Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2006, PH2 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION REQUIRING AN INCREASED CREEK SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBA counat M.6, /oma oc� -acEnaa Repoizt 1�N.b � CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc r PREPARED BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION REQUIRING AN INCREASED CREEK SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE ON THE SAME LOT AS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE IN THE R-1 ZONE. (AP 74-03) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Commission's action to approve the Use Permit based on findings and subject to conditions including conditions which require additional creek and side yard setbacks to accommodate a wildlife corridor. DISCUSSION Background The applicant seeks to construct a new residence behind the existing residence at 148 Broad Street (Attachment 1 Vicinity Map). Multiple dwellings are allowed in the R-1 district with approval of an Administrative Use Permit if the property is large enough to support the density. In this case, the lot size is approximately 30,000 square feet and is large enough to support an additional residence; up to 7 dwellings are allowed per acre in the R-1 zone. The Administrative Use Permit requirement is intended to assure that new units meet density standards and at the same time maintain compatibility with General Plan policies and the character of the neighborhood. Administrative Use Permit Since the existing residence at 148 Broad Street is on the City's Master List of Historic properties, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the project proposal on May 22, 2006. The CHC recommended the project be forwarded to the hearing officer and the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and found that the new residence would not impact the historic property. Since it is typical to proceed with the entitlement process before reviewing the design details, the item was scheduled for an Administrative Use Permit hearing. At an administrative hearing on June, 2, 2006, the Hearing Officer approved the use permit to allow the additional residence, subject to findings and conditions (Attachments 3 and 4). The conditions included a requirement that the plans be reviewed by the ARC to ensure neighborhood compatibility in terms of scale, massing, and overall design. 2'� C Council Agenda Report-Appeal of Planning Commission conditions for Use Permit 74-03 148 Broad Street Page 2 Appeal of Administrative Use Permit On June 12, 2006 an appeal of the Hearing Officer's determination was submitted from an adjacent property owner at 765 Murray Street (Attachment 5). The primary basis of the appeal was the fact that the adjacent neighbor did not receive a formal notice of the use permit hearing. Additionally, the appellant was concerned about the location and scale of the proposed residence. On July 12, 2006, the PC heard the appeal and upheld the Hearing Officer's determination, approving the Use Permit with modifications to project conditions to increase the creek and side yard setbacks to accommodate a potential wildlife corridor (see Attachments 6, 7 and 8, PC meeting minutes, resolution and staff report). On July 21, 2006, the applicant filed an appeal claiming that the additional setback conditions would unfairly restrict the building envelope. The appeal of the PC's action is discussed in detail in the analysis below. A copy of the appeal form has been included as Attachment 9. Planning Commission Action The site and project description including a General Plan analysis are described in detail in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 8). As described in Attachment 8, the appeal is limited to condition numbers 2 and 16 that were approved by the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote at its July 12, 2006 hearing: 2. A 10,foot wide "gap" shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor between Broad Street and the Creek at the rear of the site. No fencing or other structures shall be installed within the 10 foot corridor. Driveway, landscape plants, trees and other flatwork shall be.allowed within the 10 foot space. 16. In order to implement City General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policies and to ensure preservation of a wildlife corridor the Creek setback shall be increased an additional 10 feet, resulting in a 30 foot setback as measured from the upper creek bank. At the PC hearing, adjacent residents provided testimony regarding the sensitive creek area at the rear of this site. Testimony focused on the creek habitat, wildlife corridors and neighborhood character. The City's Conservation and Open Space Element identifies a potential wildlife corridor between Cerro San Luis and the creek that runs behind residences on the east side of Broad Street. It is unknown exactly where or how wildlife use the corridor, however, the testimony from neighbors stressed the significance of the special habitat that runs through several adjacent backyards. At this location residents enjoy an open creek area that creates a park-like setting at the rear of several properties. In response to the PC hearing testimony, condition numbers 2 and 16 noted above were created to implement General Plan policies by accommodating a potential wildlife corridor and reducing potential neighborhood impacts. The motion to approve the use permit with these conditions passed on a 3-2 vote. The dissenting votes were due to the fact that Commissioners felt that the conditions were excessive, and that the code implements policies and mitigates potential impacts. Therefore, ,�',Z Council Agenda Report-Appeal of Planning Commission conditions for Use Permit 74-03 148 Broad Street Page 3 the dissenting Commissioners supported the approval of the use permit without the additional conditions. The basis for the conditions imposed by the PC arises from the following General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policies: 7.30.4. Protect wildlife corridors. The City will condition development permits in accordance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Features of particular importance to wildlife include riparian corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided to maintain connections between habitat areas(Attachment 10 Wildlife Corridor Map). 7.30.5. Creek Setbacks. As further described in the Zoning Regulations, the City will maintain creek setbacks to include: an appropriate separation from the physical top of bank, the appropriate floodway as identified in the Flood Management Policy, native riparian plants or wildlife habitat and space for paths called for by any City-adopted plan (Figure 4). In addition, creek setbacks should be consistent with the following: A. The fallowing items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above-ground utilities, and outdoor commercial storage or work areas. B. Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and protection of floodways and natural features identified in part A above, whether or not the setback line has been established. The map that corresponds to policy 7.30.4 identifies the north Broad Street vicinity as a potential wildlife corridor between Cerro San Luis and the creek known as Old Garden Creek. However the map is small in scale and vague in describing the actual location of such a corridor. However, the conditions imposed by the Commission are appropriate given policies 7.30.4 and 7.30.5 and given the testimony by the neighborhood. The conditions allow a reasonable building envelope that can be utilized by the applicant to construct a new residence and access improvements. With implementation of the conditions, the remaining building envelope would be approximately 3,000 square feet and the maximum building height 25 feet, allowing for a two-story structure. At the PC hearing, the City Biologist was present to provide testimony on the existing creek habitat and the function of wildlife corridors. It was noted that wildlife typically utilize the creek as a corridor and that the creek setback established by the Zoning Regulations (20 feet) is designed to respect potential wildlife corridors and associated riparian vegetation. It was also discussed that the site did not contain specific biological resources or riparian vegetation that would necessitate an increased setback. The area that is the subject of the increased setback is currently a level grass lawn planted with non-native landscape shrubs and small trees. The Planning Commission responded to the testimony expressed by the neighbors regarding the need for the additional creek setback and the policies of the General Plan in applying conditions to '�'_J 0 O Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Planning Commission conditions for Use Permit 74-03 148 Broad Street Page 4 increase the creek setback and implement a wildlife corridor between Broad Street and the creek. Although, the applicant's plans will have to be adjusted slightly to accommodate the additional PC conditions, there is ample space on the property to construct a home comparable to other homes in the area. The increased setback will also enhance neighborhood compatibility by requiring the proposed structure to be slightly further from adjacent properties. CONCURRENCES The City Biologist has reviewed the site and the proposed conditions in detail and determined that the property does not contain specific evidence that would require additional setbacks but does not disagree with PC discretionary condition. FISCAL IMPACT When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Accordingly, since the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, it may only have a neutral fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning conditions numbered two and 16 imposed by the Planning Commission. Upholding the appeal would approve the use permit and the applicant would proceed to the Architectural Review Commission for further review of the project. The Council may also wish to modify the conditions to allow for different setbacks than established by the Commission. The Council may also add or modify other use permit conditions. 2. Deny the use permit to allow the residence. The Council may determine that this site is inappropriate for an additional residence and deny the use permit in its entirety. An action to deny the use permit will require specific findings. 3. Continue the item for additional analysis or research. The Council should specify the information needed in order to provide staff with specific direction and to return to a hearing at a later date. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Reduced scale site plan and project details Attachment 3: Administrative Hearing Minutes Attachment 4: Administrative hearing approval letter Attachment 5: Administrative appeal Attachment 6: July 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 7: July 12, 2006 Planning Commission Resolution 2 -7 • o Council Agenda Report—Appeal of Planning Commission conditions for Use Permit 74-03 148 Broad Street Page 5 Attachment 8: July 12, 2006 Planning Commission staff report Attachment 9: Appeal to City Council Attachment 10: Conservation and Open Space Element wildlife corridor map Attachment 11: Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission action approving the Use Permit subject to conditions. GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Use Permits\74-03(148 Broad)Barry Jones\AP CC 74-03 10-17-06.doc � C�II■G :�11 1 � i l"111111� AyOO -�ttt Ent 2 rr1 co IN v �_ � = {{ppppb�(� '_ �•M1 � '�:u� _� C1 1-7z Z e l_L � . I IIIIIt .�' I rll I ^r' �l .z,Ba .E , - S II #.._ o w 'I""•O-�.�.a— 'C / Q p2 CO a • ZQ CL , / Y \ I•Y'II I n, ` �/ %A • -.a _ Q! f LL 4CXLU } 01.1 y , tt I J � n IIt1I �Ij c I't' 3 �s _s IIII :. :t Q• �, a a I4z p 4 tial .8�'� __� _�_ •: S I� _.i.� _ I �� �'- Al�,.r - _4\ �s 6 '� ' I I IINI j ��{� j;,`' tii � „' .I.�.. �•, 4 i F' ��,._� {- ' r� W I - !� � � I 1 r� }}t-I. �� � '1 , llt n Ilt I:Ii'll I II I i,ll:l $y ,__ __.. - - •`t� I,J..J '�� y l I II'nl al+ e •I ° tli:� I I:'- I I �•1 I< N I �>• � '�r�IT F t F 11 +i ' ' .0�7. •Lrtli ,R> 8 4 [.L .. I l' 002 / V e 4 i chmen 2 R R cI\ g Q IyN��b�� �p gg.� il- e ii s Q B �+ a 1 i � I . I ! 9t! , • ! �Aarue lleelt..0'i 111 14 Ifl5i l3i CL 0 LP r ' s W CO Ii ��la• I ^ ,.•' u � w � it l a. t , � LUI I & I > � 1 uq Xl Y :baw OD S cn co Lij zirdzs- -----—_ _ I I 2-� r- 114 g g 404 R o� 3 �. ✓ON.._... .. , / op « v z : n / 44mr," . A. all c c I Q00 wm10 � � y t ' left C , Administrative Hearing Minutes June 2, 2006 Attachment 3 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING MINUTES FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 2006 1 . 148 Broad Street. A 74-03; Request to allow a second home on an existing lot; R-1 zone; Dr. Bary Jones, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Tyler Corey presented the staff report and noted that the area on the lot has enough area to accommodate a second house for density purposes and meets all of the City Standards and Regulations. Staff also addressed the parking issues and the access that would be provided to the rear unit and that there would be no encroachment into the creek setback. Staff recommended approval of the project based on the findings and conditions with an added condition regarding a 10 foot wide gap for a wildlife corridor and migration. Staff noted that the administrative use permit is only acting on the use of a second home on R-1 zoned property and that the architectural aspects of the building would be addressed at the Architectural Review Commission. It was also noted that this use permit does not allow for a minor subdivision. Hearing-Officer Doug Davidson noted the future ARC meeting and clarified the added condition of the 10' wide gap with staff, and requested that staff clarify the "regulation that allows a second home on an R-1 lot. Staff clarified the regulation that allows an R-1 lot to have multiple homes on the property if the area is large enough and regulated through the use permit process. Applicant, Barry Jones explained that he had been working with Phil Dunsmore Associate Planner, and agreed with what was presented by Tyler Corey, he further explained that he was not asking for any exceptions and that the project works with the City. regulations for a second home. He spoke briefly about the design how it was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee and that it will be presented before the Architectural Review Commission. Administrative Hearing Minutes June 2, 2006 Attachment 3 Public Comments Comments were made by public regarding the design aspects of the home. Staff restated that the design aspects would be addressed at ARC, including the privacy, building height and other design aspects. Dr. Barry Jones stated that he was working with the city and Phil Dunsmore regarding the design guidelines for the ARC. Hearing Officer, Doug Davidson addressed the letters that were written to the City regarding the project, as follows: Debra Sickler, address unlisted, expressed her concems stating that a second home would substantially alter the character of the site and impact the surrounding neighbors. That the home at 148 Broad is a unique home and that the applicant should have known the historical importance when they purchased the site and urged the Planning Commission to deny the applicants petition to develop the site and protect the historic dwelling in character of the neighborhood. David & Lisa Platt, 740 Murray, wrote similarly regarding the importance of the historical preservation, and that the changes to the site should be minimum. The letter restated the concerns that Ms. Sickler addressed in her letter. Several letters written by Richard Schmidt were summarized with the listed concerns: the CEQA process, consistency with the City's adopted plans and policies, Zoning Regulations, flood protection, the improper segmentation of a project to avoid CEQA, and listed species that are said to visit the site or neighborhood frequently. Dr. Barry Jones expressed that the project has been through scrutiny of the CHC and that he has continued to work with the Planning Department to address the concerns of the historic. value and the importance of the neighborhood's preservation. Doug Davidson, Hearing Officer stated that the project meets the City standards regarding lot size and zoning criteria and that single family residences are exempt from CEQA, he continued to state that the project � Attachment 3 Administrative Hearing Minutes June 2, 2006 has been reviewed by the Natural Resources Manager due to the creek way, and that COSE policies have also been reviewed in specifics to the site. Hearing Officer Doug Davidson approved the Use Permit A 7403 with the understanding that the project is going to the ARC for further review, and based on the findings and conditions, including the added condition. ' liel�llIIIIIIi�I81111���jj� �141IIIIIIII - � ail, of sAn 1OBIS 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 5, 2006 Attachment 4 Dr. Barry Jones 148 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 74-03 148 Broad Street Dear Dr. Jones: On Friday, June 2, 2006, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request to allow a second home on an existing lot, at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Findings: 1. The proposed additional residence will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because one additional residence on this property will not generate significant traffic into the neighborhood and is consistent with the existing development pattern. Additionally, the new residence meets the density and setback requirements for the R-1 district and, as conditioned, will be a logical design, compatible to the site and neighborhood. 2. The existing site is 75 feet wide and is therefore wide enough to allow a second driveway in accordance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards. 3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a new single family residence is categorically exempt from environmental review (Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, Class 3). A Class 3 exemption allows the construction of one single family residence to be exempt from environmental review when it is constructed in a residential zone. Furthermore, the proposed residence complies with General Plan policies; and Zoning Regulations property development standards and no exceptions are requested. 4. As indicated by comprehensive site analysis performed by the City's Natural Resources Manager, the building site is not likely to impact nearby wildlife corridors or known habitat areas since the project is within a flat, landscaped lawn area and is in compliance with creek setback standards. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. A74-03, 148 Broad Street Page 2 )O Attachment 4 5. As conditioned; the proposed new residence will be aesthetically and functionally compatible with the existing house on the property and the surrounding neighborhood since the new residence complements the existing residence through the use of materials and design. Each residence will be constructed with adequate private open space and landscape areas. 6. The proposed additional residence on one lot in the R-1 district will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood and the street's appearance because other adjacent properties contain development of similar character and density (see Exhibit A). The proposed project does not introduce additional density than would otherwise be allowed within the R-1 district. 7. The additional residence complies with all R-1 zone development standards. 8. The CHC reviewed the proposed new residence and found that, as conditioned; the project will not impact the existing historic residence at 148 Broad Street. 9. The addition of residences within a developed residential neighborhood satisfy General Plan Goals that promote the development of infill housing therefore discouraging .urban sprawl and maintaining a compact urban form. One such General Plan Goal states: "San Luis Obispo Should: Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form."(City Form, Community Goals, General Plan Land Use Element p, 9) The General Plan Housing Element, Goal 1.27.2, states: "Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate sites, but not on sites designated for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance." Conditions•. 1. A 10-foot wide "gap" shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor.between Broad Street and the Creek at the rear of the site. No fencing greater than 3 feet in height shall be installed within the 10-foot corridor. Driveway, landscape plants, trees and other flatwork shall be allowed within the 10-foot space. (New condition added at Administrative Hearing on June 2, 2006.) 2. The design of the new residence, including the site plan and. new driveway, shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Revised plans including a detailed site plan, building elevations, landscape plans and a colors and materials board shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to proceeding to the ARC. New plans shall be appropriately scaled, clearly drawn (computer-generated) and shall label all dimensions including height and setbacks. A new grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be prepared that identifies proposed amounts of cut and fill, existing and proposed grade, and site } A74-03, 148 Broad Street Page 3 -- Attachment 4 sections where appropriate. All existing trees, including trunk diameter and species, shall be indicated on the grading plan. 3. Approval of a second driveway for this property is subject to approval of the Public Works Department for compliance with site distance standards, driveway approach design and related public improvements. Maximum width of the driveway shall be 10 feet. 4. The parking and driveway area shall be designed with the use of turf block or other pervious paving systems. Areas of concrete may be allowed for the driveway apron, approach and the area within the street-yard (front 20 feet of property) No asphalt shall be allowed. 5. No paving or decks below 30 inches in height shall be allowed to encroach further than 5 feet into the required 20-foot creek setback. No structures or decks greater than 30-inches in height shall be allowed within the 20-foot creek setback. 6. No grading, stockpiling, storage of construction materials, or associated activities shall be allowed within the creek area or creek setback area. The creek setback shall be fenced with temporary construction fencing and silt fencing during all phases of construction. 