HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/1991, 1 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE MAP CREATING THREE LOTS FROM TWO ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF LAWTON STREET BETWEEN MITCHELL DRIVE AND CAUDILL STREET. MEETING ATE:
������►�►►iI►IIIIIIII��11°'u►� U city of san lues oBIspo 2-5-
.ILII /
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director o
PREPARED BY: Whitney McIlvaine, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Tentative Map creating three lots from two on
the eastern side of Lawton Street between Mitchell Drive and
Caudill Street.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map with an exception to the lot depth
requirement subject to findings, conditions, and code requirements.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The council, on January 15, 1991, conducted a public hearing on the requested minor
subdivision. The public hearing was closed, and the councilmembers present voted 2 to 2, a
tie vote, to approve the tentative map. The council subsequently voted to continue the item
to February 5th. The subdivider and staff have further evaluated some issues raised These
issues are drainage and sewer. Additions to the staff report are in italics.
Bac and
Subdivision regulations require the Council to consider "any request for exception, and
the recommendation on such request, at the same time as the council considers the
tentative map and shall grant, conditionally grant, or deny the request." (Section
16.48.060)
This subdivision involves a request for exception to the required lot dimensions
established by the subdivision regulations. The subdivision regulations require lots to
have a minimum depth of 90 feet. The proposed subdivision is a flag lot subdivision, and
meeting the 90 foot lot depth requirement for all three proposed parcels would result in
an awkward configuration. The proposed subdivision meets or exceeds all other design
requirements of the subdivision regulations and is consistent with the general plan and
zoning regulations.
Data SummaU
Address: 2572 and 2574 Lawton Street
Subdivider: Jerry and Janet Veith
Representative: Joe Boud
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low Density Residential
�������bu►►�►IIIIIIIIP►"�u►q��lh city of San Luis OBISpo
=No COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 90-286
Page 2
Environmental Review Status: Negative Declaration approved by the Community
Development Department Director on November 29, 1990.
Action Deadline: June 7, 1991
Site Description j
The site is currently divided into two parcels (see the attached vicinity map). The rear
parcel is non-conforming because it does not front on a street and has no guarantee of
access. The front parcel has a flag lot configuration. Together they cover approximately j
29,600 square feet of area. The maximum density allowed for a site this size in an R-1
zone is 4 units, if not divided into lots.
The site is relatively flat, sloping slightly to the northeast. A natural open drainage
channel crosses proposed parcel three at the eastern end of the subdivision. There are
two apricot trees on site which are proposed to be removed. The only other significant
vegetation are riparian shrubs along the open drainage channel.
Two small wood frame houses and a separate garage/storage structure are currently on
the site. These would also be removed since they cross the new lot lines and would
preclude access to the new lots. (An appeal of ARC action taken on the demolition
requests is also on this agenda.)
The site is surrounded by low density residential development in a well-established,
older neighborhood.
Consequences of Not Taldng the Recommended Action
If the council does not grant an exception to the lot depth requirement, the two existing
parcels would remain in their present configuration, or could be reconfigured through a
lot line adjustment.
Citizen Participation
Two letters (attached) were submitted from and on behalf of adjacent neighbors. They
address parking, privacy, and overlook concerns as well as landscaping and maintenance
of the panhandle portion of lot 1, and compatibility with the existing neighborhood.
Kristin Todd, of 2646 Lawton Street, was present at the Director's Subdivision Hearing
to voice her concerns regarding these issues.
Staff has also received calls from surrounding neighbors expressing concerns similar to
those listed above.
l�
ou�a11N�IVililllllll�° ���Ih city of san tuis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 90-286
Page 3
Project Evaluation
The proposed flag lot subdivision represents an improvement over the existing situation
in that all parcels would have a guarantee of access. The rear parcel is currently
"landlocked". This subdivision would provide a common driveway to serve all 3 new
parcels.
The subdivision meets all zoning and subdivision requirements except the requirement j
that parcels be a minimum of 90 feet deep. This standard, along with other site
dimension standards, was established to ensure adequate area for building and parking,
useable open space, and privacy in residential development. It allows for front and rear
yards typical of traditional residential neighborhoods.
These standards are regularly waived in planned developments in order to achieve a
more efficient/functional land use pattern. (Because this parcel is less than 1 acre in
size, it could not qualify for a "planned development" designation under current zoning
regulations.)
Flag lots (deep lots) do not fit the traditional parcel configuration for which the lot
dimension standards were established. Therefore, staff feels it is not appropriate to hold
deep lot subdivisions to these same standards. It is appropriate, however, to require lots
to be configured in a way that meets the intent of the lot dimension standards and
allows for future site development that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
As designed, parcels 1 and 3 of this subdivision include constraints on future site
development. Parcel 1 (8770 square feet) has an unbuildable "tail', leaving a 5400
square foot rectangular area for development. Parcel 3 has a natural open drainage
channel running across it, which the subdivider wants to relocate and place in a pipe
running along the rear, easterly property line. This drainage channel carries storm runoff
from about 28 acres, including the proposed Stoneridge II development, of which only about
10 acres is currently developed. The existing Stoneridge I development does not drain into
this drainage course Stoneridge II will require a bypass storm drain system to meet current
drainage standards, which will significantly reduce the water flow in this channel
This neighborhood has had a history of flooding caused primarily by substandard drainage
pipes and poor maintenance of the open drainage channel by property owners. Most of this
drainage channel is already in pipes; including both immediately upstream and downstream.
