The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5-25-2022 Item 4b - Dooley Presentation5/25/2022 PC Meeting ‐ Item 4b Public Comment ‐ Dooley 1 Appeal to City of SLO Planning Commission ARCH‐0383‐ 2021 •2406 and 2414 Johnson Ave, Spevack •Appellants, who are owner occupied, abutting neighbors: •Barbara and Joseph Boud •Paula and Stephen Dooley •Maureen Eyerman and James Callahan •Barbara and William Herreras, esq •Tracey Martinelli and Gene Francis •Jason Pautsch •Carolyn and John Hayes, esq Who we are, where we live, and why we care 1 2 5/25/2022 PC Meeting ‐ Item 4b Public Comment ‐ Dooley 2 These are the appellants’ homes –all abutting the Spevack property Background •MS‐78‐09, Spevack; A three‐lot subdivision of Parcel 1 of Tract 1272, was approved with Conditions by the SLO City Council on 1/5/2010. Time extensions were also granted and the Final Parcel Map was recorded on 7/11/17 in Book 079, Page 075 of SLO County Clerk‐Recorder office. 3 4 5/25/2022 PC Meeting ‐ Item 4b Public Comment ‐ Dooley 3 First of Four Conditions of Approval The Community Development Director has designated Parcels One, Two and Three as “sensitive sites”. This status ensures that future infill development will respect 1. existing site constraints, 2. privacy for occupants and neighbors of the project, 3. provide for adequate parking, and 4. be compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood •What are we asking for? •We live in these home, 365 days a year. These homes were our investments in our futures, and in 2009/2010 we were guaranteed by the City of SLO, of the Conditions of Approval of this subdivision. •The Conditions of Approval established in 2010 should be followed, the building envelope, height and setbacks – specifically the ADU placement; conforming to the neighborhood properties; and respect for natural landscape. •CGC Section 65852.2 ADU and Subdivision Map Act – The ADU ministerial approval does not apply when the Subdivision Map Act has specified it is outside the building envelope. 5 6 5/25/2022 PC Meeting ‐ Item 4b Public Comment ‐ Dooley 4 Building Envelope as agreed and approved in 2009/2010 •Subsequent specifics were defined with regard to the increase in the setback at the Johnson Ave boundary, and the 406‐foot elevation at Parcel 1. •No other changes were made to the building envelope. Accessory Dwelling Unit In our Public Records request of 2/09/22, the City Clerk provided us with this citation that was also cited in comments made by staff at the ARC hearing on 2/7/22 and in the preamble comments of the 3/17/22 Administrative Approval of this project: “An ADU is not subject to discretionary review per Government Code Section 65852.2 which expressly states that ADUs that comply with applicable development standards are subject to ministerial review and cannot be required to go through discretionary reviews. As proposed, the ADU complies with all objective development standards, including the building footprint’s 10‐foot setback requirement (per conditions of approval) and is subject to ministerial review under state law.” Comment: The justification that the proposed ADU complies with the development standards is incorrect. The proposed ADU does not comply with objective development standards that were established in the approval of this Parcel Map in 2010, in accordance with the CA Subdivision Map Act 66410. ADU Sec 65852.2 was approved on September 16, 2021, amending previous ADU legislation. Language was included to enable this type of development without burdensome process, including exemption to parking requirements, fire sprinklers, impact fees, HOA rules, etc. However, this recent legislation does not override or eliminate CA Subdivision Map Act 66410 conditions of approval for historical subdivisions. In this case, the Spevack Parcel Map was approved by City Resolution 10140 on January 5, 2010, long before any ADU legislation was enacted and/or even considered. The Conditions of Approval for this parcel map explicitly require that all future development is to be contained within the adopted building envelopes (footprints). The ADU is proposed outside of this envelope and cannot be approved. There are no legislative acts, legal citations or case law references that enable a proposed ADU to override a condition of a subdivision that was historically approved with conditions. 