HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/2023 Item 6a, apRoberts
Kathy apRoberts <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Regarding: ARCH-0004021 (APPL-0075-2023) Agenda Item #6, April 4, 2023 Council
Meeting
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Regarding: ARCH-0004021 (APPL-0075-2023) Agenda Item #6, April 4, 2023 Council Meeting
We live at 251Twin Ridge Drive where we have been neighbors to the subject property since 2009. We have been
following the review process for the proposed residence, ADU, bridge and creek setback exception since it began in early
2021. We are in support of the staff recommendation of denial for the appeal of the unanimous decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the proposed project at 841 Patricia.
Much of the discussion of the creek setback exception has focused on the bridge portion that crosses through the
riparian vegetation and into the actual Wildlife Corridor, but there is much more incursion into the setbacks around the
creek that are prioritized for protection in our community as a buffer to the creek itself. An extensive driveway and
support retaining wall is proposed in the setback running parallel to the creek, maximizing its impact. This driveway is
over 160’ long and disturbs at least 4,000 square feet of creek setback area. The scale of this driveway is at odds with
the stated purpose of creek setbacks in the SLO Municipal Code 17.70.030(A) which are to “protect scenic resources,
water quality, and natural Creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest and movement” and
“allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor.” Creek setbacks should provide for natural
occurrences and opportunities, both of which are compromised if paved over and heavily structured. In fact, paving is
one of the prohibited improvements within creek setbacks per SLOMC 17.70.030(F).
According to SLOMC 17.70.030(G)(4)(a) the intent for Director’s Hearing for Exceptions to creek setbacks is that the
director may only act to approve an exception if “the applicant can provide clear and substantiated evidence that there
is no practical way to comply with the provisions and that no other feasible alternatives will result in better
implementation of other zoning regulations or general plan policies while allowing reasonable use of the sites subject to
creek setbacks.” Throughout the entire process of the applicant’s proposals, they have not proposed any alternative site
designs that truly minimize the creek impacts. Beyond the intent, to make findings 7 and 8 about feasible redesigns and
reasonable use of the property there should be a maximal effort from the applicant to reduce impacts and alter their
design to prove their case. That has not happened from the original proposal and no argument has been made by the
applicant to justify it other than “other creeks have bridges” in San Luis Obispo.
In the 14 years we have lived near Twin Ridge Creek, we along with our neighbors have undoubtedly benefited from the
natural setting of the creek. Preserving the creek by denying the setback exception request will respect the creek’s
vegetation and wildlife while maintaining a natural amenity for all, including the applicants. Approving the setback
exception would have a significant detrimental impact on the environment.
1
We support the City staff’s position that findings 1, 4, 7, and 8 cannot be made to support a creek setback exception and
urge the City Council to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s well considered and unanimous denial
of the project.
Respectfully,
Jim and Kathy apRoberts
251 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93405
2