HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/04/1992, 2 - CONSIDERATION OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CREATING FOUR LOTS FROM TWO WITH EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION AND GRADING REGULATIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE CORNER BOUND BY ELLA, HENRY, AND GEORGE STREETS. III'I�Itl►►►INIIIIIIII II MEETING DATE:
I►' ��I�I city
o San . ,S OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:c;2
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
By: Whitney Mcllvaine, Assistant Planner
Greg Smith, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of a tentative parcel map creating four lots from two with
exceptions to the subdivision and grading regulations, for property located on
the corner bound by Ella, Henry, and George streets.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution approving the tentative parcel map with exceptions to the
subdivision and grading regulations, based on the findings and subject to the conditions
recommended by the Hearing Officer.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REPORT IN BRIEF
i
The applicant, Devin Gallagher, is proposing to create four small residential lots to
accomodate four single-family dwellings. The proposed lots are less than 3800 square feet
in size where subdivision standards require a minimum area of 6,000 square feet. The
subdivsion proposal also requires Council approval of other minor lot dimension exceptions
and an exception to allow more site grading than would normally be allowed. The
Administrative Hearing Officer has granted an exception (subject to Council approval) to
allow construction of more and larger dwellings than would normally be permitted on a
sloped site.
The staff and Administrative Hearing Officer support the approval of this parcel map only
if lot coverage and the size of the proposed dwellings are limited. The purpose of these
limits is to ensure that adequate open space is provided, and that the dwellings are in
character with the neighborhood, consistent with the general plan.
If the Council approves the subdivision and grading exception, the applicant would move
the existing house onto parcel I and construct 3 houses on each of the other lots. As
proposed, without recommended site development limits, the houses would be significantly
larger than typical homes in the neighborhood.
Staff originally felt that the number of requested exceptions to City standards and the
proposed intensity of site development argued for denial of the subdivision and the density
exception. The Hearing Officer, however, expressed a willingness to consider the
subdivision proposal if the applicant could demonstrate the feasibility of site development
that fits the prevailing character of the neighborhood, as required by the general plan. Staff
was directed to identify an appropriate strategy for directly linking site design standards to
the subdivision to ensure compatible development and consistency with the intent of city
regulations.
On June 19th, the Hearing Officer recommended that the City Council approve the
proposed subdivision subject to the findings and conditions in the attached resolution.
Conditions 10 -13 are specifically aimed at ensuring site development that is both
� ' 1
���►I�►��ii�►►illlllllll�° 9��IIII city Of Sant OBISPO
Awaiwa
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 2
compatible with the neighborhood character and appropriate for the site, given the small
lot sizes and sloping topography.
To enable construction of one two-bedroom house on each parcels 2 and 3, the Hearing
Officer granted an exception to the slope/density standards, subject to site development
conditions and Council approval of the minor subdivision. Given their small size, steepness, j
and zoning, density standards would otherwise allow nothing larger than a studio dwelling
to be constructed on either lot.
The three primary issues with this project are (1) consistency with city regulations and site
development standards; (2) compatibility of the project with the scale and character of the
neighborhood; and (3) the precedence set for future small lot subdivisions and site
development on small lots. While staff supports the concept of small lots as an efficient
way to accomodate the city's growing population, staff also thinks it is reasonable to
proportionately reduce the maximum site development allowed on lots which are smaller
than the minimum standard.
This report concurs with the Subdivision Hearing Officer's conclusion that exceptions to
normal requirements for minimum lot area, lot dimensions, grading, and density are
appropriate on�l y if tied to conditions of approval which ensure that the lots will be
developed in a manner consistent with neighborhood character and general plan goals.
i
At the administrative hearing, the applicant objected to recommended conditions 10 - 13
in the attached resolution for approval. His representative was asked by staff to submit
those concerns for the benefit of Council consideration. However, as of the transmittal date
for this report, no written statement has been received. Staff will be prepared to respond
to the applicant's concerns at the hearing.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
I
With mitigation recommended in the initial study relating to architectural review and tree
protection, and recommended conditions of the map limiting the extent of site development,
no significant environmental impacts are expected from the project. Cumulatively, small
lot subdivisions could be beneficial as a means of reducing urban sprawl.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION/
DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
If the Council denies the tentative parcel map, density standards would still allow
construction of another two-bedroom house on the lower lot, fronting on George Street, and
construction of a one-bedroom house on the uphill lot. The subdivider could apply for
consideration of a new parcel map dividing the lower lot into two and leaving the steeper,
upper lot in essentially its existing configuration. With approval of a density exception, a
two-bedroom house could be constructed on the upper lot. This suggestion was
a -a
II�N�t�uIfVIIIIIIIIIhIIIIIII city of Sant S OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 3
recommended by staff as an initial response to the four lot proposal.
BACKGROUND
Public Review
i
After continuing review of the project from the March 6th and June 5th administrative
hearings, pending additional information and project revisions, the Hearing Officer acted
to approve an exception to density standards and a use permit for house moving, subject
to Council approval of the proposed subdivision.
Exceptions to the subdivision and grading ordinance require Council approval. Specific
exception requests are outlined below.
Architectural review is being recommended by staff to help ensure site development that
is compatible with the prevailing neighborhood character.
A "Project Chronology" is attached for reference regarding the project's history (p. A - 17).
Data Summary
i
Applicant: Devin Gallagher/Gallagher Properties
Representative: Tim Woodle/Pults and Associates
Zoning: R-2
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Environmental Status: The Director approved a mitigated negative declaration - March 4,
1992.
Project Action Deadline: September 28, 1992
i
Site Description
The site is located in a well established, older residential neighborhood where double
frontage lots are common. Originally, the two lots underlying the site ran lengthwise
between George and Ella Street. The site is now divided crosswise as a result of a lot line
adjustment recorded in 1990 (LLA 89-390). The two existing lots are roughly 7,260 and
7,720 square feet in size, for a total site area of 14,480 square feet. The upper lot has a
slope of roughly 17%; the lower lot is more gently sloping with a grade of approximately
8%. These slopes will be increased once curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements are
installed on all street frontages. A two-bedroom house occupies the lower lot. The upper
lot is undeveloped.
There are 9 trees on site with trunk diameters of 3 inches or more. Six trees would be
affected by proposed grading on the upper lots to accomodate street improvements. Refer
to the discussion under "Plant Life" in the attached initial study (p. A - 27).
a-3
city of san L s osispo
fiWMftftM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 4
DISCUSSION OF REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS
Requested Exceptions to the Subdivision Standards
The proposed subdivision would involve the following exceptions to the City's subdivision
standards (Sections 16.36.160 and 16.36.180, p. A - 41):
Parcel 1:
■ lot area of 3,745 square feet, where 6,000 square feet is required
■ lot width of 50 feet where 60 feet is required
■ lot depth of 74.9 feet where 90 feet is required
Parcel 2:
i
■ lot area of 3,745 square feet where 6,000 square feet is required
■ lot width of 50 feet where 60 feet is required
■ lot depth of 74.9 where 90 feet is required
■ lot smaller than minimum requirement with slope exceeding 15%
Parcel 3:
■ corner lot area of 3,651 where 6,900 is required
■ lot width of 50 feet where 60 feet is required
■ lot depth of 74.9 where 90 feet is required
■ lot smaller than minimum requirement with slope exceeding 1501b
Parcel 4:
i
I
■ corner lot area of 3,651 where 6,900 is required
■ lot width of 50 feet where 60 feet is required
■ lot depth of 74.9 where 90 feet is required
Exceptions to standards in the subdivision regulations may be granted by City Council,
subject to specific findings intended to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare is
protected, and to ensure consistency with the intent of the regulations and with the general
plan (Section 16.48.020, p. A -42).
Requested Exceptions to Grading Standards
Plans show that over 40% of the area outside the building footprint will be graded on
parcels 2 and 3, where only 20% is allowed to be graded when slopes exceed 20% in
a-jl
Il��il�►n►►il�I►IIIIIIIIh �IIUIII city of San .S OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 5
steepness. Approval of a grading exception will be necessary to accomodate a two-
bedroom house with useable outdoor space on parcels 2 and 3. Exceptions may be granted
by City Council only in conjunction with specific conditions of approval for site
development. (Grading Ordinance Section 15.44.210, p. A - 40.)
i
Requested Exception to Slope/Density Reduction j
The density standards in the zoning regulations allow fewer dwellings on sloping sites than
on flat sites of the same size. Although they are the same size as parcels 1 and 4, parcels
2 and 3 will have slopes of 21% to 25% once street improvements, which are required by
code in order to create new legal lots, are installed. Given their size, slope, and zoning,
density standards would allow nothing larger than a studio on either of the uphill lots, while
a two-bedroom house could be constructed on each of the more level parcels. Please refer
to attached summary of allowed density (p. A - 26).
By approving an administrative use permit, the Community Development Director, or an
appointed hearing officer, may grant exceptions to the reduction of density with slope, and
allow a higher density on a sloping site. On June 19th, the Hearing Officer approved an
exception to allow 1 two-bedroom house to be constructed on each of parcels 2 and 3,
subject to limitations on site development and to Council approval of the subdivision,
realizing that it would not be reasonable to create lots that can only be developed with
studio dwellings.
EVALUATION
Consistency with City Plans and Policy
Residential land use objectives of the City's general plan encourage provision for privacy,
provision of adequate useable open space, and designs which enable use of natural lighting
and are compatible with the prevailing or proposed neighborhood character. The housing I
element also encourages development of modest single family housing. (For further
discussion on consistency with City plans and policies, refer to the attached initial study.)
Staff has recommended site development limits - related to height, yard area, setbacks,
maximum footprint and square footage - as conditions of approval for both the tentative
map and the use permit to better ensure lot development that is compatible with the
neighborhood and consistent with the City's general plan and housing policy. Please refer
to conditions 10 - 13 in the attached resolution for approval and to the applicant's
development agreement outline. The following is a summary of recommended site
development limits:
1. The height of all buildings on the new lots shall be limited to 25 feet - to ensure
compatibility with neighborhood scale. Most houses in the neighborhood are single
story.
a-�
�i���ilin►i�l►Illllflllll1° '��IU city of San t -5 OBISpo
dillifts COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 6
2. Upper level decks must be set back from the property line a minimum of 10 feet -
to help mitigate problems with overlook, consistent with general plan objectives
related to provision of privacy.
3. All parcels must provide a minimum of 750 square feet of qualifying open space - j
consistent with general plan objectives related to provision of private, useable open
space.
