HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1991, 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 IU�I�� I�IIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIII (� MEETING GATE:
city F'osan Lu�s os�spo -21-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR
SUBJECT: 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 part of the city.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Draft Resolution A denying the parcel map creating two
lots, based on required findings recommended by the Hearing Officer, and
denying requested exceptions.
REPORT IN BRIEF:
The tentative parcel was continued by the council at their April 3 , 1991
meeting. The council directed staff to come up with a unified street
width standard for a continuation of Serrano Heights Drive and asked the
subdivider to negotiate with his affected neighbors (those that own
property within the needed right-of-way) regarding street installation.
Representatives of Public Works, Fire and the Community Development
Departments met regarding the street width issue. It was agreed that a
28-foot width street instead of a 34-foot width would satisfy the needs
of the various departments (two travel lanes, parking on one side of the i
street, no sidewalks) .
However, the basic issue of the subdivider obtaining the cooperation and
support from those neighbors that have ownership in the Serrano Heights
Drive easement where the street would be installed has not been resolved.
Installation of the street requires off-site property dedication. If the
subdivider is unable to obtain the off-site property dedication from his
neighbors voluntarily through negotiations, then the city would be
required to use its condemnation power to obtain the property on the
behalf of the subdivider. It appears that condemnation would be
necessary to accommodate street installation since letters of opposition
to the lot split have been received from two of the three affected
neighbors who own property within the existing easement.
. I
Given neighborhood opposition to the lot split and circulation and
environmental concerns outlined in the attached previous council report,
staff's recommendation remains the same.
Attached: Letters from neighbors
4-3-91 council minutes
Previous staff report
— MEETIN AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
a pas
�AcamPM
CSD DIP.
OMay 4. 1991 AGD FM�
� FWD
DL
CIMW0PIC. ❑ MEJCEQi
❑ MCMT.TEAIM I❑ REC DIP.
The City Council of San Luis Obispo �TREAD FRE ❑ UrILDIX
City Hall , 990 Palm Street —L`
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attention: Pam Voges , City Clerk
Subject: Tentative parcel map submitted by Homer Brown ,
175 Serrano Heights , for proposed subdivision
No. 90-037 creating two lots from one
Refer: To our previous letter of April 3 , 1991 to the
City Council listing our reasons in opposition
to this proposed lot split.
To: Mayor Dunin and Council members Penard, Rappa ,
Roalman and Reiss
The subject above was continued for public_ hearing from the
date of April 3 , 1991 on the Council Agenda to a hearing on
May 21, 1991.
We understand that a proposal is being considered to change
our private roadway, Serrano Heights , to an improved city
street. This would probably involve condemnation by the
City of the land underlying this private roadway. We hole
title to the segment of land underlying the roadway easement
and we are opposed to :
1- approval of the Brown lot split
2- condemnation of our property and
3- widening/or changing of the existing roadway into a
city street
If the planning department and/or the City Council go ahead
and grant this lot split it will only open it up to furthe
development in our immediate area and would drastically
change the unique, quiet, rustic atmosphere we have within
R E C E I V E D the city limits .
MAY 07 199' Sincerely,
CITY CLERK
sAm Luis OBISPO- C4 Ro ert & Jean Adamson
180 Serrano Heights
San Luis Obispo , CA 93405
cc: Pam Ricci
Assoc. Planner
' Wm.P.MCVVhlnnwy
150$erten Heights
San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
April 29, 1991
The City Council of .San Luis Obispo
City Hall, 990 Palm .Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attention: Pam Voges , City Clerk
Subject : Tentative parcel map submitted by Homer Brown,
175 Serrano Heights , for proposed subdivision
No. 90-037 creating two lots from one
Note: This item was continued for public hearing from
Council Agenda of April 3, 1991 to May 21, 1991
To: Mayor Dunin and Council members Penard, Rappa,
Roalman and Reiss
In a letter dated March 29, 1991 to this Council I voiced my
opposition to the proposed lot split identified above.
I have learned that a proposal is being considered whereby the
private roadway known as Serrano Heights would be replaced by
an improved city street. This would involve condemnation by
the City of the land underlying the private roadway. As one of
the three owners who hold title to the land underlying the
roadway easement I am opoosed to approval of the subdivision on
this basis . Creating a city street in place of the private
roadway would certainly encourame other owners of large Dar-eels
to attempt subdivision of their land. The ensuing result would
adversely change the rural nature of this unique , quiet and
beautiful residential neighborhood.
