HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Item 14, Hoffman 4RrCCEIVED
COUNCIL MEETING: OV (� ZO1%
ITEM NO. �QN 10 2010
FC1
�.C) C'ITY
Summary i
After six months of study our neighborhood has come up
with some options for the legal use of this property.
To begin with we ask why the City Council might choose to
overrule the Planning Department's denial of this project,
when, with their experience and expertise and after their
consideration for two sessions on this matter, they chose
to deny it?
If the City has concerns regarding the financial
responsibility for denying this project, they are balanced by
the fact that, by approving a development that will cause
an increased risk for death or injury on that dangerous
street, the City may also incur such liability.
These concerns are not present on Loomis Street.
Although there are challenges there, to quote one on the
planning staff, "That location is not impossible ".
The property owner should have been aware that this site
was unsuitable for such a development before he
purchased it. The responsibility for being able to legally
use this lot belongs to him and and his planning and not to
the City.
There are solid, legal reasons why this lot has been
vacant for 25 years. Approval of this permit will set a
precedent and encourage other owners to build such
housing on the street.
(over)
Options:
........In order of desirability .............
- Deny the permit and suggest that he build on Loomis St.
- Buy the lots on that curve and turn them into open space,
the best possible use for that important view area on the
entrance to the City.
- Deny the permit and suggest the developer come back
with a plan for a normal -sized family home with NO SDU
in order to minimize traffic congestion on either Loomis
or Buena Vista streets.
__Wu� (Z�OUJUC_X aaaAkaCL_ ATC;L_T_
V
From: Naomi Hoffman
Subject: Critical Points from the Council Agenda report
Date: January 17, 2016 at 4:48 PM
To: William Cochran
- P.C. denied this project due to the "Health and Safety" of the persons living or working in the area"
Note:They should have added driving in the area.
- An ARC review is not needed because it was denied by the P.C.
BACKGROUND-
- Staff reports a slope "an average of slope of no greater than 30% ....not true....
- Design is contemporary and out of context with the character of the neighborhood.
Note: you will find that there is no front elevation available because it is so unattractive from
the street.
PLANNING COMMISSION /ACTION
- Review - need for height and setback exceptions, lower level, and deck concerns.
- The P.C. concluded that the four bedroom residence with an SDU "with no on- street parking, that
the paring was
insufficient.
P.C. was also concerned about the roof deck, the views of the site from 101 and " should carefully
consider the proposed exemptions ".
STAFF EVALUATION rebuttal
A property owners right to a permit is conditional by use permit Section17.56 of the Municipal Code
regarding the processing and implementation within a Special Consideration Zone SLOMC section
17.56.010 states.... as follows:
"The use permit is a requirement intended to assure compatibility of the use with it's surroundings or
in conformity....
with the General Plan,........"
- Pedestrian and vehicle traffic will NOT be impacted ? ? ??
- on street parking not required .... but will be needed
- Average size of homes in area is exaggerated by the inclusion in the survey of one really large
home. The size should include the ADU square footage.
- Owner occupation as a requirement is a joke. Take for example the 6 bedroom, 6 bath fraternity
hose on McCullough Ave.
- The addition of the ADU depends on the State recommendation to provide housing for low,
moderate Income or the elderly. Students are not in those categories.
-" The street does not have sidewalks but does provide space for pedestrians" ....not true
- Additionally, when cars exit the driveway other cars wanting to exit will also have to back out inyo
the street first.
This will not be the smallest house in the neighborhood! Especially when he adds back in his lower
level.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW not needed.
ALTERNATIVES:
Deny the appeal based on ..,
OvFW,
findings of inconsistency with the General Plan , zoning regulations (Special
Considerations) and "applicable City regulations ". Allow the applicant to come back with a residence
that does not endanger either the residents, pedestrians or drivers in the area. An appeal to the ARG
does not directly address "Health and Safety" issues except for the size of the building and it's
number of occupants.
a
°� 6
zv >"'
�o
m -n
m
x
yM
O
a
z
70
D
m
r
D
m
m
r
m
0
z
I
m
m
4
i
0
L