4. Footprints on parcels 2 and 3 shall be limited to 1,100 square feet - a reduction in
site coverage proportionate to the reduced lot size and recommended to ensure
provision of adequate yard area.
5. Newly constructed houses shall he limited to 1,600 square feet in size - consistent
with the results of a neighborhood housing survey, and with general plan and housing
element policies related to compatibility and development of modest housing.
Conclusion: Approving the exceptions to the subdivision standards without the
recommended site development parameters, to ensure consistency with the general plan
and the intent of City regulations, would constitute a grant of special privilege.
Neighborhood Compatibility
Double frontage (street to street) lots, developed with one or two small houses and single
car garages are typical of the Ella Street neighborhood. Many the homes in this area were
constructed prior to 1930 and housed families associated with the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The current general plan states that residential development shall be considered consistent
with the general plan, provided that design and placement are compatible with the
prevailing or proposed neighborhood character. The 1992 draft land use element provides
more specific guidelines to achieve the same objective (see attached, p. A -39).
Conclusion: Without limits on the buildings' height, footprint size, and square footage,
there is no way to ensure development which respects the privacy of adjacent buildings
and outdoor areas, and is compatible with the prevailing character of the neighborhood in
terms of scale and spacing.
Survey of Neighborhood Housing
Staff conducted a lot by lot survey of house sizes and site development in the Ella Street
neighborhood. The survey included all similarly situated lots which have been or could be
subdivided as proposed by the project under review. Survey data shows that the average
size of houses surveyed is 1,000 square feet; nearly all the houses are single story with
detached one-car garages. Nearly all the houses surveyed had a total area under 1,250
square feet, including garage space. Survey results and a map of the area surveyed are
�III���►nii►mlllfl1111��' IIIIIN City Of San I S OBISPO
Nia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 7
attached.
The size of the houses proposed for the small lot subdivision at 1105 George Street range
from 1,880 square feet to 1,970 square feet, including space for two-car garages -- moderate
sized housing for standard lots. However, the lots proposed are roughly 40 percent smaller
than the minimum standard of 6,000 square feet. Site development is further constrained i
by a corner lot location and steep slopes. Condition 13 in the attached resolution for
approval would limit the size of the three new two-bedroom houses to 1,600 square feet.
Conclusion: Staff feels the Hearing Officer's recommendation of a 1,600 square foot limit j
for each of the three new houses is reasonable given:
i
1. The average size of similarly situated houses in the neighborhood - under 1,250
square feet including garage space;
2. Site constraints - small lot size, slopes, and corner lot location; and
3. Maximum development on each lot will be limited to 1 two-bedroom dwelling.
Site Coverage and Yard Space
i
i
Zoning regulations allow a maximum site coverage of 50% in the R-2 zone. Average lot
coverage in this neighborhood is closer to 30%. On a standard 6,000 square foot lot, 50%
coverage still leaves 3,000 square feet for street yards, building setbacks, driveways, and
private open space. The lots proposed as part of this subdivision are substantially smaller -
- 3,651 and 3,745 square feet. Staff thinks it is reasonable to apply a proportionately
reduced maximum coverage to a new subdivision proposing lot sizes significantly smaller
than the standard minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, especially on sites with steep
slopes.
I
The lot sizes proposed are roughly 600110 of the standard minimum lot size. The Hearing
Officer is recommending that building footprints be limited to 1,100 square feet on the two
uphill lots, which would result in a coverage of approximately 30% (.6 x 50% lot coverage
allowed in an R-2 zone). Without proportionately reducing coverage, available yard space
would be diminished to a size more commonly associated with high density development.
Conclusion: The applicant is proposing to develop single family homes on the site because
they would be more in keeping with the character of the existing development pattern on
double frontage lots in the neighborhood. Since yard area is one of the main assets that
distinguishes single family homes from apartments or attached condominiums, development
on the site should at least meet the criteria for open space which is outlined in the
condominium regulations. To ensure provision of useable private open space, staff
recommends that the open space provided at ground level be on ground with slopes of no
more than 5%.
a-7
illH�►n►►����IIIIIIIPji°11111IN city of San I S oaISpo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 8
Subdivision/Site Development Linkage
If the Council concurs with the need for a direct link between site development and small
lot subdivisions, three options are available: a condominium map, a development
agreement, and directly conditioning the subdivision map.
The applicant preferred not to submit a condominium map because of the costs associated
with condominium map processing, a desire not to saddle prospective buyers with a
homeowners association, and because of improved marketability of stand alone houses
over condominiums.
I
The applicant did submit an initial draft of a development agreement, which is attached,
and which lists development paramenters that the applicant felt would be appropriate to
apply to the project. Staff agrees with the list of parameters, but recommended against
utilizing a development agreement because of the lengthy and cumbersome process
involved.
Staff and the applicant determined that directly conditioning the tentative map is the most
expedient and least costly option available to the applicant. Case law clearly indicates that
if a city has the power to deny a map because it is not consistent with the general plan, the
city may impose conditions on the map approval which would assure that the map conforms
to the general plan. Conditions which staff feels would best ensure development of the lots
consistent with the Hearing Officer's direction are included in the attached Council
resolution for approval of the subdivision.
Because use permit and tentative map conditions are so closely related, and both are aimed
at achieving appropriate site development, expiration of the use permit will coincide with
expiration of the final map approval, allowing for the maximum number of time extensions.
Conclusion: Directly conditioning the tentative map for a small lot subdivision is the
optimum mechanism available to ensure appropriate site development, involving the least
cumbersome and most cost efficient process for both the applicant and City staff.
Precedence
Approval of the proposed subdivision, as conditioned, will set a precedent for future small
lot subdivisions throughout the city in terms of both site development standards and
processing strategy. Procedurally, staff recommends directly conditioning the tentative
parcel map to ensure against overbuilding on small lots. Site development standards in the
zoning regulations were established for lots which meet minimum dimension criteria. Staff
feels it is reasonable to proportionately reduce the maximum, three-dimensional building
envelope for lots significantly smaller than the 6,000 square-foot minimum.
4;
ji�U city of San 1 's OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 9
The magnitude of the precedent is difficult to assess. Up to two dozen similar projects may
occur in this and other neighborhoods where lots run street to street (although most would
not require the additional exceptions for slope and minimum size of corner lots). A 1991
inventory of vacant residential land identifies another two dozen parcels likely to be further
subdivided. There are also oversized lots which currently are only minimally developed, but
which could be redeveloped to accomodate additional small lots. Even so, inside city limits, j
the number of potentially similar project is relatively minor. However, substantial portions
of identified expansion areas could conceivably include small lot residential subdivisions.
Given the high cost of residentially zoned land, staff anticipates more frequent small lot j
proposals in the future. j
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the tentative parcel map with findings that the site is not physically suited for
the type and density of development proposed and that proposed exceptions are not
warranted. A draft resolution for denial is attached.
2. Continue review to allow revisions to the map or presentation of additional
information. Specific direction should be given to the subdivider and staff. This
alternative is only possible if the subdivider agrees to grant the city a 90 day
extension to the action deadline of August 14.
i
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from Building, Fire, and Public Works have been incorporated into the
conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached draft resolution for approval which:
A. Concurs with the Community Development Director's determination of a negative
declaration based on the finding that there is no substantial eveidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment with the inscorporation of
recommended mitigation measures.
B. Approves the tentative map based on recommended findings and conditions.
C. Approves the requested exceptions to Sections 16.36.160 and 16.36.180 of the
Subdivision Regulations and to Sections 15.44.210 of the Grading Regulations.
a-9
ilmuin►►►iviIIIIIIIIP1° ���l city of san 1 S oai spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MS 91-192
Page 10
Attachments:
I
Draft resolutions....A-1, A-7
Vicinity map....A-9
Reduced tentative map for MS 91-192....A-10
Reduced site plans and elevations....A-11
Project Chronology....A-17
Notice of Hearing Officer's action....A-18
Neighborhood survey results....A-22
Density table....A-26
Initial study ER 43-91....A-27
Development agreement outline....A-37
General plan objectives....A-38
Grading standards....A-40
Subdivision standards....A-41
Letters of support and opposition....A-43
I
i
I
9
a-io
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP FOR MINOR
SUBDIVISION NO. 91-192 LOCATED AT 1105 GEORGE STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after consideration
of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision No. 91-192 , and the
Community Development Director' s recommendations, staff
recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. As conditioned, 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-2 zone.
3 . The design of the tentative map and the proposed improvements
are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4 . The design of the tentative map or the type of improvement
will not conflict with easements for access through, or use
of property within, the proposed subdivision.
5. The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed subdivision will not have a significant effect on the
environment and has granted a negative declaration, and the
City Council hereby approves the negative declaration.
o
SECTION 2 . Exceptions. Approval of exception to required lot
dimensions - width, depth, ' and size - based on the following
findings:
1. The property to be divided is of such size and shape that it
is impractical and undesireable in this particular case to
conform to the strict application of the subdivision
regulations.
A a-ii
Draft Resolution for Approval
MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street
2 . Site development standards are specified in the conditions of
approval to ensure site development that is representative of
and compatible with the scale and character of existing
development in the neighborhood, to ensure consistency with
the general plan; to enable adequate useable outdoor space;
to minimize the necessity for topographic modification; and
to ensure that the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal
compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for
granting the exceptions .
3 . The historic nature of the existing house, to be relocated
onto Parcel 1, merits exemption from the square footage and
footprint limitations required for houses on Parcels 2 , 31
and 4 .
4 . Granting the exceptions to the lot depth, width, and size
requirements will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in
the vicinity.
5. Granting the exceptions to lot depth, width, and size
requirements is in accord with the intent and purposes of
subdivision and zoning regulations, and is consistent with the
general plan.
SECTION 3 . Exceptions. Approval of exception to grading
standards, based on the following findings:
1. The exception hereby granted -- to allow grading of
approximately 44% of Parcel 2 and 42% of Parcel 3 , exclusive.
of building footprints, where the Grading Ordinance would
otherwise allow 200 -- is subject to such conditions as will
assure that the additional grading authorized shall not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity.
2 . Because of special circumstances applicable to subject
property, including size, shape, topography, location, or
surroundings, the strict literal application of the grading
limitations is found to deprive subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity.
3 . Under the circumstances of this particular case, the exception
is in conformity with the purposes of the grading ordinance
as set out in Section 15 . 44 . 020.