7. The maximum height of the residence, including all roof features, shall not extend beyond 25 feet as measured from existing average natural grade. 8. An address sign identifying the residence at the rear of the site shall be placed near the driveway intersection at Broad Street. The location and design of the sign shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 9. A landscape planter of at least 6 feet in width (narrowing to 3 feet in width adjacent to the existing residence to avoid driveway impacts to the existing redwood and cedar trees) shall be provided between the driveway serving the new units and the south property line. 10. A conservation and open space easement shall 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. 11. All existing trees on site shall be preserved and protected during and following all phases of construction. Tree protection fencing shall be installed and inspected by Community Development staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. 12. Approval of this use permit does not constitute approval of a subdivision map and does not further the possibility of subdividing this property. A74-03, 148 Broad Street j Page a 0 Attachment 4 My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by the decision may file an appeal. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, or on the City's website (slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $100.00, and must accompany the appeal documentation. While the City of San Luis Obispo's water allocation regulations are in effect, the Hearing Officer's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Hearing Officer designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single one-year extension. If you have any questions, please call Tyler Corey (805) 781-7169. Sincerely, Doug Davidson, AICP DeputyDirector of Community Development Development Review cc: SLO County Assessor's Office city of SAn Us owp0 Department of Community Development Planning Division Appeal Form ($100 Fee) Attachnient 5 (Fee must accompany appeal form) Appellant Information: Name: 'Th&ige Mailing Address: 16 5 1'YluyrQ-'-t rv' [o Phone: 541- 07 la�6 Fax: t74 1• A 47�— In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the .San 'Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: ❑ Minor or Incidental Architectural Review (appealed to the ARC) Zoning Hearing Officer -Administrative Hearing (appealed to Planning Commission) ❑ Community Development Director(appealed to the Planning Commission) 10 a d IMai 1 r cera u; a c Subject of Appeal: The date the decision being appealed was rendered: he. 2, ZGG Project address: 1415 'P pAA-r.) ter Application number: 74 . 03 Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: l� •o& Signature of Appel t Date _J Office Use Only: Filing Fee: Paid Payment/check Information: WA Revised: 10-29-03 �'// I� Attachment 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2006 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Andrew Carter, Jason McCoy, Peter Brown, Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson, and Chairperson Andrea Miller Absent: Commissioners Peter Brown and Andrea Miller Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, City Biologist Freddie Otte, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of June 28, 2006. Approve or amend. The minutes of June 28, 2006, were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 148 Broad Street AP-PC 74-03; Appeal of the Hearing Officer's approval to allow a second home on a existing lot; R-1 zone; Dr. Barry Jones, applicant; Therese Bayly, appellant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's determination, based on findings and subject to conditions, including a condition that the plans be reviewed by the ARC to ensure neighborhood compatibility in terms of scale, massing, and overall design. A comprehensive presentation was given discussing the history of the.project and the character of the neighborhood. Freddie Otte, City Biologist, answered questions regarding the environment surrounding the creek. Theresa Bayly, appellant, San Luis Obispo, asked to see some kind of boundary or footprint so that the setback would be visible; noted concerns with the wildlife habitat; and asked staff to define lot standards. Heidi Rank, applicant's representative, described the changes that have been made to address staffs concerns. Planning Commission Minutea� • U Attachment 6 July 12, 2006 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Greg Mesito,.San Luis Obispo, felt the project would impact view corridors and affect the City's historical patterns. Gail Jacobsen, San Luis Obispo expressed concern with the proposed driveway to the project. Richard Schmidt, San Luis Obispo, felt the City was not taking creek impact into account enough and suggested the Commission address the issue of fences and decks near the creek. He presented a slide presentation and asked for a more detailed environmental impact report on the local wildlife. Ralph Jacobsen, San Luis Obispo, expressed concerns with the scale and mass of the proposed new residence. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Discussion focused on creek habitat, wildlife corridors and concerns regarding the scale and mass of the proposed new residence, potential biological concems, creek setbacks and neighborhood character. Commr. Stevenson questioned the buildable/useable area of the lot; had concerns with possible site restoration, including vegetation; felt the lot is unique and would like to see a larger setback, consolidated driveways, and the project size reduced. Commr. McCoy asked about creekside wildlife and disruption of their habitat. Commr. Ashbaugh asked about the project as it relates to the City's Open Space Element. Commr. Carter questioned the restrictions on this project, expressing that the project is compatible with the neighborhood and supported only one driveway. Both Commissioners Mc Coy and Carter felt that the conditions were excessive and that the proposal already complies with the code. Commr. Christianson concurred with the Commission to eliminate fencing to the driveway and agreed with the need for a restoration plan. On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh to. approve the Use Permit and deny the appeal, based on revised findings and. several additional conditions: 1) to increase-the creek setback from 20 .feet to 30 feet. 2) recommend the proiect share one driveway. 3) recommend the ARC reduce the scale and mass of the new residence. 4) recommend a Planning Commission Minute Attachment 6 July 12, 2006 Page 3 rioarian habitat restoration plan be included, and 5) eliminate driveway fencing. Seconded by Commr. Stevenson. AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Ashbaugh, Stevenson NOES: Commrs. McCoy and Carter ABSENT: Commrs. Brown and Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 3 :2 vote. On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh to refund the $100 appeal fee to the appellant. Seconded by Commr. Carter AYES: Commrs. Christianson, Ashbaugh, Stevenson, McCoy and Carter NOES: None ABSENT: Commrs. Brown and Miller ABSTAIN: None The motion carried on a 5:0 vote. 2. Staff A. Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Doug Davidson gave an agenda forecast of upcoming agenda items and projects. 3. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday July 26, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Jill Francis Recording Secretary Approved by Planning Commission on July 26, 2006. Diane R. Stuart, CM Management Assistant Attachment 7 . RESOLUTION NO. 5457-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING CONMUSSION UPHOLDING THE HEARING OFFICERS DETERMINATION AND APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THE SAME PROPERTY AS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 148 BROAD STREET AP-PC 74-03 WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 2, 2006 and granted approval to a Use Permit to allow a new residence behind the existing residence at 148 Broad Street; and WITEREAS, an appeal was received on June 12, 2006, pursuant to the Use Permit approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 12, 2006 to consider the appeal and the Hearing Officers approval of the Use Permit A 74- 03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has considered testimony of the appellant, the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff and the Hearing Officer; and BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed additional residence will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because one additional residence on this property will not generate significant traffic into the neighborhood and is consistent with the existing development pattern. Additionally, the new residence meets the density and setback requirements for the R-1 district and, as conditioned, will be a logical design, compatible to the site and neighborhood. 2. The existing site is 75 feet wide and is therefore wide enough to allow a second driveway in accordance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards, however a single, shared driveway would reduce impacts to neighboring properties while reducing the amount of on- site paving and reducing impacts to the historic property. 3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a new single family residence is categorically exempt from environmental review (Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, Class 3). A Class 3 exemption allows the construction of one single family residence to be exempt from environmental review when it is constructed in a residential zone. Furthermore, the proposed residence complies with General Plan policies, ' / and Zoning Regulations property development standards and no exceptions are requested. • �� Attachment 7 f Resolution No. 5457-06 Page 2 4. In order to implement City General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policies and to ensure preservation of a wildlife corridor, it is appropriate to increase the creek setback an additional 10 feet, resulting in a 30-foot setback as measured from the upper creek bank. 5. As indicated by comprehensive site analysis performed by the City's Natural Resources Manager, the building site is not likely to impact nearby wildlife corridors or known habitat areas since the project is within a flat, landscaped lawn area and an increased creek setback of 30 feet instead of 20 feet will ensure protection of the riparian corridor. 6. As conditioned, the proposed new residence will be aesthetically and functionally compatible with the existing house on the property and the surrounding neighborhood since the new residence complements the existing residence through the use of materials and design. Each residence will be constructed with adequate private open space and landscape areas. 7. The proposed additional residence on one lot in the R-1 district will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood and the street's appearance because other adjacent properties contain development of similar character and density. The proposed project does not introduce additional density than would otherwise be allowed within the R-1 district. 8. The additional residence complies with all R-1 zone development standards. 9. The CHC reviewed the proposed new residence and found that, as conditioned, the project will not impact the existing historic residence at 148 Broad Street. . 10. The addition of residences within a developed residential neighborhood satisfy General Plan Goals that promote the development of infill housing therefore discouraging;urban sprawl and maintaining a compact urban form. One such General Plan Goal states: "San Luis Obispo Should: Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form."(City Form, Community Goals, General Plan Land Use Element p. 9) The General Plan Housing Element, Goal 1.27.2, states: "Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate sites, but not on sites designated for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance." SECTION 2. Action. The Commission hereby denies the appeal thereby approving the Use Permit (A 74-03) to allow a new residential unit on the same property as an existing residence at 148 Broad Street, subject to the following conditions and code requirements: Conditions 1. The design of the new residence, including the site plan and new driveway, shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Revised plans including a detailed site plan, building elevations, landscape plans and a colors and materials board.shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to proceeding to the ARC. New plans shall be �� �� � Resolution No. 5457-06 0 Attachment 7 Page 3 appropriately scaled, clearly drawn (computer-generated) and shall label all dimensions including height and setbacks. ,A new grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be prepared that identifies proposed amounts of cut and fill, existing and proposed grade, and site sections where appropriate. All existing trees, including trunk diameter and species, shall be indicated on the grading plan. 2. A 10-foot wide "gap" shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor between Broad Street and the Creek at the rear of the site. No fencing or other structures shall be installed within the 10-foot corridor. Driveway, landscape plants,trees and other flatwork shall be allowed within the 10-foot space. 3. Prior to the ARC hearing, the building footprint shall be clearly staked to verify the comers of the structure at the rear of the site. The stakes shall include pvc piping that is placed in a vertical orientation to display the height of the proposed structure. 4. Prior to the ARC hearing, the applicant shall submit a phase-one archeological report pursuant to the Archeological Preservation Program Guidelines. 5. The parking and driveway area for the new residence shall be designed with the use of turf block or other pervious paving systems. Concrete may be allowed for a portion of the driveway,no asphalt shall be allowed. 6. No paving or decks below 30 inches in height shall be allowed to encroach further than 5 feet into the required 20-foot creek setback. No structures or decks greater than 30-inches in height shall be allowed within the 30-foot creek setback 7. No grading, stockpiling, storage of construction materials, or associated activities shall be allowed within the creek area or creek setback area. The creek setback shall be fenced with temporary construction fencing and silt fencing during all phases of construction. 8. The maximum height of the residence, including all roof features, shall not extend beyond 25 feet as measured from existing average natural grade. 9. An address sign identifying the residence at the rear of the site shall be placed near the driveway intersection at Broad Street. The location and design of the sign shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 10. If a driveway is provided at the south property line, a landscape planter of at least 6 feet in width (narrowing to 3 feet in width adjacent to the existing residence to avoid driveway impacts to the existing redwood and cedar trees) shall be provided between the driveway serving the new unit and the south property line. 11. A conservation and open space easement shall 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. 12. A restoration and enhancement plan for the creek setback area west of the creek shall be provided with the ARC plans. The plan shall be implemented prior to occupancy of the new • `� Attachment 7 Resolution No. 5457-06 Page 4 residence.The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City's Natural Resources Manager and shall include planting a variety of native groundcovers, shrubs and trees and removal of some non-native groundcover species such as ivy. 13. All existing trees on site shall be preserved and protected during and following all phases of construction. Tree protection fencing shall be installed and inspected by Community Development staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. 14. Approval of this use permit does not constitute approval of a subdivision map and does not further the possibility of subdividing this property. 15. The ARC shall consider the Planning Commission's direction to require a single driveway to serve both residences and reduce the scale and mass of the proposed new residence to enhance compatibility with the neighborhood. 16. In order to implement City General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policies and to ensure preservation of a wildlife corridor the Creek setback shall be increased an additional 10 feet,resulting in a 30-foot setback as measured from the upper creek bank. On motion by Commissioner Ashbaugh, seconded by Commissioner Stevenson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Christianson, and Stevenson NOES: Commrs. Mc Coy and Carter REFRAIN: ABSENT: Commrs. Miller and Brown The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 12'h day of July 2006. Doug David on, Secretary Planning Commission �\ Attachment 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM n i BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner (781-7522) MEETING DATE: July 12, 2006 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director, Development Review AZ> . FILE NUMBER: A 74-03 PROJECT ADDRESS: 148 Broad Street SUBJECT: Appeal of the Hearing Officers approval of Administrative Use Permit A 74-03 which allows the establishment of a new residence on the same lot as an existing residence in the R-1 zone. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's determination, based on findings, and subject to conditions, including a condition that the plans be reviewed by the ARC to ensure neighborhood compatibility in terms of scale, massing, and overall design. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant wants to construct a new residence behind the existing residence at 148 Broad Street. Multiple dwellings are allowed in the R-1 district with approval of an Administrative Use Permit if the property is large enough to support the density. The use permit requirement is intended to assure that the new unit will meet density standards while maintaining compatibility with General Plan policies and the character of the neighborhood. At an administrative hearing on June, 2, 2006, the hearing officer approved the use permit to allow the additional residence, subject to findings and conditions. The conditions included a requirement that the plans be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission to ensure neighborhood compatibility in terms of scale, massing, and overall design. On June 12, 2006 an appeal of the hearing officer's determination was submitted from an adjacent property owner at 765 Murray Street. The primary basis of the appeal was the fact that the adjacent neighbor did not receive a formal notice of the use permit hearing. Additionally, the appellants are concerned about the location and scale of the proposed residence. Data Summary Address: 148 Broad Street Property Owner/Applicant: Barry Jones Appellant: Therese Bayly, 765 Murray Street Zoning: R-1 AP-PC 74-03 Attachment 8 148 Broad Page 2 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental status: Exempt from CEQA per section 15303. Class 3 allows the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone. Site Description 148 Broad Street is located within the R-1 district on north Broad Street, just south of Murray Avenue adjacent to Old Garden Creek. The existing residence on the property is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources and was originally constructed between 1931 and 1933. The two- story Tudor style house is still in good condition and is surrounded by large old trees with a long, flat backyard that abuts Old Garden Creek. The original detached garage, set to the rear of the house, is in good condition and is served by a single driveway on the north side of the house. The rear yard area where the proposed home would be constructed is a flat lawn area bordered by the creek. The project site contains several mature trees, including significant cedar and redwood trees. Project Description The applicant would like to construct a new dwelling at the rear of the property, behind the existing residence. The house would have two bedrooms within a floor plan of approximately 2,200 square feet. A new driveway would be constructed on the south side of the property and a new garage and parking area would be constructed adjacent to the new residence. No modifications are proposed to the existing historic residence, or the garage, and the new project will act as a stand-alone detached residence. No trees are proposed to be removed with the new construction. Unless a subdivision map is approved in the future the new residence would share the same lot as the existing historic residence and could not be separately owned. EVALUATION General Plan Analysis General Plan conformity is essential in reviewing this application. The City must make a finding that a development approval is consistent with the General Plan. In addition, the City's Zoning Regulations, (Section 17.02.050) state that the City's regulations and standards will be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the General Plan. The proposal to add a new house on the same property with an existing residence is consistent with the site's land use designation of Low- Density Residential. The low density district allows seven units per acre. This site is approximately 30,000 square feet in area and therefore is adequate to support an additional.unit. As described in LU 2.4.5 the General Plan describes the character of this zone: "Development should be primarily dwellings having locations and forms that provide a sense of both individual identity and neighborhood cohesion for the households occupying them. Such dwellings are generally detached, one- or two story buildings, with private outdoor space separating them from neighboring dwellings." As approved by the Hearing Officer, the findings can be made to support an additional residential unit at this location consistent with the General Plan. The size of the property is adequate for the AP-PC 74-03 Attachment 8 148 Broad Page 3 proposed density, and the proposed footprint of the new residence would be separated from the existing residence by approximately 75 feet. The plan provides for two dwellings that will retain individual identity, consistent with the density and character of the low density (R-1) district. Adjacent properties on both sides of this site contain dwelling units that are built behind the front house in a similar fashion to this proposal. Zoning Regulations The location of the proposed dwelling is consistent with Creek setback policies and property development standards for the R-1 zoning district including height, yards, coverage and parking. Approval of a new residential unit on the same lot as an existing residence is discretionarily allowed with approval of an Administrative Use Permit. Cultural Heritage Committee Since the new residence would share the property with an existing historic residence, the project required review by the CHC. The CHC reviewed the project proposal on May 22, 2006 and found that the new residence would not impact the historic property. The CHC recommended the project be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission and recommended the following project conditions be incorporated` 1. The applicant should install protective fencing around trees and other significant landscaping prior to and during construction, to the approval of the City Arborist. 