Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-2016 Item 12, Hoffman (2)RECEIVED APR 29 2016 q -Za —16 Critique in Support of the Appeal Regarding 40 -42 Buena Vista Avenue Filed by Mrs. Naomi Hoffman Prepared by Dr. William Cochran P.O. Box 697 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 By way of introduction I am a 20 -year resident of San Luis Obispo. I am an Emeritus Professor of Physics, having taught and conducted research at UCLA, Youngstown State University (Ohio), and Cal Poly. Most recently I have worked as a Senior Developmental Research Engineer for UCLA. I have also worked as a consultant for property developers in Ohio, assessing the effects of development on neighboring residents, and have been an Expert Witness in the attendant litigation. Over 40 years of practicing and teaching data acquisition and analysis have been especially valuable in such work. Please accept the following comments as formulated with the same degree of professionalism as my previous work, which has not been challenged. On January 19, 2016, the San Luis Obispo City Council directed the applicant Lee J. Kraft to work with the Community Development Staff and the ARC to redesign his proposed home to conform to the Community Design Guidelines without the height and setback exceptions requested in the original application, and to address concerns including the visual prominence of the structure as viewed from Highway 101. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH COUNCIL'S DrIRECTIONS His resultant revision leaves the proposed plan essentially unchanged, requires two exceptions as did the original design, and the visual prominence has not been reduced but made greater. The developer's response to Council's directions is that "Both of the City Counsels [sic] findings were incorrect as denying the exception raises the house making it more prominent." [See attached flyer distributed by the developer.] COUNCIL MEETING ITEM NO.: The Agenda Report for the ARC meeting of March 7 reads in part "...development of the site without some type of exception does not appear feasible." No one disputes that exceptions would be required to bring the existing project into compliance with code. That's not the point. The proposed moving of the project a few feet closer to the street does not constitute a redesign. The developer asserts that exceptions must be granted because his design cannot be made to fit the site. Either he doesn't understand that the project requires a redesign to fit the site or, by continuing to demand exceptions, he hopes to divert attention from possible alternatives. No one can seriously contend that a design within code for such a site is impossible. Two alternatives were offered by the Staff in the ARC Agenda Report for March 7 and are reasonable and well considered: (1) "Continue action on the project.—Direction should be given to staff and the applicant regarding additional information needed to make a decision. " (2) "Recommend denial of the project based on findings on inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines, General Plan, Zoning Regulations or other policy document..." Former Mayor Schwartz, a Fellow of the America Institute of Architects, wrote to Mr. Codron as follows: "...encourage the developer to either reduce the scale of his proposed development to comply with existing city regulations without exceptions OR consider developing his project using the Loomis Street frontage." [October 26, 2015] I recommend adopting Recommendation (2) above, consistent with the evaluation by Mayor SchwartL This would not preclude the applicant building on the site, but would give him the opportunity to (a) submit a design complying with city policies and regulations, or (b) abandon the project and dispose of the property. In the latter case I suggest that the City enter into negotiations to buy the property for addition to the Open Space Area adjacent to the north, consistent with the current negotiations to add portions of the Miossi ranch to the same area. THE PROJECT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. For unknown reasons the Staff has resolutely ignored making any reference to Section 9 of the General Plan. Here's what Section 9 states: "All land use decisions are governed by the General Plan and must be consistent with the General Plan's direction "; and, with reference to hillside development in scenically sensitive areas, "The City will implement the following policies... avoid visually prominent locations such as slopes exceeding 20 % ". The slope at the building site is 50% +/- 10 %. No one can read Section 9 and maintain that the project is in compliance. The site was afforded the S- overlay to protect its scenic value as the "Gateway to San Luis ". and requires adherence to the policies of Section 9 of the General Plan. Slope values in Staff reports range from "an approximate average of 30 %" (a guess ?), to "30% and greater ", and 45 %. This last value should have been shared with the Council and ARC, but was not. The lack of numerical values for the precision of the reported results does not meet professional standards. These values are central to consideration of building on Loomis Street vs Buena Vista Avenue. It belies either staff inexperience or lack of objectivity. Is it a coincidence that the 30% erroneously maintained in staff reports happens to be the limit for site grading? THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES. Consider Sections 7, 7.1.a(1), 7.3, and 7.2.B.c of the Guidelines: -,,No parcel shall be created: (a) With an overall average slope of 30 percent or more. " (Recall that the staff reported the slope as "30% and greater ", and that the correct value is 50 %.) "Each structure shall be located in the ...least visually prominent portion of the site, [and] at the lowest feasible elevation. Siting structures in the least prominent locations is especially important on open hillsides where the visibility of structures should be minimized..." The proposed structure will, if approved, be located in the most visually prominent portion of the site, and at the highest elevation. It is inconceivable that anyone could read these sections and then write that the proposal is in compliance. A written explanation should be required of the staff. This is an incredible misrepresentation of the Guidelines. THE CITY HAS NO COMPELLING REASON TO APPROVE BUILDING ON BUENA VISTA. The lot is unusual in that it possesses access via both Buena Vista Avenue and Loomis Street. Building on Loomis Street would comply with the Design Guidelines, building on Buena Vista does not. A project designed without code exceptions is possible on either Buena Vista or Loomis. This relieves the City of any obligation to favor one site over the other. Hillside projects in the area which have been granted exceptions did not share the advantage of dual access. A technical note on the slope determinations: The staff omits to report uncertainty in the measured values, contrary to professional standards. This is important: the 50% determination with an uncertainty of 10% (at Buena Vista) implies that if three measurements are taken at random the probability is high that two of three will between 40% and 60 %. The staff reports that building on Loomis is not feasible because the slope there is 60 %, but no uncertainty is specified. But if the uncertainty there is also 10 %, then there is an equally high probability that two out of three random measurements would lie between 50% and 70 %. Any claim that one site can be built upon and the other cannot is not sustained by objective analysis. THE RELATION BETWEEN STAFF AND DEVELOPER Please accept the following as an attempt to understand the hard feelings in the neighborhood generated toward the Council and the Staff by actions on this and similar projects. They do exist. I'll begin by again quoting former Mayor Schwartz, writing to Mr. Codron on October 26, 2015: I urge you in the future to stop the procedure wherein City planning staff act as the developer's agent; this is an affront to existing residents. " The staff's role should be one of vetting plans submitted to it, not participating in formulating those plans. Assigning a planner to help a developer formulate his plans blurs the divide between the applicant and those charged with approving the application. Subjective judgements become presented as facts and will be defended by those who make them. When an experienced and determined developer is paired with a younger less experienced planner, the planner becomes vested in the acceptance of the developer's plans, leaving the objectivity of the staff suspect. It is a serious problem which needs to be addressed by the Community Development Director, the City Attorney, and the City Council. Respectively submitted, \P-3 XA,�,--kK LZ,4"� William R. Cochran bcsloc @pacbell.net a) a) CD O 0 0 •Ao c N O U � 0 M C O N cn 0 LA y- cz O > t? LO co m m X N �'= 0 — a? 1. M -0 LO E L OU O p (� m �= 11I r L L- "0 W0 0- r 0 c J > CD �_ N 0 (D � C : C: E Z,- , U X 0 CL OL U a) L U w m a c 0 a) uj L C (U C . a) `` O L � C a) 70 CU 0 �0LE�`_ a) (n ,v L m w 0 •F °L. a� m vi C))L J m L ai as � ©�Ovic o c c ®CY)��� 0•�� �.-UEc