HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1988, 1 - A. TENTATIVE MAP FOR TRACT 1544, 27 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT THE WEST CORNER OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD AND DIABLO DRIVE. B. APPEAL BY SUBDIVIDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY USE PERMIT REQUEST A159-87, TO REDUCE STREEI'Iry1INII^, W 1111III " J T MEETING DATE:
lul �I� I1 C� � San Lug$ OBI$pO 1 -5 -88
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: N"
Michael Multari, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Greg Smith
SUBJECT: A. Tentative map for Tract 1544, 27 unit residential condominium project at the west
corner of Los Osos Valley Road and Diablo Drive.
B. Appeal by subdivider of Planning Commission action to deny use permit request
A159 -87 to reduce street yard setback from 20 feet- to 12 feet and to allow
high fence where a 3 foot high fence is normally allowed at the Mirada Drive
frontage.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Continue consideration of both items with the subdivider's consent, and give
direction regarding specific issues noted in the staff report.
- fya1&eJ.- eLW1i[ J
Discussion
Processing of this project involves consideration by the City Council, Planning
Commission, and Architectural Review Commission.
The Planning Commission has considered this project at two hearings. At the most recent
hearing (December 2), the commission recommended that the council deny the tentative map,
and denied the use permit. This recommendation was made after the subdivider refused to
agree to a continuance to resolve various issues involving modification of the site
plan. (Deadlines imposed by subdivision regulations required the commission to take an
action unless the subdivider agreed to a continuance.)
The ARC will consider the project for the second time on January 4, 1988. Action by that
commission will be reported by staff at the January 5 council hearing.
Driveway locations, building setbacks, view preservation, and headlight glare have been
controversial issues in previous hearings on the project. Many neighbors have testified
at the hearings; minutes are attached.
Significant Im ac
Council action will determine the site plan, grading, and general building configuration
of the the project. The initial study prepared by staff recommends that a negative
declaration be approved for the project, and no significant fiscal impacts are
anticipated.
Consequences 2 Not Taking the Recommended Action
If the council denies the project, development of the property will not occur until new
applications are submitted and approved. New fees would have to be paid. If the council
approves the project, subdivider could proceed to file a final map and obtain a building
permit after ARC approval.
�ium�bN►�IIIIIIIIIP1 ° °u� ►�I�111 city or san Luis osispo
j ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
EVALUATION
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subdivider proposes a 27 unit residential condominium subdivision with detached
houses on individual lots, and various commonly -owned areas.
The plans for the project have been revised twice during the review process. The
original plans proposed a private street which would loop from Mirada Drive to Cordova
Drive. Those plans involved a planned development rezoning and a standard subdivision;
some lots were proposed for future individual development with houses.
After the ARC and Planning Commission both expressed concerns with the original plans,
revised plans were submitted. The PD application was withdrawn; circulation was revised,
with access to Diablo Drive and emergency access only to Cordova; grading was slightly
revised to lower the height of the noise /retaining wall along the Los Osos Valley Road
frontage; and conceptual unit designs were proposed for each lot. These plans were
reviewed by the Planning Commission at the December 2 hearing noted above; they were not
reviewed by the ARC.
The plans submitted for review by the council include additional revisions as noted in
the detailed description below. The current plans have not been reviewed by the Planning
Commission or the ARC, at the time of the council staff report deadline. The ARC will
review them at their January 4 meeting, and staff will report the results at the council
meeting. '
1.1 Use Permit Reauest
An application has been filed for a use permit to allow two exceptions to zoning
standards:
A. Reduce the street yard setback at the Mirada Drive frontage from 20 feet to 12
feet. This would allow the private yards provided at the rear of the units
whose fronts orient to the private drive and not Mirada, to be counted toward
the open space standards required by condominium regulations. Normally, such
open space is not allowed to encroach into a street yard setback. Note that the
buildings themselves would be set back 20 feet or more.
B. Allowing a 6 -foot fence /retaining wall to be located 4 feet from the property
line at the Mirada frontage. Normally, a 3.6 foot fence is allowed, and a
6 -foot fence must be set back 20 feet. The fence location has been revised
since the Planning Commission reviewed the plans; see 4.5 below.
Again, this is required because the units orient to the private road, not Mirada
Drive, and a fence is needed to assure privacy and security of the units and
some screening of the rear of the units from the street. The retaining /noise
wall at the Los Osos Valley Road frontage does not require any exception to the
6 -foot height limit.
e
���H�i�►►►�i�ll�llp���lll City of San LUIS OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
1.2 Designation as a Condominium Subdivision
The applicants have designated this application as a condominium subdivision.
Procedurally, this means that lot size standards and interior lot line building
setbacks which apply in standard subdivisions do not apply to this project. The lots
may be of any size or shape suited to the proposed development.
1.3 On -site Circulation
The applicants propose a private street with access to Diablo Drive and Cordova
Drive.
1.4 Grading Plan
The city's Grading Ordinance sets standards for the percentage of a site which may be
graded for development. The steeper the site, the higher the percentage which must
remain in its natural (ungraded) state. Since the subdivider proposes grading more
than 90% of the site, an exception to these standards is needed, and special findings
will be required. Refer to section 3.6 of the report for more details.
The grading plan for the project has been revised slightly so that the backyards of
the units nearest Los Osos Valley Road are somewhat lower than previously. This
change does not have any significant impact on the amount of the site being graded,
and an exception to grading ordinance standards is still required. This revision was
shown on plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 2nd.
1.5 Unit Designs
All units will be two -story or split - level. Designs for the A and B -type units is
identified on the plans as conceptual, since final design of these units (to adapt
them to grading revisions noted above) has not been done. Height of the units will
not increase; floor area may change slightly. Note that most units now have
incorporated interior grade changes in their design. This tends to lower the units
as they will "step down" the slope.
1.6 Environmental Review
A revised initial study is attached. The council should review the study and approve
a negative declaration as part of any action to approve the project.
2.0 EVALUATION ISSUES
The central question in evaluating the project is whether the development concept is
consistent with city policies as reflected in the Land Use Element and Housing Element,
and with the intent of the standards contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.
�►�n�i�ii►�IIIII��� ►��u������U MY Of San LUIS OBISPO
i MIGn COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
Review should take into account special features of the project's design and physical
constraints for developing this site. The site's steepness, its relatively narrow shape,
and multiple street frontages all contribute to the difficulty of development.
Planning Commission review focused on several issues which are discussed in this report.
The issues are listed below and the specific sections which discuss them are noted in
parentheses:
1. Traffic safety, both real and perceived (Sections 3.2, 3.3, 3.4);
2. View preservation (4.8);
3. Density and appearance of density; additional open space and less paving in the
interior of the project (Sections 3.1, 3.7, 4.6, 4.7);
4. Wall on Los Osos Valley Road (4.3);
5. Corridor appearance on Mirada (4.5, 4.8);
6. Increased sensitivity to topography (split units) (1.5, 3.6); and
7. Grading concept (3.6).
The revised plans raise other issues which are also discussed in the following report.
