Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/03/1991, 1 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CREATING TWO LOTS FROM ONE LOT, INCLUDING EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BEYOND THE END OF THE CITY-MAINTAINED PORTION OF SERRANO HEIGHTS DRIVE IN THE NORTHWESTERN PA
I�l h�ivillllhll��'`�IIlIN city of San A OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MS 90-037 Page 3 I I CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION If the council supported approval of the parcel map without street installation, then it would need to modify the initial study as discussed in the previous section. If the council supported approval of the map with street installation, then it would need to continue action, to allow for additional information to be submitted and additional environmental review to be conducted as previously discussed, with the agreement of the subdivider. BACKGROUND Situation The subdivider is proposing to divide an existing 22,500 square-foot lot into two parcels. Parcel A would contain 15,187 .5 square feet and Parcel B would contain 7,312.5 square feet. Data Summary Address: 175 Serrano Heights Drive Subdivider: Homer Brown Representative: Steve Frank Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration of environmental impact with mitigation was granted by the Director on February 14, 1991. Project Action Deadline: April 3, 1991 Site Description The site is located beyond the end of the city-maintained portion of ! Serrano Heights Drive. Currently access to the site is derived via a 10- j foot wide private driveway that extends beyond the city street and serves several other houses as well. The driveway is located within the 60- foot wide undedicated Serrano Heights Drive extension (owned by several property owners) and continues within a 20-foot wide private access easement between the subject site and the Pearson property (see vicinity map and parcel map for clarification of access situation) . A house exists on proposed Parcel A. It is currently served by a septic tank. The average cross slope of the site is between 14% and 16%. Several mature trees exist on both of the proposed parcels. Surrounding land uses consist of other houses and open space. -3 �������ililillllllflP° 9IIIII� city of San t. 3 OBISpo MaGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MS 90-037 Page 4 I EVALUATION I The most significant issues associated with creating another building j site at this location are providing adequate access and utilities. These issues, as well as other aspects of the proposed subdivision, are discussed in the following paragraphs: 1. Density: I I The site is located in the R-1 zone. The maximum allowed density for R- 1 sites with slopes under 15% is 7 dwelling units per net acre. The subject site has a gross area of 22 , 500 square feet. Proposed Parcel A has an average cross slope of about 14% and the average cross slope for proposed Parcel B is about 15%. Therefore, the site would be eligible for the maximum allowed R-1 density of 7 dwelling units per net acre. Deducting from the gross site area the 10-foot wide by 200-feet long strip at the south end of the site which serves as an access easement, the net site area would be 20,500 square feet. The applicant's proposal to create two lots at this location with net areas of 13,837.5 square feet (Parcel A) and 6, 662.5 square feet (Parcel B) is consistent with allowed density standards. If the council denies the tentative parcel map, a second house could not be constructed on the property and separately sold. The site is large enough (greater than 12,446 square feet) to have two dwelling units on the undivided property through approval of an administrative use permit (Section 17.22 .010. , Table 9, Footnote 2) . However, given access issues and other development concerns, it is unlikely that a use permit would be approved. 2. sewer Service: I With division of the site, the subdivider is proposing to extend the sewer line in existing easements to serve Parcels A and B, as well as i other houses located along the easement not yet hooked up to city sewer. The existing septic tank for the house located on proposed Parcel B would be removed with installation of the sewer line extension. Municipal Code Section 16.32 .050 J. 1.. of the Subdivision Regulations requires new lots developed in the city to be connected to the city's sewer system. Consistent with this requirement, staff has included in the attached resolution of approval a condition that the public sewer main in Serrano Heights Drive be extended to serve the proposed parcels. city of San OBIspo amwe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MS 90-037 Page 5 3. Compatibility Issues: i The attached initial study concludes that the proposed parcels are sensitive sites because of their location in a developed neighborhood and given compatibility issues associated with new development ...(view preservation, potential overlook issues and tree protection) . A mitigation measure in the attached initial study and a condition of the attached resolution of approval indicates that architectural review is required for any new development on either parcel. 4. Access (Subdivision Regulations Exception Needed) : i a. Existing Conditions: The single most significant issue associated with the proposed lot i split is access. The proposed lots do not have frontage on a public street and access to them would be provided by a private driveway. What makes access even a greater issue at this location is the fact that the developed portion of Serrano Heights Drive (60.zfoot wide easement, 34-foot wide paved street section) ends about 400,-lfeet away from the project site. Seven homes, including the house on Parcel A of the project;-site, utilize the existing 10-foot wide paved driveway in the undedicated and unimproved portion of the planned extension of Serrano Heights Drive for access. The current city's Parking and Driveway. Standards i indicate that no more than four residential units are allowed -to be served by a common driveway unless an exception is granted by the Community Development Director. The existing nonconfor" �g access situation is the result of the homes being built and annexed to the city prior to current subdivision and parking and driveway_ standards being in place. b. Environmental Analysis: The volume of additional traffic that construction of a- house on Parcel B would generate would be a relatively minor addition to a typical residential local street. However, the proposed lots are not located on a typical street and the attached initial study.. indicates i that additional traffic could result in significant environmental impacts given the already nonconforming access to the site and l vicinity (the undeveloped street and common driveways) . ; The nonconforming access also directly affects fire service concerns (inadequate access) and proposed mitigation measures (fire lane improvements and sprinklers) . l �S 111 city of San L � OBISPO AGENDA REPORT OL MS 90-037 Page 6 I To mitigate potential environmental impacts, the attached initial study contains a mitigation measure requiring that the subdivider: provide off.-site dedication to allow for full improvement of Serrano; Heights .Drive. The street must be extended from the end of Serrano! Drive across 163 and 167 Serrano Heights Drive (Parcels APN 52-061-' i34 and APN.52-061-24) . To conform to the existing improvements in the! public section of the street, improvements shall include 6-foot: integral sidewalk, construction of the full width street (34-foot wide; paved section) , street lighting, fire hydrants and any other related) improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The mitigation measure also indicates that the council may require ai cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround at the end of Serrano Heights) Drive. It is not known whether those property owners that have some right of ownership in the Serrano Heights Drive easement or any other required off-site easements are willing to dedicate the same for development; of the street to city standards. The subdivider must pay for all: costs associated with the off-site property acquisitions, namely the: undedicated land within the access easement needed to build the road. Waiver of any portions of the noted standard city subdivision! improvement requirements (SLO Municipal Code Section 16.36.250) ; involves approval by the City Council. In addition to the requirement to improve Serrano Heights Drive, the) city would also require with map approval that the common driveway from the. improved street to serve the proposed parcels be a 20-foot' wide, all-weather access road. Beyond the potential traffic and circulation environmental impacts ; associated with the project itself are the cumulative traffic impactsi associated with the further subdivision and buildout of other nearby) parcels. Based on inquiries from neighbors about the development) potential of their properties and the testimony offered at the; administrative public hearing, there is interest by property owners , of nearby parcels to similarly divide their properties and create! additional homesites. ; Based on the large size of nearby properties, there is the potential for at least five additional homesites to be created along the undeveloped portion of Serrano Heights Drive. Clearly, the additional vehicle trips that future development would add could not be satisfactorily handled by a 10-foot wide driveway only capable of accommodating one-way traffic. Therefore, staff's conclusion is that cumulative traffic impacts are significant and that waiver of street improvement requirements are not appropriate. (The preceding discussion of cumulative traffic impacts has been added to the initial study since the administrative hearing and is shown in italics. ) �����i�lili11111111I1uP1p11���1� MY of San L ,s OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MS 90-037 Page 7 c. Exception Needed: Even with full improvement of Serrano Heights Drive and the improved j common driveway, the subdivider also needs approval of an exception to the subdivision regulations to allow lots that do not have frontage on a street (Municipal Code Section 16.36. 