HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/1990, 1 - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION THAT FLOATING D `J MEETING DATE:
"1SQ1b 1TA f l city of San tins OBISPO1-/7- 90
ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: Ken Bruce, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's and Community
Development Director's interpretation that floating
docks are not allowed for Laguna Lake front lots in
Tract 465.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission's and director's interpretation that floating docks
are not allowed within the flood control and maintenance easement
on the lake front lots in Tract 465.
BACKGROUND
Situation
On May 3, 1990, the applicant applied for a building permit to
construct a floating dock in conformance with Municipal Code
Section 15. 32.250 (attached) . On May 15, 1990, the Community
Development Department denied the request finding that a dock is
not allowed within the flood control and maintenance easement the
city has on all lake front lots in this subdivision. The
applicant appealed the Community Development Department's
interpretation and denial to the Planning Commission. Appeals of
interpretations by staff are subject to review by the Planning
Commission. On June 13, 1990, the Planning Commission
unanimously upheld staff's interpretation that floating docks are
not allowed within the flood control and maintenance easement on
the lake front lots in Tract 465. The applicant has appealed
this action to the council.
Data summary
Address: 1114 Vista del Lago
Appellant/Property Owner: Jim Dummit
Zoning: R-1 and C/OS-40 zones
General plan: Low-density Residential and Conservation/Open
Space
Site Description
A 13,664 square foot lot with 9415 square feet above the 126-
foot elevation, which is virtually flat for the first 90 feet
back from the street, then slopes steeply to the lake. A two-
level, three-bedroom house is developed on the site.
i
°1H1i���IVI{Illll�p� �q�BIII city of San Luis OBlspo
t.JNCIL AGENDA REPORT
13n era 2
History
In 1976, the City Council approved the tentative map for Tract
465. Conditions 3 and 4 have some bearing on this appeal.
Condition 3 states that all lake front lots shall be considered
sensitive sites and all development proposals shall be subject to
Architectural Review Commission approval. Such shall be noted on
final map. Condition 4 states the city shall be given a flood
control and maintenance easement across the lake front lots from
the lake shore property line up to the 126-foot elevation. The
intent of this condition was to give the city total control over
what was developed and what uses were allowed within the easement
and to allow for environmental monitoring of development impacts
on hydrology, vegetation and wildlife. The final map was
approved and recorded in June 1977.
Environmental Impact Report for Tract 465:
The EIR for this subdivision recommended a shoreline preservation
easement along all lake front lots to protect the very sensitive
vegetation and wildlife in the area (final EIR available in the
Community Development Department office) . The required flood
control and maintenance easement was to act as a preservation
easement.
Conservation/Open Space Zoning:
The zoning of the site is split at the 126-foot elevation with R-
1 zoning on the front of the lot and C/OS-40 on the rear of the
lot. The purpose of the conservation/open space zone is intended
to prevent exposure of urban development to unacceptable risks
posed by natural hazards and to protect natural resources from
disruptive alterations. The C/OS zone generally is applied to
areas which are most suitable for open space uses because of
topography, geology, vegetation, soils, wildlife habitat, scenic
prominence, agricultural value, or ..flood hazard.
Basis for Appeal
The appellant explains his appeal in the attached letter. He
raises four points:
1. There are no tract conditions, deed restrictions, easement
restrictions or any other document that prohibits a dock at
this location. The appellant is correct in terms of
specific wording in documents. However, this is where
interpretation of intent is needed. City staff has
interpreted that a dock is not allowed.
/� A
�����ii►IVIIIIIIIIII j���Ill CI-Cy of SanLUIS osospo
COUNCIL AGENDA DEPORT
Page 3
2. Floating docks are allowed on Laguna Lake per city
ordinance. The ordinance in question does not permit or
prohibit docks. Its purpose is to require a building permit
for docks where legally entitled and to abate existing docks
that are unsafe.
3&4 . The Public Works Department has not denied a floating dock
at this location. These statements are true, however, the
Public Works Department has transmitted a memorandum to the
Community Development Department that states "no docks or
other structures are to be allowed within the 126-foot level
flood control easement of Tract 465. Also, vegetation is
not to be removed as noted in the project's environmental
impact report. "
The Community Development Department has interpreted that docks
are not allowed on the lake front lots of Tract 465 from the time
the final map was approved and recorded in 1977. This is the
first time a property owner has appealed our interpretation.
Staff is aware of one. dock which was installed without city
permits or approvals. It's located at 1138 Vista del Lago. In
June 1983 , the Chief Building Official attempted to abate this
dock. However, it is still there today.