SECTION 4 . Conditions. That the approval of the tentative
A-2 a -�a
Draft Resolution for Approval
MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street
map for Minor Subdivision No. 90-286 be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The subdivider shall submit a final map to the city for
review, approval, and recordation.
2 . The existing house shall be relocated onto Parcel 1 prior to
final map approval .
3 . The final map shall note that Parcels 1, 21 3 , and 4 are
determined to be sensitive sites, and that development on
these lots shall require architectural review prior to the
issuance of building permits. New development shall be
compatible with the prevailing character of the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of scale, massing, architectural style,
yards, and height.
4 . Parcels 1, 2 , 3 , and 4 shall be addressed as assigned by the
Community Development Department. Addresses for all lots shall
be posted at the street frontage to the approval of the
Community Development Department.
5. All boundary monuments and lot corners must be tied to the
. city 's control network. At least two control points shall be
used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted
with the final map along with a 5-1/4" computer floppy disk,
containing the appropriate data for use in Autocad for
geographic information system purposes.
6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 6-foot public utility easement
and a 10-foot street tree easement along all street frontages.
7 . The subdivider shall provide street lighting per city
standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8 . The subdivider shall install standard frontage improvements
(6-foot wide integral curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway
ramp) and street pavement along street frontages to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. (4-foot wide sidewalks are
approved for Ella Street; full street pavement required on
Henry Street; paveout required on George and Ella streets. )
9 . The existing wall on George Street shall be removed from the
public right-of-way.
10 . To ensure consistency with residential objectives contained
in the general plan regarding provision of adequate, private,
useable outdoor space, all parcels shall provide a minimum of
750 square feet of qualifying open space as defined and
described in Section 17 . 82 . 110 J, K. and L of the condominium
A-3 a?43
Draft Resolution for Approval
MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street
development regulations. To qualify as open space, yards
cannot exceed 5% slope.
11. To assure consistency with residential objectives contained
in the general plan regarding provisions for privacy, second
story decking shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the
nearest property line.
12 . To better ensure that site development is compatible with the
prevailing single family residential development in the
neighborhood, which is primarily single story, the absolute
maximum height, measured from finished grade to the highest
point on the roof, for buildings on each of parcels shall be
25 feet.
13 . To ensure continuity of neighborhood character in terms of the
scale and pattern of existing development, and to minimize the
need for grading on the sloped portion of the site, consistent
with the intent of the city ' s subdivision. and grading
regulations:
a. Building footprints on Parcels 2 and 3 shall be
limited to a maximum of 1, 100 square feet;
b. Development on Parcels 2 and 3 , for which an
exception to the slope/density reduction standard
is being requested, shall be limited to a maximum
building area of 1, 600 gross square feet, including
garage space.
C. Development on Parcel 4 shall be limited to a
maximum building area of 1, 600 gross square feet,
including garage space.
14 . Consistent with the city' s density standards, development on
each of the four parcels shall be limited to 1 two-bedroom
house.
14 . Conditions 10 through 14 shall be noted on the final map, and
the subdivider shall submit CC&R' s for each of the parcels
created to the Community Development Director for review,
approval, and recordation, which clearlydescribe the noted
conditions .
15. All trees to be removed as a result of site grading and
development are to be replaced at a ratio of two to one to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the
City Arborist.
16. The two Coast Live Oaks, which are otherwise proposed for
removal, shall be hand dug by qualified personnel , burlapped
A-4 0141
Draft Resolution for Approval
MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street
and balled, and relocated on the site to the satisfaction of
the City Arborist.
17 . The planting of street trees shall be deferred until after
site grading and lot development are completed to avoid
damaging newly planted trees.
SECTION 4 . Code Requirements . The following are required by
city codes, but not all code requirements are listed:
1. All structures on Parcels 1, 21 3 , and 4 shall be equipped
with automatic fire sprinkler systems .
2 . All applicable water and sewer fees shall be paid prior to
building permit issuance.
3 . Street trees shall be installed to city standards and to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist.
4 . The subdivider shall install individual sewer, water, and
utility services for each parcel . New utilities shall be
underground.
5. New lot corners shall be staked by a registered civil engineer
or licensed land surveyor.
6 . The subdivider shall pay park-in-lieu fees as determined by
the Community Development Department prior to final map
approval .
7 . All lots must be sewered to Either Ella or George streets.
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
, 1992.
Mayor Ron Dunin
A-5 a -�s
Draft Resolution for Approval
MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
APPROVED:
ity Administra ve Off ' er
tto ney
Community Deve o ent Director
A-6
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. MS 91-192
LOCATED AT 1105 GEORGE STREET
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo to deny Minor Subdivision MS 91-192 with requested
exceptions to lot size and dimension standards and to grading
standards, based on the following findings:
SECTION 1. Findings . That this council, after
consideration of the tentative map of Minor Subdivision MS 91-
192 , and the Community Development Director ' s recommendations,
staff recommendations, and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The site is not physically suited for the type and density
of development allowed in the R-2 zone, and is inconsistent
with the general plan. .
2 . The proposed parcels would not meet the minimum standards
established by the Subdivision Regulations for lot area, lot
width, or lot depth.
3 . Approval- of exceptions to the lot size and dimension
standards would not be consistent with the intent of the
Subdivision Regulations as stated in Section 16 . 04 . 020 of
the Municipal Code.
4 . Approval of exceptions to the grading standards would
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations upon other properties in the same area.
On motion of ,
seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
A-7 a_�
Draft Resolution for Denial
MS 91-192 , 1105 George Street
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of 1992 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Administ tive Of icer
A/t/�Atto
ey
Community Develol4t
nt Director
A-8 'I 8
• O � O
� � r
11 �y
� +•r e
AWN
� � • t~, ,^l ` Com\\ iq
cy.
i ^rJp
ILI
O yV�
1 q9'
c
y•
Lq
4k vo
16
I 6F
c °� lib`-' � @�:`� �\\• \`y ,.,> .�\
O �'�1�1b� � h�yM '�y\fpQ'xy0ytl'9 s�:4'=, ra��'�"�'ay,�•�
O
¢d1. } 4.
ac`\ GRAPHIC SCALE:
v^ 0 30 100 200 300
O qli
,oy0
VICINITY MAP 1105 GEORGE NORTH
MS 91-92 ER 43-91 A 100-92
A
A-9 "I 9
i2
II I
JTJ
'�-�. I I ,/ .Tom•-- �, A. 1. • -
Ila
• -
l_ .�I ' a I F�
I�
------l � .# _ ;=• I cis �t :T_ ---}--�--- �-
tr-• isi �: - - I
•�• - ,� - a-..1--;•lIS:----
VsLr
NAI
°1'. I I �—r--tom ` ^�•'—�t1A. 127- '^ t
ty�:2 \\'`— � •`.lam—_--.._—_----_
1t -
-
' �ee
MR
1 . D :C A !:l m qi"
r
BNREP CT. y'�,r:
a1 I PPP � F ?.�b
Si..lCAel St.
•cr lj J.
3}
n.v
a
A-,o �-ao
1
a
GEORGE STREET
I �— ---�— � ':�.... \ _— ---QTc•=
HillI
,J:l
:�• _ \ � � � � �\. .II limb.�l. � �
y� ���i �r�i s. t7• a _� •sr �.�� YI I
\ n f
- _ - '�1•``� I ^ �� ,\\\\ E —,= a�w:� — yL1�31;I���_ri'1: ti. ,�+,.�
\
ELu STREET \
-
iv> It
oa 5• 3 Qo pER � ��� ar •}rii i��j t
A-11
0 6T D �?lt��� ,1�L'1'C'7ln�7l�1C.r-�.�.f7r♦S9•X!l71C'S
z
�2RR
t
IyIN N
='m . m : m , m
e O o;O a O
' � 1
I
i r
1 �
i !
> i a
m
� — I
n m n
I
� a >
m n
v
r
1 .
i
I
• I
1
I
I I I
I
I
i . .....,.... I «..,,...
I
A r m an s
'sRo
A-12 _9 e; tjl SI'y J7e�enllltrlLz iL�c iurx'urles
• <T TT��
a
c n
Ivy_ r
o
I 3p�
Y9
__� � i T 1 L �� L • � 1
r � f
-- 0
I
Ey
y' -4;=
ZR
I•i Ofvsv I i�
uaZrimaa
00,
ma .. e- --rtjd`,3o uo''�.a'• A-13"
R-enf) yLochtaA
Lam..
1�
- ILL;
_= 1
JH t
- 1
s
N n m " .: - :. A-14all"
' � f
o
1
r
m +I
� O
�I r
L
_ J
Al
1 y
i.l
1
/
114`• i T •1 3 r lTJ •'-1 f v
9 a
r `<
-
, .
—4
II I I'
� I
.1
I —
I.I
y � -
a . ate m Y �:7� m Oma= '�e•.[i; •js
-
29a
N A-15 a
els ;z;' t J7eaenQl'trlGsALA6crnte�
llr�.
M
1 � r
t
_ n
P
� r
e i -
1
1
? _
i 1 r, o ■
7-7
RL
Tj
r = _
: 1
a
' �f � ��C'I"P71�N!!�/.C..{��.fi.�SSCclCllPJ
Project Chronology
.1/4/91 - Application received for 4 lot subdivsion and 4 houses ranging in size from 1,500 to 2,100
square feet.
12/3/91 - Staff response - Staff notified applicant's representative of additional information needed,
and noted that staff did not support the proposal because it did not appear to be compatible
with the character of an R-2 neighborhood in terms of tree protection, private useable open
space, and grading. It was pointed out that, without an exception, the two steeper slopes
would preclude construction of anything larger than a studio based on the city's density
standards.
1/22/92 - Staff met with the applicant and representative to discuss concerns and design options. Staff
remained concerned with the intensity and scale of the project given the topography and
surrounding context.
2/13/92 - Project revised - Applicant chose to proceed with the subdivision request on its own merits
without the development plan. Information necessary to complete the application was
submitted.
2/14/92 - Subdivision application certified complete.
3/4/92 - Negative declaration - Community Development Director approved a mitigated negative
declaration.
3/6/92 - Administrative hearing - The Hearing Officer reviewed the subdivision proposal and
expressed concern over whether the ultimate development of the site would be appropriate
for the small lot sizes proposed, and compatible with the scale and character of existing
neighborhood development. The item was continued with direction to the applicant to
demonstrate that a house and yard typical of surrounding R-2 development could be sited
on each of the four lots proposed. Staff and the applicant were also instructed to provide
a direct link between the development proposal for the site and the small lot subdivision.