7 8 5/25/2022 PC Meeting ‐ Item 4b Public Comment ‐ Dooley 5 1. Existing site constraints: A. TOPOGRAPHY ‐ Parcel 1 has topography with an average cross‐slope of 17.2%, with the westerly portions exceeding 28% and less severe slopes on the eastern portion of the building envelope. Rather than design a structure that steps down this gradient, the development proposes an 8’ cut with 6’ high retaining walls for over 200’ linear feet. The retaining wall structure is located within the required 10’ rear setback and outside of the required building envelope, to enable the prefabricated “Lego brick” dwelling to be placed on this pad. This massive grading shows no respect for the topographical constraints. B. MATURE TREES ‐ The Applicant’s Arborist report identified tree removal and justifications. This project shows little regard for the site constraint challenges regarding the existing landscape environment, which is visible to all the surrounding lots, given the slope of the property. Numerous mature, tall trees are slated for removal. C. NEIGHBORHOOD –HOUSES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ‐ The proposed pre‐fab dwellings placed onto a massively over‐graded pad have zero character identity with the neighborhood and will reduce the property values of all the appellants. The surrounding properties are owner‐occupied, single family homes, 2‐3 decades old, upwards of 2500 sf. Building and Design Character, Tree Removals •There are no prefabricated dwellings in our neighborhood, nor any established neighborhood we could find. Two story 2500+ sf houses are standard. •Due to the Lego brick nature of the proposed dwellings, grading and removal of large, mature trees, which are home to all kinds of wildlife‐ hawks, owls, eagles, are slated for death. This greatly effects our viewshed as well. •The Spevacks have received offers to buy two sections of these lots from abutting neighbors and declined to proceed. (Eyerman and Pautsch) •They have had generous and ample opportunity over the last 12 years to design and build in accordance with the Conditions of Approval. 9 10 5/25/2022 PC Meeting ‐ Item 4b Public Comment ‐ Dooley 6 These are the appellants’ homes –all abutting the Spevack property Second of Four Conditions of Approval Applications submitted for review on Parcel One shall include housing designed not to exceed a 406‐foot elevation at the highest point of the roof, to preserve pleasant views from and towards the property (LUE 2.2.12), and remain consistent in character with the neighborhood. This can be accomplished without 8‐10 feet of grading by constructing buildings that step down the gradient. All the homes on the Corona Court side have done this. 10ft from the boundary is 391‐foot elevation, and it goes down from there. 11 12 5/25/2022 PC Meeting ‐ Item 4b Public Comment ‐ Dooley 7 Third of Four Conditions of Approval The building footprint shown on Parcel One shall be reduced in size so that eventual housing development of the parcel will be setback at least 10 feet from the north west property line. The driveway shall not be allowed within this required 10 ‐foot setback. Refer back to the building envelope. The area to the north of the driveway is excluded. That is the proposed 1000 sf ADU site. The ADU can be built on Parcel 2 or within the building envelope. Public Records review of the resolution and the Minutes from the 2009‐2010 Administrative Review, Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council make it abundantly clear that a building envelope was established through the approval of the Parcel Map. The Applicant, EDA engineer, City staff, Commissioners, City Council, neighborhood attendees were on the same page with the building envelopes proposed on the Tentative Map. The Parcel Map, MS‐78‐09, condition is crystal clear: future residential development, structures, guest parking spaces, driveways, structural retaining walls, etc. are not permitted outside of the prescribed building envelope (footprint). 13 14 5/25/2022 PC Meeting ‐ Item 4b Public Comment ‐ Dooley 8 Fourth of Four Conditions of Approval Future development of Parcels One & Three shall provide one (1) additional on‐site guest parking space per lot, subject to approval of the Community Development Director. The project does not show parking for Parcel 2, leaving us to believe applicant plans for it to be in the fire lane, which has already been the case since the driveway was relocated, with an RV and multiple cars. 15