Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, Mourenza/MatthewsCOUNCIL MEETING: q • Ll - l [FEM NO.: March 31, 2017 SENT VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL City of San Luis Obispo Attn: Mayor and City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 emailcouncil@slocity.org RECEIVI`-D APR 0 3 2017 SLO CITY CLERK Re: City Council Meeting Tuesday April 4, 2017: Agenda Item 16 Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's Approval of APPL-0158-2017 Project on 71 Palomar Drive Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members: This law firm represents Teresa Matthews and Lydia Mourenza (Appellant) and submits this letter on Appellant's behalf. Appellant submitted a timely appeal on February 8, 2017 of the Architectural Review Commission's decision on January 20, 2017 to approve APPL-0158-2017, a proposal to demolish portions of the historic Sandford House; relocate the Sandford House; renovate the Sandford House; remove 55 of 59 trees on the subject property; construct six (6) apartment buildings on the subject property; and construct road improvements to Luneta Drive (Project). For the reasons set forth in the February 8, 2017 appeal and the issues discussed herein, the City Council should uphold the appeal and deny the Project based on the Project's violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Project's violations of the City of San Luis Obispo's Municipal Code provisions (Municipal Code). I. The Project Proposes Substantial Adverse Changes to a Historic Resource Requiring Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report a. The Sandford House is a Historical Resource Under CEQA In 1983 the Sandford House was added to San Luis Obispo's (City) Master List of Historic Resources. The City's Historic Preservation Ordinance defines Master List Resource as a "designation which may be applied to the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City's past meeting criteria outlined herein." Municipal Code Section 14.01.020(33). Due to its listing on the City's Master List of Historic Resources, the Sandford House is a historical resource under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines provide: "A Mayor and City Council, City of San Luis Obispo Agenda Item 16: Appeal of APPL-0158-2017 March 31, 2017 Page 2 resource included in a local register of historical resources.... shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant." 14 Cal Code of Regs. § 15064.5. Despite the express designation of the Sandford House as one of "the most unique and important historic properties" by the City itself, the Project proposes to develop six (6) apartment buildings on the subject property, demolish part of the Sandford House, and remove 55 of 59 trees (more than 93% of the trees on the property) without full environmental review to analyze all potential alternatives and mitigation measures. This is unlawful. b. The Project Will Result in Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of the Sandford House The CEQA Guidelines state: "Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired." 14 Cal Code of Regs. §15064.5(b)(1). Here, the Project proposes not just one of the adverse actions listed under Section 15064.5(b)(1) but all of the actions defined as substantial adverse change: physical demolition, destruction, relocation, and alteration of the historic resource. Specifically, the Project proposes: demolition of the additions to the Sandford House; demolition of the garage, carport and secondary residential building; alteration of the Sandford House for adaptive reuse; relocation of the Sandford House; removal and destruction of 55 of the 59 existing trees on the subject property; and construction of six (6) apartment buildings. (Initial Study/MND, p. 2). In League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 896, the City of Oakland issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a demolition of a building that was found to be a historical resource. The Court found that: "The proposed demolition of the building can hardly be considered anything less than a significant effect." Id. at 829. The Court held: "In view of the whole record and the City's repeated recognition of the historical significance of the building, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that significant impacts may occur. An EIR is required to identify and examine the full range of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to demolition." Id. Here, there is no question as to the historical significance of the Sandford House, it has been designated as a master list historical resource by the City since 1984. As clearly set forth under the holding in League of Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Resources, a proposal to demolish the house is a significant effect warranting full environmental review: "An EIR is required to identify and examine the full range of feasible mitigation measure and alternatives to demolition." Id. Mayor and City Council, City of San Luis Obispo Agenda Item 16: Appeal of APPL-0158-2017 March 31, 2017 Page 3 c. The Period of Significance for the Sandford House Extends Until At Least 1950 In the Project Description, the proposed action characterizes the demolition as "removal of the non -historic additions to the main structure." The Initial Study/MND explains: The period of significance for the Sandford House is recommended as circa 1895-1930... The period of significance ends in 1930 to include the addition of the solarium that significantly contributes to the architectural style of the property. The period of significance excludes the two additions to the main building and the garage and secondary residence located on the parcel. These buildings and additions do not convey the significance of the property. (Significance Evaluation, Attachment 