4/9/92 - Revised plans - Representative submits revised schematic architectural plans.
4/14/92 - Staff returns comments on revised plans, noting necessity for a grading exception and an
administrative use permit to allow a density exception, and requesting a draft development
agreement.
4/30/92 - Staff receives revised ARC plans, grading plans, and outline for development agreement.
5/92 - Staff researches legal precedent for directly conditioning the tentative map with sit.-
development
itedevelopment parameters.
5/19/92 - Density exception requested -Application for administrative use permit received, requesting
an exception to density standards, house moving approval, and minor exceptions to height
and setback standards.
6/5/92 - Administrative hearing - Staff recommended approval of the subdivision and use permit
subject to conditions, including limitations on building footprints and total square footage.
The applicant objected to those limitations, and review was continued until June 19th.
6/16/92 - Neighborhood survey - Staff conducted a lot by lot survey of site development in the Ella
Street neighborhood. Results indicated an average house size of 1,000 square feet including
garage space.
6/19/92 - Administrative hearing-The Administrative Hearing Officer acted to recommend approval
of the subdivision and grading exception subject to site development criteria. The Hearing
Officer also approved the use permit request for the density exception subject to similar site
development limitations, and subject to Council approval of the subdivision.
A-17
a-a7
,!!INp Illus;nmurn,enll,l, f�u,l,m�„n,l;l"II.
'IIII!I III IIII!pl4Ppgllilul!'Ihl II IIII IIJ IIIqI qll CityO sAn
tU?S
O
:Iili iilllli►�I'���lii
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
June 23, 1992
Gallagher Properties
P.O. Box 1826
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision No. MS 91-192
1105 George Street
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
On Friday, June 19, 1992, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request for tentative map
approval for a minor subdivision creating four lots from two lots with exceptions to
subdivision standards, at the subject location.
After reviewing the information presented, I recommended to the City Council, approval
of:
1. The proposed tentative parcel map based on findings and subject to conditions
listed in the attached draft City Council Resolution.
2. An exception to the Grading Ordinance to allow approximately 44% of Parcel 2 and
42% of Parcel 3, exclusive of building footprints, to be graded where the Grading
Ordinance would otherwise allow 20% of each site to be graded, based on the
findings and subject to the conditions, exceptions and code requirements listed in
the attached draft City Council Resolution.
The action of the Community Development Director is a recommendation to the City
Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for
consideration before the City Council on July 21, 1992.
If you have any questions, please call Whitney Mclivaine at 781-7175.
Sincerely, _
Terry Sanville
Heartng,Officer
Attachment: Draft City Council Resolution
cc: Tim Wooldle, Steven Pults & Assoc., 1401 Higuera St., SLO, CA
A-18 a-a 8
rl!IIII!Illlllllli!IINIIn;i!!III'!!tl!Eii4!li!IIIIINgglnu,
'�liijljniiiilln':Illljili j§•�.::::;�nlUilo,Iii!j,i......is it of
sAn WIS
OBI[
PO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
June 22, 1992
Gallagher Properties
P.O. Box 1826
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl . A 100-92
1105 George Street
Dear Mr. Gallagher:
On Friday, June 19 , 1992 , I conducted a public hearing on your
request to develop a site at 12 units per acre where 8 units per
acre are allowed, and to allow minor height and setback exceptions,
at the subject location.
After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request
for slope/density reduction, based on the following findings and
subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The proposed requests will not adversely affect the health,
safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site
or in the vicinity.
2 . The proposed requests are appropriate at the proposed location
and will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
3 . The proposed requests conform to the General Plan and meet
Zoning Ordinance requirements.
4 . The proposed use permit requests are exempt from environmental
review.
5. The site is surrounded by development at least as dense as the
proposed development.
6. The street yard reduction is appropriate at the proposed
location and will be compatible with surrounding development.
7. '. Site development standards are specified in -the conditions of
approval to ensure site development that is representative of
and compatible with the scale and character of existing
development in the neighborhood; to enable adequate useable
outdoor space; and to minimize the necessity for topographic
modification.
A-19 07.a Lj
A 100-92
Page 2
Conditions
1. A street yard of no less than 15 feet shall be provided along
the Ella Street frontage of Parcel 3 , for the sole purpose of
allowing the applicant to meet the minimum area of private,
useable, outdoor space required by the council resolution for
approval of minor subdivision MS 91-192 . Any structure on
Parcel 3 shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from Ella
street.
2 . The relocated house shall meet all site development standards
noted in Chapter 17 . 16 of the Zoning Ordinance, and all
applicable conditions of approval for minor subdivision MS 91-
192 .
3 . To ensure continuity of neighborhood character in terms of the
scale and pattern of existing development, and to minimize the
need for grading on the sloped portion of the site, consistent
with the intent of the city' s Subdivision and Grading
Ordinances:
a. building footprints on Parcels 2 and 3 shall be limited
to a maximum of 1, 100 square feet;
b. development on Parcels 2 and 3 , for which an exception
to the slope/density reduction standard is being
requested, shall be limited to 1 two-bedroom house on
each parcel with a maximum square footage of 1, 600 square
feet of gross floor area, including garage space.
4 . Approval of this use permit is subject to City Council
approval of minor subdivision MS 91-192 , as recommended.
5 . Expiration of this use permit shall coincide with expiration
of final map approval for minor subdivision MS 91-192 .
Z denied the fence height exceptions as shown on Parcels 2 , 3 , and
4•; the setback exceptions to allow decking in the street yard as
shown on Parcel- 2 ; and. the height/setback exception as shown for
the house on Parcel 3 , based on the following finding:
Finding
Y. , The requested exceptions are not appropriate at the proposed
locations, and are not necessary for the . applicant's full
enjoyment of his property.
My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission
• within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any
person aggrieved by the decision.
A-20 a-30
A 100-92
Page 3
If the development authorized by this use permit is not established
within one year of the date of approval, the use permit shall
expire. See Municipal Code Section 17 . 58 . 070 .D. for possible
renewal.
If you have any questions, please call Whitney McIlvaine at 781-
7175.
Sincerely,
Terry Sanville
Hearing Officer
cc: Tim Woodle AIA
Steven Pults and Associates
1401 Higuera Street
SLO, CA 93401
ti.
A_2, Rw l
Emb ///\ R-2-S O
Ap
0001 %
\. a nD i
•G:•� \ \•n�t� ,5•Y S:TT , ••••••
� _ t
• GuIELD 4� ...• j "r• I.4,
��• FS
` TnWF• 0.°�Y \ `� yyQ� '. — Gam- �•_J
R2 5 .e:....: ..:
Is-
_ 1°6
1
1
.17
9
I
..�Tf 1•' G
1 _
1a
\tet:
- r
f
e
L'
O
!L —
\.
i
f..
4
AYE 0 KRIST�
ley
00
o
GRAPHIC SCALE V� „ ,Y •
N\• � �("\ �
10 60 100 200✓•• -300
.y•
4
,C�0
VICINITY MAP "ORT"
ELLA STREET SURVEY AREA
A-22 a-3�
%%%%%O%O%/%%D%%O%
%/D/O%%%/%O////�////%%%%D//%//%%i'�
--
9
E
�%
Square footage. survey of Ella Street neighborhood
.. _ June`1992 .
ADDRESS SQFT STORIES GARAGE SIZE
1234 Ella 1155 1 1 car
1222 760 1 2
1216 600 1 2
1205 George 1350 2 1
1216 1170 1 1
1223 825 1 2
1236 1150 1 1
1234= 1150 1 1
1910 Ruth 925 1 1
1908 850 1 1
1217 Iris 575 1 1 garage conversion
1239' 1195 1 1 carport
1243 1150 1 1 shared garage/common drive
1232 475 1 1
1204 1350 2 0
1184 Ella 750 1 1
1174 750 2 1 small 2nd story
1105 George 1050 1 0
1121 990 1 3 bldgs (2 storage?)
(450) 2 2 apt above garage
(Ella) (650) 2? 0 storage?
1127 George 1160 1 0
(Ella) (400) 1 2 38x20 inc garage
1129 885 1 2
1151 875 1 1
1183 625 1 1
1195 875 1 1
1069 George 750 1 1 carport
1202 Henry 1585 2 2 total sqft 2150
1124 George 1140 1 0
1121 Iris (1000) 2 0 2 studios
A-24 a-3A
Survey Cont'd
June 1992
Page 2
ADDRESS SQFT STORIES GARAGE SIZE
1136 George" 825 1 2 total sqft 1225
1139 Iris** 1065 1 1 carport
1148 George 1250 1 2
1147 Iris 1250 1 2
1906 Henry 1100 1 2
1127 Iris 1000 1 1 carport
1135 1100 1 2 garage on Ella
1911 Ruth 2900 2 2 5530 sqft lot
1128 George 625 1 0
Notes: ' MS 91-025, " MS 91-115 -- recent similar small lot subdivisions.
Survey included all lots which have been or could be subdivided as proposed by MS91-
192. Lots between Ella and George west of Henry Street were not included because of the
increased slope.
Conclusions:
- Average square footage of single family houses surveyed: 1000 sqft (living area only)
- Single car garages are the norm
- Predominantly single story houses
A-25 oZ�a7►7
SLOPE/DENSITY SUMMARY
EXISTING LOTS:
Area Allowed Dwelling
Lot # in sqft Slope* Density Alternatives
1 (George frontage) 7,260 < 15% 12 units/acre or 2 - 2br
1.99 units
2 (Ella frontage) 7,720 21-25% 4 units/acre or 1 - 1 br
.71 units
PROPOSED LOTS:
Area Allowed Dwelling
Lot # in sqft Slope* Density Alternatives !
1 (George frontage) 3,745 <15% 12 units/acre or 1 - 2 br
1.03 units
2 (Ella frontage) 3,745 21 - 25% 4 units/acre or 1 - studio
.34 units**
3 (Ella/Henry corner) 3,651 21 - 25% 4 units/acre or 1 - studio
.34 units**
4 (George/Henry corner) 3,651 . <15% 12 units/acre or 1 - 2 br
1.01 units
* Average cross slope of finished lot after installing required street improvements.
** Studio allowed per Section 17.12.010.E of the zoning regulations.
TABLE 1
iVIAMINIUM RESIDE`rTUL DENSITY FOR
CROSS-SLOPE CATEGORIES
Average Dlaadmum Density By approving an administrative use permit,the director
Cross Slope (units per net acre) may grant exceptions to the reduction of density with
slope where the parcel in question is essentially sur-
R•1 R-�O R-3 R-4 rounded by development at least as dense as the pro-
C•N,C-T posed development. The exception shall not authorize
0-15 7 12 18 24 density greater than allowed for the category of less than
16-20 4 6 6 9 24 fifteen percent slope for the appropriate zone. (See also
21 -25 2 6 2 Section 17.12.020D,Nonconforming Lots -Regulations.)