160) . Staff's position is that it could only support granting the exception if the full street . improvements, as well as the improved common driveway were installed. The subdivider has indicated that he is opposed to installing full street improvements because of the difficulty of installation given existing development (see attached Subdivider's statement) . Ultimately, the city council will need to approve the frontage exception to enable the lot split according the findings discussed below. d. Analysis of Exception Request: In approving an exception to the subdivision regulations (Municipal Code Section 16. 36. 160) , the council needs to make the following four findings: 1. That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is j affected by such topographic conditions, that is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the. particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16, Subdivisions, of the SLO Municipal Code) ; and i jZ. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and 3 . That the modification .will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and 4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the city. I Staff does not feel that all four findings can be made, especially Finding # 4. In staff's opinion, granting of the exception to create lots without frontage on a public street could only be found consistent with the subdivision regulations if full street improvements were installed and the common driveway improved. Without compliance with these conditions, the proposal would be in direct conflict with the language contained in Section 16. 36. 150, Lots, General requirements, which states: �����i�Vl►IIIIiIII�i' ��II11 city o� san l 3 oaispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MS 90-037 Page 8 "Lots which are impractical for intended uses due to terrain, location � j of natural features, inadequate access, frontage, or buildable area, or- other physical limitations will not be approved. " j Conclusion: The proposal creates an inherent dilemma in that city requirements, primarily street improvements, that are needed to comply with city standards and justify exception requests, have the potential in themselves to create undesirable impacts to the neighborhood. In fact, staff had initially recommended approval of the map to the Hearing Officer. That recommendation for approval included all of the conditions ; j outlined in the initial study including required street improvements. However, the single greatest concern expressed by neighbors at the administrative public hearing was the installation of the street to city standards. i Based on the testimony of the neighbors, staff feels that street installation will be extremely disruptive to the neighborhood. Despite this, staff cannot recommend to the council approval of the requested exception to waive the street requirement because of its inconsistency with city subdivision regulations and the addition of more traffic to an already nonconforming access. For these reasons, staff would support the Hearing Officer's recommendation for denial because of the access issue ' and the inability to support requested exceptions. i Staff is also concerned that the approval of the parcel map without installation of standard city improvements would set an undesirable precedent for the neighborhood. Adjacent property owners have already approached staff expressing interest in similarly dividing their property if the subject request is approved. Approval of the request without street installation and denial of subsequent requests for similar parcel maps would constitute a grant of special privilege in staff's opinion. Additionally, one of lots adjacent to the site (Lot labelled "Fryer" on second sheet of large size map with Assessor's Parcel Number 52-061-24) is a legal lot of record and has been recently sold. The new property owner indicated at the administrative hearing that he planned on building a new house on this parcel. Development of this lot does not involve any city entitlements such as architectural review or a use permit which could be conditioned to require street improvements. Therefore, there is the potential for several other homesites to be created along the nonconforming access beyond the one homesite that the subject parcel map represents. Cumulatively, traffic impacts would be significant if all these homesites were created without development of the street to full city standards. .i 8 il��di�(dilllllj��liiuiu►► I city of San L .s OBISPO A�����I onne COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MS 90-037 Page 9 FISCAL IMPACTS The requested subdivision should not result in added costs to the city since the financing of all required improvements is the responsibility of the subdivider. ALTERNATIVES t 1. Approve the tentative parcel map including requested exceptions with recommended findings and conditions (Draft Resolution B) . This alternative would involve modifying the Transportation and Circulation section, and possibly the Public Services section, of the initial study to either determine that there is not a significant impact on the environment and that street installation is not ; necessary as a mitigation measure or to provide alternative mitigation to the identified impacts. In addition to the exceptions to the subdivision regulations previously discussed, the council would also need to approve an exception to the Parking and Driveway Standards to allow more than four houses to be served by a common driveway. The council could cite pre-existing conditions and development as a reason to support an exception. i 2 . Continue review to allow presentation of additional information to evaluate potential impacts associated with installation of a full width street and associated frontage improvements. . ! The council could continue consideration of the map with the agreement of the subdivider. The council is required by state law to take an i action on the parcel map at this meeting because of processing i deadlines unless the subdivider agrees to an extension of processing ! (one-time 90-day extension) . It is likely the subdivider would not agree to a continuance since he has requested a waiver of the street improvement requirement. Draft Resolution C is attached to illustrate findings and conditions that staff would expect to recommend with approval including the installation of the street. However, an action for approval under this scenario could not be taken at this meeting without completion of the additional environmental review. OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW The foremost concerns of other departments have been providing conforming access and extending city utilities to the site. The requirements of other departments have been incorporated into recommended conditions of parcel map approval or mitigation measures of the initial study. / - 9 city of San 1. - OBISPO 4i;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MS 90-037 Page 10 i RECOWUMATION Adopt the attached Draft Resolution A which denies the tentative parcel j map and requested exceptions based . on findings. Attached: Draft Resolutions Vicinity Map Reduced Copy of Parcel Map Subdivider's Statement Administrative Hearing Minutes of 3-1-91 Initial Study ER 03-90 Letters from Neighbors i Enclosed: Full Size Copies of Parcel Map d:subdv\90-37-CC.wp i I I i I DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION NO. (1991 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING THE TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 90-037 LOCATED AT 175 SERRANO HEIGHTS BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: SECTION 1. Findinas. That this council, after consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision No. 90-037, including requested exceptions, and the Community Development Director's recommendations, staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings: 1. The site is not physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone, given its steep slope and inadequate access. 