4, October 2015). Thus, the evaluation attempts to cut off the period of significance at 1930 to exclude the additions that are set for demolition. However, Appendix D to the Significance Evaluation states otherwise. Appendix D, California Natural Resources Agency's cultural resource form, states the period of significance for the Sandford House as circa 1895 to 1950 and explicitly encompasses the additions attached to the house: "The Sandford House retains its integrity from the period of significance identified for the property, circa 1895 to 1950," and: The Sandford House generally retains its original form, floor plan, and structural system. Rear additions were constructed within the period of significance. The residence retains integrity of fenestration patterns, mass, and ornamental detailing. Original side - gabled roof orientation is also intact. The high majority of window and door types and accompanying spatial organization remain intact as does the prominent portico, an important neoclassical characteristic of the style. Taken together, design elements reflect the Colonial Revival style, which remains recognizable. (Appendix D Cultural Resource Record Forms, pgs. 76, 79) (emphasis added). Demolition and removal of the additions to the Sandford House clearly constitute a significant adverse effect on the Sandford House since the additions fall within the period of significance and warrant full environmental review in the form of an EIR. d. The Project Proposes More Than One Significant Adverse Impact to the Historical Resource It must be emphasized that not only does the applicant propose demolition of the rear additions of the Sandford House, which alone would trigger full environmental review, the applicant also proposes: a) removal of the garage, carport, and secondary residential building; b) relocation of the main residence of the Sandford House, and renovating the structure to be used as a leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.); c) removing 55 of 59 existing trees; and, d) constructing six (6) apartment buildings. Such changes would irrevocably alter the historical context in which the Sandford House is located and impair its immediate Mayor and City Council, City of San Luis Obispo Agenda Item 16: Appeal of APPL-0158-2017 March 31, 2017 Page 4 surroundings. Full environmental review is necessary to determine a range of alternatives and mitigation measures available to avoid damage to the Sandford House and detrimental impact to its historic significance. e. Pursuant to the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, Relocation of the Sandford House is Unjustified The City's Historic Preservation Ordinance Section 14.0 1.110 provides: "Relocation has the potential to adversely affect the significance of a historic resource." Full environmental review is necessary to assess the possible alternatives to relocation. The applicant offers no evidence as to why relocation of the Sandford House is necessary. The City's Historic Preservation Ordinance states that "Relocation of structures... is the least preferred preservation method and shall be permitted only when relocation is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, any applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines." Municipal Code Section 14.01.110(B) (emphasis added). Relocation would result in adversely affecting the historic value of the Sandford House. The applicant has an obligation to proffer alternatives to relocation especially since no reason was provided for why relocation is necessary for the Project. II. Tree Removal Violates the City's Tree Regulations and Will Result in Significant Impacts on an Historical Resource a. Violation of the City's Tree Regulations The Project proposes to destroy 55 of 59 trees on the properly. The City's Tree Regulations provide: Policy. The city values trees as an important part of the natural and economic environment and efforts shall be made to preserve them whenever possible and feasible. When reviewing requests for tree removal permits, the city shall discourage removing desirable trees and shall consider approving removal of desirable trees only as a last resort alternative for the applicant. Municipal Code Section 12.24.090. The City has a mandatory duty to preserve trees whenever possible and feasible. The Initial Study/MND for the Project, including the biological resources report commissioned, does not discuss whether it is possible or feasible to preserve more than four (4) of the 59 extant trees on the property. Approval of this Project without a proper evaluation of possible preservation of more than four (4) of the 59 trees on the property is a violation of the City's Tree Regulations. Mayor and City Council, City of San Luis Obispo Agenda Item 16: Appeal of APPL-0158-2017 March 31, 2017 Page 5 b. Inaccurate and Unreliable Arborist Report 'Several objections have been raised concerning the accuracy of the biological resources analysis, specifically the arborist report. Notably, Professor Matt Ritter, who is also the Chair of the City's Tree Committee, submitted a letter outlining his concerns regarding the "poor, misleading, inaccurate and not well researched report." (Attachment 8, Ritter Letter). Professor Ritter states that he disagrees with the Rincon tree report's conclusion that the tree removals are compliant with the tree ordinance. The Chair of the Tree Committee specifically submits that Rincon's conclusion "is outside the expertise of the hired arborist and goes beyond the scope of an arborist report." (Attachment 8, Ritter Letter). Other public comments highlight the inaccuracies of the arborist report: "There were a minimum of 22 errors in either identification, height, significance, or health of existing trees." (Attachment 8, Vujovich-LaBarre Letter). During the December 12, 