26 + 1 2 3 4
A-26 a-36
City O� San lulls OBISPO
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
517E LOCATION APPLICATION NO.
Z
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPA(CANT Y V l I A �G �� .T
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED IgITIA TU�Y R �UIRE[� ,'� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY ` 1 {r�I
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: ! DATE
Nn(,A�Tw jw P�)5��_r
v
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ... .. ..... ...... .......... ..........................
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH..........................................
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............ ................... ............... 1
E. PUBLICSERVICES ................................................................
F. UTILITIES......................................................:.................
G. NOISE LEVELS ................................................................. ..
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ....................
I. AIR OUALITY AND WINO CONDITIONS...............................................
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND OUAUTY ..............................................
KPLANT LIFE ......................................................................
LANIMAL LIFE................ ..................................................
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... 1V11��
N. AESTHETIC ......................................................................
O. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ./..I.,...1....`.,............J...................................... IV(/NY
P. OTHER .................G.01�.Aga.K.............................
111.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
M!�!1�T
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT A-27 �
G s3 i
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicant is proposing to create four lots from two existing lots in an established
residential neighborhood. The new lots would be less than 4000 square feet in area. City
subdivision standards require a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet. Small lot subdivisions
similar to this project were recently approved by the city (Minor Subdivisions MS 91-025,
ER 20-91 and MS 91-115, ER 28-91). However, neither of the approved lot splits noted
involoved new construction since all lots were already occupied by existing houses. And
neither of the approved subdivisions involved parcels with slopes exceeding 15%, or corner
lots, which are required to be 15% larger than interior lots. The proposed subdivision
would therefore involve additional exceptions to the city's subdivision standards for lot
dimensions. These are discussed in the following section under "Community Plans and
Goals."
The two lots underlying the site originally ran lengthwise between George and Ella Street.
The site is now divided crosswise as a result of a lot line adjustment recorded in 1990 (LLA
89-390). The two existing lots are 7,260 and 7,720 square feet in size, for a total site area
of 14,480 square feet. The upper lot, fronting on Ella and Henry streets, has a slope of
roughly 17%; the lower lot is more gently sloping at roughly an 8% grade. Existing lots are
consistent with the city's general plan and subdivision regulations.
A two bedroom house occupies the lower lot. As part of the project, the house would be
shifted onto lot 1, away from the comer of Henry and George streets, since it now straddles
proposed lots 1 and 4. The proposed relocation of the house appears to meet zoning
regulations setback standards. Any exception to those standards will require an
administrative use permit. The upper lot is undeveloped.
There are 9 trees on site (not all of which are shown on the tentative parcel map) with
uunk diameters of 3 inches or more. Six trees would be affected by proposed grading on
the upper lots to accomodate street improvements: 3 fruit trees, 2 Oaks, and 1 Pepper tree.
Please refer to the attached parcel map reduction. For further discussion of the impacts
of grading on existing trees, please refer to "Plant Life" in the following section.
II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A. Community Plans and Goals
Land Use Element
A residential land use objective of the City's general plan encourages provision for privacy
and adequate usable open space, and designs which enable use of natural lighting. It is not
clear, without a proposal for site development, whether these lots will be able to meet the
intent of the general plan. To better ensure lot development that is compatible with the
neighborhood and meets the intent of the general plan, the resulting lots, if approved,
should be designated as "sensitive sites" for the purpose of architectural review.
1
A-2$ a-3$
ER 43-91/MS 91-192
1105 Gerge Street
March 1992
Housipg Pommes
Ultimately the subdivision may further the following city goals and policies for affordable
housing.
■ Maintenance of a stock of housing types to meet the needs of renters and buyers at
all income levels. -
■ Development of modest housing for first-time buyers.
■ Variety in the location, cost, tenure, style, and age of dwellings to accommodate the
wide range of households desiring to live within the city.
Current site development standards would limit future development on the upper two lots
(Ella Street frontage) to very -modest, and therefore - theoretically, at least - more
affordable housing for buyers. Small, single family housing might prove a -successful
alternative to condominiums,which are the predominant form of starter housing in San Luis
Obispo. However, no guarantees of affordability are proposed in connection with this
project.
Subdivision Standards
The four proposed lots would involve the following exceptions to the city's subdivision
standards (Sections 16 36.160 and 16.36.180):
■ Interior lots sizes of 3,745 square feet, where 6,000 square feet are required.
■ Comer lot sizes of 3,651 square feet, where 6,900 square feet are required.
■ Interior lot widths of 50 feet, where 60 feet is required.
■ Comer lot widths of 50 feet, where 70 feet is required.
■ -Lot depths of 74.9 feet, where 90 feet is required.
■ Lots smaller than the minimum requirement, with slopes exceeding 15%.
Residential Density _
The proposed subdivision may also conflict with city standards regarding the relationship
between slope and density. Both the subdivision and zoning regulations note that allowed
density is reduced for steeper lou. In subdivisions involving slopes over 15%, the prefered
2
A-29 07 0%A? /
ER 43-91/MS 91-192
1105 Gerge Street
March 1992
approach to meeting the city's slope density standards is to create lou which are
substantially larger than the minimum 6000 square foot requirement, or to leave the steeper
areas in open space. .
Parcels 2 and 3 will have slopes of 21% to 2547,o once grading to accommodate street
improvements is complete. Given their size, projected average cross slope, and zoning,
density standards would allow nothing larger than a studio on either lot. A procedure does
exist for requesting a higher density on a sloping site. By approving an administrative use
permit, the Community Development Director may grant exceptions to the reduction of
density with slope. If approved, exceptions could allow two studios or a two bedroom house
on each lot.
Gradin}Standards
Future development of the upper lots may.conflict with grading ordinance requirements
regarding preservation of natural topography on sloping sites. As a result of the placement
of lot lines and required grading for frontage improvements, parcels 2 and 3 will have
restrictive grading requirements when developed. The percentage of area to remain natural
- outside the building footprint - may be as high as 80%. It seems likely that grading
beyond the building footprint may be limited to the driveways alone.
Significant Impacts: None. Although the project would require approval of exceptions to
the subdivision standards, the City's development review procedures should ensure that no
significant conflict with adopted plans and goals will occur, either as a result of this project
or as a cumulative result of similar projects. Any exception to ordinance requirements is
subject to a conditional use permit. To further ensure that lot development is compatible
with the neighborhood and meets the intent of the general plan, the proposed lou, if
approved, should be designated as "sensitive sites" for the purpose of architectural review.
F. Utilities
The Citv Council has adopted the Water Allocation Regulations,which are expected to help
correct the current imbalance between water supply and demand. These regulations
mitigate water impacts of new development since they delay the issuance of building permits
until adequate water supplies are available, or until the developer "earns" a water allocation
by saving twice as much water as the use is expected to use through retrofitting existing
development with water-saving fixtures. No further mitigation is necessary.
Significant Impacts: None. '
L. Plant Life
Three fruit trees are proposed to be removed from parcel 2. Two Coast live Oaks would
3
A-30 a?4qO
ER 43-91/MS 91-192
1105 Gerge Street
March 1992
be impacted by proposed grading. The tentative parcel map shows all other trees would
remain. A large Pepper tree, near the center of the existing upper lot would not be
removed as part of the subdivision. However, it probably will be removed as part of lot
development - regardless of whether or not the subdivision is approved. Given its location
and the extent of its canopy, it poses a major obstacle to future site development.
Significant Impact: None, providing the project include the following recommended
mitigation:
1. All trees to be removed as a result of site grading for installation of curb, gutter, and
sidewalk, or for future site development shall be replaced at a ratio of two to one
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department and the City
Arborist.
2. The two Coast Live Oaks shall be hand dug by qualified personnel, burlapped and
balled, and relocated on the site to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department and the City Arborist.
3. All tree protection measures recommended in the attached arborist report shall be
followed.
P. Cumulative Impact
In reviewing cumulative impacts of the project, this initial study will assume that ultimately,
as many as two dozen similar projects may occur. Of the 30(1/-) original double frontage,
150 foot deep lots in the neighborhood, approximately 8 were split in a manner similar to
the proposed project, prior to adoption of current subdivision standards in the mid-1950's.
Another 8(+/-) of the original lou have been combined or resubdivided to accommodate
development of commonly-owned lots, consistent with city policy regarding the development
of contiguous nonconforming lou (Section 17.12.010 of the zoning regulations).
This leaves approximately 14 double frontage lots in this neighborhood, similar to the
project site. Of the fourteen lots still in the original configuration, roughly half have been
developed with two houses, as is the case with the parcel directly across Henry Street from
the project site. -
There are 9 additional double frontage lots between Rachel and Swazey Streets in a
- separate nearby subdivision, and there are two locations where double frontage lots occur
with one frontage on a limited-access road. Otherwise, there are no other areas in the
city where a double-frontage lot pattern occurs.
Significant Impact: None. As noted above, up to two dozen similar projects may occur
(although most would not require the additional exceptions for slope and minimum size of
4
A-31 �L tI
ER 43-91/MS 91-192
1105 Gerge Street
March 1992
comer lots). The development pattern suggested by this project reflects similar patterns
already established in affected neighborhoods, and it would not be feasible to establish a
more efficient lot pattern in the foreseeable future. Because of the minimal number of
potentially similar projects, the cumulative effect would not constitute a significant adverse
impact in terms of consistency with the city's adopted plans and goals.
III. RECOMMENDATION
With the following mitigation measures incorporated into the project, the proposed
subdivision will not have any significant negative impacts on the environment. Staff,
therefore, recommends a mitigated negative declaration.
Mitigation Measures
1. To ensure that lot development is compatible with the neighborhood and meets the
intent of the general plan, the proposed lots, if approved, should be designated as
"sensitive sites" for the purpose of architectural review.
2. All trees to be removed as a result of site grading for installation of curb, gutter, and
sidewalk, or for future site development shall be replaced at a ratio of two to one
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist.
3. The two Coast Live Oaks, which are otherwise proposed for removal, shall be hand
dug by qualified personnel, burlapped and balled, and relocated on the site to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the City Arborist.
4. All tree protection measures recommended in the attached arborist report shall be
followed.