2.1 Proiect Orientation
Units are oriented toward an interior private street. Consideration of functional
and visual relationship to the neighborhood is important. See Sections 4.4 and 4.5
below.
2.2 Unit Tyne
Detached, split -level units are proposed. The long, narrow configuration of the
units and their lot coverage are important factors in distribution of open space
throughout the project.
2.3 Use of Private Street
Private streets are typical in condominium subdivisions. Planning and engineering
staffs believe this is appropriate for this project, subject to proper design and
layout of the street.
3.0 SITE PLANNING CONCERNS
Some aspects of the site plan have been changed in response to concerns expressed by the
Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission, and neighborhood residents. Some
issues still remain.
3.1 Density
Gross density of the project would be 5.97 units per acre; a maximum of 7.0 units per
acre would be allowed. Average slope of the site is 13.5 percent; maximum density
for a site steeper than 15 percent would be 4 units per acre.
������aH►I�IIIII�Ij�I ����U city O� San LUIS osispo
ONGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
(State law requires special findings if the development review process results in
reduction in the number of units any residential project which conforms to adopted
policies and ordinances. This law does not apply to this project since various
exceptions are requested.)
3.2 Traffic Generation
This project is expected to generate an average of 300 trip ends per day. Most of
these trips will be directed through the Diablo Drive /Los Osos Valley Road
intersection. This volume of traffic would not be enough to justify installation of
a traffic signal at that intersection, in the judgement of the City Engineer.
Any increase in traffic results in some increased hazards to pedestrians and vehicles
using the street. The project will result in a slight increase in hazards at Diablo
Drives, but staff does not expect the increase to be significant (see below).
3.3 Intersection Location
Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department staff opposed the deadend driveway shown
on the previous plans, although some neighbors voiced concerns with the safety of
providing access to Cordova and possible headlight glare. Extension of the driveway
through the site with unrestricted access at the Cordova Drive end of the driveway
would provide safer and more convenient access for residents and for
emergency- service vehicles.
Connection to Cordova Drive would not cause safety problems if the intersection were
properly designed. The project is expected to generate a maximum of 300 trip ends
per day. It is unlikely that more than a third of these trips would use the Cordova
Drive driveway; during the busiest hour this would result in one car every five or
six minutes. This change in the level of traffic would be virtually undetectable.
A third alternative should also be considered. As noted in the original Planning
Commission staff report, staff believes that connection of both ends of the driveway
to Mirada /Cordova would be safer overall, because of the speed of traffic on Diablo
and sight distance limitations. Peak hour traffic in this situation would be
increased by approximately 30 cars per hour or less; traffic volume would still be
much less than levels found to be acceptable by residents in other parts of the
Laguna and other neighborhoods. Problems with the steepness of the driveway noted on
the original plans report could be easily remedied.
3.4 Private Street Transitions
Engineering staff recommends that "street -type" curb returns and handicap ramps be
installed at both driveway locations.
Also, minor revisions to grading are desirable to provide a staging area for cars
entering and leaving the site and to have the intersection at Diablo aligned with the
driveway from the condo project across the street. It seems unlikely that
significant changes to grading of the remainder of the site would be needed to
accommodate these driveway revisions.
���H� ►�,►►�IIIII�IIP N city or SM LUIS OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6
3.5 On -site Parkins
The applicants have proposed two covered parking spaces with each unit, plus
twenty -five parallel parking spaces provided on the private street (2.9 spaces per
unit). .
The common driveway provided between the units will accommodate only very limited
tandem parking. In most cases, a car parked in the driveway will make access to the
adjoining unit's garage more difficult.
Also, driveway lengths on units without common driveways will encourage, but not
adequately accommodate, parking in the driveway. Staff recommends that in all cases,
a setback of less than 8 feet from the curb or more than 18 feet be provided where
garages back directly to the access road.
3.6 Grading Concept
The site slopes approximately 30 feet from Mirada Drive to Los Osos Valley Road. The
applicant proposes to make the slope bank at the Los Osos frontage slightly higher,
and use a five -foot retaining wall and six -foot slope bank at Mirada Drive to take up
most of the difference in elevation. The remaining 10 -foot difference would be taken
up by smaller walls and slopes in the building area.
The grading concept differs from the previous phase of Laguna Homes development,
where two major pad levels 10 feet apart were used. In both plans, however, over 90
percent of the site is to be graded.
Since the overall slope of the site is 13.5 percent (similar to the previous phase),
an exception to Grading Ordinance standards is required if more than 60 percent of
the site is to be graded. A finding must be made that the proposed grading is
consistent with the intent of the Grading Ordinance - preservation of the natural
topography of the community. Staff would note that some disruption of the natural
topography has already occurred in conjunction with Los Osos Valley Road construction
and grading for Tract 603 and 608, and that the required findings were approved by
the council for the previous phase.
Staff would note that the grading plan is closely linked to the unit types and site
plan. Significant changes to any of these elements would necessitate corresponding
changes to the others.
3.7 Usable Lot Area
Usable lot area is limited by steep slopes, unit configuration, multiple lot
frontages and irregular lot shapes.
3.8 Site Planning Details
Many details of site drainage and utility service have not been worked out to the
satisfaction of the Public Works staff. They prefer that these concerns, along with
driveway grading details, be worked out before the tentative map is approved,
�►►u�i�lilullll @��p��u����U��l City of sap LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 7
4.0 OTHER PROJECT DESIGN ISSUES
4.1 C /OS -40 Zoning
The northerly corner of the site is zoned for Conservation /Open Space use; the zone
boundary is established .by the elevation 135 contour line. This includes
approximately 4500 square feet of the site, much of which is taken up by the Los Osos
Valley Road setback.
This zone boundary was established based on the area to which reliable gravity flow
sewer service could be provided The grading proposed by the applicants would extend
serviceable area to include the proposed building pad on each lot. It may be
appropriate to delete the C /OS -40 zoning designation, unless an alternate purpose is
seen for open space at this location. A corresponding revision to the Land Use
Element map, although not required for consistency purposes, would be desirable from
the point of view of clarity and would probably be included in future "clean -up"
revisions.
Since unit 7 encroaches across the zone boundary, this unit must be relocated if an
amendment is not processed before recording the final map or issuing building permits
for the project.
4.2 Provision for Future Development to the Northwest
When this area was subdivided in the 1970's, there was much discussion regarding
provision of street and utility "stub -outs" to serve future annexations.
The northwesterly city limits and the general plan's urban reserve line coincide with
the northwesterly boundary of this site. A "rural residential" development project
which includes a proposal for a golf course at Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent to
this site, is currently being presented to the county.
In view of the location of the urban reserve line, and proposed development on
adjacent property, staff questions whether it is desirable or feasible to provide for
street or utility extensions.
The Public Works Director recommends that property lines and unit locations be
adjusted to accommodate a sewer easement. The utilities, of course, would not be
installed at this time. Condition No. 10 of the attached draft resolution for
approval reflects this recommendation.
