HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1989, 3 - CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED BUILDING EXTENDING OVER THE TOP OF THE SAN LUIS CREEK BANK, IN CONJUNCTIO �IIIryII��I�IIIII�uISII "J T -- MEETING DATE:
Cl
O San tUl S OBISPO i/' ai'
A ITEM
C UNCIL AGEN®A REPORT NUMBERc
FROM: Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director; BY:P am
Ricci, Assoc. Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of proposed building extending over the top
of the San Luis Creek bank, in conjunction with a
development project to construct two studio apartments
in a single building behind an existing house (ARC 89-
89) , located on Pacific Street, between Johnson Avenue
and Toro Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution approving or denying the proposed encroachment
over the top of bank as appropriate.
DISCUSSION:
An application for architectural review has been submitted to
construct a new building behind an existing house on Pacific
Street. The new building would house two studio apartments.
A portion of the rear of the site is located beyond the technical
"top of bank" of San Luis Creek. The submitted development plans
indicate-that the new building would extend beyond the top of bank
by 5 feet along a linear distance of 13 feet.
The City Council's Creek Review Policy states that any building to
be constructed in or over any portion of one of the four major
creeks requires approval by the City Council. Because of this, the
proposed construction beyond the top of bank (building
cantilevering and piers) needs to be authorized by the council
prior to the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) consideration
of the project.
A similar proposal to develop the site was reviewed by the ARC on
June 30, 1986, and continued. The primary issue with the project
at that time was providing required parking to city standards.
This project also included encroachments beyond the top of bank,
but it was not reviewed by the council. It was the Community
Development Director's determination at that time that the
encroachments could be approved by the ARC, rather than the
council, because of the unusual topography of the channel cross
section at this location and because existing construction
encroached even further down the bank.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Proposed construction would result in the removal of a multi-
trunked avocado and two Pittosporum trees. It would not interfere
with normal creek flow in the channel and finish floors of the
building would be above the 100-year flood line. Likely locations
for a pedestrian trail would be welle�►>l°h���sed building.
NOV 1114 1989
3:0014
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
��u�l►bupVilllll�lpn � �l city of san L%Ae s oBi spo J
COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
1327 Pacific Street
Page 2
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the proposed building encroachments are supported by the
council, then the applicant could proceed with submitted project
plans to the ARC. If the council does not allow the
encroachments, then the project would need to be revised by the
architect.
BACKGROUND
Data Summary
Address: 1327 Pacific Street
Applicant: Geri Gran and Lee Bedell
Zoning: R-2
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Environmental Status: Categorically exempt under Section 15303,
New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Site Description
San Luis Obispo Creek borders the rectangular site consisting of
7,750 square feet on the southeast. Site topography is generally I\
flat until the technical top of creek bank beyond which it slopes
steeply before flattening out again.
A existing bungalow-style home constructed in the 1920 's is located
on the front portion of the lot. A garage structure which
straddles the west property line is proposed to be retained in
part, while a small storage building located along the same
property line is proposed to be removed. A small two-level
building located in the center of the lot beyond the top of the
creek bank is proposed to be removed..
A number of large trees exist on the rear portion of the site. The
most significant of which is a 48-inch Sycamore that is proposed
to be retained with project development.
EVALUATION
Since the project was first submitted in 1986, the city has become
increasingly sensitive to creek issues and conscientious in its
review of projects adjacent to creeks. For the past year, it has
been the city's official, but unadopted policy to require a 20 foot
setback for all new construction from the top of creek bank along
the four major creeks. The major concerns with development
adjacent to creeks and the reasons for setbacks are flood
protection, provision of pedestrian trails along and access to the � -
creek area and habitat protection and restoration.
����u�►��i�illl[nllll°Nu'����II city of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1327 Pacific Street
Page 3
The draft creek policy that the Community Development Department
uses as interim guidelines when reviewing projects indicates that
greater or lesser setbacks for projects along creeks may be
acceptable under particular circumstances. The draft policy states
that lesser setbacks may be acceptable if:
1. The channel is minor and is not judged to be a
significant riparian corridor or likely to part of the
urban trails system;
2. The lot is small, and reasonable development without some
exception is impossible;
3. The lot is a small infill site where a clear pattern of
lesser setbacks has been established on both sides of the
lot along the creek.