Attachments:
vicinity map
reduced parcel map
arborist report
5
A-32 a w14A
T I F/F
JACK BRAZEAL
~' TREE CONSULTANT
V1 ,TERN CHAP1 ER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE
r• •
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
M4
_ WCISA #163
( 805 ) 227-6140
January 5, 1992
Timothy M. Woodle, A. I .A.
Pults & Associates
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805/541 -5604
RE: Certified Arborist Report for:
Gallagher Project
Lots 152, Block 5 of the Buena Vista addition
N/E corner of Ella Street & Henry Street
San Luis Obispo, California
TREE INVENTORY:
1 . Double 25" & 22" diameter California Pepper. Fair condition .
25% dead. See attached photo. This tree will be severely
impacted by the proposed project . Major roots severed by
footings and the canopy virtually destroyed to accommodate
the building structures . To economically and horticulturally
mitigate the situation would be to remove this tree and
compensate this loss by planting two 36" box specimen trees
in a more desireable location .
2 . 6" diameter fruit tree. Fair condition. To be retained.
No cut or fill within the dripline.
3 . 8" diameter fruit tree. Fair condition. To be retained.
No cut or fill within the dripline.
4 . 6" diameter fruit tree. To be removed.
5 . 8" diameter Cypress . Fair condition. To be retained .
No cut or fill within the dripline.
6 . 4" diameter Persimmon. Fair condition. To be removed.
7 . 2" diameter Liquidambar. Good condition. To be retained .
Not impacted. .
A-33 a�y�
Arborist Rpt . -2- Jan . 5 , 1992
Gallagher Project
TREE INVENTORY: ( cont ' d)
S . 2" diameter Coast Live Oak . Good condition. To he relocated .
This tree is to be hand-dug by qualified personnel , burlapped
and balled and planted to City specifications in a pre-
determined and desirable location.
9 . 2" diameter Coast Live Oak. Good condition . To be relocated .
This tree is to be hand-dug by qualified personnel , burlapped
and balled and planted to City specifications in a pre-
determined and desirable location.
COMMENTS:
This is a sensitive location for develooment due to the location
of the large Pepper tree. California Pepper trees are normally
short-life trees and this tree appears to be in a state of decline
To design a project or development around this tree in order to
.preserve its health and integrity would not be in the best interest
of potential home owners due to the possibility of decline in the
near future. The attached "Tree Protection Measures and Requirements"
are to be used as guidelines for the protection of existing trees
to be retained.
1
eackBrazeal
Certified Arborist
JB:pb
Attachment ( 2 )
A-34 071411-
T I F
JACK BRAZEAL
TREE CONSULTANT
ti TERN yf . CHAPTER 4531 SKIPJACK LANE
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
I WCISA 0163
( 805 ) 227-6140
-9ge�R\S - -
TREE PROTECTION MEASURES AND REQUIREMENTS:
1 . -All existing trees on the site proposed for development are
to be identified by diameter, species and location. All
existing trees are to be retained unless otherwise noted.
2 . Trees proposed for removal shall be identified by diameter,
species, location and reason for removal . A public notice
sign, for trees removed, shall be posted and visible from
the street and shall be consistent with City policy, regu-
lations and ordinance.
3 . Existing trees on the site, that are to be retained and are
twenty feet or closer to the development, are subject to
tree protection as follows :
a. No branches six inches or larger in diameter, one. foot
from the tree trunk, shall be cut without prior approval .
b. No cut or fill closer than twenty feet of the tree trunk
shall commence prior to tree protection installation.
C. When cut or fill is required for development closer than
twenty feet of an existing tree, temporary tree protec-
tion fences are to be installed at the line of encroachment .
d. Tree protection fencing shall meet or exceed city require-
ments .
e. All tree protection fencing shall be installed before
the commencement of any construction work, i .e. , grading,
filling, cutting, trenching, storage of materials or any
other type of work or activity that may have an adverse
-affect on existing trees that are to be retained. All
tree protection fencing is to remain in place until the
development has final approval . e
f. when cuts or trenches are located within twenty feet- of
' existing trees to be retained, roots two inches in dia-
meter or larger that are encountered are to be cut by
hand, i .e. , axe, loppers, chain-saw, hand-saw, and then
sealed with an approved tree seal .
g. when the development requires cut or fill that may have
a significant impact on existing trees , more sensitive
measures may be required for tree protection, i .e,
retainer walls , aeration in fill areas , porus pavers ,
protective. barriers , soil desiccation measures or other
tree protection measures that may be needed to insure
tree protection.
( con ti nupd ) A-35 a..
-2-
TREE PROTECTION MEASURES AND REQUIREMENTS: (continued)
h. When significant trees are severely impacted, a detail
showing the tree protection measures may be required
prior to approval .
i. No fill or grading shall create a basin around exist-
ing trees that would cause ponding of water (domestic
or natural . )
j . When development by grading or tree protection create
a basin that may cause ponding of water, drainage miti-
gation will be required.
k. No toxic chemical is to be dumped or spilled within the
dripline of any existing trees or dumped or spilled in
an area where it may leach into the root zone area of
any existing tree.
4 . These Tree Protection Measures" are to be applied where
applicable or required and should be adequate for tree pre-
servation, however, all tree protection measures are subject
to city staff approval .
A-36 a-�b
4�mli
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Date: 30 April 92
Property Owners: Devin Gallagher
Le Royce Gallagher
Astrid J. Gallagher
Property Location: 1105 George Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
Minor Subdivision 91-192
AGREEMENT:
The owners of the above property, and the City of San Luis Obispo, agree to the following provisions
regarding the development of the property:
1 . Mitigation measures outlined in the project Mitigated Negative Declaration 43-91, filed by the
City of San Luis Obispo, on March 4, 1992 shall be completed with this development.
2. The approval of Minor Subdivision 91-192 shall be irrevocably linked to the approved
architectural designs (ARC 91-123) for the referenced property.
3. The structures to be constructed on the property shall conform to the following ARC approved
elements:
a. general architectural character
b. footprint size, configuration and setbacks
c. proposed square footages
d. proposed grading
e. building massing and heights
4. Administrative approval may be requested for minor revisions to the approval design package
from the City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department.
5. Modification to this agreement may be made only by action of the City Council.
Signed Signed
A-37
Aicbilecture.Plnmringc GI-apl)ics
1-01 Hlquera Nrerr
Srin Luis Ohisli&.Cnhfrlrma 93-01 �-�
885,5-1-jG0-
L AND USE ELEMEI *
--Residential developments which achieve maximum densities of 7, 12,
18, and 24 dwelling units per net acre in areas designated for low,
medium, medium-high, and high density, respectively, shall be
considered consistent with the General Plan, provided that design and
placement are compatible with prevailing or proposed neighborhood
character and the availability of adequate infrastructure, public
facilities and circulation.
C. Medium-density residential development, allowing a maximum of 12
dwelling units per acre, shall be encouraged in close proximity to
neighborhood and community commercial and public facilities, where
utilities, circulation, and neighborhood character can accommodate
such development. Medium-density projects should be designed to be
compatible with neighboring low-density development.
h. All residential development proposals should be designed to achieve
full use of special site potentials such as natural terrain, views,
vegetation, creek environs or other features, and to mitigate or
avoid special site constraints such as climatic conditions, noise,
flooding, slope instability, or ecologically sensitive surroundings.
They should be compatible with present and potential adjacent land
uses. Designs for residential uses should include: provisions for
privacy and adequate usable open space; orientation and design to
provide shelter from prevailing winds and adverse weather, yet enable
use of natural sunlight, ventilation and shade; provide pleasant
views to and from the development; provide safety, separate vehicular
and pedestrian movements and adequate parking for residents and
guests; and sufficient provision for bulk storage, occasional loading
and service or emergency vehicle access.
A-38 a-y�
Land Use Element Update Hearing Draft
2.10 Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses, mixed-use
projects should be encouraged.
2.11 Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural
site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, and plants.
2.12 Large parking lots should be avoided. Parking lots should be screened from
street views. In general, parking should not be provided between buildings and
the street.
2.13 Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character
with that neighborhood.
A. New buildings should respect existing buildings which contribute to
neighborhood historical or architectural character, in terms of size, spacing,
and variety.
B. New buildings will respect the privacy of neighboring buildings and
outdoor areas, particularly where multistory buildings or additions may
overlook backyards of adjacent dwellings.
C 2.14 Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as area and shape,
ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, and significant trees. The allowed
density. of residential development shall decrease as slope increases. The City
may require a residential project to have fewer units than generally allowed for
its density category (Table 5), upon finding that the maximum density would harm
the environment or the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the site,
neighbors, or the public generally.
2.15 Residential.projects should provide:
A. Privacy, for occupants and neighbors of the project;
B. Adequate usable outdoor area, sheltered from noise and prevailing winds;
C. Use of natural ventilation, sunlight, and shade to make indoor and outdoor
spaces comfortable with minimum mechanical support;
D. Pleasant views from and toward.the project;
E. Security and safety;
F. Separate paths for vehicles and for people, and bike paths along collector
streets;
G. Adequate parking and storage space;
gnD: LUE-RFS.WP
C@ADING ORDINANGE
15.44.010 Title.
The regulations contained in this chapter shall ing operation shall have a relationship to the
be known and referred to as the "Grading Ordi- average cross slope of the proposed site to be
nance ofthe city of San Luis Obispo."(Ord. 1061 graded, as shown in Table B. The percentage of
§ 2 (part), 1986: prior code § 9400) the site. exclusive of building area. to remain in
its natural state(no grading of any kind allowed)
15.34.020 Purpose. shall be considered as follows:
This chapter is adopted for the following pur-
poses: Table B
A. To protect and provide for the public
health. safety and general welfare of the city; Percent of Site
B. To guide the future growth and develop- Percent Average To Remain In
mens of the city. in accordance with and consis- Cross Slope Natural State
tent with the general plan:
C. To encourage the planning, design and 0 — 5 0
develop men tofbuilding sites in such a fashion as 6 — 10 25
to provide the maximum in safety and human 11 — 15 40
enjoyment while adapting development to. and 16 - 20 60
taking advantage of. the best use of the natural 21 — 25 80
terrain: 26 - 30 90
D. To preserve and enhance the beauty of the Above 30 100
landscape by encouraging the maximum reten-
tion of natural topographic features, such as B. Exceptions. The council may grant excep-
creeks, streams. lakes. slopes. ridge lines. rock tions from the grading limitations set out in sub-
outcroppings, vistas, backdrops, natural plant section A of this section: provided, that all of the
formations and trees: following conditions are found to apply:
E. To minimize padding or terracing of build- 1. That any exception granted shall be subject
ing sites in the hillside areas: to such conditions as will assure that the adjust-
r' To encourage imaginative and innovative ment thereby authorized shall not constitute a
building techniques to create development grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
suited to natural surroundings: limitations upon other properties in the same
G. To minimize grading and cut and till oper- vicinity;
ations: 2. That because of special circumstances
H. To minimize the water runoff and acceler- applicable to the subject property. including size.
ated soil erosion problems incurred in adjust- shape.topography, location or surroundings, the
ment of the natural terrain to meet outside and strict literalapplication of the grading limitations
off-site development needs.(Ord. 1061 §2(pats), is found to deprive subject property of privileges
1986; prior code § 9401) enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity:
3. That under the circumstances of this par-
15.44.210 Design standards—Natural state ticular case the exception is in conformity with
preservation required— the purposes of this chapter as set out in Section
Exceptions. 15.44.020.
