opened to through traffic.
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 different lot configurations. 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.
1J'QJJ$JJPAJ p► city Of san Lues OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Data Summary
Address: 580 Serrano Drive
Subdivider/Owner: D. J. Moore
Representative: Thomas Baumberger
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low density residential
Environmental Status: Negative declaration approved by Director.
Action Deadline: May 18, 1989
Site Descrintion
The site is approximately 35,000 square feet in area, with slopesof 10 to 15%. Numerous
mature trees are located on the site, and one house exists near the middle of the
property. The existing house and trees are to be retained.
EVALUATION
The subdivider proposes a deep-lot subdivision to create three lots from one lot. All
lots would meet or exceed minimum standards of city subdivision and zoning regulations.
Staff suggests the council focus on the following issues in considering the tentative map
and appeal:
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).
2. Luneta Drive Extension
This issue, which appears to be the primary concern of both appellants, has been
considered by the council in conjunction with two earlier minor subdivisions. Council
action on these subdivisions (MS 86-322 on the project site, MS 84-267 on adjoining site
to the east) included approval of exceptions which allowed extension of Luneta Drive at
one-half the normal width.
If the exceptions had not been approved, the previous subdividers would have been
required to pay the cost of acquiring the right of way for the other half of the street
from the adjoining fraternity. City regulations will require that right of way to be
dedicated (without cost to the city) when further development occurs on the fraternity
property.
L_
I>>N�►�wuu101111�pA���11 city of san Luis ogispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
Construction of the final section of the narrow road is now nearing completion, and will
which will eliminate the dead end street condition which now exists on either side of the
project site. The City Engineer has indicated that he intends to remove barricades and
and allow two-way traffic on this section of Luncta as soon as street improvements are
completed and "No Parking" signs are installed, as reviewed by the council in conjunction
with the previous subdivisions.
2.1 Traffic Safety
The appellants believe that through traffic on the street will constitute a hazard.
The pavement will be 17 to 18 feet wide; city standards would normally require at
least 20 feet for two-way traffic. The City Engineer supports two-way traffic, as he
did when the earlier subdivisions were approved. In his judgement, the street will
be able to handle the relatively low volume of traffic expected as long as parking
restrictions are adequately enforced. Refer to attached memos from Engineering staff
for more detailed evaluation.
The street extension will significantly improve emergency access to the neighborhood,
and the Police and Fire Departments support extension for this reason.
2_2 Traffic Impact of Proiect
! As noted above, the street improvements arc proceeding based on approvals granted to
prior projects. The current lot split will add only one unit to the neighborhood,
resulting in a negligible impact on traffic.
21 Alternatives
Evaluation of the Luncta Drive extension should include consideration of several
alternatives, which are also addressed in the attached memos:
-One-way traffic, with or without parking and/or bike lanes. Because of the
existing right of way configuration, only eastbound traffic (toward Palomar)
could be accommodated. The travel lane would be wider, but emergency access
would not be improved and the short one-way segment might invite wrong-way
shortcuts.
-Leave barricades in place until the entire street width can be improved (as
suggested by the neighbors. ll' break-away or lockable barriers are installed,
there would be some improvement in emergency access. However, it may be
difficult to maintain barriers in this location if paving continues on both
sides; damage from vandals or four-wheel-drive vehicles might result. The
danger of vehicles colliding with barricades would not be reduced. Both the
Fire and Police Chiefs find that leaving the half street blocked off, until the
full right-of-way is available, is acceptable.
I
�-3
city of san Luis oBispo -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
-Purchase the additional right of way and complete the improvements as soon as
possible. The Police and Fire Departments support widening as the best means of
providing emergency access for the neighborhood.
3. Necessity for Deet) Lot Subdivision
Subdivision Regulations allow approval of flag lot subdivisions where "development would
not be feasible with the installation of a standard street".
Staff would note that the site could be subdivided in accordance with standards by
creating two 50' by 150' lots with frontage on Luneta Drive, and that this alternative
would likely minimize grading for driveway installation. It would not be similar to lot
development patterns of previous subdivisions in the neighborhood, however, and the deep
lot proposal would allow creation of reasonable building sites on both new lots.
4. Tree removals
Numerous mature trees are located on the site, primarily pine and oak. One large pine
tree has been removed without authorization from the proposed driveway area. No further
removals should be allowed, and compensatory planting for the removed tree should be
provided as recommended by the City Arborist. It may be appropriate to designate Lot 2
as a sensitive site to ensure that inappropriate development will not occur.
5. Water Availability
Construction of homes on these lots will be subject to water allocation regulations, as
on any other lot in the city. 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 provide direction to the City Engineer regarding
opening Luneta Drive to through traffic, and adopt the attached resolution approving the
tentative map for Minor Subdivision 89-53, subject to the findings and conditions
approved by the Subdivision Hearing Officer.
10111011p,mll city of san lues osispo
GM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
Draft Resolutions
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Tentative map
Appeals
Petition
Minutes - 4/14 Subdivision Hearing
General Plan Excerpts
Engineering Staff Traffic Memo
Initial Study
gts3:ms8953cc
,
I
I
i
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 89-53 LOCATED AT 580 SERRANO DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Hearing Officer approved the tentative map for Minor
Subdivision 89-53 at a public hearing on April 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, on April 19 and 24, 1989, appellants filed appeals requesting that the
council deny the tentative map; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 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 89-53, subject to the
following findings and conditions:
SECTION 1. Findinss
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-1 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.
6. Creation of a flag lot subdivision on this site is justified by topographical
considerations and existing development patterns in the neighborhood.
i
Resolution No. (1989 Series) _
Minor Subdivision 89-53
Page 2 �I
SECTION 2. Conditions.
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review, approval and recordation.
2. The final map shall note that a dwelling constructed on Parcel 2 shall be provided
with fire sprinklers, to teh satisfaction of the city Fire Department.
3. No trees shall be removed from the site in conjunction with subdivision improvements,
unless approved by the City Arborist and Community Development Director.
4. Subdivider shall install compensatory tree planting for trees already removed to the
approval of the City arborist and Community Development Director prior to final map
approval. Value of trees planted shall be at least $2,065.00.
S. Final map shall show boundary of Parcel 2 modified to include the access flag. Flag
shall be at least 24 feet in width with 20-foot wide paving for driveway.
6. Parcel 2 shall be designated as a sensitive site (subject to architectural review at
the time of development) due to concern with preservation of existing mature trees.
SECTION 3. Code Requirements. That the following represent standard requirements 4►'.
required by various codes, ordinances, and policies of the City of San Luis Obispo, but
are not limited to the following:
1. Separate utilities shall be provided for each parcel, to the approval of the Public
Works Department.
2. Street trees shall be planted for every 35 feet of street frontage, to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3. Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid for one additional parcel, as determined by the
Community Development Department.
4. Water acreage fees shall be paid for Parcel 2 prior to final map approval. Fees shall
be determined by the Utilities Department.
5. Subdivider shall submit a common driveway easement agreement to the Community
Development Department for review, approval and recordation.
6. All improvement requirements of MS 86-322 shall become requirements of this
subdivision if not completed prior to final map approval.
Resolution No. (1989 Scries)
MS 89-053
Page 3
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 ,
1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
City Attorn
Community Development Director /
a
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 89-53 LOCATED AT 580 SERRANO DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Hearing Officer approved the tentative map for Minor
Subdivision 89-53 at a public hearing on April 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, on April 19 and 24, 1989, appellants filed appeals requesting that the
council deny the tentative map; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 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 89-53, subject to the
following findings:
SECTION 1. Findinsts
1. The proposed subdivision is premature until further improvements to the local
circulation system are completed.