4.3 Streetscaoe at Los Osos Valley Road
As indicated in project cross sections, a 2:1 slope bank is proposed along this
frontage. The retaining /noise wall at the back yards of the downhill units would
project 2 feet above the slope bank near the Diablo Drive corner and would be about 6
feet high near the northwest property line. Visual impact of the wall would be
somewhat less than the previous phase, where 6 to 8 feet of wall are visible.
���u��NNllullillplpiau'ui����Ul Clay Of San LUIS OBISPO
diNCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
4.4 Diablo Drive Streetscane
Staff is concerned with the fencing and grading at the Mirada Drive /Diablo Drive
intersection. This location is one of the most logical for providing visually
effective open space. Minimal open space is provided, however, and the proposed
grading and retaining walls will make the significant modification of the existing
topography especially evident at this location. Also, it is not clear that the
6 -foot retaining wall indicated will be adequate to deal with grade differentials at
this location. It appears further work on the details of this corner is appropriate.
4.5 Mirada Drive Streetscane
Staff believes that an effective landscaped yard is essential to maintaining the
character of Mirada Drive. The proposed fence is 8 feet from the back of sidewalk (4
feet from property line) and the grade on the streetside of the fence should be built
up slightly to make the landscaping more effective. A 2 -foot retaining wall with a
4 -foot fence would provide minimally acceptable landscaping and still provide
adequate privacy screening.
Note that this location for the fence has not been reviewed by the Planning
Commission or Architectural Review Commission, although staff believes it is
acceptable. This proposal would work only if PG&E and other utility companies agree
that no major new underground lines are needed behind the sidewalk.
Moving the fence away from the street would increase shading of the yards slightly,
although a 6 -foot fence in any location at the slope bank will cause significant
shading during winter months.
4.6 Interior Streetscane
The project would have less landscaped area and more paving than is typical for the
interior "front yards" than is typical for R -1 developments. The applicant feels
that despite this fact, the product will be more marketable than smaller or attached
units with increased open space.
The subdivider has modified the interior front yards in response to recommendations
made by staff at the December 2 Planning Commission hearing (the modifications have
not been reviewed by the commission). The modifications include narrowing the
interior sidewalk to 4 feet in width and providing "bulb -out" landscape planters on
one side of the private street.
The subdivider has not responded to staff's recommendation that a fifteen -foot
setback be provided between the private street and garages with tandem driveways on
the downhill side. In addition, the design of the bulb -outs is such that planter
areas and parking spaces are too small to function well in some cases. Staff
believes that the elimination of two or three spaces to resolve these problems is
appropriate.
jiII�III city of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 9
Staff's setback recommendation could be implemented by shortening the downhill units
by 5 -feet, or by shortening both uphill and downhill units by a lesser amount.
Revision to hallways and laundry areas could achieve a shortening in many units; in
others, more substantial changes would be needed. Staff would note that. downhill
unit designs are conceptual in any case.
4.7 Usable Private Ooen Space
Private yards for many of the units is provided in what would normally be the street
setback area. Usable open space is also affected by the long, narrow units and lots,
and by the size of the units - average living area of these units is 200 square feet
larger than the previous phase, with approximately the same number of units per acre..
The applicant has not supplied adequate data to evaluate compliance with condominium
development regulations open space requirements. The project appears to be in
substantial compliance, subject to approval of the Mirada Drive setback reduction.
Yards and entries of many units are not oriented to provide solar exposure and
prevent wind exposure. Mitigation of this problem is difficult without significant
revisions to the site plan concept due to steepness and shape of the property.
4.8 View Obstruction
At previous hearings, neighbors expressed concern about the project blocking views of
Laguna Lake. Owners of four houses across Mirada Drive from the project site are
primarily affected. The revised submittal will interfere very little with views in
staff's judgment. It is likely that the buildings could be a few feet higher without
causing significant view blockage, but a detailed evaluation of how much taller the
buildings could be without affecting views would require an on -site study using
surveying equipment.
5.0. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
A variety of development alternatives can be considered in resolving site planning and
other project design concerns, ranging from minor revisions to the proposed project to
provision of public streets and standard -sized lots. Staff previously recommended that
any acceptable alternative include three main features:
A. Provision of safe, convenient vehicular access.
B. Provision of significant landscaped area and /or functional orientation of units
to Mirada Drive, while maintaining or increasing usable private yard areas.
C. Provision of more landscaping and less paving in the interior streetscape.
Staff believes that some of these issues have begun to be addressed and has noted
suggested revisions to the proposed project which would adequately address each of these
issues in staff's judgment. However, the significance of these revisions and the number
of "technical" issues regarding drainage, utility locations, driveway grading, etc.,
which remain are significant. Staff feels more work needs to be done in incorporating
these suggestions into the plan before the tentative map is most appropriate for
approval.
������ ►d►►►�IIIII�III1° i�U�ll MY Of san LUIS OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 10
PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVES
1. Tentative Tract Mao. The State Subdivision Map Act sets deadlines for council action
in processing tentative tract maps. After reviewing the situation with the City
Attorney, it appears that the safest course is to assume that this regulation
requires the council to approve or deny at tonight's hearing unless a continuance is
agreed to by the applicant; the applicant has indicated willingness to consider this.
Draft resolutions incorporating appropriate findings for denial and findings and
conditions for approval. Conditions of approval are somewhat more general than
usual; many details would have to be worked out prior to City Council action on the
final map. Note also that Architectural Review Commission review may result in
further modification to the project.
2. Use Permit A159 -87. Although there is no deadline for action on this use permit at
tonight's meeting, staff suggests action on the use permit correspond to action of
the tentative tract map. Findings for approval and denial are included below.
3. Grading Ezceotion Reouest. Action should correspond to action on the tentative tract
map. Findings for approval and denial are noted below.
4. Revised Initial Study. Changes in the project description have resulted in the
necessity to revise the initial study. A draft of the revised initial study is
attached for council action; the draft resolution for tract approval incorporates
required environmental findings.
PREVIOUS REVIEW:
The Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission considered this project at
previous meetings as noted above.
The Architectural Review Commission has not considered the revised project; they will
review the revisions prior to consideration of the project by the City Council.
At the ARC and Planning Commission hearings, numerous residents of the neighborhood spoke
in opposition to various aspects of the project. Those concerns are outlined in draft
minutes. A petition opposing the project and a letter regarding traffic signal
installation were received and are attached.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
Comments of the Engineering and Public Works staff, and the Fire Department staff, which
would have a significant impact on the project are noted in the body of the staff
report. Engineering staff opposes the interior bulb -outs.
•
���nni ►►�IIIIIII�II ���Ill MY Of San LUIS OBISp0
ONFma COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 11
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
Mirada Drive Streetscape /Fence Height and Setbacks. An important decision is whether
or not the upper row of houses orient to the interior street or to Mirada Drive.
Staff feels orienting to the interior street is acceptable given the steepness of the
site and the fact that this approach minimizes view blockage. The treatment of
Mirada now proposed by the applicant appears acceptable.
