HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1988, 10 - CONFIRMATION OF A CREEK EASEMENT/SETBACK LINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 424 HIGUERA STREET. Illry�►WHI�IIIIIIIIIIA 111111 "J MEETING DATE:
p►►�u►I ct o son Luis oBi spo 11-1-88
NOCON COUNC L AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
c ael Multari, Community Development Director Prepared by: Pam Ricci
SUBJECT:
Confirmation of a creek easement/setback line in conjunction with a proposed development
project for property located at 424 Higuera Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Uphold staff's determination regarding location of the required creek easement and direct
applicant to revise plans accordingly if he wishes to pursue development of the site.
DISCUSSION:
An application has been submitted for environmental and architectural review to construct
a new 2800 square-foot office building on the site. The submitted development plan shows
the proposed building encroaching into a portion of the area that city engineering staff
has identified as being required as a creek easement.
The easement location was established at the time that the Promontory project on the
adjacent property was reviewed. The city's Flood Management Policy (City Council
Resolution No. 5138, 1983 Series) states that "all new buildings and parking lots shall
be constructed outside of adopted creek setbacks". While an official creek setback line
has not been formally adopted along this portion of the creek, the council did adopt
alignments for San Luis and Stenner Creeks on nearby sites by requiring dedications of
creek easements in conjunction with the Promontory project, Tract 993 at the end of Dana
Street and Minor subdivision 82-103, an apartment project on Brizzolara Street.
The applicant has been instructed by staff that the proposed project could not be pursued
unless the council determined that a different alignment of the creek channel was
appropriate at this location. The council has hired a consultant to conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of constructing upstream detention facilities. If such
facilities are determined to be feasible and are pursued, a modified design storm
criterion might result in the need for a lesser creek easement taking at the site.
However, until this study is done and any new policy on the need for creek widening at
this location is set, staff feels the option afforded by the current setback must be
preserved.
In June of 1985, the Planning Commission considered an appeal by the former property
owner of conditions requiring creek easement dedication in conjunction with a use permit
to allow a parking lot on the site. The commission denied the appeal upholding staff's
recommendation to require full creek easement dedication. The commission's action was
appealed, but the council never acted on the appeal because it was later withdrawn at the
property owner's request.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Current long-range plans for creek widening and improvements to tie in with the creek
alignment established by easements obtained by other area projects would be jeopardized
if buildings and other improvements were constructed in the area of the requested
easement.
����►�NuuIIIIIII��icity of sa►n Luis osispo
=OLCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
424 Higuera
Page 2
CONSEQUENCE OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
New studies would need to be undertaken to determine a preferred creek alignment to the
one already established for flood control purposes or to conclude that improvements to
this portion of San Luis Obispo Creek will not be necessary in the future.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The applicant wants to build an office building on the site. Most of the proposed
building is located within an area of the site that has been determined by Public Works
Department staff based on previous studies and prior projects to be needed as a creek
easement. The city has instructed the applicant that plans need to be modified to show
the building and any other permanent improvements located outside of the required
easement area consistent with city policies. The applicant has indicated that he feels
that the requested easement is unreasonable and that he wants to pursue the development
plan submitted.
The project has not yet been reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
Staff feels that the creek easement issue needs to be resolved prior to formal
consideration of the project by the ARC. The issue has been referred to the council for
adoption of a creek setback for this project and site.
Data Summary
Address: 424 Higuera Street
Applicant/Property Owner: Kenny Gazin
Representative: Brian Starr
Zoning: C-R
General Plan: Retail Commercial
Environmental Status: An initial study has not yet been prepared.
Site Descriotion
The project site consists of 12,250 square feet and is relatively flat until the top of
creek bank where it slopes steeply to the channel. Significant vegetation on the site is
located within the creek area below the top of bank. The site has been improved with a
gravel parking lot that is used by the adjacent auto body shop.
City photographs indicate that as recent as 1945, much of the present site was within the
creek channel. The buildable lot area of the site was increased by the addition of fill
material within the creek channel without city approvals in the late 1940's or early
1950's.
