HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2015 PC Agenda Correspondence - Item 1 (White)Linda White
2077 Slack Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
lindaleewhite 15 &charter.net
October 21, 2015
Re: 2390 Loomis Street /48 Buena Vista Avenue
USE - 1520 -2015
October 28, 2015 Planning Commission Agenda
Planning Commission Members,
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OCT 23 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I would like to thank whoever is responsible for sending meeting notices out before the
legal 5 days. This has given us a few extra days to prepare for the Wednesday meeting.
This means a lot to the neighbors.
I would like to have my previous letters of objection regarding 2390 Loomis Street
entered into the record for possible future City Council appeal. Letters dated: August 20,
2015, September 12, 2015, September 21, 2015, and especially the September 30, 2015
response to the last Planning Commission meeting.
In this letter I will concentrate on a few major objections but please realize that this does
not minimize my previous objections.
At the September 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting one of the commissioners
stated that a secondary unit is a "Right ". I asked for and received Government Code
Section 65852.2, Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002 (Assembly Bill 1866).
Emphasis in the following passages have been added by me.
Section 65583.1(a portion of State housing element law) "...The identification of realistic
capacity should be based on the development trends of second -units in the previous
housing element planning period and other relevant factors. "
This very specifically states that properties should be identified for realistic capacity.
This lot does not have realistic capacity for a secondary unit. The relevant factors to deny
have been enumerated in my previous letters.
Introduction
"...By promoting the development of second - units, a community may ease a rental
housing deficit, maximize limited land resources, and existing infrastructure and assist
low and moderate - income homeowners with supplemental income.
This is an admirable goal. However, is a million dollar +, 3- story, hillside, view home
with elevator considered the definition of a low to moderate income homeowner in need
of supplemental income?
"...to encourage the creation of second -units while maintaining local flexibility for
unique circumstances and conditions. "
This states that the City is encouraged to create second units, not required. This is not a
blanket right given to all homeowners/builders /developers. It further gives our local
planning commission flexibility for unique circumstances and conditions. I would hope
that the PC would consider and exercise its flexibility to deny a secondary unit on this
already difficult building lot: a. because of the S -1 overlay b. recognize that the narrow,
curved, fire access street (Buena Vista) is not compatible for higher density and the
inherent parking difficulties c. the many reasons listed in my previous letters.
"...Second units provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, in -home
health care providers, the disabled and others, at below market prices within existing
neighborhoods. "
What assurances do we have that this secondary unit in an exclusive, million dollar +
neighborhood will be rented at below market prices thus adhering to State Bill 1866?
How will we be assured that the owner will live in the house as required by our City
Ordinance? How effective has the enforcement of this ordinance been in the past? Derek
Johnson, the previous Community Development Director and City manager, Katie Lictig
and City Attorney, Christine Dietrick have all stated at various times that this is virtually
unenforceable due to an inability to monitor residency. Please exercise the flexibility that
has been give to you by the state to deny this secondary unit as it will exacerbate an
existing negative condition in this neighborhood.
(As an aside, I would hope that this planning commission would very strongly encourage,
that the CDD create an additional overlay in this neighborhood requiring all future
building, remodels, secondary dwellings, etc. to have increased parking requirements to
ease one of the existing problems. In our Guidelines, "Streetscape" is often mentioned.
Due to the high occupancy of the homes in our neighborhood, our streetscape is "ugly -
parking lot- scape ". If more parking spaces were a requirement now, your job would be
much easier and you would not have as much opposition to this project.)
65852.2. (a)(1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of second
units in single-family and multifamily residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the
following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may
be permitted. The designation of areas may be based on criteria that may include, but
are not limited to, adequacy of water and sewer services and impact of second units on
traffic flow.
This particular site should not be considered appropriate for a second unit due to the
traffic flow on a narrow, red - curbed, fire access road.
(B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking,
height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and
2
standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed in the
California Register of Historic Places.
We have standards regarding height and setbacks outlined in our San Luis Obispo
Community Design Guidelines. The applicant is asking that exceptions to these very
standards be given so that he may build a 5 bedroom, 4.5 bathroom, 2 kitchen, 2 balcony
and 1 rooftop party deck home in an established neighborhood on an R -1 -S -1 lot. This
simply is not compatible in size, scale, mass to the existing established neighborhood.
