HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-11406 denying an Appeal and upholding Planning Commissions decision to deny ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia Dr., APPL-0075-2023)R 11406
RESOLUTION NO. 11406 (2023 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION DENYING ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW APPLICATION ARCH-0040-2021, REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AT 841 PATRICIA DRIVE
(APPL-0075-2023)
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, to consider a proposal for development of the property at
841 Patricia Drive, including a request for an exception to required creek setbacks, under
Architectural Review application ARCH-0040-2021; Eric and Julie Michaels, applicants,
and by unanimous (6-0) vote, adopted Planning Commission Resolution PC-1068-23
denying the application; and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, Eric and Julie Michaels filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Architectural Review application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber
of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 4, 2023, for the purpose
of considering the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision denying Architectural
Review application ARCH-0040-2021; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record
of the Planning Commission hearing and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and
interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, present at said
hearing; and.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based on all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
a) The proposed project is not consistent with policies and programs of the City’s
General Plan for the preservation of wildlife habitat and corridors set out in the
Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 7.3.3, Prog ram 7.7.8) and for
the conservation and development of residential neighborhoods set out in the
Land Use Element regarding preservation of natural site features and respect
for site constraints (Policies 2.3.7 & 2.3.10). A creek crosses the subject
property and a wildlife corridor travels through the vicinity of the project site, as
depicted in Figure 9 (Creeks and Wetlands) and Figure 3 (Wildlife Corridors) of
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A4F8CA6-E8F9-4E2D-A07E-AE8F463705FF
Resolution No. 11406 (2023 Series) Page 2
R 11406
the Conservation and Open Space Element. The proposed project includes a
12-foot-wide access bridge crossing the creek channel for ongoing use by
pedestrians and vehicles to connect development on each side of the creek,
involving fill activities to install the bridge abutments and removal of riparian
vegetation to accommodate the bridge, disrupting t he existing intact and
contiguous riparian corridor, impacting the opportunities for wildlife habitation,
rest, and movement. As further described below, the access bridge proposed
under the current project design does not meet the required findings for
granting of an exception to the creek setback requirements which implement
the resource protection policies of the General Plan.
b) The location and design of the proposed access bridge will not minimize
impacts to riparian habitat (Zoning Regulations §17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(i)).
Construction of the bridge structure would involve clearance of riparian
vegetation to accommodate its twelve-foot width, adding fill soils in the setback
area for the support abutments, and encroachment into the creek channel for
access between the primary residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Interruption of the riparian corridor by the presence and use of the access
bridge will impact opportunities for habitation, rest, and movement of wildlife.
c) There is no evidence that there are circumstances applying to the site, such as
size, shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity
with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity with the same zoning (17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(iv)). The
subject property lies within an R-1 Zone, and physical development must
conform to the Development Standards set out in Zoning Regulations
Ch. 17.16. The western portion of the site, wholly outside of the required creek
setback area, measures more than 24,000 square feet in area, four times larger
than the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot area requirement applicable in the R-1
Zone (Zoning §17.16.020(A)), and much larger than the typical area of
surrounding lots. The required creek setb ack does not deprive the property of
development of a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures,
including Accessory Dwelling Units, in the manner enjoyed by properties in the
vicinity under applicable use limitations and development stand ards, and no
other circumstances have been identified that would deprive the property of
such development.
d) There is no evidence that site development cannot be feasibly accomplished
with a redesign of the project. (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(vii)). No evidence has been
presented that the eastern portion of the site is the only feasible location for the
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) proposed under this application, or that the
proposed access bridge is the only feasible means to provide access to the
ADU from the primary dwelling. As described in the staff report presented at a
public hearing for this item, there is no evidence in the application record
demonstrating that a project redesign to achieve the development of this site
with a dwelling and ADU would in fact be infeasible.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A4F8CA6-E8F9-4E2D-A07E-AE8F463705FF
Resolution No. 11406 (2023 Series) Page 3
R 11406
e) There is no evidence that redesign of the project would deny the property owner
reasonable use of the property (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(viii)). While development
of the eastern portion of the property is constrained by its location across a
creek channel from the street-accessible western portion of the property and
by a sewer easement, and development of the central portion of the property
is constrained by the presence of a creek and required creek setback, the
western portion of the site is comprised of a developable area approximately
half of an acre (24,000 sq. ft.). Development of a single-family dwelling and
associated accessory structures (including an Accessory Dwelling Unit),
consistent with applicable development standards, represents reasonable use
of property in the R-1 Zone and is feasible within the developable area of the
western portion of the site.
f) The proposed project design is not consistent with the City’s Community
Design Guidelines (CDG) for Creekside Development (CDG §7.1), which direct
that no structure other than a path or trail may be located within a creek
setback, including a road, parking access or space, or paved area (CDG
§7.1(B)(2)), and that no grading or filling or removal of native vegetation shall
occur within a creek setback (CDG §7.1(B)(3)). The proposed project includes
a bridge structure designed for vehicle access within the required creek
setback, involving fill soils with installation of the bridge abutments and removal
of willow and oak trees, along with other vegetation, from the riparian corridor.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Denial of the proposed project is statutorily
exempt from environmental review, as a project which a public agency disapproves, as
described in the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA Guidelines) §15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved ).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A4F8CA6-E8F9-4E2D-A07E-AE8F463705FF
Resolution No. 11406 (2023 Series) Page 4
R 11406
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council does hereby deny the subject appeal,
without prejudice, filed by Eric and Julie Michaels, and upholds the Planning
Commission’s decision to deny Architectural Review application ARCH-0040-2021,
regarding proposed development of the property at 841 Patricia Drive, including a request
for exception to required creek setbacks, and directs staff to work with the Applicant on a
redesign that does not require a creek setback exception.
Upon motion of Vice Mayor Marx, seconded by Council Member Francis, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Francis, Pease, Shoresman, Vice Mayor Marx, and
Mayor Stewart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 4th day of April 2023.
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________.
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A4F8CA6-E8F9-4E2D-A07E-AE8F463705FF
4/20/2023 | 11:41 AM PDT