ALTERNATIVES
The council may determine that the staff and Planning Commission
are interpreting the issue correctly and deny the appeal.
The council may determine that the appellant is correct that
floating docks are not prohibited and uphold his appeal.
The council may continue the appeal and ask staff and/or the
appellant for additional information. This may include
additional environmental review of the proposed project.
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Public Works Department and the Parks Department feel the
Community Development Department and Planning Commission are
interpreting the issue correctly.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution denying the appeal and uphold the staff's and
Planning Commission's interpretation that floating docks are not
allowed within the flood control and maintenance easement on the
lake front lots in Tract 465.
ATTACHMENTS Resolution (Denying Appeal) ; Resolution (Upholding Appeal);
Tract Map; Appeal letter; Plan Review; Municipal Code (Docks) ; Resolution 3348;
Resolution 3148; Park & Recreation Commission Minutes; P.C. Minutes
-3
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
G
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION THAT
FLOATING DOCKS ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR LAGUNA LAKE FRONT LOTS IN
TRACT 465
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined
that floating docks were not allowed within the drainage and
maintenance easement over thelake front lots of Laguna Lake; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on June 13 , 1990, and determined that the director's
interpretation was correct and denied the application; and
WHEREAS, Jim Dummit (Applicant) has appealed that
interpretation and decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and
C` statements of the applicant and other interested parties, and the
record of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the .
Planning Commission and the Community Development Director was
appropriate;'
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal.
and affirm the action of. the Planning Commission and Community
Development Director, thereby denying the appeal subject to the
following findings:
SECTION 1. Findings:
1. The proposed dock would jeopardize the very sensitive
vegetation and wildlife in the area and may be a maintenance
and flood hazard.
�- y
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page 2
2 . That the proposed dock would be inconsistent with the
mitigation measures required by the. Environmental Impact
Report for Tract 465.
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 , 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ity Ad 'nistrative Officer
y for ey _ .
✓ Gi
communitf Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR' S
INTERPRETATION THAT FLOATING DOCKS ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR
LAGUNA LAKE FRONT LOTS IN TRACT 465
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined
that floating docks were not allowed within the drainage and
maintenance easement over the lake front lots of Laguna Lake; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on June 13 , 1990, and determined that the director' s
interpretation was correct and denied the application; and
WHEREAS, Jim Dummit (Applicant) has appealed that
interpretation and decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and
statements of the applicant and other interested parties, and the
record of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the interpretation
of the Planning Commission and the Community Development Director
was inappropriate;
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the
appeal and allow floating docks within the drainage and
maintenance easement over the lake front lots in Laguna. Lake of
Tract 465 subject to the following findings:
SECTION 1. Findings:
1. The proposed dock would not jeopardize the very sensitive
vegetation and wildlife in the area and would not be a
maintenance and flood hazard:
-1
Resolution No. (1990 Series)
Page 2
2 . That the proposed dock would be consistent with the
mitigation measures required by the Environmental Impact
Report for Tract 465.
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 , 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
ty A nistrative Officer
C' y o ne
Z��124,1 A.4 0A.)
Ti,V "-
Community Development Director
UI
Z �
V '
\gyp .;• a � \
a
G
J � y
Olt,
O�� �0 O a �l� � � •
10 O n
. O O
J O O �' r �/ •
i .� 1
�7 8
.cLtlVki
May 21, 1990 MAY 2 2 'gyp
Jim Dummit nfy 01 San Luis OUispr
1337 Broad St. `^meayoeveto
San Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
(805) 541-3226
Planning Commission
City of San Luis Obispo
Re.: Application No. 1356 appeal
I respectfully appeal the determination made by the SLO Community Development Dept. to
tQ1 allow my proposal for a floating dock on Laguna Lake located at 1114 Vista Del Lago
(Tract 465,Lot 51) for the following reasons:
(1) There are no Tract Map conditions or Deed.restrictions or C.C.& R's.,or any easement
restriction or any other document of record that disallow the installation and use of a
floating dock for this property.
(2) Floating docks are specifically provided for Laguna Lake under Article III, sec.
15.32.250 and sec. 15.32.260 of the City Council Ordinance.There is nothing in said
ordinance that disallows lots in Tract 465 (contiguous to Laguna Lake)from having a
floating dock.
(3)The Public Works Dept.has not disallowed a floating dock at this location,as
mentioned in Planning Staff Comments report(see Public Works plan review).Public J
Works main concern is anchoring in the event of a 100 yr storm.