Parking, in this neighborhood, generally and on Buena Vista specifically is not adequate
for this McMansion.
Numerous times in State Bill 1866 the following statement is made: "...a locality must
adopt an ordinance with the intent of facilitating the development of second -units in
appropriate residential zones... "
Monterey Heights is an appropriate residential zone for secondary units but this particular
lot is not for the various reasons outlined in this and previous letters.
Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002 (Assembly Bill 1866) B. Changes to Government Code
Section 65852.2
(I) (e) "...Off street parking shall be permitted in setback areas in locations determined by
the local agency or through tandem parking, unless specific findings are made that
parking in setback areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or
regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it is not permitted
anywhere else in the jurisdiction. "
Off street parking is not feasible on Buena Vista due to the narrowness of the street, the
red curb, the lack of visibility on the curves, etc. Adequate on -site parking is also not
feasible in the reduced setback. Fire and life and safety conditions are not met because of
the necessity of all cars to back out of the drive, into the blind curve of Buena Vista. Cars
parked in the reduced setback driveway, reduce visibility of vehicles, bikers,
skateboarders, pedestrians, etc using Buena Vista. Extra cars of residents (inhabiting 5
bedrooms), guests, repair and maintenance people, etc. will extend into the street and red
curbed fire zone further exacerbating fire, life and safety conditions.
There are many reasons to deny this secondary unit. I would hope that the Planning
Commissioners would look to the spirit of the state law regarding second dwellings and
ask if the spirit of this law is being met by this design on this steep, R -1 -S -1 lot. Will it
provide affordable, below market housing? Will it assist a low or moderate income
homeowner to supplement his income? Is this a realistic lot to approve a secondary unit?
3
Major Issue #2
One of the Commissioners asked and received a vote to give staff an unequivocal
direction to abandon Loomis Street as the access to this lot.
My question is why was this direction given? Other homes in Monterey Heights built on
steep lots have been forced by nature of their lots and the city to build steep driveway
access. I do not have time to photograph all of the steep drives in this neighborhood and
calculate the steepness of the slopes but I will do so on appeal.
I would have no objections if this applicant designed his home according to the SLO
Community Building Guidelines without exceptions and used Loomis as his access. He
could place the garage under the house maintaining the views that he desires from the top
of the lot. He could also provide additional parking to accommodate the residents of 5
bedrooms, guests, repair and maintenance trucks.
Furthermore, I feel that allowing the applicant to develop the lot without installing
sidewalks on Buena Vista is a breach of the public's safety. Providing a sidewalk on the
Buena Vista frontage would improve the present dangerous conditions.
Finally, cost to the developer to develop this lot should not enter into the equation. It is
not the responsibility of City Staff or Planning Commission to make a difficult and
expensive lot, affordable to the budget of the developer by granting exceptions. This
project does not conform in size, scale and mass to the existing, established
neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this very important issue to our
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Linda White, co- chairman
Monterey Heights Neighbors
}I
L
L
L
O
C E YF/
!�
M�1
O
cn
O
cn
E
, ca
Q
E o L
a
N
1
o
v
cn
E
cn
O `
U
a
U a
,
A-
p J
U Q
p
m
(U 0
�U
Or 0
QU
2 0
U2
RA N
Q X
I—-
❑
❑
�!/r�
❑ O
From: Linda White [ma i Ito: lindaleewhitelSOgmaiLcom]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:54 PM
To: Dunsmore, Phil; Johnson, Derek; Bell, Kyle; Davidson, Doug
Subject: USE - 1520 -2015 2390 Loomis & 48 Buena Vista September 23, 2015 hearing date
Linda White
2077 Slack Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
(805) 543 -8801 Phone & FAX
lindaleewhite 15 (d)charter.net
September 12, 2015
Re: USE - 1520 -2015
2390 Loomis & 48 Buena Vista
September 23, 2015 hearing date
Planning Commission
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OCT 2 3 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I am writing to oppose the review of a new single - family residence with an attached Secondary
Dwelling Unit on a non - conforming lot in the S- overlay zone that includes a height exception
and a setback exception.
My objections are as follow:
Objections:
• The developer knew what he was buying when he purchased this non - conforming, steep,
special consideration lot.