A. Natural State. The topography of a site Exceptions may be granted only in conjunc-
proposed for development shall remain substan- tion with specific conditions of approval of a
tially in its natural state. Mass recontouring shall comprehensive plan for the development ofasite
not be allowed. In all cases the average cross slope including, but not limited to, proposed subdivi-
of a site shall be determined by the community sions, planned developments, use permits or
development director prior to any grading opera- architectural review commission projects. (Ord.
tions or approval of any grading plan. Any grad- 1061 § 2 (part), 1986: prior code § 9413) T
A-40
SUBVVISION REGULATIONS
16.04.010 Title. icies adopted by the city. (Ord. 934 1 (part).
This chapter shall be known and cited as the 19821: prior code § 9101.3)
-subdivision regulations of the city."(Ord. 914§
1 (part). 1982: prior code § 9101.1) 16.04.040 Interpretation and application.
In their interpretation and application. these
16.04.030 Purpose. regulations shall be held to be the minimum
The regulations codified in this title are requirements for the promotion of the public
adopted for the following purposes: health. safety and general welfare. (Ord. 934 § I
A. To protect and provide for the public (part), 1982: prior code § 91 l3 (part))
health. safety and general welfare:
B. To guide the development of the city in 16.36.150 General requirements.
accordance with the general plan and specific The design of lots should be based on
plans: intended use. topography and access require-
C. To ensure that real property which is to be ments. Lots which are impractical for intended
divided can be used without danger to inhabi- uses due to terrain. location of natural features.
tants or property due to etre. flood.soil instability. inadequate access. frontage. or buildable area.
noise or other hazard. or other physical limitations will not be
D. To ensure that proper provision will be approved.(Ord.934§ l(part). 1982: priorcode§
made for traffic circulation. public utilities. facil- 9107.3(A))
ities. and other improvements within the sub-
divided land and within the city as a whole; 16.36.160 Lot dimensions.
E. To protect and enhance the value of land Each lot shall have the minimum area and
and improvements and to minimize conflicts dimensions indicated in the table below for the
among the uses of land and buildings: zone in which it is located. Each lot shall front
F. To protect potential buyers and inhabitants on a street.
by establishing standards of design.and by estab-
lishing procedures which ensure proper legal DIMENSIONSdescription and monumenting of subdivided .
land;
Alin. Lot Min. Min. Min.
Area' width= Depth Frontage
G. To protect the natural resources of the zone (sq.ft.) (reet) (feet) (feet)
community including topographic and geologic
features. solar exposure, watercourses. wildlife Cos n acres 200 200 so
or more as
habitats and scenic vistas,and to increase reason- required
able public access to such resources: by zone
H. To enable innovations in subdivision pro- R., 6.000 50 90 i0
cedures which facilitate development that will R-: 6.000 60 90 30
best reflect the capability of the land to support a
R-3 6.000 60 90 40
desirable living environment. (Ord.. 934 § 1 R.4 6.000 60 90 40
(part). 1982: prior code § 9101.'_) 0 6.000 60 90 40
PF 6.000 60 90 40
C.N 6.000 60 90 40
16.04.030 :adoption authority—Conformance
with other regulations. C-R 9.000 60 100 40
C-T 9.000 60 100 40
B. Nothing in this section shall be read to
limit the right of the city,as a charter city,to enact C-C 3.000 23 so Is
additional provisions concerning the division of C-s 9.000 60 too 40
land as are deemed necessary to protect the pub- M 9.000 60 100 40
tic health. safety and general welfare. Exceptions:
C. Approval or conditional approval ofa sub- Lots within condominium subdivisions may have any size or
division map shall not excuse compliance with shape. Lots which are approved in conjunction with a develop-
ment plan as provided in the zoning regulations may have any
other applicable provisions of this code or other size or shape consistent with the structures and improvements
applicable ordinances.rules.regulations and pol- shown in the development plan.
A-41 a-sl
16.36.180 Slope density reduction.
A. In sloping terrain. the overall residential the strict application of the regulations codified
density of a subdivision shall be reduced with in this title: and
increasing slope as provided in the zoning reg- -'. That the cost to the subdivider of strict or
ulations. This may be done by increasing the literal compliance with the regulations is not the
size of the lots or by designating a sufficient area sole reason for granting the modification: and
for permanent open space. The open space area 3. That the modification will not be detrimen-
shall be either dedicated to the city or protected tal to the public health. safety and welfare. or be
by a perpetual open space agreement. at the injurious to other properties in the vicinity: and
option of the city. 4. That granting the modification is in accord
B. Increasing lot sizes is the preferred with the intent and purposes ofthese regulations.
approach in areas of uniform topography. In and is consistent with the general plan and with
areas of variable topography. the preferred all applicable specific plans or other plans of the
,pproach is to have substantially larger lots or cin•.
open space use for the steepest areas, drainage B. In granting any exception.the council shall
swales. rock outcrops. or shallow soils. impose such conditions as are necessary to pro-
.Approval of the scheme of lot sizes and open tett the public health. safety and welfare. a-.,i
areas shall be at the sole discretion of the city. assure compliance with the general plan. with all
Open space areas to be maintained for density applicable specific plans. and with the intent and
reduction shall not be counted towards fulfill- purposes of these regulations. (Ord. 934 1
ment of parkland requirements. nor shall the (part). 1983: prior code 9110.2)
city or subdivider be obligated to provide or
maintain any recreational facilities in such
areas. (Ord. 934 § 1 (part), 1982: prior code §
9107.3(D))
16.48.010 Exception authority.
Upon the recommendation of the planning
commission or the community development
director. or upon its sole determination, the
council may authorize exceptions to the require-
ments or standards imposed by these regulations;
provided. however. that no exceptions may be
made to any requirements imposed by the Sub-
division Map Act: and further provided that
nothing in this chapter shall be construed as
altering or conflicting with the powers and duties
of the city to approve variances from the zoning
regulations.(Ord.934§ I (part), 1982:prior code
§ 9110.1)
16.48.020 Required findings and conditions.
A. Before any exception is authorized. all of
the following findings shall be made:
1. That the property to be divided is of such
size or shape, or is affected by such topographic
conditions. that it is impossible. impractical or
undesirable. in the particular case. to conform to
A-42 07
4
n
A-43
March 6, 1992
r
Community,.Develapment Director'
City of San Luis.Obipo
Mark Lowesisoil 990 Pave Stet
DESIGN&CONSTRUCnON INC. San Luis Obispo,CA 93403- 8100 '
51 ZACA LANE, SUITE 110
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401
( 805 ) 544 - 3424
Dear Sir,
My name is MarY Lowerison an my wife Elisabeth and. I reside at 1174 Ella Street
in the City of San Luis Obispo. 1 am crriting on behalf of both of w reganiing The
proposed subdivision No M S 9 1-192 at the comer of Ella Street and Henry Street near
our home.
'Re are familiar with the proposal and have recently discussed this project with the
property owner. My initial-reaction was that the project appears m be a welcome
addition to our neighborhood in terms of character of structures and general planning
Upon further consideration of the impact the pmject 1ni.;ht hare, we he4'e taro points of
concern that we hope the city gill address.
The first n5 that by creating four separate lots of this sire a precede t may be created
that influences continued lot splits of this kind in the surrounding neighborhood.
A-1though this project appears to be carefully thought out it gill not necessary hold true
for other project✓ proposed inthe future and Yet this subdi',rision coed be considered s
legal precedent that the.city then felt obligated to equal later on.
The second issue regards density and the impact of increased automobile traffic on
Ella Street. Every night I watch at least a dozen people run or role the Ella Street l Ruth_-
Street intersection at vert high speeds. It would seem that the recent tragic accident of
Lucille Janisse would serve to remind us that our neighborhoods ere fast becoming
overburdened by increased use erithout the appropriate measures of safety considered.
A-44
I have personally seen tr e kind of quality development the property owner has
already offered to improving the character of San Luis Obispo aid I believe he -gill
repeat this effort in his future'endeavors:. I Hope the city mill recognize that this let�r is
voiced as a concern over what the long tanli developmara impact this project may have
on this neighborhood. I also hope the city will be able to vor};with this partcular
developer to achieve a project that the city, the developer and the families living in this
Neighborhood can comfortably live with.
Sincerely,. -
_ e
iYIerk . Lowel7son
A-45 a43
P h I I I p p J u n g
June 1 , 1992
KE4.: C` IV tL.
JUN1 ; 1992
City of San Luis Obispo Hearing Officer, CITY OF SAN LUIS
City of San Luis Obispo, rWKM nlT OEVEIOo�SPO
990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA.
To whom it may concer,
We who live in the quiet enclave behind French Hospital
are very upset to learn about the consideration of Permit
Appl . A 100-92 . If the lot is zoned for 8 units, why change
it? This will of course mean AT LEAST 12 more cars parked
on the narrow streets, and of course more traffic congestion.
Height and setback exceptions? Sounds very threatening.
Again, why change a decision that has already been settled?
I understand the housing scarcity in SLO, but why offer
Gallagher Properties special consideration, -and:=over.Iook
the public saftey issues of the people wwho live there?
How do we protect the water supply, ;the sanitary system?
This request needs very careful examination. How does
benefit the. neighborhood?
Thank you,
A-46
1121 Iris Street San Luis Obispo CA 93.01 605 5.4 9430 �..��
_ 7
�'. .�.. ._.._.____vim_ —..::.—/1��.i��]s'(. 1'./'l�.(�ia:._C. 'Y•�.•Gr -
G��
Tj
/��� � l✓'fit �•/.•/eJ�-�J` �`i�//� .
