HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2022 Item 4a, Boud
Delgado, Adriana
JOSEPH BOUD <jcboud@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday,
To:Cohen, Rachel; Scott, Shawna
Cc:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Spevack Proposal 2406 & 2414 Johnson Ave (ARCH-0383-2021)
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Hello Rachael and Shawna,
We’re still hoping to discuss this project with the City staff prior to the ARC meeting next week. We’ve conducted further
research of the history on this property and here are some additional thoughts:
The three lot Spevack subdivision at 2410 Johnson Avenue (MS 78-09) was approved by the SLO City Council on 1-5-
2010, following appeals of the ARC and Planning Commission decisions. Final approved of the Spevack subdivision
included multiple conditions of approval that were established in response and recognition of the concerns from the
neighborhood appellant group.
#1-Conditions of Approval identified a building envelope on Parcel 1 that excluded the area now proposed for the
“ADU". The final approvals also included restrictions re: height, setbacks, neighborhood scale and character, etc., for
future development within the prescribed building footprint. The plan package now under consideration, Sheet #1,
Complaince with Conditions, conveniently dismisses the building envelope restriction and only addresses setbacks and
height. In fact, the Site Plan does not even delineate the building envelop area.
#2-A cheap pre-fab unit, likely to become a CP student party house, surrounded by quality custom-built houses doesn’t
quite meet the criteria of scale and character of neighboring homes, even if it were located within the building envelope
of record. Unless the Zoning Ordinance has recently been revised, our understanding of the Ordinance regarding
Secondary Dwelling Units limits size to 800 sf or 50% of primary unit sf, along with occupancy restrictions, etc. These are
all moot, however, because the proposed unit is not within the building envelope on Parcel 1.
#3-None of these conditions deprive Spevack from achieving a reasonable development of his property. He proposed
the building envelope and accepted the conditions that were approved. It appears that he intentionally withheld these
restrictions and falsified the application package under the guise of calling the Secondary Dwelling Unit an Accessory
Dwelling Unit, presuming this would relieve him of the underlying Subdivision Conditions of Record and in hopes of
having it approved “ministerially". Recently enacted CA State law on this subject, does not exempt any ADU unit
proposal from a CA State Map Act Subdivision Condition of Approval. Yes, recent ADU legislation does exempt the unit
from HOA regulation or City impact fees and square footage and occupancy, but do not exempt it from subdivision
approval conditions. Again though, this is all moot, because the proposed second dwelling unit proposed on Parcel 1 is
outside of the building envelope and ADU legislation does not override the Subdivision Map Act.
1
At this point, our advice to the City would be to pull this item from the ARC hearing and reschedule it to a date uncertain
to enable the Applicants (Spevack/Collier) to revise the development proposal so that it conforms to the building
envelope and all other of the conditions imposed on his property in 2010. We would also suggest that he revise the
architectural design so that the neighborhood compatibility and character findings can be made.
Thank you for considering this information. We look forward to discussing this with you further.
Regards,
Joe & Babara Boud
2