The project site could be found to meet the last two circumstances.
If a full 20 setback was enforced here, it would be virtually
impossible to further develop the site because of site constraints
and space limitations. An attached site plan shows the rear
portion of the site and the relationship of proposed construction
to the creek channel and existing construction on adjacent
properties. The plan illustrates two important points: the
proposed building is significantly distant from the main portion
of the creek channel because of the bank's stepped topography; and
there are several existing buildings that have been built beyond
the technical top of bank on adjacent properties.
In staff's opinion, exceptions to allow minor encroachment of the
building beyond the top of bank may be warranted because of the
creek channel's topography at this particular location. The creek
channel here is broad and a pronounced bench or step exists on the
west bank. With the wide channel and stepped bank, a greater
setback is not as critical since flooding concerns are not as
pronounced as in more constricted areas, and the effects to the
riparian habitat value are not as great.
The City's Long Range Planner, in his review of the proposal,
indicated that a future trail would be located along the west bank
of the creek in this stretch, but would be better located on the
bench, rather than the top of bank. The applicants are willing to
dedicate an access easement to the city to accommodate a future
trail.
I��H,��ui�illll�lipn ll�lp city of San LUIS OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1327 Pacific Street
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the proposed encroachment of the building beyond the
top of bank.
2. Approve the request on the condition that specified changes
be made to project plans.
3 . Continue the request in order to review directed changes or
to receive additional information.
4. Deny the proposed encroachment based on inconsistency with the
City Council's Creek Review Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution approving or denying the proposed building
encroachment over top of bank as deemed appropriate.
Attachments: Draft Resolutions J
Vicinity Map
Ordinance 1010 (Council Creek Review Policy)
CDD's Draft Creek Policy
Memo from Randy Rossi dated 4-26-89
Letter, site plan and section from architect
Enclosed: Architectural Plans
pr#8:gran
I
pr#8:gran �
f
�J RESOLUTION NO.
(1989 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING OVER THE TOP OF
THE SAN LUIS CREEK BANK AT 1327 PACIFIC STREET (ARC 89-89)
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements
of the applicant, and the evaluation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the requested encroachment is
appropriate at the proposed location and consistent with the City Council's Creek
Review Policy; and
NOW, TBEREFORE, the council resolves to approve the requested
encroachment.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this - day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST
City Clerk
r
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
ARC 89-89; 1327 Pacific Street
Page 2
APPROVED:
five Officer
9ty*o;y
Community Development Director
�' CO
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION-OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING
OVER THE TOP OF THE SAN LUIS CREEK
BANK AT 1327 PACIFIC STREET (ARC 89-89)
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of
the applicant, and the evaluation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the requested encroachment is
not appropriate at the proposed location and inconsistent with the City Council's
Creek Review Policy; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the requested
encroachment.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following, roll call vote:
G AYES:.
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this - day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3-7
Resolution No. (1989 Series) -
ARC 89-89; 1327 Pacific Street
Page 2
APPROVED:
City A trative Officer
Community Development Director
VICINIW MAP ARC 39 -89
.r
16
fVI VOA ,�. � ► y.//
O
•.� r•"i�••`A Ef y0 Q L
• {moi O �-
y, � I
O11� •°`Q ��10
Y
OR
w
` i
a• Q
��' � rY Q ••`y'° �fir" Q Q �` Q r� ,tlV�_` _
DVJ.w�1 O , • qy ..Q � � i rti,dJ �/i
Q � l• v/ \ `A• I�
rJ%
/ Q
P .•• •'
• � e rn Q
xwv
J %
%69
'er O ��•J Q �y�r �/ ,yam Q Q f
ti tiw _ 1
ORDINANCE NO. 1010 (1984 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
BE IT ORDAINED by'the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2.48.170 of the Municipal Code is modified to read as
follows:
112.48.170 Jurisdiction.
"A. Approval by the commission shall be required for all structures
and physical improvements except individual built single-family dwellings.