2. Interior Open Space, Especially Setbacks from the Private Street. Staff feels more
open space, especially in the front yards of the units along the interior street is
necessary. Staff feels a 12 -foot setback with bulbouts on the street for the upper
units and a 15 -foot setback for the lower units would be acceptable.
3. Access to Cordova. Different versions of the project have included no- through access
to Cordova (emergency access only). This is not recommended by staff. The latest
version shows a through connection to Cordova.
4. Grading /Landscaping at the Corner of Mirada /Diablo. This highly visible corner needs
further work in detailing of grading, retaining walls, setbacks and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the council continue the project to the meeting of February 16th
with direction to the applicant regarding issues noted in the staff report. If the
applicant does not agree to a continuance, and if the council feels that denial is not an
appropriate action, staff has included several conditions which we feel are necessary to
an acceptable project, particularly regarding the following:
1. Mirada Drive streetscape /fence setback.
2. Internal open space, especially setbacks from private streets.
3. Private street access to Cordova Drive.
4. Grading and landscaping at Diablo /Mirada street yard.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Resolutions for Denial
Draft Resolutions for Approval
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Subdivider's Statement
Land Use Element Map
Draft Minutes - ARC (October 19th); PC (November 4th, December 2nd)
Revised Initial Study
Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Denial
Petition in Opposition to Project - November 2, 1987
sr:tr1544
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1544 (LAGUNA GARDEN HOMES -
PHASE III) LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findinits That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of
Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The site is not physically suited for the type of development proposed.
2. The subdivision is not consistent with street setback and private open space
requirements of the zoning and condominium development regulations.
3. The size and configuration of proposed condominium lots is not suited to the proposed
grading and circulation plans, nor to the configuration of condominium units
proposed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for Tract 1544 be denied.
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
1988.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
n
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 17.78.210 OF THE GRADING
ORDINANCE FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1544 (LAGUNA GARDEN HOMES -
PHASE III) LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findines That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of
Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
The proposed grading exception is not consistent with the intent of the grading
ordinance to preserve and enhance the beauty of the landscape by encouraging maximum
retention of natural topographic features and minimizing padding or terracing of
building sites in hillside areas.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the requested exception is hereby denied.
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
1988.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
M
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
ACTION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION A 159 -87
FOR STREET YARD REDUCTION AND FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE
WHEREAS, the applicant request a use permit to reduce the street yard setback from 20
feet to 12 feet and to allow a 6 -foot high fence where a 3.6 foot high fence is normally
allowed on the Mirada Drive frontage.
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1987, the Planning Commission denied conditional use permit
application A 159 -87; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 1987, the applicant's representative appealed the Planning
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1987, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findin¢s. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of
.Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
The proposed setback reduction and fence height exception are inconsistent with the
intent of setback standards to provide an appropriate pattern of building masses and
open areas and to provide adequate views and exposure to sunlight.
2. The Planning Commission acted appropriately in denying use permit application A
159 -87.
SECTION 2. Action The appeal by the applicant's representative is denied, and the
action of the Planning Commission to deny use permit application A 159 -87 is upheld.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Hg
Resolution No. (1988. Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this _ -- .-day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
.APPROVED
ity Ad inistrative Officer
City.A.ttori&Y
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1544 (LAGUNA
GARDEN HOMES PHASE III) LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of
Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
The design of the 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 a
R -I and C /OS -40 zones.
3. The design of the 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 subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with
easement for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision.
5. The City Council has reviewed the revised initial study prepared by the Community
Development Director and determined that the proposed subdivision will not have a
significant effect on the environment and hereby grants a negative declaration.
6. Buildings which will be constructed as part of this subdivision will be afforded
adequate solar exposure.
SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Tract 1544 be
subject to the following conditions:
Setback along the Mirada Drive /Cordova Drive frontage of this project shall be as
specified by conditions of Use Permit A 159 -87.
2. A minimum 15 -foot setback from the private street shall be provided for units 9
through 16.
3. A minimum 10 -foot setback from back of sidewalk at private street shall be provided
for units 19 through 27.
4: Landscaped "bulb -outs" shall be provided along the west side of the private street to
the approval of the Architectural Review Commission and the Community Development
Director.
/ /6
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
5. Grading and alignment of driveways at Diablo Drive and Cordova Drive shall be revised
to the approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer.
6. Driveways for units which back directly onto the private street shall be set back
less than 8 feet or more than 18 feet to discourage parking in such a way as to
obstruct traffic in the private street.
7. Street cross section, curb, and individual driveway design shall be revised to the
approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director to prevent drainage
from flooding garages or landscaped areas.
8. Public and private storm drainage catch basins, connection points, etc., shall be
revised to the approval of the City Engineer. Individual water and utility meters
shall be provided for each unit.
9. Sewer and water mains in the private streets shall be public and shall be located in
a utility easement to the approval of the City Engineer.
10 Subdivider shall record an irrevocable offer to dedicate a 12 -foot utilities easement
between the private street and the northwesterly boundary of the tract to provide for
possible future extension of public sewer and water mains to the approval of the City
Engineer.
11. Subdivider shall prepare conditions, covenants, and restrictions to be approved by
the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to final map approval.
CC &R's shall contain the following provisions:
a. Creation of a homeowner's association to enforce the CC &R's and provide for
professional, perpetual maintenance of all common area including private
driveways, private utilities, drainage, parking not area, walls and fences,
lighting, and landscaping in a first class condition.
b. Grant to the city the right to maintain common area if the homeowner's
association fails to perform,-and to assess the homeowner's association for
expenses incurred and the right of the city to inspect the site at mutually
agreed times to assure conditions of CC &R's and final map are being met.
C. No parking except in approved, designated spaces.
d. Grant to the city the right to tow away vehicles on a complaint basis which are
parked in unauthorized places.
e. Prohibition of storage or other uses which would conflict with the use of
carports and uncovered parking spaces for parking purposes.
f. No outdoor storage of boats, campers, motorhomes, or trailers nor long -term
storage of inoperable vehicles.
g. No outdoor storage by individual units except in designated storage areas.
1-17
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 3
h. No change in city- required provisions of the CC &R's without prior City Council
approval.
i. Homeowner's association shall file with the City Clerk the names and addresses
of all officers of the homeowner's association within 15 days of any change in
officers of the association.
12. Units in the subdivision shall be addressed according to an addressing plan approved
by the Community Development Department.
13. Construction of structures on the site shall be consistent with approved tentative
map and attached exhibits, consistent with these conditions of approval, and the
requirements of the Architectural Review Commission.
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
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED
City A ministrative Officer
City At ney
Community Development Director
lOE,7
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO SECTION 17.78.210 OF
THE GRADING ORDINANCE FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1544 (LAGUNA
GARDEN HOMES - PHASE III) LOCATED AT 786 NURADA DRIVE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings That this council, after consideration of the grading plan for
Tentative Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations
and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
The conditions of approval of Tentative Tract No. 1544 will assure that approval of
the grading plan does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity.