See attached drainage map of the neighborhood Staff supports installation of a storm drain
pipe and replacement of vegetation as the best solution for improving drainage on this site
and in the neighborhood If the drainage channel is left open, it will need to be cleared of
l'
������builulllilllllllu ����`I city of San lugs OBispo
di—ai COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 90-286
Page 4
vegetation and improved (enlarged) to provide the required capacity. Staff recommends
condition 6 noted in the draft resolution
i
There is an existing public sewer main located along the southerly property line of proposed
parcels 1 and 2. Due to slopes, this main may not be able to serve proposed parcel 3
without substantial filling of the site or using a sewer ejector pump when the parcel is
developed Staff recommends and the subdivider has agreed to install a new main between
proposed parcels I and 2 Recommended condition 8 addresses this issue.
I
To better ensure that development of these parcels will be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood and sensitive to the concerns of adjacent neighbors, a
condition is recommended which would designate all 3 parcels as "sensitive" thereby
requiring architectural review of future site development. In this case, "sensitive site" is
for purposes of architectural review, not for environmental review.
Staff also recommends that the subdividers grant an easement over a portion of parcel 1 j
(in the "tail" area) which would serve as a guest parking area for all 3 parcels. In this
way guest and resident parking associated with future site development would not be
likely to adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood. This would also alleviate some
of the design constraints on individual lots.
CONCURRENCES
This parcel map was reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing Officer on December 21,
1990. The Hearing Officer recommended adoption of a resolution approving the
tentative map and granting an exception to the lot depth requirement.
Comments from other departments have been incorporated into the recommended
conditions and code requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The council may deny the tentative map finding that the proposed map does not
meet subdivision regulations. The two existing lots would remain in their present
configuration. Property owners would still have the option of reconfiguring the
parcels through a lot line adjustment.
2. The council may continue review of the tentative map with direction given to the
applicant.
���HI�►�uilVillll11111�° IIIIIII city Of San tuts OBISPO
4iis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 90-286
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the tentative map for Minor Subdivision 90-286 with the
exception to the lot depth requirement and subject to the findings, conditions, and code
requirements outlined in Resolution No. 1.
Attachments: draft resolutions 1 & 2
vicinity map j
site plan
initial environmental study
subdivision hearing minutes of 12/21/90
letters from neighbors
I
tentative map enclosed
D:WM\subdivis\90-286cc
reso-E:ms90-286
i
I
I
r
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 90-286 LOCATED AT 2572 AND 2574 LAWTON STREET
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 Minor Subdivision No. 90-286, and the
Community Development Director's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are
consistent with the General Plan.
2 . The site is physically suited for the type and density of
development allowed in the R-1 zone.
3 . 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.
4 . The design of the tentative map or the type of improvement
will not conflict with easements for access through, or use
of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. Subdivision or further development of the site would not be
feasible with the installation of a standard public street. ,
6. 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.
SECTION 2 . Exceptions. Approval of exception to required lot
dimensions, based on the following findings:
1. The property to be divided is of such size and shape that it
is impracticle and undesireable in this particular case to
conform to the strict application of the subdivision
regulations.
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
2 . The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance
with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the
modification.
3 . Granting an exception to the lot depth requirement will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or
be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.
4 . Granting the exception to the lot depth requirement is in
accord with the intent and purposes of subdivision and zoning
regulations, and is consistent with the general plan.
SECTION 3 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative
map for Minor Subdivision No. 90-286 be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for
review, approval, and recordation.
2 . The existing houses and garage shall be removed prior to final
map approval.
3 . The final map shall note that Parcels 1, 2 , and 3 are
determined to be sensitive sites, and that any new development
on these lots shall require review and approval by the
Architectural Review Commission prior to the issuance of
building permits. New development shall be compatible with
the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood in
terms of massing, architectural style, and height.
4 . The subdivider shall submit a common driveway and guest
parking area agreement to the Community Development Department
staff for approval and recordation, consistent with the city' s
parking and driveway standards. The precise location of the
common driveway easement shall be depicted on the final map.
5. Parcels 1, 2, and 3 shall be addressed as assigned by the
Community Development Department. Addresses for all lots shall
be posted at the street frontage to the approval of the
Community Development Department.