• The developer knows the zoning regulations and Community Guidelines.
• If this lot is developed, it should be developed within the City zoning and guidelines.
• It is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to make the desires of the developer a
reality by making exceptions to our zoning and guidelines.
• No mitigations have been called for to address the possible noise pollution from outdoor
activities on the decks and roof which are the outdoor spaces provided by the developer and
approved by city staff..
• Adequate study has not been done to address the safety of vehicles backing out onto the curve
of Buena Vista or those driving up Buena Vista, including when multiple cars parked in tandem,
back out to allow garage cars to leave.
• Due to the secondary dwelling and necessity for parking for that tenant, the visual dominance
of the automobile will not be reduced as is called for in the Guideline Goal, 5.1
• Adequate study has not been done to address the safety of pedestrians walking on the street of
Buena Vista since sidewalks have been deemed too expensive for the developer due to the slope
of the lot. This project ignores Guideline Goal 5.1 to "promote pedestrian activity" .
• 5.2 E of Guidelines -Site planning, states that site planning (for residential subdivisions and
multi - family projects) should emphasize the needs of pedestrians and cyclists rather than cars.
Why should this be of lesser concern in established neighborhoods?
As soon as I have access to the staff report that will be submitted to you, I may have further
concerns. This letter has been based on the staff report for the Administrative Permit hearing.
Even though it is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to solve the problems of the
developer perhaps: a. the secondary unit should be eliminated or b. the site of the home changed
to conform to zoning and/or guidelines. c. the design changed to conform to zoning and
guidelines. Again, added cost to the developer or ease of construction should not be a
consideration for the Planning Commission.
To quote , " Guidelines are developed to preserve established neighborhood character, provide
privacy, preserve open space, and make sure that the new building is compatible in size, scale
and mass." We, the Monterey Heights Neighbors take the Zoning Regulations and Community
Guidelines seriously. We hope that you will do the same.
Sincerely,
Linda White, co- chairman
Monterey Heights Neighbors
From: Linda White [ mailto :lindaleewhitelS @omail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:14 PM
To: Murry, Kim; Davidson, Doug; Bell, Kyle
Subject: USE 1520 -2015
Linda White
2077 Slack Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
lindaleewhite 15 ,Cacharter.net
2015 09 21 Planning Commission
USE 1520 -2015
Planning Commission Members,
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OCT 2 3 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I will be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 23 due to
the fact that I am the 24/7 Caregiver for a family member. I have been unable to secure coverage
for Wednesday evening. However, I want my voice and objections heard.
Hopefully, you have received and read my September 12, letter. These are additional objections:
• PC2 -2 "On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide
undeveloped right -of -way bordering the site. "
This wide undeveloped right of way was secured to provide this lot and the adjacent lot with
ingress and egress from Santa Ynez and Loomis. This is a much safer ingress and egress than
Dead Man's Curve on Buena Vista.
•PC2 -3 2.2 Includes an 1,802 sq. ft. home + attached 438 sq. ft. Secondary Dwelling
I know of no other home in the neighborhood that has a legal or illegal secondary dwelling. This
Secondary Unit is NOT compatible with this neighborhood. Nor is it prudent given the already
existing parking problems in this neighborhood or dangerous ingress and egress on Buena Vista.
Furthermore, the shortened drive just exacerbates all of these conditions.
• PC2 -4 "...may allow exceptions to setbacks when the exception is of a minor
nature... "(emphasis added).
This is not a minor exception given the slope of the lot, the increased parking requirement for the
secondary unit, the shortened drive, difficult ingress and egress from Buena Vista.
a PC2 -4 Height exception: "In order to comply with the City's Grading Ordinance, the design of
the building has minimized the amount of grading required to develop the site by locating the
structure close to where the street access is available and by maintaining a smaller building
footprint. " If the home was designed and sited closer to the intended ingress and egress on
Loomis /Santa Ynez, less grading would be necessary. The desire of the developer to site the
home on the higher portion of the sloped lot where exceptions are necessary, should not force the
planning commission into granting the exceptions.