2. The strict literal application of the grading design standards deprives the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity because of the
following special circumstances which apply to the subject property:
A. The narrow shape of the site.
B. The excessive street setback area required by Zoning Regulations.
C. The site has previously been graded and is no longer in a natural condition.
3. Under the circumstances of this particular case, the exception is in conformity with
the purposes of this chapter as set out in Section 14.44.020.
SECTION 2. Action. An exception to the design standards of the Grading Ordinance is
approved, allowing less than 40 percent of the site, exclusive of building area, to
remain in its natural state, as shown on the approved grading plan for Tentative Tract
No. 1544.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED
ity A inistrative Officer
City Atto ey tl
Community Development Director
Mayor
/IR0
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICATION A 159 -87 FOR STREET YARD REDUCTION AND FENCE
HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 786 MIRADA DRIVE
WHEREAS, the applicant requested a use permit permit reduce the street yard setback
from 20 feet to 12 feet and to allow a 6 -foot high fence where a 3.6 foot high fence is
normally allowed on the Mirada Drive frontage.
WHEREAS, on December 2, 1987, the Planning Commission denied conditional use permit
application A 159 -87; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 1987, the applicant's representative appealed the Planning
Commission's action to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1987, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the testimony of the appellant and other interested parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of
Tract 1544 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
The proposed fence height exception and street yard exception will not adversely
affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing or working on the site or
in the vicinity.
2. No public purpose will be served by strict compliance with the fence height
regulations and setback requirements.
3. The fence height and setback exceptions are consistent with the intent of zoning
regulations standards to provide an appropriate pattern of building masses and open
space within the neighborhood and to provide exposure to sunlight.
SECTION 2. Action. The appeal by the applicant's representative is upheld, and use
permit application A 159 -87 is approved subject to the following conditions:
/-0?�
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
A setback of not less than 10 feet shall be provided between Mirada Drive and private
open space areas required by condominium development regulations.
2. A retaining wall /screen fence not to exceed 6 feet in height may be constructed along
the Mirada Drive frontage with a setback of not less than 4 feet. Grading and
landscaping of the area between the back of sidewalk and wall /fence shall be
completed by the applicant in accordance with a plan approved by the Architectural
Review Commission.
3. A 20 -foot by 20 -foot landscaped area shall be provided at the intersection of Diablo
Drive and Mirada Drive, and the fence shall not encroach into this area.
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
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED
City Ad inistr.ative Officer
City Attor y i
Community Development Director
tea
:.
.b
+Y
'.
1
O /
/.
4Ll^
�i
ias
c -t
y of san Luis oBispo
990 Palm Street /Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 -8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter
1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of 1042P CM A41 2:516 61 rendered
r
on ` L��G I q 8-
which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed): 6 i`' fAd1NiO5 M D(L
fflt� e'sra7FS 78& Mr
IT *A 67
�Er�t --�� 7c� � `TKO �T1�r✓�-T
1� u� IK'x'� if1C�iNc:6 W Kk:�4LF-5 A- -
�
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
..; on
A pellant:
R E C E' V 9 D Name /Title
DEC 4 1987 cW Representative
C$TV CLENM
SAN Lun> 09SXJ CA L. I/ �/"ti• `7 `� `� - .
Address
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Ca tenred for: i S Copy to City Administrative Officer
Coy to the following department(s):
li/rr�
City Clerk
December 3, 1987
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
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 the decision of the
Planning Commission rendered on December 2, 1987, which decision consisted of the
following:
PROJECT:
Garden Homes III
Laguna Hill Estates
786 Mirada Drive
Denial of Use Permit #A159 -87, request to reduce the
street yard setback on Mirada Drive frontage from 20 feet
to 12 feet for required private open space, and a fence height
exception, along the Mirada Drive frontage, to allow a 6
foot. high fence where a 3 foot high fence is normally
allowed.
Related action recommended denial to City Council of
Tentative.Tract Map, Tract 1544. It is our understanding
that this wil I normally proceed to the City Council.
(5n n D. Pults, AIA
Project Architect
Representing:
Rick Webster
Laguna Hill Estates
A?UWedM PlanningGGropbks
1401 Htumpvel
San Lwd (MmIra. Cali)hmia 95401
805/541.5604
GARDEN HOMES III
LAGUNA HILL ESTATES
SAN LUIS OBISPO
R -1 ZONING EXCEPTIONS
We would like to request the following exceptions to setback and fence height
requirements.
1. Fence height exception to allow a 6 foot high fence where a three foot
height would normally be allowed along Cordova Drive at the rear of the uphill lots.
(Fences at lots 1 through 5 will be offset a couple of feet fro^ retaining v:alls tc avoid
total heights over 6 feet.)
2. Setback exception to allow private open space to encroach into the street
setback along Cordova Drive, reducing the street setbvack to 12%
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
LOT
AREA SF
LOT
AREA SF
1
2072
14
960
2
1632
15
1410
3
1283
16
1060
4
2036
17
740
5
2832
18
780
6
2650
19
960
7
2050
20
11.30
8
1340
21
1145
9
920
22
1350
10
1060
23
1145
11
960
24
1350
12
1060
25
1270
13
1060
26
1870
27
1560
COMMON OPEN SPACE
39,719 SF TOTAL PROVIDED
Does not include private street, street yard setbacks, unit footprints, or private open
space.
-Arcbilecture, Planning £ Grapbia Ad,
CRY of San LUW
1401 igursn.l](ta4 c 1���^t
uu( Luis Obispo. Cablurnia 93yu1
hoi!iy/ ioaq
I=r%A
ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES 1.
1-7 November, I C,'B 7
D&p L
'0+ S&.1 l..Llit:! 101-.LSI�0
t. t J C t !,J: 15,14.
zL L ev .11,e - ?1 clp.=j -
t
41rl t:l m. i k: -z;. t r i c_ - t i 0 a..:.1: e. e r C k:F
t
L-ot :.t F a z fJ1. tv 1_.,7 Ui=i Lrrequl ar, �h_�pc- o + t! -, e Parcel -Aif%
Clp:?!l FPaCZ Exid the zxea be; --o 11 cry e;
street .'..he ind clu c.l 1 of tii.
6:' irl 'iettlaCkS r+..F-_�
Em. tr
Cc!6
I J. tr, ..ond i t j con' i s
I L 80- CC: G? -P .-.!I of d a r 1 a
T a - t 1,7791 an pv;-
%. i it- C.. I F: a Ft C E• 1. -L
j?o i i •ed ti_: 1. for irsorr:l Si
j, m
,11 t i. ! r tm�, c; L f-j I I j t i (:.o L t 1 rj k:)!-
IT, E ? 1-1 "I"I F1 1: Ul- cA 1 1-: Z_ub,tao
t i 1. L
A!:: t was bLIJ . I t ul 1 c':: e Ca.! Lausi' i t
i u-. to tht,- =-t-!'r
,in _!tiij L15` r: S; r t J' 1. rl L.' C-4 1.�ure 40% U+ the Site is
v e �� Z.-i J. clu ; : ?1a1 e. i =il S t,ntj lo
1 : r ei. m,f:t! m c' J t. c: j I
ony queotiton-s or prcvidr-� further" inforrinition
(..is a5 s 0 on B54 p n s S i u" I c-
l)F.V1_-_L_1_jPM.ENT A.SZ-Q(' I P.TE5
Rhilip F'. Paldn.er
6
ENGINEERING- • LAltD SURVEYING • PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
1320 N I POMO STREET • SAN LUIS OB I SPO . CA 93401 • 805-549-8658
� Orz
I..r; el— , I, --, • 06. . . I. n -py'l -0*... k. of. •-CW^4qt_ . .
