Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1989, 2 - APPEAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVED BY THE SUBDIVISION HEARING OFFICER ALLOWING SUBDIVISION OF ONE �}I90I�I„I�n�IAI,„II 'WJ MEETING DATE M II II �n��lnUll c o san lugs oi3ispo June 6 198 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT �”" BES: 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. The council first considered the appeal on May 6, 1989. At that hearing, testimony in opposition to the tentative map was presented by the appellant and other neighbors. The four council members present at the May 61h hearing on this item deadlocked on whether to approve the tentative map, and continued it to May 16th. A condition of approval suggested at that hearing (regarding common driveways) is included in this staff report under Recommendation, below. 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. 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 411114IIff§ city Of San Luis OBISPO � = COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 Site Descriution 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). 2. Comoliance 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 1 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' 111111111 ii�l III � f lily c� o sari lugs ompo MaGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 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 Way subdivisions. 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. �����► ��UIIIIIII�I�i�����I acy of san wis osispo . MM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 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 approval for the subdivision requiring ARC review of any development on the lots. i Staff has no data to indicate whether new houses are more or less likely to become rentals than existing ones. There is no city policy or regulation regarding this issue. 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. �►�fl�� ii�llil��p �i �� city of san tuts osispo AMiZeCOUNULAGENOAREPOFW Page 5 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 one or more 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. 3. Final map shall show a common driveway access easement providing access to Lots 2 and 3, to the approval of the Community Development Director. Final map shall show relinquishment of vehicular access rights across the remainder of the frontages of Lots 2 and 3. 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. Attachments: Vicinity Map Tentative map Appeal Petition (3/22) Minutes - 3/31 Subdivision Hearing General Plan Excerpts Engineering Staff Traffic Memo gts4:ms8907cc 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 89-07 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. Findines 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. a -� Resolution No. (1989 Series) Minor Subdivision 89-07 Page 2 SECTION 2. 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. 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 Requirements. 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 Administrative Officer City Attorney S- Communitolevelopment 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: r. City Clerk � - 9 -' Resolution No. (1989 Series) Minor Subdivision 89-07 Page 2 APPROVED: City Administrative Officer City Attorney GTe Communi evelopment Director � iv I }} I • � —. �•"� Vii: a S ` I s_ "t P. QrF s CLV W ,OYTw GOO<TfY l � � i vW r � � �� FAQ • O ! Uv oyQ - o••p+ O•l aV 1fLLTn Hl9•V•o•LL'ltlV f� � •MPa V K p : s`o � atswo-�dd is: , fir•. e+ 9. _ Cr C Fr IJ r 3 • O _ I 3Q8y� - SaC13i � &m .1 I I S I i _I �i� 3� O 1� IL 0 _ 1.0 Lq Q 3co�vad) irons i O O O O O Q z s Tb F an�aa =.aaaJn O O . o O o O O o O O _— ___ --- - • O O Ogo I a) O w c V s = » _ Qom° Z o � � SIH913H ON"I �S •� n � o b_`sem" f?f x" — -- — Q g .. 4L 2a i / r t r g Sri.' L' Z wli •e C tuwtrA 9A e--7- l I � r IIQW �IIII�II imill���M� (��I cityO sAn tuts oBispo A MINIGis 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 n,m,=1�r ryx)PjCr n3jt w a4-cm rendered on April 14. 1989 _ which decision consisted of the following (i.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal . r`. Use additional sheets as needed) : See attached. The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with: Ken Bruce on April 21 , 19&9. Appellant: Name/Title k i. RECEIVED Self APR 2 41989 Representative CITVCLERK 617 .Luneta Drive. San Luis c Obispo, CA 9340: SAN LUIS pq eopC k Address 0y:/0 P�! Phone Original for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney Ca( red Copy to City Administrative Officer Copy to th fol wing depar ent( )rn�1 v/ Ca j,-"nvw- G aD City Cler The 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 c2 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. C�r/ v � 1 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 Csimplify the street extension process. " When 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 /r\ and Delta Tau Fraternity. This area is already overburdoned 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 /7-4- r 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 •moi 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. /27 r� §4805. 