HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/24/2020 Item 2, Goschke
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Steven Goschke <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Previous City Correspondence regarding 1141 Ella Development
I would like you to add the following e-mail exchange to the Agenda Correspondence associated with Item 2 (?) on the
6-24-2020 Planning Commission Agenda
Thank you. Steeve Goschke
From: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>
Date: Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: 1141 Ella Street (ARCH-0816-2019)
To: Steven Goschke < , Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>
Good Morning Mr. and Mrs. Goschke,
I hope to address some of your questions below. First, let me apologize for not responding to your email prior to the
ARC hearing. There are obviously a lot of changes happening right now and we are doing our best to keep normal
processing going while adjusting to new ways of doing business and some additional duties.
Slope Calculation. Yes, there have been a number of calculations in the past for average cross slope on this lot. Ranging
from 20 to 27%. I do not recall the report stating a slope of 19.6%. If this was stated on an earlier report I apologize for
any confusion. Overall, the importance of the slope calculation lies in establishing that this is a sloped lot, with a slope
over 20%, which carries the requirement for ARC review.
Building code standard J101.6 does state requirements for percentage of lot to remain in natural state as a part of the
building code, but that section does include an exception: Exception: Grading specifically approved and/or conditioned
in conjunction with a tentative subdivision map, development proposal, or similar entitlement consistent with General
Plan policies and other hillside standards is not subject to the specific grading limitations noted in this section. As the
wording in this section states that a project that received an entitlement is not subject to the specific grading limitations,
the “exception” does not need to be called out during the entitlement process for ARC to consider. This would be
different if the language was “an exception can be approved if…”, we would need to call that out specifically in the
entitlement and state how it complied with “if…”. In this case, an approval of the required entitlement means this simply
does not apply. My understanding of this section is that the exception language was added about ten years ago, as strict
application of this section did not necessarily yield desired outcomes, and that compliance with general plan policy and
hillside standards was the more important requirement for projects on sloped lots.
Building Code and Zoning Standards. When a project is reviewed for entitlement, the first step is deeming the project
“complete”. This means they have submitted all the necessary documents and the project does not have any critical
flaws. The City deeming a project complete on a certain date, also sets the Zoning Code standards that will be used to
review the project relative to that date. The initial submittal was not deemed complete, and so there was a second
submittal in January. This second submittal was deemed complete on February 14. New regulations for accessory
dwelling units were in place on February 14.
The building code that will be applied to the project is set by the date the Building Plans are submitted for review. As this
project has not been submitted for building permit, it would be required to comply with the new code. If solar panels
1
are required in the new code, they will be required with this project. Planning does not require solar panels be shown on
plans submitted for this entitlement, required or not.
Developer exceptions. The applicant is able to ask for exceptions to the hillside standards of the Zoning Regulations. As
stated during the hearing, development of a hillside lot is difficult and often some exceptions will be requested.
Retaining wall exceptions are the most common, as those are often needed to facilitate the establishment of a driveway
that will meet current engineering driveway slope standards and/or building code reequipments for proper egress from
bedrooms. These are the basis for the retaining wall exceptions requested on this project and are supported. The other
standard for downhill facing wall heights are requested for the stairwell and the right portion of the building. Stairwells
are often exempt from certain standards and applying an exception to this element is in reflection to that (The ARC also
saw this element as useful in breaking up the massing of the building). There is also an exception to the upper right side
of the downhill face of the structure. At this location the average natural grade prior to construction is higher than the
other portions of the structure, an exception to the standard a this location is seen as supportable because this furthers
the intent of the regulations to keep massing on the lower portion of the site (pushing the building back would likely
push the massing further up the hill making it more visible against the hill). If these exceptions are seen as Minor or
Major is often a matter of opinion. Staff sees these as minor given our experience reviewing other hillside development
projects. There are specific findings that staff will need to make to approve these project exceptions (Section 17.70.090)
and staff will be making these findings in the final approval.
Scale and size. Staff does not look at “scale and size” just in terms of square footage. Many other hillside projects are
less square footage but the common rooms have high interior ceilings. Making the structure larger in “scale” yet less in
square footage. Ultimately, this guideline and all other CDGs are what the ARC was tasked with reviewing the project for
consistency with, and they have recommended approval of the project. Staff does not often go against the
recommendations of our advisory bodies.
One other thing to keep in mind is that every property, more or less, can add an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) up to
1,000 sf. This can be done by conversion of existing space such as garages, or as new construction. These new
construction units do not typically require any sort of discretionary review. So including the ADU square footage to
“scale and size” analysis of the project compared to neighboring properties may not be a fair comparison to other lots in
the neighborhood, who have not yet built an ADU.