OW" ......
WA
ftm
N. rS
se
00
rob
N?plAn
NOW
1r,
v- K, , LAGUNA LAKE
....... ...
J-j .. ....
if:
..........
St 7
A XA ........ ...........
n.
Irv,
....... ... %
.... .......
...... .......
IT4
........ ...
....... .. . ..
'pr
...........
WORTH
CY
-Abis .
ocqzA ......
. .. ..... .......... . •
'fin Zy
......................
fi
...... .........................
• ...... ......................
........... ; ....... . . ...................
IN............
.................. .......
..... .... .
"Ile ..........
or, ."r ... .................
............... .......................
-or
Ir low
-low
jm .......
#ro ...........................
"Joe", ....... .
Fr
.... ...........
...........
.. ........
..........
-I.tp % N,;i ........
.............. .....................
:_ /1
for
... ........ .. ....
J1.4
f1%
W
I
Ox ...
'04 Olt . . ...
DRAFT ARC MINUTES
October 19, 1987
2. ARC 87 -134: 786 Mirada Drive; 18 new houses in Tract 1.544;
R -1 -PD zoning pending; schematic review.
Commrs. Baur and Morris stepped down due to a:conflict of interest.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending the commission continue the project with direction to
restudy specific aspects of the design and forward comments to the
Planning Commission.
Rick Webster, applicant, explained the project concept.
Steve Pults, architect, responded to the staff report.
Robert Cleath, neighbor, objected to the project and felt the site
should remain zoned R -1. He cited other planning and design problems
in the area and felt this project would compound those problems.
Paul Tuttle, neighbor, agreed with Mr. Cleath.
Virgina Cleath, neighbor, objected to the proposed project due to its
density, reduced setbacks, poor street character, lack of open space,
excessive amount of paving, and lack.of landscaping. She preferred
to see a conventional R -1 development on the property. She also
objected to the use of wood fencing along the Mirada /Cordova frontage
and suggested using a masonry wall instead.
Doug Hendry, neighbor, expressed concerns with the 9 -foot high wall
facing Los Osos Valley Road and Diablo Drive. He suggested changing
the driveway access to Diablo Drive for greater safety for
neighborhood children. He also wanted the fence height reduced on
Mirada Drive. He agreed with other neighbor comments.
Gary Wintermeir, neighbor, agreed with previous neighbor comments.
Pam Spouts, neighbor, expressed concerns with the wall height on Los
Osos Valley Road and agreed with other neighbor comments.
Commr. Pinard felt the project "read" like a walled community. She
felt the project was too dense given the site restrictions. She
indicated that the project had conceptual problems and needed
restudy. She could not support schematic approval.
Commr. Rademaker felt the issues were predominantly of a land use
planning nature, and that the Planning Commission should be
discussing the issues first. He thought that overall the planning
concept seemed appropriate, but that the project had technical
problems. I&R S
DRAFT ARC MINUTES
October 19, 1987
Page 2
Commr. Starr questioned the justification for a PD designation since
the houses seemed to be conventionally sized and designed on
undersized lots. He suggested possible alternatives for parking. He
agreed the concept needed additional study.
Commr. Cooper questioned why a zero lot line concept was not used for
this project. He suggested combining lots 15 and 16 to allow,
additional setback and landscaping to enhance the °gateway#, into the
project and neighborhood. He also suggested using concrete block for
the wall along the Cordova frontage, and taking the access driveway
from Diablo Drive. He wanted to see the wall height reduced and
landscaping increased along Los Osos Valley Road. He agreed the
project was not ready for schematic approval.
Commr. Pinard moved to continue consideration of the project.
Commr. Rademaker seconded the motion.
AYES: Pinard, Rademaker, Cooper, Starr
NOES: None
ABSENT: Baur, Morris, Jones
Commrs. Baur and Morris returned to the meeting.
/a
. -P,C. Minutes .
aae6sibit •19 1987 .
Page 5.-
Coate. Kourakis seconded the notion.
VOT INC: �" AYES - Comm"-; Crotser, Kourakis, Duerk, and Gerety.
NOES - Commrs. Mainline and Schmidt.
ABSENT - None.
The motion passes.
Commr. Kourakis moved to._pass on to the ARC the commission concerns about
the Chorro Street facade in..,terms of pedestrian scale, visual; variety, and
palm tree preservation. �.
Commr. Duerk seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs.'Kourakis, Duerk, Crotser, Gerety, Hainline, and
Schmidt.
NOES - None.
ABSENT - None.
The motion passes.
Item 3.. Public Hearing: Actions Relating to Property at 786 Mirada Drive.
Requests to develop a 4.52 acre site; Laguna Hills Estates; Rick
Webster, applicant. (Continued from October 28 and November 4,
1987 meetings)
A. Use Permit A159 -87. Requests to reduce the street yard
frontage from 20 feet to 10 feet and to allow a 6 -foot high
fence where a 3 -foot high fence is normally allowed on the
Mirada Drive frontage.
B. Tract 1544. Consideration of a tentative map creating a 27-
unit residential condominium.
---------------------- ---------------------- ----- -- ---- --- -------- -- - - - -- --
Greg Smith presented the ataff report and recommended continuance for
incorporation into a revised map.
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing.
Rick Webster, 1715 LaLuna, applicant, agreed with the driveway solution on
Diablo Drive. He clarified the Phase 2, project and discussed the raised
wall. He did not agree with the interior open space issue and felt large
homes on small lots was acceptable. He noted there was little natural
grade left and could not comply with grading ordinance.
Commr. Duerk was concerned with the open space issue and felt the partial
wall issue was significant. She did not agree with the 0 lot line and felt
5 -foot was acceptable.
/c'.G
P.C. Minutes
- Dpg4mber 29 1487..
Page 6.
Robert Xk*eth, 777 Mirada, was against the project. He did not agree wit"
the grading, substandard street, lot rise, setbacks, and fencing. He f.el
growth development should be considered within a neighborhood.
Robert Cooper, 1520 Diablo, felt his view would be preserved.. He was
against-the new access at Diablo Drive and felt traffic would be impacted.
He objected to the front wall, but was basically in favor of the project.
Paul Tuttle, 1540 Frambueao, stated that Mr. Webster has cooperated with
neighbors in terms of keeping views and configurations.
Jesse Tuttle, 1540 Frambueao, was concerned with traffic on Mirada Drive
and preferred it routed on Cordova. She was concerned with thickly planted
trees blocking'viewa.