(4) Mr. David Romero,Public Works Dept.,has explained tome that the flood and
maintenance easement across the property is for just that purpose-Flooding and
Maintenance (to prevent structures from floating away in the event of a flood) and he is not
aware of any recorded document that disallows a floating dock at this location(subject to
Building and Public Works construction conditions).
In summary, the floating dock requested for is an,allowed use under the ordinance, and
there are no documents of record that disallow a floating dock at this location. Therefor,the
floating dock is allowable and in compliance with all applicable Codes and laws.
Re tfully,
s:f�--
J Dummit,Applicant
encl.: Copy Tract Map 465
Copy Article III.
Copy Planning Staff Comments
Copy Public Works Plan Review
Copy application
i•9
4
O
P U B L I C W O R K S D E P_ T.
E N G I N E E R I .N-G: D I V I S I O N
*****
PLAN REVIEW *****
** Location: 1114 VISTA LAGO, DUMMIT FLOATING DOCK
* Plan Chk: 05/15/90
PLAN REVIEW BY: Mike Bertaccini . . . . (805) 549-7201
1 . The anchoring of the dock is inadequate to prevent the dock from
breaking loose during a 100-yr storm. (water surface elevation .-
126 . 00 ' ) .
The proposed steel posts must be deep enough (possibly 4' deep) to
retain the dock securely (provide caics) . ,
2. All exposed metal surfaces and bolts/pinsmust be painted
(non-toxic, marine grade) or of stainless steel to prevent rusting and
leterioration. ;
I', i /-0/O
/STAFF COWNENTS -
City of San Luis Obispo • Building Inspection Division•990 Palm Street/Box 8100• San Obispo,CA 93403.8100
_ + —Application Number ' 1356
5103190 Application Date 5102190
1, )0 Nn:. .I It »' 'In!:ll,,•IL . . r. I) - .
1114 VISTA LAG " ' L' Bldg.No."ir' I I Suite No.
Address ' • i 004 - 272 - 0020 - '
Description FLOATING DOCK ADDITION TO SFR -- lilt) I1' Assessor's Parcel Number r
HAIR BRADFORD M 6 ROBERTA' ''t •1 '') Y' Phone Number 1'/" 541-2418"
y Owner ,• it SLID 11, CAI' 93401-4835
I Address 1114 VISTA DEL LAfiO - no! It( City/State/Zip .
UNKNONM Phone Number''~ fi .Ir
ctor's Name 1 p:1
Address UMt;NO11N " 'II'1 71" CitylState1Zlp'I" )
IIM DUMMIT Phone Number 541-3226 '
! ManagerlArchitect •u) t
❑ BUILDING LANNING ❑ FIRE -❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ SITEIGRADING ❑ HEALTH
SEE REVERSE FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF
cted Item at"respOnse"column and resubmit this sheet with the revised plans.
JNSE APPLICANT:Please note location of corre11110 111tt,
..�
?
rq /7nL In 11
z
.-
Date e;—1�, Status
rinllType Name
epartment Phone Number Yes r ❑ NO
ur departmentldivislon will conduct a final Inspection on this project 41.68
WHITE:APPLICANT I YELLOW:BUILDING DIVISION 'PINK:PLAN CHECKER
1►...\\\\�11 Ir.�\\�1I
`Mom\.
�I�\Owmm'I \\\\\\Nil
MWER REM,
IES\\��I .���I . 1 •
N!MWONi1 • : •
� t1
1
1 � �
, : , u • . . . .
999
, , : . , . • .. . , ,.
. , -, . . .. .
���x� ,
� � ,. , ' ��|�■�|�|
' � • ■ � � @ ■ ■ ■ �
,
; ' ■ . ,
, , . �
{S
f l °qQ
'U
i aF
U �
J wl
I � L
� O
� s <
I �
31 I
I
.f tt gll�( , - �L• I &
tit
4V I�
ZZ
.... ......
lb
It
�fl
rn
6t
pi
rh
01,
a %
t, a @ �' n \ r �-, is
UAnQt J. IS
it
lk, tt
Icy
- --------- 13
47
so
Vt
It
L ZA
IN
OF
tm;
15.32.250-15.32.280
C' pool.Should the owner fail to do so within thirty shall not exceed one hundred eighty square feet
days of such notice, the building official shall in area. Total allowable area shall include any
cause the pool to be filled and cause a lien to be ramp or gangway constructed in conjunction
filed against the property for the cost of filling. with the floating dock and included in the
Such lien shall be due and payable in the same encroachment.
manner and time as city takes. (Prior code § C. No dock shall encroach beyond the pro-
8710.16) jected lot lines of adjoining properties. (Prior
code§ 8720.2)
Article III. Docks 1532.270 Safety requirements.
