HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1990, 12 - REQUEST TO ALLOW A PRIVATE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER SAN LUIS CREEK, LINKING A PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDIN '�ij! City of San LUIS OBISpo TING-AL, 940
ars:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1 NUMBER/�
FROM: Arnold Jonas Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Greg Smith, Associate PlannemSTS
SUBJECT: Request to allow a private pedestrian bridge over San
Luis Creek, linking a proposed office building at 1177
Marsh Street to an existing parking lot at 1194 Pacific
Street.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, indicate support for a pedestrian bridge which
incorporates a public pedestrian easement, and forward the
council's direction to the Architectural Review Commission.
REPORT IN BRIEF
It has been city policy to oppose private bridges, unless
there is no reasonable alternative for development of a
particular property. Although there may be alternatives for
development of this site, a bridge can be supported if it
contributes to the future creek trail system.
DISCUSSION:
Background
The applicant wants to use an existing parking lot on the east side
of the creek to meet zoning requirements for new office building j
on the west side. The parking and office building - which would
be on separate lots, but under common ownership - would be linked
by a private footbridge.
The city's Flood Management Policy and Architectural Review
regulations call for proposals for construction over major creeks,
including all bridges, to be reviewed by the council. The council
is to provide "specific directional guidance prior to any
commission action" on such projects.
The project will also be subject to several other types of
discretionary review by the city:
The Architectural Review Commission must approve the design
of the bridge and new office building. The ARC continued
consideration of the project at their May 14, 1990, meeting.
The commission's direction to the applicant is noted below.
- A variance must be approved by the Administrative Hearing
Officer for reduction of the Marsh Street setback for the
office building from 15' to 31 , and to allow the handicapped
�it-
parking space on the building site to be set back less than
15 ' from Toro Street.
- The Hearing Officer must also approve an administrative use
permit to allow reduction of the Toro Street setback from 15'
to 12 ' for the building, to allow off-site parking, to allow
development of an office building in an office zone, and to
allow a reduction of the total parking requirement for the
various office and specialized training uses on the two
parcels.
Data Summary
Address: 1177 Marsh Street
Applicant: Carlsberg Management
Representative: Pults and Associates
Zoning: 0
General Plan: Office
Environmental Status: Environmental determination pending.
Project Action Deadline: October 15, 1990
Site Description
The site includes a portion of the channel of San Luis Creek. The
creek channel . is steeply sloping, with vertical retaining walls
forming a portion of its bank. Various riparian vegetation is
located in and near the channel. Various residences and offices
are located in the immediate vicinity, and a grocery store. The
city has been granted a creek maintenance easement over the creek
channel portions of both lots.
EVALUATION
The proposed bridge is one aspect of a proposed office development
which involves several discretionary approvals by the city, as
noted above. This report focuses on the bridge itself, and related
creek planning issues. Other aspects of the project will be
reviewed by the ARC and Administrative Hearing Officer at future
hearings.
1. Creek Planning Policies
The Flood Management Policy (1983) calls for major creek channels
to be maintained in their natural state to the maximum extent
possible, and that document and the architectural review
regulations (MC 2.48.170.C) require any construction over the
creeks to be reviewed by the council. The city has generally
discouraged the construction of bridges where any alternative which
allows reasonable use of the property is available.
More recently, creekside projects have been required to set back
ARC 88-161
Page 4
- The applicant would have to offer to dedicate an easement
for the bridge, and for connection to the upstream portion
of the trail. The easements would cross both of the commonly-
owned lots.
3 . Development Constraints and Intensity of Develorment
The useable area of the proposed building site is affected to a
minor extent by street yard setbacks, and to a much greater extent.
by the creek channel. (Note that the creek channel occupies over
2000 square feet of the site) .
The appearance of the structure is somewhat more massive than is
typical in the Office zone, primarily due to the reduction of the
Marsh Street setback. For comparison, staff estimates that the
proposed floor area is about one-half the amount which could be
developed on the lot if the creek channel did not cross the site
(assuming compliance with setbacks, and provision of all parking
off-site) . The floor area is about the same as could be provided
if the site were flat and on-site parking were provided, and about
twice that which would be possible with existing topography and all
parking on-site.
It would be appropriate for the council to provide direction
regarding strict application of the twenty-foot creek setback
policy, and the council may also wish to make a recommendation to
the Hearing Officer regarding the street yard reductions which have
been requested.
4. Visual Impact of Bridge
The style and materials for the bridge have not yet been finalized,
although the ARC made various suggestions on these issues. The
commission determined that the bridge, if well-designed, would not
have an unacceptable effect on views of the creek.
S. Relocation of Bridge
The ARC suggested that the bridge be ' located nearer to the
Marsh/Toro intersection. This would slightly increase the length
of the span, but would move the access point away from the
neighboring residence. It would also improve public access, if the
bridge is to be used for creek access.