2. The proposed subdivision will adversely affect the public safety by contributing to
traffic hazards resulting from substandard streets serving the neighborhood.
3. The site is physically unsuited for the type and density of development allowed in the
R-1 zone, in that such development would result in removal of unacceptable numbers of
mature trees from the site.
4: Creation of a flag lot subdivision on this site is not justified by topographical
considerations and existing development patterns in the neighborhood, and the parcel
may be developed in accordance with standard requirements for street frontage and lot
widths.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
.ABSENT:
l
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
MS 89-053
Page 2
the foregoing document was passed and adopted this _ day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-- APPROVED:
City Ad 'nistrative Officer
City Attor e
Community Development Director
„
� \ I
I � O �
- - — - - -- — q0 _ --�
O
Lo ' Y i
IRA O HEIGHTS
O Z Om O .O 'V
�, p p p O• r
O -T-
o
- L _ OO O ' O O ; O
AO .�
O p o O 9Z VERGE DRIVE 3
O O O O � O O O
O O
3
'EMM WN' (P�Iu4TE). M
p•. `''O ` •''�' ���
_- .p m
- - Z -
! L
L -1 n
i O T; 2Rm
p^v N� r �, a I
��-- ---1- 1
tr $
.Nw �I��`�`�eaow.e.Ji�--j«e?w i :•=•_A•=• cy p' �'1rt.,J aJtPF•.'I�C[I-r�4�-.et' MnK�IG nT� ..K.L_1TbJgf1S
^
i
�
'
1 O ji —
Pij
L U I pI NUEVE
pPALOMAR
io
•�M „
- p
2 --
try7
O
�n
• O m
V .i '
1
r O = • _
LQ arm
ta '3
Ul
c C
14
} tA� s 4 a� � � i f ♦ _as
p
Q r ` Ex
It It
3
IIII IIIIIII c,t of san hues oBispo
�
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 (YrimrrittiZ r)=A)F rIgm mt NR sq-cF)7 rendered
z
on April 14- 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) :
See attached.
i
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Ken Bruce on April 21 , 19&9 .
Appellant:
Name/Title
self
Representative
J
617 Luneta Drive . San Luis Obispo, CA 9340:
sA%���< ..�.-.-,r,;:. Address
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Calendared for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy to the following department(s) :
City Clerk
r
CThe design of the minor subdivison proposed is likely
to cause serious health and environmental damage:
1 . The subdivider has already removed a large pine
. tree as it interfered with his intended driveway location.
The consequences (to plant trees of equal monetary value)
are barely equal to a stern glance, and clearly not a
deterent to additional tree removal .
A flag lot subdivision is not called for at this site
and poses significant risk of additional environmental
damage. The Planning staff report recites that deep lot
development, in accordance with subdivision standards , would
create reasonable building sites on both new lots and
minimize the grading required.
- The parcel involved is barren toward the street with a
large stand of mature pine and oak from the midsection back .
The actual tree locations make it readily apparent that a
flat lot subdivision will create a back lot not buildable
without the removal of additional trees.
Deep lot subdivision of the .site would not only
minimize the grading required, but afford reasonable
assurance that no additional trees would be removed by the
subdivider since he would have nothing to gain by such
actions.
Based upon the numerous mature trees located on the
site, and the demonstrated cavalier attitude of the
subdivider, it is urged that only deep lot subdivision be
P '
considered, with attached conditions designating both sites
as sensitive and establishing a penalty of 10 times the
value of any tree removal without authorization.
2. Clarification of the street improvement re-
quirements of MS86-322 is needed prior to approval of any
additional subdivision with traffic impact on Lunetta Drive.
A. The houses on both sides of the subject parcel
are occupied by numerous students. The proposed division
itself will most likely result in additional student
occupants with an increase of at least ten cars in an
already overburdoned parking area, thus leading to
additional deterioratin of the family residential
neighborhood toward student housing. The traffic from the
Valencia apartments and the Delta Tau Fraternity exit on
Luneta Drive in opposition to the traffic planning standards
requiring R4 to exit on major collectors rather than
residential streets.
B. Resolution No. 5605 ( 1984 series MS84-267 )
included an exception from standard full-width street
improvements to allow one-half street with conditions
attached including the erection of barriers to prevent
through traffic on Luneta Drive. The main obstacle to
complying with standard subdivision requirements of full
width street improvement is the change of property -\
ownership mid-.street.
-2- �_/�
A review of the Planning Staff report, Council Agenda
report and City Council Minutes identify the development
issue as whether to deny the subdivision as premature,
allow half-street improvements, or procure the property
required for full street improvement from Delta Tau at the
expense of either the City or subdivider. The Staff reports
noted that the extension of Luneta Drive was not needed to
serve the traffic of the area, and would be needed only for
the properties entering directly. It was further noted that
"Any future development of the fraternity property would
likely result in right-of-way dedication and improvement
installation at no cost to the city. This would greatly
simplify the street extension process. "
CWhen MS 86322 went through the process the Staff
reports noted the half street improvement would be
consistent with the treatment of the adjoining property
( 84-267 ) . There is no discussion in any of the Staff
reports, City Council Minutes, or any other document in the
Planning or Engineering Departments available to a
private citizen to indicate any decision, or even
identification as an issue , the removal of the street
barrier and opening of Luneta to through traffic at half
width.
A casual drive around this area makes it clear that
the opening of Luneta to Palomar would have significant
traffic consequences. Extensive residential traffic would
funnel down to combine with traffic from Valencia apartments
s
-3- +/`
and Delta Tau Fraternity. This area is already overburdoned i
as to parking, and enforcement of no parking (being limited
to ticketing) is ineffective at best.
At 18 feet, Luneta Drive is already 2 feet shy of State
Code minimums for private roads. California Street and
Highway Code Section 1805 requires forty feet wide streets
unless public convenience and necessity demand less width.
The opening of Luneta Drive to through traffic demands a
specific decision and vote of the City Council , and clearly
requires investigation of this issue with Police, Fire ,
Traffic Planning and the City Attorney. The assumption of
City Planning and Engineering that the City Council
"intended" the Street to open is neither well-founded nor in
compliance with State Law.
Luneta Drive ' s development has been by tunnel vision at
every stage thus far. It is time to put this issue into
full focus and recognize the true impact involved. If the
Street is needed as a through way to serve upper Luneta and
adjacent streets, then the City should take the necessary
steps to acquire the additional footage and proceed with
street improvements.
To open Luneta Drive at the completion of the
improvements in .accord with 86-322 is clearly an accident
in the making. The neighborhood residents , as well as the
citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo would be better
served (and probably at less expense) by the acquisition and
development of the right of way, rather than payment of the
damage claims when a child, bicyclist, or jogger gets hit
by a car or the more likely scenario involving a head-on
crash between Cal Poly students.
This neighborhood is the unfortunate product of piece-
meal planning and wishful thinking by various City
Departments.
Until a "final" decision is made as to the future of
Luneta Drive, no additional subdivision should be
considered. The City has allowed a bad and dangerous
situation to be created, which should not be compounded.
I urge each one of you to drive by this area as I believe
you will be as appalled and outraged as myself and fellow
neighbors at the idea that the opening of Luneta at 18 feet
in width could possibly be considered safe or the City
Concil ' s intent when the exception for improvements was
rendered.