My letter of March 29, 1991 covered the problems which arise
should the Council consider approving the lot split on the basis
of granting exceptions to city requirements and reliance on the
existing roadway easement.
I will be unable to attend the hearing on May 21st . My neighbors ,
Robert and Jean Adamson (or either of them) are authorized to
speak for me on any matters which may arise at the hearing.
Sifncerely,?
Wm. P. McWhinney
150 .Serrano Helahts
San Luis Obispo
CC : Pam Ricci
Assoc . Planner
1-3
1 '
Wm.P.McWbinney
150 Serrano Heights
• San Luis Obispo.CA 93405
�x-1131/
March 29, 1991
The City Council of San Luis Obispo
City Hall, 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attention: Pam Voges , City Clerk
Refer to: Item No. 1 under headinur of Public Hearings ,
City Council Agenda for April 3, 1991
Subject : Tentative parcel map submitted by Homer Brown,
175 Serrano Heights for proposed subdivision
No. 90-037 creating two lots from one
To: Mayor Dunin and Council members Penard , RaDoa,
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
existing 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 Hogan 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 underlying
the 60 ft. roadway easement. Obviously, any further 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 else.
I was unaware of the proposed subdivision until receiving
from the City a notice of public hearing on March 1, 1991. I
am, therefore , only partially aware of what has been presented
by the subdivider in support of his proposal. It appears , how-
ever, that an important issue has not been addressed.
City Council of
San Luis Obispo - 2 - March 29, 1991
The roadway in question was created in the 1950s by a
series of six grant deeds executed by Nellie Penman to various
purchasers of her property. This is a private roadway governed
by the law of easements .
The subdivider appears to be assuming that his right to
use the roadway would automatically accrue to a successor-owner
of a newly created lot. I submit that this is a legal issue and
one which the City Council cannot resolve. How then can the
Council entertain a possible approval of this subdivision ( in-
cluding the proposed exceptions) without a showing by the
subdivider that he holds perfected right of ingress and egress
over the existing roadway which could be passed on to the owner
of a new lot created by the subdivision? No such showing has
been made.
Some owners of larger parcels served by the roadway have
expressed possible interest in subdividing their properties . If
the present subdivision is approved it is reasonable to expect
more requests for lot splits with exceptions . Great financial
awards could accrue to the successful subdividers with nothing
for the remaining property owners to enjoy but denigration of
their neighborhood.
The subdivision proposal should be denied.
Sincerely
Z.
Wm. P. McWhinney
150 Serrano Heights
San Luis Obispo, California
cc: Pam Ricci
Assoc . Planner
1
RECLIVLL.
APR 0 21991 AlexanJra King 14 hitcher
Gty of San LM Ot=
April 2, 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.
Sincer/�A ����
149 Serrano Heights
541-0120
John Dunn.City Administrative Officer,recommended that the City work with the University and Foundation
In order to get the best agreement He felt it would be best to proceed with the drawings.
Atter brief discussion,moved by Reiss/Dunin to approve (3-2,Councilmembers Pinard and Rappa voting no)
funding In the amount of$263,000 as recommended.
C-12 TRANSIT UNMET NEEDS HEARING (File No.542)
Council considered correspondence from the Mass Transportation Committee summarizing comments made
by residents as part of the City's Annual Unmet Transit Needs Hearing.
Council received correspondence (5-0) and referred comments to staff for consideration as part of the Short
Range Transit Plan as recommended.
C-13 EIR CONSULTANT-STENNER CANYON WATER TREATMENT PLANT (Fde No.518)
Council to consider a consultant to prepare an environmental Impact report for upgrade of the Stenner Canyon
water treatment plant
This proposal was withdrawn by the applicant
C-14 EARTH DAY CELEBRATION (File No. 1052)
Council considered a resolution declaring April 6 thrush April 22, 1991 as Earth Day Celebration.
Moved by Ranco/Roalman to adopt (5-0)Resolution No.6955 declaring April 6 through April 22 Earth Day
Celebration.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
C.L1. Councilman Roalman briefly reviewed the meeting of the Water Advisory Committee. He stated that
any action on Lake Nacimiento Is now up to the Board of Supervisors. This item will be on the agenda of May
16, 1991.