Proiect Descriotion
I
The applicant wants to build a 2800 square-foot office building on the rear of the site
above the top of the creek bank. A nine-space parking lot is located in front of the
building. Approximately 25°x6 to 30% (best estimate until a field survey is done) of the
site above the top of bank is included within the required creek easement area. 11
I��� ►m�pp�� ��ll� city or san Lacs osispo
MR ACOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
424 Higuera
Page 3
Relevant City Policies
There are two primary policy sources affecting creekside development:
1. Flood Management Policy (City Council Resolution No. 5138, 1983 Series); arld
2. Flood Damage Prevention Regulations (Municipal Code Section 17.84).
The city's Flood Management Policy (C.C. Resolution No. 5138, 1983 Series) is intended to
prevent the loss of life and property from flooding and provide for the orderly,
environmentally sensitive maintenance of and improvements to major creeks. Relevant
policies include:
1. All new building construction and parking lots shall be constructed outside of
adopted creek setbacks.
2. As a condition of approval of projects requiring entitlements other than a
building permit or lot line adjustment (i.e. use permit, subdivision, parcel map,
architectural review) the owner shall:
a. Dedicate the natural creek area lying within his property (i.e. creek area
below top of bank); and
b. Dedicate right-of-way necessary for widening the creek if shown on an adopted
creek setback map.
3. The developer shall not be required to dedicate without compensation more than 25%
of the area of his property lying outside of the natural creek.
4. Developers of property on all creeks shall be responsible for improving creeks to
city standards.
EVALUATION
In 1985, a use permit to allow a permanent parking lot on the site was reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The primary focus of discussion with that use permit was the issue
of dedication in relation to the city's requested creek easement. The commission upheld
staff's recommended conditions of approval regarding provision of the full easement (area
below the top of bank, the "natural creek channel", plus the area above top of bank
needed for future creek improvements). However, the applicant did not pursue development
of the site with a permanent parking lot; and therefore, the creek casement was never
dedicated.
I
�►►� i �11111111pa��111 city o� san Luis oBispo
MG COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
424 Higuera
Page 4
In staff's opinion, conditions have not changed in terms of plans for future creek
improvements to this portion of San Luis Obispo Creek since 1985, and therefore, securing
the same creek easement identified with the prior use permit with a new development
project on the site is critical. Until the results of the consultant's study on the
feasibility of upstream detention facilities are available, requirement of a different
easement alignment is premature. Staff feels that it would be shortsighted not to
require the full identified easement to be dedicated with the proposed project,
consistent with dedications acquired for other area projects.
The creek alignment for this portion of San Luis Obispo Creek was established to save as
many large trees as possible, provide a natural channel as much as practicable, acquire
the right-of-way necessary to accommodate the design flows and preserve as much
developable property as possible, especially where structures exist. The reason for the
greater acquisition in this area is due to the misalignment of the present channel with
regard to the Marsh Street bridge piers. The piers were constructed parallel to the
original channel, but illegally-placed fill was placed in the channel over the years,
thus reducing the capacity of the bridge and the channel.
Staff feels that its recommendation to require the easement to the extent requested and
to remove all buildings and improvements from it is consistent with the aforementioned
flood management policies for the following reasons:
Policy #1 - This policy clearly states that all buildings and project improvements
are to be located outside of required easement areas which is exactly what staff is
recommending.
Policy #2. b. - Although the council has not formally adopted a setback line for
this portion of San Luis Obispo Creek, the adjacent Promontory project was also
required to dedicate an easement for creek maintenance and improvement as a condition
of use permit approval (U0818). Staff feels that it is essential to apply this
requirement equally to all new development projects along this portion of San Luis
Obispo Creek due to its key location in terms of flood control (confluence of two
major creeks, earth fill in natural creek channel and constriction of flows by the
Marsh Street bridge).
Policy #3 - When the previous use permit was considered, engineering staff calculated
the amount of area being required for dedication as being about 25% of the lot
outside the top of creek bank consistent with the policy. If a more precise plotting
of the necessary creek alignment on development plans based on field survey indicates
that required dedication exceeds the 25% standard, then the city would be required to
pay an equitable compensation to the property owner under the Flood Management
Policy.
Policy #4 - This policy is a reaffirmation of staff's recommendation regarding the
easement and enables the city to require with new development projects payment of a
creek development fee to defray costs of creek improvements and floodproofing
requirements. With the prior use permit, the city was asking for the dedication of j
the creek easement and not payment of creek development fees.