• PC2 -5 "The project is also consistent with Purpose "4" (Section 17.21. 010) for secondary
dwelling units because the project expands housing opportunities for low - income and moderate -
income or elderly households by increasing the number of rental units available within existing
neighborhoods. " While I agree with the purpose of secondary dwellings, I do not agree that
secondary dwellings are appropriate on all lots. If this was a flat lot, a secondary unit might be
appropriate. However, it is not appropriate on an R -1 -S especially if it needs exceptions to fulfill
the desire of the developer.
• PC2 -6 3.2 Consistency with the General Plan "...project continues the rhythm of development
that reflect the existing development in the area including front yard setbacks, street
orientation,... " If this is consistent with front yard setbacks, why is an exception being asked for?
Further, there are no known secondary dwellings in this steep portion of the neighborhood so this
does not continue the rhythm of development. Secondary dwellings would be appropriate on the
flatter lots.
"The project is also consistent with the Housing Element Program 6.105 because it increases
residential density at an appropriate location and the incorporation of Assembly Bill 1866
(2003) which encourages creation of Secondary Dwelling Units. " I don't believe that the
Housing Element or Assembly Bill require secondary dwellings. They may encourage on
appropriate lots but this is not an appropriate lot. This lot already has special considerations due
to its slope.
PC2 -6 Conclusion "The setback reduction is warranted due to the abnormal lot lines that are not
parallel, the steep slope of the site... " As I have said before, it is not the responsibility of the City
Staff nor the Planning Commission to give exceptions for difficult building lots. The developer
knew what he was buying when he bought the lot. The developer knows the City Guidelines. It is
the developer's responsibility to design and site a project that conforms to the Guidelines within
the limitations of the lot.
At the Administrative Hearing during the discussions, two contradictory statements were made
by the staff and I hope that they won't be made at this meeting. In defending the developer's site
preference, much was made of the fact that this lot is not within the scenic highway zone and
therefore seeing it from 101 was not a concern. When it was suggested by a member of the
audience, that the building site be placed on the flatter portion of the lot, staff then stated that it
would not be as pleasant from scenic 101. This lot should either be in or out. The scenic highway
can't be used to support one building site and then be used to discourage another site on the same
lot.
Please defend the Guidelines. Please see that this project conform to size, scale and most
importantly compatibility with the existing established neighborhood.
Thank you for your time.
Linda White, co- chairman
Monterey Heights Neighbors
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OCT 23 2015
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Monterey Heights Neighbors
September 30, 2015
Planning Commission, Derek Johnson, Michael Codron, Kyle Bell, Doug Davidson, Kim Murry,
Hemalata Dandekar, , Michael Draze , John Fowler, John Larson, Michael Multari, William
Riggs, Ronald Malak
I attended the September 23, 2015 Planning Commission meeting and would like to express my
concerns regarding the 2nd agenda item Use - 1520 -2015. These are not in order of importance
but rather as they come to mind. I have expressed a number of these concerns previously, not
only for this item but on numerous other issues and to various government agencies over the past
three years.
General Concerns:
• poor noticing gives the perception of collusion between developer, city staff, PC, ARC, CC,
etc. I realize that you give the minimum legal noticing but this is NOT sufficient. Items such as
these exceptions are not "minor" as stated by Council Member Christensen and City Planner,
Kyle Bell. These are important matters to the permanent residents in the neighborhood at a
distance greater than 300 ft.
• providing the staff report on the website and sending e-mail notices to those who requested
notice on the Friday before the Wednesday meeting is not sufficient for neighborhood
involvement. Even though 5 days is Legal, it does not convey openness or transparency on the
part of City staff and City government, especially when two of the five days are weekend days
when City staff is not available to permanent residents for questions.