C.L.2. Councilwoman Rauua briefly reviewed the legislative trip to Sacramento stressing that the City must
be prepared for changes which may affect the budget
PUBLIC HEARINGS
L TENTATIVE MAP-175 SERRANO HEIGHTS (File No.411)
Council held a public hearing to consider a tentative parcel map for Minor Subdivision No.90-037 creating two
lots from one lot,including emptions to the minor subdivision regulations for property located beyond the end
of the city-maintained portion of Serrano Heights Drive; Homer Brown,subdivider.
Arnold Jonas.Community Development Director,requested that this item be continued so that alternatives may
be reviewed with the applicant by Public Works and the Community Development Department
Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open.
William McWhinney. 150 Serrano Heights,stated that he would like to see this item disposed of this evening,
Jean Adamson.180 Serrano Heights,was opposed to the lot subdivision. She stated the following reasons: 1)
devaluation of surrounding properties, 2) cost of maintenance of the driveway would be borne by the 5
neighboring residents,3) drainage problems creating mudslides and flooding, and 4) traffic problems as a
result of the street being a dead-end and a steep hill.
Jim Gates.requested prior notification If any changes will be made to the next date of public hearing on this
item so that written testimony may be entered into the record.
Alexandra Whitcher. 149 Serrano Heights, was opposed to the subdivision and did not feel the street was
suitable for Increased traffic. —
Mayor Duma declared the public hearing closed.
Jett Jorgensen.City Attorney, stated that the applicant had filed a one-time 90-day extension for the process
and map pursuant to the subdivision map.
Moved by Ranna/Pinard to continue this Item (5-0) including the public hearing portion to date certain May
21, 1991.
BUSINESSBUSTNESS ITEM
2. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (File No.91-08)
Council considered plans for"Bridge Replacement Project;Elks Lane at San Luis Obispo Creek,"City Plan No.
G1011; estimated to cost$600,000 010,000 from Fereral HBRR funds and$909000 in City funds).
Dave Romero. Public.Works Director,reviewed the history of the Elks Lane Bridge. The bridge is eligible to
receive FBRR funding because of the deficiency rating obtained from the Caltrans Office of Structures
Maintenance and Investigations. The cost to the City would be approximately$90,000. The federal funds are
available for a limited period of time. Approximately one year would be needed for design and one year for the
plan check process.
The Community Development Department supports replacement of the-bridge because of future development
near Prado Road. The Fire and Police Departments also support replacement of the bridge because of its
importance to their critical response time for emergencies In the area south of the meek. Atter weighing the
alternatives, stab is recommending replacement of the bridge In order to meet the needs of emergency,
neighbors,and the Fire Department.
Councilwoman Pinard expressed concern for the relevancy of making this decision ahead of the Circulation
Element She felt this decision would cause additional traffic relating to the whole circulation of the area and
that this represented only one part of the traffic picture. She felt future traffic planning in this area was needed
if traffic would be increased from an average daily trip of 500 to 6,000.
Mayor Dunin expressed concern for losing the Federal funding and was requesting staff to notify Council if
funding became jeopardized.
Atter brief discussion,moved by Roalman/Randa to bring this item (5-0) back to Council to coincide with the
review of the Circulation Element.
3. CITY ELECTION CAMPAIGN RE nI ATION (File No.326)
Council considered the revision of the City Election Campaign Regulations.
Roger Picauet. reviewed the staff report with the recommendation that 1) the campaign contribution limit be
raised from$100 to $250;2) the$25 disclosure limit be retained; and 3) the limit on contributions the week
before an election be increased from$10 to$25.
Brett Cross. 1217 Mariner's Cove, felt the limits should not be increased. He felt this would put some
candidates at a disadvantage. He would prefer to see a small amount of money used wisely.
Carta Sandersa member of the Citizen's Planning Alliance,supported a limit of$100.
�' U
�►���IVdG��dN
LI
� ME-TWG DOTE:
cio san iuIs oBIspo (r
jI ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director;
By: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: 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 part of the city.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached Draft Resolution A denying the parcel map creating two
lots, based on required findings recommended by the Hearing Officer, and
denying requested exceptions.