�i►INNIgII������l� l 11 City Of San LUIS OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
424 Higuera
Page 5
Summary
The city's Flood Management Policy and related waterway management policies require creek
easement dedication for development projects along major creeks. Public health, safety
and welfare considerations dictate that flood prevention measures be addressed in
approval of development projects along major waterways. Staff sees no basis for granting
an exception to policies for the reasons previously discussed, at least at this time. If
further studies on detention basins indicate that the easement is not necessary, then
alternatives could be pursued. However, until studies are complete and reviewed by hte
council, allowing encroachment into the current setback does not seem prudent.
It should be pointed out that the requested easement has been established for flood
control purposes only. Additional site dedication would probably not be required for
riparian protection or public access considerations in this location, but would be
relevant on the other side of the creek.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Uphold staff's determination regarding location of the required creek easement and
direct applicant to revise plans accordingly if he wishes to pursue development of the
site. (Recommended Action)
2. Require the applicant to supply technical data supporting why the requested easement
is not -necessary to achieve city flood management and flood protection goals.
3. Continue the item in order to obtain more information from either the applicant or
staff.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Public Works Department has indicated that they cannot support the project unless
proposed buildings and improvements are removed from the requested easement area and the
creek easement is dedicated. Caltrans has indicated that they would prefer to see the
driveway location and parking lot configuration reversed. No other city department had
significant comments regarding the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Uphold staff's determination regarding location of the required creek easement and direct
applicant to revise plans accordingly if he wishes to pursue development of the site at
this time.
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Site Plan (reduced)
Creek Setback Plan
Letter from Applicant (forthcoming)
Enclosed: Project Plans
pr#4:creek
VICINITY MAP ARC 88 - 74
,�• �61,
v
0
_ J F<
�d • �G K
' v
'3 C _ R _ S 4N��' *P•
?
`Ic
"mat
s ° Y �•"9 �j �o
e
ws
Win
C — S
t 4Y
3 6 w
afFisrry �F �♦-,`N
v
6� `i/
OR REQUIRED EASEMENT
i'r.�o carry«..
°o i� �I ! aroK►*w u�
� z 1
M �
. -� )3
140
80, _. ..
h _
ucm Strczt
&te Plan
/o -7
�•< f," •�X +' .p 51::'}•r)SJ 4,ter'\ i a•
r ��Q. `<} ��'pp.�.,, .�_ `'-• `' Y f.`a' rte,. �.n_
s •:.C�i.>llYa. �`C' �""' y .!. f,. •.✓ ..`�.11M.r"#`�}Si`{{r,' h.'�, f�`rff.
" v:fn7p�'7�!'Q _ .•~ r :, r ' r, Yd�^,r.�••:.S%r Jf`{� .•. N. ._ .
r hot <S a `\r. <'•\j`.�_Y.(5'"a�};�"'''; ,. r •�.
<c�jC�. � :+:�•� �- �i`' 'Q,' h:?.L f ., Cn: ,(Cra...•.�'::i Y•l-�C:li)tC -rCy,;�.
'off/ ,\ .y.. l \.r '.. � a ( r <y!i .) '(,'i::'rye ,f:'..:'"J"`:r �``••,
fu {V,.,:�Gp}•. +.y���'2�`��. ;r�,•'-::' .�� .�V •C�'. ,�,,,,,. JP•'"CT�r�2�✓ Q h, G:�r�'�:r -a\'C�`.
.:'STf �.oK. •p` `i �c � ..i•" �yf:`• 7.�'L:'V:..�^/,.tiy+ .\,��i}:L'L�`Cf
, ):•' iiti'a�} ..\ _ P' ^' .a<. a. �' , � a...<, \:•<.},}`-��LiV v.'Af.'``.. .�`.����lJ� �.y>h \�:�r. .
�"�' -.ti .,., ..-+f/,.ri 'C t5 'Cif: �``.�'s5��`'r'�K' -^"�C;<.K,:::;,tiY.(% '•`C.Sl�'c- af({
��� Y�L�AG,�JA/..�Y )� d. / �• '\w.t,'{�!:`y��`�P kti �X /\:.'/ i{ `, <.