2. The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage and cause neighborhood disruption since replacement of the existing non- conforming driveway access with a full-width street and related frontage improvements would result in tree removals, difficult driveway access and inadequate street yard setbacks, given existing development. 3 . The addition of another lot and potential building site at this location, given the already non-conforming nature of access to the site and the need for exceptions to city standards (lack of frontage on a public street) , is not appropriate and will significantly affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living in the neighborhood by adversely affecting neighborhood circulation. 4. Granting the requested exceptions to allow lots without frontage on a public street and waiver of required street and frontage improvements is not in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations. SECTION 2. Action. The tentative parcel map for Minor Subdivision No. 90-D37 and requested exceptions are hereby denied. Resolution No. (1991 Series) Page 2 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. Mayor Ron Dunin ATTEST: City Clerk Pam Voges APPROVED: ity Adm'nistrative Officer City rney Community Develo m nt Director 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. 90-037 LOCATED AT 175 SERRANO HEIGHTS 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. 90-037, 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 subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. An exception to the Parking and Driveway Standards that no more than four residential units be served by a common driveway is hereby granted because pre-existing development and condtions constitute special circumstances that warrant this exception. 6. The proposed tentative map is hereby granted a negative declaration of environmental impact based on the mitigation measures included in Initial Study ER 03-90 being incorporated into the project and including any amendments made by the City Council on April 2, 1991. SECTION 2. Exceptions. Exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations (Municipal Code Section 16.36. 160) to allow lots 'that l -i3 Resolution No. (1991 Series) Page 2 do not have frontage on a street and waive the requirement for street improvements to Serrano Heights Drive are hereby granted, based on the following findings: 1. That the property to be divided is of such size, shape and is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in this particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16, Subdivisions, of the SLO Municipal Code) ; and 2. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations through provision of improved street access is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and 3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity with installation of the street and driveway requirements detailed in Conditions 1. and 2. of tentative map approval; and 4. That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the city. SECTION 3 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 90-037 be subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall install a 20-foot wide, all-weather, fire access road from the improved street to the proposed parcels, as well- as install an approved automatic residential fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13-D) in any new home built on Parcels A or B. 2. The subdivider shall extend the public sewer main in Serrano Heights Drive to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department and City Engineer. 3. The applicant shall submit a soils and geology report along with plans to develop the site. The recommendations contained in the soils report regarding site preparation, foundation systems, retaining walls and drainage shall be followed. Resolution No. (1991 Series) Page 3 - 4. Both lots are hereby declared sensitive sites which require minor or incidental architectural review prior to submittal of plans for building permits for any new significant buildings on the site. Architectural review. of new development shall focus on view preservation, potential overlook issues and tree protection. A note shall be placed on the map indicating the architectural review requirement. SECTION 4. Code Requirements. Standard requirements of various codes, ordinances, and policies of the City of San Luis Obispo, include but are not limited. to the following: 1.. The subdivider shall pay water acreage and sewer fees as determined by the City Engineer. 2 . The subdivider shall provide individual utility services to each parcel and any off-site easements as necessary. 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. Mayor Ron Dunin •ATTEST: City Clerk, Pam Voges Resolution No. (1991 Series) Page 4 APPROVED: ity Adm nistrative Officer C7 n .1/1'1G�1 � • L'.(�.y,BMn �1 �1 ti1/�. i =/�f?c;,9i,,,� City Attorney ao �. Community Developm4it Director 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. 90-037 LOCATED AT 175 SERRANO HEIGHTS 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. 90-037, 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 subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision. 5. The proposed tentative map is hereby granted a negative declaration of environmental impact based on the mitigation measures included in Initial Study ER 03-90 being incorporated into the project. SECTION 2. Exceptions. Exception to allow lots that do not have frontage on a street is hereby granted, based on the following findings: 1-17 Resolution No. (1991 Series) Page 2 1. That the property to be divided is of such size, shape, and is affected by such topographic conditions, that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in this particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title (Title 16, Subdivisions, of the SLO Municipal Code) ; and 2. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations through provision of improved street access is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and 3. That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity with installation of the street and driveway requirements detailed in Conditions 1. and 2 . of tentative map approval; and 4 . That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regiilations, and is consistent with the general plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the city. SECTION 3 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 90-037 be subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivider will be required to provide off-site dedication to allow for full improvement of Serrano Heights Drive. The street must be extended from the end of Serrano Drive across Parcels APN 52-061-34 and APN 52-061-24. Improvements shall include 6-foot integral sidewalk, construction of the full width street, street lighting, fire hydrants and any other related improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The .City Council may require a cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround at the end of Serrano Heights Drive. The subdivider must pay for all costs associated with the off- site property acquisitions. 2. The applicant shall install a 20-foot wide, all-weather, fire access road from the improved street to the proposed parcels, as well as install an approved automatic residential fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13-D) in any new home built on Parcels A or B. 3. The subdivider shall extend the public sewer main in Serrano Heights Drive to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department and City Engineer. Resolution No. (1991 Series) Page 3 4 . The applicant shall submit a soils and geology report along with plans to develop the site. The recommendations contained in the soils report regarding site preparation, foundation systems, retaining walls and drainage shall be followed. 5. Both lots are hereby declared sensitive sites which require minor or incidental architectural review prior to submittal of plans for building permits for any new significant buildings on the site. Architectural review of new development shall focus on view preservation, potential overlook issues and tree protection. A note shall be placed on the map indicating the architectural review requirement. SECTION 4. Code Requirements. Standard requirements of various codes, ordinances, and policies of the City of San Luis Obispo, include but are not limited to the following: 1. The subdivider shall pay water acreage and sewer fees as determined by the City Engineer. 2. The subdivider shall provide individual utility services to each parcel and any off-site easements as necessary. 