6. Impact on Flooding
The bridge and stairway will not have an adverse effect on the flow
of flood water in the creek. The span will be above the 100-year
design storm level, and the effect of the stairway will be offset
by the building's supporting stemwall, which will "streamline" the
flow of water past the adjoining house.
/�-3
ARC 88-161
Page 3
twenty feet from the top of creek bank, in order to preserve
riparian habitat and maintain the open character of the creek
corridors. Staff would note that adherence to the twenty-foot
creek setback on this lot would render it virtually unbuildable.
Note also that little riparian vegetation is found on the site.
The grasses and other groundcover plants on the site help to
control erosion, but provide minimal habitat. Riparian vegetation
on the parking lot side of the creek - which is more significant,
since it includes several large trees - would not beaffected by
the proposed office and bridge.
2. Future Creek Trail
The Parks and Recreation Element (1982) shows a creek trail along
San Luis Creek, beginning at Cuesta Park and terminating at the end
of Pacific Street.
Since that plan was adopted, -however. the portion of Pacific Street
right-of-way which adjoined the. Toro Street right-of-way has been
abandoned. An easement for utilities was reserved, but pedestrian
access rights were not retained.
Staff does not view the lack of access rights to Pacific Street as -
a critical obstacle to future development of the creek trail, since
a considerable portion of the channel is within the Toro Street
right-of-way. It should be feasible to terminate the trail with
A path or stairway up to street level near the Marsh/Toro
intersection, or near the Dallidet Adobe site.
However, the council should consider the possibility of using the
bridge and stairway proposed .by the applicant as an access point
to the future trail. This would involve certain advantages and
difficulties:
- Access to an attractive portion of thecreek area would be
extended.
- Most of the cost of constructing the creek access would be
borne by the applicant.
- Construction of a bridge which had some public purpose would
be more consistent with city policies for preservation and use
of the creeks.
Public use of the bridge might generate noise, or other
conflicts with office uses.
Increased liability for both the city and the private
property owner.
ARC 88-161
Page 5
CONCURRENCES
ARC
On May 14, the ARC continued the proposed office building and
bridge, with direction to restudy eave design, the architectural
style of the bridge, and the access point for the bridge.
Staff
Public Works staff questions whether it is appropriate to require
dedication of pedestrian easements across the parking lot parcel,
which is not directly affected by the new construction.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may adopt a resolution approving or denying the
proposed bridge, or may continue the item with direction to the
staff and applicant regarding additional information needed.
If the bridge is denied, a smaller office building with on-site
parking may eventually be developed on the site.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, indicate support for a pedestrian bridge which
incorporates a public pedestrian easement, and forward the
councils direction to the Architectural Review Commission.
Attachments: vicinity Map
ARC Regulations
Flood Management Policy Excerpt
Parks and Recreation Element Excerpts
ARC Draft Minutes (forthcoming)
Letter from Applicant
gtsd:ar88161c.wp
/.2-S
VICINITY NM V 1413; ARC88-161. Al 181111111111111188
IN;14-
0 Pb
1 , ewlre � �...•
r fr O t•
tot
O s A
lop
*?
CIO
ll �•
Ll N
'I, ® .+Id,.�• `j,IY1,, ►.fit,`.
`rte �•1' ,. •�jr��,•
vo
ISO a
C - R
IV
CIIIIIIIR
A.16
� � p. p1•+a•'
y y •c
\�` r���fu s�*�,K /' � ��1F�1 O*• del
C
O
/I .001110,
0 0 �
0 p �.°•°.�'''
�I J�.1✓ -Ip
.,+
I� s � \ n'�•• rrp O
2.48.160-2.48.190
forth in pictorial and/or narrative form and may. 2.48.170 Jurisdiction.
illustrate undesirable as well as desirable exam- A. Approval by the commission shall be
ples of design. A document containing the stan- required for all structures and physical improve-
dards and guidelines shall be available forpublic meats except individual built single-family
reference in the community development dwellings. The exception for the individual sin-
department. The commission shall periodically gle-family dwellings shall not apply if(1) archi
review these standards and guidelines and may tectural review is required as a condition of a
make appropriate amendments. subdivision use permit or other discretionary
B. The commission shall make itselfavailable entitlement; (2) when a developer proposes to
to advise and assist both developers and city staff construct three or more units;(3)when the direc-
in the application of its standards and guidelines for determines the site is sensitive as set forth in
to projects during schematic and development the procedures document."Sensitive sites"shall
stages. include,but not be limited to,open space zoning
C. The commission shall review and approve areas designated by resolution of the planning
plans for all structures and physical improve- commission,architectural review commission or
ments and for any relocation,addition,or exten- council; and (4) where the scale or character of
sion to or exterior change of or to existing the proposed dwelling contrasts significantly
buildings,structures and physical improvements with adjacent or neighboring structures.