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. NIIIII 18111 cityo san 1uiS OBISPO A E217MM990 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 decision being appealed from with: on Appellant: James Carlisle Name/Title RECEIVED Representative APR 19 1989 611 Luneta, San Luis Obispo pTvcLFPK Address SAN(-PIIS OBSPO C A *805) 543-.2198 Phone Original for City Clerk Copy to City Attorney Calendared for: Copy to City Administrative Officer Cgopy to the ag department(s) : Ci C erl To: City Clerk Date.: 4-15-1989 From: J. II. Carlisle 611 Luneta SLO CA 93401 Subject: Appeal of Action in Director's Subdivision Bearing 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. Z) The public was not provided with an adequate map 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 most beautiful pine tree on the property Without authorization. He should therefore be required to provide a detailed map 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 will be constructedas a result of the approved subdivision. RECEIVE © APR 191989 CITY CLERK snt,ci��;nM.c� c• / 3)The assumption that the conditions under which Luneta could C be safely opened onto Palomar has not been made a matter of public record and does not appear to have br_etl clearly addressed by previous City Council meetings. Thi 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 tor. 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 unilnr present conditions is either safe or minimally impact: 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 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 1 _ O O .-/ V « to 10 C 1 /VANwr j OFrcE4A ,�a O t �RivCAccsss irso j 4- Acc&s.s To m w Two Ko•u�s � Q e�O S1dV vi7f�lVA dot y 1Qu[ s c r1 1setP 00 'a ..O , 4 ` goo me I C o 01 0 O Fl 099 ?b C Q O 10 , .O ---- T_.-" o s IRA HEIGHTS —- s �7 P :=i =si 01 w ' O ,2- p h � -� �-- o 100 o O O I, O M O �� O w : O VBRGE 0RIV6 f ° ` O O 10 o1b O O ` O 1A ���•3 ��: '" ��SS�t*, '!1 I -- 1• M O:� :'•jo psi•' :�C O 4° v Z6Tq:s s nioia' +�6 p i - 1 – O O -. s -- AVENUB a ' ° O • o 02 9r X55,/ s PALOMAR :?"Fs O JO •; y'��K I7-ff Mi1M .�L�II1 w.Me nfiM ., I S" . i m r a - 1 • _j.ms E 0 a , 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 problems . 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 installation of stop signs , speed bumps or other appropriate safeguards. We urge you to deny proposed subdivision 89-053 as premature. i V J ! Irv." corlp T-4 ;,P/ c; 4-- I 'S L RM-OM AiZ, qZ:A.-O C.A- . DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES 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 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 notice requirements 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 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 p� V V i 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. C� 3/ � 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 neighbor$ood. Page 5 Conditions I. 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 Rearuirements 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. f, Appeals should be filed in the City Clerk' s office. OC J ,-2 [1, of 1uis oBispo► city 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 April 18, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Smith FROM: Jerry Kenny SUBJECT: Appeals regarling Luneta 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 �i 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 Luneto was the previous map, MS 86-322. The Fire Dept. has indicated they would use this route during emergency response. Mourenza: 1 . Planning issue. 2.6. some comments as 2. above. The City Council resolution should be adequate to address the "narrower than 40 feet" issue. Vicki Finucane 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 Luneto. 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 N/jkappeal jk � -3s q TO: Gr-E-q Smith VIA: Jerry k`.enny C,I'l 77tartiar-a Lyn)t ilk 6 7 - S LJ EAJ F_1 LL 11-1 C, L`21'Ween VS,-de a,-C, Ra Wo r Je -tment has revi ewer.J lo;-.�r the :L: f a 1-�a I The Street - will be marked sc .%.s- t,_:. i nd7cate no par�,1,-,c (--.ri both sides t C7 a travel in both dlr ctl.Un THIN - .Li:v Vvill aisc post indications om either end of the half st ­pet indicat ).r1c, to -iriverq that they are en;:.,_ring a narrow section. =_ectlon of LUneta will receive addiL'iortaj ?:r _"fric because i.t no longer dead end , traffic through the intersectsrin of Verde and Luneta should not charge. Traffic on Verde should be 1-elieved to the same extent that LUneta is impacted. The Engineering division will monitor the area. InCiUding the fraternity driveway which exits an LUneta immediately adjacent to the half street. If it appears drivers are not using proper care when exiting the driveway its present merging configuration , the city will modif,, the area at the iveway exit to encourage the residents to enter the street from a normal 'position (perpendicular to the centerline) . The Public Works department recommends that the street be opened at half width. 