6. The subdivider shall culvert the existing drainage course
through the site to city standards and provide for overflow
drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An
easement for access to, and along, the culvert shall be
provided, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Final map
shall note that structures built on Parcels 2 and 3 shall be
raised to eliminate flooding during a 100-year storm.
Resolution No. (1991 Series) - Page 3
7 . All boundary monuments and lot corners must be tied to the
city' s control network. At least two control points shall be
used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted
with the final map along with a 5-1/4" computer floppy disk,
containing the appropriate data for use in Autocad for
geographic information system purposes.
8 . The subdivider shall dedicate a 10-foot wide public sewer
easement along the westerly line of Parcel 2 and within the
"flag access" portion of Parcel 3 , to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and Utilities Engineer. The subdivider shall
construct a new 8-inch diameter sewer main within the
easement. The city will share equal costs with the subdivider
(including plans) in this construction. Lateral to serve
Parcels 1-3 will be at the subdivider's expense.
9 . The subdivider shall pay, to the city, the cost of materials
for the required public fire hydrant to be located at the
Lawton Street frontage, prior to recordation of the final map
and issuance of any building permits. The city will install
the hydrant.
10. The subdivider shall provide an easement in the "tail" area
of Parcel 1 to serve all 3 parcels as a guest parking area.
The precise location of the parking easement shall be depicted
on the final map. The subdivider shall make the necessary
improvements to develop this area for 4 parking spaces prior
to recordation of the final map and to the approval of the
Community Development Department.
SECTION 4 . Code Requirements. The following are required by
city codes, but not all code requirements are listed:
1. Structures constructed on Parcels 1, 2 , and 3 shall be
equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems. .
2 . Water acreage charges are required to be paid for Parcels 2
and 3 , as determined by the City Engineer.
3 . Street trees shall be installed to city standards and to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist.
4 . The subdivider shall install individual sewer, water, and
utility services for each parcel. New utilities shall be
underground.
5. New lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer
or licensed land surveyor.
6. The subdivider shall pay park-in-lieu fees as determined by
the Community Development Department prior to final map
approval.
/�v
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director
APPROVED:
City -A-dininistratjilve Officer
y tt n
/�
Community Development Director
�- 9
RESOLUTION NO. (1991 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 90-286 LOCATED AT 2572 AND 2574 LAWTON STREET
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 Minor Subdivision No. 90-286 and the
Community Development Director 's recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The design of the subdivision does not conform to the minimum
lot depth standards of the city's Subdivision Regulations, and
circumstances which would justify approval of exceptions do
not exist.
2 . The property to be divided is not of such size or shape, nor
affected by such topographic conditions which make it
impossible, impractical or undesirable to conform to the
strict application of the Subdivision Regulations.
SECTION 2 . Action. The tentative parcel map for Minor
Subdivision No. 90-286 is hereby denied.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1991.
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 2
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City Attorney
Community Development Director
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
Cxk Y/
At n
Community Development Director
LL 4
I. 407 go, CAUOILL STREET
0"
UW1
l 'r ''.,'.•R':{iF:t:i:::•?i:::::?itT:::rj}jjN/:
J
BJ
�'JLAJ•
077
I�O OOOf 10 0 O O 0 O
OL u
X.
r
ON 0
0 00 O 0 0 a
01 OQ
0
O • J
. io+ O •-
SO.
0 I o� 0
0 0 0 "0 0 ; 0 : 0 ; 010 0 0 010 0 0
• i KL •7i HL •10 a� 16 Ow sr aw N• •a• B
fat 6"
MITCHELLL, CRIVE
tls a. •f• •i] . •71 A f? ■ _I 9 rl SA we Y a
OIO 00 : 0 O O 0 _ O � 0 0 OI O Q
r ..s
0 ` t Y L.1 . 1
O
FOGS
� Artf 0 4 ❑ 1 1
r� ZO O0 ; 0 , O O0 .O. 010010 0 O OO •s 14 1N b OQ1• •b six sb
fri ... OGS, 1970 b
LAWRENCE DRIVE
OiO ! O 0l0 0 - 0 0 ' 0Oi0 O O 0100 0 . 0
!
L—j _
VR�svia ,,. DGE
BOD all •,
r_
VICINITY MAP Ms 90-286 NORTH
2572 and 2574 Lawton.
h
c
g 6, a"
L a w t o n S t reef ; "
NM 'w
I
I r- 'co
:moi
IS C�c M ±F .` ,a �.� EE
I 3{
D �`
z
b -.77YIP
PO
g— r0 emO < � 98 m E
� ym m .
xZ ymP
1✓f� 3 't:l:
a m z
a
omw
41
m O m x p Y
N -z a �mt,� , ^k
a1 �
p m n I m ►-� .. �.
m m
m o°wM ,
Dyam
r mm 00D 99 O
^�=� Dm
�^1 _
ac Ss Y/ fav O mm�m ' �—_l)_� .. • �xuxm � Q;
r m Naa Z nva. �
D oZ a ooe Z
mvo mm53 4 e
mfom
Z u�^ as
fit
e �" xMn 1 n0 J Fii
N; � I m u • ��`"RA•
S e
Y
c
3Ji ;f
o"
JOSEPH BOUD
6 ASSOCIATES
January 24, 1991
RECE/VEL
JAN 2 41991
Community Development Department cryo,
City of San Luis Obispo °^m�� sober
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Re: MS 90 - 286
At their January 15, 1991 meeting, the City Council expressed some concerns
related to this minor subdivision proposal, especially. related to the drainage ditch
which crosses through Parcel 3. The project will again be before the Council at
their February 5,1991 meeting which has enabled the applicant and City staff an
opportunity to evaluate those areas of concern and develop appropriate solutions.