located in districts as set forth in Section 2.48.170 B. The commission shall also review all city
before a building permit or other permit autho- financed projects, including, but not limited to,
rizing construction,alteration, relocation,addi- municipal buildings, park and open spaces and
tion, or extension under the ordinances of the street furniture. J
city may be issued unless the commission or the C. Approval by the commission shall be.
director shall certify that the nature of the work is required for all projects, including individual
minor or incidental and need not be reviewed by built single-family dwellings,located in or along
the commission. When, in the opinion of the any creek or waterway as defined by the city's
director, an application for a use permit, van'- flood plaza management policy. Approval shall
ance or rezoning may create an architectural be granted if the commission finds that a project
impact contrary to the objectives of this chapter, complies with the uniform storm design criteria
he may require a commission review prior to the for waterways, all other applicable policies and
planning commission hearing. (Prior code § standards for flood plain management,and oth-
9500.2(DX2)) erwise satisfies relevant architectural criteria
Projects involving any building or bridge pro-
posed to be constructed in or over any portion of
2.48.160 Architectural review.procedures. any of the four major creeks or waterways, as
The commission shall adopt the procedures defined by said policy,or any major creek modi-
document which sets forth the procedures and 6caiton project, shall be referred to council for
criteria for architectural review. The document review and specific directional guidance prior to
shall be published and dated and shall be any commission action. (Ord 1010 § 1, 1984:
approved by the council. A record copy of the prior code§9500.20)
current procedures document shall be main-
tained in the office of the city clerk and in the 2.48.190 Noncompliance with provisions.
community development department. Copies A. In addition to any other fines,penalties or
shall be available to the general public. (Prior enforcement provisions set forth in this chapter,
code§95002(DX3)) failure to comply in any respect with an
i
53 (
SM t.uis oawo ice►
��:,
Resolution No. (1983 Series) page 3
^' B. The City Council determines that it is not economically feas-
ible to mitigate the biological impacts of the concrete channel portion
of the San Luis Creek Flood Control Modifications (reference page 8,
Final E1R).
SECTION II. Flood Management Policy.
A. In April 1983. a comprehensive flood management report was
prepared by staff and presented to the Council. This report included
valuable background information and provided a framework for the City's
flood management policy and program.
B. Policy Objectives. It shall be the policy of the City that
waterways and adjacent lands be generally managed to:
1. Maintain the creeks in a natural state to the maximum
extent feasible;
2. Prevent the loss of life from flooding; and
3. Minimize damage from flooding.
C. Storm Design Capacities. Pending focused environmental
evaluations, the following storm design capacities are adopted to
contain the creeks Within their banks (with freeboard):
1. San Luis Creek - 40-year storm to confluence; 50-year
storm below confluence;
2. Old _Garden Creek - 25-year storm;
3. Stenner Creek - 50-year storm;
4. Prefumo Creek - 50-year storm; and
5. Other Minor Waterways - 10 to 25-year storm dependent on
watershed area.
P. Development in Creek Areas. New development..in waterway areas
Oshall not be permitted to encroach in any manner which would diminish or
otherwise constrict the specified storm design capacity of the waterway
/s if
creex.
j, Il Trail System: A map of the orbs fail system is included - shown on
page 11. As part of the development revrc'vi process or in separate city
actions, the city shall in all cases attempt to secure access rights needed
to carry out the trail plan.
The city will continue to refine the urban trail plan and develop precise
design standards that control the type of access to and use of specific
sections of the trail system.
° Public Utility Easements. Rights-of-Wal- an Qther Public Lands should be
maintained in a safe and orderly state and, where appropriate, used as part
of the city's open space and recreation system.
° Reservoir Canyon IDA Looez Canyon: Public access to these sensitive areas
will be allowed when consistent with sound resource management. Minimal
facilities might be provided. These areas should be preserved in their
natural states. Local nature groups and other organizations that use the
canyons should be asked to help provide periodic clean up.
° Access Improvements The city will work on improving access to existing
city recreation facilities. Examples of these types of projects include:
Building sidewalks and bike paths to join housing areas With schools
and parks.
Creating creek-side trails to connect housing areas with parks While
avoiding major arterial streets and the railroad tracks.
° Qpm Suace Plannin As part of its Hillside Planning Program, the city
will develop specific programs to preserve scenic hillside areas. Similar
programs will be developed for major creeks in San Luis Obispo.
■tam ttrsstaeti�MAW
Y
Zf'
A
The city's creelotays provide routes to parks and schools
for many people. The city should seek to develop safe,
maintainable creek access points and paths wherever possible.