-5- / —/�
J
r
§ 1805. Width of city streets, private highways and by-roads
The width of all city streets, except state highways, bridges, alleys,
and trails, shall be at least 40 feet, except that the governing body of
any city may, by a resolution passed by a four-fifths vote of its
membership, determine that the public convenience and necessity
demand the acquisition, construction and maintenance of a street of
less than 40 feet and, after such determination, proceed with the
acquisition, construction or maintenance of any such street. The
width of all private highways and by-roads, except bridges, shall be at
least 20 feet. This section does not require that the width of city
streets established or used as such prior to September 15, 1935, be
increased or diminished.
i�
��9
cityorsAn IOBISPO
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 Hearing. Officer rendered
on April 14, 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) :
See attachment
The undersigned discussed the decieion being appealed from with:
on
Appellant:
James Carlisle
Name/Title
R E G E IV ED Representative
APR 19 19$9 611 Luneta, San Luis Obispo
LITY cLERr Address
SAN LvsnaS'`J r7
*805) 543-2198
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Calendared for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
opy to the following department(s) :
�,.
Ciff C erl
To: City Clerk Date: 4-15-1909
1
From: J. H. Carlisle
611 Luneta SLO CA 93401
Subject: Appeal of Action in Director' s Subdivision .-fearing
on MS 89-053, 4-14-1989.
I am requesting that the city council review the action taken
by the Director of Community Development for the following
reasons:
1 ) The public was not provided with .adequate notice of the
hearing as the address of the subdivision misidentified the
primary street to be affected as Serrano when in fact it was
Luneta.
2) The public was not provided with an adequate man of the
proposed subdivision, only the location of the lot to be
subdivided. In fact,the developer has already demonstrated
his disregard of the city regulations by removing the host
neautiful pine tree on the property without authorization. He
should there=ore .be reauired to provide a detailec: mss of how
the additional lot will be subdivided and locations of all
mature trees and how they will be affected by the additional
structures that :Jill be constructedas a result of tine
anoroved subdivision.
�, 139
3)The assumption that the conditions under which Luneta could
be safely opened onto Palomar has not been made a matter of
public record and does not 'appear to have been clearly
addressed by previous City Council meetings. The documents
cited in the staff report (MS 84-267 and MS 86-322; do not
unambiguously address this issue. In fact the City Council
approved the present half-width street to allow. access to Mr.
Shah's minor subdivision on the condition that it would
remain barricaded until it was completed. The intention of
the City Council was to have the half-width street widened
into a full width street before opening it up.
The appealant contests the interpretation of the staff report
on the present subdivision that simply connecting the half-
width street with Luneta meets the intention of the City
Council or that opening up the street under present
conditions is either safe or minimally impacts traffic
patterns. Homeowners in the area are upset with the city' s
apparent disregard for the safety of it' s citizens by
allowing a section of Luneta. which has not yet been developed
into a full-size street to connect the entire street to
Palomar.
The opening of Luneta has been connected with the granting of
a minor subdivision (MS-89-053 ) . The section of Luneta
joining Luneta to Palomar will be less than Half of the width
Cof the existing street and will thus force traffic to meet
�-;OZP�
J
one another head-on at the very spot where three driveways
will service over one hundred cars from the Delta Tau
fraternity, the Valencia apartments and the new development
onto a small street currently designed to service no more
than a dozen vehicles.
This is an example of planning, by default that must be
addressed. The city would do well to listen to the homeowners
and leave the barriers up until the street is completed as a
full-width street before opening it up. It would be far less
expensive and risky for the city and the citizens using that
street,and would not affect the current arrangement for
emergency vehicle access.
Attached are maps of the location of the subdivision and of
the street affected.
Sincerely,
James Carlisle
T
0 o Q
ro
��-- 0 10 10
0 77
O VSRDE c
9t610 76 '
O �
-- - O O O O
O O
0
•f % •it
i`� M 0 •A.+ �I f
o • ,. votoo i
V ' '
�---
� i l
qp
OA
' L —
as I —�
R . m t se a oaici N� Foy
VgL�}!UA APTS
Q u v b _ -;7.a+yoN oc52L ♦� C4 rs
r tJJ o� s5�1�� �' 0���4p�IRKIN�7
A at
Oct �� 0
— OC2 sss7D V ao ?!C7
a
r �pc►,6n1�
Q C 2 ®
, o
tow
o .oi �lrt
♦ , . I I � , OIT
�� —_-- — _ — ._� O
I 1.01 � ( � _ � — - i- -•.O �� O - I �� I ° Od �'�z��l.r�-Z,,'^�=O
IRANO HEIGHTS
O OM O p
01, O p i O F+
o 0 0 o o O
O O ° E17
v O VERD .s DRIVE
i
° O O O OMC O 10
«NATE0
V p•i ��'O .� r I ILJ
� Z v i ' I J >
r-1 J77
O F.
88
---- e 043
^VENUE
sl O V
e is S PALOMARO
f ir-
10
-a
Y i
The undersigned residents and neighbors of Luneta Drive
wish to register our opposition to the proposed subdivision
89-053.
This neighborhood has been allowed to develop in a
haphazard and piecemeal mannner, which should not be allowed
to continue.
The proposed subdivision would impact upon a dangerous
traffic situation involving a street of less than 1/2
minimum required width with inadequate visibility in an area
of high density student housing with significant parking
Cproblems. To add more traffic to the street. serves only to
increase the likelihood of a serious accident occurring
between cars or involving bicyclists , joggers , or children
at play.
No additional. subdivisions should be considered for
this area until. such time as Luneta Drive is completed as a
full width street with the installati.on of stop signs , speed
bumps or other app:-opriate safeguards .
We urge you to deny proposed subdivision 89-053 as
premature .
/�.�1 �jI ;�/ /moi�!� � /1 ���:/: / �'�.,Vii.
„[[[iii((( �_
���� �� �.. L'�,�9-�-�. h� fid'-/t.I�r�a 1�Q��+�. _
-71-7=7 71
`J� -7/ na a r rl v-e S
VIV
-71
l 5L/2 3 C O
G 2� 5�, d
K lRtc L i--to�,Yo� 1 t PAL
C p,. .
J
DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES `
1
FRIDAY APRIL 14, 1989
Minor Subdivision No. MS 89-053 . Consideration of a tentative parcel
map creating three lots from two lots; 580 Serrano Drive
and 585 Luneta Drive; R-1 zone; D.J. Moore, subdivider..
Greg Smith presented the staff report,noting that the proposal would
result in one lot accommodating the existing residence with frontage
on Luneta Drive, a second lot which has approximately 80 feet of
frontage on Luneta Drive, and a flag lot with frontage on Luneta
Drive. He explained that staff has identified five issues to be
considered in processing this request: (1) Whether or not it is
necessary for a deep lot subdivision configuration. Staff notes that
the parcel could be subdivided by providing two 50x150' lots with
frontage on Luneta Drive,� that would meet city standards without
using a flag lot configuration. On the other hand, he explained that
this would. be different from existing lot development patterns, and
the deep lot subdivision would allow creation of reasonable building
sites on both lots. (2) The issue of street width is one which was
addressed by the council when the site was subdivided from one lot
into two lots. At that time, Mr. Smith explained, the council
approved creation of a two-lane configuration in approximately one-
half the normal right-of-way width for several hundred feet.,
including the frontage of this property. The judgement of the
council and city engineer determines this to be a safe and adequate
street section, provided that parking is prohibited in the restricted
road width area. (3) Regarding tree removals, Mr. Smith noted that
one large pine tree was removed without authorization. The City
Arborist recommends compensating planting be provided, and staff
supports that recommendation. (4) City standards require the access
flag to Parcel 2 to be included within the boundaries of parcel 2,
and it is not clearly shown in that way on the tentative map. (5)
Staff is recommending widening the access flag to a minimum of 24
feet rather than the 20 feet proposed, to accommodate the grading
transition between the existing lots which are developed to the east
and the anticipated driveway grading for lot 2 .
Mr. Smith recommended approval of the request based on findings and
subject to conditions which he outlined.
The public hearing was opened.