REPORT IN BRIEF:
i
I
The subdivider wants city approval of a tentative parcel map to divide
an existing lot into two parcels. The main concern with the request is
access. Currently the existing house on the subject site as well as six
other homes are served by a private driveway that extends up the hill
beyond the developed portion of Serrano Heights Drive (see utilitiy map
attached) . This nonconforming access has been in place for many years
and seems to adequately accommodate the existing homes it serves.
However, creating new parcels along the already nonconforming access is
inconsistent with city policies, could set an undesirable precedent and
raises numerous development issues.
In order to allow the proposed subdivision, the City Council must approve
exceptions to the subdivision regulations. Both requested exceptions are
related to the access issue. The first exception is to allow the
creation of parcels that do not have frontage on a city street, and the
second exception is to waive the requirement for full street improvements
for Serrano Heights Drive from its existing terminus to a point where it ;
intersects another private driveway that provides direct access to the
proposed parcels.
The proposal creates a fundamental paradox over access. City regulations
dictate that street improvements need to be required with the requested
subdivision and it is a required mitigation of the initial study of
environmental impact. However, the subdivider has requested an exception
to waive the required street improvements. Additionally, the neighbors - !
do not want to see the street installed because it will result, in their
opinions, in the removal of trees and other improvements and will create
nonconforming street yards for some homes.
On March 1, 1991, the Hearing Officer denied the map based on findings
that the proposed subdivision and improvements was inappropriate and may
adversely affect surrounding neighbors primarily because of the various
access issues previously discussed. Several neighbors attended the
meeting and expressed their concerns. Most of the neighbors' comments
focussed on the installation of the street and the negative changes it
would make to their neighborhood environment. /. �
city of . ,s osisp
•UNn CIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 90-037
Page 2
•SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An initial study evaluating potential environmental impacts associated
with the proposal was prepared and is attached. The initial study
concludes that the project will not result in adverse environmental
impacts with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. Based on
staff's analysis and recommendation, the Community Development Director
endorsed a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 14, 1991.
The installation of a full width street with associated frontage
improvements is identified in the initial study as a mitigation measure
to address nonconforming access and also relates to fire service
requirements and mitigations. However, the subdivider and neighbors have
indicated in letters and public testimony that installation of the street
will be difficult given existing development and disruptive to their
neighborhood.
If the council endorses approval of the map without installation of the
street, it will need to make findings to grant an exception to the
subdivision regulations. Additionally, the initial study would need to
be modified to determine that there are not significant transportation
and circulation or fire service impacts, and therefore, the identified
street installation as a mitigation measure is not necessary.
Alternatively, the council could modify the initial study to determine
alternative mitigation to address the identified impacts. If it is
determined that there are significant impacts associated with the project
that cannot be mitigated, then it would be necessary to prepare a
focussed EIR to further analyze impacts.
Testimony by neighbors at the administrative public hearing indicated
concern that installation of the street may also result in adverse
environmental impacts. Concerns have been expressed that installation
of the street would result in tree removals, difficult driveway access
and inadequate street yard setbacks for existing homes.
Staff cannot adequately evaluate potential environmental impacts to other
properties located along the access with street installation without
submittal of more information. Plans showing the precise locations of
existing buildings, improvements and trees in relationship to the • .
proposed street and associated frontage improvements would need to be
submitted.
Therefore, if the council supports approval of the map with installation
of the street, then the council could continue consideration of the map
with the agreement of the subdivider. The council is required by state
law to take an action on the parcel map at this meeting because of
processing deadlines unless the subdivider agrees to an extension of
processing (one-time 90-day extension) . The subdivider would then need
to submit the required information for staff to prepare additional
environmental analysis. /./O
�I�j�� �IIIfI�I� iIIIIII city of San twAis OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 90-037
Page 3
I
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TARING THE REC0MMMED 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 i
I
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 j
j February 14 , 1991.
Project Action Deadline: July 2 , 1991 (90-day extension granted)
Site Description
I
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-
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-- I
property owners) and continues within a 20-foot wide private access j
ieasement between the subject site and the Pearson property (see vicinity
map and parcel map for clarification of access situation) . i
i
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.