The exception for the individual single-family dwellings shall not apply if
(1) architectural review is required as a condition of ar subdivision use
permit or other discretionary entitlement; (2) when a developer proposes to
construct three or more units; (3) when the director determines the site is
sensitive as set 'forth in the procedures document. 'Sensitive sites' shall
include, but not be limited to, open space zoning areas designated by
resolution of the planning commission, architectural review commission, or
city council; and (4) where the scale or character of the proposed dwelling
contrasts significantly with adjacent or neighboring structures.
"B. The commission shall review all city financed projects
including, but not limited to, municipal buildings, park and open spaces, and
street furniture.
"C. Approval by the commission shall be required for all projects,
including individual built single-family dwellings, located in or along any
creek or waterway as defined by the City's flood plain management policy.
Approval shall be granted if the commission finds that a project complies
with the uniform storm design criteria for waterways;"-all other applicable
J-/001010
t -
1
Ordinance No. 1010 (1984 Series)
policies and standards for flood plain management, and otherwise satisfies _
relevant architectural criteria. Projects involving any building or
bridge proposed to be constructed in or over any portion of any of the
four major creeks or waterways, as defined by said policy, or any major
creek modification project, shall be referred to Council for review and
specific directional guidance prior to any commission action."
SECTION 2. This Ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be
published, once in full, at least three (3) days prior to its final.
c- passage in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in
said City, and the same shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty
(30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at a meeting held on the 17th day of April 1984, on motion
of Councilwoman Dovey , seconded by Councilman Dunin , and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Dovey, Dunin, Griffin, Settle and Mayor Billig
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
MA R
CITY CLERK PAMELA v0
I f ! ■ # IF ■ f ! ■ ■
-2-
���1
►�� � ����n ►��� �Illll( 1°1�1°� Ila city of sAn lues oBisw
990 Palm StreetlPost Office Box 8100 " San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
October 20, 1988
To: Planners
From: Mike M. VIN
Subject: Draft administrative creek.policy
Note: the following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be varied
from when the planner, with the Director's concurrence, judges that the intent
can be met through alternative approaches.
1. When reviewing any development proposal, all unlined, open drainage channels
should be evaluated as potential sensitive habitat areas (ie: riparian
corridors to be preserved or enhanced).
l
• In general, such channels should not be culvertcd, filled or encroached into.
Exceptions could include:
a. Minor drainage channels (guideline: less than three feet across);
b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tie
together lined or culverted drains;
c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or
circulation, reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy.
In all cases, the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be
consulted before a channel is determined not to be a sensitive habitat area; if
there is any significant doubt, the Department of Fish and Game should be
consulted, too.
2. New structures including parking lots should generally be set back at least
20 feet from the top of bank. 'Top of bank" means the physical top of bank
(ie: where the more steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the
terrain not cut by the water flow). If the bank is terraced, the highest most
step is the top of bank, not any intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of
bank will not be apparent; the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range
Planner should be consulted to help determine a reasonable line, considering
such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the creek, the extent of
riparian vegetation and the 100-year flood line.)
r
( Draft Creek Policy
Page 2
A. Greater setbacks may be required if
I. significant riparian vegetation extends. beyond the.20-foot line;
2. a setback line has been adopted or proposed by Public Works which
is farther from the bank;
3. the 100-year flood plain extends beyond the 20-foot line.
B. Lesser setbacks may be acceptable if:
1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a significant
riparian corridor or likely to be part of the urban trails system;
2: the lot is small, and reasonable development without some
exception is impossible;
3. the lot is a small infill site where a clear pattern of lesser
setbacks has been established on both sides of the lot along the
creek:
In all such cases where setbacks are to be reduced or increased, the Director
and Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted.
3. If the site is considered by the Long-range Planner to be a possible link
in the urban trails system, then an offer of dedication for public access
should be required as a condition of any discretionary permit..
4. All areas in the setback should be dedicated in an open space easement as a
condition of approval of any discretionary permit.
S. If the corridor has been degraded, a restoration program may be required as
a condition of approval for any discretionary permit.
6. Sites with creeks are considered to be 'sensitive sites' for architectural
review purposes; projects which would not otherwise need architectural review
should be taken in as minor and incidental and may be approved if the
guidelines above arc met; if they are not met, then the project should be
referred to the ARC with a recommendation that the guidelines be followed.
C
� -l3
To: Pam Ricci �„ / 4/26/89
From: Randy Rossi
Re: 1327 Pacific \"
The following notes summarize a. site visit to the property noted above on
this date.
