HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1988, 2 - 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 pp,,II II MEETING DATE
411�{��1IIS�IIuu1llV�� 00l MY Of San LUSS OBISPO 2-16-88
IFM = COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEI''NUMBER
FROM: Nficlfael Multari, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Greg Smith
A. entative map for Tract 1544, 27 unit residential condominium project
SUW''r7[ 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 a 6 foot
high fence where a 3 foot high fence i normally allowed
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolutions approving the use permit and tentative tract map (including grading
exception) subject to findings and conditions recommended by staff.
BACKGROUND:
Discussion
This project has been reviewed at previous meetings by the City Council (January 5),
Planning Commission (October 28, November 4, December 2), and Architectural Review
Commission (October 19, January 4, February 1).
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the tentative map, grading exception, and
use permit, based on an earlier version of the project. The Planning Commission has not
reviewed the revised project plans. The ARC continued the project each time it was
reviewed, but forwarded comments on the current version of the plans to the council at
their most recent meeting. ARC members comments are noted in the text of the staff
report below. The project will return to the ARC for schematic and/or final approval
after action by the council on the tentative map and use permit.
Driveway locations, building setbacks, view preservation, type of subdivision, grading
exception and headlight glare have been the subject of neighbor or commission concerns at
on the project. Many neighbors have testified at the hearings; minutes are attached.
Significant Impact
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 gff 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.
2- I
IUis OBlspo
��IIII city of sem._
==BIG@ 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 project involves a
tentative map for condominium subdivision, a use permit request for fence height and
Mirada Drive setback exceptions, and an exception to Grading Regulations to allow grading
of more of the site than normally allowed.
Several revisions to the plans have been made since the council's January 5 review:
1. A sixteen-foot setback has been provided between the private street and the
downhill units (previous setback was ten feet).
2. The lot coverage (footprint) of the downhill units has been revised to maintain
the required private open space area between the units and the noise wall at the Los
Osos Valley Road frontage.
3. Details of grading and landscaping at the Mirada/Diablo corner have bee clarified
somewhat.
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 bb 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.
The retaining/noise wall at the Los Osos Valley Road frontage does not require
any exception to the 6-foot height limit.
2-2
city of San tuffs OBISpo
A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
1.2 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 90/0 of the site, an exception to these standards is needed, and special findings
will be required.
1.3 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.
1.4 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.
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.
After the previous hearing, councilmembers requested information on five issues. These
and other issues are discussed below.
2.1 Onen Soace
As noted above, revised plans show additional open space between the private street and
the downhill units, in response to recommendations by the staff and comments by
councilmembers. Private space at the rear of the units has been retained by altering the
building footprints. It appears that all units comply with open space standards set by
the Condominium Development Regulations. The subdivider has not submitted sufficient
information to verify this for each house design, so staff recommends that this be
incorporated into the conditions of approval.
Several ARC members expressed concern with the size and/or steepness of the private yards
behind the uphill units and suggested that landscaping should be installed by the
subdivider after site grading.
2-3
�����i�t►��Iilll�lll���ut►��dlh city of s: tins OBIspo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT .
Page 4
2.2 Diablo/Mirada Corner
ARC members were concerned with seeing more specifics on the fencing, grading, and
landscaping proposed for the Mirada/Diablo corner. They agreed that landscaping at this
corner would be important, but did. not comment specifically on whether the size of the
proposed landscaped street yard would be adequate. Staff is also concerned with these
details; it may be difficult to provide effective privacy fencing for Unit 18 without
compromising corner landscaping or using a fence and wall approximately 10 feet in
height. Staff recommends that this detail review be done by the Architectural Review
Commission as part of their action on the project; this is a suggested condition of
approval.
2.3 Noise Wall Landscanin¢
The proposed noise wall at the Los Osos Valley Road frontage is shown on Sheet 5 of the
blueprints submitted by the applicant. The wall will be less obtrusive than the wall for
the previous phase (across Diablo Drive from the current project's site). That project
has an eight-foot wall atop a ten-foot high embankment; the worst-case dimensions for the
proposed project are a six-foot wall atop a ten-foot embankment, and the combined
wall/embankment height is eleven to fourteen feet for most of the wall's length.
Numerous trees and large shrubs are to be planted at the top and bottom of the
embankment, which will serve to screen the wall. Details of this and other landscaping
will be reviewed by the ARC.
A more significant visual impact may be created by the proposed retaining wall along the
north side of Units 2-5. Overall height of that wall and privacy fencing will apparently
be 12 feet. Changes to on-site or off-site grading are needed to reduce the wall's
height. Specific Architectural Review Commission review of this is suggested as a
condition of approval.
2.4 Driveway Parkin¢/Obstruction
As noted in previous staff reports, units which share a right-angle driveway may
experience problems if cars are parked outside of garages. Also, driveway ramps or
garage door openings must be widened slightly to provide an adequate turning radius.
The driveways within eight to ten feet of the road have been elimiatnted in the latest
version. However, some units have individual driveways as short as 16 feet between the
curb and garage door (Units 7, 8, 17, 18). This could result in parked cars extending
into the private street or blocking the sidewalk. Planning staff visited several
condominium projects throughout the city on two occasions in the evening to observe
possible problems with the use of short driveways and automatic door openers. No
significant problems were noted. Further, staff discussed with the applicant about their
experience of the first phase of the "Garden Homes." They indicate no significant
problems.
The design of the "bulb-out" planters may cause problems. The size of the parking spaces
between the planters does not take into account the obstruction caused by the planters,
and some of the planters are too small for effective landscaping. These concerns can be
addressed by minor modifications to the plan.
iz, 4-
0111111111 lljj� city of San Lu,.,osIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page
Engineering staff recommends that a 20-foot tandem parking area be provided for all units
(including common driveway units), and that the bulb-outs be eliminated. Planning staff
believes that an acceptable parking situation can be achieved by widening common driveway
ramps, and modifying the bulb-out and parallel space dimensions.
ARC members supported the bulb-out concept.
2.5 Air Ouality
County Air Pollution Control staff has indicated that while they do not have detailed
data for this particular area, the data they do have and their knowledge of the
meteroeology indicates that significant pollution problems do not likely exist.
Residents, therefore, should not be exposed to unusual air pollution conditions. The
proposed project is not expected to make a noticeable effect on air quality.
2.6 Diablo Drive Turn Lane
Neighbors and Planning Commissioners have suggested installation of a left turn lane and
elimination of parking on the north side of Diablo Drive to reduce potential hazards from
project traffic.
2.7 Driveway Alignment
The main entry to the project does not line up with the driveway for the project across
the street. Engineering staff recommends that the west side of the driveway be widened
to reduce turning conflicts. That might be possible without modifying or shifting Units
18 and 19.
2.8 Driveway Sight Distance
Staff is concerned that the parallel parking spaces near the Cordova Drive driveway may
be unsafe due to sight distance restrictions. The spaces are located on downhill curve,
which makes it more difficult to see traffic coming from behind. Specific spaces,
especially those closest to Cordova, should be subject to approval by the City Engineer;
this is a recommended condition of approval.
2.9 Sewer Extension Easement
The revised tentative map shows an easement for possible future extension of sewer
service to property to the north of the site, as previously recommended by the Public
Works Director.
In view of the location of the urban reserve line, and proposed development on adjacent
property, Planning staff questions whether it is desirable to provide for utility
extensions.
2-5
i���►�H�u��i��Il�n gllllll city Of San tins OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6
PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVE
I. Tentative Tract Man. The State Subdivision Map Act sets deadlines for council action
in processing tentative tract maps. These regulations require the council to approve
or deny at tonight's hearing unless a continuance is agreed to by the applicant.
Draft resolutions incorporating appropriate findings for denial and findings and
conditions for approval are attached. 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. Gradine Excention Reauest. 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.
At the ARC and Planning Commission hearings, numerous residents of the neighborhood spoke
both in favor of and 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends that the council adopt the attached draft resolutions approving
the tentative tract map for Tract 1544, Use Permit A 159-87 and the requested grading
exception, all subject to findings and conditions.
2.-(0
��►fly►�►►�Illll��p� ►q���l city of San tub., OBISpo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Resolutions for Approval
Draft Resolutions for Denial
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Subdivider's Statement
Land Use Element Map
Draft Minutes - ARC (February 1st); PC (November 4th, December 2nd)
Revised Initial Study
Planning Commission Resolution Recommending Denial
Petition in Opposition to Project - November 2, 1987
Letter from Air Pollution Control District
�r
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:
1. 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-1 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:
1. Setback along the Mirada Drive/Cordova Drive frontage of this project shall be as
specified by conditions of Use Permit A 159-87.
2. Landscaped "bulb-outs" provided along the west side of the private street shall be
modified to the approval of the Architectural Review Commission and the Community
Development Director.
3. 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.
4. 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.
2-S`
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
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.
9. Units in the subdivision shall be addressed according to an addressing plan approved
by the Community Development Department.
z-Q
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 3
10. 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.
11. Each lot shall be provided with individual sewer, water and utility connections.
12. Subdivider shall dedicate additional right-of-way needed for installation of curb
returns and handicap access ramps at Diablo Drive and Cordova Drive entrances to the
subdivision.
13. Subdivider shall provide a soils report specifically addressing ground water
conditions affecting slab type foundations.
14. Driveway ramps for right-angle common driveways shall be widened to 20 feet, to the
approval of the Community Development Director and Architectural Review Commission.
15. Street repairs required due to utility and storm drain installation shall be to the
approval of the City Engineer. Blanket pavement of streets may be required .
16. Westerly side of entrance drive at Diablo Drive shall be widened to align with the
driveway across the street, to the approval of the City Engineer.
17. City condominium requirements for private open space shall be met in the final
building designs; minimum setback between back of curb and any building for lots 1 -
17 shall be 15 feet.
18. A detailed plan for landscaping, grading, and retaining walls, including possible
consequent redesign of unit 18 at the corner of Mirada and Diablo shall be submitted
to the Architectural Review Commission for approval. In reviewing this plan, the
Architectural Review Commission shall explicitly consider the sight distance and the
visual significance of the corner as an entry into the residential neighborhood.
19. The treatment of lots, the rear walls, fences and grading of 2 - 5 shall be subject
to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission. In reviewing this
item, the Architectural Review Commission shall explicitly consider methods for
reducing retaining wall and fence height to provide a visually compatible interface
between this subdivision and the rural lands to the west.
20. Curbside parking on the private street near Cordova Drive shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer to insure adequate sight distances.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
2- IC)
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 4
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED
City Ad inistrative Officer
City At rney
Community Development Director
2-II
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 WRADA 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:
1. 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:
2-12�
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED
City Administrative Officer
City Attor y
Community Development Director
2-I�
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:
1. 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:
2- i4
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
1. 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. Landscaped area shall be provided at the intersection of Diablo Drive and Mirada
Drive, and the fence shall not encroach into this area; details of the fencing and
landscaping treatment shall be subject to Architectural Review Commission review.
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 Attcdney
Community Development Director
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. 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:
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.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
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. 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:
1. 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
anck.on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2- 17
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 CONDITIONAcL 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. 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:
I. 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: _ff
2
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED
City Administrative Officer
City Atta ey
Community Development Director
2-IQ
1G
•b- O P"�4 � y�.
O /
Ci
�J
� a
2-2� .
i
w4o'?ai
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
al lowed.
Related action recommended denial to City Council of
Tentative.Tract Map, Tract 1544. It is our understanding
that this wi I I normally proceed to the City Counci I.
XD
. Pults,AIA
Project Architect
Representing:
Rick Webster
Laguna Hill Estates
Ambiledure,Planning F Graphics ^
1401 Higuera Rreel
San Luis ObLym.Califhm r 93401
x05/541.5604
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 f.eet from retaining walls to 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 1130
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.
NOV25
Ard7iteck(re,Plall11IJ7g&CraphiGc CM of Sm Luis Obmpo ��
1y0111iguere Mme( f Devebmwl
Spm Luis Ohis%)'n.(.irh/iir»ia Q3401
N16•i-11 i0/)-i
EDA
ENGINEERING
DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES
F
�.ubi-ni t.t mg, t� &;
'..I -T,
-w, and a o In i a t i ori EF..rt i. + i t J.o:i 'ri-)t
p
X4:.1C! v J ec:u �E i
si :jw's
.4w
c.111.1 t h
IA
r ... ... ...t A. 7j
r-I
'n IIIC t ti I
(.1 i c.! P.S t
S LI e'r, J i t j --I i
Ell pi ar '_o rlF*Ar,;-.=l s w h. 1-1 u F. d er 1 3 A
Tra ..t l 1� t i I..
'T S]- {".E� i r 1(D t i I C 0 1 1'..I i t I
CAI tt—ec.� Zj i
e?r -n E.d n ii-ur -.I I ir. that t ta4'a a E.
b t I L
wrier)
I I R(::t. &v9 bL'.i I 't xtf�d a 3 t
b., oecarne rnm-ich more us to t.h e .:5 u r-r c5u:i c c.,
Cir:S. Gr .v i n g r-- -F r 1 i t
neca4:5-zr Lra rem-Ove del en 1-i3r J. 0 U:3 fn oi 1.E':-i a I s dnd t o
fat. b CA �iui I c:
.2 C zt l'i rl��-W r 1 1 U t i n p v v F tj r t I i 1-1 c) -
r Ct UE at i u1
Z,:5.1 n c ea-: l.
r-
.-.NGINEEPING DEVELDF,MIENT ASSOC IP.TEE,'
�- - /4;1 lern�p �
F-1-1 i i i p R. -RtR 1 d n-r-
ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING - PROJECT A D M I N I S T R A T I N
1320 NIPOMO STREET - SAN LUIS OBISPO . CA 93401 - 805 - 549 - 8658
r . ,I . ,, . .
W.. Olt
f..r.
or
lk- r In
A L.L -C
A.7
r
e, JIM
A. If
A
e'.47U "P�j,"7.,pq oft Of or I AV
rs�-.I M_ � p AG or
VISO
L
lies : 6
it Ir
7
K
Nor
PIP Ir
r.Cent
It low
01. 0-2
le
44
Yl)
-us- I.Y.
od
4v
Rr�
GUNA LAKE
J-1 p LA
.........
..... ... ....... Q5
r.
..... . .......
N. ..... .....
ev.
I av MIT 7 r
ze
..... ......
-r,A -too 57 ATI -4 . ................ ...........
........ ..
r
e,
.A-
14ORTH _r! O.P
ei� % m;8
...... ........
...... ..... .... ........
-PL, ... ...... ........ ........
................. .... .......
.............
......... 4QtA- ....
..... ....... .....
%451-e.,
m
OQ N,
... ............ ...............
........................
............. ..........
...........
r< w.
T, 0�4 i ;0:42 ....................
Fir:&kJz'4-..F W . . ..........................................
. ...... .'r,
..AV :H
(7 A .......
A.-7 r x�f W"' f
............
"n, L
r W,A
�ti;, -F,.,k7 ..................
em
A
1110 ................................... . ...... ...
lk, A..ii. 4. AA? `14 1%
..... .. ....
.. .. . ... ... ....... ....
.... tz;g'-'g,
Pill . .... .. ....... ..
........... ... .........
I... ...... ......
On-
C ........
.... ...... Co.
Y
%w
ac
..... ......
role ....... ---
Ad
f)6
Xi . ..... . ...... ...
. .. ... .......
IV.
IN
.k-Jr..
7.-
7 ;�%,
1 �
DRAFT ARC MINUTES
October 19, 1987
2. ARC 87-134: 786 Mirada Drive; 18 new houses in Tract 1544;
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.
Comm-r. 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.
1 )
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. "e
--P;C. Minutes .
D&Cambar 11. 1.98.7 .
Piga S.
ComkrlKourakis seconded the notion.
VOTING: ' .AYES - Commr-s: Crotser, Kourakis , Duerk, and Gerety.
NOES - Commrs . Hainline and Schmidt.
ABSENT - None.
The motion passes.
Comms. Kourakis moved to .pass on to the ARC the commission concerns about
the Chorro Street facade is 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 staff 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.
2-27
P.C. Minutes
-Df�embar 2 , 1987 ,.
Pag* 6.
Robert Uetth, 777 Mirada, was against the project. He did not agree with
the grading, substandard street, lot size, setbacks , and fencing. He felt
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 Frambueso, stated that Mr. Webster has cooperated with
neighbors in terms of keeping views and configurations .
Jesse Tuttle, 1540 Frambueso, was concerned with traffic on Mirada Drive
and preferred it routed on Cordova. She was concerned with thickly planted
trees blocking views .
C/ea)LA
Virginia KchwUTE, 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, 1.571 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 clarification. He felt this plan resolved streetacape 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. Mainline 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 .
z-zg •
'P.C. Minutes
Deep& or 2 ,__1987
COURT* Gerety soeondad the motion,
VOTINCs AYES - Comers. Rourakis, Cerety, Duerk, and Schmidt.
NOES - Comers. Crotser and Mainline-.
ABSENT ---- 'None.
The notion passes.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p .m. to the special meeting of December
7, 1987 .
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Voske
Recording Secretary
PC Minutes - 11/4/87
Page 5
mi4king of the cut; there was also some concern about the proximity
of bedrock to the surface; 5) lot 13 has problems with visibility,
geolo*,, 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 Rourakis 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, as had been
suggested by staff. �.
Chairperson Rourakis then moved r continuance until the December
2nd meeting with the stipulation lot 1.3 be eliminated. She
also wanted a more creative solution o a riparian barrier than
fencing, but did support some restrict on access, depending on the
report from Fish and Game.
Commr. Duerk seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Chairperson Rourakis, Commrs. Duerk, Crotser,
Reiss, Gerety, Hainline, and Schmidt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The motion carried.
Item 4. Actions relating to property at 78'6 Mirada Drive. A 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.
230
PC Minutes - 11/4/8"
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.
t)
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
z_3�,
DRAFT ARC Minutes
February 1, 1988
2. ARC 87-134: 786 Mirada Drive; new 27-unit residential conddminium (Tract 1544); R-2
and C/OS-40 zones; schematic review.
Commrs. Baur and Morris stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the
commission forward comments on open space issues to the City Council and continue action
on the project.
Steve Pults, architect, responded to the staff report, and summarized revisions made to
the project. He noted that only minor issues remain and requested schematic approval.
Rick Webster, applicant, noted that buyers in previous phases of the project were older
couples and singles. This phase would provide more yard area and was geared more to
families.
Robert Cleath, 777 Mirada Drive, felt the architectural integrity of the neighborhood
would be compromised with this project. He indicated that the neighborhood opposed the
condominium project because of the lack of proposed open space, potential traffic
problems. He felt the design resulted in an ugly walled city and should be denied. He
indicated a standard subdivision with 16 lots was preferable.
Doug Hendry, 1594 Frambuesa, had no problems with previous Phase I, Garden Homes, or with
these plans. He felt backyard views were typical in hillside neighborhoods.
Paul Tuttle, 1540 Frambuesa, noted he had bought his house based on view preservation and
felt the proposed plan is an acceptable compromise.
Jesse Tuttle preferred fence views to that of yards or a view blocked by houses. He felt
traffic problems could be eased by a left turn lane on Diablo Drive.
Gary Wintermeyer, 1639 Frambuesa, liked Phase I.
Virginia Cleath urged the commission to consider the good of the neighborhood and the
city. She felt this project was inappropriate for the city's rural edge. She was
concerned that phasing could cause unsightly conditions. She wanted the Mirada Drive
wall carefully designed. She noted that a petition in opposition to the project had been
previously submitted.
Commr. Starr noted that private spaces were not as desirable due to slopes but supported
the benching as proposed. He felt the wall design had been improved and the bulb outs
were appropriate to soften the streetscape. He noted Diablo/Mirada landscaping was
important.
Commr. Jones felt this revision was a good compromise, noting that the existing homes
have a significant visual impact. He thought that more space in the private yards may be
needed. He noted the landscaping and wall design were appropriate.
2- 33
Draft ARC Minutes
February 1, 1988
Page 2
Commr. Rademaker agreed with previous comments. He felt the applicant had done a good
job given the number of units proposed. He was concerned with screening and indicated
that all buffers should be planted during the first phase, including the 2:1 slopes in
the private yards. He thought the white color of the houses affected blending with the
environment and suggested earthier colors.
Commr. Cooper noted that the bulb-out landscaping and scale were important to soften the
interior. He felt that the entry landscaping at Diablo (near unit 17) was not
substantial. He suggested benching the open space at Cordova Drive. He wanted to see
the noise wall detail for units 5 and 6.
Commr. Jones moved to direct staff to summarize the commission's comments and forward
them to the City Council.
Commr. Rademaker seconded the motion.
AYES: Jones, Rademaker, Starr, Cooper
NOES: None
ABSENT: Baur, Morris
The motion passes.
2-34
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIST r
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
2156 SnxRA WAY,SurrE B—SAN Luis OBlsro,CALIFomu 93401 —(805) 549-5912
February 8, 1988
Christine Carruth
Engineering Development Associates
1320 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Ms. Carruth:
This letter is to respond to the concerns of the Community Development Director
for the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the potential air quality impacts
from a proposed residential development project in the Laguna Lake area. The
proposed project involves the development of 27 lots at the southwest corner of
Los Osos Valley Road and Diablo Drive in San Luis Obispo, which is a o
non-signaled intersection.
The District does not have any monitoring data which would allow an adequate
characterization of the existing air quality in that particular area. However,
a fairly extensive air quality database is available for downtown San Luis
Obispo. Based upon that information, and our knowledge of the prevailing
meteorology in the Laguna Lake area, it is unlikely that ambient air quality
standards are currently being exceeded in the vicinity of the proposed
project.
In determining the potential for significant impact from a project, the
District uses threshold screening criteria to initially determine whether or
not an air quality impact assessment is required. The threshold limits
represent size or activity levels which produce land-use-related mobile source
emissions approximately equal to the APCD New Source Review thresholds for
stationary emission sources. The screening threshold for residential
development has been set at 200 single-family units. Projects smaller than
this threshold level are sometimes required to perform an impact assessment if
there are special circumstances involved - e.g. , when cumulative impacts cause
an area to approach or exceed ambient air quality standards; when a combination
of uses in one project approaches threshold levels; proximity to sensitive
receptors or other pollutant sources; or unusual land-use or facility conflict
situations. The 27 units proposed for this single project would not be
anticipated to cause significant air quality impacts and thus should not
require further air quality evaluation.
Thank you for requesting District input on the project. Please contact us
should you have questions or concerns regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
LARRY R. ALLEN
Senior Air Quality Specialist
Z__
• 1 1-
city of san tuts oBispo
�i�►����III I ��'I;II;!►`jlli�l INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION APPLICATION NO.
PROJECT DESCRI ONJQT
44 .N�'11114
'!7
APPLICANT L=IGQJ A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
/87 PREPARED BY DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW IBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH...........................................
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................:. v �
E. PUBLICSERVICES ................................................................
iQnn
F. UTILITIES........................................................................
G. NOISE LEVELS ..................................................................
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS a TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ...................... �r�l
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................
It PLANT LIFE.......................................................................
L ANIMAL LIFE.......................................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALJHISTORICAL...................................................
N. AESTHETIC ......................................................................
0. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE ............................................................
P. OTHER ............................................................................
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT ���
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 are 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.
2-3'7
1
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 are 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.
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-1, 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
pxivate 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.
2-3q
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
2��
To the City of uis Obispo: Members of th ning 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 9feet
high on an already high bank). It would be worse than the architecturally
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 inthe
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.
1.
77.7 noA $. [,D.
3. 14,
Petition opposing
�—` 7 project, reed, Nov. 2
4.
/'"� 76 signatures -
copies on file with
�� . <.. 41
City Clerk and Planninn:��