Tom Baumberger, subdivider's engineer, clarified that the driveway
portion of the flag lot is intended to become a portion of parcel 2 .
D.J. Moore, subdivider, said he had no problems with the conditions
recommended by staff, especially since this would eliminate the need
to build retaining walls to install a driveway. He noted he has
about 12 trees he is ready to plant as soon as the street on Luneta
�-�z 9
Page 2
Drive is finished.
Lydia Mourenza, 617 Luneta Drive, said she objects to the method of
noticing of the subdivision, as it was identified as 580 Serrano
Drive which was previously divided into two lots and created a lot
identified as 585 Luneta. She felt this violates the intent of
noticerequirements and said Serrano Drive has no effect of the
proposed subdivision; the problems and traffic will be off of Luneta
Drive. Ms. Mourenza presented a petition signed by 37 people on
Luneta, Palomar or Serrano, objecting to any additional subdivisions
in this area until a sensible resolution of the traffic problems are
made.
She further noted that when the section on the other side of the
barricade was divided (MS 84-267) , it Was required at that time that
the subdivider would erect barricades to prevent through traffic on
Luneta Drive. When the subject property was divided from one lot to
2 lots (MS 86-322) , the discussion was that half the street was
consistent with the way the subdivision had been previously
considered. This property owns half the street; the other half is
owned by the fraternity. She said the city determined, in findings
listed in various staff reports, that the street was needed only .for
the people who were going to directly access it from Luneta; they did
not wish to undergo the costs of obtaining the other half of the
f street, and assumed the fraternity would develop that property and
dedicate the street right-of-way and improvement installation at no
cost to the city. This would have greatly simplified the street
extension process, and does not appear that extension of the street
is needed for the benefit of properties other than those adjacent to
the undeveloped portion of the street at the present time.
Jim Carlisle said he objected to the proposal. He felt the volume of
traffic will increase significantly when barriers are removed, and
objected to removal of them. Mr. Carlisle further objected to any
removal of the mature pine trees that currently exist on the site.
R. H. Sterling, 540 Serrano Drive, objected to the half-street
extension, feeling that it will be very dangerous. He did not
object to the lot split.
Ken Bruce explained that the street issue is not a part of this
request. It has been approved as part of a previous subdivision, and
nothing can be done about it now. The street is being installed now
to meet the requirements of a previous project approval. The amount
of traffic created by a new lot would be an appropriate issue.
Bob Mourenza, 617 Luneta Drive, felt that traffic would be increased
by this subdivision.
Maggie St.Vincent, 87 Palomar, said her main concern is the
narrowness of the street. She said that when the street was approved
three years ago, most of the houses had not yet been built. She
asked if two cars could pass on the half-street without causing an
I
Page 3
accident, and Ken Bruce responded that the issue had been considered
at the time of the original approval. She noted that the fraternity
has now built a fence all the way to the end of the street, and had
concerns with sight visibility, especially around the corner. She
asked if part of the fence could be removed. She also asked if there
is any mechanism to request more permanent barricades.
Ken Bruce stated that if a fence is blocking visibility, and if it is
in the street yard, it would need to be removed. Mr. Bruce said he
had been at the site recently, and felt there may be a visibiluity
problem with the fence.. He also noted that the city would not wait
until an accident occurs to remedy the situation; it would be looked
into immediately.
The public hearing was closed.
Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer for the City of San Luis
Obispo, said the reason the City Council heard the previous
subdivision proposals was because the street was not a full-width
street and did not meet all the subdivision requirements of the
Hearing Officer. Therefore, it was referred to the City Council for
resolution.
Mr. Kenny then explained that the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer
reviewed this situation with the earlier project and felt that the
traffic would not be so significant so as to be a problem, and they -�
promised to monitor the situation with respect to the Valencia
Apartments and the fraternity. There are options the city has, such
as requiring the driveway to come out at near right angles to the
street. Mr. Kenny further noted that the view is not as blocked as
one might think, but it will be monitored. He said one of the
considerations is the signing that the street narrows, with or
without speed limits posted, additionl stop signs, or whatever might
be necessary in the future. This will all be part of the Traffic
Engineer's_ review of the situation. Mr. Kenny explained that there
will be a significant change to the neighborhood, however, some of
the lots were subdivided years ago when the street improvements were
not required to be installed until now. Now, as people move in, it
is becomming apparent that there may be a problem.
Ms. St.Vincent said the discussion from the council meeting,
according to information she obtained from the files, was whether to
allow Luneta as a half street or to make it a full street. When it
was determined to be a half-street, a condition was imposed that it
be barricaded to prevent through traffic and identified as "no
parking" . When the other side of Luneta went through, the Fire
Department said they could deal with the situation on a temporary
basis, leading her to believe that meant until a full street was
installed.
Ken Bruce explained again that the previous subdivison that was
approved approximately three years ago, of which Mr. Baumberger was
also involved, went to the City Council specifically because they had
to make a finding to allow for the half-street, and they did allow
it..
Page 4
To go back further, Mr. Bruce explained that the lot at 87 Palomar
was created in 1978, and the lots next door to that were created in
1984. The lots were created a long time prior to the houses being
built on them. Every subdivision along there was very controversial
as to what to do with the half-street situation, and has always been
considered and discussed at the subdivision hearings. It was the
feeling of the City Council, who approved all of these subdivisions,
that it is best to get the half-street dedication and improvements to
improve fire and emergency access to serve those lots now, as opposed
to waiting until something happens to the property where the
fraternity is. Mr. Bruce said he felt there was reasonable concern
pertaining to the safety hazard of having a half-street. He further
explained that where an existing street exists, and a change is
wanted (such as erecting barricades, installing red curbing or
signing with "no parking",, etc. ) an application can be made through
the city engineer; there is a city Traffic Committee and they can
consider this issue of barricades.
Jerry Kenny stated that it is his opinion that the fence is not legal
because it is at the property line and should be no higher than
3-feet above adjacent grade; that might mean street grade which could
mean the fence must be removed altogether.
Ken Bruce approved Minor Subdivision MS 89-053, based on the
following findings and subject to the following conditions:
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-1 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.
6. Creation of a flag lot subdivision on this site is justified by
topographical considerations and existing development patterns in
the neighborhood:
C �
Page 5 �.
l i
Conditions
1. Subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for review,
approval and recordation.
2. The final map shall note that a dwelling constructed on Parcel 2
shall be provided with fire sprinklers, to teh satisfaction of
the city Fire Department.
3 . No trees shall be removed from the site in conjunction with
subdivision improvements, unless approved by the City Arborist
and Community Development Director.
4. Subdivider shall install compensatory tree planting for trees
already removed to the approval of the City arborist and
Community Development Director prior to final map approval.
Value of trees planted shall be at least $2,.065.00.
5. Final map shall show boundary of Parcel 2 modified to include the
access flag. Flag shall be at least 24 feet in width with
20-foot wide paving for driveway.
6. Parcel 2 shall be designated as a sensitive site (subject to
architectural review at the time of development) due to concern
with preservation of existing mature trees.
Code ReQuirements
1. Separate utilities shall be provided for each parcel, to the
approval of the Public Works Department.
2 . Street trees shall be planted for every 35 feet of street
frontage, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
3 . Park-in-lieu fees shall be paid for one additional parcel, as
determined by the Community Development Department.
4 . Water acreage fees shall be paid for Parcel 2 prior to final map
approval. Fees shall be determined by the Utilities Department.
5. Subdivider shall submit a common driveway easement agreement to
the Community Development Department for review, approval and
recordation.
6. All improvement requirements of MS 86-322 shall become
requirements of this subdivision if not completed prior to final
map approval.