C /ea Xh
Virginia &Aet�rfi, 777. Mirada, preferred to see R -1 homes on standard lots as
opposed to the proposed condominiums.
Kelene Powell, 1520 Diablo, requested her name and that of Robert Cooper be
removed from the petition.
Glen Goelzer, 1571 Cordova, supported the project with the Diablo Drive
access and proposed .open space and acceptable fire accessibility.
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing;
Commr. Crotser stated he met with the applicant and architect for project
medification clarifipation. He felt this plan resolved streetscape and
fencing issues, and suggested clustered landscaping and changes in the 200-
foot wall. He felt access should be continuous through the street.
Wayne Peterson was still concerned with the inadequacy of the `tentative map
and wanted a resolution before approval.
Mr. Webster stated he would prefer a denail to a continuance and agree to
work the Public Works staff.
Commr. Hainline stated she met with the applicant for review.
Commr. Gerety was concerned with large homes on small lots.
Commr. Hainline felt the less yard /more open air concept was acceptable and
desirable to the buyers.
Chairperson Kourakis was concerned with the grading, lack of usable open
space, lots being too small for house size, high density, and specific
Public Works concerns. She did not feel the site was physically suited to
the development proposed.
Chairperson Kourakis moved to deny the use permit, subject to findings.
/-3,
'P.C. Minutes
Decea er 2. -_1987 -
Coasts: Gerety seconded the ■ottonr
VOTING: AYES - Comers. Rourakis, Gerety, Duerk, and Schmidt.
NOES - Camara. Crotser and Hainline.
ABSENT - 'None.
The motion passes.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to the special meeting of December
7, 1987.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Hoske
Recording Secretary
1-3e
PC Minutes - 11 /4 /L
Page-5
maaking of the cut; there was also some concern about the proximity
of bedrock to the surface; 5) lot 13 has problems with visibility,
geology., fire protection problems; for all those reasons, he would
not recommend approval of that lot.
Commr. Schmidt asked Mr. Multari about fire and police problems.
Michael Multari said that because the lot is at the end of along
narrow canyon, significantly apart from the public right of way, it
presents concerns.
Chairperson Kourakis said she could not support the use permit and
needs more creek information and other options to access
restrictions. She was not,in agreement that if lot 13 is deleted,
two additional lots should�be approved lower on the site, aw had been
suggested by staff.
Chairperson Kourakis then moved for continuance until the December
2nd meeting with the stipulation that lot 13 be eliminated. : She
also wanted a more creative solution•'to a riparian barrier than
fencing, but did support some restriction on access, depending on the
report from Fish and Game.
Commr: Duerk seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Chairperson Kourakis, Commrs. Duerk, Crotser,
Reiss, Gerety, Hainline,.and Schmidt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried.
Item 4. Actions relating to property at 7S6 Mirada Drive. k request
to rezone the property to a planned development and consideration of
a tentative subdivision map for 4.52 acre site; Laguna Hills;Estates
(Rick.Webster), applicant.
Greg Smith presented the staff report.
There was some discussion by the commissioners.
The public hearing was opened.
Rick Webster, 1715 La Luna, applicant responded that the staff report
was thorough, but he didn't agree with the recommendation, and asked.
for direction from the Planning Commission.
Robert Cleath, 777 Mirada, objected to present development and
presented a petition-signed by 73 people wanting the property
developed differently. His concerns were with density, environment,
beauty and traffic, and requested denial of the use permit.
/3T
PC Minutes - 11/4/87
Page 6
Douglas Androtti, 1594 Frambuesa, said his only problem with the
project was concern about traffic impact on children in the area, and
requested a signal light be put in at Diablo.
Jessie and Paul Tuttle, 1540 Frambuesa, was concerned about traffic
and did not support the use permit.
Dennis Tunis, 1690 Cordova Drive, asked for clarification on R -1
zoning.,
Greg Smith defined R -1 zoning, and said some condo development would
be possible.
Dennis Androtti said he not support the wall along Los Osos Valley
Road.
Michael Foley, 1725 Frambuesa, cited the road, children and traffic,
and did not support the project. He did support an exit on Diablo
and left turn lane, also lower structures to save the view.
!
Virginia Cleath,777 Mirada, did not support the PD, citing walls,
traffic, and phase 2 grading.
Frank Servidia, 1555 Cordova, was concerned about his view.
Glenn Gelzer,,1571 Frambuesa, favored the project.
Rick Webster said the wall would be a noise mitigation wall made of
attractive slumpstone.
Wayne Peterson said the traffic level was acceptable in certain
neighborhoods and he recommended the intersection be at Mirada Drive.
Commr. Duerk felt that the issues were traffic safety real or
perceived; view preservation; the perception of denisty such as large
buildings on small lots; the : "wall" problem; open space requirements
for condos; she questions whether this development is in harmony with
the existing neighborhood.
Commr. Crotser agreed with Commr. Duerk and would like to see the
building more sensitive to the topography, and felt the fence on
Mirada should be-removed.
Commr. Schmidt did not support large houses on small lots; he felt
that it was inconsistent.
Rick Webster asked for clear direction if his application was denied
with findings.
Chairperson Kouakis said findings for denial would be excessive
grading and wall height.
Commr. Crotser said the streetscape was too harsh.
1-25
PC Minutes - 11/4/87
Page 7
Chairperson Kourakis said there was too much grading (exceeding
Grading Ordinance by 30 %), too many exceptions, and moved to deny the
application.
Commr. Gerety seconded the motion..
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Kourakis, Gerety
NOES: Commrs. Crotser, Reiss, Duerk, Hainline, Schmidt
ABSENT: None
The motion failed.
Commr. Duerk moved to continue PD 1334 until December 2nd, with.,
direction to address the items above.
Commr. Crotser seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Duerk, Crotser, Reiss, Gerety, Hainline,
Schmidt and Kourakis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried.
The meeting closed at 11:48 p.m. to the next regular meeting
shceduled for December 2nd, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Nina O'Connell
Recording Secretary
1-3,5
city of san tins oBispo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
t
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION
PROJECT DESC
APPLICANT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE'DECLARATION
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED 1 i
PREPARED BY
COMMUNITY I
ACTION:
I
MITIGATION INCLUDED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
DATE
DATE
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POS ISLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .................... ............................... .
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH ........... ...............................
C. LAND USE ....................................... ...............................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............. ...............................
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................ ...............................
F. UTILITIES ........................................ ...............................
G. NOISE LEVELS ......................... .......... ...............................
H. GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC HAZARDS & TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ...................
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS ............... ............................... .
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................
KPLANT LIFE ....................................... ...............................
L ANIMAL LIFE ..................................... ...............................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL / HISTORICAL .................... ...............................
N. AESTHETIC ...................................... ...............................
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE .......................... ...............................
P. OTHER ........................................... ...............................
Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT
- . 1-26
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Tract 1544 - 786 Mirada Drive
Page 2
I. Description of Project and Environmental Setting
A 27 -lot condominium subdivision is proposed on a vacant 4.52 acre site. The site is
located between the northwesterly city limit, Los Osos Valley Road, Diablo Drive, and
Mirada Drive. The site slopes up from Los Osos Valley. Road; overall average cross slope
is 13.5 %, with some portions of the site as steep as 30 -40 %. Significant vegetation on
the site consists of numerous Monterey Pine trees.