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. Mayor Ron Dunin Resolution No. (1991 Series) Page 4 ATTEST: City Clerk, Pam Voges APPROVED: ity A nistrative Officer n . . City A rney Community Developiaht Director w O OLl�f O00aia -4, --t moi fve.isM 7G�E LUNETA ��� j ss - - L. I O O O O 0 rrc 7+n+ ` fe» 0 0 tn * 0 R-1 , bPJ F CD M� �ti [x +-ea AS �¢x0O h� O O 0 1 rt5 R P.S H•a SAO S'° C''' 75 S R RA N O 3 Js � AM1C e7-:�ns O O Q ~ r y � O 0 � J 1 S� Q O O M cl O z T` ` W < = V� R-1ism �a 0 , R— w W 0 ' F Z �� P •'*ra �✓ ♦ a��y ' �e�c nEceFcrre� xJ ,� s roc iE::ox.•.q`.`...t::;;,:....5r e A e 1�1 FOwD y I . . ......»... .. a e ® � 0= O :,eiogo ir119T■'i7T1t771■T■7■7 1 i1Tlr1■1'■1■1■1■I■1■1'■1■I■1■1■7■1■1■1■1■I CITY UMITS CITY LIMITS VICINITY MAP MS 90-037 NORTH 175 SERRANO HEIGHTS DRIVE b r C u = a a t o to .t %.41 - � z mm Yc_ "pi in rMe M O m m a s Wm = m s c s o �i �, �• i r b u z n a I •I m O c ouE s J 0 is go .�• 0 R n i m- z " or. ' ! �� �' 8• m u r1t0 rma uO moa m am o 02 p m O •n .• l Y •� //, i J(r ' s • 1� • �•arra .r,riou ,� C I m N m Z C C -- LN3W3S/3 3011A ,09 --- 3AING S1HOGH ONVHUBS m 0 Z cn m p I m -V z z O —4 cn D — = = O0 p , m' < D o r 0 O m N N y a m O � zz cam 20 z z 0 0i r r ro a 1 r D p = c w n N = y i II III m DD -4 wmN es kl O L O D D u v n o v c w m m vgminvov m Z "C z rn O T m 6m g x x omxx 'o = c z C z G7 = = a s b, c Nm ~ z0mM 0 D m —1 z Po r w L o o ma � om92 O o y m m o co 0 O 21 N m z .ui a x a � zmoMo R1 fA a V do m m m 2 y " ; A '�" N D RI O X'i w a o '" '� a o ` c � � Ki 9 A m m 2 .. m a = r r z r O z Z = a [aNaMba m a m i a � a z J -zz TO: The Honorable Mayor , Members of the City Council and the Community Development Director of the City of San Luis Obispo VIA: William Brown , Applicant , Minor Subdivision SL 90-037 FROM: Steven Frank , Registered Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Overview of Proposed Minor Subdivision in Serrano Heights and . Request for Exception to Standard Subdivision Regulations We are proposing the subdivision of a 22 , 500 square foot property in Serrano . Heights into two parcels . The gross area of the lot with an existing residence would contain approximately 15 , 188 square feet while the vacant parcel would contain approximately 7 , 313 square feet of area . The site is uniformly sloping at about a 15% grade . The driveway to the site is 300 feet from the nearest City-maintained street along a 60 foot wide access easement which serves several residences . The property is zoned R-1 and no zoning change is requested . All utilities are available. A .waterline and fire hydrant has been recently extended through the easement . We are offering to extend the sewer mainline to serve all the properties along the easement . At the present time all but one of these residences are still on septic tanks . The proposed minor subdivision can meet all the conditions of the City ' s subdivision regulations with one exception : The proposed minor sub- division does not border a City-maintained roadway . An exception can be authorized by the City Council in accordance with Section 16 . 48 . 020 of the subdivision regulations .The existing roadway to the site is a relatively narrow paved asphalt road which adequately serves the few residences . Due to the relatively steep cross slope of the 60 foot wide easement , as well as the fact that three of the residences on the East side of the easement have been constructed with little or no frontyard setback, the 34 foot wide road section with curb , gutter and sidewalk which is normally required for this type of subdivision , would cause impractical and undesireable conditions for the existing residences . Significant .amounts of landscaping , trees & driveways would be disrupted and the garages would be rendered useless as a result of the grade separation between the elevations of the homes and the pro- posed roadway . Virtually all of the front yards of these residences would be eliminated . We consider this substantial modification to be detrimental to the safety and welfare of the adjacent landowners and by no means offsets the impact of the increase of passenger vehicular traffic generated by the addition of one single family home . On the contrary , we feel that the other improvements tied to this proposed minor subdivision , especially the sewer line extension , far outweigh the slight increase in traffic volume along this .roadway and we respectfully request that the road improvements along the 60 foot easement be waived as well as an offer of dedication of this easement to the public which might only be achieved through condemnation proceedings . 1 � Z3 DIRECTOR' S SUBDIVISION HEARING - MINUTES FRIDAY MARCH 1, 1991 175 Serrano Heights. Minor Subdivision No. MS 90-037; Consideration of a tentative parcel map for a deep lot subdivision creating two lots from one lot; R-1 zone; Homer Brown, subdivider. Pam Ricci presented the staff report, explaining the subdivider is proposing to divide an existing 22, 500 square foot lot into two parcels, at the end of the city-maintained portion of Serrano Heights. She noted the most significant issue for the lot split are providing adequate access and utilities to serve the new parcels. She further noted that the city-maintained portion of Serrano Heights ends about 400 feet from the proposed parcel, and access to this site, as well as several other lots, is provided by privately maintained driveways. As part of the review of this map, Ms. Ricci explained that the city would be requiring conditions that Serrano Heights be fully improved from the point where it now ends to serve the project sites, and there also be a 20-foot wide maintained common driveway from Serrano Heights to the two parcels. Another subdivision requirement would be that the subdivider extend the sewer line and existing easements to serve both lots. Staff recommended approval of the map, based on findings and subject to conditions which she outlined. Ms. Ricci also noted that an exception is needed with this map request to allow creation of parcels that do not have frontage on a public street. She explained that exceptions must be approved by the City Council. The public hearing was opened. Steven Frank, subdivider's representative, spoke in support of the request. He explained that in November 1989, he was contacted by the subdivider regarding this request. In December 1989, Mr. Frank prepared a topographic map, and subsequently spoke with city staff members concerning the possibility of the subdivision. On February 5, 1990, a tentative map was submitted to the city. Mr. Frank said he received a letter in March from city staff advising him that the application was incomplete, and listed a number of specific items they wanted addressed. Over the next six months, Mr. Frank stated there were several meetings with city staff and a letter to city staff addressing these problems. On September 13 , 1990, Mr. Frank said he received another letter from the city requesting additional information, in addition to again requesting the information previously requested. On November 4th, Mr. Frank said he submitted a final letter to the city, including the requested information that was required, as well as a letter of intent to the city stating the subdivider's position. He said that because of the 1 ,2, Page 2 length of time that has transpired and the amount of misinformation he felt he had received in the field, he wanted to ensure that everyone involved understood their position. On January 17, 1991, a application certification postcard was received by Mr. Frank indicating the application was complete, and that the city would go ahead with an environmental determination and public hearing. On February 27, 1991, a notice of mitigated environmental determination was received, and two hours prior -to this hearing, a staff report was received. Mr. Frank said he had. reviewed the staff report and agreed with its content. He felt that anyone could appreciate the environmental sensitivity of the site. He further noted that he asked for an exception to the road improvements because of the sensitivity of the 60-foot wide easement along Serrano Heights Drive. He felt that the placement of a 20-foot driveway and a full-width roadway along that area would significantly change the character of that area and would be a significant inconvenience and detriment to the well being of the people living along Serrano Heights Drive, specifically those people on the downhill (east) side of Serrano Heights Drive. He felt that minimal traffic mitigations would be a result of this subdivision, and does not warrant this type of massive reconstruction. He explained that the purpose is not due to cost; their concern is with maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Frank questioned the "full-width roadway" requirement, in addition to a 6-foot sidewalk, fire hydrants and street lighting along the Serrano Heights Drive easement. He asked for clarification of the assumed pavement width of the roadway. Ren Bruce responded that it would be consistent with the rest of the Serrano Heights Drive roadway width. Jerry Kenny thought it would be 34 feet curb to curb, but may be negotiable, and was under the impression that there is already a city plan for the improvements. Mr. Frank said he has a copy of the improvement plans for the area