Ken Bruce noted that this action can be appealed to the City Council
by any person aggrieved by the decision within 10 days of the action.. -�
Appeals should .be filed in the City Clerk's office. J
x-33
LANA
r
e. Areas designated for interim agriculture/� dentia! expansion and
rural industrial within the urban reser should be encouraged to
remain in agricultural use. In the a nt nonagricultural use such as
rural industrial, rural residentia r rural planned development is
pursued, the following Doliei should be employed:
- The County should co ider minimum five- to ten-acre parcelization
or equivalent rural tined development only when it is demonstrated,
prior to land divi 'on, that individual on-site water and septic
systems will b dequate to serve the intended rural residential
uses, and th subdivision (or parcel map dibisions) arc consistent
with an. opted "property development plan . pattern of present and
roperty
devclo ent plan should show an appropriate
fut c local and collector streets, planned utility system
gnments, and how each separate five- to ten-acre parcel can be
individually used in the futurje, without cooperation or combination
of individual parcels.
2. Residential Land Use Objectives
The policies 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
here rather than. commute.
htel D aa sdensity and
propertydc establish standards for all land use
classifications:
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
i
acre;
High density shall be from 19-to 24 dwelling units per net acre;
1
I
.3
y-3�
--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 1
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-density 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.
C. 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 to orient
low-density housing to local access streets and medium- or
high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets.
i
i
14 4' 4
acy of San IDIS OBISPO
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION APP (CATION NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT'
STAF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION =MITIGATION INCLUDED
_EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BYDATE /29
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR•SACTION: DATE 3/29/89
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ... .. . ..... .. . .. . ... ..... .. ... . . . .. ...... . . .... .
S. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH. .. . . .. ....... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .... ..
C. LAND USE .. ... . .......... . . . .. . ... . .. .. ..
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION . .... .. . ... . .. .. . .. . . ... .. ..... ......... .. . ...
E. PUBLIC SERVICES . .... . . . . ...... . .. . . ......... . ... . ... . . . .
F. UTILITIES. . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . .
G. NOISE LEVELS .-.. . .. o
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS 8 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS . . .. . . . . ..
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND OLfALITY . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . -
K. PLANT LIFE ... . . .
L ANIMALLIFE.... . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL . . . .. ... . . .. . . . .. .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
N. AESTHETIC ...... .... ... . .. . .. .. .. . . .. ..... . . . .. . . .. ..... . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . .
O. ENERGWRESOURCEUSE . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
P. OTHER . . .. . .. ... .. . _
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
SEE ATTACHED REPORT %�
Initial Study ER 18-89
Page 2
I. Description of Project and Environmental Setting
The applicants propose subdivision of two existing lots to create three lots. All lots
would meet city standards for the R-I zone. Access to the site would be via a
substandard street (Luneta Drive) previously approved by the city,
The site is approximately 35,000 square feet in area, with a slope of approximately 10 to
15%. Numerous mature trees are located on the site; all but one of these trees is to be
preserved.
II. Potential Impact Review
D. Transportation and Circulation
The substandard street serving the subdivision was approved recently with the subdivision
of the site from one to two parcels (MS 86-322). Studies done by city staff for that
project indicate that there will not be adverse impacts on traffic safety if parking is
not allowed on the substandard street section, which is one-half of the normal width,
since two travel lanes will be accommodated. The street will eventually be widened to
accommodate parking.
_1
F. Utilities
The city's water usage currently exceeds safe annual yield of proven long-term sources.
The city has adopted water allocation regulations to control increase in water use due to
new development, and in order to help the current imbalance between water use and
supply. The regulations limit issuance of building permits, and are expected to mitigate
water use impacts.
gts4:er18-89
MEETING AGENDA' RECEIVED
DATE S=/G_` 9 ITEM #
MAY 161989
Crty m San Luis Obispo
"nnmunily Development
ti rDeno!es nctkm by Lead Person
•{�Councii
;!
May 16, 1989 YI 1O
yyr f�rty/�Mi
ff gler~A�at.�A�e./
T ` Community Development Dept.
�i� • 960 Palm St. 7--
n Luis Obispo, CA d�icr�
To i'Jhom It May Concern:
{ ?• As a neighbor of the property at 580 Serra ,c1 ;r i ve a;id
585 ,Luneta Drive, I would like to go on re..r ;:d a.s be:i.n ;
41 in favor of the Directors Subdivision -approving
I�. a tentative parcel map for MS 89-053 creaLi1i.:; %li•!-ne :Lots
from two lots.
The proposed subdivisionis not inconsisLeni :,Ji.:A Noi sing
developed on the south side of the 500 blc,.,;•:, of T,u ei:a:
If there is a problem regarding street widL " oi: Luneta , and
there certainly is, it should. be addre-sseJ i;o l:i)e Tr.aternity
' or development on the North side of the si;r et:. _e:s , it
is J.angprous.
C
I ( Si{zceJ,ely,
ol
Lilly �rasser
530 ,Serrano Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
541 -6016
Y��1ttf
(
p!p1
y.
s,
�wiE i G AGENDA �w
DATES/G-8`I' ITEM #
-
540 Serrano Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
May 8 , 1989
City Of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo , CA 93403
Reference is to the appeal of the Director' s Subdivision
Hearing for 580 Serrano Drive and 585 Luenta Drive , Application
Number M S 89-053 by D. J . Moore , scheduled for May lei , 1989 .
I live on Serrano Drive on the west side of the tract for
which the lot split was approved at the Director' s Hearing. As
indicated at the hearing, we have no objection to the lot split
as requested and approved . In fact , we are grateful that the lot
split request was for three lots and the south end of the tract
on which the Ross house is located was left intact .
We sympathize with the residents on Luneta about the traffic
problems that will result due to the half street which borders the
Delta Tau fraternity property , but the solution to this problem
will not be resolved by denying the lot split request . It is our
opinion that the most logical solution to traffic problems on the
half street is for the city to bring condemnation action so that
the full street can be completed thru to Palomar Street .
Robert H. Sterling
RECEIVEr)
MAY 1 1 %9
QTYCLE*K
SAN LUtcriareap.C,►
:macs aCifcn by Lead Peisun
R&& Pond by:
ouncd
I—�y.//CCAO
�Am
�'°* ,��
Denotes action by Lead Person
MEETING AGENDA
May 3 , 1989t .Council
DATE .5=/4.0-9 ITEM # 4AO
W!C y Airy.
Clerk-orifi,
Re: Director' s Subdivision Appeal re: MS 89053
Dear Councilperson:
My Appeal from the Director' s Subdivision Decision is
currently scheduled for May 16, 1989. I would like to
present a summary and express my hopes of outcome relative
to the powers of your council .
The short section of Luneta Drive between the proposed
subdivision MS 89053 and Palomar has changed from a field to
a family neighborhood in the last year. Contemporaneous
with the most recent subdivision request, the developer has
improved the 1/2 width of Luneta removing the barriers
previously required per your resolution.
Myself and a number of other neighbors attempted to raise
the issue of the opening of Luneta Drive as a through street
to Palomar at the time of the Subdivision Hearing. Planning
and Engineering Departments have indicated to me that
although they are empowered to open the Street, only the
City Council could instruct that the Street not be opened.
The presently improved portion of Luneta Drive is less than
that required for a private street in the State of
California. Although it is possible for two prudent drivers
to safely pass each other, the predominantly student traffic
associated with the Delta Tau Fraternity and the Valencia
apartments, I am sorry to say, does not often fit the
"prudent" driver category.
The half-width street is totally sufficient for the
household needs of the residents at this time. As a through
traffic street , the dangers of the reduced width become
tremendous. I am certainly concerned for the safety and
welfare of my own children and those of my neighbors, along
with the numerous bicyclist and joggers who utilize Luneta
Drive currently. The serious likelihood of an accident,
however, I believe entails the additional traffic from the
R-4 apartment complex (160 units)which would utilize Luneta
as the most expeditious route.