Background
As an introductory comment, this property consists of two existing parcels totalling
nearly 30,000 square feet and presently includes two small residences and a
detached garage. This project will create one additional parcel and, at total
buildout, will add one single family residence. The site is an infill project which is
zoned Single Family Residential and designated Single Family on the General
Plan. It is located in the interior of the Caudill/Lawton/Mitchell block in an area
where lot sizes range from 4800-7800 square feet. Homes in the neighborhood
are older, well-maintained, moderate sized residences with a mix of owner
occupied and rental unit housing (Assessor's map attached).
Project Benfits
The approval of this project providessubstantial neighborhood benefits and
amenities. Conditions of approval include:
(1) Improvement of a fire hydrant on the Lawton Street frontage.
(2) It will provide four off-street parking spaces in the 'flag' area of Lot 1.
(3) Evaluate and analyze the drainage ditch and neighborhood drainage
system, make appropriate improvements and provide a maintenance
easement over the drainage improvements on Parcel 3.
(4) Establish easements on the existing City sewer main and propose sewer
main which will cross through the property.
(5) Development will minimize brush fire hazard on the site by providing
landscaped improvements, future residences are to be equipped with fire
sprinklers.
(6) Provide 20' wide improved legal access to all parcels.
(7) Future residences must be reviewed by the ARC, which will insure
neighborhood compatiblity related to character, scale, and so on.
1009 Morro Street.Suite 206
San Luis Obispo.TA 93401
805 543.OS65
Project Alternative
If the project is denied, an alternative to a three lot parcel map would be a lot line
adjustment between the two existing lots and providing a private easement to serve
the rear parcel. This would result in two 15,000 square foot single family
residential parcels in an area containing lots nearly a third of that size. This
certainly is not an efficient use of land and is contrary to all adopted planning and
City objectives. Further, since Lot Line Adjustments cannot be conditioned, all of
the benefits to the neighborhood, as outlined above, would be lost.
Drainage System
The drainage ditch which crosses Parcel 3 receives water from 18" and 30" culverts
from Witchell Street, travels across this parcel and the adjacent lot, then enters
another culvert which connects into the City's storm drain system on Caudill Street.
This ditch is not classified as a wetland, stream, or creek and contains no
significant plant or wildlife species.
The existing drainage ditch will be slightly realigned and a culvert installated
through the parcel, which is in accordance with present City Engineering standards
and will also help to complete the storm drainage system for the area. An energy
dissipator or water velocity reduction device will be constructed at the termination
of the culvert so that no downstream erosion will result from the more efficient
drainage pipe. The culvert and energy dissipator notes have been shown on the
revised tentative map (attached).
The engineering evaluation realated to the additional amount of water generated
from the site at total build-out indicates that the property will contribute less than .23
of one percent to the present water flowing in the drainage ditch. This amount of
additional water is considered insignificant, so no downstream or off-site drainage
improvements are necessary or planned (engineering letter attached).
Sewer Main & Laterals
Final map improvement plans will include a detailed evaluation on the sewer
laterals serving the proposed parcels. The precise alignment and location will be
determined at that time and constructed with the final map improvements. The
laterals will be designed and built in accordance with City Engineering standard
specifications.
Should the City of San Luis update the time schedule for replacement and/or
relocation of the existing sewer main crossing the property at the 'flag' portion of
Parcel 1, it is agreeable that a subsequent easement be provide to accomodate
that new main provided that it does not interfer with future residential siting on
these lots or with the final map construction improvements for this project.
Grading Plan/100 Year Flood Plain
Grading plans and calculations will be submitted prior to the filing of the Final Map
indicating that finished floor elevations on the future residences are above 100
year flood elevations should flooding occur from a Mitchell Street overflow.
We feel that this project not only meets all City standards and objectives, but makes
good land use sense. With the Tentative Map conditions and added comments
herein, the approval of the project as proposed will be an asset to the
neighborhood and the City of San Luis Obispo. Please don't hesitate to contact me
should you have any questions on any of this material or if you require any
additional information.
