Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Item 14, Frederickson (2)FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541-4900 • FAx 8o5- 617 -1827 January 19, 2016 Traci McGinley, City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Appeal. 2390 Loomis Street & 48 Buena Vista Avenue USE -1520 -2015 Madam Clerk, JAN 19 2016 SLO r. -TTY C1..ERK COUNCIL. MEETING 0 ITEM NO.: This response is in supplement to the appeal referenced and specifically to those materials submitted to the City Council on Thursday, January 14, 2016, just four days prior to the appeal, with an intervening three -day weekend. Applicant objects to this later submission as it does not reflect the materials before the Planning Commission at its October 28, 2015 meeting, it was not provided to the applicant, and does not afford the applicant sufficient time to respond. The applicant also objects to the fact that the Planning Commission findings (Item #14) published online January 14, 2016, have been modified from the findings sent via U.S. mail to the applicant, dated December 2, 2015. This original document should have been sent to the applicant "within 10 days of the action;" Below are the complete findings, without any supporting evidence, recorded by the Commission based on the October 28, 2015 meeting and included in the December 2, 2015 letter: SECTION 1. FINDINGS. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. The project will be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. This verbiage is the same in the City Council's first draft for denial findings. However, in the updated resolution to deny the appeal, which was date stamped January 15, 2015, in addition to the six "new" findings the City Council created, the verbiage of the Planning Commission findings from December 2, 2015 have been modified (highlighted below): The applicant did not receive any of the January dated documents by either email or U.S. mail, and only discovered it by viewing the agenda on the City website. Moreover, the proposed findings are inconsistent with the Planning Commission findings and staff recommendations, and do not reflect any of the factual evidence submitted to the Planning Commission. ROGER B. FREDERICKSON RoGER@FREDERICKSON-LAw.com FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541-4900 • FAx 8o5 -617 -1827 Subject to and without waiving these objections, the Applicant responds as follows: 1. The project is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. The project has been reviewed by Police, Building, Fire, Public Works, and Utilities staff. Their conditions have been incorporated into the resolution and these Departments support the project if incorporated conditions of approval are adopted. Pedestrian and Vehicular Traffic: Public Works Traffic Engineering staff has reviewed the project in extensive detail. Buena Vista Avenue at the subject location is a cul -de -sac neighborhood that provides access to five existing residences. The property is located on the curve, which is 60% greater than the City's minimum radius requirement, with a traffic line of sight greater than 150 feet from either direction for oncoming vehicles, with a speed limit of 25 mph. Vehicles approaching the property, driving either uphill or downhill, have sufficient time to stop in order to let a vehicle exit the property from the subject location. The driveway is approximately 33 feet long and provides enough space for a vehicle exiting the property to wait for oncoming vehicles to pass before entering the public right -of -way. The addition of a single family residence with an SDU will not negatively impact traffic safety in this neighborhood because the 14 Packet Pg. 279 proposed project complies with all access, parking and driveway standards for residential development. In addition, the ability to control the design and improvement of public infrastructure such as public streets is authorized through the subdivision process, not an administrative use permit absent specific and identifiable project impacts to the contrary. Sidewalks & Street Parking: Buena Vista Avenue provides enough space for 12 on street parking spaces, within 2001, the rest of the neighborhood in proximity to the project site is painted with a red curb to provide access for emergency vehicles in the event of a fire on the hillside. Staff has evaluated the neighborhood for on- street parking and has determined that the addition of street parking will not be supported in this location, although this may change with a 4' street widening. Additionally, on- street parking is not a requirement for residential development, all required parking for residential development is required on -site. The proposed project provides all required parking for the single family residence and the SDU on -site. The existing neighborhood along Buena Vista does not have sidewalks, but does provide space along the street for pedestrians to walk out of the way of traffic. As ROGER B. FREDERICKSON ROGER @ FREDERICKSON- LAw.COM FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541-4900 • FAx 8o5- 617 -1827 conditioned, the City will support the deferral of frontage improvements along both Loomis Street and Buena Vista Avenue to install the required improvements at a later date (Attachment A, Condition #17). The applicant has offered to provide sidewalks at this time, in order to relieve concerns for pedestrians on the street as vehicles pass by. At the Planning Commission Meeting, a number of the public commenters inaccurately described the curve fronting the property as "Dead Man's Curve." City police department records evidence that there has never been an accident on this curve and no one has ever been injured by vehicle traffic. This is understandable, as it serves only five residences. There was absolutely no