I strongly urge you to utilize your powers to assure the
continued safety in this location by passing a resolution to
assure that Luneta Drive will remain barricaded and
identified as "not a through street" so long as it remains
at its current substandard width.
Your attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated.
ao RECEIVE [)
Lydia Mourenza MAY 1 v
NM
LM/sm � qoiU t-rrCLERK
SAIWEWSO%v cA
( 1
Y
��II�BI�I II IlflNlllll�������11111�11111►111111 ��
city of sAn LUIS oaspo
dollfts gig
MINNOW 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
April 18, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Smith
FROM: Jerry Kenny
SUBJECT: Appeals regafing uneta Street - MS 89-053
The following comments are submitted in response to the items addressed in
the two appeals by Carlisle and Moerenza:
Carlisle:
1 . Items 1 - 2. Planning issues.
2. Item 3. The condition of approval for Ramesh Shah's MS 84-267
was to barricade to preclude vehicles from traversing John Ross's
unimproved property until the street was extended. This is
similar to the one on the west side of the Ross property. Staff
(— is quite certain it was not Council 's intention, as mentioned in
the appeal, to keep Luneta closed until the full street is
improved.
The review by staff did consider safety. See Barbara Lynch's memo
to you dated 4-13-89. The feeling has always been that we would
monitor the traffic and provide necessary signing to alert the
public as to the narrow street, no parking, etc . The no parking
issue is being addressed and tow-away signs and fire lane
designation will be installed.
The minor subdivision that provided the opening of Luneta was the
previous map, MS 86-322.
The Fire Dept. has indicated they would use this route during
emergency response.
Mourenza:
1 . Planning issue.
2.8. some comments as 2. above. The City Council resolution
should be adequate to address the "narrower than 40 feet" issue.
Vicki Finucone should respond to this item.
Page two
Memo to Greg Smith �-
April 18, 1989
I have attached a composite plan indicating the configuration upon
completion of the current construction. This department reluctantly would
agree to a one way street (easterly) in the interim as an alternative,
subject to Council direction, rather than barricading. It may be
difficult to control, though. Westbound vehicles may use the roadway in
the wrong direction or cut through the fraternity property. We feel that
the two-way circulation should be tried first to see if unmanageable
traffic problems occur. There are alternative driveways serving both the
fraternity and Valencia Apartments. That reduces the impact on use of
Luneta.
The fence along the Delta Tau property line should be eliminated or
reduced to 2 or 3 feet high for about 30 feet from the access to Luneta.
It is a hazard and violates the zoning ordinance, in my opinion.
Attachment:
Composite of improvement plans
- 1
N/jkappeal
.j k
MEMCRANDU."
Ci3/84
f0: Greg Smith
VIA: Jerry Kenny
A=RCM: Dar'-ara Lvn h
s -a�3
SU,PJECT: i_Uneta F'et ween Verde and Pal Umar 'iri ! 5tr�eei.
The Funlic: Works department has reviewed t1he opening of t_.unetf~ in the Corm
of a half street. The street will be marked so as to indicate no parking
on both sides tc allow travel in both directions. The Cit, will also post
Indications on either end of the half street indicating to drivers that
they are ent.iring a narrow section.
While this section of Luneta will receive additional traffic because it is
no longer dead end , traffic through the intersection of Verde and Luneta
should not change. Traffic on Verde should be 1-elieved to the same extent
that Luneta is impacted.
The Engineering division wiii monitor the area including the fraternity
driveway which exits on Luneta immediately adjacent to the half street.
If it appears drivers are not using proper care when exiting the driveway
in its present merging configuration , the city will modify the area at the
driveway exit to encourage the residents to enter the street from a normal
ition (perpendicular to the centerline) .
The Public Works department recommends that the street be opened at Half
width.
L_Af�V C�VOA)Tfl M6I', fl (_ICIF-S
The City Council may exempt an an nexation.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 enefits include:
a) Housing affordable to low-income p ple, managed by a public or
nonprofit agency.
b) Mitigation of significant pre isting environmental problems.
c) Actions that significantl improve the quality of life within,
existing neighborhood .
d) Open space whit 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 sitive habitat areas, areas with .special recreational
potentia areas with sensitive historical or archaeological
resour s 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 1 use objectives of the
General Plan.
- The City should coordinate its an kation of any additional territory
and its approvai.of any urban velopments in expansion areas within
the corporate limits with the ' 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 /1
can be vided concurrently.
-3�
Re: Director 's Subdivision Appeal MS 98-053
Dear Councilperson:
My appeal is currently scheduled for May 16, 1989, and concerns two
areas: 1 ) The impact on traffic safety in allowing the undeveloped
and less than legal half-width section of Luneta to connect Luneta
with Palomar, and 2) the jeoprady of numerous trees on the proposed
third lot in the subdivision.
Since the developer was not required to show how a third residential
structure could be added to the property without jeopradizing these
lovely mature trees, one of which has already been removed without
authorization, a vague promise to preserve as many of the trees as
possible is an invitation to further violation.
Allowing the undeveloped section of Luneta which is adjacent to 603-
633 Luneta to connect the rest of Luneta with Palomar creates an
unnecessary traffic hazard because this narrow road will invite R4
traffic out of the Valencia. apartments to shortcut through an R1
neighborhood. This sudden change in street width forces opposing
traffic into the same lane where three driveways service
approximately one hundred vehicles, and a blind spot is created by
mature eucalyptus trees standing at the end of the full-width
section of Luneta (see attached map) .
I am requesting that the City council 1 ) Require that the
subdeveloper replace the road barrier between these two sections of
Luneta which it removed, and that the City Council specify that the
street not be opened to thru-traffic until it is able to meet the
same standards as the rest of Luneta. It should be noted that
Associate Planner, Greg Smith advised me that the Fire Dept, Police
Dept and City Engineer had agreed to this request in principle in a
previous meeting of these depts.
2) That the subdeveloper, Mr. Moore should be required to submit a
plan that shows the number and location of trees and that the
Community Development Director be directed to set specific limits on
the size of the structure to be allowed on the flag lot and what
trees may be removed, with prior approval.
cer ly,
c
H. Carlisle
C Thy
O ;
HTS
0 ;u h � � Q
I
, 80
O O O ; Q O
Ov Q ` O VER®E -S ®SKIVE _
' 9Z
� S4 �L
O 0 O � O
ATE
;4r no
YI
oa O • ^ .
V
V i
a �LIP
n _
Z
0
Om i
� F
Vulanc�a AP�'5 o
o L LW cP OLO a;ec
-- - - — DEAD c Qf Tea,�RAavq
_ BARRIciL
Q • --
• �'recs
�41
O � ! O cl
e
37
e o Q l
�►A fr=,
= PAL®MAR -�
.�. cc
• � ..aaw ..ce .
��.a,Q M i s . �� •sc��-e• ix n-• :7:crr�+ ns deo - ' �
�'`I _ __�_. � ••K 1.09 K 1rOf _
�, =- 1EETING AGENDA
RespMnay -DATE tDft411kAAMM #
PtAO
NPC4Any,. 11.2 Broad Street
0CieAo-mig. San Luis Obispo
,mIMa&f{. CALIFORNIA 93401
May 99 1989
Regarding Luneta Street Connection , May 16 Agenda
The City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Mr . Mayor and City Council Members:
I wish to urge you to scrap the proposed connection of Luneta
between Verde and Palomar . There is no need for this connection ,
and there are many reasons why it should never be made .