44 W. Oni. c_A, V UtE -- The City Council may exempt an annexation.propos Crom meeting some of these criteria if it determines that the annexat' a will provide. compensating public benefits that outweigh an ' ability to meet one or more of the criteria. Compensating publi Den fits 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 significant! improve the quality of life within existing neighborhood . d) Open space whit may be of less area than the usual standard (four times the dev.1 able area) but which is of high value to the /supply, nity; ampics would be prominent visual or aesthetic s, s sitive habitat areas, areas with special recreational a areas with sensitive historical or archaeological es or areas especially vulnerable to imminent development. has adopted a development moratorium because of limited ly, the City Council shall not exempt a minor annexation rom the requirement to provide on-site water source or ter 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 ur6 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 kation of any additional territory and its approval 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 - can be vided concurrently. '0 /� C. Areas designated for interim agriculture/r dcntial expansion and rural industrial within the urban reser shouid.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 ider minimum five- to ten-acre parcelization or equivalent'rural nned 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 divisions) are consistent with an opted 'property development plan'. The property develo crit plan should show an appropriate pattern of present and fut c local and collector streets, planned utility system cl can be a gaments, and how each separate five- out t cooperation por combination ar individually used in the future, 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 designconsistent enableintnt with to prevailing or proposed neighborhood character, 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. —The City should establish minimum as well as maximum density and property development standards for all residential land use classifications: i 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; I _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 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. Mcdium-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 act 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. 14 ' "' City Of San IDIS OBISPO �► INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION 1 APPLICATION NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICANT12 'A STAF RECOMMENDATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION —MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED —ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY [�� /Y Y L DATE A�9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 3/29/89 Negative Declaration SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS 1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS . ... ..................... ...... .... .. . ... ..... .. . . LLnE B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.. ............ ... . . .... . . ... . . ... . . .. . .. . .1 1f_L� JS1 C. LAND USE .. .... . . ..... . . . .. .. . .... ....... .. ........ . .. ......... . . ... . .... . .. . . D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION E. PUBLIC SERVICES . ...... . .. . .. . .. . . .. ............ ...... ..... .... .... . . .. .... . . . . F. UTILITIES.. ...... . . . . . . . . .. . ... . .. .. . ...... .. . ... ...... . . ... . .. .. . .. ...... ..... G. NOISE LEVELS . ... . . . .. . . . .... .. . . . H. GEOLOGIC 8 SEISMIC HAZARDS 8 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS . . . . .. . .. . ... . . . . . 1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS. .. .... . . . . . . . .. . .. .. J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY . . . . .. . . K. PLANT LIFE_... .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . L ANIMAL LIFE...... . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . ... . .... . ... . .. M. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL . .. . .. ..... 1� N. AESTHETIC . . .. .. .. . ... . . ... . _ . . . ... ..... .. ... . . . . . . . ... ... . . . .. . . . . �.'Y 0. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . ........ .. . .. . . . . . . .... . . . .... . . . . . . . .. . . P. OTHER ........... . . ... ... . .. . . . . . .. ......... .. Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACHED REPORT �� 0 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. 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:er 18-89 Ivittimu AUI--114UA -~ DAA ice., # i Deno tes action by Lead Person June 2, 1989 ResPOW by,. YC nil City Council and Mayor San Luis Obispo.. Re: Appeal of approval of minor subdivision at 1550 'Q A" �r9O Royal Way F�G� Dear Council Persons: This letter is in regards to the hearing on the minor sub- division at 1550 Royal Way, continued from .May 16, 19899 to June 6. At the May 16 hearing several opinions were expressed about traffic and safety on Royal Way. My opinion that .no traffic problem exists does not make the street safe nor does the contrary opinion create a traffic problem if none exists. In an effort to determine the facts I went to see Mr. David Romero at Public Works. Mr. Romero assured me that his studies, based on the facts of this case, in- dicate a safe, problem free street. This letter is to ask that you also contact Mr. Romero about the matter, and that if you have the time you visit the site to observe the condi= tions yourself. If you go to the site you can also observe how far Sesloc is from the proposed subdivision and ,that the area is either multifamily or