evidence introduced at the Planning Commission meeting to support the conclusion that the project is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. In fact, the overwhelming evidence, as presented by the applicant and the various City departments was that: + The project posed no danger to the occupant or the neighboring properties • The project met all City safety regulations with regard to its location on Buena Vista Avenue • The driveway visibility met all safety requirements • The street and curve are compliant with all City regulations and specifications • There has never been an accident at this location on Buena Vista Avenue In fact, the City's Senior Engineer, Hal Hannula, commented that the project would have a calming effect on traffic, thus improving the safety in the neighborhood. "Yes, this is the first word where we have seen [speed bumps]. We usually don't support that for traffic calming in neighborhoods. I think there are definitely other ways to do traffic calming. I think you know part of the issue with speeds could be that the parking is striped off. You have this 24'curb to curb it feels wide open and when you're up there you can see the rest of the subdivision is really choked down because of that parking so you really need to stop (slow down) parking no parking. It definitely has a traffic calming effect and so it (parking) hasn't been fully vetted on what that should look like." The Housing Accountability Act provides that: Since the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written. findings supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist. ROGER B. FREDERICKSON ROGER@FREDERICKSON-LAw.com FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541-4900 • FAx 8o5 -617 -1827 (1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a " specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. There is nothing in the record other than hearsay testimony by the immediate neighbors evidencing that either project itself or its location poses a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety. In fact, the only evidence introduced, was to the contrary. 2. The design and approach to grading conforms to the natural slope of the property in a manner that is consistent with the City's Hillside Design Guidelines, without creating the need for exceptions to property development standards including building height and setback. The City staff report evidences that the design and approach to grading, with a few minor exceptions, conforms to the natural slope of the property in a manner consistent with the City's Hillside Design Guidelines. ROGER B. FREDERICKSON ROGER @FREDERICKSON- LAw.COM 4 FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN Luis OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541-4900 - FAx 8o5- 617 -1827 This project requires only a minimum amount of grading - -less than 100 cubic yards - -all of which is under the building. The driveway requires no grading or retaining walls. It is a structural steel and concrete bridge. The project requires NO retaining wall except under the house. Half of the area under the building is left natural so it can be part of the permeable area to collect and disperse the small amount of non - permeable area, which is under 2,400 square feet, including driveway. The natural slope and contour of the site is not changed at all. It remains as it is except what is under the house that is less than 1000 square feet, this is very unusual on a hillside house particularly on this slope of a lot. The project uses a structural steel frame that rests only on 14 drilled concrete piers. As to the two minor exceptions, the Planning Commissioners conceded they were very minor and, consistent with the City staff recommendation, should be granted. It is important to note, that these are exceptions as opposed to variances. The first exception is the height. It is very important to note that this exception does not affect any other property's view or solar access and even with the height exception the house roof is only 6 feet above the road surface. It is important to also note the house cannot be built without the height exception. The driveway grade is set by the city driveway standards so the starting point is the street level. On this project the driveway leaves the street at the lowest point of the street. The driveway length is set by the ROGER B. FREDEMCKSON ROGER@FREDERICKSON-LAw.com 5 FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541 -4900 • FAx 8o5- 617 -1827 required front yard setback plus the distance from the property line and the distance to the street. In this project's case it is 32 feet, so based on this the city standard says the garage floor can be 2.73 feet below the street. Note that making the driveway longer in this case does not help because although you can lower the garage floor, the slope of the lot is greater than the allowable drop in the driveway. Making the driveway shorter makes the house taller because the driveway cannot drop as much. So this starting point is set by City code. Once the garage floor is set the required ceiling height for the garage sets the top of the roof. So this point is pre- determined by the City's own code. To measure the overall height, the highest natural grade and lowest natural grade under the building are averaged and this is the average grade. From this point, the maximum height is 25' for RI but up to 35' with an exception. According to the City Zoning Ordinance: C. Maximum height: 25 feet; up to 35 feet if the Director approves an administrative use permit. (See also Section 17.16.020 and Section 17.16.040.) e. Other Yard Building Height Exceptions. Upon approval of a use permit, the Director may allow exceptions to the standards provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5 of subsection