I
'l�
ijupA ii city o� San N"Js OBISPO
M daubs
Nina COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
i
MS 90-037
Page 4
EVALUATION
The most significant issues associated with creating another building
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:
r
j 1. Density:
i
The site is located in the R-1 zone. The maximum allowed density for R-
I 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
i 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:
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.
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
i 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.
I
I
i
—l� i
221L1111 city Of San ; s OBISPO
WMENNEWCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 90-037
Page 5
i
3. Compatibility Issues:
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) :
a. Existing Conditions:
The single most significant issue associated with the proposed lot
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-foot wide
easement, 34-foot wide paved street section) ends about 400 feet 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
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 nonconforming 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' :
that additional traffic could result in significant environmental
impacts given the already nonconforming access to the site and
vicinity (the undeveloped street and common driveways) .. The i
nonconforming access also directly affects fire service concerns j
(inadequate access) and proposed mitigation measures (fire lane
improvements and sprinklers) .
city of san L oBispo _
ffinleffims COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
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 150, 162 and 180 Serrano Heights Drive (Parcels APN 52-
061-11, 13, 14) . 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 a
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 i
city would also require with map approval that the common driveway
i 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 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.
i
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 i
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. )
city of San Is OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ,
MS 90-037
Page 7
C. Exception Needed:
Even with full improvement of Serrano Heights Drive and the improved
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 ii
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.
i
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
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
2 . 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.
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:
city or San .is OBISPO
WMEMIN jllu�
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
i
MS 90-037 i
Page 8
i
"Lots which are impractical for intended uses due to terrain, location i
of natural features, inadequate access, frontage, or buildable area,
or other physical limitations will not be approved. "
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
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.
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.
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)
iis 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
nycity 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
i the street to full city standards.
- i
city of san ;s oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
i
MS 90-037
Page 9
i
i
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
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 4nd 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
action on the parcel map at this meeting because of processing
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 i
of the additional environmental review.
i
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. _�
xw�1iI►IVIinj�j city of San ; .a OBISPO
ROOM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 90-037
Page 10
i
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached Draft Resolution A which denies the tentative parcel
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
Enclosed: Full Size Copies of Parcel Map
d:subdv\90-37-CC.wp
;
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. Findings. 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. 90-037 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:
City Administrative Officer
"
Cit ney
y lr ✓
Community Develo m nt Director
�_d20
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
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.
� 2
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 Recuirements. 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
/. 43
Resolution No. (1991 Series)
Page 4
APPROVED:
City Administrative Officer
City A torney l �'G "-F 7
Community Developm t 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:
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 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 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 publicsewer main in Serrano
Heights Drive to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department
and City Engineer.
to
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 Recuirements. Standard requirements of
various codes, ordinances, and. policies of the City of San Luis
Obispo, include but are not limited to the following:
I. 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:
City Administrative Officer
City At I
rney
Community Develop t Director
-�--Loj t3fzo % 410
}07 /O SOL 4LL NON�Lt
DRIVE LU_ NETA �s -"
`ss
O
O O
O : Oion
-1
D)
nuaKsau sen4W4es•��e,-�
;t 0
iaLa
a,•a
ea+a•s�apa1�an�t
►aQ�LS�uciOp-eo
unMa 1.
O xM0 O O M � 1
,
?b �° 6''+ SrRRANO
T ; ,
M ARC e7•:I RL
O O �
t
mtp
inney Z
7 Q ❑
O N z.
� Z
� W
A09an R_1
t =
0 40
R- 1 : W
Rdan-So n
W O
Z ;00
,o_
W c�eF.�c cenrerc ne
` illi-4,
O DAVAO
oa o
�qti ►
■ xao
CITY UMITS 'm 710' CITY LIMITS
VICINITY MAP NIS 90-03 NORTH
175 SERRAN
O HEIGHTS DRIVE
= W •
e = W Z
w W mmq = p p
= W J52W ~ W F"• Z O1
¢ H W W G F Z u��a W = Q S� W N 1� p W < O
y W O W�22 J 7 W W W CQ h h N W N
¢ p i < 0 7 0 w O J W a n Z p
I v o W oppO w a c 3 W W 12ML p LL. N >. S
u W Z- Ww= Q W 1 w J = F- W F-
C 1Wy Q cc Ww ¢ r< ~il g = ¢ Q LL S S C7 Z Z
O I O - O
Z � ¢ x xy21 ¢ x x 9 \� w w p W Z p Q
W O a W W v 6 W W Ir O & O <w 1' N Q �' ~ a p• 7
U Q 7 w m � 1-- < < S U
W g ° a ..