commercial, which facts, of course, have little or nothing to do with the project , and references to Sesloc and other commercial projects are mis- placed. Likewise, I submit that references to the traffic signal installed at Royal Way and Los Osos are misplaced as well. Installation of the signal does indicate traffic but on the wrong street. The signal was not installed to enable persons driving on Los Osos to get across Royal May , but to assist residents of Royal Way to get into or across the traffic flow on Los Osos. Whether 10 cars a day or 100 come out onto Los Osos, it would be difficult without the signal because of the volume of traffic on Los Osos. I trust that these requests and comments are in order, and my father and I . as the builders and as private residents , appreciate the time and thought you have devoted to this case to arrive at a correct result. Thank you. Sincerely, RIECEI `/ F OTYCLIax 9ANLUMOFMOO.CA mr- ING AGENDA DATEL �l !TEM # - �i�lllllllll IIIIIIIIIy��;�����,I��IIiI II ilk II� city of sAn Luis oBispo - 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 r Denotes action by Lead Person Re�sp�°nd.by. June 1, 1989 ;yca 1 fir AO id�ity Atty. M CIerkSrig:..0 MEMORANDUM �K ,err. TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer FROM: Dave Romero, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Traffic Speed on Royal Way - Agenda Item 2 -for June 6 . 1989 Meeting When this matter was considered at the May 16 meeting, there was some comment that vehicles were traveling at speeds approaching 50 mph on Royal Way. Since that meeting, staff has taken traffic counts on Royal Way near Royal Court and near Cucaracha Court. The attached report indicates that the 85 percentile speed is 36 mph near Royal Court .and 34 mph near Cucaracha Court. These are normal speeds which we expect on residental collectors. It is interesting to note that the higher 85 percentile speed occurred near the westerly end of Royal Way. This speed was generated by the residents rather than by visitors to the area. Average speeds are 28 mph near Royal Court and 30 mph near Cucaracha Court. These are normal speeds which we expect on residential collectors. Only one vehicle at each location was traveling as fast as 40 mph. Attachment: Lynch report � ECEIVF ® royalwy/dfr#17 . CtTYCLFRK SAN LUISO Rcory CA l r C') MEMORANDUM 5/30/89 TO: John Dunn VIA: Dave Romero�p VIA: Wayne Peterson- VIA: John Hawley. FROM: Barbara Lync� SUBJECT: Neighborhood complaint of speeding on Royal Way. In May of this year the traffic division performed two speed surveys to determine actual speeds of vehicles on Royal Way. One survey was taken near Royal Ct. which is close to the end of the tract , the other was taken near Cucaracha Ct. which is close to Los Osos Valley Rd. The 85% speed , the speed .normally used to set speed limits, was 36 mph near Royal Ct and 34 mph near Cucaracha Ct. The average speed was 2e mph near Royal Ct and 7;0 mph near Cucaracha Ct. These speeds are not unlike those on other residential. collectors. In both survey=_ the top speed was 40 mph with one vehicle clocked at that speed. More vehicles were clocked at the ne>:t highest speed, 3e mph , near Royal Ct than near Cucaracha Ct. C• ihefact that speeds above the C5 mph residential limit are prevalent in the area near Royal Ct would indicate the people driving over the speed limit are. residents of the tract. Only a limited number of outsiders would have. reason to be in, the area as it is a. dead end. Some special speed enforcement might be in order to remind residents that it is a residential street . TOTAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES SPEED 10 15 20 25 m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MONSOON! m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ANNE IMMIN IN MEN MEN IN m ■■MEN MEN IN m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEN MEM IN m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEN� m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■COME MEN IN m ■FEES MEN IN m�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■� A . PAO 0;240%0920 m► �►����►�1����■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ �►_�_�'J� ■_/►� ►��■■■■■■■■■■■MESON■■■■■MIU�,� ®► ►l��■:14 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�7■ 9 ►5 W02 F3,R MEA' 0 ■!447 ■► ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i7�tll.� ■0■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEN MEN IN m■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEN MEN■ m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEN MEN■N m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MEN MEN■ r . . , ♦ � NUMBER OF • TOTAL PEED • 15 20 25 ' ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_ONE! MINES ONE!IN m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■LINEN- ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_- EM MINES m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■_- ONE!ONE!IN mv�► ►Z� /►► ►�i►:1►:4■9�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■fl ►:1004►. G 0 FO0,& AW M04■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■� , . m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NONE NOIN� 0■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ONE!� 0■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ONIN� •