Sincerely,
ee Boud
Joseph Boud & Associates
Attachments
cc: SLO City Council Members
Jerry Kinney, SLO City Engineer
William R. Dyer
Civil Engineering - Land Surveying 446 Pajaro Lane,
Nipomo, CA 93444
(805) 929-1959
January 77. 1991
Joseoh Boud & Associates
1(7:x9 Morro St. Suite 206
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
),it lt'r.t.: f'.)r r'nl M..)n qn 90-:'t l,`,: 2`.i'..' P. 2!W-4L:+l.,ton 5t. £,1.0
Clear Joe:
After- a Rs-etinn with Jerry Kinnev of the City Engineering Department on
Jarn.iar v 18. I have the following coTv-cants to make ree_ardina_ the proposed
develooment.
Accordinn to (inure= c;enerated by Mr. Kinnev. tt-,e development could contribute
an additional 0. 1 N cfs to an existing ditch dischar•oe of 57 cfs for a 0.2*/
incr•ea=_e. This incrFa=_e is within of error of the caloilations
a-: 1. t.f:�•:'Gf "_ . ;. 1Ca':t. r O� ri/ r,1-cncsal to :a-i. I would try to
A reviE., n, ;he g=rprai area in c;,=st.tcn shC,•,s that the historical treatment
a+= the (!itch hay- t�een to install cul.";-7r-t.=_. Act-.) -dinoly. it would seem
ar,nrnnriatg- f(,r vcxir- pro-Ject to cl : the san.- and this would maximize the usable
area nn P2r F:+! Mr. F'inne`.- to t--e in aero-'rent with this approach.
It- daps n ,t =Fpm to me that the chanrr=l could to considered to be other than a
dralnarie? dit.c.h ,s only annear•s t1 car•ry l•:n tcr- In a storm.
Mr. F.Ann: e :nt-Esc_ed concern as to (:..-then Or not the project could get
C:rAvt r' ri^., rr: t �-•,-' P.:'istinn Cit.:' =rr:e-_r lirR_=_ on the site. A re:'iet•, of the
Citv's set•je!- atlas in conjunction with the t000 shown on your tentative mao
indicat:.-= t.hat. "he Parcels could is =:2r•`;ed by r;ravity to the line which
cross;.----.c_ trip site in a north/south direction ov laterals runnina as shown on
the terttati`.-e mar,. This a=_surnes that the line between the manhole at the
southwest Ccrrki of Parcel 1 and the: manhole in Caudill is on a straiaht
oradr,. Sorrr-- oradinn of the drivet•-av in front of Parcel 3 may be necessary to
oet enc>'inh cover over the lateral and sa-s minor or•adino of Parcel 3 may be
necer:=arv. Thoge Details can s a,cr ed cot dirino the aradine design for the
I hr•ne rh70- t.hi� lr=t.t:er- nr-o. tree- `: cr a,: 7.h =_nr,p u.=.eftrl inform,-,tion for vcxtr
eva ll'7ti .Ir.-,. f lr;n=r (-c':11 if %;xt h7 .'= A•Y:' cur=_tinns.
r1( 4-1
/-/7
_ Q �
�z
W W K
-yL T
N
F _ d - a OWI
x a1 € x
uj
TNII a
(. J
nnoav3 W
city of San 1WS OBISpo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION fi`/ ! /S'Nf V ,llir/ � 11 Lh�VJT� APPLICATION NO. �/�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT ✓�11,%VA, ylf h Yl
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED _ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY r i• DATE—
921
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION DATE
oum%, aahnrw lma"aa-�
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
ir. r
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .. ... ....... ..... . .. .. .. .. ...... . . ...... .. .. . . . ... . \N�• N�
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH....... . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. FNr-
C. LAND USE . ... . .. . ... . . .. . .... . .. ...... .. ..... . . .. .... . . ... . .. .. . ...... ... .... .. .
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION . ......... . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .
E. PUBLIC SERVICES . . ... ...... . . . .. .. ... ...... .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. ... . . .. . . . ..
r ,-
F. UTILITIES . . . . ... .... . . .... . . . r•i N r- '
. . ... ... .......... . .... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .
G. NOISE LEVELS . . .. . . . .... ....... . ....... ....... .... .. . ... .... . . . . . ....... . . . . . .. .
NI
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS V
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS. . .... .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .. . .. . .. .. . .. . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . .... . . .. .
K. PLANT LIFE . . .. . .. ... . ........ E 111,Iii
... ... ...... . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ..... ... . . . , 4
L. ANIMAL LIFE. . . .. . . .. .. .... ... . .. . . .......... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . ...
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL . . .. .. .. .. . .... . . . . 1 y�i
. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . ... . . .
N. AESTHETIC . . .... . . . .. . .. .... . ....... ...... . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE . .. ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P. OTHER ... . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . .. ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d. �V'. .
Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT / seas
ER 37-90
Page 1
I. Description of the Project and Environmental Setting
The project involves a deep lot subdivision in an R-1 neighborhood.
It would divide two existing parcels into three parcels and meets
all the minimum standards for a deep lot subdivision. The project
requires the demolition of two wood frame houses and the removal
of two apricot trees.