For a detailed discussion of the issues, please refer to my
attached letter to the Hearing Officer dated Feb. 16, 1989.
To support this request , I cite the following summary issues:
1 . The connection is not shown on the master street map which is
part of the city's Circulation Element . The map shows a clear
break in the street , which despite staff comments to the contrary,
indicates it was the intent of the decision-makers who adopted the
Circulation Element that the street not be connected.
2. The connection will turn into a thoroughfare serving large
portions of the San Luis Mountain residential area, and dumping
that traffic onto streets never intended to serve as throughfares
-- Palomar and Serrano, for example . This contention is borne out
by the prior experience of those of us who have lived in the
neighborhood since before Ramona was connected to broad, and when
Serrano was a dead-end street . Due to these through-connections,
both are now major traffic arteries dumping traffic into the
already-impacted Broad-Murray area.
3. The connection conflicts with specific objectives of the
Circulation Element :
* "Manage traffic so that it is concentrated on arterial streets
and throughfares and is not disbursed throughout residential
areas. ° (This connection will disburse traffic throughout our
residential area instead of concentrating it on existing heavily
traveled streets. )
* "Ensure that any circulation project solution , major or minor ,
must prrovide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all
residential neighborhoods. °
Finally, in going beyond the narrow issue before you , I wish to
offer a comment about how this issue has been handled up to now,
for it points to a shortcoming in how the city deals both with
RECEIVP- D
MAY 9
ancuErv.
5411tt}re,%gwan.CP
Schmidt , Page 2
environmental review and with the so—called "minor" development
dispensations administered by staff .
Those in the neighborhood have been protest,ing this road
connection since at least 1985, when it first became apparent that
we were about to have a connection that would hurt our
neighborhood and further depress our property values due to
traffic impacts. At every step of the way, our input has been
shined on and ignored by staff . I have appended letters printed
out of my computer files as partial evidence of what staff has
refused to listen to (without so much as even offering valid
refutation ! ) .
Regarding environmental review, this project was given a "negative
declaration" of environmental impact on the basis of a checklist
on which everything was checked "no" . I asked to see the backup
studies on which the checklist was based, and was told there were
none ! This is illegal ; court cases have held there must be a
clear public record of the considerations that lead to a negative
declaration . I lacked the $ to challenge this in court at the
time , so it went unchallenged, but if this sort of malfeasance
continues, sooner or later someone will challenge it and the city
will have an expensive defense for a sure loser , and will look
very stupid.
I repeat for emphasis: a negative declaration was 'issued despite
the lack of any study whatsoever of the issues raised by
neighbors!
I question whether a negative declaration is even appropriate for
this project . CEGA regulations are quite clear that if
significant public controversy about a potential impact exists,
the correct way to resolve the. matter is not with a negative
declaration., but with an EIR or focused EIR. I submit to you that
the historic letters attached to this document are alone
sufficient to establish the presumption of significant
controversy. Again , I 'd suggest to you that someday you' ll
encounter someone who's stepped on in this way who will do more
about it than write a hot letter to the City Council , and again
the city would be forced to defend the undefensible .
The multiplication of episodes like this throughout our community
hale' led to a widespread feeling that City Hall is not responsive
to the desires, aspirations and needs of ordinary citizens, but
only to vested interests within the development community. I 'd
ask that in addition to your action on the specific issue at hand,
you see to it that the specific procedures I refer to,
particularly environmental review, are carried out in a more
circumspect manner .
The basic problem with the city's environmental review process is
that it is carried out by the project planner who handles a
development application , and thus becomes simply an appendage to
� - 3
Schmidt, Page 3
the planner's project report and recommendation for approval or
denial . The function of environmental review is not to serve as a
rationalization for the project planner's recommendation ; CEQA
review is supposed to result in an impartial analysis of possible
environmental issues which need to be considered by
decision-makers. This function is inherently different from the
project planner's analysis of planning issues. Most of the
so-called environmental review carried out in the city's current
way is deficient -- witness the case at hand. One excellent
solution would be to separate environmental review from project
review as the County of San Luis Obispo does by having a separate
person to handle environmental review.
I urge you to stop receiving and filing letters like this one , and
to take some action lest the citizens conclude their perceptions
about unresponsiveness are correct enough to serve as the basis
for casting votes in municipal elections.
Sincerely,
Ci� t OVA
Richard Schmidt
Enclosures:
Letter to Hearing Officer , Feb. 16, 1989
Letter to City Council , June 16, 1987 (which includes excerpts
from letter by neighbors dated March 30 , 1985)
112 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo
CALIFORNIA 93401
February 16, 1989
Re Minor Subdivision 86-322 -- Feb. 17 Agenda
Hearing Officer
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To the Hearing Officer :
Since I am a working 'mah , there is no way to attend this daytime
hearing. I send this note instead.
While I have no objection to the subdivision of this parcel into
two parcels, I wish to register my strong objection to the
connection of Luneta Drive to Palomar Drive that the City is
requiring as a condition of this subdivision .
My reasons for opposing this street connection are as follows:
1 . The traffic impact of connecting these streets will
adversely affect the health , safety and welfare of residents
along several blocks of Luneta, Palomar , Serrano and Broad by
creating a major through traffic corridor where none now
exists.
2. In the short-term, the existence of a "half-street" with a
building standing inside the right of way will clearly be a
menace to the public health , safety and welfare . Such a right
of way is clearly inadequate and unsafe .
3. The connection will turn Palomar and Serrano into major
thoroughfares serving all of the north side of San Luis
Mountain -- many hundreds, if not ultimately thousands, of cars
per day.
4. It will make Palomar-Serrano the route of choice for
residents of the Valencia apartments. Since the traffic of
these young drivers tends to be heavier , more reckless and less
considerate than average and continues into the wee hours of
the morning, this will create yet another unnecessary ruckus in
what has been a pleasant residential area..
5. This traffic will impact Serrano, a steep , dangerous street ,
formerly dead-end, which terminates directly opposite my home .
Not only does this increased traffic on a steep street never
built for such traffic pose increased life-safety problems for
myself and my immediate neighbors should an automobile lose
brakes or traction , it also means more headlights aimed from a
high position into our homes and aggravates the ruckus of an
existing noisy intersection which is constructed so that cars
frequently hit bottom while turning.
6. I envision La Entrada-Luneta-Palomar-Serrano becoming an
attractive route for Los Osos commuters who wish to bypass the
ever-increasing number of traffic signal obstructions on
5
Page 2
Foothill and Santa Rosa. If this sounds far-fetched, - consider
that a significant portion of the traffic now cutting through
the Broad-Murray area consists of such commuters (evidence :
city :origin-destination studies) . When I purchased my home ,
Ramona was not a through street ; now it is a through-commuter
route of the sort Luneta will become if this connection is
made . i
7. Since the city has acknowledged the undesirability of
through traffic in our neighborhood, and has hired a
high-priced out-of-town consultant to try to find ways to
reduce it , it makes no sense for the city to further compound
the situation by this unnecessary street connection project .
Those are the reasons why I oppose the connection of these
streets.
The only argument put forth in favor of the connection is that it
will enhance public health, safety and welfare by improving
emergency response time . That is nonsense : in order to reach this
connection , emergency vehicles will have to negotiate either
Serrano, which is steep , and then Palomar and the sharp turn into
Luneta; or they will have to wind their way up Palomar from
Ramona, between rows of tightly parked cars, and then a tight turn
into Luneta. Any emergency vehicle that chooses to take such a
difficult route in preference to one of the straight-shot streets
like Tassajara will be moving very slowly indeed. Furthermore ,
there has been no response problem up to now, so there is no
reason to believe one will exist in the future .
On the other side are the clear public health , safety and welfare
consequences of connecting the streets.