for a waterline that shows a future curb face, but is unclear on how wide the roadway is. Mr. Frank also had concerns with the environmental mitigation measures for the project. He asked what the purpose and impact is for signing the document containing the mitigation measures. He also asked how it ties into the exceptions requested. Pam Ricci responded that the purpose for signing the mitigation measures form is for the city to have on record that the applicant received a copy and is aware of staff's recommendation. She clarified that the mitigation measures have been approved by the Community Development Director, but the final action on the environmental document in this case would be the City Council, due Page 3 to the requested exceptions which are part of the map. If the council approves the requested exceptions, they would have to direct staff to modify the environmental document, such as eliminating the condition for the street improvement requirement. Steve Frank reiterated that signing the document means the applicant is aware of the mitigation measures, but does not necessarily agree with them. Mr. Bruce said this was correct. Mr. Frank mentioned item 2 which talks about a 25-foot wide all- weather fire access road along the private easement. He asked if "all-weather" means strictly asphaltic concrete, or if asphaltic concrete 10-feet wide with 5-foot aggregate base shoulders would be appropriate. Jerry Kenny responded that if access is needed, the structural integrity is required to carry fire trucks, if necessary, which might be difficult. Some type of eco-block might be acceptable if it could accommodate the weight. Ken Bruce stated that full width paving would be required to meet city standards. Homer Brown, subdivider, said the common interest is to leave the roadway the way it is, and to bring the sewer up and meet the other . requirements. He said there are two things he would like to have on record regarding the roadway. The staff report requires that the subdivider pay all fees and costs associated with off-site private property acquisition. He said he would take exception to that statement pertaining to the acquisition, but would not take exception to the improvements. He said he would like a reimbursement agreement from the city on any future property owners that would subdivide or build on properties along that street. He also noted that the staff report indicated that traffic would not be increased by more than 10 cars per day. Mr. Kenny said there are provisions for such reimbursement. Ken Bruce asked if. most of Serrano Heights is a private road? Steven Frank responded that there is a 60-foot easement which is strictly an access easement. He also noted the city of SLO also has a utility easement through that area. He said it is a private road with a private access easement, which comes off the end of Serrano Heights curve. Ken Bruce noted that while there is a 60-foot wide access easement at this time, there is only a very small portion of it which is paved, and that is the existing road. Having visited the site and the area, he noted there are many trees and the property is steeply sloping. To improve the accessway to the 60-foot standard, Mr. Bruce felt it would have a tremendous aesthetic impact on the area. l -z� Page 4 Mr. Bruce indicated for the record that a letter had been received by the city signed by three families in the area opposing the request. They opposed the subdivision because of increased traffic on a dead-end, unimproved, privately-maintained, narrow driveway. They felt a need for additional easements across private driveways or to extend sewer lines, and the probable need to build a two- story residence on the smaller lot that would be created, in addition to possible view and privacy interference with surrounding houses. This, being the first lot split in the area would set a precedent for others to do the same. This letter was signed by Harry Fryer and family, Ben Pearson and family, and R.W. Adamson and family, all on Serrano Heights, and the letter was dated January 10, 1990. Harry Fryer, 163 Serrano Heights, said there have been some alterations in the views of those who signed the above mentioned letter. He said he ' could no longer object to the additional traffic, and he feels he has no legal grounds for objecting to the two-story house on the smaller lot. He said his only objection would be if this road were made into a two-lane highway with curbs, gutters and sidewalks, because it would destroy the property in the area because of the steep access and drop-off. He asked for clarification as to the roadway exception. Mr. Frank explained the exception would be to not improve it, but to leave it as it is; no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. However, the sewer would be extended. The subdivider would pay the fees for the sewer, and as new development hooks into it, there would be a reimbursement. Mr. Fryer said he could support that. Ben Pearson, 189 Serrano Heights, said he would hate to see a 60- foot "freeway" and increased traffic. He noted that typically in September there are more people up on the mountain than a national park, and it is a real aggravation since there will be no parking available. He had concerns regarding his property should the three lots below him be developed. Helen Pearson, 189 Serrano Heights, said both Mr. Brown and she has had a very serious water pressure problem. Both meters were tested in 1986-87, and the maximum is 20 pounds of pressure. She said she has arranged with Mr. Brown to alternate water usage days,. for example, alternate laundry days. She hoped water pressure could be improved and not diminished. Mr. Pearson thought that the water line to the project must be enlarged. Helen Pearson said she spoke to the Water Yard and they said that if they gave her more water pressure, they would need to make everyone down the line put on pressure regulators. l -- Z7 Page 5 Jerry Kenny said the water line has been enlarged. He felt this issue should be considered by the Utilities Engineer. Typically, 20 pounds pressure is sub-minimum for most of the city which has been 40 pounds per square inch at the meter. He felt that her pressure should not be diminished by her neighbors washing machine if they are on separate lines, based on the new and improved size of the water line. Ken Bruce asked Mrs. Pearson if she supports the proposed subdivision. She responded that she doesn't like to see anything change, but she didn't feel she has the right to tell someone else what they can do with their property, and they would like to reserve the same right to make changes to their property. Mark Lowerison, 1174 Ella Street, said he is escrow to purchase the corner lot adjacent to the proposed subdivision. He said he has a strong interest in what happens to the adjacent property. He said he supports the idea of the current property owners maintaining the narrow asphalt road, since it adequately serves the people of that neighborhood. People don't seem to be rushing up the mountain or down the mountain, and everyone seems to take good care to look out for each other. He didn't see the need, from the city's point of view, to change an area which is already environmentally unique as far as Old San Luis is concerned. Bringing the area up to standards would be overkill for the area. It would also impact the lot he is proposing to purchase. He felt there would be continued use along the access of Mr. Pearson's property, and with the cul-de-sac being there, it would draw more attention for more "midnight packers" which go up there now, to the extent that the neighbors don't want that to be increased, and improving the roadway would increase that. The downhill residents would have the most to lose if the road were to be improved, as it would be right at their doorsteps. He felt this was a special case. Mr. Lowerison said he was not aware of the fact that should the city not approve the variance but approve the lot split, through public condemnation, the road, as well as the fiscal impact, could be a forced issue by the city, and that $20, 000 to $30, 000 per parcel seems like a large price to pay for such a small piece of land to be developed. He felt that if all those affected felt the roadway is adequate as it is, that's how it should remain. Harry Fryer asked how reimbursements are handled. Jerry Kenny responded it is typically by the parcel frontage and a proration method, determined and verified by the city. William McLain, 150 Serrano Heights, said he has concerns with the street. He is the first house on the easement going up the hill. He was concerned that he would be required to improve his property frontage. It was clarified that there would be no cost to existing property owners, unless they further develop their property, . � �ZS Page 6 The public hearing was closed. Ken Bruce said this decision is a very difficult one to make, and the decision he makes is a recommendation to the City Council. He said he is recommending that the City Council deny the tentative map because he feels the site is not physically suited for the type and density which is allowed by the zoning, and he strongly feels that the subdividing of this lot is going to create more subdivision in the area. Mr. Bruce said he didn't believe the character of the area with its steepness, trees, drainage and utility concerns is an area that should be further subdivided. He said he thought it should remain as large lots because each time another lot is subdivided, more traffic is created and more environmental degradation is caused to the area. He based his decision on the following findings: 1. The site is not physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1 zone, given its steep slope and inadequate access. 