'Pars 4 �
11
ONE MILE
URBAN TRAIL vYSTEM
EXISTING PARK OR RECREATION FACILITY
PROPOSED PARK OR RECREATION SITE
* TRAIL ACCESS POINT _
cae� ON-STREET TRAIL
OFF-STREET TRAIL
vemopb
l�fJ7l.41L3. y �'b
010
o �,�p50&+j LUIS
t
MTN. C
® ��. _ • C0
t� <
NTLI.,' O
i
Alt �MILLS
C e vQ a Q
Q0 ,,
H, d
t+i
15t.+.Y
NORTH
1
y Icity of PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT
U..r san Luis owspo
10
FA _in
" T 1
r I
o ,
9 •l +• • I
0
rho Ii i
� I
r, •a. , L• 4: I
♦ 1
h 'r `atd • •- ' 1
N24•
•\
1 . . . n -- I tRNA pa. •�a
i w T. .--- -- — -J ob
,
\� •y i J .
i �� it ` '\ ' f rT '•��
rtECEIVEU
C
MM 2S X990
Cay ms.nLacs oo
May 23, 1990 -Mundy Dr
Greg Smith
Planning Division
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Marsh Street Office Building
ARC 88-161
Dear Greg:
As we discussed on the phone, I wanted to confirm our intent regarding the proposed
footbridge for the referenced project.
Our goal in providing the bridge was to provide access to the existing Dallidet office
building and to connect the Pacific Street area to Marsh. We had always anticipated
public use of the bridge and would certainly be agreeable to providing any necessary
access easements to insure public use.
It is my understanding that thr, proposed creek trail system, if approved, would end in
the area of the proposed bridge. If a stairway between the bridge and the trail along the
top of bank would solve an access problem, we would be happy to participate in or
provide some connection, depending on its feasibility.
The owners of the proposed project also own the Dallidet Office Building property. At
your suggestion, in order to simplify the approval process, they will be proceeding
with a lot line adjustment to combine the two parcels.
I hope this will clarify any questions regarding the access and use for the bridge. If
you need any further information, please give me a call.
XP
ults, AIA
ti
cc: Carlsberg Management
Architeelure,Planning£Craphid
19U1 Higueru,57me1-
,kin Luis Obiclui.Gidi�nwl 93401 w
805-d-50-i �1.1f
AGENDA
►►Iillillll IIIIII����������I �IIIIIIIIIII�
-
;41 1 E -Qo ITEM # .�
11 II Of c��tsan vu�s OBISPO y
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
May 29, 1990
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
VIA: John Dunn, Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Agenda Item #12, June 6, 1990 Meeting
.Private bridge at 1177 Marsh Street
ARC 88-161
The attached letter from the applicant was received after
preparation of the staff report in the council packet, and includes
information which was not addressed in the report.
The letter states that the applicant supports the suggestion to
use the bridge for public access to the creek. This would not
directly affect city processing of the project, but may bear on the
decision whether to require an offer of dedication for access
easements.
The letter also indicates that the lots are commonly owned, and
will be combined. This affects processing of the project in two
ways:
1. Approval of a lot combination by Community Development
staff will be required. The lot combination process will
neither expand nor limit the scope of city requirements
which may be imposed as conditions of approval for the
project.
2 . The parking for the new building would no longer be
considered "off-site parking" . This narrows the scope
of the use permit required for the project, and increases
the likelihood that the parking will remain available
over the long term.
Staff continues to recommend that the council support the bridge,
if it incorporates a public pedestrian easement.
RECEIVED
y
CITY CLERK T i
SAN W:S 051SPO.CA ►✓A• vQNA� 1
► ACEIVEU
MAY 2590
City of Sen Luis ogisPo
May 23, 1990 munity oeveloPr
Greg Smith
Planning Division
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Marsh Street Office Building
ARC 88-161
Dear Greg:
As we discussed on the phone, I wanted to confirm our intent regarding the proposed
footbridge for the referenced project.
Our goal in providing the bridge was to provide access to the existing Dallidet office
building and to connect the Pacific Street area to Marsh. We had always anticipated
public use of the bridge and would certainly be agreeable to providing any necessary
access easements to insure public use.
It is my understanding that the proposed creek trail system, if approved, would end in k
the area of the proposed bridge. If a stairway between the bridge and the trail along the
top of bank would solve an access problem, we would be happy to participate in or
provide.some connection, depending on its feasibility.
The owners of the proposed project also own the Dallidet Office Building property. At
your suggestion, in order to simplify the approval process, they will be proceeding
with a lot line adjustment to combine the two parcels.
I hope this will clarify any questions regarding the access and use for the bridge. if
you need any further information, please give me a call.
ND.
Pults, AIA
cc: Carlsberg Management j
C:
Arcbiteclurn,Y(trrurrrr{ Crapbiai
rrrrr.�brcl
.4111 has 0bul)o,r.irlrfonrirr 7,3arU
X(6/S4r-S6Oi