} :-:`^• + " H� •r: r n W } f'��'A.•vfr NC{`•t v,S ♦ 'n?� 11ir,�,•�^+�, -? l:�
,ry. "TAt�va}`0.f`,?..��}T,l{ f r:�, x` ).�L.:`. �r�;, ,�X r,��\,�Y,,,��c'},. hw yJ ?t^Ti:=':.``:;y,.a'! +�'+.yi sf( �'�w+iaw;<•}.
.'� c;:>".:. ,�.,a'J.t,•.,' ,&y$\+�•.�{ C. . ".` 'li'" �ai-i\� ��.C:�51`Z sT•v i' ��-a.v:-��.•wn l-;.�cr'i �\ .iaai..\f::3:v)w-.+Z,•C'�
";t <a�.: «. �r.,::;.7e•�'-...'. 4 ' s ' J. C�•:�'SC :�'.�•„ic'•" \,:".E'V.aY.,,A t�� '°`LVA:
"•{Y 'GL:vi /.a'h �:•\ �k.�1: � t•' T,C +•j#`y�.aQ,.,,p /,,-0T7• 1 Ls..l�s'i0 .`�,j s:^C•:^.aN"9`C.
i{ � \ •ii( >:., ?��v,:J:. S::•X, 0. C,{rSa:.) i,v:...;' rya?.},f. 1?^^.:,, ��.µ�'k yT/.'VS`�'.L;. �i"�
/-'� s:�+.;'Z.F:',:,, � ;A,.:�`' <:•. '�" .�:' lam: .. �cc:fytQbt= `M`' L-. ,..:.\"jy'r''.
,r/•::." C• /� : t' •:r•=LC -'Xi.�.`. � fi:'•yy,•1:.�.+, 1:a: r ,- M^'��:5.':�r.':,_..., f;;..... ^'{; +1.:' _ �
.a{ri� �fL�%�:\. j�).�:.v-r:<':rK, '{}ti-,�'i X�\\nn .L.r '\J '+j4 .},!{ .:v:.h. \ .0!.. �i• �:.< �"v
'<•�'i� � �.;:/•). y�Y N'.••., t5. '•'J �' rsr•r:i 'r'K:. .\i. .:;...:.v4 :\::-��'a:'��f�::a �"� A'
b:..,Z :;:i+V {s":.r ,'h'•' r)t`t �y YTr{ ^C: -;s'•/' h.k�r- i ;2t-:",vti:;:<\�/. ,;;.:�,:.r •i� � ;�.
�.- � { {i, �'. /•/ F/::. \h�t.- T .:: \.;, (•�" h � ti. J'.�F\/1' .<...1.:',a a:}.•, r�.'>\1:'�•_ }
Y.r .Y.w � vT:s`...:;^O(:s .,�\- +�-N', `� y: ''{�:f{.yV< '9. f^• `n .h:4<t:r s. �
,r;L.' :nom, :. jC-^qy����a• .R \( 5 U' a?'�. '.ti?. `C�..�< r.:it-: 9v,.
,.v({ ..1,.. ^tl^ �,.r /{:�. Yn'::''I'Sl•.' y�
'T.:. •Yr� .`(:�•'Y-•X" q r !;�\i�-•! �:. +O+ak•`r�}vGi. .,��;{i:.L .{.> '�: Ci, f.l}'!: py ♦, -�,.,- \:�'J^.•�r• <:
�- �'-C .{.J':-.;N�,p r{;�r. r L�C�:, .�.� .,kv?•. "5...1:r.C,v..`_ ?:o 1s �,+ 4 .i.•}..
a ;} =• f ��c Y"G �:- "::�.�i '. •Yy ,- n �„ _"
t Y�1y !U,,('\ :,4.yf:'.•S}.i,. `�'�;) �p^�� +••. bJ'..+' V n\ �ysa"
,• V:'••CG4�. r. C~' ""'•'j'Y'�`'\: C. A' tri••• y� J y. 1 �\:- L��Q V.'�{�Yf`r` Yr:' \` \LiY Y Y.' , F: Y. .