2 . The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage and cause neighborhood disruption since replacement of the existing non- conforming driveway access with a full-width street and related frontage improvements would result in tree removals, difficult driveway access and inadequate street yard setbacks, given existing development. 3 . The addition of another lot and potential building site at this location, given the already non-conforming nature of access to the site and the need for exceptions to city standards (lack of frontage on a public street) , is not appropriate and will significantly affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living in the neighborhood by adversely affecting neighborhood circulation. city of San WIS OBISpo INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL- IMPACT SITE LOCATION 17.5 Serrano 4r_t4{ +s; Drive APPLICATION NO. ER n73 90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION P_2-2, D .SOUarP (Q 52 ar_re) lat in+n +wn D„�(S APPLICANT Hnmrr RrnWn STAFF RECOMMENDATION: X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED PREPARED BY PA,m I «f �M��SOCid�e Plar,he r DATE_2n /- 7- 9 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACT ON: DATE IRm v SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... M Avco B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... Nan P C. LAND USE ....................................................................... Nnne D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. Yes E. PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................... Ye 5 F. UTILITIES....................................................................... Yes G. NOISE LEVELS .................................................................. None- H. lone- H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .....................MAT e I. AIR OUALrrY AND WIND CONDITIONS............................................... N n rl e J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. NI o n e K. PLANT LIFE........................................................................ M rlyl7r L ANIMAL LIFE..................................................................... �r1 P M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... N ane N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... O. ENERGY7RESOURCEUSE .......................................................... Mone P. OTHER ........................... III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION 'SEE ATTACH ED REPORT / i I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The subdivider is proposing to divide an existing 22,500 square-foot lot into two parcels. Parcel A would contain 15,187.5 square feet and Parcel B would contain 7,312.5 square feet. The site is located beyond the end of the city-maintained portion of Serrano Heights Drive in the northwestern part of the city, near the city limits line. Currently access to the site is derived via a 20-foot wide private access assessment. This easement is located off of the 60-foot wide undedicated Serrano Heights Drive extension which serves several other houses as well. A house exists on proposed Parcel A. With division of the site, the subdivider is proposing to extend the sewer line in existing easements to serve Parcels A and B, as well as other houses located along the easement not yet hooked up to city sewer. The existing septic tank for the house located on proposed Parcel B would be removed with installation of the sewer line extension. The site contains a variety of trees. The average cross slope of Parcel A is about 14% and the slope of Parcel B averages about 1501o. II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. Community Plans and Goals Two exceptions to the standards contained in the subdivision regulations are needed in order to approve the proposed lot split. One is an exception to allow lots that do not have frontage on a street (Municipal Code Section 16.36.160). The second is to allow a smaller lot size for a parcel with a slope in excess of 15% (Municipal Code Section 16.36.180). Chapter 16.48 of the Municipal Code stipulates that exceptions to the subdivision regulations require review and approval by the City Council at the.time of tentative map consideration. The City Council in approving an exception needs to make specific findings that allowing the exception will not result in any health or safety concerns and is consistent with the intent of the provisions of the subdivision regulations. Conclusion: May be significant. The fact that exceptions to the subdivision regulations are needed is not in itself a significant environmental impact. However, granting the exceptions seems to be in direct conflict with the language contained in Section 16.36.150, Lots, General requirements, which states: "Lots which are impractical for intended uses due to terrain, location of natural features, inadequate access, frontage, or buildable area, or other physical limitations will not be approved." Related environmental issue areas to the requested exceptions include traffic and circulation, public services and grading. l -3 / ER 03-90 Page 2 Mitigation Measure: At the time of tentative map consideration, the City Council shall determine that approval of the exceptions for lots without frontage and a smaller lot size for a site with slope in excess of 15% are consistent with the subdivision regulations and will not result in adverse environmental impacts. D. Transportation and Circulation As mentioned in the project description, the proposed lots do not have frontage on a public street and access to them would be provided by a private driveway. The developed portion of Serrano Heights Drive ends about 400 feet away from the project site. Seven homes, including the house on Parcel A of the project site, utilize the 1046t wide driveway in the undedicated and unimproved portion of the planned extension of Serrano Heights Drive for access. The addition of another house will add about 10 additional vehicle trips per. day to this street and driveway. Beyond the potential traffic and circulation environmental impacts associated with the project itself are the cumulative traffic impacts associated with the further subdivision and buildout of other nearby parcels. Based on inquiries from neighbors about the development potential of their properties and the testimony offered at the administrative public hearing there is interest by property owners of nearby parcels to similarly divide their properties and create additional homesites Conclusion: Significant. The volume of additional traffic that construction of a house on Parcel B would generate would be a relatively minor addition to a typical residential local street. However, the proposed lots are not located on a typical street and the additional traffic could result in significant environmental impacts given the already nonconforming access to the site and vicinity (the undeveloped street and common driveways). Based on the large size of nearby properties, there is the potential for at least five additional homesites to be created along the undeveloped portion of Serrano Heights Drive. Clearly, the additional vehicle trips that future development would add could not be satisfactorily handled by a 10 foot wide driveway only capable of accommodating one-way traffic. Therefore, staffs conclusion is that cumulative traffic impacts are significant and that waiver of street improvement requirements are not appropriate. Mitigation Measure: The subdivider will be required to provide off-site dedication to allow for full improvement of Serrano Heights Drive. The street must be extended from the end of Serrano Drive across Parcels APN 52-061-34 and APN 52-061-24. Improvements shall include 6-foot integral sidewalk, construction of the full width street, street lighting, fire hydrants and any other related improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ER 03-90 Page 3 The City Council may require a cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround at the end of Serrano Heights Drive. The subdivider must pay for all costs associated with the off-site property acquisitions. Waiver of any portions of the above-noted standard city subdivision improvement requirements would involve approval by the City Council. E. Public Services a. Fire Service The project site does not meet Fire Department improvement standards in terms of access (distance from a public street and lack of an approved turnaround) and distance from an approved water source (i.e. a fire hydrant). These deficiencies represent serious service and safety concerns. Conclusion: Significant. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall install a 20-foot wide, all-weather, fire access road from the improved street to the proposed parcels, as well as install an approved automatic residential fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13-D) in any new home built on Parcels A or B. F. Utilities a. Water Service The proposed project is expected to use about 0.37 acre feet of water per year from city sources. The city's overall strategy toward water resources is to better manage consumption by incorporating water conserving fixtures and landscaping, and by developing additional water resources. The city has adopted regulations to control increases in water use due to development, and to help correct the current imbalance between water use and supply. The regulations limit issuance of building permits, and are expected to mitigate water-use impacts. Conclusion: Not significant. The subdivision can be processed,but issuance of building permits may be postponed depending on the water situation at the time when house plans are submitted for review. Building permits will not be issued for new projects (those received for discretionary review after 3-15-89) until the city's current drought situation is relieved, either by adequate rainfall or by a substantial new water supply, unless the applicant chooses to offset water use impacts. � -'33 ER 03-90 Page 4 The city will allow a water allocation for-a house on Parcel B if the developer retrofits plumbing fixtures in the city to save a minimum of twice the amount of water their units would use. Mitigation Measure: None required. b. Sewer Service The existing house on Parcel A is one of the few homes located in the city that is not hooked up to the city sewer system. Municipal Code Section 16.32.050 J.1. of the Subdivision Regulations requires new lots developed in the city to be connected to the city's sewer system. Conclusion: Significant. Mitigation Measure: The subdivider shall extend the public sewer main in Serrano Heights Drive to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department and City Engineer. H. Geologic & Seismic Hazards & To]ograuhic Modifications Like many sites within the city, the project site is underlain by the Franciscan formation. While this is not a particularly unique environmental condition, such sites have a higher landslide potential. Given the steepness of the site, special site planning and construction measures will be required with development to provide a stable foundation and reduce erosion. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall submit a soils and geology report prepared with plans to develop the site. The recommendations contained in the soils report regarding site preparation, foundation systems, retaining walls and drainage shall be followed. K. Plant Life Proposed Parcel B contains a variety of mature trees and shrubs. Removal of existing landscaping will change the number and diversity of plant species on the site. Conclusion: May be significant. With development of a house on Parcel B, it will be necessary to remove some existing trees and shrubs. Plans for a house on Parcel B or a new house on Parcel A would need to include detailed information on the proposals for all trees over 3 inches in trunk diameter at a height of 4.5 feet above the ground. Proposals will be reviewed by the City Arborist and planning staff as part of the required architectural review process (see Section N.). 1 -31 ER 03-90 Page 5 Mitigation Measure: Additional mitigation not required - satisfied through mitigation measure included in Section N. (Aesthetic) of this study. N. Aesthetic Nearly all of the lots in the vicinity of the site are developed with houses. New development on either of the proposed parcels needs to be sensitive to the unique characteristics of the site and compatible with the neighborhood. Conclusion: May be significant. Mitigation Measure: Both lots are hereby declared sensitive sites which require minor or incidental architectural review prior to submittal of plans for building permits for any new significant buildings on the site. Architectural review of new development shall focus on view preservation, potential overlook issues and tree protection. A note shall be placed on the map indicating the architectural review requirement. Environmental review may be required for either lot if it is determined that proposed development alters site conditions to a degree inconsistent with the impact analysis contained in this initial study. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact be prepared for the project incorporating suggested mitigation measures. l -3s ER 03-90 Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ER 03-90 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES In conformance with AB 3180, the following mitigation measures will be monitored by reviewing the plans during architectural review and building permit plan check, and by Community Development Department staff field inspections during project construction: 1. At the time of tentative map consideration, the City Council shall determine that approval of the exceptions for lots without frontage and a smaller lot size for a site with slope in excess of 15% are consistent with the subdivision regulations and will not result in adverse environmental impacts. 2. The subdivider will be required to provide off-site dedication to allow for full improvement of Serrano Heights Drive. The street must be extended from the end of Serrano Drive across Parcels APN 52-061-34 and APN 52-061-24. Improvements shall include 6-foot integral sidewalk, construction of the full width street, street lighting, fire hydrants and any other related improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The City Council may require a cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround at the end of Serrano Heights Drive. The subdivider must pay for all costs associated with the off-site property acquisitions. Waiver of any portions of the above-noted standard city subdivision improvement requirements would involve approval by the City Council. 2. The applicant shall install a 20-foot wide, all-weather, fire access road from the improved street to the proposed parcels, as well as install an approved automatic residential fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13-D) in any new home built on Parcels A or B. 3. The subdivider shall extend the public sewer main in Serrano Heights Drive to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department and City Engineer. 4. The applicant shall submit a soils and geology report along with plans to develop the site. The recommendations contained in the soils report regarding site preparation, foundation systems, retaining walls and drainage shall be followed. 5. Both lots are hereby declared sensitive sites which require minor or incidental architectural review prior to submittal of plans for building permits for any new significant buildings on the site. Architectural review of new development shall focus on view preservation, potential overlook issues and tree protection. A note shall be placed on the map indicating the architectural review requirement. 6. Environmental review may be required for either lot if it is determined that proposed development alters site conditions to a degree inconsistent with the impact analysis contained in this initial study. l -'3Cv ER 03-90 Page 7 - 7. If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures. l �37 - •��.:1, q 9r - 4,01 C� av - Aa /s"722lYyr C% S�- Received a4- .3 -1- 91 Diree+vrs hearing l '�� `'A 1 .. Jaiiiiaxy,��}0-,-:1990 City. Planning Commission, et al City Hall, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 In connection with the proposed R-1 lot split by Homer and Bill Brown at 175 Serrano Heights , the undersigned immediate neighbors would like it to be known to all concerned of our disapproval . Not all of our reasons for objecting have a legal basis , but surely some consideration should be given by the various city officials to such as the following : Increased traffic on a dead-end unimproved, privately maintained narrow driveway that presently serves as access for five separate residences . The need to use street right-away and probably easement on other parties private property to install the required sewer lines . The probable need to build a two-story residence on the smaller lot-split and consequent interference with view and privacy for the surrounding houses . Allowing this first lot-split will only encourage others to do the same. Sinc ely, Harry Fryer & family, 163 Serrano Hts . , SLO 543-7135 Ben Pearson & family, 189 Serrano Hts . , SLO 543-1799 RW Adamson & family, 180 Serrano Hts . , SLO 543-5957 l �3� kEctivt� MEETING AGENDA APR0 21991 AlexanJra Kinn