2. Applicant should provide a Phase 1 Archeological study prior to building permit issuance. 3. Applicant should provide additional landscaping to achieve privacy screening where appropriate, to the approval of the.Architectural Review Commission. Basis for Appeal The appellant's primary basis for the appeal is the fact that they did not receive the standard notification for the Use Permit hearing on June, 2, 2006. Although the written reason for the appeal relates only to the notification issue, staff visited the appellant's property and discussed other concerns. The appellant is concerned about the mass, scale and location of the new residence as it relates to the backyard. The property at 765 Murray Street has a large, private backyard that abuts the creek across from the proposed location of the new residence. She is concerned that the residence will create overlook and loss of privacy for the backyard. The appellant is not necessarily concerned about a new residence being added to the site; however she feels that a two-story residence with decks that overlook the creek will be problematic. Staff Analysis The site plan for the new residence at 148 Broad Street shows that the minimum distance between the new house and the corner of the appellant's yard will be 85 feet. The new residence does propose a second story deck that will face the creek, however the deck is on the south portion of the residence and is further than 90 feet from the appellants rear yard. Staff visited the appellant's 7 AP-PC 74-03 �} �� Attachment 8 148 Broad Page 4 property to examine potential overlook concerns from the proposed new residence, however it was difficult to determine whether the new residence would overlook the appellant's yard. A significant row of trees screens the appellant's property from the development site and there is a significant distance between the two sites. Although the appellant was notified of the previous CHC hearing, staff verified the notification error for the use permit hearing and found that the City's database system contained an error that omitted the appellant's address from the automated notification list. Due to the error, the appellant is asking for a refund of the appeal fee. Staff agrees that the appeal fee should be refunded to the appellant and the Planning Commission may include the refund as part of their action. Summary The site is of a suitable size and configuration to allow an additional residence consistent with General Plan density designations and the character of the R-1 district. Therefore, a use permit to allow the applicant to proceed to the ARC with a project design for a new residence should be approved. Concerns such as overlook, height, mass, scale, building design and site planning are issues that should reviewed by the ARC. Regardless of use permit approval, the ARC would have the ability.to modify the site plan and building elevations to enhance the project's compatibility with the neighborhood. The applicant will need to produce a revised site plan that clarifies the proposal, and identifies any required grading or site disturbance. Additionally, the site should be staked to clearly identify the proposed footprint of the residence so that adjoining property owners can visualize the building location. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's determination, based on fmdings, and subject to conditions, including a condition that the plans be reviewed by the ARC to ensure neighborhood compatibility in terms of scale, massing, and overall design. 2. Refund the appellant's filing fee due to a notification error. ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the applicant regarding desired information or items needed as revisions to plans. 2. Uphold the appeal and deny the pioject. Action denying the application should include the basis for denial, including but not limited to the various residential protection policies contained in the General Plan. AP-PC 74-03 148 Broad Attachment 8 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 -Vicinity Map Attachment 2-Reduced scale site plan and building plans Attachment 3- Administrative Use Permit follow-up letter Attachment 4 -Appeal form Attachment 5—Planning Commission Resolution A denying the appeal G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Use Permits\74-03(148 Broad)Barry Jones\74-03.PC appeal 148 Broad.doc Filing Fee: $100.00* Paid� Date Received HCl O N/A "J r Attachment 9 t F ' fl 'REFER70 SECTION 4 san lues OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION C/o HE74C>1 R�N� PR, 569 RY 00NE S 3¢39 SPOL 51-10 93¢0/ Name Mailing Address and Zi Code Phone Fax #6E 91 Rf AIK 34-39 sav&14, S&O 9340/ Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Fiel�iVD��RCrS�/T�CT �84$)7D¢��(o0�i X05-.�¢2 -0��02 Title Phone Fax SECTION 2 SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: lc .AUS IW6 (014M/S5/0Al (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed',aled 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: -7,117, `/oez'-7 3. The application or project was entitled: �`T8 /V • �1��� D 5� 4.. 1 discussed the matter with the follo ng City staff member: 10#/& DUiUSMaREZ�P AAIIVI t/G on 7�Z�O6 PFT (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and b w om: N�I6ttgoRS APPE7t[.ED USS PERMIT /SSU>i=D By PN/NG CoAl All55/on1 PJ0i4S 7//2-/0& SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what actions you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 —30 C Attachment 9 Reason for Appeal continued •-, '(!tel 5 I r , „�.. e SEGZ�OIif 4..�PREL�.f4NT.S�RE5P011(SfB1LITY - the 9ao,Lfitis`Obispb City` ouncll values public�aa`nc�ij3ation'-in!Deal government and ' encou_rageaall#ofrns:of aittzera involverr�ent HoYveVe.r,`dtle to real Gists assocratedwith .ity C4urfigl consiciera ion_of ap appeal, irjc�lu�dflg pobj n`otlfication, s pertatining to a tannr'p applicopn or project are subject fo Milli flee of �'OO A vy ii>rh must accompany the appeaY:fprm Yziur cighto exeictse an appeal cones with cardain responsibUfties. If yflu#ile ah appea�,please understand fat tt triust be Sheard wlfhinb�ajr5 from filing this fiorrii. You will be hofifiee!m wnfirtg of}fFier�exact fete your appeal will be''heartlef�re tie Council You or your is fi representative annQ be ected to.attend thepublic`t_"ng,andto-biij epared tomakeyour case.`:.Yout.t6sfimbtiY m _`rfedt o 1 in utas. m J# brAi�uapc8ln� r�be�srte ` rtdeco�grtam ar� i unusual �rul�starices Ifyou feeJ:you needo�e2yest contitjt�ance,y ;nist4' it�pyrUPesth tnrrrtirgto t(�e'C�ty Clerk fll'ease be advtseci that 1f_our 'equ�s3or oont�nuncets;l`ece�/edaY iie ap�ipeal as,noticed to the public;the Counoil anaym6 b able to gCant he regdest of eoptinuanee .Subiniftrng aTeguest for continuance dotes.6, guarantee atfit.:! a gr'ai ied, he# fro is at he:d{sc�e."tion of tl Crry Cogncil: L�ret�by agree to h,�pear an`d%?sefid a�represe�tatiVe tot appear,on my'6ehalf"rvhen tSIgkiaiyl of' p"e anti` ''" i r °rOei � xyepZion o the;ee Appeal of Tcee;,omm�ttee�Jecis'[bns 2j Tqe aboWe=nam IldTivnas ahead ; " id PPS �:,pa 3tieji'$fOp to appe�ifl ts8m_enatter to°amity offlciaCor, ll advisory body This item Is hereby calendared for c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson City Clerk(original) Page 2 of 3 8/03 -3 0 0 Attachment 9 Action I am appealing: I am appealing the requirements to increase both the creek setback (code 17.16.025) and general setback requirements(code 17.16.020). SMifically (i) the finding that"the Creek setback shall be increased by an additional 10 feet, resulting in a 30-foot setback as measured from the upper creek bank.......... (Note this was never made a condition in the Planning Commissions resolution 74-03) And (ii) the condition "a 10-foot wide "gap" shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor between Broad Street and the Creek at the rear of the site" or CoamO Why I believe the Commission/should consider this appeal Specifically: The additional setback requirements are excessive, unnecessary and discriminatory. (i) The additional 10 foot creek setback requirement (making 30 feet in all)and the 10 foot wildlife corridor will considerably reduce the area that can be built on, adversely restricting the design and depriving the owner of benefits enjoyed by neighbouring properties.' photographic evidence(i) (ii) The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the submitted design and considered neighbours observations at a public meeting and found that the project design as submitted, `*1 not impact the existing historic residence at 148 Broad Street". Increasing the creek setback to 30 feet will result in the new residence being built closer to the existing historic house and the neighbouring residence on the South side.This might be detrimental to both. (iii) It was argued that additional setback requirements are necessary to ensure protection of the riparian corridor and the wildlife that might live there. This requirement is excessive and discriminatory since it has never been asked of other SLO properties backing on to this creek. Even with a 20-foot creek setback the back of the new property will be 50-60 feet from the nearest creek bank. The applicant had already accepted a `use permit' condition to give a `conservation and open space' easement to the city for a wildlife corridor—this is already about one third of my property(10,000.so ft). I feel this is a generous enough contribution from one person. Now the city is asking for 2 additional 10 ft x 75 feet zones (another 1500 sq feet) and in the process so restricting the design that it becomes almost impossible. (iv) City planning regulations are made to guide residents of SLO who wish to build a new structure in the City. If a resident cannot meet these regulations then you can ask for an exception. If you do meet these regulations (in this case setback regulations) then the regulations should not be randomly changed midway through the Attachment 9 planning process. I have the right to build an additional decent sized home on my property providing City guidelines are met. They have been met. Imposing further conditions that effectively so restrict the building area that the new house cannot be built are tantamount to refusing permission. (v) Immediate adjacent neighbouring properties have been built on the edge of the creek or much closer than 20 feet. 17.16.025 "Creek Setback Requirements" states: 4 (a) "Intent. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no practicable alternative to the exception" 15 (iv) " There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the nromM of privileges enigLby other property in the vicinity with the same zonin Recent property development in SLO built adjacent to the creeks have not required a30 foot creek setback. Some have been allowed to build within the 20-foot setback zone.Therefore the requirement being imposed on the applicant is inconsistent with other projects recently approved by the City. photographic evidence(v) (vi) This is an infill development. The City allows infill housing. General Plan Goal states: "San Luis Obispo Should. Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached maintaining a compact urban form."(City Form, Community Goals, General Plan Land Use Element p. 9) The General Plan Housing,Element, Goal 1.27.2, states: "Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate sites, but not on sites designated for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance. " (vii) I have worked diligently with the appointed planning experts of the City of SLO to ensure the new development is compatible with city guidelines and the neighborhood. No exceptions are requested and city planning guidelines where being followed. The design first submitted was subsequently reduced by about 1000 sq ft of floor area. I do not wish to be reducing the floor area further due to unfair setback requirements. (viii) The rear of the main appellant's house will be approximately 200 feet away from the rear of the applicant's new house with a number of 60+ feet tall mature trees separating the properties. Requesting an additional 10-foot on the creek.setback to appease this appellant is excessive. Photographic evidence(viii) (ix) "A 10-foot wide "gap" shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor between Broad Street and the Creek at the rear of the site". This is excessive. Deer follow well defined paths that are less than 2 foot wide. At 10 foot Attachment 9 you could drive a herd of cattle through. Previously there was no wildlife corridor directly from the road Does this mean that the City of SIA is encouraging wildlife to adopt Broad Street as part of their habitat? (x) The planning commission did not hear the testimony of the applicant since the applicant was on a study tour of England with CalPoly Construction Management students and was only made aware of this appeal two days prior to that meeting giving insufficient time for the applicant to prepare a response or appoint a representative. Evidence-photographs: (i)Additional setback requirement effect on the project. OA, 1 B 1 1 C t I D) (v) SLO Creek setbacks less than 20 ft or riparian creek bank destroyed (VA) VD) VC V pJ VE)VI (ix)Main appellant's house and distance between (I Y (111) OT1t-r— PAOPER.TIES NE�CtZBY CLOSE- Tb CMCE-9, (IIIA ) I115 ) , 3y ent 10 W 0 ID m LM 0 -E a 00 0 iz Ln ce) Z5 !L(D C 0 I1 C-4 o N ro t04 Co 4 '— r- sc 0 LL TIC ■ -Coc WX gx- T, r ;-K4 W. ......YS Irv-, 7�'T:W 4t. ...... Im Jk k V Vt IZO -2- 2-35 M W W w ATTACHMENT !I RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO MODIFY AND APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS TO INCREASE THE CREEK AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; APPLICATION NO.A 74-03 WHEREAS, The Hearing Officer granted approval of an Administrative Use Permit to allow an additional residence at 148 Broad Street on June 2, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California; on July 12, 2006, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Hearing Officer's determination to, by Administrative Use Permit, allow a new residence on the same property as an existing residence in the R-1 district at 148 Broad Street, Use Permit Application No. A 74-03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the appeal and approved the Use Permit, based on findings and subject to conditions, including conditions to increase the creek and side yard setbacks; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's action, specifically concerning the conditions to increase the setbacks, was received by the City on July 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties; and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Denial of Appeal. The request to modify the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission is hereby denied and the Administrative Use Permit is approved, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed additional residence will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because one additional residence on this property will not generate significant traffic into the neighborhood and is consistent with the existing development pattern. Additionally, the new residence meets the density and setback requirements for the R-1 district and, as conditioned, will be a logical design, compatible to the site and neighborhood. 2. The existing site is 75 feet wide and is therefore wide enough to allow a second driveway in accordance with the City's Parking and Driveway Standards, however a single, shared driveway would reduce impacts to neighboring properties while reducing the amount of on-site paving and reducing impacts to the historic property. Resolution No. ( 17ACHMENT Page 2 3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a new single family residence is categorically exempt from environmental review (Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, Class 3). A Class 3 exemption allows the construction of one single family residence to be exempt from environmental review when it is constructed in a residential zone. Furthermore, the proposed residence complies with General Plan policies, and Zoning Regulations property development standards and no exceptions are requested. 4. In order to implement City General Plan Open Space and Conservation.Element policies and to ensure preservation of a wildlife corridor, it is appropriate to increase the creek setback an additional 10 feet,resulting in a 30-foot setback as measured from the upper creek bank. 5. As indicated by comprehensive site analysis performed by the City's Natural Resources Manager, the building site is not likely to impact nearby wildlife corridors or known habitat areas since the project is within a flat, landscaped lawn area and an increased creek setback of 30 feet instead of 20 feet will ensure protection of the.riparian corridor. 6. As conditioned, the proposed new residence will be aesthetically and functionally compatible with the existing house on the property and the surrounding neighborhood since the new residence complements the existing residence through the use of materials and design. Each residence will be constructed with adequate private open space and landscape areas. 7. The proposed additional residence on one lot in the R-1 district will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood and the street's appearance because other adjacent properties contain development of similar character and density. The proposed project does not introduce additional density than would otherwise be allowed within the R-1 district. 8. The-additional residence complies with all R-1 zone development standards. 9. The CHC reviewed the proposed new residence and found that, as conditioned, the project will not impact the existing historic residence at 148 Broad Street. 10. The addition of residences within a developed residential neighborhood satisfy General Plan Goals that promote the development of infill housing therefore discouraging urban sprawl and maintaining a compact urban form. One such General Plan Goal states: "San Luis Obispo Should: Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached, maintaining a compact urban form."(City Form, Community Goals, General Plan Land Use Element p. 9) The General Plan Housing Element, Goal 1.27.2, states: "Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate sites, but not on sites designated for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance." Conditions 1. The design of the new residence, including the site plan and new driveway, shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Revised plans including a detailed site plan, building elevations, landscape plans and a colors and materials board shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to proceeding to the ARC. New plans shall be appropriately scaled, clearly drawn (computer-generated) and shall label all dimensions including height and setbacks. A new grading plan prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be prepared O ATTACHMENT Resolution No. [ ] Page 3 that identifies proposed amounts of cut and fill, existing and proposed grade, and site sections where appropriate. All existing trees, including trunk diameter and species, shall be indicated on the grading plan. 2. A 10-foot wide "gap" shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor between Broad Street and the Creek at the rear of the site. No fencing or other structures shall be installed within the 10-foot corridor. Driveway, landscape plants, trees and other flatwork shall be allowed within the 10-foot space. 3. Prior to the ARC hearing, the building footprint shall be clearly staked to verify the corners of the structure at the rear of the site. The stakes shall include pvc piping that is placed in a vertical orientation to display the height of the proposed structure. 4. Prior to the ARC hearing, the applicant shall submit a phase-one archeological report pursuant to the Archeological Preservation Program Guidelines. 5. The parking and driveway area for the new residence shall be designed with the use of turf block or other pervious paving systems. Concrete may be allowed for a portion of the driveway, no asphalt shall be allowed. 6. No paving or decks below 30 inches in height shall be allowed to encroach further than 5 feet into the required 20-foot creek setback. No structures or decks greater than 30-inches in height shall be allowed within the 30-foot creek setback. 7. No grading, stockpiling, storage of construction materials, or associated activities shall be allowed within the creek area or creek setback area. The creek setback shall be fenced with temporary construction fencing and silt fencing during all phases of construction. 8. The maximum height of the residence, including all roof features, shall not extend beyond 25 feet as measured from existing average natural grade. 9. An address sign identifying the residence at the rear of the site shall be placed near the driveway intersection at Broad Street. The location and design of the sign shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 10. If a driveway is provided at the south property line, a landscape planter of at least 6 feet in width (narrowing to 3 feet in width adjacent to the existing residence to avoid driveway impacts to the existing redwood and cedar trees) shall be provided between the driveway serving the new unit and the south property line. 11. A conservation and open space easement shall 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. 12. A restoration and enhancement plan for the creek setback area west of the creek shall be provided with the ARC plans. The plan shall be implemented prior to occupancy of the new residence. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City's Natural Resources Manager and shall include ® O ATTACHMENT i I Resolution No. [ ] Page 4 _ planting a variety of native groundcovers, shrubs and trees and removal of some non-native groundcover species such as ivy.. 13. All existing trees on site shall be preserved and protected during and following all phases of construction. Tree protection fencing shall be installed and inspected by Community Development staff prior to issuance of a construction permit. 14. Approval of this use permit does not constitute approval of a subdivision map and does not further the possibility of subdividing this property. 15. The ARC shall consider the Planning Commission's direction to require a single driveway to serve both residences and reduce the scale and mass of the proposed new residence to enhance compatibility with the neighborhood. 16. In order to implement City General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element policies and to ensure preservation of a wildlife corridor the Creek setback shall be increased an additional 10 feet, resulting in a 30-foot setback as measured from the upper creek bank. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2006.. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonat an well., City Attorney Filing Fee: $100.00 ;' � Paia R - IVED 0� N/A JUL 21 LOOS ,,,: 'REFER"TO SECTION 4 S LO C I TY CLERK R �San WI S OBI Spo APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMAT70N C/o HEIDI )RA&4- P9, BAR Y00NE S 34-3g 67 4o/ Name Mailing Address and Zip Code X7 05- 704-S�o� (H1) 8oS �¢2�06�2 Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code FxljEy/ lmRCf//1,,5GT 6oS)7*.1760(a Tale Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: PLAIJAIlNG C014141SS/0ri/ (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: -7117, 106 31.. The application or project was entitled: /`f'y /V • 4. 1 discussed the matter with the follo ing City staff member: RrpR Pf{/L DUiysMaR�XPLANic//nlG on 711Z�O6 T�?2 (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so,when was it heard and b w om: 1Ue1&&f30RS A10PEALED USE PEt2MiT /SSvED BY PL N/NG CoMAll 55ionl f R/©R 7112-106 SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and whyyou believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 1 Reason for Appeal continued r See �ffa�ii��l �Sheefs �Pho�r�is ouv'ez CSP xzd�47 L r �e k,5a L 10a SECTION 4. APPELLANT'S RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100% which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public, the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted,that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City ouncil. (Signature of Appellant) (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for c: City Attomey City Administrative Officer Department Head Advisory Body Chairperson -.,v 177144,c4 City Clerk(original) PA114- /lu ,1CM6 .E Page 2 of 3 bOu.E, .04u'A56,/ 8/03 JGL.,t Cyt 6-,z.,2 y Be : 614A-le- J 7&c,9-,-7-7- C NO Reason for Appeal continued See Xffachd cheeks 9` Pho�/`Ramis r Ca.Q ..Ire • s . �°,� ems` e r y.,x 7.t r -- ..�k�A £ M...r. w� .. ... : ". -v - ..;:k -e '` �"fJJr 5 . . . ,- .• . SECTION`S upiok L�l71ws RErSPONSIB/LITY The'Sd1rWis-Obispg-City'Co Welt valuespubiic pa�rticipatioil rrIocal govemmentand n encourages alllorrns;ofOtlzen involvement.,However,due'.to read co>;ts associated with Cityt wupai•Corisiderattortof=anppeal inclddiogPubticnoti#kation,'all'�appeals-.pertalrjing to a 'Aiftpeoare subjec°to afilingfiee of$9D0';which"mustaccom�any�he9a �� �a � appeal forRs t YguE` ft ° et riqA,pa1. l4nk'� e �n, ibfi!k ;r lft�� uie.an appeal, please dntiq,It�ul itbeard wathl �C{ay..sfrom flt�9 xhs formu will,be rid led In writing of ttie exac date your appeal kvill 6e herdbef0fp, a Goupcll Yfou or your re o reserrtat ann[I be��i c to attend#T`e�ublk Heaa `nh , uSt tom a t fired to rtiake our t ) {P } p Y case �urts�i o ��i 11 t ,♦(o,C� r^i tes �, "` > be.br@nt`ec!�q��c�q�rialn�a �gusualfnyou feel you `" Y l n}A. - Beed": a con ce>yqt�mush stt ydur� uest in wring o the i Clerk I?lease be adv�sedttt�a� o , ori#InUan •recdgrthep�, l�StnoEip�tothe public,fhe . �Counr�t m y ntq`e'Abte to�grant Creq est oI cont�nu'�nce._Subrntti�ng a req est fpr continuance. woes bopge�arante 4haM401 e-gtar i6dtion is at he% n of.th.Q G�ty>Gounc�l --f- 'hen{by agree to appear dhd/&senci<&r`epresen a five fo, pear ninyshehalf"when swap g� ;ishedued fort � *.a�c�61�c�Ylear'ing before lffie G'�tyq '"+� r .. a r a{ ! M'. �.Ek" r r ..} a 4u7 °.1.w 7, v \- ant) tnd� 1S. C�135+t$r �, a 3♦ SSji < 3'�4rP '"SS1st� v ..�vT C ifirr � n Syi.,L� ..tat > •:✓ . _p onlwo theee%K) Rea Commi;tepgciions i�fie abovg-^amen 8ppettantttps already pair! thei<y1Q�to.appeals-same ma iat visorybbdy' '" This Item is hereby caiendared for C: City Attorney City31ElWriistrative Officer- DepardneriMead i4:u-o'EuiL;C,E Advisory Body Chairperson -A lz714,4,C City Clerk(original) PN/4-- ak,#ci»e:ZE Page 2 of 3 bou-6 Aftu�45c 8103 IGcn ircue,zy .tie•' 6l q A_l E .5 7U q-,'`T / Li Action I am appealing: I am appealing the requirements to increase both the creek setback (code 17.16.025) and general setback requirements(code 17.16.020). SMifically (i) the finding that"the Creek setback shall be increased by an additional 10 feet, resulting in a 30-foot setback as measured from the upper creek bank"....... (Note this was never made a condition in the Planning Commissions resolution 74-03) And (ii) the condition "a 10-foot wide "gap" shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor between Broad Street and the Creek at the rear of the site or 66140 Why I believe the Commission/should consider this appeal Specifically: The additional setback requirements are excessive,unnecessary and discriminatory. (i) The additional 10 foot creek setback requirement (making 30 feet in all)and the 10 foot wildlife corridor will considerably reduce the area that can be built on, adversely restricting the design and depriving the owner of benefits enjoyed by neighbouring properties. photographic evidence(i) (ii) The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the submitted design and considered neighbours observations at a public meeting and found that the project design as submitted, `will not impact the existing historic residence at 148 Broad Street". Increasing the creek setback to 30 feet will result in the new residence being built closer to the existing historic house and the neighbouring residence on the South side.This might be detrimental to both. (iii) It was argued that additional setback requirements are necessary to ensure protection of the riparian corridor and the wildlife that might live there. This requirement is excessive and discriminatory since it has never been asked of other SLO properties backing on to this creek. Even with a 20-foot creek setback the back of the new property will be 50-00 feet from the nearest creek bank. The applicant had already accepted a `use permit' condition to give a `conservation and open space' easement to the city for a wildlife corridor—this is already about one third of my nrouerty(10,000 sa R). I feel this is a generous enough contribution from one person. Now the city is asking for 2 additional 10 ft x 75 feet zones (another 1500 sq feet) and in the process so restricting the design that it becomes almost impossible. (iv) City planning regulations are made to guide residents of SLO who wish to build a new structure in the City. If a resident cannot meet these regulations then you can ask for an exception. If you do meet these regulations (in this case setback regulations) then the regulations should not.be randomly changed midway through the planning process. I have the right to build an additional decent sized home on my property providing City guidelines are met. They have been met. Imposing further conditions that effectively so restrict the building area that the new house cannot be built are tantamount to refusing permission. (v) Immediate adjacent neighbouring properties have been built on the edge of the creek or much closer than 20 feet. 17.16.025 "Creek Setback Requirements" states: 4 (a) "Intent. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no practicable alternative to the exception" D (iv) " There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the vroZM of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning" Recent property development in SLO built adjacent to the creeks have not required a 30 foot creek setback. Some have been allowed to build within the 20-foot setback zone. Therefore the requirement being imposed on the applicant is inconsistent with other projects recently approved by the City. photographic evidence(v) (vi) This is an infill development. The City allows infill housing. General Plan Goal states: "San Luis Obispo Should.• Grow gradually outward from its historic center until its ultimate boundaries are reached maintaining a compact urban form. "(City Form, Community Goals, General Plan Land Use Element p. 9) The General Plan Housing Element, Goal 1.27.2, states: "Within established neighborhoods, infill housing should be located on appropriate sites, but not on sites designated for parks, open space, or similar uses of neighborhood importance. " (vii) I have worked diligently with the appointed planning experts of the City of SLO to ensure the new development is compatible with city guidelines and the neighborhood. No exceptions are requested and city planning guidelines where being followed. The design first submitted was subsequently reduced by about 1000 sq ft of floor area. I do not wish to be reducing the floor area further due to unfair setback requirements. (viii) The rear of the main appellant's house will be approximately 200 feet away from the rear of the applicant's new house with a number of 60+ feet tall mature trees separating the properties. Requesting an additional 10-foot on the creek setback to appease this appellant is excessive. Photographic evidence(viii) (ix) "A 10-foot wide "gap" shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor between Broad SttW and the Creek at the rear of the site'. This is excessive. Deer follow well defined paths that are less than 2 foot wide. At 10 foot C J you could drive a herd of cattle through. Previously there was no wildlife corridor directly from the road. Does this mean that the City of SLO is encouraging wildlife to adopt Broad Street as part of their habitat? (x) The planning commission did not hear the testimony of the applicant since the applicant was on a study tour of England with CalPoly Construction Management students and was only made aware of this appeal two days prior to that meeting giving insufficient time for the applicant to prepare a response or appoint a representative. Evidence-photographs: (i)Additional setback requirement effect on the project 0A, 1 Fj 1 1 C r 1 D, (v)SLO Creek setbacks less than 20 ft or riparian creek bank destroyed a VA V I$) VC V p�VE)VI (ix)Main appellant's house and distance between (1y.) (m) DTft-r- pe-oper.Tie-s NE74ASCLOSE- Ta CRZ'E -� 01A ) 1115 ) ��r a • tl � }i HAM � - ,�Ktn' r Epi.,�' � �3 •r P •. ..... Year rtla tl tt'�alfad�trL�r�e• ��� , ► _I �:� , allhS� I I: , • 1 � 1 �_ I�11(�1AOIiIIII �: IP"�I��illt�F�k�'��'j�x 1 ��=�� .._ Brows ifwF 'itEE I6zDb:6ra� +S, . p [tiA �autri ur"'3'ii i . +•rrr/NII�tri`� !r: Real i [ �t Sl91s-Ilfir`�; fi vrs.^naa I ttan,utlp r ► L ass LL fa, a: !�X �1. I r,rrn t rja�'. J MINE MEp t'r �1 rn i"+'F!c r�l��'t, r�I�jM•±L� �i�rry llAw ALt.i7 F v4w-� ' 1F. lS f7 e;SSS.� I- I�j{m j ttn� 1 rr 'I Hca+i�zi -•,t it, .:,ir�ta� Ifs i �rarror ' _ rr.�_Fnr i �t Tv,ttrvLr'r. 51•�y °•0a' ( � �11I�lr�1l; 1,!t�el�rtetr�rrlt?r: t� n as } ly►enjLainwam-,_, t .A^ ' 7 r� .M•ice a A ✓i' h R E rt i o � • % ^` •� g � , Lu • I s 16 C 1 � 1 77 cr • pg L JS _ -�= l.r 1. Y • l•. • - -`. 1 . ��..�----a-""_`� - .- - , - � '�+•--•_'�-• "'. �r4. .. r'-�-....--�- - �� Page 1 of 1 C J .ter, :w L -�w"�' ysrb axA:. ?a„r`�rF+•:'` s� ,+ ' Y + �` y t�0. - +. wA 1�•s;��'�MM'� +t'mfr .� r� td�a "'" r ' ]... THI�- gvi LLVA1G 1REA / C„ file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\hrank.000\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Inte... 7/21/2006 / t .s 1 r� S v •� I :,Iw � Ott ♦ . / ' 1 � t I t / i J t � �lyly�t� �✓� VA- 70 1-7 u� AI I III, �lyil �`; 01, r 1II •Iii �)�;�.. .-y��:� ..^,1; tatX�, is r a Jif n ' 4 ♦ IY' 'd rfrS IT �+ 4L �`'� Y 'JtJA.J'`V �.• 1 JU!�I 1Y'Vb.MA`\..r`I�LM/� ��hv I i * .�+,A,r � gzr•t�tn�'^,��'t°��� t �;. �u�+.!.�Lrly /�yy,�`z LG S \ 1 tit dp x 1 . YO t i 'Y+i'4+ wZ4 N+' u ,y`.r•n at . . krF 'C f -r� J tri J r1 • r Y `f �� `! tam !' 77 : �'' t't *IK 4�i S j if if .� ifV ry ic• }(.�� P. r s FT \ v1� �}.1. �l, gT► at•y a • e1, F.�..: t4 t . . >" e"i� 4�,.,ii i �,, AT r T r�•.�1,-.Iia � t�l♦ �? A �}�ti.•r µ! ��fyy' r �s`r5 F t � � i.� •T� g �' �u - J i.yr=. i 13�:`+ ,yf i +- �{ a�:t/ � :,�* 1 .! r f �{•e< i w rla ♦a>!'0 �• tT r.-ts� y p. !, T ,VI � ..a 's ♦ �� 1 �t. 1w rA�a�� J t !•ai . , rtt�,( '4f-. i ,ir}�� � , . . r . ''{ . �` f 1� 1'yf�t j�t F a-y+ +ri7 r T j ♦ _ � !•. . v`k '��.--�», 1 <. - ♦� L ��. �: ja �.4 i' =J .; t �)v4 l t 'lt�l ��a�lfar � �� +fn�` �' � .• w. ,, Y Wit, aatita• r�fF � f`.Ts/ '(.� ,:ity1}tr{�,� i'"'',('.1 ` 3�•.``vl. t :e�i ' t • � � -w' , - �•. r..'r1.•t� ; - v1 ^:�aYt -.�•y , / `.�t.att J c(VJ r ,1�. g r ./; �` r•, �J �{ t �{s}l Ft, , ^ 1' ,y-��y' �Jy `•�'� 1 ' . . r -.I f`. , s s ' !iJ 1 Ii'y 't�T any Pl�'1 �•_�'xi L*- S! w}F t� .r. �' - a� � I 4 i � a'•f•♦'_ �}' f 1, t ? Yy ,YI ()�rs il � rsC�y 't'�,f��}'�-�4�F'�R• YJ ��� ��'^. � ZI At 1. ♦ a. `.1G'. C,,-• • < e a ,� Yf Y J 1�a `a'a"Y. C .n .u.. j �til�l01`r � . r !,:�fy � 5. '•r'-./ t I''rr� T%"� • ,'t�,. ♦r••"y�r n j� : '!!1 aly as�t��r�EC lyay t� �� � �'. . � ayr y s 1 • f`-:♦ •:7•111 .7v } lx* ..�` �;• {er It '�'>0 �1 t . .. - a � a.i� •� T rl}i� r •, !' � C( nl�� ,; �.it�gr ..a- ; Ott '•'; n '•t all Cir t X 1 � L.• I �, 4 r� y.. •�'. - ;l 14 r'l • a + .,,p •_ vi ,. � ti..• :: Fy 1. he t 1w f�A 1.4 Ilk •� a '1 I !; r i 1 ' T .. � -` . t 1. -� r 1 . . •' � .t a ♦R, - _ ..� > ♦ � ,. _. 4 ., •' .ti , Zo f 1 � r 5 . Y li �.� y r� .-I., �7 � �l•i lu IA& orl - 1; a\(ti tlfM99 t � 'iii' A f 3 :�t o ;�4� �- • r.y . _ f +swaP78k7 ill tl 1 •� 'd.- _� jY w..� r.:.• .. ya. � � i yrYOyln t. �1 A, }�yjp' l 1 1 $ + 'e,� Y ` 4C�'rr�•• • `4 App 40. rk _., �,.. � .. �I f• ,*! ITS .'"1 � �� Al, . C . y . Ip I 1F s• 's i t'�tri ' ; . i sky •< . a e - ' �. . a T k _ ML i `.• , - , ,'r.: ��r Try ' ��. �. I�. f ..' � 1 IJ r � � T �Y � ♦rY e.• r', I•�` ,�+� fir'. { a 'M trjE� w,�..` . � ',- .•�.� X1.3 �� a'...'� �^'��'..�- _ • a�_ . _ •.� i,1a ♦j sA.� '` a.�\ice~ : ` �� `•. - !'_. `+ Y l tt• + "r ! 0..2', •::",1 y s F l ti Sit; sl, _ r at 1 M 1 �. .... • t<. .Y ) f f � jS 1 s 1a I kinr i , h ��;�. � . ,►,� + tea�'.".t� � ; . s�ice, j ,h + j `•1[ �y. Y { 3 -.tr 4jt8 • Fes. r «�s`a s r ! \YYT.tIV • • ���`� �� • 1 oaf s �'t 1 r., �J i Yr•.1 d c. � w. �"��;... . �• � "�,g�t•� �'Ax j Lf,..\1�-# f � (' ♦wc r. g +Fy '. w�'iY. � n_ific r [ .,+k � {`gg�R�'hy f Y'• r'y��yy, F• .�yaFA,. yT, 'w ;i'... :k: �. •�t+ � 1 - d 1,,11...#'& f'-it�9 \Y� !" 1;`.'� Vo.r 92%1 L � f P I: f I ' //. • 11111. j f y1 41� � _y". 'F.. f sr ' �T i y.f f, •.. f�2. I1 rL' .• , s.ts/ •s` a t if t; +1-•S. 'f' F Yt�Y.M �, -. t.t1,, f•�yr"�9'""'. R-1.4 r qq.� i ��, Y ♦ .�.c. /'� I 10 41 o r. � �•� f . r . w, a�11 i. 4r F't aiMtw +Y y`�yyra�`�+�., is ��•�Ia {� P 9., ? ,— 1 r �/ !!! lv N s lata`��.•� 1(' '� L + r3 i e 1 ''`: Y�• ., .ti„+tr y6! Y• ,F""Jf� in �hk j'+� r � A.• w n'rh + .� ^ • ftl rvl 'w �i •49Jw x +•- L ,• 1 a ~ `+'� xr -��- �� Fr:„`.r wK'C"7 ^ .+w •l • w�l ./M1 w s ' ^- - .;`w re4, ,rr �} a+ eJ W I - • j1a>�15 si F r i ff,4'i w, wY•' '-�. F' y Rcr •'tG • - ♦ •Y'+ k i 4w. a tl .C'e 4 4 �,,�L9taI�J.L.,� •�4�}I/ .1 ,-«i. ..�IL"r'�1 Y •., ,1 r G'y i'' ^^• f L��/i�'i 1.rt . v a �a,� p ` ••;1wr r'.,•S•,` , .. ♦'•y.- , .. �- r + aF'� ±)• x _w:..","l w i•,'It%r^f"jr' l 4' ..y .`.-}. _ate� .�: �,t � � r ,+.�:,i .'' ly.i+L � .y�, !t -`n�+�,��1 •x �'... y•1 i� _ _ �� . '.. -" t� 'Ir� a.w..- � r... Gtr' :� its �_. asp • x :� tV45 1- Yhw� y i}` 4 ._�ic LI :ie • 11 L' .I IY `.e ;�'� • ray yWr.�� 6SJ� +.r.a!'G �n'f+,. _ • - J .� �..'i • . I.t •y 1 1 '� • arI '4.r. i_ •� rt f ' "w n�'t. � } -�;��r Y • � ; . +" �+ gin.• - r'Tto , 40 1 :�;1 Ly, 1 t • y I u,�.1"11'� ` IY,,',I,lr +/ *�N•� yp f Wf � 1 ' �'� � ,1 • . . , ._ �!' � �A'x'!' 1. n"Y• (v �a t • n;� +� _ y�,�a� � �ti.. _ ♦ e � lig�����•�4. • vRr*, ,.�• 1 x'r fi p t Y#�t..a5 ^•r 'ail4j;t . ,.r �7411: •y r. �..T�v� r� 7Ye t��Sw l'!oa '� s i �• . a a 'S f �i. v +. r�'�/y�lal'+�..a+1F.:. p_)!a .�• 0 ya l•' '.il vM:. s .� � r.a ^1 b���R i ryG J` M a1'�i�s J•`..' +y h M a w S^ rY�d 'a8 i ry"��3.opy, t �iU+( • a +`� { ` 1 °.it .�A �'C -l•.F' r• w_W 1 1\. AT&T Yahoo! Mail -heidirank(asbcglobal.netage 1 of 3 C P� AT&T Yahoo! Mail Search Search the Web v Welcome, aw 100001 heidirank@sbcglob... Mail_Home I Tutorials I I Help MAIL [Sign Out, My Account] Mail Addresses Calendar Notepad What's New-Mail For Mobile-Upgrades - Options Check Mail Compose Search Mail Search the Web Cheek Other Mail [Edit] Previous I Next I Back to_Messages mail.tnleswitch... Delete Reply Forward Spam Move... e Folders [Add - Edit] This message is not flagged. [Flag Message- Mark as Unread ] Inbox(34) Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:43:25 +0000 (GMT) Draft From: bkjones@calpoly.edu n View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert Sent To: "Phil Dunsmore" <pdunsmor@slocity.org> Bulk [Empty] Subject: J, Re: 148 Broad Street Have down loaded appeal form Trash [Empty] CC: heidirank@sbcglobal.net, louisasmith@sbcglobal.net My Folders [Hide] AOL—Mail Phil, I have now found and downloaded the appeal form PDF but Pactower complete the form online and send it back to you. --1)kI will therefore ask Heidi to sign and file the appeal on my Payments (2) Saved—on—AOL I note the hearing hap to take place within 45 days. Due to my committments in England I might have to ask for a itunes continuance. Search Shortcuts Barry My Photos My Attachments Forwarded Message[ Download File Save to Yahoo_!_Briefcase] Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:29:38 -0700 From: "Phil Dunsmore" <pdunsmor@slocity.org> To: bkjones@calpoly.edu Subject: Re: 148 Broad Street Plain Text Attachment[Scan and Save to Computer I Save to Yahoo! Briefcase] Hi Barry, Heidie is correct in her observation. The vote was split 3-2. commissioners that opposed the vote did so not because they w the house being constructed on this site but because they wer adding the additional conditions. The conditions added to the included a 30 foot creek setback instead of 20 feet, recommen single driveway, requiring that no fencing be installed betwe Street and the Creek, and requiring native landscape to be pl creek bank. Commissioners also reccomended scaling back the refferred that comment to the ARC. At least the appeal was overturned and the Use permit was app neighbors also appear content at this time. However, you may http://us.fg14.mail.yahoo.convym ShowLetter?Msgld=961_52510088_527622_1943_209._. 7/21/2006 AT&T Yahoo! Mail -heidirank@sbc lobal.net _ Pagel f 3 AT&T Yahoo! Mail searoh �� Search ss *p��}} the rleb ---- GOG` �r Welcome, �l'_, heidirank@sbcglob... Mail Home Tutorials ( d Help MAIL [fin Out, My Account] Mail Addresses Calendar Notepad What's New- Mail For Mobile- Upgrades- Qptiom Check Mail Compose search M ill i Search the Web Previous 1 Next 1 Bachto N1�ssaae� Check Other Mail [Edit] — - mail.trueswitch... ! Delete Reply . Forward - V This message is flagged. Remove Fla Mark as Unread Folders [Add - Edit] 9 99 [ 9 ] f InbOX (34) — Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:38:09 +0000 (GMT) Draft From: bkjones@calpoly.edu 02 View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert Sent To: "Heidi Rank" <heidiran k@sbcglobal.net> Bulk [Empty] Subject: &9 Re: appeal please file the following asap Trash [Empty] CC: "Louisa Smith" <louisasmith@sbcglobal.net>, bkjones@calpoly.edu My Folders [Hide] t AOL—Mail Heidi, as discussed please file the appeal on my behalf by th Pactowerf the week. 1 Phil is expecting it. Payments (2) You can sign my name or sign as my representative. Saved—on—AOL itunes I will be sending evidence in the form of photographs. If you please get them copied and attach to the appeal. Color copies ------- - --- I have just sent you three signed checks so take the fee and Search Shortcuts cost from the check. My Photos When the appeal is presented it would be good to do a present My Attachments the evidence. Show them some photographs. I think facilities - -- --------------- available in the Council Chamber. I will send the photographs two files at a time. Let me know if you require further stuff from me. Many Thanks Barry Forwarded Message [Download File I Save to Yahoo! Briefcase] Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:26:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Heidi Rank" <heidirank@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: appeal form To: bkjones@calpoly.edu HTML Attachment[Scan and Save to and Save to Computer I Save to Yahoo! Briefcase] Baz, http://us.fB 14.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Msgld=4255_54130315_542202_1917_13... 7/21/2006 Elaina no- PC Appeal 74-03 ------- � ___ — .Page 1 From: Elaina Cano To: andrea97ca@hotmail.com; Audrey Hooper; Doug Davidson; John Mandeville; Jonathan P Lowell; Ken Hampian; Kim Murry; Phil Dunsmore Date: 7/21/06 5:01 PM Subject: PC Appeal 74-03 Attached is a Planning Commission Appeal that is scheduled to be heard at the October 3,2006 Council Meeting. The appellant has agreed, via email, with Phil Dunsmore to have this appeal heard past the 45 day deadline because he is out of the country. As per my phone conversion with Phil , no other staff or outside companies will be affected by the extension of this appeal. I have put it on the 60 day as a public hearing and scheduled it to be heard for 30 minutes. If the time needs to be adjusted, please do so on the 60 day calendar. Colored pictures are available in the City Clerk's office. Thanks, Elaina Elaina Canon Fwd Re Thanks 148 Broad _ , _Page 1 From: Phil Dunsmore To: Davidson, Doug; Elaina Cano Date: 7/26/06 8:02AM Subject: Fwd: Re:Thanks 148 Broad Please be sure that the appeal to Council for 148 Broad (A 74-03) is calendered for October 17. Barry Jones has scheduled to return from the uk specifically for that date.Thanks, -Phil Philip Dunsmore Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department (805)781-7522 r � F s .y '� iLS�■�ua { �"-aau��ntfcG"ril�! iS1"Ad j% 1 ' 1 � � ri �� aa�a.Faa[,l' 7E►. �Hj�7Kti.4 1 ' rSal.■ ter�' F+�• tt��f ._ ■ a 1eri7 Ir_ ^W►_.�„► 7t Se2r•aON on Bill 7 s/ IIiIHL' �i I �n�r�:�■Jiiai= __ . flafl�ea • _ - �II t 41_. wr- JAMI LF Ire .Sr, I r a ` •` ' e if f lea OM 14 1 � F ' •'. � e� L: q � J r s a n I J n O` fa 1 � 1 � ' rage i or i T 1 C r.�����+L . �e',s�`r".C.S�: f � file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\hrank.000\Local%2OSettings\Temporary%2Olnte... 7/21/2006 lG r.r ' •= , u��� _ - �-^-� � �� . • ISS•' �r S . D• 1. •• ' . 1 i . .nItl • 1 .• 1 11. • /�i yew l`, '3t4r,r� cr',.r •. - � .. +'� .. ' ti _ V' M,(� ♦ ''fit Y .� i.�N: , � -:! I�� ,g ''+ear y �'+'. i• i .. - r 8 j - ! �K h S L t <; .• Q�l�� fry � r > t f is 1`�i (, f .•iJ y � i. _'` • �rw i r � (' Y(r )t irfrt.' Jt�•C'.•�w' _ V-j 4 � !. ccp '. ,} :Y r.wf .Jl,Y.. 'E ;� 3 to\�, d�s`�. w •.g x :'M „ . i ' ( 'J �f'�''T 9� � <5.�Ki' � •-��•x3aC�,Z' �^iY �(3-.y.`v;`�,f;� �� It • ~ ,' t}�f'�J .r~ at i- 11 .L.�- `► � rGq _ ,yk :. rt It, iL 'r'. t11+� S - a- ♦ }- F 'r '.ice: :.,...:`..� ,. •I�Jrrt 4 r)y�fi ,til�lLi Jt � r r r �„•yS�,��.0. NIS i 0 0 ca el m e h u � f.s•—J1 1 ' r ,J1J IL 1 .� 9d Ja _ - t,' � mr IL r f / r tin .yam •� } rI.• . � 1 hl 1404 All 14 10 -fs�i �, ,•• .. v�.r it old f t., 4 f, No � •`� ♦ 1�G ISI I�� �� • l' s y1[� •� •el•. 1, q • `.^` ' -mss 1 4 ',Si ti i � r a f !. ;• eft . y V= y ti v1a. u 'Jr fit, _ t i �1 I 1' 1 •. .. _ µ.:. r�R 1 .a r .�. . � s9 ;.� t��. �e a � L vim'+ �•.�� ���^W. Tim u .,.,,.. z�.f ti nIV uAl • �' f- F•r i• .. or•��-1 R V • 11�� �oJ y[i ��,�� 4. tee;s� N".� F• +-- y1 R a i a , • j� p R / O � . ( c ti R y l ♦ c d 1 n r cf t\' , _ o o t •� / ;.;r.l G. n" o a9 I Ir ' I ° ( 1 eel cr 4. } (y .. -Del 66 (�j)j 1 n WVTr r o O 4 � o p O ^� J' .J "S ,, a . o � f ` lh..Six, - a>, n s ^g ' Lc` ® 3r 3rtF p X40 �l � L ` 1 21) ^ -' l^ B�y, _ ry ita ��b c _ �, Q;���6� �: �J -. ctlo�Q, ``��� - .k'e, ��-^.A�, '�°r,�- olr�rJ eff. _r`� � i �10� ®✓;h O. � .rr O •� a r..,��}�+drib �'S r�'�7 'Ua LJ -. .J n If, cc OU IT If— p � r , a _ c o 00IhII dip �. Lu�— IT Awl I �'> c, -9 - tc� � r• 0 1 _ tl: �r; 'a O�a�'1 °n_IS '.�`p '1� I �• _rc f�.L: 4�0 .'Cf- - � o. ., � T c C Ccf�ri..'JJ�- rill rt. (�fEG r.�o,.(n. 1p Yr ,a` �1 r ^ 1 c r 103 IN N rt + _ v 37— w 7 4 ry J` f° rr rk` v: Y •Z R CCUNCIL 11 CAO 1Q CDD Dln,_ . RED FILE FIN DIR RECEIVED y,55PN��oe BATT RNEY ' PIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA fPCLERK�ORIG &Pw DIR OCT 16 2006 i POLICE CWF n& io ITEM #}� O DEPS EADg T REC DIR SLO CITY CLERK —�LQ�--- r UTIL DIR EN'[6 '�-�= c HR D I R 'P if 4 d MEMORANDUM 2' C From the Office of the City Attorney `�C�ln/°iow7ES October 16, 2006 To: Mayor and City Council From Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney Re: Letter from Richard Schmidt Re Appeal of 148 Broad Condition Appeal This morning we received a copy of the attached letter to Council from Mr. Schmidt asserting that the appeal of a condition of approval imposed upon the project at the above address had been placed on the Council agenda improperly. Sections 1.20.020 and 17.66.010 provide that any person may appeal any decision of any official body of the City, so long as that decision involves the exercise of discretion by the decision-making body. In its consideration of the appeal from the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer approving the application for the above property, the Planning Commission exercised its discretion in upholding the decision of the Hearing Officer by re-adopting the conditions originally imposed on the application by the Hearing Officer and adding another condition of approval. In so doing, the entire action of the Planning Commission, including its re-adoption of the condition with which Mr. Schmidt takes issue, was rendered appealable to the Council. This is consistent with the City's past practice, pursuant to which appeals from decisions of subordinate bodies to Council reopen the entire matter for reconsideration. In other words, on appeal of the action of a subordinate body, Council may review the action on an application in its entirety and decide to add to, delete and/or modify any condition imposed or to overturn the decision in its entirety. Mr. Schmidt's argument seems to be that conditions originally imposed by the Administrative Hearing Officer and not specifically stated as grounds for lower level appeal are subsequently precluded from review on appeal to Council. However, as noted, this is inconsistent with past practice. Moreover,if we were to follow that argument to its logical conclusion, it would dictate that Council could consider only the additional condition imposed by the Planning Commission and would be precluded from considering, for example, Mr. Schmidt's suggestion that the entire application be denied. Because any appeal of a discretionary action is of the action as a whole, notwithstanding that specific grounds for the appeal must be stated, Council has the flexibility in this case to consider and alter any and all of the conditions imposed and/or re-adopted by the Planning Commission and/or to revisit the underlying decision to approve or deny the application. Thus, there is no basis on which to remove the appeal of the contested condition from the agenda and Council may proceed to consider the appeal as filed. Accordingly, attached for Council's consideration is a draft resolution granting the appeal with blank spaces provided to reflect any alternative actions that the Council may wish to take. Page 2 J 148 Broad Council Appeal As to Mr. Schmidt's concerns regarding the,timing of the hearing, the relevant provisions of the Municipal Code (Section 17.66.050) provide that "Once an appeal has been filed, it shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date."The Appellant in this case did agree to this hearing being scheduled at a later date. The general requirement of Chapter 1.20 that a hearing be scheduled within 45 days of the filing of the appeal is a due process protection afforded to appellants and a means of managing agenda scheduling. That provision, likewise, may be waived by the appellant with the City's consent. Attachments 1. Schmidt Letter 2. Draft Resolution Granting Appeal cc: Ken Hampian Shelly Stanwyck John Mandeville Doug Davidson Phil Dunsmore Audrey Hooper Richard Schmidt � 9544-4247 M81?nATTACHMENT I RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 October 15, 2006 City Council Re: Misagendizing 148 Broad appeal City of San Luis Obispo Dear Council Members: I believe there has been gross error in scheduling an appeal by Barry Jones of one of the conditions for his conditional: use permit at 148 Broad Street, which is on your agenda for Tuesday this week. Jones has no right to an appeal hearing on the condition worded: "A 10-foot wide 'gap'shall be retained between the south property line and any structure to allow for a wildlife corridor between Broad Street and the Creek at the rear of the site."(from his appeal, item (ix), p. 2-33 of your packet).. This is because he failed to file a timely appeal. The condition with the wording above comes from the June 2 Administrative Hearing's conditions. Jones was present at that hearing and knew fully about this condition at that time. There is a 10-day limit on filing appeals. He did not file one within that time limit, therefore the condition cannot be appealed later. Jones appealed on July 21, well past the 10-day limit, allegedly because this was a condition set by the Planning Commission on July 12. However, the Planning Commission conditions merely reiterated the wording being appealed -- wording from the June 2 administrative hearing permit. (There is more to the condition in both conditions, which Jones did not appeal. The part appealed is identical in both sets of conditions.) Furthermore, at the Planning Commission hearing Jones offered no objection to any of the administrative hearing's conditions, nor did his representative, who spoke on his behalf. One assumes Jones had second thoughts about.the condition, or was just looking for some way to stir things up with neighbors, and appealed the condition even though he had acquiesced to it earlier and missed the proper appeal deadline. This is not right. It is not fair. The city ought not to have accepted an appeal on this condition. If a developer can keep rehashing the same stuff over and over again after it's settled and appeal dates have passed by filing new untimely appeals, it's just plain wrong. What's settled should remain settled. You'd never permit a citizen to do this sort of untimely appealing. What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Page 1 Richard Schmid[ V 544-4247 M8127 0 � MN2T The whole point of having appeal deadlines is to prevent this sort of dragged out uncertainty, and to produce settled certainties on which all parties can proceed. In being "fair" to this applicant by allowing untimely appeal, the city is being unfair to neighbors who thought the issue long settled. Why should Jones be allowed to bend the rules about appeal dates, or by chopping down trees(in the way of his project) he was told he couldn't? Letting him get away with this sort of stuff is just plain wrong. The city needs to have some backbone and stick up for what's right. Accordingly, in the interests of fair play, I'm asking that the appeal of the"10-foot gap" condition be removed from your agenda forthwith. • A Second Item. I do not understand why Tuesday's hearing is timely. The appeal form informs appellants hearings must be held within 45 days of appeal, again, to keep things from dragging out. 45 days expired Sept. 4. So, why is a hearing being held on October 17, 88 days (nearly double the allotted time) after the appeal's filing? Was this a case of the city bending rules to be "nice" to the peripatetic Mr. Jones, who filed his application just before heading off to combined vacations and sabbatical (during which he has indicated he will work on the retirement home in Italy to which he will go after his anticipated departure from Cal Poly in 2 or 3 years) extending for 15 months? If this scheduling is another bending of the rules for Jones' benefit, such "applicant bias" is unfair to everyone else. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt CC:J. Lowell Page 2 O ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO.XXXX-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO MODIFY AND APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS TO INCREASE THE CREEK AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS; APPLICATION NO. A 74-03 WHEREAS, the Hearing Officer granted approval of an Administrative Use Permit to allow an additional residence at 148 Broad Street on June 2, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on July 12, 2006, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Hearing Officer's determination to, by Administrative Use Permit, allow a new residence on the same property as an existing residence in the R-1 district at 148 Broad Street, Use Permit Application No. A 74-03; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the appeal and approved the Use Permit, based on findings and subject to conditions, including conditions to increase the creek and side yard setbacks; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission's action, specifically concerning the conditions to increase the setbacks, was received by the City on July 21, 2006; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Appeal Upheld. The request to modify the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission is hereby upheld and the Administrative Use Permit is... [Insert City Council action. If Permit is granted,findings and conditions to be recited here.] On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2006. • '.ITTACHMENT a Resolution No. [ ] Page 2 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 FIED FILE M08/27/56 011:18 PM Dyna F MEETING AGENDt RICHARD SCHMIDT, Architect DA 'D/1-1/6 ITEM # RLF! 112 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 In.COUNCIL CDD DIR (r October 15, 2006 E6 CAO FIN OIR F RECEIVED ,12 ATTORNEY cappw DIR OCT 16 2006 City Council -0 CLERK/ORIG1� POLICER8F 48 Broad appeal City of San Luis Obispo °eP3 CREC Off; �i UT o IM SLO CITY CLERK Dear Council Members: ,e CC r �,lo,cr�S I urge you to uphold the intelligent work of your Planning Commission and reject this appeal. The two conditions being appealed are very minimal (and quite inadequate) measures needed to protect urban wildlife and implement the recently-adopted Conservation and Open IV. In my judgment, the Council could not uphold the appeal without simultaneously thumbing its nose at the COSE (as well as LUE Chapter 6, which states that providing for wildlife is "co-equal" with, not subsidiary to, other planning concerns) -- and I'm confident none of you would want to do anything which might communicate to the public your disinclination to properly implement the COSE so soon after its trumpeted adoption. If, however, you should decide to reopen other 148 Broad matters as well as the two appealed, I would urge you to reconsider whether any entitlement to a second house is proper at this unique historic and biological site, and determine that one is not appropriate -- or at least that a large one such as the applicant proposes is not appropriate. Here are some points for you to consider. 1. Background which explains why the appealed conditions are needed. The block containing 148 Broad is unique in the city. Its core is a wildlife habitat both separate from and connected directly with the larger habitat of San Luis Mountain, which connects with the Morros and Irish Hills, and habitats beyond. It is, in other words, part of a rather large wildlife habitat web. While the city has recognized some of its urban habitats as meriting special protection, (for example, the Laguna Lake frontage developed since the age of environmental consciousness began, where marshy habitat is protected), it continues to amaze me the city has never done the same for the unique urban habitat of our block.' The uniqueness of this block is its deep lots, with little to no development rearward, with the all-season Old Garden Creek flowing through it. Former City Councilman Myron Graham once remarked in awe, "It's like going to Big Sur." An open space link following a seasonal stream comes down San Luis Mountain to the 100 block of Broad. Wildlife come down this link in summer to get to the water and sheltered, moist habitat of Old Garden Creek. At one time, wildlife could descend to summer water on all sides of the mountain, but the south side is now blocked by Highway 101 , the north by Why has this unique block not been given special designation instead of being considered generic developable land? I suspect this is an oversight, and now that this is called to your attention, urge you to initiate policies protective of its habitat values as quickly as you can. Pagel Richard Schmidt IV 544-4247 M08/27/56 O 11:19 PM p 2/18 Foothill area development (which also involved draining extensive lagunas there). Along the three-quarters of the mountain adjoining the city, the only significant summer waterside refuge that remains is the center of our block. How do mountain wildlife reach the creek? By passage through about three of the deep lots facing Broad, 148 being the most direct -- and arguably the best -- link. (And, yes, wildlife must use the street, as anyone driving our street on summer nights knows.) The result is an urban wildlife bonanza that boggles the mind. We're not talking about, as the misinformed city biologist once testified, "raccoons and possums." We're talking about charismatic megafauna like deer, foxes and even cougar; we're talking about a nursery ground where does raise their Bambis without the dangers of the mountain; about many "listed" rare, endangered, or "local concern" species, riparian and otherwise; about an abundance of bird life rare in any urban place. At the end of this letter is a full page list of species I can vouch for. Read it, and be amazed. How many urban places are so special they can accommodate this in a city block completely bordered by houses? This city is truly fortunate to still have such a wild place, and it merits protection. And under its General Plan, the city has promised to protect it. The COSE includes a map of wildlife corridors (Figure 3) which documents city- recognized corridors along Old Garden Creek, as well as linkage down SL Mountain to the creek. This map is proof the city knows about these corridors, and the COSE states the city will protect them. Planning staff, with no facts at hand, argues about where the corridors actually are (in a sort of movable mapfeast always claiming they're not wherever development is proposed, though they cannot explain where else they might be). Those of us who live on the 100 block of Broad know where they are -- in our block, and in our backyards. As I've stated already, the linkages from dry mountain to riparian habitats along Old Garden Creek are mainly through three deep lots: 148 Broad, 160 Broad, and 172 Broad. 130 Broad was formerly also a wildlife highway, but the city allowed subdivision with no provision for wildlife, so that passage is now completely blocked by unregulated fences. Which makes 148 Broad, and the Planning Commission conditions that it maintain linkage, that much more important. 148 Broad and its proposed development site are literally at the intersection of these two wildlife corridors shown in COSE Figure Y -- the one along the creek, and the other linking creek and mountain. That's why all this matters. And that is why undoing what minimal protection these conditions offer would be tantamount to thumbing one's nose at the newly adopted LOSE. 2. Appeal Item 1 : The 10400t strip along the south property boundary. This is a minimal 2 Living with this wildness requires patience and accommodation. We have become reconciled to letting creatures have our entire crop of delicious walnuts (which I used to harvest by the shopping bag full). Our pet ducks, whom we house at night, have been so targeted by persistent nocturnal predators this year (NOT possums and raccoons, by the way) that we've had to take the extraordinary step of putting an electric fence around their house -- this 25 feet from our bedroom! Like most in our block, the marvel of this urban wildness is one of the things we love about living here. 3 Argument by the appellant that the map doesn't show this is pointless: the scale of the arrows is huge, and the point of the map schematic rather than pinpoint specific. If you read the arrows too literally, Foothill is a wildlife corridor (which it's not, obviously). The evidence for precise placement of the schematic Figure 3 is on the ground -- in our block. There's OQ other direct link between the mountain and the creek. Page 2 Richard Schmidt 'W 5444247 M8127/56 011:20 PM D3/18 • O requirement to prevent total blockade of the existing wildlife corridor linking the creek to Broad Street through 148 Broad. It is entirely reasonable. The link should actually be wider than 10 feet to function well, more like 15 or 20, but 10 feet was what neighborhood naturalists could get decision-makers to agree to, so, unlike the applicant, we accepted this compromise. Also, it is not precedent-setting, as the applicant alleges. A very similar reservation of wildlife passage was included with the minor subdivision at 172 Broad, which, if my memory serves correctly, was more than 10 feet wide. What was, in fact, precedent-setting was the failure to require something similar when 130 Broad was subdivided. Hopefully, the city has now learned from that error. Is this wildlifeap ssage "condition" needed? You bet. The applicant has already attempted to block wildlife passage by fencing off his driveway (along the front yard, and with a driveway gate), and by moving the white picket fence from a lower location, set back a number of feet from the sidewalk, to higher elevation city property at the edge of the sidewalk (without a city encroachment permit) apparently for the express purpose of making it difficult- to-impossible for deer to jump the fence, as they had done at least since 1972 (the length of time I've been a neighbor). The evidence is clear: If it weren't for the 10-foot "gap" requirement, this ap lip cant would attempt to completely block wildlife from using their age-old route between creek and mountain. Suggestion: The condition alone is virtually unenforceable. It would be assurred of working better if the 10-foot gap were a wildlife corridor easement, filed and deed-restricted, and co-owned by a second party, say the City or the Land Conservancy, which could enforce its provisions for unobstructed wildlife passage. That way, if there were future obstruction, there would be some efficient enforcement mechanism -- one owner cannot injure the other's interest. 3. Appeal Item 2. Increased Creek Setback. 148 Broad is at the heart of the wildlife habitat at the center of the block. The city's creek setback ordinance has provisions for dealing with sites that are extra-special, as this one is. It allows larger setbacks to implement the COSE -- larger than the minimums established by ordinance. 20 feet is a minimum, not a maximum, as the applicant seems to allege. As primo wildlife habitat on a large site, 148 Broad merits more than the minimum riparian protection. Damage to habitat is not solely due to building. Habitat damage from human activity. noiseI ght- activity, misouid�ardening or landscaping, and pets is even more serious than that from a passive structure's presence. What will be the effects of night lighting, loud partying, amplified outdoor music (all of which Mr. Jones provides for his neighbors' enjoyment) and the like on wildlife in the riparian corridor if decks and party spaces extend into it, as they are allowed to do under even the moderately restrictive conditions of his use permit? There is no excuse forup shins such intrusions further into the habitat area alonaAh_e creek To do so would chop this valuable habitat in half at its center. Recognizing this obvious fact the lap nning commission correctlyrhe fuired a 30 foot setback instead of a minimum setback. The appellant alleges two things: that this is a hardship, and that everybody else in the neighborhood has done the same thing. Neither argument has merit. Page 3 Richard Schmidt 1Q 5444247 C&8/27/56 011:21 PM p4/18 1. Hardship. How is it a hardship for someone with a 30,000 square foot lot to be denied the right to build right on top of a creek he doesn't need to build right on top of? • Mr. Jones' existing house is the biggest, bulkiest, tallest house on the entire block (Broad, Mission, Chorro, Murray). He seeks to place something similarly big, tall and bulky in his back yard, creating an obtrusive and obnoxious intrusion into the center-of-block open space and habitat area. That he believes he needs setback leniency to accommodate this unreasonable fantasy does not make it a fact that he needs one. His problems fitting a house into a 3,000 square foot building envelope are of his own making (due to design so poor that this Architecture instructor would flunk his freshman design students if they turned in something like this), and do not merit the city's permitting more intrusion into riparian habitat and creek areas instead of the redesign ordered by the Planning Commission and expected by staff. • It is bizarre that Mr. Jones, in his appeal, quotes sections of the setback rules that pertain to properties which cannot be developed at all without some setback leniency. His quotations are irrelevant to his case. All he has to do is design a reasonable house, and he can meet the 30 foot setback easily. 2. Neighbor precedent establishes a "right' to lesser setback. Mr. Jones repeatedly misrepresents (now and in previous proceedings) what's going on in the neighborhood regarding house sizes, numbers of houses per lot, and creek setbacks. Here are some facts about creek setbacks: • The immediate neighbor to the south has a little structure, dating from the 1930s (long before there was awareness of riparian habitat impacts or setback ordinances) that is close to top of bank. Jones consistently misrepresents this as a monster house (for example on his site plan "drawings"), when, in fact, it's a tiny shack which is decomposing whose owners say it will not be rebuilt when it gives up its ghost. • The immediate neighbor to the north is an 800 square foot cottage partly built within the 20 foot setback -- dating from the World War II era, long before there was creek consciousness or any sort of setback ordinance. About two thirds of the creek setback on this property is unencumbered by any construction whatsoever. • On Chorro, to the south, are three tiny, skinny little lots, which straddle the creek. Three relatively small 1980s houses were built under genuine hardship conditions-- i.e., there would be no way to develop these lots and meet all setbacks, so creek setback exceptions under then-applicable procedures were granted for them -- again, prior to adoption of the current setback ordinance. These are very different properties from Mr. Jones' estate properly where there are no such constraints. (And, these small houses were designed with great restraint, understatement, and taste, which his proposal is not.) In short, there is no neighbor precedent for what Jones proposes to do, nor one to iustify a narrower creek setback under current regulations. A minimum 30 foot setback is full[justified --- an even one could beJustified iven the habitat importance of this location. [• Mr. Jones' disrespect for the creek environment is evident. If you inspected the property, you may have noted the piled remains of a huge skyline redwood tree (removed on a Sunday morning after the Tree Committee told him he couldn't) within the floodway, where if there is a large storm this winter its pieces will float away, gouging creek banks and clogging downstream culverts causing extensive flooding of other neighbors' homes and properties.] 3. Weird allegations of unfair treatment. Jones alleges that he could not testify Page 4 Richard Schmidt V 5444247 CW8/27/56 m 11:23 PM D 5/18 because he was in England and nobody told him about the appeal before the Planning Commission, and that when he finally found out there was no time to send a statement or have anyone represent him. There are numerous problems with this allegation: • Mr. Jones filed his development application, then left town for a 15 month pre- retirement vacation/sabbatical (during which he has indicated he will be working on his retirement home in Italy). What was he thinking? That he'd never have to testify or be represented? He knows better than this -- he's a professor of construction! • Mr. Jones apparently didn't tell staff how to actually reach him. I inquired of staff several times over an extended period of time whether Jones would be at the hearing, and was told repeatedly they'd been trying to reach him. Isn't this Mr. Jones' fault -- filing an application, then going off and not supplying good contact information? Yet he alleges unfairness because of "untimely" notification. Again, what was he thinking? • Mr. Jones alleges he had no time to arrange for a representative. So why, then, was he represented at the Planning Commission by Heidi Rank? 4. Failure to do any CEQA analysis. Because of the impacts to wildlife this proposed project presents, as well as cultural, historical, and neighborhood impacts and numerous obvious conflicts with adopted city plans, including the General Plan, I have asked begged and pleaded with planners to subject it to a proper CEQA analysis.'_ They have refused. Why? The rationale keeps changing. First, I was told because "city policy" doesn't require CEQA. Now we're told because CEQA exempts this project. But, in fact, n4 exemption to CEQA is absolute. If fair argument is presented of possible "significant impacts," which I have clearly and explicitly done over and over, that alone is cause for CEQA analysis even in an "exempt" instance. If there is a dispute about impacts, which is also the case here with my assertions about impacts, other neighbors' testimony about impacts, and staff's insistence there are none, CEQA is the legally established vehicle for resolving that dispute. • Turtles. Let me cast a bright light on one among many little reasons why staff is procedurally neglegent in failing to do CEQA. They insist the project will have no wildlife impacts because it is "out of the habitat" along the creek, and the site is "just a lawn." This is a fundamental amateurish non-porofessional misunderstanding of what "habitat" is and how it works. One of the species I can vouch for (having seen them many times in this stretch of Old Garden Creek) is the Pacific pond turtle, a federally and state listed threatened or endangered species. This little charmer can be seen sitting on sunny rocks in the creek.. However, to breed, it must climb out of the creek habitat zone and wander into a grassy area nearby to build its nest. Hah! Grass. Lawn. The building site. in other words which staff dismisses as worthless for habitat. could be perfect sunny grassy nesting habitat essential for thisendangered species' survival. How does the city, absent competent research, know that this site is not so used by turtles? Possible impacts to endangered species are Class 1 CEQA impacts requiring a full-on Elft. If somebody were to go to court now, because of the city's refusal to perform its fiduciary duty under CEQA, would you want an EIR to be the result? I'm sure Jones wouldn't. So, the city doesn't do even the applicant a favor by refusing to do timely CEQA studies, to uncover possible impacts, when it should, in time to guide decision makers' decisions. 1 am appending one of these pleas -- a letter to Mr. Mandeville, to which he has never responded; which was also sent with separate cover letter to the city attorney, who did not act. I'm appending it so the record is clear the Council were informed of the controversy regarding CEQA prior to making your decision. Page 5 Richard Schmidt 1T 544-4247 M08/27/56 011:24 PM D6118 • Role of City Biologist. The city has no baseline data for wildlife in our block, even though planners were directed in 1994 to gather such by Land Use Element Program 6.0.2 (never implemented for areas within the city limits), and were also directed to modify the land use map of the LUE to reflect findings from Program 6.0.2 studies, which has also never been done citywide. Had this been done, we'd not be where we are today with arguing over wildlife impacts at 148 Broad. (The problem was further aggravated by failure to do an EIR on the COSE, a shortsighted move, to say the least.) Planning staff wanted to move this project ahead. So absent data of their own, they rejected the data I and others have provided. Mine (species list and observations) is based on 34 years' observation. What do they offer in opposition? A quick drive-by by the city biologist who testified there'd be no wildlife other than raccoons and possums at 148 Broad. (OK, Mr. Biologist,then how do you explain the deer poop 130 feet west of the top of bank? Do possums know how to impersonate deer poop?) This inept, inane and embarassing testimony was given to the Planning Commission, who didn't buy it. People who watched this silly performance on TV have told me they were shocked city staff would stoop so low, and horrified that the city biologist would be used in this way to shore up arrogance by the planners. Why don't the planners do what they're supposed to do, CEQA, instead of engineering silliness like this from other staff whose credibility on everything else is thus undermined? • But there will be CEQA. eventually!!! What's most shocking about staff's refusal to do timely CEQA -- timely in the sense that data are available to decision makers like the CHC, the Tree Committee, the PC, and you, the Council, prior to their making decisions -- is that I'm told there will be CEQA work for the minor subdivision everyone knows is coming! Staff has allowed the applicant to piecemeal and fragment this project by applying for tree removal, then a house, finally a subdivision, as if each is an end in itself, in such a way that by "city policy" CEQA comes at the end, after all the damage has been done, instead up front, where CEQA findings would help decision makers in their work, which is the intent of the law. This is a flat-out evasion of CEQA, and is shameful if not illegal. • Leaves Council in a awkward spol.Staff's refusal to do CEQA before this decision reaches you leaves you in a difficult situation. Should you vote to weaken what are in effect environmental mitigations that resulted from the Admin Hearing and the Planning Commission hearing, on what basis do you do that in the absence of CEQA work? You'd be inviting a legal challenge which could delay Jones' project for years. On the other hand, if you had competent CEQA analysis at hand, you'd be protected much better -- and so would the community's interests. Yours is the fifth public hearing on this discretionaryproject at which CEQA� is should have been and could have been available to decision makers but wasn't 5. Does the Council want to revisit whether there should be a second house entitlement at all? 148 Broad is a unique estate property, probably worth more profit intact. than subdivided and built upon (especially since it was underpriced at $605,000 when Mr. Jones purchased it, and he could sell it for twice that just as it is), and definietly worth more to the neighborhood, city, and habitat if left alone. Till Jones purchased it, it was immaculately and lovingly maintained (which surely isn't the case today), with beautiful gardens west of the creek, which have disappeared in anticipation of development, and well-kept urban forest to the east of the creek. The mature trees on the site were a private arboretum, planted by a. founder of the Cal Poly OH department, so they are of botanical, cultural and historic Page 6 Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 M08/27/56 011:26 PM D7/18 C 113 significance. In addition to removing five of these, Mr. Jones has planted a hodgepodge of site-inappropriate things, like acacias (mostly dead from neglect) and spindly little palms. So, several questions emerge: • Is a second large house in this back yard appropriate? No. 1. It destroys something of immense value, a unique estate property, and turns it into something utterly mundane, a historic house with a postage stamp back yard, and a huge new house requiring the paving of paradise. 2. Inserting an isolated 25-foot tall house with massing like that proposed into the private backyards of five other houses is precisely the sort of neighborhood intrusion and developer's rudeness the city's neighborhood com atibility and protectionold are intended to prevent. Please follow these cityolp icies, and protect our neighborhood as you would want others torop tect yours. 3. The site itself is simply not appropriate for a large house. The site's not that large, it's ultra-sensitive, with numerous constraints (like flooding). The house will necessitate extensive pavement. This will literally be a case of building-and-paving-over-paradise. Paradise will be killed. Where now there is beauty and habitat, there will be nothing but urbanscape. There are things more important than developing every square inch of San Luis Obispo to maximum density! 4. Access to the new house necessitates a driveway that will pass very close to the living areas of the existing house diminishing its livability and pleasantness. The most elegant interior space of the house is the long living room which will have a driveway along its entire length. 5. Introducing human activity into the heart of the multi-ownership open space and habitat area at the center of the block diminishes that habitat area and slices it in two. This impinges not onlyon�hts of other owner/neighbors. but upon-Vie-rights of nature itself -- and is totally unnecessary. 6. In a good city, this house would be denied. • Is any building in the backyard appropriate? Perham A small cottage, similar in size and massing to the houses at 132 Broad (800 SF), 130 Broad (800 SF), 112 Broad (990 SF), the secondary dwelling at 156 Broad (500 SF), or the secondary dwelling at 160 Broad (500 SF) would fit into the neighborhood and follow established neighborhood precedent for mode cottages, especially if it were located to one side of the back yard and kept as a garden cottage and part of a unified estate instead of subdivided off and sold separately with all of the extra paving that would require. A small cottage of this sort could be located well away from the creek bank (remember, the building site is a dangerous flood zone!!), and well to one side of the y&IEC., allowing wildlifeasp sage from creek to street, as well as comfortable and neighborly human passage from main house to creek. If the Council feels some development is OK, please tighten up the Planning Commission conditions so that what we get is some small that fits in. rather than a huge. overbearing and obnoxious intrusion in the center of the block and adjacent to our back yards. Until recently there has been a tacit understanding among the owners of Broad and Murray properties with deep lots that this is a very special place everyone loves and agrees to share visually with neighbors and with the wildlife. That was true till Jones bought 148 Broad. Unfortunately, he has no caring for us or Page 7 Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 IU8127/56 011:27 PM D8/18 our special place — and he'll be out of San Luis Obispo and the country as soon as this project is built, already preparing for his next housing adventure in Italy. We need the City to out its force behind the wonderful words in yourolD Kies about neighborhood protection, and save us from this thoughtless^over-the-top over_ development. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment 1 : Some species known to frequent 148 Broad and/or the interior of its block Attachment 2: Letter of May 29, 2006, to John Mandeville Page 8 Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 M8/27/56 011:29 PM D9/18 O O Attachment 1: Some species known to frequent 148 Broad and/or interior of its block Mammals Deers * Cougars Fox Muskrat Raccoon Possum Bats (various)" Amphibians and Reptiles Pond turtles Frogs, possibly red legged ' Snakes (various) Lizzards (various) Fishes Various small native fishes Trout, possibly steelhead Birds Hawks (various)" Kestrels" Owls (various) Egrets" Herons" Wild ducks' Phesant Quail Woodpeckers (various) Song birds (too many to identify; wrens nest successfully here") Migratory birds (change by season) Hummingbirds (several varieties)* Jays (Stellar's and scrub) Insects Honey bees (wild hives) Native bees Monarch butterfly wintering grounds (small scale, but persistent)" 5 The block's inteior not only offers deer water and dry season refuge, it is clearly a nursery ground where does raise their fawns, and the evidence suggests it may be a birthing ground as well. Each year does are seen there with their babies for a number of months. 6 Although cougar are seldom sighted, there was a less wily juvenile who spent a.season in the backyard of a vacant house, and was photographed by neighbors. Ducks fly in and out of the creek area, and some live there for months on end, especially in late winter/early spring. Presumably these are migratory birds. * Designated"Species of Local Concern,"Appendix A, City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006. Page 9 Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 1&8/27/56 011:30 PM D10/18 RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 May 29, 2006 John Mandeville, Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo (Via Fax) 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: City's intent to do no CEQA work prior to discretionary approvals at 148 Broad St. Dear Mr. Mandeville: Your staffis currently processing a discretionary application for a second full-size house at 148 Broad. Since this house's location would be at the center of the block, at the very heart of what is arguably one of the best wildlife habitats within the city, and furthermore would sit astride the junction of two significant wildlife corridors, I've been bird-dogging the proceedings, and until last Wednesday (May 24) was having trouble making sense of the city's adamant indifference towards protecting this natural resource. At that time, however, I put the question to Phil Dunsmore: How is this possible under CEQA?, and was shocked at his response: the project is exempt from CEQA. Phil told me that the city's policy is to do no CEQA work on discretionary projects it believes comply with zoning and the General Plan. He made clear to me that there would be no studies of wildlife issues in connection with placing a large house, with large decks and an incredible amount of paving and probably fencing, right in the middle of this precious habitat area. Phil further opined that based on his own "visual site analysis" the site is nothing more than a large lawn, and has no wildlife value. Much as I like Phil, he is wrong on this. And he has made a bad call on CEQA. I am requesting that you intervene, and require proper CEQA analysis, including at the very least a competent wildlife study, to determine the impact of this project, and mitigations to be incorporated into its design and execution to protect the natural resource. And also that you postpone all hearings and actions on discretionary entitlements for this project until such CEQA work is complete, and can be used to inform the decision-making process. I note, in making this request, that an administrative use permit hearing -- which could establish the applicant's right to proceed -- is set for Friday June 2. In making this request, I note the following: 1. What is being proposed at 148 Broad is clearly a "project" under CEQA. 2. Exemptions are not automatic. Faced with controversy or fair argument about possible significant environmental impacts, it is the city's duty to proceed with CEQA studies to resolve that controversy. 3. The purpose of CEQA analysis is to provide decision-makers with the information they Page 10 Richard Schmidt V 5444247 1&8/27/56 011:31 PM D11118 i need prior to making a decision. Doing analysis after approval both defeats the purpose of CEQA and is improper. 4. My prior comments via letter to the Cultural Heritage Committee establish a fair argument for possible significant environmental impacts upon wildlife. It is my understanding that at least one neighbor in attendance at the CHC hearing expressed similar concerns. The city has thus already received a fair argument of significant impacts sufficient to meet the threshhold for proceeding with proper CEQA studies concerning wildlife. 5. The CHC recommended an archaeological study of the site. This, too, establishes a fair argument for doing CEQA work, to be completed prior to consideration of the use permit or any other entitlement. What point is there to doing an archaeological study after a discretionary project has been approved, when it's too late to mitigate any significant impacts? To further amplify my fair argument of possible significant impacts, this letter includes explicit discussion of several issues to flesh out your understanding of why the city must fulfill its obligations under CEQA prior to granting discretionary approvals. 1. A Very Special Wildlife Area. Planning staff apparently view the "vacant" interior of the block which includes 148 Broad (bounded by Broad, Mission, Chorro and Murray) as generic developable urban real estate. It is anything but that! In a very brief summary, due to the meander of Old Garden Creek from northwest corner to southeast corner of the block, said creek having a summertime surface flow width of 6 to 10 feet, combined with deep lots with no to minimal development on their rear portions, this area survives as one of the most excellent wildlife habitats and corridors in the city. The abundant water makes trees and lesser plants thrive, providing shelter and forage for animals and birds and insects. The absence of development allows willows and poplar trees to grow old, and hollow, and facilitates urban oddities like wild beehives and woodpecker and squirrel habitat. In a more developed area, such trees would have to be removed for safety; in the isolated core of this block that's not an issue. But the center of the block is more than a self-contained habitat or a corridor. It is a vital link for summertime water and shelter for wildlife living on San Luis Mountain. There is a direct open space link down the dry east slope of the mountain opposite 172 Broad which permits wildlife to go back and forth between the larger mountainous open space and the seclusion and water source of Old Garden Creek. The linkages go through yards, such as 148 Broad, from Broad Street to the creek. The proposed house would block this vital linkage because it practically fills the lot from side to side. That, together with probable fencing and a possible large dog in residence, would finish off the wildlife corridor that has always linked dry mountain to creek through this property. This is no minor issue. Historically, the dry slopes of San Luis Mountain had ample access to water: south to Stenner and San Luis Creek (now cut off by Highway 101), north to the marshlands along Foothill (now completely drained and urbanized). Other than the westerly linkage to Laguna Lake, the Broad Street link to Old Garden Creek is all that remains. Cutting this off would have a devastating effect on wildlife on the mountain. The linkage of habitats is also important for another reason. During the late spring and Page 11 Richard Schmidt 17544-4247 M8127/56 011:32 PM 612/18 summer the wild center of the block provides important refuge for juvenile wildlife. We know from observation, for example, that mother deer raise their fawns here; possibly they come to this greater safety (from predators, for example) to give birth. A good biological study might be able to establish this observational conjecture. We also know that at least one juvenile cougar has grown up on the block, then left once it was strong enough to compete in the wild. Judging from the flying lessons we see all spring and early summer bird reproduction is also abundant in this special habitat area. It is certain that physical impacts (placement of a house, decks, pavement, fencing) can result from the proposed project. It is also certain that impacts of human presence (noise, activity, lighting, outdoor sound system such as the developer presently has for the existing house on the site, predatory pets) will result. In addition, there are unknown impacts from filling part of the floodway of Old Garden Creek, and from runoff (yard chemicals, car washing, runoff from extensive paving shown on plans, etc.) to the aquatic environment. The lack of CEQA work on wildlife leaves the city completely unable to state this project causes no significant impact to this resource. The conclusion there is no significant impact is thus unwarranted. CEQA work must be done to answer that question -- and to provide positive, enforceable mitigations -- prior to approval of any project entitlement at 148 Broad. 2. Functional Wildlife Unit Spanning Several Properties. The wildlife habitat is not on a single property. Rather, it encompasses portions of many properties, but 148 Broad is key, because it has the longest creek frontage, and because it is at the heart of the wild area. Inserting a large house at this point will fragment.the existing functioning wildlife area into sub-areas which may be too small to continue functioning. This probable significant impact needs to be identified, and appropriate enforceable mitigations must be incorporated into the project, if there is to be one. (Incidentally, the plans submitted distort conditions on adjacent lots. The "exist. house" shown at the rear of the lot to the south is little more than a ramshackle shed, of about 400 square feet, inhabited by one person, and it's completely shut off from the wildlife habitat area. Its owners anticipate "losing it" to the creek at some time, and not rebuilding. It does not significantly detract from the open wildness of the area. To the north, the little house is about 800 square feet, has been there since the 1940s, has no decks or paving protruding into the wildlife area, and provides wildlife passage through the large unbuilt side yard. These neighboring structures combined have nothing approaching the likely impact of what's being proposed at 148 Broad.) 3. Abundant Species Present. There is a very long list of animal species that could be significantly impacted by inserting development into the heart of the block's wildlife habitat at 148 Broad. These include representative species of practially all families of the animal kingdom. Among the species are: • A number of species listed as threatened by federal and state authorities. • At least eight species listed by the City of San Luis Obispo as "species of local concern." • Migratory species protected by treaty and/or of international concern. I am not a professional naturalist, but I am an avid observer of nature, and I've compiled a partial list of species I can vouch live in the heart of the block. I've appended this list as "Attachment 1 : Some species known to inhabit or use 148 Broad and the interior of its block." Page 12 Richard Schmidt 12544-4247 M08/27/56 m 11:33 PM p 13/18 • 0 You will agree, I'm sure, after perusing this list and noting that I've not even attempted to list all the small bird species, that this is a really huge variety of wildlife to find right in the middle of town. The list makes clear the special significance of this block's habitat area, and the need to carefully study the impact of new development there. This list establishes a fair argument of potential significant impacts to wildlife as a result of this project as proposed. It provides a floor level above which a competent professional study needs to be built prior to a city determination on permitting this project. 4. Consistency With Adopted City Plans/Policies. CEQA requires determination of the consistency of a project with adopted plans. Conflicts require analysis and mitigation. There are numerous conflicts between what is proposed at 148 Broad and city plans and policies, with resulting impacts, which will go unmitigated in the absence of CEQA studies and mitigations. The city, it would appear, attempts to sidestep these conflicts between project and policy by failing to do CEQA analysis. Identifiable conflicts between project and adopted policy include the following: A. Resource protection policies from the General Plan. From the Land Use Element "It is the policy of the City to protect its unique natural resources and systems by including their considerations and needs within its planning program, and giving those considerations and needs a planning priority co-equal with that accorded other community needs. Under this policy, the City will make provisions for the continued existence of its natural resources. . ."(LUE 6.0.2) To paraphrase, protection of natural resources, including wildlife resources, is co-equal in importance with permitting a project. The city's refusal to look seriously at natural resource protection, however, makes it impossible for the city to claim there are no significant project impacts on natural resources. How can something be given co-equal treatment if for purposes of project approval the city pretends the something doesn't exist? As has been documented elsewhere in this communication, there are serious impacts on wildlife due to the project. The Conservation and Open Space Element is very explicit about the city's responsibility to protect wildlife from development impacts. The project conflicts with numerous policies in the COSE, including: From the Conservation and Open Space Element "Animals move within and through habitat areas to find water, food, shelter, and to reproduce. . . Urban development. . . change[s] the landsdape too quickly for many animals to adapt, thus interrupting and blocking such movement. . . As a steward for the natural resources of future generations, the City must preserve habitat and the species that it supports." (COSE 7.10 Background.) To paraphrase, this statement gives the city a proactively central role in protecting habitat and the species that use it. Protecting habitat is precisely what the city has elected not to do in its processing to date of this project. The site is used for all of the listed animal activities the city pledges to protect: movement, water, food, shelter and reproduction. If the city were to perform its CEQA duties diligently for 148 Broad, it could fulfill its Page 13 Richard Schmidt V 5444247 M08/27/56 011:35 PM D 14118 obligation under its own COSE, as well as under state law. "Protect listed species. The City will protect listed species through its actions on . . . development applications . . ."(COSE 7.21.1.D) And... "Species of local concern. The City will Protect species of local concern through: its actions on . . . development applications. . . [and] Protect sensitive habitat, including creeks, from encroachment by. . . human activities."(COS E 7.21.2.0 and E.) The city will protect listed species and species of local concern through its actions on development applications. There is no ambiguity in the policy. There are at least eight species of local concern, plus several listed by state and federal agencies, which could be subject to significant impacts from this project. I'm asking the city to live up to its policy promise by fulfilling its analytical and mitigational responsibilities under CEQA. "Wildlife habitat and corridors. Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors. To accomplish this, the City will: "A. Require public and private developments. . . to evaluate animal species and their movements within and through development sites and create habitats and corridors appropriate for wildlife. "B. Plan for connectivity of open spaces and wildlife habitat and corridors using specific area plans, neighborhood plans, subdivision maps or other applicable planning processes. . . "D. Preserve and expand links between open spaces and creek corridors, as shown on Figure 3."(COS E 7.21.3.) Again, because the city ignores its CEQA duties on this project, it cannot fulfill any of these policy promises. No evaluation has been done. There are clear movements of wildlife through this site, both east-west (creek to street) and along the creek. The development site sits at the junction of these two cross-axial wildlife corridors, blocking one, impinging upon the other. Although precise impacts are unknown because no study has been done, it is clear that a house sized and placed as the one that's proposed will block east-west wildlife movement through the site, and harass movement along the creek. "COSE Figure 3: Wildlife Corridors"is a map, which because of its scale is rather crude, but it clearly shows a wildlife corridor along Old Garden Creek with a link between the creek and San Luis Mountain at about the location of 148 Broad Street. Are such visual interpretations of written policy statements simply to be ignored when processing a development astride a recognized wildlife corridor? "Appendix A:Species of Local Concern" is a detailed listing, including at least eight resident species on Attachment 1 to this letter. One column of the chart is "City Conservation Strategy." For most of the species present at or in the vicinity of 148 Broad, the stated conservation strategy is roughly worded as "give them space." For wrens, "avoid scattered residential development in natural areas." For Monarch butterflies, identification and maintenance of sheltering trees, avoidance of activity near them, avoidance of pesticides and planting host plants are stipulated. When locating a large Page 14 Richard Schmidt 'M 5444247 M8/27/56 011:36 PM D 15118 house right in the middle of a special habitat area, all of these "strategies" are contravened. B.B. ZZo regulations. Mr. Dunsmore has stated there are no zoning code conflicts raised by the second house application, but there are in the subdivision, where it will be impossible to do a flag lot without a significant setback exception. The city, however, has no factual basis for stating there are no zoning conflicts for the house because the plans submitted are so sketchy and incomprehensible one cannot tell just what they mean. One matter appears to be in probable conflict: building height. (The plans are not dimensioned, and one cannot rely on a scale for determining accurate dimensions. Professional plans call out heights so it is possible to analyze them for accuracy of building height representation.) Reasons for questioning the ability of the building to come in under the 25 foot maximum height include: it is shown as slab on grade construction, but it is evident there will have to be fill to make this possible due to the slope of the land; there are two stories; there are very steep roofs. The combination of these three factors makes it unlikely the peak of the roof can be kept below 25 feet above natural grade. Simply declaring it to be so based on applying a ruler to some very sloppy elevation drawings does not mean the building is or can be made consistent with the zoning code's height limits. Before declaring there is no height limit issue, the city needs to have drawings sufficiently accurate to tell if what's being proposed can legally be constructed. Acknowledged code conflicts kick off automatic CEQA review; should the city ignore a probable conflict just to avoid doing CEQA? C. Flood protectionolip cies. City regulations prohibit fill within the floodway of Old Garden Creek. This is for public safety reasons and for protecting the riparian environment. Mr. Dunsmore had assumed there is no such fill because the applicant's amateurish plans show none. However, it is clear there is fill -- the only question is how much. • The applicant's plans show slab on grade construction -- on a sloping site, which means there will have to be fill to support the slab floor at a uniform elevation. • While fill is not shown, a few benchmark elevations are. They suggest that the slope beneath the house produces an elevation drop of about 2 feet, perhaps more, along the east-west axis of the house and garage. Fill of at least that depth would be required to produce a level building pad. • Since much of the building site -- perhaps the entire site -- lies within the 100-year floodway of Old Garden Creek, for safety a slab-on-grade house would have to be raised above the 100-year flood level. City regulations require a minimum one foot elevation above the 100-year flood level. This means at least about an extra foot of fill in excess of that required simply to level the building pad. • Such fill will clearly intrude into the nominal floodway of Old Garden Creek (i.e., the steeper sloping ground leading to the creek), and it could increase immediate upstream flooding, for example, of 130 Broad, which I have witnessed surrounded by swift-flowing water, its interior saved from flooding only because of the house's raised foundation. • The time to understand how much fill will be required and what its impact will be is prior to granting the entitlement, not afterwards. "Making-it-right" after the entitlement Page 15 Richard Schmidt 1'5444247 M08/27/56 011:38 PM D 16/18 does not lead to the same outcome as knowing the impacts so mitigations can be required before granting an entitlement. CEQA is the appropriate forum for establishing the facts regarding the quantity and impacts of fill, and for developing mitigations to the potentially significant flooding and riparian impacts. As things stand at the moment, the project at 148 Broad is inconsistent with the city's no-fill policies. CEQA requires examination and mitigation of such policy conflicts. 5. Improper Segmentation of Project to Avoid Timely CEQA Analysis. The city is processing a multi-phase project one phase at a time, piecemealing it in a manner that avoids doing CEQA environmental impact analysis at the appropriate time. Such piecemealing of a project is improper under CEQA. Furthermore, it makes no rational or legal sense to postpone CEQA analysis knowing that it will be required prior to the end of the piecemealing. At the present time, Mr. Dunsmore has stated the city is only processing a second house application. However, everyone knows sometime after that is approved, the applicant intends to ask fora subdivision to put the two houses on separate lots. The evidence this is the case is overwhelming: • It defies common sense why anyone would go to the trouble to build a second large house on a lot, knowing it will be difficult to sell such a property without a discount from the value of such houses on separate parcels. • The applicant told the party who sold him 148 Broad subdivision was his intent, and requested a subdivision survey as a condition of sale. He has repeated his intent to subdivide to many parties. • The application for the second house on the lot is submitted on a plot plan labeled "Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, which shows proposed property lines for the two parcels. • In response to a direct question from a member of the Cultural Heritage Committee at the CHC's May 22 public meeting, the applicant stated he intends to seek subdivision. Mr. Dunsmore has stated to me that although in his judgment the second house doesn't tip off CEQA analysis, the subdivision will because it involves a minor exception to city setback regulations. Thus, city staff are on record stating CEQA analysis will be required before the piecemealing of this project is over. It is improper -- and senseless -- to put off such analysis until after the actions which will cause significant environmental impacts are fait accompli. The total project's true impacts need to be looked at as a whole, now, and subjected to CEQA analysis and mitigation before the significant impacts occur. This is the intent of how CEQA is supposed to work. It is alsos the only way to respect city policies protecting natural resources. In conclusion, after reading this I'm confident you will agree that there are ample issues about which there is fair argument as to significant impacts, and that CEQA work needs to be done Page 16 Richard Schmidt 17544-4247 CW6/27/56 O 11:39 PM D 17118 now, prior to considering any application. We should be on the same side on this -- doing the right thing for the city, for its policy implementation, for the wildlife we have pledged protection. I thank you for intervening to get this done right. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt. cc: Phil Dunsmore Attachment 1 : Some species known to frequent 148 Broad and/or the interior of its block Page 17 Richard Schmidt V 544-4247 M8/27/56 m 11.:40 PM D 18/18 • Attachment 1: Some species known to frequent 148 Broad and/or interior of its block Mammals Deere x Cougar' Fox Muskrat Raccoon Possum Bats (various)" Amphibians and Reptiles Pond turtles Frogs, possibly red legged Snakes(various) Uzzards (various) Fishes Various small native fishes Trout, possibly steelhead Birds Hawks (various)" Kestrels" Owls (various) Egrets" Herons" Wild ducks" Phesant Quail Woodpeckers (various) Song birds (too many to identify; wrens nest successfully here") Migratory birds (change by season) Hummingbirds (several varieties)" Jays(Stellar's and scrub) Insects Honey bees(wild hives) Native bees Monarch butterfly wintering grounds (small scale, but persistent)* e The block's inteior not only offers deer water and dry season refuge, it is clearly a nursery ground where does raise their fawns, and the evidence suggests it may be a birthing ground as well. Each year does are seen there with their babies for a number of months. Although cougar are seldom sighted, there was less wily juvenile who spent aseason in the backyard of a vacant house, and was photographed by neighbors. '°Ducks fly in and out of the creek area, and some live there for months on end, especially in.late winter/early spring. Presumably these are migratory birds. " Designated``Species of Local Concern,"Appendix A, City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006. Page 18 III vuuanwJG- uany VVIIva Q Eval Jul IQlljvl JUL Page 1 Pk 2- From: Gail Jacobson <gailj26@charter.neb To: <PDunsmore@slocity.org> Date: 10/17/06 2:53PM . Subject: Barry Jones appeal for larger lot To: Phil Dunsmore,Associate Planner Department of Community Development San.Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 16,2006 We are the neighbors directly to the south of Barry Jones'property at 148 Broad St. In the 31 years we have lived here we have seen growth and development on many of-the residential lots-on both sides of the creek in the 100 block north and south of Broad and Chorro,as well as on Murray and Mission streets around adjacent to the creek. I have never spoken out against any of these modification, but Barry Jones appears to have planned visions of an outsized urban mansion along our creek. Now deer lounge on the broadened lawn that appears along the creek there,and rabbits are snacks for red-tailed hawks and an occasional cougar.At night the bullfrogs proclaim their come-hither and raccoons have sexual encounters with sounds that travel for miles. We've had fish in the creek for a great egret to eat and for a local ichthyologist's delight.Who wouldn't love to park and party in such an ideal"tropicar[Barry's word]garden? Now let me mention the problems of moving closer to the creek. It would provide a larger surface for parking rather than absorbing the rain runoff from a storm.The broad, smooth surface has appearred recently where the bank had had a higher drop from the creek edge to the water.The wide bank at 148 Broad is unusual in this area.A lower north bank due to heavy storm runoff has threatened our shed. The closer the foundation of a house is to the creek,the larger the impact will be on properties further up the creek.And a word of warning! Lots of rainwater can move down the creek higher and wider than you would ever expect.After Alex Madonna built his road up Cerro San Luis in 1975,. boulders, rocks, gravel came pouring off the mountain,and down Broad Street to the creek at Murray. Water pours off Bishop's peak, under Foothill and Ramona between Lucky s and the Mormon Church.We had two 100-year floods in about a 7-year period about 25 years ago. Our garage could have been used as a swimming several times each year. Finally, if San Luis Obispo wishes to remain a quaint mixture down town of the original residences of blue collar workers and larger older homes, adding a second, larger house to that creekside will reduce the quality of the of whole environs.The trend with Barry seems to be to ask for some exception should be granted to him, and if he doesn't get it, he'll final another way to obtain it. I remember the appeal to remove the"pine"trees from the back yard which devolved into removing some beech trees from the front and some redwoods from the rear yard. I heard the crack of the chainsaw when that redwood was felled. Gail Jacobson Dalidlo Ranch Initiative Discussion Tonics • Background • Impacts to Regional Transportation Facilities • Concerns with Initiative Traffic Mitigation Plan • Potential Impacts to Regional Funding • Potential Solutions—Next Steps SLOCOG-Background ; • Regional Transportation Planning Agency • 20 Year Transportation Infrastructure Plan —Identifies Deficiencies in Network —Identify Projects and Improvements —Prioritize Projects(Short,Mid,Long Term) —Funding Assumptions(Local,State,and Federal) —RTP Assumes Prado Road IC fully funded through local/developer funds SLOCOG Staff Concerns with Traffic Mitigation Plan Primary concern: Prado Road Interchange Construction 1. Prado Road IC remains a significantly underfunded project ;r S4 Million plus ROW identified toward approximately a$40.50 Million project(2006$). Recent significant cost increases for highway construction 2. Measure J shifts responsibility for constructing traffic mitigation projects to county andNor city. 3. Incomplete connections to regional routes: Assumes SLO City wit authorize crew connection to Madonna "• • Proposed Calle hapuin connection exacerbates congestion at LOVR Interchange. • No through connection to LOVR at Froom Ranch L2' 4. Assumes expansion of LOVR IC($15 Million underfunded) 1 I 1 r Impacts to Regional Facilities Critical Issue for the Regional Transportation System: Need for construction of Prado Road Interchange. • Project:doubles existing commercial square footage, adds approx.30K-36K new daily trips. • Without Prado Rd.IC or significant delay in implementation. (Implications) -Madonna Road and LOVR interchanges will operate at LOS F(fella) -US 101-Potential operational problems. - Madonna Road Projected to operate at LOS F from US 101 to LOVR - Los Osos Valley Road to opende at LOS F at three intersections ._ ._ ..;.•-:•:__- ____ ._ -'-^n^"� ..w.-.....p- yam Potential Implications to Regional Funding Program ; • Without Prado Rd.Interchange the project will create severe traffic congestion. • Likelyy ppressure on SLOCOG to reevaluate re tonal funding priorities Identified in RTP to ensure Prado is constructed. • Projects potentially Impacted would Include short and mid-corm pro acts: -L0VR/101 IC -SR46W/101 Interchange -Willow Road Interchange _ -Brisco Road Interchange -US 101 South County Improvements Potential Financing Solutions(assumes initiative passes) -------------- • Support original City/Dalidio Agreement as baseline a I framework for IC funding. • Need Cooperative Agreement with City and/or County and Developer. • Need Lead Agency/Developer to Implement IC Project • Requires Comprehensive Funding Plan: - Bond Funds to ensure timely construction of Prado IC - Dalldo Contribution(Including Right of Way) -City and Coumy Developer Fees -Some%of Sales Tax/TOT -Mello-Roos Assessment Dismct Financing w 2 Y Ii Potential Solutions(Continued) �-;- •'fid•`.:"'4 r:- .� tom.;` `_i.;.�='t?x�� • Need to secure major supplemental funding source due to significant IC funding shortfall. —Mello-Roos Assessment District. Recommended method to ensure Prado Rd.IC will be funded and constructed In a timely manner. —Requires affirmative vote of property owners —Currently Single Property Owner —Examples Elsewhere in the County • Paso Robles(46WIUS 101 Interchange) • County of San Luis Obispo(Willow RdJUS 101 IC) 3 EDI'TOIZIAL �.e'rom planning to traffic, Measure J passes the tests It will fulfill the vision conceived by smart planners more than a decade ago Opinion of The Tribane To hear the opponents of Measure J tell it,Ernie Dalidio is trying to foist an environmental and traffic disaster on the community. Unfortunately,his opponents are not letting facts get in the way of their arguments. Here are the facts, and why The Tribune urges voters to support Measure J: Measure J will approve a master-planned development that will include shopping, homes and offices, farmers market,organic farm, sports fields,habitat preservation and an extension of the Bob Jones Trail. 10/17/2006 rage L of 4 This development will generate new sales tax revenue that will help pay for construction of the critically needed Prado Road overpass. And Dalidio will kick in$10 million in property and cash to help fund the overpass and other traffic improvements. No other funding exists on the horizon. The opponents of Measure J lump their understandable but exaggerated concerns into these three areas: Ballot box planning Opponents contend that Measure J circumvents the normal planning process. We don't like land-use planning decisions being made through the initiative process; yet,having seen Dalidio whipsawed for 14 years, we understand his frustration and why he chose that channel for project approval. Dalidio opponents stepped outside normal planning channels when they used the referendum process to defeat the city-approved Marketplace last year. To say that Dalidio can't seek his day in the court of public opinion using similar tools is nothing less than shameful hypocrisy. Because of the high costs of the initiative process and the uncertainties involved, it's doubtful that this will set a precedent for developers to line up and use the same approach. In fact, ballot box planning has already occurred in the county,but only once in the last quarter century: Voters approved the Williams Bros. shopping center in Paso Robles in 1980 after the city denied the project. Traffic Opponents allege that Dalidio's project will generate an unacceptable level of traffic, and that his offer of$10 million for traffic impacts, including $8 million to get an overpass off the drawing boards, is insufficient and doesn't cover his fair share of interchange costs. We disagree. Studies—and common sense—show that traffic problems already exist at the Madonna-101 and Los Osos Valley Road-101 interchanges. These arteries will become unacceptably clogged in another decade regardless of whether a Dalidio project is built. The answer to that dismal eventuality is to build a Prado Road overpass, a project that's been on planners' radar screens for a quarter century. It was a solution that was to be underwritten with sales tax receipts under Dalidio's 2005 Marketplace plan. Dalidio's current proposed project is conservatively projected to generate $3 million a year in property, sales and bed taxes. As in the Marketplace plan, a special taxing district can be created by the Board of Supervisors with bonds secured by the Dalidio property and repaid through those taxes. We like this approach for three reasons: •It wouldn't take money from other county traffic projects because the overpass pays for itself with new Dalidio Ranch tax revenue. 10/17/2006 Yage j 014 10 • It wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime. • It proactively addresses a 25-year plan for decreasing traffic pressures on the south side of San Luis Obispo—pressures that will lead to gridlock within a decade if not addressed now. Is$8 million in seed money to get an overpass project started enough of a commitment by Dalidio? Yes. There was no similar offer with the Marketplace plan, and there's no viable alternative being promoted by government agencies. . Whether the county or the city of San Luis Obispo initiates a tax district, there is zero risk that taxpayers will pick up the bond's cost. Dalidio's property will be on the hook as collateral. If the property is sold, the bond goes with it as a lien. Will Dalidio agree to such a tax district? Yes, for two reasons: One, it's in his own best interests that Dalidio Ranch have optimal traffic flow. Two, Dalidio has had talks with supervisors about creating such a district. He has said he wants one,they have said they would allocate the sales tax to a bond because the overpass would be of overall benefit to the county. Finally, for those who question the use of Dalidio Ranch sales tax to finance a much-needed overpass, we answer: Improving roads and traffic is a perfectly legitimate use of tax dollars. Environmental concerns Opponents say Measure J means the project will avoid the scrutiny of environmental regulators. That's simply not true. What is true is that city and county planners won't be able to judge the project on its environmental merits. But that doesn't mean Dalidio Ranch would get a free ride if voters approve Measure J. The project will be subjected to the stringent nuts and bolts of county plan checking and building permit processes and the project must fully conform to myriad state and federal environmental regulations on everything from asbestos,to air and water pollution issues, to highway concerns and more. Measure J, if approved, locks into place 103 conditions that were taken from the original certified environmental impact report on Dalidio's 2005 Marketplace proposal. Bottom line: Measure J doesn't circumvent environmental review at all. Yes on Measure J Measure J didn't materialize from the ether regions over night. Its genesis goes back to 1994 when an environmental-oriented SLO City Council decided that commercial growth—subject to annexation— should be allowed as infill on Dalidio's 131-acre island of county land. By 2004, the city had approved the zoning and development of The Marketplace. A subsequent referendum reversed that decision. 10/17/2006 Page 4 of 4 U Dalidio then soughfinput from an advisory group of community leaders. Vic Montgomery, a principal of RRM Design Group,redesigned a master-planned project,adopting many of the group's suggestions. We believe the newly designed project is an excellent fit for a parcel that's surrounded by a shopping center, subdivision,highway and auto malls. Yet,hyperbole-whipped emotions run high among opponents that Ernie Dalidio and,by extension, his team of architect Vic Montgomery,attorney Michael Morris and public relations director Dave Cox are trying to subvert democracy. We counter. Why would they?These are good people with deep roots in the community and outstanding reputations. Why would they associate their good names with a less than well-planned and designed project? • • e Measure J deserves voter approval because it will fulfill the longstanding vision conceived by smart government planners more than a decade ago. The Dalidio Ranch project will help finance a substantial portion of the critically needed Prado Road overpass—without it,there is no funding. The project offers amenities that will be a good fit and much appreciated by the community. For these reasons, The Tribune strongly urges a "YES"vote on Measure J. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 /Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 - Release Date: 10/14/2006 10/17/2006 MEASURE A FACT SHEET MYTH vs. FACTAMM on Measure ] DALIDIO RANCH MYTH- FACT Measure J would "shift developer's Measure 1 states that the landowner will pay the prcject's fair share of the costs to relieve costs, obligating county taxpayers to traffic congestion and build the Prado Road overpass. Dalidio has promised$10 million which pay millions..." includes: • $4 million in cash to finish the design and construct the interchange • $4 million in land donated to provide right of way for construction of the interchange • $2 million to new roads and improvements surrounding the project The Dalidio solution is the only plan that has been put forward. KYTH FACT Measure l will "set a dangerous There is nothing new about the initiative process or development-approved projects by precedent...to the initiative process..." California voters.Over 1,000 growth initiatives have been placed on local ballots in California since 2002. County residents voted on a Williams Bros.shopping center initiative in Paso Robles in 1980. Two developer-originated initiatives in 26 years is not a precedent. MYTH FACT Approval of Measure I will "slow No project in the history of the county has studied traffic issues more than the Dalidio Ranch commuter traffic to a crawl on Hwy project. Fourteen years of traffic studies confirm that,with or without the Dalidio Ranch 101 and create gridlock...." project, local streets and interchanges will fail by 2014. Measure J offers the solution to traffic issues by providing: • $4 million in land to complete the Prado Road interchange • $4 million in cash to help build the overpass • $2 million toward improvements to Los Osos Valley Road, Madonna Road and the extension of Calle Joaquin The best chance of solving existing traffic problems is approval of Measure J. Measure l will "defer planned Traffic mitigation measures connected to the Dalidio Ranch project stand separate from other interchange projects and road proposed projects in San Luis Obispo County.Why? Because the Dalidio Ranch retail proposal improvements in north and south will generate more than $3 million in combined property,sales and transient occupancy taxes. county." Through the formation of a CFD or Mello Roos district,this project will in essence pay its own way.. Tax revenues will generate: • More than $1 million in property tax revenues to support schools, public safety and other government services • More than $2 million in sales and transient occupancy taxes will cover the costs for road construction As a self-sustaining project, Dalidio Ranch will not defer revenues for other projects, such as the Willow Road or the 41/46 interchanges.. PND FOR BY Crr12ENS FOR DAUDIO RANCH YES ON MEASURE J v128 U i M EA S U RE J FACT SHE ET MYTH vs. FACT on Measure J DAUDIO RANCH MYTFt FACT Measure I will allow the project to More than 100 conditions are included in Measure 1 to assure conformity to zoning and "avoid zoning regulations and public environmental regulations. Measure J provides certainty to what will be constructed on the review..." property. Before building permits can be issued,the project must satisfy county ordinances and laws pertaining to construction of the retail center and other project amenities. Measure I will allow the "abuse of the The initiative process has been a part of California's legal framework since 1911. It reflects initiative process...to allow developers democracy in its purest form. to write their own rules..." Initiatives are used as a last resort when government cannot or will not take necessary steps to change.After 14 years of working with local government,the process has failed.The last alternative for Dalidio Ranch is the initiative process,as California law allows. Every county voter has the legal right to vote on Measure 1. Measure I will "pave one of the Dalidio Ranch is surrounded by the city of San Luis Obispo. Large-scale farming is not county's last large parcels of prime practical in this setting bordered by homes, retail centers and auto dealers. agricultural land adjacent to a Zoning changes allowed through Measure J will ensure the property is used city... consistently with surrounding property uses. MYTH FACT Measure J will "overturn a local Measure J does not overturn the April 2005 vote by San Luis Obispo residents. community's right to control its own future " Measure J deals with changing zoning of property located in the county of San Luis Obispo. It has nothing to do with annexation,nor does it specify construction of the overpass. What it does is rectify a wrong by allowing the property owners,smothered by surrounding development,to use their property productively and appropriately,as allowed by law. MYTH FACT Measure I will "allow Los Angeles Measure J does nothing of the sort.The fate of this property lies with the voters of San Luis and Texas developers to decide the Obispo County. This property has been owned by the Dalidio family for 87-years. fate of San Luis Obispo County..." Fear tactics and personal attacks do nothing to address the:issues of individual property rights and fairness. Vote Yes on Measure J www.dalidioranch.com THE FAIR SOLUTION 805-544-8810 The Dalidio Ranch Initiative PAID FOR 9Y CI 1 ENS FOR OAUDIO RANCH YES ON MEASURE J 912684M EDITORIALa 'p rom planning to ti -.Mc, Measure J passes the tests It will fulfill the vision conceived by smart planners more than a decade ago Opinion of The Tribune To hear the opponents of Measure J tell it, Ernie Dalidio is trying to foist an environmental and traffic disaster on the community. Unfortunately,his opponents are not letting fa�Vt in the way of their arguments. Here are the facts, and why The Tribune urges voters.to support Measure J: Measure J will approve a master-planned develapment#W will include shopping,homes and offices, farmers market,organic farm, sports fields, habitat preservation and an extension of the Bob Jones Trail. 10/17/2006 Page 2 of 4 This development will generate new sales tax revenue that will help pay for construction of the critically needed Prado Road overpass.And Dalidio will kick in$10 million in property and cash to help fund the overpass and other traffic improvements.No other funding exists on the horizon. The opponents of Measure J lump their understandable but exaggerated concerns into these three areas: Ballot box planning Opponents contend that Measure J circumvents the normal planning process. We don't like land-use planning decisions being made through the initiative process; yet, having seen Dalidio whipsawed for 14 years, we understand his frustration and why he chose that channel for project approval. Dalidio opponents stepped outside normal planning channels when they used the referendum process to defeat the city-approved Marketplace last year. To say that Dalidio can't seek his day in the court of public opinion using similar tools is nothing less than shameful hypocrisy. Because of the high costs of the initiative process and the uncertainties involved, it's doubtful that this will set a precedent for developers to line up and use the same approach. In fact,ballot box planning has already occurred in the county, but only once in the last quarter century: Voters approved the Williams Bros. shopping center in Paso Robles in 1980 after the city denied the project. Traffic Opponents allege that Dalidio's project will generate an unacceptable level of traffic, and that his offer of$10 million for traffic impacts, including $8 million to get an overpass off the drawing boards, is insufficient and doesn't cover his fair share of interchange costs. We disagree. Studies—and common sense—show that traffic problems already exist at the Madonna-101 and Los Osos Valley Road-101 interchanges. These arteries will become unacceptably clogged in another decade regardless of whether a Dalidio project is built. The answer to that dismal eventuality is to build a Prado Road overpass,a project that's been on planners' radar screens for a quarter century. It was a solution that was to be underwritten with sales tax receipts under Dalidio's 2005 Marketplace plan. Dalidio's current proposed project is conservatively projected to generate$3 million a year in property, sales and bed taxes. As in the Marketplace plan,a special taxing district can be created by the Board of Supervisors with bonds secured by the Dalidio property and repaid through those taxes. We like this approach for three reasons: • It wouldn't take money from other county traffic projects because the overpass pays for itself with new Dalidio Ranch tax revenue. 10/17/2006 Page 3 of 4 7 • It wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime. It proactively addresses a 25-year plan for decreasing traffic pressures on the south side of San Luis Obispo—pressures that will lead to gridlock within a decade if not addressed now. Is $8 million in seed money to get an overpass project started enough of a commitment by Dalidio? Yes. There was no similar offer with the Marketplace plan, and there's no viable alternative being promoted by government agencies. Whether the county or the city of San Luis Obispo initiates a tax district,there is zero risk that.taxpayers will pick up the bond's cost. Dalidio's property will be on the hook as collateral. If the property is sold, the bond goes with it as a lien. Will Dalidio agree to such a tax district? Yes, for two reasons: One, it's in his own best interests that Dalidio Ranch have optimal traffic flow. Two, Dalidio has had talks with supervisors about creating such a district. He has said he wants one, they have said they would allocate the sales tax to a bond because the overpass would be of overall benefit to the county. Finally, for those who question the use of Dalidio Ranch sales tax to finance a much-needed overpass, we answer: Improving roads and traffic is a perfectly legitimate use of tax dollars. Environmental concerns Opponents say Measure J means the project will avoid the scrutiny of environmental regulators. That's simply not true. What is true is that city and county planners won't be able to judge the project on its environmental merits. But that doesn't mean Dalidio Ranch would get a free ride if voters approve Measure J. The project will be subjected to the stringent nuts and bolts of county plan checking and building permit processes and the project must fully conform to myriad state and federal environmental regulations on everything from asbestos,to air and water pollution issues,to highway concerns and more. Measure J, if approved,locks into place 103 conditions that were taken from the original certified environmental impact report on Dalidio's 2005 Marketplace proposal. Bottom line: Measure J doesn't circumvent environmental review at all. Yes on Measure J Measure J didn't materialize from the ether regions over night. Its genesis goes back to 1994 when an environmental-oriented SLO City Council decided that commercial growth—subject to annexation— should be allowed as infill on Dalidio's 131-acre island of county land. By 2004,the city had approved the zoning and development of The Marketplace. A subsequent referendum reversed that decision. 10/17/2006 Yage 4 of 4 Ci Dalidio then sought input from an advisory group of community leaders. Vic Montgomery, a principal of RRM Design Group, redesigned a master-planned project, adopting many of the group's suggestions. We believe the newly designed project is an excellent fit for a parcel that's surrounded by a shopping center, subdivision, highway and auto malls. Yet, hyperbole-whipped emotions run high among opponents that Ernie Dalidio and, by extension, his team of architect Vic Montgomery, attorney Michael Moms and public relations director Dave Cox are trying to subvert democracy. We counter: Why would they?These are good people with deep roots in the community and outstanding reputations. Why would they associate their good names with a less than well-planned and designed project? • • • Measure J deserves voter approval because it will fulfill the longstanding vision conceived by smart government planners more than a decade ago. The Dalidio Ranch project will help finance a substantial portion of the critically needed Prado Road overpass'—without it, there is no funding. The project offers amenities that wiII be a good fit and much appreciated by the community. For these reasons, The Tribune strongly urges a 'YES"vote on Measure J. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 /Virus Database: 268.13.4/476 -Release Date: 10/14/2006 10/17/2006 DRAFT RESOLUTION 1. Whereas the City of San Luis Obispo staff has estimated that the Dalidio Ranch Initiative (Measure J) if passed would "result in a net "takeaway" of about $1 million annually" (June 22, 2006 report to county) ; 2. Whereas county wide "ballot box planning" of developments on the border of the City of San Luis Obispo creates unknown risks and results in the loss of local control over planning; 3. Whereas the General Plans of both the city and the county provide that development on the Dalidio Ranch property should not take place unless and until that property is annexed into the City of San Luis Obispo; Therefore be it resolved that the City of San Luis Obispo opposes Measure J and invites the Dalidio Ranch project partners to submit an application to the city for a project which is in full compliance with the 1994 Land Use Element.