Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/2023 Item 6a, Schmidt Richard Schmidt < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Agenda item 6a This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. April 2, 2023 Item 6a. Dear Council, Let me begin by stating that I am not a neighbor and have no proximate stake in this project. I speak as one who for most of his adult life has been enmeshed in waterways planning, the development of waterways policy, and the eventual codification of policy into law. I am interested in this project because it presents a city-wide planning issue that, if the applicant’s position is supported, will bust a large ugly hole in 50 years of good waterways planning. I support the Planning Commission and staff's recommendation to deny the bridge and ADU home construction on the far side of the creek. They have followed the city’s long-standing policies and have taken a firm policy stance and a good environmental protection stance on this, and that should be honored by the Council. Beyond the commission and staff positions, however, are two additional unaddressed policy issues: 1. Flood management policy, which I'll address in more detail below, and 2. To permanently protect the recognized wildlife corridor and riparian area, it would be desirable to retire development potential across the creek via open space easement, which would be entirely consistent with staff's analysis of why the bridge should be a no-go, and for which there is good precedent. One such precedent is 148 Broad Street, a near 400 foot deep narrow lot that crosses Old Garden Creek. The portion east of the creek carries the same sort of environmental importance as 841 Patricia's easterly portion, and like Patricia, development would require a bridge for access. So to head that off and protect the riparian and wildlife resource, the city imposed an open space easement as a condition of development, to wit, Condition#10, "A conservation and open space easement shall 1 be recorded for the rear portion of the property from the west edge of the required creek setback to the east boundary of the property line. The easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of a construction permit for a new residence." I believe the city would be well advised to do that for the current Patricia application. It offers protection to the acknowledged natural resources, provides some assurance of continued wildlife corridor connectivity, and given the vast size of the principal portion of the lot, which all agree has considerable non-controversial development potential, it would not impose hardship and would therefore be reasonable. Now, flood control policy. Following the devastating 1973 flood the city council set up a Waterways Planning Board (WWPB) to do pioneering city waterways planning and help devise flood management policies. I was asked to serve on it, which I did for its +/-7 year existence. The WWPB walked almost every foot of the in-city creek system, seeking insight into what had happened in the flood and why. We saw what had been strong-looking creek banks that had liquefied and washed away, leaving buildings and pavement undermined and sometimes teetering at top of bank. We saw repeatedly where human-built things, like bridges and culverts, had themselves obstructed water flow and caused flooding by that obstruction. We saw bridges and culverts blocked with debris that obstructed flow and forced water out of streams to cause flooding. Out of this in depth study came a realization that was accepted across the political spectrum: to avert future catastrophes we needed -- in the interest of public safety -- a substantial setback from top of bank. How large a setback? Twenty feet was a compromise minimum (and it is a minimum, not a maximum). This was for flood management, not primarily for environmental reasons, though I was in the then-minority who argued for environmental reasons being given a larger stake in setback considerations and am glad that has happened. Among the policies that grew out of the WWPB's work was a near total prohibition of private vehicular bridges across creeks -- for flood reasons. As a result, permits for them have been rare and few (I know of only 2 in 50 years, including one for the Promontory and another to provide the ability to develop four small lots in the 100-block of Chorro), and granted only when a property's legitimate development potential would be impossible without a bridge. The bridge before you clearly does not meet that measure and thus should be denied. Clearly, the 841 Patricia property has ample development potential without needing to bridge the creek. I’d end my testimony there were it not for the letter submitted by applicants’ attorney. The attorney seems to be throwing spaghetti words at the wall to see if any stick. So, here are a few comments in response: 1. The attorney suggests the city’s riparian setback exception for 120 square foot “structures” somehow justifies the bridge. This is an argument without merit. First, it is a common feature of building codes that non-occupied “structures” without utility hookups of up to 120 square feet (SF) require no building permit. In other words, a shed. That’s what the 120 SF exception is about – allowing an unpermitted shed within a riparian setback. This code provision has nothing whatsoever to do with a bridge. Second, 120 SF is defined differently in different jurisdictions: interior square footage in some, exterior footprint in others, or, in the case of SLO’s code, 120 SF “projected” down to the ground (i.e, any overhang defines the 120 SF limit). Since by the attorney’s own statement the bridge is 416 SF, clearly it could not be justified under the 120 SF exception. (The plans in your packet indicate bridge area of 550 SF.) 2 2. The attorney describes the bridge as a “footbridge” and uses words like “modest” to describe it and make it seem trivial. I don’t buy that. The plans show a bridge 12 feet wide (a full traffic lane) and 55 feet long. In other words the plans show a vehicular bridge, not a footbridge, and show it leading to a paved parking area adjacent to the across-creek ADU house. This is not what anyone should be calling a “footbridge.” As already noted, the city’s waterways policies have long prohibited such bridges unless absolutely essential for realizing reasonable development potential. 3. Much is made of the 1980s subdivision of land creating this parcel with a creek flowing through it. The attorney speculates that this means everyone understood a bridge would be permitted in order to reach and develop the “35%” of the lot beyond the creek. I see numerous problems with this line of reasoning – and it is only a line of reasoning and not evidence. First, if the attorney’s date of subdivision (1985) is correct, it post-dates the city’s “no bridge” policy, so sorry, but nobody at that time should or would have thought building a bridge was a property right inherent in the subdivision. And I believe due diligence prior to property purchase would have revealed this truth. Second, subdivisions creating inaccessible areas across a creek were fairly common in the city. The former Bressi property at 130 Broad, for example, was about 34,000 square feet, with two houses off Broad and about half the area inaccessible across a creek. Nobody cried “unfair” over this. The area across the creek remained a rich wildlife area, which in turn enriched the quality of life for nearby humans. I’ve also already cited 148 Broad, where the portion across the creek was required to be dedicated as open space. Third, the attorney cites other bridges, but those are all different. Without them reasonable development of their lots would have been impossible. Like, we’re talking 6,000+/- SF lots with a creek going through them. Also, with the exception of the bridge serving the Chorro parcels, I’m pretty sure all the others predate the “no bridge” policy, and it must be noted the Chorro bridge was controversial and not a slam-dunk. It’s hard to equate anything about these “bridge parcels” with a huge parcel that has 24,000 SF of land to develop without crossing a creek. Fourth, I’d like the Council to think about why a subdivider intent on monetizing the last of his family’s ranchland through residential subdivision would have left this large parcel with creek flowing through it. He could have put in a cul de sac (as he did across Patricia at Anacapa), or a private road (as he did at top of Highland) and monetized profit from a number of additional lots. Instead he left this large parcel, a visual remnant of the old ranch. Does that in any way suggest his intent was that someone should build a bridge to the far side of a parcel he left so large and so otherwise useable? 4. Much is also made of the allegation “necessary and frequent crossings” are required to “maintain” the area across the creek, and that such crossings will require the frequent dragging of equipment through the creek absent a bridge. This seems like a silly argument. How often would a semi-natural area need “maintenance” and for what purpose? How has the property been “maintained” for the last 37 years it’s just sat there with no bridge? Clearly a bridge is not a necessity for this type of maintenance, and absent habitable structures no high level maintenance would be needed. The bridge is for one and only one purpose: to provide access to a second house to be built across the creek, not as a maintenance imperative. Oh, and don’t forget that people don’t have to do springtime fire maintenance themselves; one can hire goats to remove weeds, as Cal Poly does around its dorms, and that might be a lot more fun, and certainly more interesting, than weed whacking or mowing. 5. Then there’s the unmentioned construction impact on the riparian resource. The attorney skips over the irreparable riparian damage that will result from constructing the bridge and ADU house across the creek. Conventional construction is a messy business. Somehow heavy equipment will have to get across the creek to build the bridge abutment and the bridge itself, to grade the land and dig foundations, utility trenches, etc. How? Will they not have to carve a path through the riparian corridor and devastate a good section of it just to get to the building site? How will deliveries of building materials be made across an alleged “footbridge?” How many months or years will heavy vehicles be crushing through the riparian zone just to get this development done? My point is simple: this proposed across creek development is incredibly destructive and completely unnecessary if the city follows its established riparian policies. Finally, I’d like the Council to remember you’re making a land use decision and not be distracted by applicant arguments pleading need, desire, family, or entitlement. The city has good policy on this matter. Changing that by accepting the appeal will reverberate through all future waterway planning decisions and undo what we’ve accomplished over the last 50 years. 3 Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 4