HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/4/2023 Item 6a, apRoberts (3)
Jim apRoberts <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Item 6a, 841 Patricia Drive Appeal
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
Re #6 Review of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to deny application ARCH-0040-2021 at
841 Patricia Drive (APPL-))75-2023)
In response to the letter provided by the owners' attorney and the owner’s letter, we have the following
additional comments regarding the proposed project at 841 Patricia Drive .
The attorney’s letter makes note that “evidence will be presented at the hearing that the Michaels have spent
countless hours and made many changes in an effort to placate their neighbors and avoid the riparian
setbacks.” It is difficult to respond to evidence that has yet to be presented, but the attorney also states that “as
a result of the input from the outreach, the location of both the SFR and the ADU have been moved to avoid
riparian setbacks.” That should have been done in the first place. Such a revision does not show good faith in a
process to mitigate impacts but a lack of regard for them from the beginning.
The attorney’s letter also questions why the residence and ADU were denied, as each of those are allowed in
principle by the lot’s zoning, along with local and state laws. The proposed structures were denied because of
their reliance on the proposed site design which included a 4000 square foot access road plus a bridge
crossing all within the creek setback or creek channel. There was no violation of the owners' rights, the
Planning Commission acted on the project proposed in front of them.
The attorney’s letter ignores that beyond environmental review there are additional City policies and
regulations in the form of the Community Design Guidelines and Conservation and Open Space Element- both
of which were clearly noted and discussed in the staff report. That neither of these are addressed by the
attorney appears to be a strategy to focus entirely on the environmental review and ignore other regulatory
frameworks designed to keep San Luis Obispo as a unique community.
That the owners will be required to regularly pass through the bed of the creek channel and wildlife corridor -is
something the attorney stubbornly refers to as a drainage area- with maintenance needs forcing more intrusive
impacts on riparian habitat. Without structures in place the northeast portion of the lot will retain its passive
character and not need frequent maintenance. An annual cutting of grasses in the dry season requires minimal
equipment and infrequent access. It is hard to see this is more intrusive than a permanent bridge structure and
daily crossings.
While the owner’s recently provided project modifications reduce the scale and impacts of the bridge itself, it
still will, in the words of the staff report, “interrupt the contiguous riparian corridor, require clearance of
vegetation and placement of fill soils for its abutments, and involve ongoing use of the bridge.” The scale and
amount of those impacts are not known because of late delivery of the modifications and the lack of detail
1
expected to accompany a true and full submittal to the Community Development Department. For this reason
finding i (one) cannot be made.
Finding vii (seven), the attorney argues must be met because a redesign of the project is not possible. This is
based on the idea that the entirety of the property must be available at all times to the owner for maintenance
and enjoyment. This is somewhat absurd given the actual physical characteristics of the lot. It is extremely
common for large lots to have portions that are undevelopable and permanently or seasonally unusable.
Consider lots with steep slopes- is it the responsibility of the City Council to facilitate construction of
infrastructure to allow for passage and maintenance to 100% of such sites? Of course not. Those properties
are appropriately limited to portions that are. The applicant has seemingly made no effort to explore design
alternatives- instead holding onto the idea of 100% use of the property to make the case for their obvious
personal preference for the ADU location. Also, the portions of the lot that are challenged for development are
not of zero value, indeed private open space is a luxury and one that comes at a known and justifiable
premium.
Finding viii (eight) takes care to indicate that reasonable use can be construed to include a reduction in
proposed development scale. It reads “Reasonable use of the property in the case of new development may
include less development than indicated by zoning.” Less development in the case of this project does not
even require a reduction in the size of the large home and ADU, but a reduction in site development and the
associated impacts.
Regarding regulatory taking, hopefully the City’s own legal staff can provide reasoning for their faults. But as
non-attorneys there are some factual problems with the arguments. The attorney says there is a “City-
approved building envelope” for the lot. There is no such marking on the subdivision map and the concept of
lots having approved building envelopes is not how the City of San Luis Obispo regulates development. There
are minimum setbacks, yes, but several other factors impact how a given structure may be designed and
approved: lot coverage, setback by height, maximum height, community design guidelines, to name just a few.
In short, the presence of land outside of minimum setbacks and easements does not constitute a “City-
approved building envelope” and the small remainder of such land on the northeast side of the creek should
not be considered as such.
We encourage you to not be bullied by the owners' attorney, nor swayed by personal appeals, and to reject the
appeal, upholding the unanimous and well reasoned decision of the Planning Commission.
Jim and Kathy apRoberts
251 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93405
2