MY REQUEST IS THE FOLLOWING: that Luneta remain a double cul de
sac just west of Palomar . We have collectively lived safely and
conveniently without the connection till now, and can continue to
do without it forever .
TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE CITY'S TAKING THE REQUESTED ACTION:
1 . The street connection conflicts with the Circulation Element of
the General Plan . On Page 17, the goals of the plan include
°* Manage traffic so that it is concentrated on arterial streets
and thoroughfares and is not disbursed throughout residential
areas. °
(Disbursing through traffic throughout residential areas on
non-arterial streets is precisely what this connection is
designed to do. )
°* Ensure that any circulation project solution , major or minor ,
Page 3
must provide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all
residential neighborhoods. "
(No effort has .been made at mitigation , or even admission there
is a problem. )
Clearly the street connection conflicts with both those goals, and
is therefore contrary to city planning policy.
The map that appears in the Circulation Element shows a gap in
Luneta, so there appears to be no presumption of a future
connection .
2. -Environmental Review is substantively inadequate . It failed
to consider the circulation impacts of the project despite the
fact they had been raised by neighbors.
3. Environmental Review is legally inadequate .
The Director has recommended a negative declaration based on a
checklist and nothing more .
The checklist consisted of summary headings which could be
checked °yes° or "no" regarding potential impact . All were
checked "no. "
There is no supporting documentation to indicate what. was
considered in granting the negative declaration .
California Courts have held that a checklist alone , without
additional documentation , is insufficient for issuing a negative
declaration . The public is entitled to know the means by which
their servants reach such decisions. (Cal App Vol . 172 Ed.3rd
151 p . 1908) .
Lacking such documentation , I believe a case can be made that a
negative declaration is unsupportable for Traffic and
Circulation , for Noise Levels, and for Community Plans and
Goals.
4. State law requires that an EIR, and not a negative declaration ,
be the mode for resolving disputes about the signifcance of
probable significant impacts.
If there is public controversy about potential impacts, state law
requires that an EIR be conducted. (Section 15064.h . 1 of state
CEGA regulations adopted by City of SLO) .
In this instance there is a written documentary record dating to
at least March 1985 documenting public controversy over
precisely the concerns I express above . The fact that the city
refuses to acknowledge this controversy (and refuses to respond
to its correspondence on the subject) does not change the fact
Page 4
that controversy exists, and apparently provides adequate
standing for citizens to pursue a lawsuit on the issue of
environmental review adequacy.
As it stands, I believe the city has two choices: to go back and
do the environmental study that should have been done , or to drop
the requirement for the through connection .
In light of the above , the only sensitive and sensible course for
the city to follow at this time is to require cul -de-sacs instead
of a through street ; in other words, to avoid the need for further
environmental review by eliminating the feature.. ;of the project
that has caused the controversy.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
- - 8
112 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo
CALIFORNIA 93401
June 16, 1987
Re : Agenda Item 2
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear City Council :
I wish to register my strong objection .to the connection of
Lunetta Drive -to Palomar Drive that .the City is requiring as a
condition of this minor subdivision . ( I do not oppose the
subdivision . )
You hopefully recall that about March 30 , 1985, you received a
letter from the North Broad Neighbors, signed by myself, Robert
Cichowski (755 Serrano Drive) , Jacob Feldman (711 Murray) , and Ted
and Roberta Foster (748 Meinecke) , expressing our fears about
increased through-traffic impacts due to the Lunetta extension and
another nearby development (which has temporarily gone dormant) .
We specifically asked the Council to change the City's policy
requiring eventual connection of Lunetta to Palomar .
We never received a reply to our letter . We had hoped the City
would adopt our policy suggestion then , but if not we at least
assumed the letter would be kept in City files, and note taken of
it at the appropriate time. None of us, so far as I have been
able to determine , were notified of the present determination to
do what we requested that the City not do. I found out only at 4
p .m. Monday that this item was coming before the Council tonight .
It is my understanding that two of the previous letter's signatory
are now out of town , and I have been unable to reach the third.
In other words, given such short notice , it is impossible to bring
before you fresh and vocal neighborhood sentiment tonight , though
I assure you sentiment remains strong.
So I refer to the relevant portion of our March 30 , 1985, letter ,
which represents the sentiments of a large group of north San Luis
Obispo resisdents. That letter states our concern as follows:
"LUNETTA CONNECTION. The council recently approved, as a
routine and non-controversial matter , the creation of a "minor"
subdivision which will result in the extens'i'on of Lunetta almost
all the way through between Verde and Palomar . Apparently only
one lot now stands between converting two cul de sacs into a
through street . Our concern is that such a connection will
tremendously increase traffic in a neighborhood where through
traffic should be discouraged, namely in the following ways:
"a. It will turn Palomar and Serrano into major thoroughfares
9
Page 2
serving all of the north side of San Luis Mountain -- many
hundreds, if not thousands, of cars per day.
°b. It will make Palomar-Serrano the route of choice for
residents of the Valencia apartments. Since the traffic of
these young drivers tends to be heavier than average and
continues into the wee hours of the morning, this wiill create
yet another unnecessary ruckus in what has been a pleasant
residential area.
°c . We envision La Entrada-Lunetta-Palomar-Serrano becoming
an attractive route for Los Osos commuters who wish to bypass
the ever-increasing number of traffic signal obstructions on
Foothill and Santa Rosa. Residents 'upstream' on Lunetta and
LaEntrada wouldn' t appreciate this any more than we would,
but they probably cannot imagine that such could happen ,
whereas based on our present experience we know it can and
believe it will .
OWE REQUEST THE FOLLOWING ACTION FROM YOU: That now, before
it is too late , the City's planning and circulation documents be
changed so that Lunetta will forever remain a double cul de sac
just west of Palomar . We have collectively lived safely and
conveniently without that connection till now, and can continue
to do without it forever . "
Our request remains the same today as it was in 1985.
The reference to these residential streets becoming a Los Osos
commuter route has to do with origin-destination studies carried
out by City engineering staff which found a significant amount of
the through traffic now joggling through the Broad-Chorro,
Murray-Meinecke-Ramona corridor's residential streets is
long-distance commuter traffic attempting to avoid traffic signal
slowups on Santa Rosa and Foothill .
To the previous letter's contents, I wish to add the following
comments now.
1 . Environmental Determination . The Director has recommended a
negative declaration based on a checklist . The version of the
Determination in the Public File contained no supporting material .
A negative declaration is unsupportable for Traffic and
Circulation , for Noise Levels, and for Community Plans and
Goals. The increased traffic due to this street connection will
have a significant adverse impact on our neighborhood. I am
disappointed that staff has not noted our previous input on
these matters.
2. General Plan Consistency. The connection of Lunetta to Palomar
would appear to conflict with two of the Circulation Element's
Page 3
'Overall Objectives' (Page 17) : .
°* Manage traffic so that it is concentrated on arterial streets
and thoroughfares and is not disbursed- throughout residential
areas.
(Disbursing through traffic throughout residential areas is
precisely what this connection is designed to do. )
°* Ensure that any circulation project solution , major or .minor ,
must provide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all
residential neighborhoods. °
(No mitigation has even been proposed. )
Once again , I request on my own behalf and on behalf of those who
do not yet know about this impending change in their neighborhood,
that you NOT connect Lunetta .with. Palomar -- that instead of a
through street there be a permanent non-crossable area between the
two cul -de-sacs.
As we said in our group letter , "We have lived. . . safely and
conveniently without that connection till now, and can continue to
do without it forever . °
I am sure that in you hearts you know my request is the right
thing_ to do. Your sensitive leadership in matters like this can
help prevent the continuing traffic-induced degradation of the
quality of life in our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt