HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/1988, 2 - TRACT 1438: SUBDIVISION TO DIVIDE ONE LARGE HILLSIDE LOT INTO THIRTEEN RESIDENTIAL LOTS, BEYOND THE PRESENT SOUTHERLY END OF ROYAL WAY, ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS. wits ING AGENDA
�'�►H�i�►►►�Illll��p��u►������I city of san tins oBIspo s
lW i9
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 3-15-88
FROM Michael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared by: Judith Lautneri
SUBJECT:Tract 1438: Subdivision to divide one large hillside lot into thirteen
residential lots, beyond the present southerly end of Royal Way, adjacent to the
city limits.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1) Initiate a General Plan map change to change the designation of the site from Interim
Conservation/Open Space to Low-density Residential; 2) adopt resolution approving
the tentative map as recommended by the Planning Commission or as modified
after consideration of the issues discussed below.
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
The owner of property at the southerly city limits beyond Royal Way wants to divide his
11.27-acre lot into thirteen large single-family residential lots. The Planning
Commission reviewed this tract on November 4, 1987, on January 13, 1988, and on February
10, 1988, and recommends approval with the findings and conditions in the attached draft
resolution.
The home sites all lie within the city's urban reserve line and within area zoned for the
use. (A general plan map change will be necessary, however; see below.) The proposed
density is lower than the maximum allowed for the area involved. Access is available by
way of a 40' easement granted by the adjacent property owner leading from the end of
Royal Way to this tract. The site is divided by a tributary of Prefumo Creek, and
contains an old "borrow pit", abandoned several years ago.
During review of this proposal, the primary issues raised by staff and the Planning
Commission were grading, treatment of the creek, protection of the open space beyond the
tract boundaries, and the inclusion of proposed lot 13. The subdivider has revised the
grading proposal, agrees to develop a separate creek improvement plan, agrees to
development restrictions on his adjacent county land, and has worked with the Fire
Department to alleviate fire hazard concerns related to lot 13. Staff and the Planning
Commission are therefore supporting the proposed subdivision.
A subdivision for the adjacent property at the intersection of Royal Way and Rubio Lane
is currently being reviewed and should be heard by the council soon. Staff anticipates
that the two will be developed concurrently.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Significant environmental effects are not expected to result from the proposed
subdivision, as conditioned. See the attached initial study for further discussion.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the council doesn't approve the map in some form, the property will remain as it is
now. The property owner may submit a different map for its development at any time, or
may sell the property.
����►�i�►���IIIIIIIIIP°�°'9�UI11 City or San LUIS OBISPO
j COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1438
Page 2
Data summary
Address: 2000 Royal Way
Applicant/property owner: Jack Foster
Representative: Central Coast Engineering (Steve Kahn)
Zoning: R-1-S (Note: a separate use permit for development is not required in an
S-zone, when the proposal includes a subdivision application.)
General Plan: Interim conservation/open space
Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted by the director
October 21, 1987 (copy of initial study attached)
Project action deadline: March 15, 1988
Site description
The site is a vacant, irregularly-shaped lot, consisting of 11.27 acres of varying
topography and vegetation. Slopes range from nearly flat to over 60%. A tributary of
Prefumo Creek divides the property in two. Most of the existing vegetation exists in or
near the creek, but there are two large Monterey cypress trees and a tree-topped bank on
other parts of the property. The steepest portion of the site is part of an old quarry,
abandoned several years ago. Remnants of the excavation are scattered over the northerly
side of the creek.
The site is separated from existing development by land under separate ownership,
containing one house and outbuildings. A 40'-wide access easement through this property
has been granted to the applicant. (Plans have been received for a residential tract for
the adjacent property, and will be reviewed by the council at a future meeting.)
ISSUES
Planning staff and the Planning Commission have identified the following:
1. Topography and proposed grading. The developable property (the area not included in
the proposed open space easements) has an average cross-slope of just under 20%.
Much of the property has been disturbed by the creation of roads into the hillside
area beyond, and by the use of part of the hillside as a "borrow site" several years
ago. The result of excavation of this site is a scarred hillside with irregular
contours and deposits of loose dirt scattered over the site.
The applicant's original grading proposal was to create large pads with sloping banks
between them, to allow individual lot owners to develop their homes on the pads. The
Planning Commission felt that even though the site is significantly disturbed, and
can never be returned to its original condition, the grading should instead even out
the contours, creating a more natural sloping appearance for the hillside lots. The
commission emphasized that homes need to be designed that respect the resulting
topography.
The subdivider responded to this direction by eliminating the proposed pads, and
developing a grading proposal that more nearly reflects the surrounding natural
terrain. The proposal also includes a plan to create terraces on the steep bare
hillside, to improve drainage and facilitate regrowth of vegetation. The terracing
is to be limited to the disturbed area, not affecting existing vegetative growth.
mim►����IIIIIIIIIp�'��u���dlU city of san tins osispo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1438
Page 3
Included also in the Planning Commission recommendation is a condition (# 9) that
requires architectural review consistent with standards in the hillside planning
standards of the Land Use Element, ensuring that style, colors, landscaping, blend
into the hillside and that homes are built to minimize grading of the lot.
The city's grading ordinance limits grading on hillside sites with average slopes up
to 20%, to 40% of the site, beyond that required to place homes and driveways.
Staff's analysis of this proposal is that approximately 60% of the developable site
is to be graded. Therefore, to allow the proposed grading requires an exception to
the grading regulations. The subdivider has requested such an exception, which the
council may grant. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend an exception in this
case, based on the disturbed nature of the site and the improvement likely to be
gained by the proposal.
2. Trees. Relatively little vegetation exists on the site outside the open space
easement areas, other than the riparian bushes and trees. The subdivider prefers to
remove two large Monterey cypress trees that live on the southeasterly side of the
site. The more southerly tree, the smaller of the two, may be dying, and its removal
may be acceptable. Staff, including planning staff and the city's arborist, objected
to the removal of the 48" tree, based on its character as a significant skyline
tree. The Tree Committee supported the staff position. However, the Planning
Commission disagreed with this assessment, finding the tree not a good specimen, and
supports the subdivider's request to remove it.
The council should note that approval of this tract as recommended by the Planning
Commission does include approving the removal of this tree.
3. Creek improvements. To assure adequate access to and from proposed home sites during
heavy rains, and to prevent flooding of the creek, the subdivider plans to deepen
part of the creek. This excavation, up to a maximum of four feet, is to take place
only in the vicinity of lots 1, 2, 10, and 11, with the deepest excavation between
lots I and 2. No other work in the creek is proposed.
The subdivider has submitted a creek plan, showing the depth of the creek, flow line,
and extent of the proposed work. As work in the creek requires a permit from the
Department of Fish and Game, staff consulted the DFG about likely conditions of that
permit. The representative from the Department of Fish and Game recommends that
buildings be set back at least 20' from the top of bank of the creek, and riparian
vegetation that would discourage access be planted where it does not now exist.
The DFG representative was concerned most about drainage into the creek from
developed lots. To limit the degree of siltation, he suggested a small earth berm be
created at the rear of the lots. The berm would allow the water to percolate
through, slowing it before it reaches the creek.
To assure that work in the creek complies with city and DFG standards and protects
the environment, staff recommends that an expanded creek plan be submitted along with
improvement plans. This plan should include all grading, erosion protection, and
revegetation within an area extending 20' from the top of bank on either side. A
condition has been included that limits work in the creek to those improvements shown
on the approved creek plan. (See condition #3.) j07 #93
��►►h�i��IIpIIIIIIp�JI ���U city of San lues OBISpo
IMaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1438
Page 4
The council will note that a "private way" is proposed as access to lots 11 and 12.
A section on the tract map shows the design of the pavement for this road. Beyond
lot 12, the road remains unimproved (beyond gravel or redrock). The Planning
Commission was concerned with the proposed 30' width of this road, saying that it may
encourage significant additional development beyond the tract boundaries. That
commission therefore attached a condition that the road incorporate parking bays in
lieu of the ten-foot parking lane. Two separated parking spaces are now shown.
However, the design of these two spaces leaves room for improvement. Public Works
staff would prefer to work with the applicant in developing a better arrangement.
Condition #12 requires Public Works approval of the final design.
4. Oven space. The Land Use Element hillside standards say that when land within the
urban reserve line, but adjacent to hillside land, is developed, commonly-held
hillside land outside the urban reserve is to be dedicated as open space. (See
initial study for detailed discussion.) The land proposed as an open space easement
in this case is partially within the urban reserve line, and includes only that land
within the city limits. The subdivider owns approximately 197 acres beyond the city
limits and adjacent to this property.
The intent of the hillside planning policies is to protect views of hillside areas,
to establish a "greenbelt" around the community, and to protect residents by keeping
development away from hazardous areas such as landslides, wildland fires, rapid
drainage and erosion. (See section D1 of the LUE - "Hillside planning policies and
standards - statement of purpose".) All subdivisions must be found consistent with
the general plan, including these hillside policies. Therefore, this subdivision
must be found consistent with these policies. The question is, how may the
requirement for open space be met?
This open space protection is best provided by preventing development on hillsides
whenever possible. (See also discussion under "lot 13" below.) Staff therefore
recommended imposition of access restrictions (option "a" below) or dedication of a
blanket easement over the entire 197-acre parcel (option "c"), at Planning Commission
hearings.
However, the subdivider is concurrently processing a parcel map through the county,
creating four lots and indicating four home sites on his adjacent 197 acres. A copy
of that map is attached. All four home sites are on existing access roads. The
building site on lot 1 is just behind the hillside being restored as part of this
tract. Sites 2, 3, and 4 are on ridgelines of the hillside. Portions of homes built
on the two closest sites are likely to be visible from Los Osos Valley Road and other
parts of the city, while lights from sites 3 and 4 may be seen at night.
The commission was not comfortable with provisions that would prevent the subdivider
from creating these four hillside lots. At the same time, commissioners did not
support accepting only the proposed in-city easements, leaving land use management of
the hillside to a changeable county agency. After reviewing the options discussed
below, the Planning Commission recommends a combination of options b and d (now
included as condition #7). This choice includes restricting the right-of-way width
of the three access roads, and requiring an open space easement for all 197 acres
exccot for the four defined home sites.
��►�n�►buI�IIIII�II����u�i�lU�U city of san Luis osispo
iSUN;@ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1438
Page 5
The county's Land Use Element also requires dedication of open space in some manner
(see discussion under option d, below).
In varying degrees, the following options address the number, location and design of
housing.in the county area and the amount of open space that is preserved.
a. Access restrictions. The city could impose restrictions upon the access
easements, limiting them to purposes other than access to and from residential
property. The easements would be available for grazing, recreational, or other
non-residential purposes. This option should meet all of the hillside standards.
b. Road width restrictions. The three access easements into the county area could
be required to be no wider than 30', with the actual road width no wider than 20'.
This limitation would effectively prevent development beyond the four dwellings now
under consideration by the county, as more intense development could not be
accommodated by this narrow an access, either from a traffic or a fire safety
standpoint. The city would have to retain an interest in the easements, to assure
that they would not be changed in the future.
This option may protect views to some degree, and protect additional residents
(beyond the four households) from hazardous areas. It would also help to establish a
"modified" greenbelt.
C. Ooen soace easement over entire ren This is the only option that would assure
no development in the hillside area, thereby meeting all hillside standards. The
easement need not restrict access for recreational or grazing purposes. In return for
accepting such an easement, the city should be prepared to offer additional density
in Tract 1438 or in other land in the city owned by the applicant, plus allow
development of lot 13.
d. Modified en space easement. The city and the applicant could agree upon the
siting of four dwellings, with the remaining area to be in permanent open space. The
easement could specify the sites and establish development standards.
This option would be comparable to option b above in meeting hillside standards. The
county's Land Use Element also spells out a restriction similar to this option:
The county property is designated a "Sensitive Resource Area" (SRA) on the county's
Land Use map. Standards in the county's LUE say that "(a)pproval of an application
for land division, Minor Use Permit or Development Plan is contingent upon the
applicant executing an agreement with the county to maintain portions of the site not
intended for development in open space use. Guarantee of open space preservation may
be in the form of public purchase, agreements, easement controls or other appropriate
intrument, provided that such guarantee agreements are not to grant public access
unless desired by the property owner."
��►►h�►bl►IoINIiI�fIPIIUIN city of San lues osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1438
Page 6
As the parcel map has not yet been approved by the county, the method of meeting this
requirement has not been spelled out. A letter is attached to this report that
suggests what the subdivider's proposal for open space will be (see letter from Rob
Strong). The letter suggests an easement be granted to the county for all land
outside the four proposed home sites, which is essentially the recommendation of the
Planning Commission. If the council finds the proposal adequate for the city's
needs, than condition #7 requiring city review and acceptance of such an agreement
should be included.
e. Visual easement. With the aid of photographs and accurate topographic maps,
staff could define an area to be protected from any development. Land outside the
visual easement would be available for limited development, as allowed by the county.
This alternative could be considered consistent with some of the hillside planning
standards, but in staff's view not all: it would not contribute to a "permanent open
space green belt", nor would it protect community residents from hazardous areas. It
is possible that even with such an easement, some portions of access roads, and
portions of houses (especially at night) would be visible from parts of the city.
f. Contract. The city could enter into a contract with the subdivider. The terms
of the contract could include performance standards for all development beyond the
urban reserve line, or could set specific conditions (such as ARC review) on
development.
Even though the land is outside the city limits, such a contract is legally feasible,
according to the city attorney. Again, this option would meet some hillside
standards but not others.
If the council is interested in pursuing this option, it should specify for the
applicant and staff what major components should be included. Staff suggests
standards such as height limits, number of dwellings allowed, colors and materials,
surface materials allowed on access roads, screening, grading, and siting. Staff can
approve the final version, or it can return to the council.
Other more involved methods for meeting hillside planning policies for open space
preservation include city purchase, parkland dedications, or land trades, as
discussed in the Hillside Planning section of the LUE.
5. Lot 13. Lot 13 is the highest lot in the development, and the farthest from
services. Numerous difficulties would be involved in.its development:
Fire protection for this site, adjacent to grassy hillside areas, will involve
providing a fire truck turnaround, possibly a water tank, hydrant, or sprinklers.
The actual size and placement of the home will determine the measures necessary.
The proposed building pad is adjacent to a portion of the creek that contains
significant riparian vegetation. The pad is also the site of an ancient rock slide.
Significant excavation may be required to provide an acceptable building pad.
Development of the lot with a home may therefore require removal of much of the
vegetation.
—6
�����► ��IIIIIIIIII1°�°►9IUIN city of San Luis OBISpo
1MUM@ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1438
Page 7
Although the building site is well-hidden at this time, by the existing riparian
vegetation, it is likely that a large residence there would be visible from Los Osos
Valley Road and other locations.
Additionally, the common driveway leading to the lot is adjacent to a steep,
significantly eroded bank. The exposed tree roots indicate the extent of the
erosion. A property owner of lot 13 may find it necessary to stabilize this bank.
Such work is likely to be difficult and expensive, yet necessary only for the
development of this one lot.
The distance of the lot from the remainder of the building sites, along with the
above difficulties, led staff to the conclusion that the site is more appropriately a
part of the permanent open space easements. Staff therefore recommended elimination
of this lot at the Planning Commission hearings. The Planning Commission, satisfied
that fire concerns were surmountable (see attached memorandum from the Fire
Department), and that other concerns could be addressed through a use permit process,
supports the inclusion of this lot in the tract. Condition #6 requires a Planning
Commission use permit for its development.
The subdivider recognizes the development difficulties, although does not agree that
removal of vegetation or significant grading would be necessary. He supports the use
permit requirement.
6. Density. According to the Zoning Regulations, from 23 to 29 lots (depending on
street configuration) may be developed on this site. Thirteen are proposed. Given
the uneven slope and the constraints imposed by the creek, staff believes a much
larger number (than thirteen) would only be feasible in a clustered, attached
configuration, and therefore supports the subdivider's proposal. A. greater number of
lots could be placed on the site without benefit of any density bonuses. For this
reason, a "density transfer", of four or more dwelling units, from the adjacent
county land, has not appealed to the subdivider (see option c above).
7. Views of_ vro' ct. Portions of the site are visible from Los Osos Valley Road. The
restoration of the quarry site should be an improvement to these views. All of the
home sites are below the ridgeline, but portions of homes, especially those built on
lots 4, 5, and 6, may be prominent.
To prevent homes above the 175' elevation from drawing attention to themselves, the
General Plan hillside planning standards include a requirement for architectural.
review. All of the lots in this subdivision lie above the 175' elevation, and would
therefore be subject to architectural review. Although the requirement is stated in
the Land Use Element, it has been repeated as condition #9 of this tract. Specific
criteria have been spelled out in the land use element to guide this review (see
initial study for relevant sections).
MY of San lugs OBISPO
=90hZ@ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1438
Page 8
The proposed building sites, if developed with low-profile homes in colors that blend
with the surroundings, and with indigenous landscaping, should be an attractive
addition to this area. Tract conditions should guide the architectural review
process to alleviate visibility concerns.
8. Traffic and circulation. As discussed in the initial study, traffic levels on Royal
Way will be well within acceptable limits. The design of the streets as proposed is
acceptable to Public Works and Planning staff.
9. General Dian map consistency. The general plan map for this area designates the site
as "interim conservation/open space". The map notes that "this is the designation
given areas which will be kept open until urbanization is appropriate—Specific
proposals for these areas must be approved along with the change to an urban land use
designation."
When the council approved a zoning map change to R-1-S as part of the Hillside
Planning Program, they did not change the general plan map. The council wanted to
see a specific development proposal prior to making that change. This strategy
enables the city to determine if housing is appropriate for the area, and to
establish the precise location of the urban reserve line and the boundary between
open space and housing areas based on an approved tentative map.
Such a change must be initiated and approved prior to final map approval. The
council may initiate the change at the time it considers the tentative map. Staff
has added a condition requiring the map change prior to final map approval.
10. Access LQts•te. The subdivider owns an easement extending from the present end of
Royal Way to his property. If the adjoining property is not developed prior to or
concurrent with this tract, the subdivider will be required to improve that access
easement. However, the easement goes through an attractive, healthy pepper tree that
the city's arborist and Tree Committee want retained. This means that the easement
must be adjusted to accomodate the tree. Condition #5 requires realignment of the
easement prior to construction of improvements in this tract. The final design of
this access easement will be determined by the council during its consideration of
Tract 1439, the subdivision of the adjoining land.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may approve or deny the tentative tract map, based on findings. The council
may continue consideration of the map if more information is needed and if the applicant
agrees to a continuance. (Time limits set by state law expired on March 11. The
subdivider has agreed to extend this deadline to March 15.) If continued, direction
should be provided for the applicant and staff.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
The Planning Commission reviewed this subdivision on three occasions: November 4, 1987,
January 13, 1988, and on February 10, 1988. That commission also held a special meeting
in the field on January 7, 1988, with staff, the applicant, and his representatives.
������>I►►I�ul{III��p gl�Ill MY Of San Luis OBISPO
MMS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Tract 1438
Page 9
On February 10, 1988, the Planning Commission acted to recommend approval of the tract to
the City Council, on a 5 - I vote (one absent). The dissenting commissioner was
concerned about General Plan map consistency, and did not agree with inclusion of Lot 13
in the tract.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The majority of the concerns of the Public Works and Fire Departments are incorporated
into the discussion above. The Public Works Department does not support the recommended
condition limiting the county access easement widths to 30'. Public Works staff say that
it may be difficult to keep the actual road within such a narrow easement. They are also
concerned that a wider roadway may be needed in the future, and that therefore it should
be reserved at this time.
No other department or agency had concerns with the project.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Initiate a General Plan map change for the area, from Interim conservation/Open space
to Low-density Residential.
2. Approve the tentative map, based on findings and subject to conditions listed in the
attaced draft resolution.
Attached: In packet:
Draft resolutions
Vicinity map Tentative tract map
Reduced site plan Preliminary creek plan
Initial study 47-87 Grading sections
Parcel map for county area
Fire Department memo - February 4, 1988
Excerpt from county Land Use Element - San Luis Obispo Area
Letter from Rob Strong
Planning Commission minutes:
November 4, 1987
January 13, 1988
February 10, 1988
JL:1438
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1438
LOCATED AT 2000 ROYAL WAY
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 1438 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The grading exceptions granted are subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity;
specifically, final grading plans are to be submitted to the approval of the
Community Development Director to assure consistency with the intent of the grading
ordinance.
2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including the
shape, topography, and extensive grading done during the mining of the quarry and the
resultant damage needing correction, the strict literal application of the grading
limitations is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity.
3. Under the circumstances of this particular case the grading exceptions are in
conformity with the purposes of Section 15.44.020 of the Municipal Code.
4. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are consistent with the
general plan, under the conditions noted below.
5. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in an
R-I-S zone.
6. The design of the tentative map 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.
7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement will not conflict with
easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision.
8. The Community Development Director has determined that the proposed subdivision will
not have a significant effect on the environment and has granted a negative
declaration, with mitigation measures as follows:
a. The City Council, in its review of the tract, will accept or reject the open
space easements offered based on its determination of the offer's consistency
with the land use element hillside policies. If the offer is not determined
to be consistent, this inconsistency may be grounds for denial of the
tentative tract map.
a /O-
Resolution no. (1988 Series)
Tract 1438
Page 2
b. Grading shall be limited to the removal of unpermitted fill, restoration of
the site to a more natural condition, and other grading which meets the
standards of the grading ordinance, flood control policy, and building code.
C. The applicant shall inform future lot buyers of the possibility of building
permit delay based on the city's water supply and usage.
d. The applicant shall provide sufficient fire protection, in the form of water
tanks or hydrants, to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Individual lot
developers may be required to provide fire sprinklers, on a case-by-case
basis.
e. Creek modifications shall be limited to that approved by the council,
delineated in a creek protection and enhancement plan. Such plan shall
provide protection of downstream property from flooding and stabilization of
creek banks to prevent erosion, and must include protection of the creek from
debris and unlimited access, and restoration and maintenance of natural
vegetation where possible. Construction of all improvements shalt be in
accordance with the approved plan and Department of Fish and Game permits.
f. The development of the lots shall be in accordance with the soils report,
updated after tract development. The updated report will provide specific
recommendations for each lot as it exists after tract acceptance. Reference
to such soils conditions and recommendations must be made a part of the
recorded documentation of the tract.
g. Drainage from new development shall be directed to the street or easement, or
to the creek, with the provision that there shall be no significant increase
in the amount of drainage entering the creek.
h. The applicant shall develop a tree plan, indicating all existing trees, sizes
and locations, and which are proposed to be retained or removed. Such plan
shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director and City Arborist, who
shall determine which trees may be removed, and the replacement varieties to
be installed. Development shall conform to the approved plan.
i. Tract conditions shall include a requirement for architectural review of homes
and the water tank if required. Such review shall include grading, colors,
materials, and landscaping, with the aim of lessening visibility and
conforming to the hillside, consistent with hillside policies in the land use
element.
402-//
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Tract 1438
Page 3
SECTION 2. Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Tract 1438 be
subject to the following conditions:
1. Exceptions are hereby granted to the grading regulations to allow restoration of the
developable portions of the site to a more natural appearance, to the approval of the
Community Development Director. Beyond grading necessary to restore the site,
grading shall conform to the Grading Ordinance, Land Use Element hillside planning
standards, and the Uniform Building Code. Grading may be done to the old quarry site
to stabilize the face and make it more natural-looking and esthetically pleasing,
providing that no trees are removed as part of the process. Grading and treatment of
this site is to be approved by the City Engineer and Architectural Review Commission,
prior to issuance of a grading permit. No grading of the quarry site shall be
allowed during the rainy season.
2. A 12' wide access easement along the easterly property line of lot 2 shall be offered
to the city for maintenance of the Prefumo Creek tributary and Prefumo Creek, at its
confluence. Such easement shall be improved with an all-weather surface, extending
to the side of the bank of Prefumo Creek tributary, to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department.
3. Creek improvements shall be limited to those shown on a creek plan submitted to the
approval of the Public Works Department and the Community Development Director, and
in accordance with permits obtained from the Department of Fish and Game. Such creek
plan shall show the extent of grading, proposed erosion control and revegetation
techniques, and fencing, plus any other related work required by the Community
Development Director and City Engineer.
4. Subdivider must provide a hydraulic analysis illustrating the effects of this project
during a 100-year storm on projects downstream. The creek crossing must be designed
to accommodate a 100-year storm. If the analysis indicates additional work to
prevent further erosion of the Prefumo Creek banks must be done, such work must be
approved as part of the creek plan, and is subject to approval by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
5. No trees may be removed, except with the approval of the city arborist and the
Community Development Director. The subdivider shall develop a tree protection plan
and post a bond to assure the safety of the existing trees during construction of
tract improvements, to the satisfaction of the city arborist and Community
Development Director. The offsite portion of Royal Way shall be modified to
accomodate the existing Pepper tree, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director and City Engineer.
6. Development of lot 13 shall be subject to approval of a Planning Commission use
permit. Such use permit shall address visibility of proposed development, geology of
the site, and fire protection measures. Fire protection measures may include
sprinklers, an approved fire truck turnaround, a fire-resistive "greenbelt", and
other appropriate measures, to the approval of the Fire Department. Reference to
this condition shall be made part of the recorded documentation for this tract.
00
02--MIA
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Tract 1438
Page 4
7. The final map shall note that the three access easements into the county area shall
be restricted to 30' in width, with the actual improved road width no greater than
20'. Modifications to the easements must be approved by the City of San Luis
Obispo.
The subdivider shall develop an agreement with the city, with the assistance of the
City Attorney. Such agreement shall limit the number of homes and lots to be
developed in the adjacent commonly-owned county area, and shall establish development
standards consistent with approvals by the County Board of Supervisors. The approved
agreement will be recorded concurrent with or prior to recordation of the final map.
Any change to this agreement must be approved by the city.
8. A note shall be placed on the final map that limits the use of the open space
easement areas to recreational uses as approved by the City Council.
9. The final map shall note that development of all lots is subject to review by the
Architectural Review Commission. Such review shall be consistent with hillside
standards as stated in the Land Use Element Section 13.3.17, and shall ensure that
style, colors, and landscaping blend into the surrounding hillsides.
10. The subdivider shall inform future lot buyers of the possibility of buildwing permit
delay based on the city's water supply and usage. Such notification shall be made a
part of the recorded documentation for each lot.
11. The subdivider must install a 6-foot integral sidewalk, street pavement, street
lighting, fire hydrants, drainage facilities, and utilities from the easterly tract
boundary to the end of the proposed cul-de-sac and private way, to city standards and
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. Six foot public
utility easements and ten foot street tree easements are required along all street
frontages. The subdivider is required to dedicate the off-site access easement
(Royal Way) to the city.
12. The private way must be built to full city structural standards. The paved width of
the street shall be limited to 20', plus separated parking bays approved by the
Community Development Director and City Engineer. The private way easement shall be
a minimum of 6 feet from the creek top of bank, with paving a minimum of 10 feet from
the top of bank.
13. One-inch minimum water services must be installed to accommodate possible future fire
sprinklers.
14. A standard city barricade, or approved alternative, shall be provided near the end of
the common driveway turnaround and adjacent to the creek, to warn vehicles
approaching from the access easement.
15. An updated soils report shall be prepared after grading of the site is completed.
Such soils report shall make specific foundation recommendations for each lot. The
final map or other recorded documentation of the tract shall refer to the updated
soils report.
4;2
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Tract 1438
Page 5
16. A general plan map change, from interim conservation/open space to low-density
residential, for this site, must be approved prior to or concurrent with approval of
the final map. No construction shall begin until the map change is approved.
On motion of . . .. .. . . .. . ... . ... .. ... . ... . seconded by
and on the following roil 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
�'L`Zwcr
... .. ... . .... . ....... .. .
. .
Community. ... ..Development. Director JL:resl438
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1438
LOCATED AT 2000 ROYAL WAY
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 1438 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations and
reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are inconsistent with the
general plan.
2. The site is not physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in
an R-1-S zone.
3. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are likely to cause
serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the tentative map for Tract 1438 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
'.SS.. Ake
`o
e•
•O•• / LAGU
C/OS-4 /I os- 0 �
'
C .
P
CVG Cr LAKE
♦
•
� R-3
��~ c*4��• PF
PF olo�
R-2 R-2-PD
PF
R-
_ = C-N
1 '°� •' °
a c4 �•
v
R-3-Law
PD ,
Irract
1
VA/ f, r CO
cc
. -�..• _•�:. `�� ., / ��i� - .. :/ FIS • ..
NA
3 / �L�• I
�V 1 7
�• .4
• T t\1• S 06 .1 ,I• ` , •fir • t , 11 .I 1� I
_ 1
• t' J
Sl •. . - / o
� (4
city of san lues ompo
II�I��II�IIIII���IIljlll���III�III�
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 2000 Royal way APPLICATION NO. ER 47-87
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Subdivision of one 11 .27 acre site, about 320 feet southerly
of the end of Royal Way, into thirteen residential parcels.
APPLICANT Jack Foster
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Judith Lautner DATE 10-21-87
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE 10-21-87
Negative declaration with mitigation Provided
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
IL POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE 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 6 SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .....................
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS...............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ..............................................
K. PLANT LIFE.......................................................................
LANIMAL LIFE.....................................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ....................................................
N. AESTHETIC ......................................................................
O. ENERGY1RESOURCEUSE ...........................................................
P. OTHER ..........................................................................
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
negative declaration wit', mitigation Provided
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT ye ay
ER 47-87
Page 2 of 12
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project is the division of a large irregular hillside lot
into thirteen residential lots, including two open space
easements. Ten of the lots would be accessible from a road
extension of Royal Way, the remaining three from a common
driveway. The 11.27-acre site is adjacent to the city limits at
its southerly and westerly boundaries, and approximately 320 feet
removed from existing development on Royal Way and Rubio Lane. A
creek maintenance easement is proposed to encompass the seasonal
creek, a tributary of Prefumo Creek, which runs primarily through
the southerly portion of the tract, separating lots 1, 11, 12,
and part of 13 from the remainder. An additional
twelve-foot-wide easement is proposed that extends along the
easterly property line of lot 2, for the purposes of providing
access for maintenance vehicles to the creek confluence outside
of the tract boundaries.
The site includes a portion of an abandoned quarry site. The
hill used for mining has been stripped of vegetation. Earth and
rock were removed from the hill for several years, leaving a
scarred hillside. Downhill, on proposed lots 2 through 6,
remains of the quarry material have settled, creating unusual
contours. The proposal includes recontouring the quarry site
with narrow "terraces" that can accept planting. Trees are
proposed to be planted on the terraces and irrigated until they
are well established.
Work was done several years ago (1980) with city approvals, to
provide a more stable creek bank and clear out slide material.
This work affected lots 11 and 12, and part of 13 . Lots 11 and
12 now contain several feet of certified, compacted fill.
Remains of long-ago earth- and rock slides have created a mound
on lot 13, the site of a proposed building pad.
Most of the site is steep (over 30%) and contains grasses, brush,
rock outcroppings, and trees. One of the most significant of
these trees is proposed to be removed, a 48" diameter Monterey
cypress located near the easterly tract boundary.
A soils report was prepared for the project by Pacific
Geoscience, Inc. , San Luis Obispo, dated July 23, 1987. This
report is incorporated into this description by reference.
ER 47-87
Page 3 of 12
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community plans and goals.
Land use element:
The site is designated for low-density residential development on
the city's land use element map. The development lies entirely
within the urban reserve line, as adopted in 1984, consistent
with residential and hillside policies. However, the proposal as
currently presented conflicts with some of the hillside policies
of the general plan Land Use Element, as amended February 17,
1987:
Section D.2.g: "Prior to or concurrent with any further
subdivision or development of commonly held land inside the
urban reserve, the city will require that land beyond the
urban reserve be secured as permanent open space. . . "
The site is held in common with large parcels immediately
adjacent to and outside the city limits. The property owner
is not offering the commonly-held county hillside land as
permanent open space, but has instead offered four acres
within the tract boundaries as an open space easement. Most
of this land, while steep and difficult to develop, is
within the urban reserve line.
One other aspect of the development that may lead to
conflict with the intent of this land use element section is
the existence of three roads into the county area. These
roads have traditionally been used as "cattle roads", but
could in the future be used as access for further
development beyond the city limits and beyond the city's
control. The land use element defines the urban reserve
line as "the extent of city utilities and urban development
around the city" (Section D. 3.b) . A goal of the hillside
planning policies within the land use element is, "to set
the limits of commercial and residential development in
hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green
belt at the edge of the community. " Development of the
property beyond the urban reserve line with homes would
conflict with this goal.
Mitigation measures: The land use element suggests several
techniques for securing adjacent commonly-held land,
including dedication of the land or easements, land trades,
land trusts, and transfer of density. The applicant may
choose the technique most beneficial to him. In its review
of the tract, the council should determine if the
applicant's proposal is consistent with this section of the
Land Use Element. The council may choose to limit the
oz-aa
ER 47-87
Page 4 of 12
rights of access on the existing roads, so that they may not
be used for ingress or egress to residential uses beyond the
urban reserve line. Such an action would effectively limit
the use of the county land beyorid the urban reserve, without
encumbering the property with an easement.
Section D.4.j : "Portions of the area within the Urban
Reserve Line above the 175-foot elevation shall be
considered a sensitive site which requires approval by the
Architectural Review commission of all new housing or major
additions. . . "
Section D.3. f: ". . .Housing plans shall be reviewed
according to the following criteria:
(1)Houses should be built in stepped levels to conform
to the slope of the hill and keep a low profile. The
use of prominent stem walls and foundation piers should
be avoided.
(2) Grading on individual lots should be minimized.
Houses should generally be built close to the street.
The grading of visible driveways should be
minimized. . ."
Virtually all of the site is above the 175' elevation.
Architectural review would therefore be required, and all of
the lots would be subject to the criteria listed. The
proposal indicates large graded building pads, in conflict
with this section. As this is a lot sales subdivision, no
home designs are included, but the padding of the lots would
preclude placing the homes to step up the hillside.
Much of the land has been disturbed as a result of quarry
operations and to prevent further flooding of the creek down
Royal Way, as noted in the project description above. Some
fill has been placed on it illegally (on lot 1) .
Mitigation measure: Grading to remove the unpermitted fill
and recompact it to provide sufficient elevation to protect
lot one from flooding is appropriate. Grading on the
remaining lots should then be limited to small pad areas
near the street, in accordance with specific recommendations
by the soils engineer. Tract conditions should reflect this
limited grading concept.
ER 47-87
Page 5 of 12
Water management element:
Policies in the water management element as adopted February 24,
1987, say that the city will provide adequate water for all uses
within the urban reserve line, inside the incorporated city.
However, water use and conservation policies in the element
stress that the city will not allow development that causes total
city water use to exceed the safe annual yield "by a factor which
would lead to an unacceptable level of risk" . In other words, if
present supplies are not adequate, development of individual lots
in this tract may be delayed. The city's policies (again in the
water management element) will favor residential development when
supplies are again available in these instances.
The tract developer should be aware, and should inform future lot
purchasers, that water supplies are not guaranteed until building
permits are issued. The city is currently in the process of
developing an ordinance to implement the water use policies in
the element. The ordinance is expected to spell out the process
for determining when and how development will be slowed in times
of excessive water use.
Mitigation measure: The tract developer shall inform future lot
buyers of the possibility of building permit delay based on water
supply and usage in the city.
Water service policies:
"Water service limits" vary throughout the city. These are the
maximum elevations at which development can be served, based on
existing conditions. In this area, the water service limit is
2461 . None of the proposed building sites exceeds the 240 '
elevation. Therefore, adequate service can be provided for
residential water needs. Supplies for adequate fire protection
are discussed further below.
Mitigation measures: None required.
Grading regulations:
The grading regulations restrict the amount of grading that may
be done on hillside lots. For purposes of making grading
computations, the property has been divided into two parts: the
open space easements (4 acres) and the area to be developed. The
average cross-slope of the developable property is almost 20%.
The grading regulations say that on sites with topography this
steep, apart from grading for the house and driveway, 60 percent
of the site must be left ungraded.
4;002�07,;L
ER 47-87
Page 6 of 12
The proposal, including large pads, does not appear to meet these
standards.
Mitigation measures: Same as under "land use element - section
D.3. f", above. If the applicant prefers to maintain the larger
building pads, then he must show that the proposal meets the
grading ordinance standards, or obtain approval from the council
for an exception to the grading regulations.
zoning regulations:
The zoning regulations limit the density of development on
building sites with an average cross-slope of 20% to four
residences per acre. The average slope of the site, exclusive of
the open space easement area, is just under 20%. Therefore, 7.27
acres X 4/acre = 29.08 or 29 residences may be developed on the
site. The proposal calls for thirteen residential lots, each to
be developed with one house.
Mitigation measures: None required.
B. Population distribution and growth.
Thirteen custom homes are expected to be built on these lots.
Using average census figures, this means an average of 13 X 2 .69
= 34.97 or 35 persons are expected to live in this subdivision.
This is an increase of .09% of the city's population. The
subdivision lies in a residential area that is essentially
built-out, and therefore will not alter the existing distribution
patterns.
Mitigation measures: None required.
D. Transportation and circulation.
According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip
Generation report, an average of ten trips per day begin or end
at single-family residences. This means that this subdivision
can expect to generate 13 X 10 = 130 vehicle trips per day.
Average daily trips on Royal Way near the subdivision are 1270,
according to counts taken in August 1986. The subdivision is
therefore expected to increase current levels by 130/1270, or
about 10%. Average daily trips would increase to about 130 +
1270 = 1400 trips per day, after buildout of the subdivision.
According to a study by JHR and Associates (San Luis Obispo
Regional Transportation Study; Phase II, Technical Report) ,
traffic engineers, there are levels of "acceptability" in traffic
volumes. In single-family residential neighborhoods, daily trips
up to the level of about 2800 trips per day lead to a perception
of "acceptability". Levels higher than 3400 trips per day are
considered "unacceptable" (see attached Table 3-3) . 4;2,�pI3
ER 47-87
Page 7 of 12
The estimated traffic load of 1400 trips per day is well below
the threshold of acceptability. Staff therefore finds that there
will be no significant adverse effects on transportation and
circulation in the area.
E. Public services.
Fire protection:
1) Response: The project would be served by fire station no. 4
on Madonna Road at Los Osos Valley Road. Trucks can respond
within four minutes, meeting Fire Department criteria.
2) Access: The design of the subdivision meets fire access
standards, except for the access easement to lot 13. A
turnaround that can accomodate fire trucks will be required when
the lot is developed. As the lot is large enough to accomodate
such a turnaround, staff doesn't expect any difficulties in
meeting this requirement.
3) Fire-flow: Available water supplies can provide
approximately 1250 gallons per minute flow. The flow rate is
adequate for structures up to about 2500 square feet in size.
Structures over this size would probably be required to include
fire-sprinklers. Because of the nearby wildfire potential and
the long dead end system that would be created, additional
protection may be required. Such protection could include an
additional water tank, sprinkler requirements, or additional
hydrants. The Fire Department has determined that an additional
hydrant may be required on lot 13 .
Mitigation measures: Development of lot 13 will require a
turnaround for fire trucks, and possibly an additional hydrant or
water tank. If fire flow is inadegate for the size of the
buildings, the homes involved must include fire sprinkler
systems. Additional measures, such as fire-retardant building
materials, may be required as a condition of tract approval.
F. Utilities.
Water supply: Water supplies in the city are being used faster
than they are being replaced on a regular basis. While it is
possible the city may secure additional water sources to serve
new development, no guarantees can be made at this time that
water will be available to serve these new lots, except for
temporary irrigation for erosion protection and trees. only when
building permits are issued can the individual lot owners be
assured of water. (See discussion above, under "water management
element". )
ER 47-87
Page 8 of 12
Gas, electricity, telephone:
No gas, electric, or telephone lines exist within the tract
boundaries. Lines can be extended fr6m those in Royal Way.
Lines not placed within a public right-of-way will require
easements. A six-foot public utility easement will be required
along the perimeter of all rights-of-way as well, for service
boxes. All new development that requires the extension of
services is required to place those services underground
(Subdivision Regulations .Section 16. 36. 250K) .
The gas company cautions that availability of natural gas depends
on "conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies" in place at
the time contracts are developed. In other words, gas supply is
not guaranteed until contracts are signed. This is a normal
condition of gas service, and is not expected to affect this
subdivision, but is noted here to alert the subdivider of the
possibility.
Storm water drainage:
The creek crossing through this property is deep in parts and
very shallow in others. It has overflowed frequently over the
years. Some improvements, in the form of earth berms, were made
in the 1980 grading process. Calculations have not been made to
determine the creek's capacity now. The effect of development
close to the creek will bring with it its own need for
improvements to the creek. When there are no houses around, an
occasionally overflowing creek does little damage. But when
houses are sited nearby, the houses are affected by the creek,
and the creek by the houses. Improvements are necessary to
protect the natural creek habitat from the intrusion of people,
and to protect the new homes from flooding by the creek.
It will be necessary to raise the houses to a level above the
100-year flood plain, yet the 100-year level itself will change
as a result of development: additional runoff may enter the
creek from the increased area of hard surfaces; erosion may
become a threat where it wasn't before, because drainage has been
redirected; grading of the land nearby can lead to temporary
siltation problems that hinder the flow; removal or the
introduction of vegetation will affect flow levels, rates, and
erosion potential.
The creek improvements must therefore be based on the design of
the subdivision and hydraulic calculations. Creek improvements
must -include a way to direct overflows to where they will do the
least damage. Logically, this means directing the flow to
Prefumo Creek where this tributary enters it.
ER 47-87
Page 9 of 12
Mitigation measures. Any work in the creek bed must first be
justified by hydraulic calculations, and must conform with the
Flood Management Policy, including that the creek must be
maintained in as natural a state as possible. Such work is also
subject to the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Such
permits will be required prior to construction of improvements.
H. Geologic and seismic hazards and topographic modification.
A soils engineering investigation was conducted for the area
(noted in project description) . Conclusions of the study were
that there is considerable variation in the soils types in the
area. Some parts of the site have been filled with sandy clay
and gravels. This fill, as much as 13 feet deep, was placed as
part of a controlled earthwork program, and was compacted and
certified by Central Coast Laboratories. Other fill, on lot 1,
not as extensive (about 3-4 feet deep) , is undocumented. The
soils engineer encountered native sandy clays, near-surface
bedrock, and compact, clayey gravel in tests of undisturbed
sites. The site contains many rock outcrops.
The lots containing the compacted fill can be developed with
little additional earthwork. The fill on lot 1 must be removed,
and if used, recompacted. Those sites where bedrock is near the
surface can be developed, if foundations bear on the same
material - either rock or soil. Excavating the rock will allow
foundations on soil in these cases.
The soil type in much of the site is classified as "moderately
expansive" . This means that it swells and shrinks during
seasonal changes, thereby affecting slabs and foundations. This
condition can be mitigated by mixing the more gravelly soils with
the more expansive. Deeper perimeter foundations can also be
required, to limit moisture changes in the soil beneath the slab.
Mitigation measures. The soils report shall be updated with
information and recommendations for each lot. Recommendations in
the soils report shall be followed to mitigate possible hazards
to the future buildings. Updated information must be referenced
in the recorded documentation of the tract.
J. Surface water flow and quality.
A seasonal creek runs through the site. In rainy seasons, this
creek has overflowed in the past. Significant amounts of
additional water will not be added to the creek as a result of
this project, as most of the added runoff will be directed to the
streets. Irrigation of new landscaping, as well as runoff from
new hard surfaces will increase the flow of water from the
proposed lots when they are developed.
4—dp?a
ER 47-87
Page 10 of 12
Mitigation measures: Drainage from new development shall not
increase traditional amounts. Protection of the creek from
debris and uncontrolled access should be provided, such as
fencing near the tops of the banks. Desiltation basins must be
developed, to limit siltation during heavy rains.
The applicant must therefore develop a creek protection and
enhancement plan that incorporates all necessary flood prevention
and creek protection measures and maintains the creek in as
natural a condition as possible. Such plan will be subject to
approval by the council in its review of the tract.
K. Plant life.
The site contains one significant "skyline" tree that is proposed
to be removed. This tree is the Monterey Cypress near the
entrance to the project. Current plans include grading to raise
the elevation of lot 11, and the area around the tree is expected
to be subjected to several feet of fill. As this type tree will
not withstand fill around its trunk, the applicant proposes
taking it out.
The tree should be preserved if it is determined to be healthy.
The grading plan should be revised to accomodate the tree, even
if this means use of retaining walls on this lot.
The creek banks contain riparian vegetation, including many trees
that are not specifically called out on the tentative tract map.
Grading for some of the lots, especially lot 13, may involve
removal of several of these trees and bushes.
Mitigation measures: The large Monterey cypress shall be
retained, or approval must be obtained from the city's arborist
to remove it. All trees shall be shown on plans, with
indications of size and location for each and whether it is
proposed to be removed. The tree plan shall be reviewed by the
city arborist, who shall determine which trees may be removed,
and replacement varieties to be installed. The tract developer
shall follow the approved plan.
L. Animal life.
There is no evidence of the existence of any rare or endangered
species on the site, although it is home for many small species
of birds and animals. The intrusion of housing into this
essentially natural situation will discourage the future nesting
of these animals. The richer habitats, such as the creek, should
be preserved as much as possible.
a-a�
ER 47-87
Page 11 of 12
Mitigation measures: Again, a creek protection plan must be
devised to enhance and protect this habitat, including additional
planting to discourage access.
N. Aesthetic.
The home sites are not visible from most parts of the city, as
they are on the lower slopes of the hillside area. The building
site for lot 13 , which is the highest site in the tract, is
effectively screened by riparian vegetation and the natural
contours. Development of these lots will not have a significant
adverse effect on the city's landscape backdrop.
Development of all lots will be subject to architectural review
(see discussion above on land use element policies) . This review
should take into account the visibility of these sites from
nearby and the steepness of the topography. Homes should be
required to conform to the hillside in grading proposals, colors,
materials, and landscaping. Conditions of tract approval should
include specific direction that development of the lots is to be
consistent with hillside policies.
If a water tank is required to serve one or more lots,
architectural review will be required for its placement, shape,
and colors.
Mitigation measures: Architectural review shall be required, per
the land use element hillside standards, for all lots and for
water tanks if necessary. Conditions of tract approval should
include direction that the development of the lots is to be
consistent with hillside policies.
Other impacts.
Other impacts on the environment as a result of tract development are
not expected to be significant. See project description and map.
RECOMMENDATION
Negative declaration of environmental impact, with the following
mitigation measures:
1. The City Council, in its review of the tract, will accept or
reject the open space easements offered based on its
determination of the offer's consistency with the land use
element hillside policies. If the offer is not determined to be
consistent, this inconsistency may be grounds for denial of the
tentative tract map.
-zv?jP
ER 47-87
Page 12 of 12
2 . Grading shall be limited to the removal of unpermitted fill,
restoration of the site to a more natural condition, and other
grading which meets the standards of the grading ordinance, flood
control policy, and building code.
3 . The applicant shall inform future lot buyers of the possibility
of building permit delay based on the city's water supply and
usage.
4 . The applicant shall provide sufficient fire protection, in the
form of water tanks or hydrants, to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department. Individual lot developers may be required to provide
fire sprinklers, on a case-by-case basis.
5. Creek modifications shall be limited to that approved by the
council, delineated in a creek protection and enhancement plan.
Such plan shall provide protection of downstream property from
flooding and stabilization of creek banks to prevent erosion, and
must include protection of the creek from debris and unlimited
access, and restoration and maintenance of natural vegetation
where possible. Construction of all improvements shall be in
accordance with the approved plan and Department of Fish and Game
permits.
6. The development of the lots shall be in accordance with the soils
report, updated after tract development. The updated report will
provide specific recommendations for each lot as it exists after
tract acceptance. Reference to such soils conditions and
recommendations must be made a part of the recorded documentation
of the tract.
7 . Drainage from new development shall be directed to the street or
easement, or to the creek, with the provision that there shall be
no significant increase in the amount of drainage entering the
creek.
S. The existing 48" Monterey cypress shall be retained if determined
healthy by the city arborist. The applicant shall develop a tree
plan, indicating all existing trees, sizes and locations, and
which are proposed to be retained or removed. Such plan shall be
reviewed by the Community Development Director and City Arborist,
who shall determine which trees may be removed, and the
replacment varieties to be installed. Development shall conform
to the approved plan.
9. Tract conditions shall include a requirement for architectural
review of homes and the water tank if required. Such review
shall include grading, colors, materials, and landscaping, with
the aim of lessening visibility and conforming to the hillside,
consistent with hillside policies in the land use element.
�-a9
• E
s � .
u ■ % I I f
r a
M
S � s
JA.
8 Cy
Z �
79
u
0
s
Y
+ v e
M O
r'
r
W
f ili z
a
01.
J U'
W '
J
mo u
i
I
- rct.0 m,•z,n.cbn ��
N G
a;2-3�
MEMORANDUM
;To: Judy Lautner,Ylanning.Department ,
From: Erwin Willis, Fire Marshal
Subject: Lot 13 Tract 1438
Date: February 4, 1988
Access:
Roadway width access as provided is adequate, but there is inadequate turn-around area at
lot 13. An 84 foot turning radius or a "hammer-head" turn-around needs to be provided
at this location. Additionally, a turn-around needs to be provided at lot 12 or the
structures on lots 11 and 12 will need to be provided with residential fire-sprinklers. The
roadway to lots 11, 12, and 13, shall be 20 feet wide and designed to support 45,000 lbs.
Fire-Flow:
Fire-flow in the Royal area is adequate for structures up to 3,000 square feet. Larger
structures will require sprinklers to mitigate the additional flow requirement. Additionally,
a minimum acceptable fire-flow at lot 13 shall be 1000 gpm.
Hydrants:
Shall be spaced at maximum of 350' intervals and placed as specified by the Fire
Department. One hydrant must also be placed within 150' of the building site of lots 12
and 13.
Other:
Due to the remoteness of lot 13, there are significant fire-fighting problems associated
with this parcel. To mitigate these problems, the following items shall be added to any
structures on this site:
1. Residential sprinklers shall be installed in all structures.
2. Only Type-A non-flammable roofing will be allowed.
3. Fire-resistive siding shall be used, such as stucco, cinder block, or other siding
approved by the Fire Chief.
To mitigate the wildland fire hazards, the following items shall be completed before
flammable construction starts and shall be maintained on lot 13:
1. Dead brush and trees shall be cleared from within 200' of any structure.
Additionally, within 200' of any structure tree limbs shall be pruned to provide a
four foot clearance between the ground and the tree foliage. This requirement is to
keep grass fires from igniting the oak trees.
2. A 30 foot wide "green belt"shall be maintained between any structure and the
wildland area. In this "green belt" area no dry fuels will be allowed. Plants in this
area shall be selected for their fire retardancy.
40-3/
d m 0 p Y Y a Y 0 .0 0 A O m 0 m q .p w a A[.l. 0-0 • a .i
L C 0 q O a.I a U d Y Y A Y Q O b a a 0 0
u ti b 0 m 0 0 0 g C O O 0 0 00 0l w.0 Y N 0..1
S O Y U Y E1 6 0 0 0 oI+� ..1 Y Y m M > 6
6 0 L w 1 q • m m M
O U 601 y '� ..1 p p y r°y m p m y p y,m
w W y G B~0 p a M 4'~ .. O O S. M O O~.may d Ol 6 +i+ 0.0
S
O w Y 0 0y 0 > 0 6 0. 00 d'+ v w O l°, 0 p ° � 0 7 0 0 1
0•� m m d Y 9 O U Oto a °•0 wl N Y g6 U y.0 Y 0 A y m 0 0 Y u1
y w Z 0 D Y Y O W i Y Y O N C V O0 A 06 14
Q ". ° y W °4 Y ° 0 a n
d w .-1 V .424)l 0 .a
O O O W 0 6 0 Y� 10 a w m 0 a 0 q.ml .I D 0, . Y 6 $4 O a u m
7 0 = N w a O W 0 7 0 S 0'd > >.1 0 0 0 0 9% Y OI
i 0 d 0 6 0 C Y 9y O O 00 0 . 0 0 l~i M 7 N M w0 a p.p m �d Y p N
O t We
p d Y Y 00
m O..1 d m P 0 0 A 6 i O wYq 0 0 0 01 00 m q Pj
O U 0 0 ..I Q•Q ~ O W Y m q~ 0 0 O m O Y a.O 0 M s�pyy W Y O O
.°.1 a
0 0 0 6 0 .•I T
7 VV Y Y a a V .~I sgY '[•••1 N m AU q eCD m.Op A0. O
7 0 yl Y q 00.°M N M d tl'$ 96 ^�r Y 7 .'. 6 q e Y O a 0 Q m
Y Y •p >j 0 0 0
2.0 dd q y O a a ,J Y d • yy mm d
u W 0 0 M lI~ 0 9 oI Y p W 0 w S ° 0Ig
Y MOI Y B p w
°4 w ..1 eOn m w m 000 0 O 0 m O 0 i ~ ,O m S ~
L ° y 93
y 0 0 600 0 LL 0 d•.0a0 00 0.0 M ? Y 0.00,
p y Op W 0 0 >• F 0C Z•.[aid N M 00 .m O W y Y M O g Y
y T V m Y O O a O w 0 Y Y w i 1 p Cl 0.0 N M O C0 0 0 A 0 0
CP
O C 41 O Ow 0 O Y B C O a ggo M C3 �j °of A O (O O N • 0 6 Oi 7 w
Y i .• d dl U O Y O a M O B 0 Go C3
O p O a Ym O S O 0 Y 0 0 i O
Z u 0 H .[•..I 7 w O O y a 6 i Y U N 'J m 0 0< O 0 y 0 7 m
O' U�y.or�1 O /l.•I 7 r) w 0 0
V >, Y d d 6>y O w m w 0 m d .I oI m Y 0 w TJ: 0 0 O d 6 M U
0 m •.7 0 0 0 0 0 O 6 opt 6 a N 0 Y S w M 0 0-0 O N N U m 6i U
0 O O W m 0 OV q N Y.00 M W g Y e
e mYa"
Q d
i
1
O u m0 0 0 0 0 0 Q•m 0-0 0 0O 0 m 0 0 m W 0 m ./ 00 0 Y O Y m
00 OAa Y06LN a daa m MaY..I OO a000V 000
'A 0 M'D > m..°I Y g 0 q M yy��•0 w Y U D O w.� w 0 °.00
C i1 Yq A Q w 0 0 Y 0 d O p oI a 0 g 0 A-0 y 0 U V 0 10 0 0 Y 00..1
a 7 V O p Y 0 y u A p"'ly O w Si O .~i O 4 a V O.I 0 6 yy i 0°0
w w 00[ 1 0l Y q M i w y7 6 O C N Y a B 9 0l
w•-°I Y 7 U IY U 6 Y 9 6 a 0 0 0 6 01 a 0 a'O w
96 41
A w 10 0 .p0 0 rl 0 a.0i m 0 0 0 ° Ol m 0 O M 004 •~V
y 0 O b T 6 y WIN
mOm 0 2 Y 00. al 0 W N^ 06 y■e YQy . Yal 4) Yee 0 0ma 0 0
Y..Yi OOl S C V•qp 0 opi..Oj Y m..dj N •v a 4 G O•M'1 Y O^ N y9 0 'Ap> q
0 L 0 d o1 W M ° .7 Y N .pq N y Obi M O ..1 W b 0 Q d "' 6
y Y V Vl 0 6 0 O O ° a Y •-1 Y Y wf •-1 m 0 V a y
O y.tel •a a M Y y M Y 0~m 0 >p o Y Y•S-1 N 0 6
m w q 0 0 N
93 0. 0„°a W 6 G op m O ol m p
0 Q.•.. V D Y a g .- 1
C @ Co Y• M O. .p 0.°•t
0 0 .pl*I Y 6 O y y m m O ° 0 . a G b w m 0 0 0.0 O 0 q^ Y °
MO.0 i p.•I m m a W O 0 0 0 0.i ^ u 6 i w w S y'� O 7 rl 0 °
V q .Y.1•..I
-0,4
A > 0 0 O.�.pp yyy°•�1 M y Y$vQ �MI O M a m y CO 00>~ 4 1A M O
~ m m4 YO QN �plgMW O vi • .0 9600 4O1�N Y •Op►N O�
V >Q a m 14 O q dq m a 93931 y 0•my mm b a0+ °.�.1.0 y a
m a D m 0•i q ° a p v Om d Y.i m O Ne O O Y . 1.0 0 0
w 0 m[ a A O U Oy... tdJ.l Y h°N fi 7 0 0
O ' Z,.wj O Y mj O > 7 O 000 a Y N V O cc m 4 ye N•°•-I V a.y
0 0 ..OI N o1 0 Y B Q~ > O y 0 Y m a q p O a 0 m 0 Y•.pj O Yp ooh••p a 93 Id a s
O i Y 'mj °d O • a b% O M Y w D 6 00.yA•O Y M U w O p. N
a B Y N O S 0.Yyy a 0 °i O ONO 6 b N 0 93 pp C 0•O~ Y.M •�) Y > 0 m m Y H
O d Y B•.N.1 0 0 0 1 m am�Y1 0 9 T 7 0 ° a y■m. ► O .rQ1 Y p 8 ao p !e
d OO up+ .iii 00. fA ri iCi7 qD Y� m M >• C W M {ILS 030 < e 0 0 Yv
m.IA
O 6 B
N NI m 0. 8
W 0 V O h i0
do
SL/� (SOL(I)fy Lard Use 6-IPmPr17
PLANNING °NE BUENA VISTA
man
� n MILLSAN co�NaUJIS 93401 .
February 11 , 1967
Mr. Jack Foster
5121 North Fork Place
Paso Roble.S, Ca. 93446
Subject: 'Status Report and Statement for Planning Services,
Laguna Heights, CO 87-191. Irish Hills property, SLO.
Dear Jack:
Two important decisions need to -be made regarding the project,
responding to concerns raised since our field trip. First. John
:fall called or, 2/9/68. concerned that a County engineering or CDF
requirement would be for access roads at least 20 feet wits, .and
this might mean substantial additional grading on the steep
slopes to widen the existing narrower driveways we had viewed in
the field. I advised him of the letter I sent to County Planning
revising our application to include access standard exceptions as
well as slope related parcel size standards, and indicated we
would ask specific exception (if a 20 ft. driveway standard
exists) to avoid excessive grading and/or enable public access .
In my opinion a 12 to 16 foot witde private driveway, with
occassional turnouts for passing, is a safe and sufficient access
to one or two houses, and I feel ' we can get CDF to concur.
Otherwise, the environmental coordinator will want to obtain a
grading plan, visual studies, geologic and biologic studies of
the possible effects of widening the driveways to 20 foot wide
roads .
Secondly, as I anticipated, Judy Lautner. a planner with the City
called to determine the provisions which the County was requiring
regarding open space easement in the sensitive resource area, as
policies of the City and County land use pland may require. Since
I had di-cussed this with you during the field trip, but did not
have a clear consent from you. I said I would write the City and
County a ciaYilication of Our pr•=•Jcct description as .goon s.e I
could confer with you. Lautner implied, and I would preface my
consent to offering such. an open space easement, that if it were
obtained by the: County, the City would be satisfied with or have
no objections to our proposal . I made it clear that you would
consider an open space easement for scenic/ resource conservation
purposes only, and in no way would include public access or use.
I also stated that such an easement would exclude the four
proposed building areas planned on the four proposed lots, where
structures, tree removal , grading and related developments are
intended, as well as incidental allowance for access driveways
and utilities to serve these sites . The easement would, however
involve the bulk of hte property, and presumably prohibit or at
least require specific additional approvals for any grading.
vegetation or tree removal (perhaps with exceptions for limited
removal for firewood or fire safety) , but preventing noticable
clearing which might increase erosion or change the visual.2%X3
character of the property, and clearly precluding any structures
except open-type fences which might otherwise interfer with the
purpose of the sensitive resource area designation .
As I explained during the field trip . I recommend that you
consent to such an easement, particularly if it will secure City
consent or eliminate their opposition to the limited subdivision
and development enabled by our applications. In my opinion, the
County development plan acheives essentially the same control ,
but I understand the City' s desire to have an -open space easement
to reinforce and clarify that intent . Otherwise the City may
continue to try to condition the pending subdivision inside the
urban reserve and City limits to prevent or restrict development
outside the City.
I will be out of town on business during all of next week, but
would appreciate your response or a discussion of these points on
Monday,. February 22, 1988, or soon after.
Finally, in accordance with our agreement for services . I will
submit my fifth statement of time and expenses for the period
from December 9, 1987 to February 11 , 1988:
Letter to K. Griffin re access test: cc CCE & Foster . Calls
to Nall each week re status of environmental determination.
Calls to Foster re same : Arrange field trip per Nall request
Field trip with Don, John, Jack & Mike . Calls from Nall re
access road grading issue and from Lautner re open space
easement provision . Prepare letter & statement to Foster .
Subtotal of Time :
Summary of Related Expenses : None
If you have any questions regarding this statement or the project
we can discuss he&nFe uary 22.
Sincerely,
Rob .C. P.
cc : CCE
Nl.k� 55I-
PC Minutes - 11/4/87
Page 3
mmr. Reiss sais he didn't have a problem with the PD permit.
Chairp on Kourakis asked staff to address Mr. Hamlin's concerns.
Greg Smith sa he saw no potential for conflict, if approved.
Commr. Crotser moved recommend to the City Council to approve the
use permit subject to fin gs and conditions as stated in the staff
report.
Commr. Duerk seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Crotser, Duerk, eiss, Hainline, Kourakis
NOES: Commrs. Gerety, Schmidt
ABSENT: None
The motion carried. \
3 . Tract 1438. Consideration of a tentative map creating a\13-lot
subdivision; 2000 Royal Way; R-1-S zone; Jack Foster, subdivider.
Greg Smith presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve the tentative
map including the exceptions requested by the subdivider and the
findings and conditions summarized in the staff report.
Commr. Crotser was concerned about the fencing on lots abutting the
creek.
Greg Smith said the intention was to prevent detrimental access by
people, household pets, and debris, and so to protect the riparian
habitat of the creek.
Commr. Gerety said he could not give this proposal the consideration
it deserved without more information.
Commr. Duerk, referring to the staff report, questioned condition 11
and asked if the grading shouldn't conform to the grading ordinance
which would allow 408 grading instead of the 558 grading the plans
show.
Greg Smith replied that after the restorative grading (558) was done,
the 408 grading would expect to be implemented.
Commr. Reiss questioned that staff would like to see the remaining
area in the urban reserve dedicated to open space.
Greg Smith clarified that a small amount of space within the urban
reserve is proposed for dedication, and staff is also asking that the
commission consider dedication of open space which is outside the
urban reserve line. C0 m3s0—
PC Minutes - 11/4/87
Page 4
Commr. Reiss asked how much space that included.
Greg Smith wasn't sure.
Michael Multari said that the concern is that beyond this property,
the applicant owns approximately 200 acres that extends outside the
city limits. Mr. Multari asked that access be limited through the
city into the agricultural lands. The alternative would be to
require dedication of some or all of the property outside of the city
because of the concern with the visual impacts of ridgeline
development.
Commr. Schmidt commented on the quarry site being terraced, and the
road running along the top of the creek, and was concerned about
fencing along the creek as a possible site for dumping garbage. He
agreed with Commr. Gerety that more cross sectional information was
needed.
Wayne Peterson said the road on the lower side of the creek would
tend to protect the properties below that, and should divert the
water back if it ever rises that high (100-year flood) .
The public hearing was opened.
Steve Kahn, 396 Buckley Road, applicant's representative, understood
staff's grading concerns, showed slides of the quarry from the lot
below. He had no problem with the creek plan. Condition #8,
regarding access limitations, was unacceptable to him as he felt the
land was outside of the city's sphere of influence. Three conditions
he did not agree with were fencing along the creek, fire sprinklers,
and the no access easement.
Rick Webster, 1715 La Luna Court, did not agree with fencing along
the creek, and restrictions on the 200 acres which is outside the
city's sphere of influence.
Applicant Michael Foster, 1274 Cedar, Arroyo Grande, referring to lot
13, site of an ancient landslide, will have a geologist report on the
stability of the site.
The public hearing was closed.
Michael Multari commented on five issues: 1) the intent of fencing
would be to protect the riparian habitat; an alternative would be to
consult with Fish and Game about specifics; 2) access restrictions to
the land outside the city limits, the purpose of which is to have
some measure of control in protecting the ridgelines and the views
from our community; an alternative may be visual easement, requiring
the developments there not be visible from the city, or an easement
that wouldn't require the entire 200 acres, one that would be
protective of the visible ridgel.ines from the city; 3) fire
sprinklers are a requirement of the fire department, the concern
being that the property is close to the grasslands and forest, being
at the end of a cul-de-sac. 4) alternatives to the padding or the
grading plan; lots 3, 4,5, & 6; the pads could be lower, but an
alternative would be to let some of the building do the 0.9
PC Minutes - 11/4/87
Page 5
masking 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, as 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.
m 4. Actions relating to property at 786 Mirada Drive. A request
to zone the property to a planned development and consideration of
a tent ive subdivision map for 4 .52 acre site; Laguna Hills Estates
(Rick Web er) , applicant.
Greg Smith presen the staff report.
There was some discussi by the commissioners.
The public hearing was opened.
Rick Webster, 1715 La Luna, applican responded that the staff report
was thorough, but he didn't agree withrecommendation, and asked
for direction from the Planning Commission.
Robert Cleath, 777 Mirada, objected to present de opment and
presented a petition signed by 73 people wanting the erty
developed differently. His concerns were with density,en onment,
beauty and traffic, and requested denial of the use permit.
d-3
P .C . Minutes
January 13, 1988
Page 2 .
T e commission recommended approval of the proposal , with their comments to
be orwarded the ARC and Council .
---------- -
-------------------------------------------------------
--------
Item 6 . Pub 'c Hearing : Use Permit U1332 . Request to allow 3 new houses
on 3 acent Mots •, 2M. �4�nd 2356 Bushnell Street ; R-1 -S
zone; C tle Naumu , applicant.
------------------X ---------------------------------------------
Michael Multari prstaff report and recommended continuing the
item for 30 days tEngineering Division to pursue with the
Council the possibchasing the subject property .
Chairperson Kourakis opened th\e,\public hearing.
Castle Naumu , PO Box 984, San Luis�Qbispo, applicant, was unhappy with city
past zoning and action regarding hisproperty. He dial agree to a 30-day
delay . �\
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public healrjng.
Commr . Gerety moved to continue the item for 30•. days.
Commr . Duerk seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Gerety , Duerk , Crotser, Hainline, Schmidt , and
Kourakis .
NOES - None.
ABSENT - None.
The motion passes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 1 . Public Hearing : Tract 1438. Consideration of a tentative map
cr�ng�a '.-Tot r�den ial subdivision ; 2000 Royal Way ; R-1 -S
zone; Jack Foster, subdivider. (Continued from December 2, 1987)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Lautner presented the staff report and recommended the commission
recommend approval of the tentative map to the Council , with findings and
conditions.
Commr. Schmidt had questions about the open space easement. Staff
responded._ _
Commr. Duerk suggested combining Alternatives B and D, as outlined in the
written report, for a possible method of addressing open space outside the
city limits . ;;2 -w3&P
P .C . Minutes
January 13, 1988
Page 3 .
Chairperson Kourakis noted that on January 7, the commission made a site
visit .
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing .
Steve Kahn , applicant' s representative , discussed the grading and stated
the applicant preferred to keep a 2% pad grade and space between houses ,
but was flexible on that point. He felt owners would landscape banks . He
stated the applicant agreed to leave the knoll and redirect drainage . He
also agreed to a creek plan and felt a 4-foot buffer between the road and
the creek was sufficient. He answered specific questions about the map.
Commr . Crotser asked about fire truck turn-around requirements on lot 13 .
Erwin Willis did not feel that lot 13 had adequate water for fire
protection and was also concerned with lots 11 and 12 in terms of firetruck
turn-around.
Mr. Kahn stated that the hammerhead turn-around could be developed and fire
hazard issues could be handled through use permit conditions . He also
requested no restrictions be placed on the adjacent county land. He did
not agree with recommended conditions 6 and 7.
Mike Foster, PO Box 1161 , San Luis Obispo , applicant ' s representative ,
discussed commission concerns .
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing.
Commr. Schmidt was concerned with spreading housing into hazard areas and
the unreasonableness of the burden imposed on the fire department by the
one structure, relative to other houses on lot 13 .
Commr. Gerety did not object to developing this site, but wanted the site
to remain natural and suggested eliminating graded pads for houses . He did
not support the concept of deepening the creek channel . He wanted lot 13
to have suitable fire protection . He felt the access road to lots 11 , 12 ,
and 13 should be re-aligned or that the creek be re-aligned to the north to
create a buffer between the road and the creek bank . He did not object to
removing lot ills cypress tree. He felt the plans were too schematic and
did not reflect a total solution . He asked the applicant if they preferred
a denial or a continuance.
Mr . Kahn stated that neither option was desirable.
Commr . Gerety moved to recommend to council a denial of the tentative map.
Commr . Schmidt seconded the motion.
P.C . Minutes
January 13, 1988
Page 4.
Commr . Schmidt stated that he needed to see a more finalized project before
he voted on it. He did not want the creek deepened and discussed possible
methods to lessen erosion . He agreed that the knoll was essential and was
concerned with excessive grading . He did not feel lot 13 was feasible , due
to city services burden , but would support another house elsewhere on the
property .
Commr . Crotser felt the applicant had been cooperative and did not want to
deny the project without working with the applicant further . He agreed
that grading on lots 1 through 10 should be limited . He felt the
suggestion to allow one cut "bench" on the knoll was a good idea . He did
not think the north bank needed regrading . He felt lot 13 was acceptable ,
but needed strong conditions with regard to fire protection .
Commr . Duerk agreed with less "stepped" grading. She also agreed with
strictly conditioning lot 13 and ensuring that future buyers are aware of
potential hazards .
Chairperson Kourakis agreed that a continuance was a better option . She
felt lot 13 was feasible if it could be adequately protected against fire.
Mr. Foster agreed to a continuance if Commr . Gerety would withdraw his
motion for denial .
Mr . Kahn stated that the creek deepening was of benefit for flood
protection purposes . He was unsure if moving the private road would be
feasible and that it would depend on the buffer strip width .
Commr . Gerety withdrew his motion for denial , with concurrence of Commr.
Schmidt. He moved to continue the item to the meeting of February 10, 1988
to allow applicant time to address commission concerns .
Commr. Duerk seconded the motion .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Gerety , Duerk , Crotser , Hainline, Schmidt , and
Kourakis.
NOES - None.
ABSENT - None.
The motion passes .
-------------------------------- -------------------------
Item 2. Public Tract 1413 . Consideration of a tentative map
crea ing a mu ti -—'mgrri system industrial air-space
condominium; 2925 McMi Avenue ; M zone ; Roger Brown and Jack
Foster, subdividers .
Greg Smith presented the staff report and recommen pr oval to council ,
subject to findings and conditions.
kk11
MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of San Luis Obispo, California
February 10, 1988 Regular Meeting
PRESENT: Commrs . Charles Crotser , Donna Duerk , Patrick Gerety , Linda
Hainline, William Roalman , and Chairperson Janet Kourakis .
ABSENT: Commr . Richard Schmidt .
OTHERS
PRESENT: Judith Lautner , Associate Planner; Erwin Willis , Acting Fire
Marshall ; Michael Multari , Community Development Director and
Lisa Woske , Recording Secretary .
The minutes of the December 2 , 1987 meeting were approved as amended.
There were no changes to the agenda or public comments .
--------------------------------------------------------
Item 1 . Public HearinTract 1438 . Consideration of a tentative map
creating a�_�Totres denial subdivision ; 2000 Royal Way ; R-1 -S
zone; Jack Foster , subdivider. (Continued from January 13 , 1988)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Lautner presented the staff report. Michael Multari discussed
General Plan consistency issues . Staff recommended approval of the
tentative map to the City Council , with findings and conditions .
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing.
Steve Kahn , applicant' s representative, stated the grading was changed per
Commission request. He discussed the cypress removal , creek plan , road
placement , fire department requirements for lot 13 , and the open space. He
requested condition 6 be amended regarding the fire department
requirements .
Commr. Gerety suggested re-aligning the access road . Mr. Kahn felt there
would be problems with steepness , trees , retaining walls , and impacting the
views on lots 11 and 12. Commr. Gerety asked about cleaning up the creek
at the northern end. Mr. Kahn discussed that procedure.
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing .
Commr. Roalman felt there should be a General Plan amendment prior to
approval of the map , due to inconsistencies .
Commr . Duerk clarified fire department requirements.
Commr. Gerety asked about street improvements. Staff responded that the
creek side would have a rolling asphalt curb and parking would occur on th
housing side , which would have concrete curbs and sidewalks. Commr. Gerety
then asked about initiating a Land Use Element map amendment. Staff
responded. Commr. Gerety felt this map was acceptable, but was concerned
��40V
with the General Plan inconsistency issue. He favored decreasing the road
P.C . Minutes
February 10 , 1988
Page 2 .
to 20 feet to provide a wider creek buffer and replacing the cypress tree .
He wanted the northern end of the creek cleaned up .
Staff noted that construction could not proceed until the final map was
approved .
Commr . Crotser complimented the cooperation between applicant and staff.
He moved to recommend that Council approve the tentative map , subject to
findings and conditions , deleting condition 5 , including alternative 6 ,
amending alternative 7 , modifying condition 16 to restrict construction
until the map change occurs , modifying condition 12 , and adding parking
bays to the road .
Commr . Duerk seconded the motion .
Commr . Roalman stated he could not support the motion , due to the inclusion
of lot 13 in alternative 6 .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Crotser, Duerk , Gerety , Hainline, and Kourakis .
NOES - Commr. Roalman .
ABSENT - Commr. Schmidt.
The motion passes .
--- --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
ea Public Hearin _: Tract 1439 . Consideration of a tentative map
eating an lot
resi eential subdivision ; 1901 Royal Way ; R-1 -S
zon - Robert Noyes , subdivider .
---------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
Judy Lautner stated the plicant had requested a continuance .
Chairperson Kourakis opened tfi �tlic hearing.
Robert Noyes, 1901 Royal Way , requested-.k continuance to the February 24 ,
1988 meeting.
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing. ---'.,
Commr. Gerety moved to continue the item to the Febr&ary 24 , 1988 meeting .
Commr. Duerk seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Gerety , Duerk , Crotser, Hainline,. Roalman, and
Kourakas .
NOES - None.
ABSENT - Commr. Schmidt. _0;z �
The motion passes .