HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDwagnerph1l-p-2t)COPY Col A-i
RED FILE couNCIL
C CDD DI R
`£`AO egvm,6,e I FIN DI R
—MEETING AGENDA ErAS,4e -F0Y.SIRE CHIE F2'A ORNEY
RW DI RDATE,*//i'.ITEM #ri~CCLLERRK/Oi
l0 ~ ErMkg
CECH F
Pt B
~`fIL I~If~December 30, 2009 .172-t 3Q , ,
R o lft
ttn rnE5-
L
t mGte..-
RE : APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION UPHOLDING TH E
HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION TO ALLOW A SUBDIVISION CREATIN G
THREE CONFORMING LOTS FROM ONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED A T
2410 JOHNSON (MS 78-09) (PM-SLO-09-0074 )
To the City Council :
On behalf of the project applicants, Sue and Jeff Spevack,eda - design professionals
submits the following response to the subject appeal . Our responses to the Plannin g
Commission appeal are in your hearing packet, and will not be repeated here . We
support and agree with the Staff Report . This letter focuses only on the new informatio n
raised in the appeal .
This appeal is, first and foremost, a test of the City's resolve to implement the growt h
strategies in the General Plan, and as expressed in the Conservation and Open Spac e
Element,Section 4.4 .3 .Compact, high-density housing, which states :
The City will promote higher-density, compact housing to achieve more
efficient use of public facilities and services, land resources, and to improv e
the jobs/housing balance.
This map creates two lots for two additional dwelling units, consistent with the density
allowed for the original 0 .96-acre lot and with General Plan policies and goals .
The sole reason for this appeal is to prevent partial obstruction of the appellant's vie w
over the Spevack's property, even though there is no legal protection for views from a
private residence . Arguments about the building envelope, grading, fire issues, and lo t
configurations are merely attempts to justify the goal of view protection . All these
arguments have been rejected by staff, the Administrative Hearing Officer, and th e
Planning Commission .
SLOPE /BUILDING ENVELOP E
The appeal recommends a 25-foot setback, which would eliminate flat portions of th e
site and push a homesite onto steeper slopes . The appeal's objective is a map conditio n
RECEIVE D
DEC 3 1 1009 1998 Santa Barbara Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
805-549-8658 fax 805-549-8704 www.edainc.com
SLO CITY CLERK
design .
professionals
civil engineers O land surveyors land planners
City Counci l
990 Palm Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
City Counci l
Appeal of 2410 Johnson Ma p
December 30, 200 9
Page 2 of 3
that would "render Parcel 1 as a non-building site". This setback is counter to Cit y
requirements, and it was correctly rejected by the Planning Commission .
Furthermore, the appeal claims that there is insufficient usable area within the Parcel 1
building envelope to allow a home to be built . This is simply not the case, and there ar e
many homes in the City built on much steeper lots . It is likely that the house foundatio n
will be constructed with three to five-foot stern walls on the downhill side, which woul d
allow a house to be built over the slope, without grading to level the hillside . This is
common practice .
HEIGHT /VISUAL IMPACT S
The appeal provides photographs and rough sketches to imply visual impacts .eda ha s
not verified whether the story poles photographed at the fence line were place d
accurately .
Although the cross-section shown in Exhibit A of the appeal is very similar to the on e
reviewed by the Planning Commission, its graphics are potentially misleading . Th e
appeal "insists" on a 398-foot ridgeline elevation, which would maintain the entire vie w
currently enjoyed by the appellant. It would also force the floor elevation down to 38 3
feet and put the house in a deep hole, requiring cuts of up to eight feet across the rea r
and side of Parcel 1 . This is not feasible, nor is it consistent with City policies as note d
in the Staff Report .
FIRE ACCESS/HAZAR D
The Fire Marshall has indicated that the driveway configuration on the map is acceptabl e
with a minor revision to the driveway slope, to be addressed at permit application . There
are no issues here .
NEIGHBORHOOD LOTTING CHARACTE R
All three lots are consistent with other lots in the neighborhood and comply in every wa y
with the City's ordinances .
RECOMMENDATION S
The Spevacks recommend once more that the City's stringent architectural revie w
process be utilized so that the site, the proposed architecture, lot grading, and othe r
project impacts can be analyzed as a system . Short-circuiting the review process b y
placing unnecessary and damaging restrictions on Parcel 1 is not good planning . Th e
Spevacks accepted the additional protections and mitigations imposed by the Plannin g
eda --design proof ssionm3is
1998 Santa Barbara Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
805-549-8658 fax 805-549-8704 www .edainc .com
City Counci l
Appeal of 2410 Johnson Ma p
December 30, 200 9
Page 3of 3
Commission . Further details are best left to architectural review – when all the relevan t
factors can be weighed properly and accurately . Micromanagement by the City Counci l
is not necessary .
The Spevacks request that the City Council uphold its General Plan policies and goals ,
concur with the findings of its staff and the Planning Commission, and deny this appeal .
Thank you very much .
Yours truly ,
eda - design professionals
eda –design professionals
1998 Santa Barbara Street, Suite 200, San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 1
805-549-8658 fax 805-549-8704 www .edainc .com