C2 of this section. Such exceptions may be granted in any of the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations (December 2013 Page 44) following and similar circumstances, but in no case shall exceptions be granted for less than the minimum yard required: (Ord. 1365 (2000 Series)(part)) i. When the property that will be shaded by the excepted development will not be developed or will not be deprived of reasonable solar exposure, considering its topography and zoning; The property being shaded is OS -5 and the only allowed building locations are far away from the subject lot. ii. When the exception is of a minor nature, involving an insignificant portion of total available solar exposure; The area of the exception is less than 1% of the total building volume. iii. When the properties at issue are within an area where use of solar energy is generally infeasible because of landform shading; iv. When adequate recorded agreement running with the land exists to protect established solar collectors and probable collector locations; v. When the property to be shaded is a street. vi. Where no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are likely to result from the exception. (Ord. 1365 (2000 Series) (part)) ROGER B. FREDERICKSON RoGER@FREDERICKSON-LAw.com 6 FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541-4900 • FAx 8o5 -617 -1827 vii. The development will comply with solar access standards of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 4.5.1. The 28' is well below the 35' allowed under the ordinance. Again the top of the roof is only 6' above the road and it is 20' below the floor of the houses on top of the hill beyond the project in question. The dense tree coverage and the landscaping proposed will hide the house entirely from the neighboring properties. By contrast, the house immediately behind the lot in question, rises over 50' above the street, and is over the 35' building height limitation. The second exception addresses the sharp slope of the hillside. There is a very small corner that due to the drop off, requires a 15' set back and is proposed as a 12' set back. This is an area that is less than 1% of the total volume of the house, arguably a visually imperceptible difference. The reason for these side yard setback requirements is to ensure solar access to adjoining property. With regard to this project, the adjoining property is C /OS -5 with the possible building site over 300' away. Therefore, this exception is so minor and does not affect anyone including any other neighbor. 3. Construction of a home on the project site without exceptions to City standards is possible and preferable because of the steep slope of the property and visibility of the lot in the hillside location. It is not possible to have the required covered parking without the height exception. Due to the hillside and slope of the property, the applicant is using flat roofs to keep the height down as much as possible. Additionally, the project is utilizing the maximum driveway slope allowed. The exception being asked for is still 7' below the maximum height allowed and does not affect any property owner. The height of the house is still only 6' above the street level and is 35' away from the street. The house blocks no other home's view and is 20 feet below the upper neighbor's floor and 110 feet away. 4. The proposed height exception will not detract or negatively affect the neighborhood character because the exception is consistent with the way other properties in the neighborhood have been developed. Nearly all of the other homes in the neighborhood are much larger, much taller, much wider, much less articulated. See the attached picture. The house behind the lot is 39' tall and 56' above the street, whereas the applicant's lot is 28' tall and 6' above the street. If it is "out of scale," it is that it is too small relative to other homes in the area. See attached photos. ROGER B. FREDERICKSON RoGER@FREDERICKSON-LAw.com 7 FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 934.01 PHONE 8o5-541-4900 • FAx 8o5- 617 -1827 . -y 7 1 -ii i F gj f ROGER B. FREDERICKSON ROGER @FREDERICKSON- LAW.COM FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541-4900 • FAx 805 - 617 -1827 .N ROGER B. FREDERICKSON ROGER@FREDERICKSON-LAw.com 9 FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN Luis OBISPO, CA 93401 PHONE 805-541 -4900 • FAx 805 - 617-1827 5. A reduced side yard setback is acceptable at the subject location. The side yard exception is only necessary because the lot drops off rapidly on the north side of the lot. The side yard setbacks are measured based on the actual grade not average grade. The side yard setback is 12' instead of 15'. Three important points: 1. The total area in question is 14', but of that, only the top 2' is the exception - less than 1% of the building's volume. It is in no other property's view. 2. More importantly this borders C /OS -5 lots and the only buildable area is over 300' from the applicant's lot. ROGER B. FREDERICKSON ROGER@Q FREDERICKSON-LAW.COM 10 FREDERICKSON LAW 755 SANTA ROSA STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 934.01 PHONE 805-541-4900: FAx 8o5 -617 -1827 3. This side of the house can only be seen from 650' away and 150' lower. A 2' difference could never be distinguished from this perspective. Based upon the foregoing, the appeal should be granted and this Council should grant the application in its entirety. Please contact the undersigned should you require further information. Sincerely, Roger B. Frederickson RBF:vh cc: Client (via electronic mail only) City Attorney (regular mail) City Manager (regular mail) Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner (regular mail) Chairperson John Larson (regular mail) ROGER B. FREDERICKSON 11 ROGER@FREDERIC;KSON-LAw.com