A. All new construction shall. be in accor-
1532.250 Permit applications—Submission dance with applicable codes and ordinances as
of plans required. adopted by the city.
A. Any person legally entitled to apply for and B. Any fixed or floating dock or portion
receive a permit shall make such application on thereof that; in the opinion of the building otfi-
forms provided for that purpose. He shall give a cial, is unsafe or insecure, shall be.deemed a
description of the character of the work proposed nuisance, and shall be repaired or removed by
to be done and the location, ownership, occu- the owner of the property upon which such dock
pancy and use of the premises in connection is attached, within thirty days after-notice in
therewith. writing by the city..
B. Application for permits for new construc- After thirty days,the city may cause such dock
tion shall be accompanied by legible plans in to be removed and the cost of such removal shall
triplicate and in sufficient detail including the become a lien against the real property.
following: The city may cause any dock which is in
I. A plot plan,drawn to scale of not less than , immediate peril to persons or property to be
one-eighth inch per foot,showing property lines removed or corrected summarily and apply the
with side property lines projected beyond the cost as a lien against the real property.(Prior code
rear line into the body of water, § 8720.3)
2. The location and size of the proposed dock,
superimposed on the plot plan; 1532.2801 Variances.
3. Working drawings of dock construction,to The planning commission may grant a vari-
include details of connection and anchorage; ance to the standards as set forth in subsections A
4. Means of access; and B of Section 15.32.260,provided the follow-
5. Information and schematics of all electri- ing three conditions are satisfied:
cal, mechanical and plumbing work.(Prior code A. That there are exceptional circumstances
§ 8720.1) applying to the site, such as size, shape or .
topography,which do not apply generally to land
15.32.260 Encroachment restrictions. in the vicinity;
A. No fixed dock shall encroach into that por- B. That the exception will not constitute a
tion of Laguna Lake which is under the jurisdic- grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
tion of the city.All such docks shall be located on limitations upon other properties in the vicinity:
private property. C. That the granting of such exception will
B. Floating docks may encroach into Laguna not adversely affect the health, safety or general
Lake not more than thirty feet distance from the welfare of persons residing or working in the
nearest property line and such floating docks vicinity. (Prior code§ 8720.4)
345
15.32.290-15.32.300
1532.290 Exceptions.
The director of the community development
department may grant an exception to subsec-
tion C of Section 15.32.260, provided a written
consent from the adjoining property owner is
furnished with the application for permit. (Prior
code§ 8720.5)
1532300 Removal of nonconforming docks
required.
Fixed and floating docks which do not con-
form to this chapter shall,within five years after
the e:fective date of the ordinance codified he
(February 17, 1978), be removed or made to
conform. (Prior code§ 8720.6)
346
RESOLUTION N0. 3348 (1977 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 465,
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT,
AND ACCEPTING A GRANT DEED FROM VAL VISTA ESTATES.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo• as follows:
Section 1. This Council previously made certain findings concerning
Tract No. 465 as contained in Resolution No. 3148 (1976 Series) .
Section 2. This Council now hereby approves the final map of Tract
No. 465, Val Vista Estates, located at 1000 Los Osos Valley Road, subject to
conditions in the Subdivision Agreement attached hereto, marked- Exhibit "A"
and thereby incorporated herein, and authorizes the Mayor to execute said
Subdivision Agreement on behalf of the City.
CSection 3. This Council hereby accepts the Grant Deed conveying a
portion of Laguna Lake to the City.
On motion of Councilman Jorgensen , seconded by Councilman Petterson ,
and on the .following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Jorgensen, Petterson, Dunin and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: Councilman Gurnee
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution is passed and adopted this 21st day of June ,1977:
2
ayor Kenneth c wartz
ATTEST:
C' rk J.H. Fitzpatrick
AG:ktm 6/15/77 R 3348 / / a
RESOLUTION No. 3149 (1976 Series)
A RF.SOLUTIOII OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY id SAN I.L'IS
ORIS110 CRAW:TI:X TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF '1T,-.CC ::(J. :.65,
VAL VISTA ESTATES (LOCATED AT 1000 LOS 0SO, `ALLEY
COAD).