Top of Bank
In this location the creek is in a broad channel and has a very pronounced
"bench" on the lower portion of the west bank. See diagram. The opposite
bank is steeper and has residential uses near the top of bank.
For the subject property I see no need to stay 20 feet back from top of
bank since there is a wide riparian zone within the channel . The trail ,
as presently shown in the Park and Rec. element would be: on the west bank.
This is one of the few stretchs of the creek where it would be better to
locate the eventual trail .corridor on the "bench" rather than top of bank.
In fact the very existance of the bench means that we have a greater chance
of getting a trail through. this residential area than in residential
areas. The trail can be away from the back of houses and below the sight
lines from/into windows.
If the applicant is willing to dedicate a trail easement or give the rear
portion of the lot in fee as a trade off for development closer to the top
of bank I think this can achieve a good site plan and a trail.
There is a small patio developed at the bench level , but away from the
creek, and this is proposed to stay. I believe this will not present a
conflict with the trail if heavily planted and screened. Obviously a
"bench top" (ascompared to "bank top") trail will periodically flood -
but this is an acceptable condition.
The Project
A well design project can be accommodated on this property. I would en-
courage the applicant to stay on top of the bank, or a very limited stepping
down the bank - say no more than the existing shed at present. Care should
be taken to retain as many trees as possible on site.
As a condition of approval we should require an offer of dedication for public
access over the area from the center line of the creek (assuming this is also
the property line) to the inside edge of the trail location on the bench.
area of
dedication �327i.fic
east bank Trail
"benchRecommended limit of —
area" new construction
IZ--existing patio /�
V ,
LOUISA ANNE KLUVER
1620 OLD CREEK ROAD
CAYUCOS, CA 93430
(805) 9_95-2177
ATTEN: RANDY ROSSI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPEMENT DIRECTOR.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OB13PO
DEAR RANDY,
ATTACHED YOU WILL FIND A COUPLE OF SKETCHES THAT SHOW THE
CONDITIONS OF LEE BIDELL AND GERI GRAN'S PROPERTY ON PACIFIC
STREET. THE ROUGH MEASUREMANTS HAS THE ENTIRE SECTION TROUGH
CREEK TO BE CLOSE TO 100'. WE ARE ENCROACHING 5' OR 5%
INTO THAT SECTION BUT ONLY 3' OR 3% MORE THAN THE EXSITING
STRUCTURES ON THEIR PROPERTY. AND AFTER WALKING THE SITE
YESTERDAY WE WON'T BE ENCROACHING AS MUCH AS A STORAGE SHED
THE NEIGHBORS HAVE PLACED IN THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTY. I HOPE
THIS WILL CONVINCE YOU TO LET TOBY ROSS'S POSITION ON LETTING
THE ARC HANDLE THIS DECISION. HIS REASONING BEING, SINCE
CONSTRUCTION IS WELL REMOVED FROM THE ACTUAL CREEK CHANNEL
AND REPLACES EXSITNG BUILDINGS WHICH ENCROACH INTO THE CREEK
AREA ALSO MY CLIENTS FELT SINCE THEY WERE GRANTING A TRAIL
EASEMENT THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALREADY RESOLVED. I WOULD LIKE TO
WALK THE PROPERTY WITH YOU AGAIN IF POSSIBLE. TO SHOW HOW
LITTLE OUR PROJECT WOULD BE AFFECTING THE ENV IROMENT.
LASTLY, I FEEL I NEED TO LET YOU KNOW AGAIN THAT MY CLIENTS WILL
BE LEAVING THE AREA ON SEPT. .1 AND WON'T BE BACK UNTIL JULY
1990. THEY OBVIOUSLY WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS RESOVLED BEFORE
THEY LEAVE.
THANK YOU,
C�
k m N
F �
K
y
pP i
/
- � RpcK 1°gtto
r
r
TdL
l
��
r �
m
�" .N., �
�, � c
a
�, � � A
� �
�. .�j VN
K � o
o g ti
.. - __ Tom u�,e is
' � g
b` k�
�� �� .
N�
�1�
JO
I
o�rx u.vc
C%�
I
i
�'�
���