RECEIVED
FEB 2 51942
�
YIJNI Y DEVELOPhENT
0
A-47 a's
--dTINPI AGENDA
ITEM #_._.
: Afte C3
August 4, 1992 a pO CDOOR
IftOR
!W 996
CLERVOR
POL❑ MCMT,71AM C) RM
M�
Office.of the City. Clerk D & e,��t e n
City of San Luis Obispo ` -r-
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council:
We respectfully request a fourteen day continuance of this evening's scheduled hearing
regarding MS 91-191, 1105 George Street.
There are significant discrepancies between statistics and municipal code
interpretations between ourselves and city staff.
We feel that an additional two weeks to resolve these outstanding issues will be very
beneficial to the mutually acceptable completion of the project.
Thank you in advance for your consideration regarding this item.
Timothy M. Woodle, AIA
Project Architect
RECEIVED
AUG 4 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBI&O,CA
Archileelure,Planning&Graphics
1401 Higuera Sires!
San Luis Obispo,Cuhjonia 93401
8051541.5604
i
EETING AGENDA
DATE 8_4_9ZITEM #
July 31, 1992
Dear Mayor & Councilmembers: ,
The following information is respectfully presented regarding the 1105 George
Street Project, which is scheduled for Council hearing on August 4, 1992.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact
me at your convenience. `
Sincerely,
Timothy M. Woodle, A.I.A.
Project Architect
cort2sT o. _
_ 1.J'Cbm►di ,.-. . 6�CDDDut. .::
_ _. ACAO -PuECHEY_
AT MWEY `. FW D& _
CiF WORn POLICE CFI.
O MCMT.TEAM O R6CDIR.
0 ZL
RECEIVED,
AUG 3 1992
CITY COUNCIU
SAN WS QBjSE%CA
Architecture,P1a?zning F Graphics
1401 Higuera Sired
San Luis Obispo,Calrfornia 93401
305/541-5604
1105 GEORGE SREET
TENTATIVE MAP - SMS 91-92
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM FOR AUGUST 4. 1992
APPLICANT: GALLAGHER.PROPERTIES
AGENT: TIMOTHY M. WOODLE,AIA
STEVEN D.PULTS,AIA&ASSOCIATES
STAFF PLANNERS: GREG SMITH
WHITNEY MCILVAINE
OVERVIEW: 1105 GEORGE STREET - TENTATIVE MAP - MS 91-92
The project will be before the San Luis Obispo City Council on Tuesday, August
4 for a public hearing to consider the hearing officer's recommendation for
approval of the tentative map. This is an infill residential project within an older
residential neighborhood of San Luis Obispo. ne building mix ranges from
very small older homes, to fairly large upscat3, newer homes, as well as
apartments and condominiums. The proposals a small lot development
which is consistent with the neighborhood pattern and community housing
goals. The development is targeted for an owner occupied market. The
development is somewhat unique in that we are proposing relatively modest
single family detached houses.
Generally speaking, we are in agreement with staffs' recommendations for
approval of the 4 lot project. There are however, two conditions of approval with
which we strongly disagree. Specifically, conditions of approval within the draft
resolution for MS 91-192 number 10 and number 13 which we find
unacceptable in their present form. The present wording is as follows:
10. To ensure consistency with residential objectives contained
in the general plan regarding provision of adequate,
private, usable outdoor space, all parcels shall provide a
minimum of 750 square feet of qualifying open space as
defined and described in Section 17.82.110 J, K, and L of
the condominium development regulations. To qualify as
open space, yards cannot exceed 5% slope.
13. To ensure continuity of neighborhood character in terms of
the scale and pattern of existing development, and to
minimize the need for grading on the sloped portion of the
site, consistent with the intent of the city's subdivision and
grading regulations:
a. Building footprints on Parcels 2 and 3 shall be limited
to a maximum of 1,100 square feet;
b. Development on. Parcels 2 and 3, for which an
exception to the slope/density reduction standard is
being requested, shall be limited to a maximum
building area of 1,600 gross square feet, including
garage space.
C. Development on Parcel 4 shall be limited to a
maximum building area of 1 ,600 gross square feet,
including garage.space.
PROJECT SPECIFICS:
CONDITION OF APPROVAL #10
The specific language contained within this condition of approval is unclear.
We do not object to the amount of open space toe provided. If fact, our plans
exceed this standard in terms of quantity of open pace. We however, object to
the requirement to regrade the sites to create a nope of 5% or less. This is in
direct conflict with hillside development standard4with respect to grading. On
sloping sites, our goal is generally to retain as much of the topography in its
natural state as is feasible. Based upon this, we are not in agreement with a
grading requirement which dictates site alteration of this magnitude. We
understand the need for usable open space, but feel that j!gl is not necessarily a
requirement for usability. However, we propose that a minimum of 250 square
feet of qualifying open space be limited to 5% slope. (This figure is based on
the City's typical requirement for usable open space as defined in Section
17.82.110 J of the City Ordinance. '
CONDITION OF APPROVAL #13
It is this condition of approval with which we most strongly disagree. We have
designed (and several times redesigned at the direction of city staff) these
homes. These designs effectively meet all applicable city standards regarding
overall height, height vs. setback, street yard setbacks, and lot coverage. We
are asking for approval of a small-lot subdivision, and do agree with staff that
compliance in terms of these zoning issues (height, setback etc.) is important.
However, to further restrict the development of these lots with square footage
and footprint limitations is inappropriate.
The following statistics are provided regarding lot coverages:
Allowed by zoning ordinance: R-1 ...........:..........................40%
R-2 ......................................50%
Proposed by our development: Parcel 2...........................36.8%
Parcel 3...........................36.4%
Parcel 4...........................36.8%
Allowed by proposed condition of approval #13: Parcel #2........................29.3%
Parcel #3........................30.1%
The proposed limit of 1,600 gross square feet is also unacceptable to us. Our
programming, market analysis, and design concept indicates a strong
preference for two car garages in owner occupied housing.
A two car garage design generally results in an improved streetscape, due to
fewer cars parked on city streets, and provides additional storage for the
resident. Based on the assumption of two car garages, we are left with a living
area of approximately 1 ,150 square feet. We have submitted designs and
design modifications for this project over a period of many months prior to any
suggestion by staff of square footage limitations. The following timeline
illustrates the project's progress over the past yea .
7-1-91 Initial meeting with city staff to discuss project concept and
feasibility.
8-23-91 Meeting with city staff to discuss project proposal specifics
10-17-91 Meeting with city staff to discuss project specifics
11-4-91 Submittal of tentative tract map and A.R.C. design package
11-27-91 Specific detailed response from city staff to proposal
12-6-91 Specific detailed response from city staff to proposal
1-3-92 Resubmittal of design package to city staff
1-10-92 Meeting with city to discuss revised design package
1-21-92 Meeting with city to discuss design specifics
1-30-92 Meeting with city to discuss design specifics
1-27-92 Letter from city regarding map processing
2-8-92 Meeting with city staff to discuss proposal specifics
2-13-92 Letter to city staff regarding suggested map modifications
3-6-92 First tentative map hearing - continuance
3-11-92 With city staff regarding hearing and project specifics
4-9-92 Redesign submitted to city
4-14-92 Letter from city regarding submittal of 4-9-92
4-27-92 Revised architectural package submitted to city staff
5-19-92 Letter to city staff regarding density; planning application
submitted to city
During the time frame of 7-18-91 to 5-19-92, 1 would conservatively estimate 20
to 30 telephone conversations with staff regarding the project. To date, no
specific discussions of a square footage limit or coverage limit
occurred.
6-4-92 Staff report for hearing of next day (6-5-92) provided to Architect's
office. Staff suggested conditions of approval #13 and #14 limiting
footprints to 1,100 square feet and combined living/garage
to 1,700 square feet appeared for the first time.
6-5-92 Subdivision hearing: Architects protested conditions #13 and #14.
Hearing continued to take these issues under advisement.
6-18-92 Staff report again provided for hearing of next day. Staff now
proposes limiting footprints to 1,000 square feet and
combined living/garage to 1,300 square feet. Hearing
officer forwarded recommendation of footprint limit at
1,100 square feet and combined living/garage limit of
1,600 square feet for Parcels 2, 3, and 4.
This late change in planning strategy for the project is wholly unacceptable. To
summarize, we spent 10 months developing designs for the project with
constant input from staff prior to any specific proposal to limit square footages.
These square footage limits, if implemented, would make all project designs
completely and totally useless. This is clearly not 5vithin the spirit of cooperation
which has characterized the approach to plannin for this project.
We respectfully request that conditions of approvakbe modified as follows:
#13 To ensure continuity of neighborhood character in terms of the
scale and pattern of existing development, and to minimize the
need for grading on the sloped portion of the site, consistent with
the intent of the city's subdivision and gradinglegulations:
a. Building footprints on Parcel 2 and 3 shall be limited to a
maximum of 1,375 square feet.
b. Development on Parcels 2 and 3, for which an exception to
the slope/density reduction standard is being requested,
shall be limited to a maximum building area of 1,950 gross
square feet, including garage space.
C. Development on Parcel 4 shall be limited to a maximum
building area of 1 ,950 gross square feet, including garage
space.
This revision will allow us to implement the designs we have worked diligently
with staff to create, and still ensure development of the sites be kept at a fairly
modest level (houses of approximately 1 ,450 square feet).
Thank you for your consideration regarding this project.
''} "• ,.. .' t •1���a��- r- L' ��: y-riaz y, 'ifit-T It.:�y i` I.rc t � •`i'
• 3 � �:St ` ' r s �.f'17^-r F �s f �.. l ,F T1. '1
1
r{ art"
�� r'' 1, _ ; �;`s ,� � _ a • •` /
_ t)
♦ ,
17E
r.A ��• yy,� ,�
it
t
s..
I '.' ', rt�• I lv' 11, ,
• -+,tom r ]� .r • /.. ,. ,T
Y: �! !1
: � n"
rT
l
R/ wrN
�` 1- �� � •til� � '-1 � �,
r • �yy
- '� '� .z�• `. �\fir,�7. r '.�.•',I , � �.^. '\ '�i
d
law
'.ton�-,
y.(r� 't rt , Yy �� �� /�• , ' f 1 .11` ��
+ •'•+ 17"f. Atm. `,r _ '•� j _- " .r,,, .�,'`.
all
10,
Mel—
Aw
�•. .� - J 00111'gg
AI
}
=. -- _ - .•