W d' ft ° u p S G <
1 ti J O WO ? Q
1 � No Q 3p M
I w < m W _j 0LL.
F LL.
Il � il w
M U J
w Q
LL.
a .W U
S
_ < S z � 0
CL
Q UJz U)
bt I Z 2 m
SERRoANOE EIGHTS DRIVE ' o � Z ca p
CL 133
0 c
S W J
i a N u) N
N
•vo7r'w nrra'_ a � Y
t � /r Z
.1acz
00 q
O
\ •f � � _ J m ¢ 0 ¢Om p
J Q W W N
f • n �� / 1 , bIV
W W
If • � i \• °W = O 27-
J66 it
}
go
rc
$10 cc
p' °� uj u r � O H
Y •j 1• • ¢J p W F Q
11Iy �l� ala/ •1�' \•~
1°
= 0
Q ¢ m N 0
I
J W
1 ♦ y
...r jib �� t• 1 S[ W V J Ifl m J 1
•. •. r..:1Z C •�Z �`} :� ly O Z O Q O 0QN_1 pN
e
O
w'
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 '
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 .
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
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.
Ken 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
/ -33
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.
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.
/- 3S
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 parkers" 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, .
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 lUIS OBISp0
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 175 Serrano l4e,414s Dri /e APPLICATION NO. FR O3-9O
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Diyidla 2, CO. Flt dC re J la+ in+n -awn DaT rrel5 .
APPLICANT 14nrne-r Rrown
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY ��xn ��C► �,SOCId+e Piaa,ln r DATE2 - 7- 91
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S A ON: DATE,14-151
hmWm Qlrd4mut,
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .................................................... A)46,
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... N o rl P_
C. L.ANDUSE ........................................................................ Nnne
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. Yes
5
E. PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................... .... Yes
F. UTILITIES.................................................... .................. Ye A
G. NOISE LEVELS ..................................................................... N n n e—
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... MAhe
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS.................................................. ISL n n e
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. Nicne
K PLANT LIFE ................................................. .. M Av13e
L ANIMAL LIFE.................................................................... w 17n P_
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... N nn e
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... MaTkP
0. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE .......................................................... 0 le,
P. OTHER ..................................................... .......... .......
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT sas(s�
/r 0
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 15,1875 square feet and Parcel B would contain 7,3125 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 15%.
II. POTENTIAL EMPACT 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 1636.160). 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.
/39
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 10-ffot 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 panels. 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 52-061-11,13,14. 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.
" /Q
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 037 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.
�� T�
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 & Topographic 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.).
�' 7
ER 03-90
Page 5
Mitigation Measure:
Additional mitigation not required - satisfied through mitigation measure included in
Section N. (Aesthetic) of this study.
N. A-esthetic
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.
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 52-061-11,13,14. 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.
ER 03-90
Page 7
7: If the Community Development Director determines that the above mitigation
measures are ineffective df.pbysjqaHy infeasible,-he may add, delete or modify the
e.
mitigation to meet the intent.of the original measures:
Ld2 Ftz
L Ar
G�
f S,7 y22lzt-� o
C, 5-
Feceived a+- 5 -1-91 Direc+ars kearin9 `_��
C
�A
Jarii � Y ��0;r_13 9 0
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 )mown 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
1/7
MEETIN AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
Plasm:
A F"
/COu�I CDD DSR.
� O ❑ FIN.DIR
May 4 , 19 91
L
❑ FMECHMF
IX 11 FWDIX
� /OR1G. ❑ FOUCECFL
❑ MGMT.TFASv1'❑ REC.DIX
The City Council of San Luis Obispo ❑ CREADFILB ❑ UTILDIR.
City Hall , 990 Palm Street ��
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attention: Pam Voges , City Clerk
Subject: Tentative parcel map submitted by Homer Brown,
175 Serrano Heights , for proposed subdivision
No . 90-037 creating two lots from one
Refer: To our previous letter of April 3 , 1991 to the
City Council listing our reasons in opposition
to this proposed lot split.