The site is currently developed with the two houses noted above.
The site is relatively flat, sloping slightly to the northeast. A
natural drainage channel bisects parcel three at the eastern end
of the proposed subdivision.
There is no significant vegetation on site.
II. Potential Impact Review
F. Utilities
At present, the City is experiencing a critical water shortage,
and has adopted the Water Allocation Regulations to ensure that
increased water use by new development and land use changes does
not jeopardize adequate water service to current and new customers.
Section 17 .89.030 of the regulations states that a water allocation
shall be required to: "obtain a connection to the city water system
for a structure or facility not previously connected; change the
use of land or buildings, whether or not a construction permit is
also required; obtain a construction permit. "
Housing proposed as a result of this subdivision will be required
to obtain a water allocation. To receive an allocation, applicants
will have to provide water offsets through retrofitting the
plumbing of existing structures to save at least twice as much
water annually as the projected demand.
Significant Impact: None. Compliance with the provisions of the
Water Allocation Regulations are adequate to mitigate the effects
of increased water demand.
RECEIVEU
DEC 17WU
DECEMBER. 14, 1990
Gty of San Luu Uospo
KRISTIN E. TODD AND THOMAS H . SCOPIN Community DevllOpmen'
2646 LAWTON, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. 93401
TO: CITY OF SLO DIRECTOR'S SUBDIVISION HEARING
RE: FILE NO. MS90-286
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
WE ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS AT 2646 LAWTON , THE LOT ADJACENT
TO THE FLAG END OF PROPOSED PARCEL 1 . THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
CALLS FOR A DRIVEWAY TO BE CREATED ALONG THE NORTH, END OF
THE PROPERTY ALONG SIDE OF OUR HOME. THIS DRIVE WOULD
ACCOMODATE ACCESS TO THREE PROPOSED HOMES TO BE BUILT. WE
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND WISH TO ENSURE THE
FOLLOWING ISSUES BE RESOLVED:
1 . DISCREET SIGNS SHOULD BE POSTED NOTING THAT THIS IS A
PRIVATE DRIVE ONLY.
2. PARKING ALONG THIS DRIVE MUST BE RESTRICTED TO THE OWNERS
AND GUESTS OF THE NEW HOMES ONLY.
g, ,PAR j.NG SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IN PARALLEL TO THE
DRIVE AND AS CLOSE TO PARCEL 1 AS POSSIBLE. SIGNS SHOULD BE
POSTED AND ENFORCEMENT ALLOWED TO PREVENT USE OF THIS AREA
BY OVER FLOW FROM OTHER LAWTON ST. PARKING.
b. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL A CONCRETE/PERMANENT
PARKING LOT BE ESTABLISHED AND ANY OTHER PARKING ARRANGEMENT
SHOULD BE AS FAR AWAY FROM THE HOME ON 2646 LAWTON PROPERTY
AS POSSIBLE.
c . TO PREVENT CONFUSION, A NEW CURB SHOULD BE INSTALLED
ACROSS THE CURRENTLY EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON LAWTON ST. AND THE
ONLY VEHICLE ENTRANCE TO THE AREA SHOULD BE THROUGH THE NEW
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ALONG THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY. (SEE
ALSO LANDSCAPING BELOW) . LEGITIMATE PARKERS CAN THEN TURN
OFF THE DRIVE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD TO PARK PARALLEL.
a. NEW HOME OWNERS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO PARK
VEHICLES IN FRONT OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY AND ONLY USE THE
EXCESS AREA WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. A GUARANTEE OF SOME
TYPE IS REQUESTED THAT VEHICLES WILL NOT BE STORED IN THIS
AREA .
e .SHOULD THE ABOVE REQUESTS BE REJECTED, THEN A SOUND,
LIGHT AND SIGHT BARRIER SHOULD BE INSTALLED WHICH PROTECTS
THE RESIDENTS OF 2646 LAWTON FROM THE NUISANCES CAUSED BY
PARKING VEHICLES.
UZi -thVh�ift�'! =;HALL BE C�;iJP,TIBLE Wim,. � 'Fir' E:;T=�Tltyi�
O(":E a. F. Ii'; 'I ,E EVENT THAT THESr td— Ol�i�� r P:E TWO STORY
�sCl i L GS. WE .REOUEST THAT WE,T00. BE GRANTED . !N WRITING
Aii"L� Ifa PEF'.PrTiJIT`L', TrE RIi�HT TO hUILD P, T'w- oIi ADDITION
OR STRUCTURE ON OUR. HOME AT 2646 LAWTON . IF, THESE
STRUCTURES ARE PRESENTED AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN THREE ONE
FAMILY STRUCTURES. WE WILL OBJECT MOST STRENUOUSLY.