Whither DATE - ITEM 1T= City of San Luis Ob'sn April 21 1991 Re: MS 90-037 175 Serrano Heights Dear Councilmembers: I am writing to express my vehement opposition to the proposed creation of two lots from the existing property due to the danger the increased traffic will pose. As you know, Serrano Drive is a steep west-facing hill and Serrano Heights is a steep continuation of it after a blind curve on a dangerous grade. At sundown, when most people are returning. from work, visibility is severely impaired making driving up the hill and around this curve treacherous. Residents know the danger of the hill, but visitors and tradesmen careen up and barrel down the hill at very dangerous rates of speed. As the mother of two small boys (1 and 3 years), I am constantly on edge as I see vehicles unaware of the danger swerve around the corner. A new residence on the private drive (which is dangerous enough) will exacerbate an already grave situation. As the last house before the private drive, we at 149 experience the continual menace of cars turning around in our driveway. The addition of a new residence would surely bring an increase in parked cars by our house. Once again, parked cars, a steep hill,and small children don't mix well. Serrano Heights and the private road leading from it is unsuitable to increased traffic. The garbage truck has a very difficult time turning around. How a fire truck would maneuver is beyond me. I urge you to deny this request on the simple basis of safety. Sincere. , COMM: /.�"L' ❑• Action Q FYI � 149 Serrano Heights ',`; Q�QAO a M.MX 541-0120 R r: by Cad numay ❑ Fv Dam 6f �i iC Aamwc oma ❑ Poua APR 3 X991 :1MCW TVIUM ❑ RBC DU ��❑ RFADFILE ❑ . 1LD' T � � CITY GLcnn "AN LUIS OBISPO,CA Ym.P.McWhinney 50 Serrano Heights San Tule Obispo,CA 93405 ATA L 11 March 29, '1491 RE EB V ED The City Council of San Luis Obispo t '��' City Hall, 990 Palm Street APR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 I Y W.RK Attention: Pam Voges , City Clerk SAN LUIS O©ISPO,cn Refer to: Item No. 1 under headine of Public Hear. incs , City Council Agenda for April 3, 1991 Subject : Tentative parcel map submitted by Homer Rrown, 175 Serrano Hetzhts for proposed subdivision No. 90-037 cr. eatinz two lots from one To: Mayor. Dunin and Council members Penard , Ranna, Roalman and Reiss I reside at 150 Serrano Heights . I oppose =approval of the proposed lot split in general terms but more specifically because of serious problems presented with regard to the existino roadway, which the subdivider plans to use for access to a new lot which he proposed to create . The improved portion of Serrano Heights as a city street ends at the northern boundary of my property. The private road- way commences at that boundary and extends southward across the front parts of my property, the Homan property and the Adamson property at 150, 162 and 180 Serrano Heights respectively. I hold title to the land underlying my segment of the roadway. I believe that the owners at 162 and 180 also own the title to the land underlying their respective segments of the roadway. All other owners are served by the roadway but. to the best of my knowledge, said owners do not hold title to any land underlvinz the 60 ft . roadway easement . Obviously, any fur. the.r. Increase in traffic on the roadway adversely affects those of us who are burdened by the easement. I speak only for myself, however. , and do not purport to represent anyone slse. I was unaware of the proposed subdivision until receiving- from eceivingfrom the City a notice of public hearing on March 1, 1991. i am, therefore , only par. tial.ly aware of what has PP by the subdivider in support of his proposal. . lenRmFglars , hobw ever, that an important issue has not been gridr .5 �01 &-Cam& &ICDOM G7'CAO ❑ FIN.IRR [91ACAID ❑ MICHO poArmwgEY PW PIR. D-dmK/0MG. p0L=CH, ❑ MCT r.TEAM ❑ RfiG DIA City Council of ` '6 San Luis Obispo - 2 - MAI-ch 29, 1991 Che roadway in question was created in the IQos by a series of six grant deeds executed by Nellie Penman to various purchasers of her property . This is 9 prtvatp roadway goverrerl by the law of easements . The suhritvl:ler annPars to ne assuming *.hal his rl7hr *,^ use the roadway would automatically 'accrue to qsuer ossor-nwnAr of a newly created lot . T submit that this is a lerral Issue and one which the City Council cannot resolve . �iow then man the Council entertain a Possible annroval of this subdivision ( in- clurlin¢ the proposed excentions ) without a showinc, by the subdivider that he hol.:is perfected right of inxr-�as and egress over the existing roadway which could be nesse.^: -'rj t.o thA ownnT of a new lot created by the siabdivi.sion'% No such .sho'•ii.n:: has been made . Some owners of larger parcels served by the roadway have expressed possible interest in subdividing their nrnperties . Tf the present subdivision is approved it. is reasonable to exner,t more requests for lot splits with exceptions . !',rea.t financial. awards could accrue to the successful. subdividers with nothing for the remaining property owners to en.yo,y but denivrati o^ o' their neighborhood. . The subdivision proposal should be denten . Sincerely , Wm. V. McWhinney ISO '-'.or.rano Tie ights ,,an Luis 0hisro. ;'alt `r,rni a cc : Pam Ricci Assoc . Planner ►�•�cT1NG AGENDA MEMORANDUM DATE 3� MW TO: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director FROM: John Dompke, Fire Protection Engin VIA: Bob Neumann, Interim Fire Chief SUBJECT: MS 90-037, Serrano Heights DATE: 28 March 1991 We have received Dave Romero's memo of March 22, 1991, suggesting the substitution of a 26' roadway instead of the standard 34' roadway for this project. The Fire Department Standards require a 20' wide minimum access-road for emergency response vehicles. An additional 8' is allotted for vehicles parked along the curbs. This would require a 34' wide roadway if parking is allowed on both sides, or a 28' wide roadway for vehicles parked on one side only. We would prefer to have a 34' wide roadway installed to allow parking on both sides and to eliminate the need for indefinite maintenance of fire lanes. As a compromise we would accept a 28' wide roadway with one side designated as a fire lane with "No Parking" signs and striping. If you have any questions please feel free to call. JD:cb cc: Bob Neumann, Interim Fire Chief Dave Romero, Public Works Director COPIFSTO: ❑•Denotes Actkm Q FYI CeCDD DIR. _ CAO:..::'' . ❑ FIN.D[R Chi CAO O FIRE CHMF D-AW DIR. U V�I( .1 ❑ MCMT.TEti t D REpQi MEET ATE ING - AGENDA TMSTOPOGRAPHIC M" SERVICE (805) 5444=0 440 Conatry Club Drive, Baa Luis Obispo, CA 934oi Steven Frank, RCE 30412 April 1 , 1991 TO: Pam Voges , Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo FROM: Steven Frank , Engineer of Record t5 SUBJECT: MS 90-037 - 175 Serrano Heights As the Engineer of Record for the above-referenced minor subdivision and on behalf of the owner of the property , we respectfully request that the public hearing scheduled for the April 3 City Council meeting be continued as recommended by Dave Romero , Public Works Director , per his memorandum of March 22 , 1991 , regarding a possible alternative solution to the problem of street improve- ments. If you have any questions , concerns or comments please feel free to call me at 544-0280. Enclosure c : Bill Brown. 0DPISTa: ❑•Dawim Action Q FYI RE'Ve[� tsYco�m [�c�DD>R C ,CAO ❑ M.DM ff ACAO 0 MEOW CFa.ERK/am ❑ POIxSCx CLERK O❑ MCUT1:1 RB .TEUI C DIR. SAN LUIS OSISpo.en 0 LMLDa vL Cye r-rcIP& �u ��i�����lll ►�►►��� hI ' I City -o sAn lui s OBISPO 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 . March 22, 1991 MEMORANDUM Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director FROM: Dave Romero, Public Works Director SUBJECT: MS 90-037 - Serrano Heights I have just reviewed the agenda report and have an alternative solution which I believe fully complies with City standards for street improvement in this area, and which will substantially meet the concerns of the neighbors. I propose that instead of a 34 ' curb to curb roadway with 6 ' sidewalks, which is standard for a local street, we substitute a 26' roadway with curbs but no sidewalks as a preferred street extension. This complies with the Hillside minor cul-de-sac standards, and is in keeping with the area and wishes of the neighborhood. With this alternative there is no significant tree removal required, all driveway access to the private properties can be worked out, the roadway improvements and costs to the property owners can be minimized, setbacks will be maintained for all properties, and the City standards will be complied with. In addition, the property owners will be relieved from ongoing maintenance responsibility for these streets for -the indefinite future. City emergency access would be maintained as would a proper easement for utilities which must be installed. I suggest this alternative be presented to the developer and, if he is receptive, the matter be continued at the developer's request from the April 3 Council meeting. c: John Dunn Jerry Kenny serrano/df3;#27 i