To : Mayor Dunin and Council members Penard, Rappa ,
Roalman and Reiss
The subject above was continued for public hearing from the
date of April 3 , 1991 on the Council Agenda to a hearing on
May 21, 1991.
We understand that a proposal is being considered to change
our private roadway, Serrano Heights , to an improved city
street. This would probably involve condemnation by the
City of the land underlying this private roadway. We hold
title to the segment of land underlying the roadway easement
and we are opposed to :
1- approval of the Brown lot split
2- condemnation of our property and
3- widening/or changing of the existing roadway into a
city street
If the planning department and/or the City Council go ahead
and grant this lot split it will only open it up to further
development in our immediate area and would drastically
change the unique, quiet, rustic atmosphere we have within
RECEIVED the city limits .
Sincerely,
MAY 07 199'
CITY CLERK R4 & Jean Adamson
SAN LUIS OSISPO,CA
180 Serrano Heights
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
cc: Pam Ricci
Assoc. Planner
M"IING AGENDA
COPMTO- DATE /- �9/ # _
O•Dawim Accton D FYI
Er'CDD DHL
[J CAO ❑ FIN.DIX
CACAO O RRECHIEF 120 Serrano Hts .
7TOQtNEY O FWDIR. (Mail address :CLERK�ORIC. ❑ POUCECti P. 0. Box 1104,
D MCMT.TEAM ❑ RECDIR San Luis Obispo,
O CRFADFIU ❑ UrILDIR. CA 93406. )
15 May, 1991
RE Tentative parcel map sub-
mitted by Homer Brown ,
175 Serrano Hts . for pro-
posed subdivision No . 90-037
creating two lots from one
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council members :
We understand that this matter will be heard at the Council
meeting on 21 May, 1991 . I , Fraser Neil , am unable to attend
because I am crippled by a stroke. I wish to express myself
with my wife, Natalia Neil, on this matter in this letter .
We object strongly to the lot subdivision requested by
Mr. Homer Brown. We have no ownership in the roadway, as do
Mr. Hogan, the Adamsons and Mr. McWhinney. We agree entirely
however, with Mr . McWhinney Is letter to you on 29 March, 1991 .
We hope that our letter to you will be of some importance
to you even though we cannot attend the Council meeting to speak.
We generally oppose the addition of this and other lot splits
(at least two other possible ones within that immediate limited
area) would grievously effect the neighborhood with traffic and
deterioration of the kind of residential area it is . We have
had increasing problems of students overcrowding houses within
this area down Serrano drive in several houses in the past year .
There are many cars , neglected , slum-like yards and buildings
in that area . Should this occur on Serrano Hts. in newly divided
lots the result would be disastrous both in our peace, noise
level, traffic , and number of cars parked up and down the street
(as below uson Serrano Dr. ) and general appearance and nature of
the area. The value of this property would thus be greatly. decreased .
Again, we strongly oppose this sudivision.
Sincerely,
J
Fra Neil —i'
/Natalia Neil :, ,_��• .
SA^J LUiS`c�;5r0 C.1
MuT
DATE ING � Q�AGENDA �
}� ITEM #
tWESTMENI PROPERTY ECONOMIC,CCNSUTAMS
COPlFSTO:
❑_,/'Dew6ss Action Q F17
L;A'C'AO
eJcComxu CDD DIR
20 May 1991 a �aW
A77 LWEY ❑ FW DUL
F2r F /ORIQ ❑ POLICE CFL
❑ MGMT.MAIM ❑ REC DUL
�Qk RC ADFILE JUTILDUL
Attention: Ms. Pam Ricci - —
City Council
City at Ban Luis Obispo
city Hall
Ban Luis Obispo, CA 93403
RE: Tentative Map--MB-90-037 175 Serrano Heights
Dear Council Members:
As the applicant for the above tentative map that would create
two lots from one lot at the above-mentioned site, I am herein
requesting that our application for this action be withdrawn
and .that this item be removed from your agenda slated for 21
May 1991.
Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
a. William Srown, Agent for
Terry Jane alandon and
Homer V. Brown
RECEIVE ®
MAY 2 1 1991
X0,4,
CITY OLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
23.0 DOWELL STREET.OLME 205 SAN rRANCRCO.CA 94133 US.A. 1415)362.1313 FAX(413)9843939
CSSOGOtes in ptinei=1 cities