I hope this provided some additional clarification. I will keep you informed as to when the decision letter is finalized.
Thank you,
Kyle Van Leeuwen
Assistant Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E KVanLeeuwen@slocity.org
T 805.781.7091
slocity.org
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________
From: Steven Goschke <
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:10 AM
To: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>
Cc: Van Leeuwen, Kyle <KVanLeeu@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: 1141 Ella Street (ARCH-0816-2019)
2
Shawna,
It was nice speaking with you last week. I appreciate your offer to review and address the questions and concerns I have
about aspects of the proposed development at 1141 Ella Street.
Lot Slope Calculation - I have asked City staff to share how the cross slope was calculated, but I have never received a
response. The original staff report for the project listed the average cross slope as 19.6%. Kyle’s presentation to the
ARC on April 20th described the cross slope as being approximately 22%. My slope calculation (attached) shows that the
slope of the lot is between 27.1% and 31.7%. In a previous application to develop this lot the City calculated the cross
slope to be 26-30% and stipulated that the Special Grading Standards of the City’s Construction Code would apply. (See
reference ARCMI 195-05 - attached). The previous City calculation matches my slope calculations but differs markedly
from the calculations that have been presented for this application. Why are the slope calculations different? Relatedly,
Kyle indicated at the April 20th ARC meeting that Hillside Standard J101.06 would not apply to the lot if the slope is
22%. Why not? The City said it did apply in the 2005 Building application referenced above. If the slope exceeds that in
the Hillside Standard J101.06 table, wouldn’t the applicant have to receive an exception from the ARC to build the
development as proposed?
Building Codes and Zoning Standards - The application for the development at 1141 Ella was submitted in December of
2019. The drawings in the Staff Report are stamped 1-17-2020. In my comments to the ARC I brought up the need for
the developer to request an exception for the ADU due to its size (967 sq ft). Kyle said the ADU standards I was referring
to were the “old standards” and those standards were superseded by the 2020 State Regulations, and therefore no
exception was required. With that in mind I looked for solar panels in the drawings for the proposed development, as
they are also required by the 2020 State Regulations. I could not find any. My concern here is that the Applicant is
taking advantage of some of the 2019 rules (no solar panels, not implementing new Title 24 requirements, etc) and
some of the 2020 rules (larger ADU) in the design of the development. If the applicant is going to have an ADU greater
than 800 sq feet, as allowed by the 2020 rules, then shouldn’t the applicant also be required to comply with all the other
2020 rules - i.e. solar panels, Title 24 requirements etc? Or, alternatively, if the applicant intends to comply with the
2019 rules, shouldn’t the applicant need to request an exception to build the bigger than allowed (pre-2020 rules)
ADU? I’d like to understand how the rules apply.
Developer Exceptions - The City Staff Report listed two requested exceptions for the project. 1) Relaxation of the
downhill building wall standard (Std is 15’ and developer asked for a 28' stairwell and 24’ right wall section 2) Relaxation
of the retaining walls standards (Std is 6’ and developer asked for 12' retaining wall). I would like to understand why you
would grant these exceptions. I understand that minor exceptions are granted, but these exceptions do not appear
minor. What makes an exception major vs minor? Is there a difference in how a minor versus a major exception is
granted? At the April 20th ARC meeting, Kyle said that exceptions are trade-offs between competing design standards,
but never explained what the trade offs were that would justify granting these major exceptions
Size and Scale - Chapter 5.3 of the CDG states that infill developments should “be compatible in scale, siting, detailing,
and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood”. While the homes in the
immediate vicinity of 1141 Ella Street on the Terrace Hill side of the street do range in size, I calculated the average
home size to be about 2,450 sq ft. The proposed main house at 1141 Ella is 3,439 sq feet, which is substantially larger
than the average. When coupled with the ADU – which is 967 sq feet, the total size of the proposed development is
4,406 sq feet, almost twice the average size of homes in the immediate neighborhood. It is not clear to me how the
proposed development is compatible in size and scale with buildings in the neighborhood. The lot size is very small, and
very steep. The development seems over-sized both for the neighborhood and for the layout of the lot. How does the
proposed development meet the CDG requirement?
3
Thank you for taking the time to review and address my concerns. I look forward to hearing from you on these items.
Sincerely,
Steve & Grace Goschke
805-286-7980
1131 Ella Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
4