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
A) That the Council, after consideration of the reVi Sud TC11t1tl'Pc ::..p of a p++rl ion
,•I. TraCt. Nv. 405 and the PIm111in1; Gu:n:.Lssi 011 and stai[ r.:e.,:,nwnu,,i.iun•. Jnd r�pul Ls
L!icruon, WakCS the fol lowi.ng i indiucs:
1. The tentative map is co:.sisCent with the general pl.iu. '
2. Tin: desigti and Lmprover-tics of Che propuscd Sll6diVlal011 are CouSiSLU11L with
Lite Carteret I'lau.
1- 11ie situ is pl+y:;ical.ly suitable for Lite type of Jevulopnlent propcacd.
1-- I'lit! site is physically suitable for Che proposed doosity of devc.Lopment.
5. The dcsilalt of Lite subdivision and Circ prupe::c.l impl'oreccnts are nut li{:ely
L.+ Cause substantial environmental damage or subb LJ11Li.11ly allJ :1VUidabl•f
i.ujure fish or wi Ldlifc or their Irlbi Cat.
6. 'Ilia design of Elle SuhdLvisiO❑ ur Lila type of improven•ents are not likely
Cu cause public healdi prvidems. /
7. The design of Che subdivision or the type of im:provculcuts wil! nor. con-
flict with casements, for access through or use of property wirllin the
proposed rubdivisiou.
C) That the Revised Tentative Nap for a portion of Tract P.o. 465 be, approved
snbic,t Cu thu Coll.owing conditions:
1.. The subdivider shall dedicate and improve an additional 17 feat of riLhC-
ai-�ny on Los Not; Valley I:uad .1L Dr::eml5u (Lu Es 1-3).
-. ::J access Lo Los OSoS Valley road front Lots 1-3 si,JLJ be permitted end
shall be so noEed on the Cinal map. Subdivider sh-ill install solid wall
and landscaping across Lus Osos V.tiley :load CronLJj;cs, LnLs 1- ac.:cp-
tablo Co the .lrchitcctural. Review Commission, as pa CL of rcgair.d subdivi-
sion improvements.
3. All lakesbore lots (lots 24-11) shall be considered sensitive sites and all
development proposals shall be sub-j_Ct to ArellitUCLural Reviuw Cummissioo
approval. Such shall be rioted on final map.
~ The City shall be given a flood control anaxn
J maintenance useCt aernss
Lots 24-31 from the lakeshore property lice up Cu the 126 ieluvaLiuu.
5. iue subdivider shill install SLrcct LrCeS 3CCept.111L: to the Cil% a:ld there
shall i+c a 10 fool SLrcct. tree LJS.'nent .11011!; .111 :.treeC Lrnnla:•C5.
k6. Ilia portion Of Lite 1!urganci propurr: shown as :ut of !1•:bC.lnso
5LrCet shall be dVdi C;1LCd Co Lite City and ir.-proved to Gily sCau•.J r;iC.
Sidewalks .1nd . tie.e ezem may he dulerrad ou iwrUu:rvt ;:i.dc ul llesc.nsa
;. ... .., t.• r
Los Usos l'a1.IL^: I:oaJ an.! rata �cl Arruvo. (Deleted 10/5/76)
7. 'lite Drainage swale acrnsa Lite :;.•r,^,auli nroperL•: :....ail !,a inaiCat.:i ..s an
.acep L,:x]C c::illi.u;; peiOL U1: SLot'Zi drain•;ig_ di:;po::,:l frt::a Lilt: n•.rli•;acs Lc t•ly
tract boundary to it:: 0ntivt .:L take, and jgreumI :IL LC- Llli5 .If:,:L'L ' c 11ULVII
J❑ final map.
;;railing !null be par the Laity Cradinr Ordinance.
L1. Credit :or park/open space .End J.:ke -IcilLcation and/or ;it lieu fees snail
be tietcrr:incd by Ih,: Cit;•.Canted ,,,-Lee t0 final 1:r.r1 approval.
10. .,,awl ai:J sewet' rci: burcucrut Jnd „tnnecc ion cit.,claws ::x,111 be paid for
I.uLs L-:L prior vu Linal m.q- apptrv.,l.
R 3148 .
1
"Resolution No. 3148 2 (1916 series)
:1. lL,. �uudi Citi.•:' ::11.111 ...:li-' 1LC Ln lil.. Ci L..' IL
Lc:!. Lr.:;L I.,JIIIPI.: .. ,,.IIC Lv L „LL', L
.1Luj JI !'::.CA U.1 Cot i,I V,p: "Ild LLI,. Del Al-roVo, L. ..LILT.]
acrap L.;l11c CO L.I, l:i:_' I'Wjucer.