4. TREES AND LANDSCAPE. THE NEW DRIVE IS APPROXIMATELY 300
Fn ND WE REQUEST THAT, ALTHOUGH IT IS A DRIVE NOT A
STREET, THAT THE SAME TREE TO 35 FT. OF STREET RATIO BE
REQUIRED ALONG THIS DRIVE. THE DEAD ZONE AREA AS VIEWED
FROM LAWTON ST. , CREATED BETWEEN THE .NEW DRIVE AND THE
PROPERTY ON 2646 LAWTON, NEEDS TO BE LANDSCAPED IN SOME WAY
COMENSURATE WITH BOTH DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND THE EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS AREA MUST BE CARE R . TREES, HEDGES
OR SOME FORM O-LA=APE SCREEN IS SUGGESTED AS A VIABLE
SOLUTION. AGAIN, WE EMPHASIZE THAT THIS NOT BE ALLOWED TO
REMAIN AN SECONDARY ACCESS TO THE REAR PROPERTIES. (SEE
PARKING ABOVE) .
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION IN THESE MATTERS.
IT IS OUR PLAN TO BE PRESENT AT YOUR HEARING ON 12/21/1990 ,
BUT IF NOT, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS LETTER IN OUR ABSENCE .
RECEfVEQ
.GEC � 9 �ggp
Gtr of San Ws uur
Communi "
ty DCveiOpmerr
24010 Ranchito del Rio Court
Salinas, CA 93908
December 17, 1990
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
ATTENTION: Whitney McIlvaine
Dear Ms McIlvaine :
I 'm writing this letter on behalf of my mother Mrs .
rsen of 51.6 MitchZ11_J&,i_U . She would like to
empress upon the Community Development Department her deep
concerns on the proposed minor subdivision No. 90-286 .
The following are items to be included in the public
record :
- water conservation
- most important
- view obstruction
- the beautiful view of the hills of San Luis
Obispo would be lost forever
- noise pollution
recordings should be made for this possible
echo zone
- parking congestion
- alleged parking on Lawton and next to
existing home already indicates space two
small to allow for normal front-of-house
parking spaces
One .assumes the Community Development Department will
consider those whose homes will be affected by the
proposal . My mother has been in her home since the day
Pearl Harbor was bombed . To this date she has enjoyed her
backyard . Beyond has been an open space and should remain
SO.
very truly yours,
Judith Ann Collins
for Dorothy L. Petersen (homeowner )
P . S . if building is allowed ' to happen, negotiations for
the following should be made with the developer :
- a buffer zone (small tress and/or shrubs )
- building block fencing completely surrounding the
area
some discrepancy have been noted :
- Letters to surrounding homeowners date hearing for
December 21; posted public hearing date is
December 17 (called to attention of Community
Development Department December 14 )
- Map of No. 90-286 is incorrectly labeled
- Mitchell Drive is listed as Caudill
2 -
RECEIVEU
DEC 2CWU
CRY of San Luis Uoupo
Community Oevelopmen-
MEMO TO: Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street yo3
San Luis Obispo, CA 939�0-8100
ATTENTION: Whitney McIlvaine
FROM: Judith Ann Collins
SUBJECT: Map No. 90-286
DATE: December 17, 1990
Addition to letter of December 17, 1990 from Judith Ann
Collins writing for mother Dorothy L. Petersen for minor
subdivision Map No. 90-286
area highlighted
P.S . If building is allowed to happen, negotiations for
the following should be made with the developer :
- only single story houses (other type one may
posathle allege other than ainglP families)
- a buffer zone (small tress and/or shrubs )
- building block fencing completely surrounding the
area
Some discrepancy have been noted:
- Letters to surrounding homeowners date hearing for
December 21; posted public hearing date is
December 17 (called to attention of Community
Development Department December 19 )
- Map of No. 90-286 is incorrectly labeled
Mitchell Drive is listed as Caudill
- 2 -
J �
MEL.AG AGENDA
DATE al-TIL ITEM #
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council members
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director 0
DATE: February 5, 1991
SUBJECT: Wetlands Definition
The Mayor and other Council members have requested information on
the definition of what constitutes "wetlands" for purposes of
environmental determination in the vicinity of San Luis Obispo. In
response to those requests, attached is a copy of a memo done by
this department several months ago which examines the same subject.
Since this question has currently arisen in the context of an
application under review, MS 90-286, which has a drainage swale
crossing the included property, I have also provided for your
reference a copy of the administrative policy concerning creek
setbacks.
EJ�AdiM
LC'J �
Q ot
O �DIX
17nWYEN Q PWDm
LL77 am/owa ❑ PO=GL
❑ Mama. ❑ RBC DIR
❑ C READ F7LE ❑�l�,Dom,
RECEIVED
FEB S 1991
6i-tY 6Lt:FiK
SAN LUIS OBISPa.CA
��IIl�iillll�lilillNlll�� �IIIIIIIIIII��
cityo sin ��s OBISPO�
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
TO: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeanette Di Leo, Long Range Planner
DATE: September 11, 1990
RE: Wetland Definition
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a wetland
definition and classification system: This classification has
become the national standard for identifying and classifying
wetlands. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife definition,
there are key attributes which define wetlands. One of these key
attributes is the existence of wetland vegetation. For example,
the drainage corridor considered by the City Council on September
4, 1990 (as part of the review of 1815 Sidney Street, Minor
Subdivision 90-127) would be considered a wetland area due to the
wetland vegetation along this corridor (e.g. , willows) .