.r. yr Q`k hZrW}:.:': 'k:S.< r; Y.�/-54�' -..J•.:r 4�y l':\'.a��`{' >`.W`"ira ,6_., rs-C ..k•`��v•.3 .->> 7JY
]•• .lj.,,..n�' "s.,j�.tir;i:.;,vy vs ,:• � ♦ :s, `1 Yr:r r. .y.'.., ,�;/r:•:a'C, t .•<.� n��:�i.!)`•l,j:���{ +•r�r{`'?� "•.moi({
( ..?ti;h s �S � Y�`}`J!4.� �9fr F [C,> .4 ?.'i�`` /,. ���•Cr
-/ a, \l"O-:tki\✓ ''`S',n T : C(�\rh.lyr� ..'•x' ltir' n 4\V\ v 'a 't y\.yZX'�{Vi.'r' p01')Oa: f,4.`�:eCn.bn\Y�YI_YA`:YkMt�Y �OSi R.
HVA• ^ ' :`� r}:.?.��Q4ti�?,JJ^y'�h n�J:}G�~`\�j, S�{fir�\,.f(. nS`:X�,
MOM?K• �f�WRQ -.•{N .4.
' „M-•:O a �-. Y'. '�{:;1: aZv.` Y,.r�\:?;�•^.^n•S \\ k.f..' �}yv�` ,k��f .,�7�•���p,��
r.\. C...}� F�".�,{,:\/,.� }$ v .M.Y<} ? � •'ivi.,�":`,yvj i<,:v)_' {:J0.��n y�}:Sk�.RS �'::a�:S���``� f M1 t,Y�' dam+- •r"�'
, K::. ' '� . sx. r � x><.,a\`:., , ��•.�• Jl tc .<' fL .t„y xa a:w rw,Znn-m- ''���+�• 4_��'�-:b2::'.;'
\^r.,\`•'.s l.(r\v�Y�:` Y ?,C:• 1.)�1+::v.% Y�5 \ h -w�/"lrr
'rfr"- t { '�'• `�; ql^•� }rY+'. 4C ':,a'f,"'..-- ,-„r-•'tV�c'<,�ryy}a4�./�`°�C\tikrP ,f`r \\; ,o•. ;„xg'•'c.s,-,_-..�
,5 ,yp�•.- � <� ..r .'^ l s)),' \ .h f:< ,J,K-'C( fr ) \V�.' ♦ ,.1+`�:..�. 't ^r�! L v< �.v ry
', s$?j�, �.�'• ' .'S.rr� ,`�� �y"}�,f'� }Y:/.,�.PC• `: ,a��S'%`T.:_ u�dGtl�.i.`�^”' J 71[,s-�i.Y,;, f ry-t 77f)•`r.+_ y`:
•_3��;��J:,. � {:�` �b ch#ri � \`};��.�'.l�`aa n+ F °'" `L-y �4� � \`�C� ��L r.'v\t,Xr':,
•,,`• � y � ::Yn .+ - � �^� ,�, `ti�\,` ,a.;:).i6 hG.�'�f .^'..r.,!.. +.:.� �•. �f��, •' ..v, �.•,Y L ti?�''�4.ra��,� <y`f^ `'�C� <
•'7?,\`c {�' f l vR.h ,v , 1 l .i' r,. LSA }i= a' .O•wn , ! .+Pat+,f a}'+a k' ,,(\M
j/r.�, .r1)C� rtt y i.("P1. t •'v?r 5}w 1 : •' \:4 a y(:,•}.,.\y : � ra. ��1 / '1 .. � Y-M /:v S�v<
'�:V Y- - ,1Y aC}J•"✓' ~±. lA ,yam � ,r l•.Y� J Tf
{f t•;:< '? n1Y f. r.,p.Y .:Y` '�T N,,H�•%1...`'�`ln�•Y l Ki:f+'i�l•`ACnC
, -rt} ?.a '{•. ^.` <�.Y'��'�•�3 J Y 'r' �-r Y
.:�+'1J ,ts;'yAJ^. f_y ?•., .,�¢� .-..r. •�J(,r>>svKn Z _- $\ .G -Yt" .} � •��'= ! 35,.. '-� f r
`Y}"V :• , -los ri�}c. '`GCS\'?`;1C�7 ?1
::y�".`f- r.r i .`v..`r-; �L �4•�•a"`Caibn'Y '- r.�:�i'/.2 VY-" .r'
�rl�• +F? d ti,.,.•Y-:�'�":.✓ 3''• t:i ;tet �i.C. w-
(
r ,SGc�
v K
311
? lK ¢.
M /
ITEM #10 - LETTER FROM APPLICANT
To be delivered separately.