11. Draina:;.• J;:svmv.kc roe:; r•:nr of Ln Cs 19-21 L;h;:i.l :n. o-ilovn vn :in.ila.an,
a i.IL11 -11,i in,11 rovar.•I1L :ha LL be ;ICt;n L-ib le La Lh, 1.i Le I:::.;tn:ct. t)C
(Deleted 10/5/76)'!,-
1'.. I'r.•pp5.:d ..::rcl't u.1.a.: 'D•. '.:.Invo l:J,l l'C' ::hall L,. CiLw;. Cv !'r:.1.I 11�•! !!r i51.
I fiu.tl :--.Ip 511.111 no L,. CII.IL Loc ','_ is nuc .I LuL1d:I111,: ::i Lr.
rinol w.Ip na,i in::L.II l cirri, 1'QL11rt1 un unrLlcrCSt
Cor:ICr 4l Dea C.lttS.r ::Ll'QCL and I.,,:; II JS !•ailQy i(I•:p!.
an motion of Mayor Schwartz seconded b., Councilman Norris
and on the fallowing rJ11 call vote:
ACLS: Councilmert Graham, Norris, Petterson and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: councilman Gurnee
AUSL\T: Alone
the foregoing Resolution was passed an( adopptud this Ith_ day of ,rrctOF�
1976. /
/1111 _���•1`- _ . (- - r -
aa4oC �•
ATTEST:
iity Merk
.%pprovvd as co form: KI:713'17, `IITCIIELL. Approved as Co ".nCcnt:
S C!511EVIER. DE LA '•;UTTL t. LILLLY
(:-:Ly Attorney
Gicv Adminisrrltivc 11 iu.i.
Cv Allen Grimes
GomI II nL v DJv:lis .,.. Ui rel -r
cuy rani ;.ter
I
t ,.ao
SAN LUIS OBISPO PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES : may 11 , 1976
MEMBERS PRESENT : Donald J. Van Harreveld , Chairman ; Robert Janssen ;
Elea Kardel ; Woody Frey ; Dick Jordison
MEMBERS ABSENT,: Jon Silverman , JoAnn Jennings
STAFF PRESENT : Rob Strong , Dave Romero , Ken Bruce , William E . Ploi. ,
Jim Stockton , Lane Hilson , !like Alamo
OTHERS PRESENT : Representatives from Aquatics SLO , Curti Developmen
Representative
1. Bill Flory stated that the City Council had requested that the
Park and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission review the
Curci Development in the Laguna Lake area and make recommendation:
back to the Council regarding policy of public access to the Lake
from that side of lakeshore . Dutch Van Harreveld asked Rob Stror.=
to review the Curci Subdivision Development and brinq .the Com-
mission up-to-date on this latest development ..
Rob Strong said that there will be fill utilized from the Prefumo
Channel , on the other lake frontage , anti it will in-fill to the
126 ' elevation. Normally , the high water elevation is at 118 ' ,
but more likely this year it is in the vicinity of 111' or 108 ' .
He stated that the in-fill to the 126 ' elevation gives the
developer minimum lot standards of 6 ,000 ' with minimum width of
60 ' and depth of lots to 100 ' . He also stated the present master
plan discusses Public access to the lake and the E . I . R. addresses
the sensitive wildlife preservation areas . The Subdivider is
willing to dedicate Lot 84 for park and open space , Lot 35 might
be dedicated to utilize maintenance and utilities service road
and from Lot 84 to P e res ricor
li d access . Lot + could be limited access to the lake and
would be a 3 easement to the City restricting home owners '
utilization of land below the 126 ' level to lake surface.
Dutch Van Harreveld asked if the remainder of re-undevel"
area is to stay in its present state. Rob stated that a road
will be constructed from Los Osos to service the subdivision lots
and any excess cut and fill would be spilled over the rest of the
land to maybe a 2 to 3 inch height. He also stated the developer
would like to be allowed full compensation for any park land dedi.
cation if he dedicates the land he owns under Laguna Lake water
surface to the City .
Dick Jordison asked. Rob about control of docks , fence , etc.
- Rob -said that -the City. and the Architectural Review Board would
control only permits by private. lake owners and to the area
below 126 ' elevation.