• staff prepares the slick Power Point presentation for the developer
• staff presents and lobbies for the developer
• staff has as much time as necessary to explain the developer's wishes
• residents have 3 minutes to express in lay terms and without benefit of staff guidance their
concerns
• where is the city- taxpayer -paid- advocate for the permanent residents
• staff works with the developer to help the developer make his development wishes come true
• staff, that understands the Guidelines, ordinances, etc. assists the developer in justifying
exemptions to allow the developer to build his wish
• where is the staff person, well- versed in City- speak, to assist the lay- permanent - resident-
neighbor in formulating their opposition
• who represents and speaks for the permanent residents who are not well - versed on
development or government speak
• cost to developer should not enter into the deliberation
• the developers know what they are buying and should not look to the PC to make exceptions
so their purchases are economical
• why are the wishes of "stakeholders" who don't necessarily live (or vote) in SLO given
preference over permanent residents
• how do we find the correspondence for an issue in front of the PC to confirm that our letters
have been received. The City Council has a Correspondence tab on the website where is your
correspondence tab
Specific to Use - 1520 -2015
• the developer knew when he bought this steep R -1 -S lot that he had building challenges
• the developer knows the SLO building guidelines
• the city staff assist the developer in recommending to the Administrator and PC, exceptions
that they feel should be allowed so that the developer can build his wish
• if the secondary unit is, by law, a "Right" as stated by one of the commissioners, I would like
to see that law, in its entirety. This is a request to the Planning Commission that you e -mail this
entire law to me
• if the secondary unit is a right, why isn't the property and entire neighborhood up -zoned to R -2
• slope of Loomis did not stop others from developing sloped driveways (See photos attached)
• commissioners took staffs picture and statement that Loomis access was too steep and too
expensive at face value rather than questioning
• PC2 -2 "On the downhill side of the lot it is bordered by Loomis Street, which has a wide
undeveloped right -of -way bordering the site. "
This wide undeveloped right of way was secured to provide this lot and the adjacent lot with
ingress and egress from Santa Ynez and Loomis. This is a much safer ingress and egress than
Dead Man's Curve on Buena Vista. (See photos attached)
• why did staff fail to mention this easement from Loomis in its oral presentation
• why did commissioners not ask about this easement
• what authority does the commissioner have (I don't remember which) who stated that staff
should be directed to abandon Loomis access especially since there is an easement parallel to
Loomis
• what about the ignored easement giving access from Santa Ynez
• why was the developer of 2330 Santa Ynez forced to grade and spread decomposed granite
onto this right of way to make it accessible to the other lots, if it is ignored by staff and the PC
*why was the developer of 2330 Santa Ynez forced to put sidewalks along his Loomis frontage
adjacent to the easement when there are no sidewalks to connect to
• why has this developer been given a free pass regarding sidewalks on Buena Vista because
they do not connect to other undeveloped lots and would be costly to build
• why was the developer of the single family mini dorm at the corner of Henderson and
McCollum given a pass on his sidewalks when there would have been only two lots without
sidewalks between his lot and existing sidewalks
• who makes these arbitrary decisions regarding sidewalks
• if a secondary unit is truly a "Right" then this unit should conform to guidelines without
exceptions, without adding to present parking problems, without adversely affecting the health
and safety of pedestrians, bicyclist, and autos using Buena Vista, without adversely increasing
neighborhood density
• does anyone remember when this entire neighborhood was evacuated when the fire hopped the
grade (1985 or 86 ? ? ?)
• how can the shortened drive /parking be considered safe when a drive through the
neighborhood shows that because of increased density, cars park with their rear ends hanging
over the curb, into the street
r.,
2260 Loomis with steep drive accessing their lot from Loomis St.
Santa Ynez easement required of the 2230 Santa Ynez builder by the city to access the lots with
their southern border along Loomis.
r
' .,�, a 'rt .. ♦ - .- � per. •�
Another view of the easement running parallel to Loomis accessing the other lots and providing
a gentle slope
p
r/1. , !"~
t
My rental house at 2299 Santa Ynez accessing the carport with a steep drive. This house was
also built without exceptions, according to the Guidelines.
View from easement on southern border of lots, looking back at the Santa Ynez access. Please
note the gentle slope of the easement and the steep drop off to Loomis. The city staff provided
photo of the steep Loomis drop off was misleading. Despite being misleading, other builders
have overcome these steep drop offs and built drives on steep slopes since most of the lots are
steep in this neighborhood.
Further back on the easement, again showing the gentle slope upward from Santa Ynez and the
steep drop off shown by city staff.
View from Loomis showing the extensive sidewalk required of the 2330 Santa Ynez builder that
joins with no other sidewalk. He was not given the option to pay into a sidewalk fund and then
join neighbors when and if the city ever decided to build sidewalks. He had to bear the sidewalk
cost entirely.
Thank you for your time on this matter.
Linda White, co- chairman
Monterey Heights Neighbors