For more information regarding how wetlands are defined* I have
attached the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's definition and some
further clarifications.
Page 2
Attachment - Wetland Definition
The following is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service's definition:
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial
and aquatic systems where the water table is usually
at or near the surface or the land is covered by
shallow water. For purposes of definition, wetlands
must have one or more of the following three
attributes: 1) at least periodically, the land
supports predominantly hydrophytes; 2) the substrate
is predominately undrained hydric soil; and 3) the
substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or
covered by shallow water at some time during the
growing season of each year.1
There are three key attributes to this definition: wetland
vegetation (hydrophytes) ; hydrology (the degree of flooding or soil
saturation) ; and hydric soils (periodically flooded and/or
saturated soils) . All areas considered wetlands must have enough
water at some time during the growing season to support plants and
animals adapted for life in water or saturated soils. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a list of plants occurring
in the nation's wetlands, willows . are included as wetland
vegetation. ,
For further.clarification, wetland areas need not be saturated year
round. Most plant roots must have access to free oxygen for
respiration and growth; flooding during the growing season presents
problems for the growth and survival of most plants. In a wetland
situation, plants must be adapted to cope with these stressful
conditions. If flooding occurs only in the winter when the plants
are dormant, there is little or no effect on them. It is important
to note that permanently flooded deepwater areas are not defined
as wetlands . by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Instead these water
bodies (generally deeper than 6.6 feet) are defined as deepwater
habitats, since water and not air is the principal medium in which
dominant organisms must live.
1 Burke, David, et al. , Protecting Nontidal Wetlands, American
Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 1988.
lr
ADMINISTRATIVE CREEK POLICY
Note: the following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be departed from when
the planner, with the Director's concurrence, judges that the intent can be met through
alternative approaches. They do not replace, but are in addition to, other existing
policies, standards and ordinances.
1. When reviewing any development proposal, all unlined, open drainage channels should
be evaluated as potential sensitive habitat areas (ie: riparian corridors to be preserved
or enhanced).
In general, such channels should not be culverted, filled or encroached into.
Exceptions could include:
a. Minor drainage channels (guideline: less than three feet across);
b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tie together lined
or culverted drains;
c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or circulation,
reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy.
'n all cases, the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted
;fore a channel is determined not to be a sensitive habitat area; if there is any
significant doubt, the Department of Fish and Game should be consulted, too.
2. New structures, including parking lots, should generally be set back at least 20 feet
from the top of bank. 'Top of bank' means the physical top of bank (ie: where the more
steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the terrain not cut by the water
flow). If the bank is terraced, the highest step is the top of bank, not any
intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of bank will not be apparent; the Director,
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted to help determine a
reasonable line, considering such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the
creek, the extent of riparian vegetation and the 100-year flood line.)
A. Greater setbacks may be required if
1, significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the 20-foot line;
2. a setback line which is farther from the bank has been adopted or proposed by
Public Works;
3. the 100-year flood plain extends beyond the 20-foot line.
B. Lesser setbacks may be acceptable if:
1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a significant riparian corridor
or likely to be part of the urban trails system;
i .
Draft Creek Policy
Page 2
2. the lot is small, and reasonable development without some exception is
impossible;
3. the lot is a small infill site where a clear pattern of lesser setbacks has
been established on both sides of the lot along the creek.
Note: in determining if a channel is minor or if a riparian corridor is significant,
the staff should consider variables such as size, area drained, volume/capacity,
topography, context (urbanized or open), soils and hydrology, relation to other creek
stretches and the creek system generally, existing vegetation and potential for
restoration.
In determining what is 'reasonable development', the staff should consider comparable
uses on similar-sized lots.in the area as well as the practicalness and feasibility
of smaller-than-comparable projects.
In all such cases where setbacks are to be reduced or increased, the Director and
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted.
3. If the site is considered by the Long-range Planner to be a possible link in the
urban trails system, then an offer of dedication for public access should be required as
a condition of any discretionary permit.
4. All areas in the setback should be dedicated in an open space easement as a condition
of approval of any discretionary permit.
5. If the corridor has been degraded, a restoration program may be required as a
condition of approval for any discretionary permit.
6. Sites with creeks are considered to be 'sensitive sites' for architectural review
purposes; projects which would not otherwise need architectural review should be taken
in as minor and incidental and may be approved if the guidelines above are met; if they
arc not met, then the project should be referred to the ARC with a recommendation that
the guidelines be followed.