In addition to the subdivision, the project includes grading of the site and construction
of houses on the lots and a private street for access.
II. Potential Impact Review
A. Community Plans and Goals
The project would involve variation to certain grading and zoning standards normally
applied to developments of this type. These variations are allowed by city: regulations,
subject to special findings by the City: Council and Planning Commission. Review by those
bodies and the Architectural Review Commission for consistency with the intent of the
various regulations and design guidelines should insure that no significant with
community plans or goals occurs. Note that no exceptions to major policies such as
residential density arc requested.
Conclusion: No significant impact will occur.
D. Transportation and Circulation
Access to the site will be via a private street 36 feet in width. Access is proposed via
Diablo Drive, with an emergency access driveway and locked gate at Cordova Drive near the
west corner of the site.
Access according to this proposal will ;be inconvenient for residents and service
vehicles, and will not allow adequate access to fire trucks. Provision of a
through- traffic connection to Cordova Drive, or provision of a hammerhead type turnaround
would mitigate any concerns regarding significant impacts. These revisions will be
required by ordinance.
The City Engineer believes that having both ends of the driveway connect to the
Mirada /Cordova frontage of the sight would be safer, due to the speed of traffic on
Diablo Drive and limited sight distances. He believes that the hazard from a Diablo
Drive driveway is relatively minor, however.
Conclusion: Standards which will be routinely applied during the development review will
result in modifications which will provide safe emergency access. No significant impact
will occur.
/3j
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Tract 1544 - 786 Mirada Drive
Page 3
G. Noise Levels
Noise levels generated by traffic on Los Osos Valley road are higher than those normally
acceptable for outdoor use associated with residences. The concrete block noise wall
proposed by the applicant will reduce the noise to acceptable levels for all except Units
4 and 5. Short perpendicular extensions would- result in full protection for all units.
Conclusion: No significant impact will occur.
K. Plant Life
Many moderate sized Monterey Pine trees will be removed. More. trees, though smaller in
size, will be planted as part of the project. The: trees do not appear to furnish
critical habitat for any species of bird,and restoration of the tree canopy should occur
within approximately ten years.
Conclusion: No significant impact will occur.
O. Energy /Resource Use
The proposed structures arc somewhat closer together than normally required by Zoning
Regulations for detached dwellings. Resultant shading of windows and walls will likely
result in consumption of slightly more energy for space heating than if normal setbacks
were observed. However, energy use will be within the mandatory standards adopted by the
state.
Conclusion: No significant impact will occur.
/ -38
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 4011 -87
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
did conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of the San
Luis Obispo City Hall, San Luis Obispo, California on December 2,
1987, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application for Tract
1544 by Laguna Hills Estates, applicant.
SUBDIVISION REQUESTED:
To create a 27 -unit residential condominium.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
On file in, the office of'Community Development, City Hall.
GENERAL LOCATION;:
786 Mirada Drive
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT:
Low- density Residential
PRESENT ZONE:
R -11 C /OS -40
WHEREAS, said commission as a result of its inspections,
investigations and studies made by itself, and in behalf and of
testimonies offered at said hearing, has established existence of the
following circumstances:
1. The site is not physically suited for the type of development
proposed.
2. The subdivision is not consistent with street setback and
private open space requirements of the zoning and condominium
development regulations.
3. The size and configuration of proposed condominium lots is not
suited to the proposed grading and circulation plans, nor to
the configuration of condominium units proposed.
/'3j
Resolution No. 4011 -87
Tract 1544
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application for Tract 1544
be denied.
The foregoing resolution was adopted•by the Planning Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo, upon the motion of Commr. Kourakis,
seconded by'Commr. Gerety, and upon the following roll call vote:
AYES: Kourakis, Gerety, Duerk, Schmidt, Kourakis
NOES: Hainline, Crotser
ABSENT: None
VACANCY:
Michael Multari, Secretary
Planning Commission
DATED: December 2, 1987
ril 1 10
To the City of Sar, uis Obispo: Members of the P;.. -iing Commission,. the
Architectural Review commission, and the City Council. "
We, as homeowners and /or occupants of houses in the Laguna Hills Estates
neighborhood, strongly oppose the application of the Laguna Hills Estates devel-
opers of the 786 Mirada Drive project (Planned Development Rezoning P.D. 1334
Tract 1544) for a 27 lot Planned Development requiring rezoning of 4.52 acres
from R -1 to R -1 PD. Our fervent opposition to this project is based on many
reasons, including the following:
(1) It infringes on the. rights of property owners who purchased many homes
from the Laguna Hills Estates Co. with the understanding that the neigborhood
would remain R -1. None of us wants to live next to a congested housing
development with many homes on lots 50 feet or less in width with reduced
setbacks that change the character of the neighborhood.
(2) It would create increased traffic that will endanger people, particularly
our many children. This especially relates to the plan to send all traffic from
Diablo Drive for twenty seven homes around a Mirada Drive /Cordova Drive loop
that would meet the street traffic from Frambuesa Drive and Cordova Drive as
well as Diablo Drive. Normal development of homes on R -1 lots similar in
size to existing home lots would not result in such congestion and danger.
(3) The proposed fences and walls for the development on Los Osos Valley
Road and Mirada Drive /Cordova Drive would be hideously high (up to 9 feet
high on an already high bank). It would be worse than the architecttirally
objectionable stone fence the developers are now building on their lots across
Diablo Drive and further desecrate the vital Los Osos Valley Road corridor.
(4) The developers propose to build homes of approximately 2000 -2400 square
feet (including garage area) on lots less in area than the required 6000 square
feet minimum in order to maximize their profit. They are not now proposing
homes on the nine best lots which will be larger and command higher prices.
The overall project shows that monetary profit and not good neighborhood
Policy is the dominant motivation of the developer, even though it adversely
affects people to whom they have already sold R -1 homes.
(5) The neighbors who look down on the development as proposed would see
the back side of the houses, back yards, and back fences of Mirada Drive
homes, hardly a desirable sight. Some neighborhood homes would have their
views blocked unduly due to the "squeezed together arrangement" of 18 large
homes on tiny lots. The City's mistake in approving their current planned
development across Diablo Drive must not be compounded by adding another'
miniature walled city to a nice neighborhood.
The issue in this matter is whether the desires of the people who live in.'the
neighborhood are going to be respected so that a lovely R -1 neighborhood is.
maintained, or whether a developer who betrays client homeowners' interests
for maximum profit will be allowed to control our environment. Please reject
any Planned Development for this land and let it be developed only as other
R -1 property in the Laguna Hills neighborhood. Many of us will be on hand
to express our views orally at the appropriate public hearings.
2.
3.
4.
777
7
-r
�7G
S I✓0.
Petition opposing
project. reed. Nov. 2
76 signatures
copies on file with /
City Clerk and Planning'