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION page 2
MINUTES : May 11 , 1^76
C _
Dave;eRome_ro'�was asked to address the subdivision by Dutch Van Harre-
veld and Dave said because different Departments have different
functions , that City staff recommendations could have conflicting
viewpoints and recommendations . He felt that dredging of Prefumo
Channel by the Subdivider ties a necessity due to past flooding and
in-fill of the Channel . Next , he addressed the question whether the
City wished to accept the lake and ml-intain it . tie felt that he
could recommend the Public Services Department to accept this
responsibility . Address.inq.' thd strip'-of=•laad •along the lakeshore to
_..,.,,,,,..,,.ten• ,•...... . _ -
the 126 ' elevatioi ,_.hezeltthat _if, narae�L-C3tp_gtoatiol this would be
a` def inite ''maintenance factoz W. `and "an" Wariassment of adjoining private
property owners by,.peopyle landing from boats that utilize the City 's
fpark�"areaon the other side. He then addressed the 1 . 5 park acreage
dedication and felt that his Department could accept the maintenance
of this area and dedication of land in conjunction with lake surface .
He feels that the maintenance street should go th,--ough and connect
the two cul-de-sacs . He also said that the acc,4otance of this ccnce c
of land area below the 126 ' level for dedication to the City could
set a pattern for the rest of the lake as further suadividers proceed
westward.
Dave 's recommendations to the Park and Recreation Commission are :
1) Dave reco>>nted that during Skinnar ' s ranster planning that dredgin•.
docking was proposed and , therefore , lea could , and the City
should, accept the channel for maintenance.
2) Regarding the lake itself , and speaking historically to all
developers in the past., the City should accept lake land and its
maintenance .
3) Regarding the lowland and proposed easement , from the 126'
elevation to tha 118 ' elevation, Ao privately owned fences should
be constructed from the 126 ' elevation out to tie raFee surface .
Also , e e tr'Would be a police as well as maintenance
problem. r,
4) He recommended Lot W be maintained and restricted for mainten-
ance ; Lotfor public usage and maintenance with access by road
frem one ;cul-de-sac to the other to carry necessary utilities .
Rob Strong does not like the street to go through , but feels that
a restricted service road with the utilities would be acceptable .
5) The Commission will need to address any change in concept or
dedication of the sensitive area westward as certain marsh and
lake conditions may change over a pericd of years .
There was considerable discussion by staff and Conmission regarding•
the lakeshore easement , lakeshore dedication , fencing , rijhts of use
by private owners and how to preserve the sensitive area. Dutch Van
\ Harreveld at this time read the Park and Recreation Minutes of
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION page 3
MINUTES : clay 11 , 1976
v♦a e +t ati&a that., the ;entire.�.la.e.�a na
proteb �_ oa�'13.ti; Iif§"�►enblff"jh:"addi.�lonal;g3.;asl, :udged '
7ta eas'a protect:a+life in. the ,area That:�fk :r.- the,'
City^movet o•..ac^uric this•.`aiWa for protectioni i is na.tur 1 •
state'. " .r ...
Dutch Van Harreveld asked when the Commission should have their
recommendations to the City Council as this item has suddenly
appeared and has many items of concern . Ken Bruce said that the
timetable for written comments to the E . I .R. need to be submitted
before June 1 , 1976, and a Public Hearing on the E . I .R. will tale
-place on June 15 , 1976 . The Commission felt they could not make
by recommendation at ton ighiing , ani=e�ore; dis-- —
cussed ad o f this meeting to Thursday , May 20 , 5 : 30 P . 'I.
at the parking lot at Laguna Junior High School.
2 . Dutch Van Harreveld read communications from the uman ons
. Commission , Community Mental 11calth Services , and interested
individuals supporting the Grandmother 's Hause at lleadow Park .
Wo dy Frey asked the question if this was really recreation.
Bill lory and staff said that , according to Betty Branch 's
origin proposal , the recreation :activities Proposed could be
supporte y this Department if the concept of Grandmother' s
House is ag cable with the Park and Recreation Co fission.
Lane Vilson aske about fencing , and this w ld need to be
worked out at a la r date if the conce is approved.
Bea Kardel moved , Bob ssen seco ed and unanimously passed by
the Commission that the P k and ecreation Commission approve
the concept of Grandmother ' H se at Meadow Park. The Park and
Recreation staff and other personnel to work out the details
with Betty Branch before y pro am on usage of the facility
takes place.
Dutch Van Harreveld at is time asked Jan oodrich , Beverly Atassman
and Pam Crum what ite they were addressing o the Agenda. They
stated they represe ed Aquatics SLO and Dutch It they should be
heard at this tim .
They stated c) t plans and drawings of the swimming on are being
completed b Rod Levin and they will present then to the ity Council
Monday n it , also, to the Park and Recreation Commission n the near
future Bill Flory had looked at some prelim-nary plans and made
some ,aefinite suggestions to Rod which he is incorporating in his
present drawings . They further discussed swin meets and activities
where children are presently participating .
�-a3
CI ,cCEIVt� June 6, 1990
Planning Commission JUN 08 1990
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street/P.O. Box 8100 ^rty unityDl San v on-
-+�nrty 0¢vBlon'
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403-8100
SUBJECT: Appeal of Director's Interpretation--1114 Vista Del laEo; June 13 hearing
We agree with the Director's interpretation that floating docks are not allowed
within.-the open space zone or within theflood control and maintenance easement for
Laguna Lake front lots in Tract 465. This was an important condition Cf approval
of the tract by the City Council.. The. Council specified that. a chain link fence
be built to mark the easement granted to the City for protection of the native
plants and habitat for the birds and other wildlife; and boat docks and other
human intrusion into the wild life area was to be prohibited.
It is noted that the property owner has already created. a public nid lance by
having too many guests with their surf boards, other nautical equipment, and vehicles;
and the property owner has violated City rules for protecti,on-:6f the wild life area.
Some of us cannot attend the Planning Commission meeting, but we urge you to
uphold the standards established by the Planning Commission and City Council as
conditions of approval. QQ�
Don and Mary Smith �LV JE IVA 97LL.w111.1 Vista Lago
Dolores & Larry Young 0 05 Vista Lago
Betty Corey C . tIqd C23 Vista Lago
P
.C. Minutes
June 13 1990
Page 7 .
John Willbanks, 3 6 S. Higuerip -Vp k -�anf^p�P.ntati discusse the
history of area C-N'•zoning. He stated this C-N parcel was in e
commercial corridor and did not truly benefit adjacent neighborhoods . He
felt C-S uses were broader. He was also concerned that the pending Council
recommendation did not solve the need for additional C-N zones. He stated
the Padre Liquor store would remain in operation until new C-N zoned land
was developed. He felt the request was consistent with the General Plan
and suggested the Commission designate more C-N sites .
Don Walter, 383 Chorro, applicant , discussed the history of the site and
the specifics of this request.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Schmidt felt the area needed C-N zoning.
Commrs. Billington and Karleskint dgreed with the applicant ' s intent , but
did not favor split zoning.
Commr. Peterson favored approving the \,request.
Chairman Hoffman felt the request was peemature.
Commr. Schmidt moved to deny the request, ubject to the findings.
Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion
VOTING: AYES - Commrs. Schmidt, Karleskint, ' llington, Kourakis and
Hoffman.
NOES - Commr. Peterson.
ABSENT - Commr. Gurnee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 8. Public Hearing: Appeal of Director's Interpretation .
Consideration of an appeal by Jim Dummit of director' s
interpretation that floating docks are not allowed within the
open space zone or within the flood control and maintenance
easement for Laguna Lake front lots in Tract 465; proposed site
of dock is 1114 Vista del Lago; R-1 and C/OS-40 zones .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commr. Billington had to leave the meeting at this time.
Greg Smith presented the staff report and recommended upholding the staff ' s
interpretation that floating docks are not allowed within the flood control
and maintenance easement on the lake front lots in tract 465.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
/-ZSR
P .C. Minutes
J 13, 1990
P 8 .
Jim Dummit , 1114 Vista del Lago, discussed, the appeal and the
appropriateness of the request. He stated that Public Works could find
no documents prohibiting docks .
Commr . Schmidt discussed the conservation intent of the lake shore.
Sally Ross, 1132 Vista del Lago, discussed the lack of documentation to
support the denial of the request and felt the request should be allowed:
Walt Ross, 1132 Vista del Lago, felt the request should be approved.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove , did not feel the city was protecting this
open space area well enough.
Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
The. Commission unanimously voiced frustration over the lack of conservation
intent clarity written in available documents.
Commr. Kourakis moved to uphold the staff interpretation and deny the
appeal.
Commr. Schmidt seconded the motion.
V Orf NG: AYES- Commrs. Kourekis, Schmidt, Karleskint, Peterson, and
Hoffman.
NOES - None.
ABSENT - Commrs Billington and Gurnee.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Arnold Jonas discussed recent council actions.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. to the next regular meeting of June 27,
1990.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Woske
Recording Secretary