2016 Tree Committee Meeting, Chair Ritter "suggested the Architectural Review Commission devalue the Rincon report due to the gross inaccuracies of information; stated the challenge in forming a valuable recommendation in the absence of an accurate and thorough tree assessment." (Attachment 11, Tree Committee Minutes, Dec 12, 2016). The arborist report clearly lacks reliability and the addendum and revisions do not cure the unreliability of the report. The Initial Study/MND states that as a mitigation measure, the "developer shall plant as many of the replacement trees on the site as feasible." If the Project proposes to destroy 55 of 59 trees on the property and build six (6) apartment buildings on the subject property, how many replacement trees on the site are feasible? This cursory statement is not a proper mitigation measure and fails to address the significant impact associated with removing over 93% of the trees on the historic property and resource. c. Failure of the Initial Study/MND to Analyze Tree Removal's Impact on the Historical Resource Violates CEQA Finally, the Initial Study/MND's failure to analyze the impact of destroying 55 of 59 trees on the Sandford House as a historical resource violates CEQA. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, "alteration of the resource of its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired" qualifies as a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1). Numerous public comments submitted during the administrative process pertaining to the Project thus far discuss the trees as part of the significance of the historical resource. One public comment highlights the "relevance of the trees to the architectural style and because of the symmetrical disposition in which they were planted." (Attachment 8, Cooper Letter). This public comment also states: Mayor and City Council, City of San Luis Obispo Agenda Item 16: Appeal of APPL-0158-2017 March 31, 2017 Page 6 Seven trees on the 71 Palomar property should be preserved both for their historical importance and for their rarity. Of the seven trees, two are Norfolk Island Pine, two Eugenia, one Frond Palm, one Italian Stone Pine and one European Olive. The trees are believed to have been planted by the owner, an orchardist, around 1895 when the historic Sandford residence was built. These trees are large and healthy specimens. (Attachment 8, Cooper Letter). The adverse impact of destruction of 55 of the 59 trees on the historical significance of the property was echoed and underscored by the City's Tree Committee. The minutes from the December 12, 2016 Tree Committee Meeting states that Committee Member Loosley commented on the importance of the trees on the historical landscape: But in terms of the historical landscape, the trees are very significant. In particular, the planting location of the Norfolk Island Pines and the Canary Island Date is very traditional and is seen with old historic homes. Committee member Loosley also commented that he did not agree that trees should be removed to move the house, but a project should be designed around the existing large trees. Committee Member Loosely also opined that the project would have a significant impact on aesthetics, and bird and bat habitat and that stating that the project would have less than significant impact is a misrepresentation. (Attachment 11, Tree Committee Minutes December 12, 2016). Substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that significant impacts to the historical resource will result from destruction of 55 of 59 trees. Based on all of the significant adverse impacts to this historical resource, approval of the Project without preparation of an EIR would constitute a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. III. Unlawful Segmentation of Whole Project: Luneta Drive a. Improvements to Luneta Drive Are an Integral Part of the Project The Project Description expressly identifies: "Road improvements to Luneta Drive including two-way traffic and raised medians" as an integral part of the Project. (ARC Agenda Report, p. 4). The Project Analysis states: "Per subdivision regulations this project is required to complete their frontage improvements allowing the roadway to be connected." (ARC Agenda Report, p. 9) (emphasis added). Condition 19 of the Conditions of Approval for the Project sets forth: "Luneta Drive shall be developed as a through public street per City Engineering Standards unless otherwise waived or deferred by the City Council." (City Council Agenda Packet, p. 236) (emphasis added). Despite the mandatory language set forth in the Project proposal pertaining to Luneta Drive improvements, the City unlawfully segregates the Luneta Drive improvements from the Project: Mayor and City Council, City of San Luis Obispo Agenda Item 16: Appeal of APPL-0158-2017 March 31, 2017 Page 7 This separates the Luneta Dr. closure issue from the development project, allowing the development review process to continue on a separate track regardless of the outcome of the Luneta Dr. configuration. The projects [sic] public improvements on the Luneta frontage will still be the applicant's responsibility, however, those will be deferred until the Council reaches a decision on the potential general plan amendment and new design for the road. (ARC Agenda Report, p. 9). The City acknowledges that road improvements allowing the roadway to be connected are a requirement for the Project, and still attempts to separate the road improvements from the environmental review process for the Project. This is not allowed. Segmenting or piecemealing environmental review of a Project is a violation under CEQA. In Tuolomne County Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Sonora, the Court found that a proposed improvement center and the realignment of the road were a single "project" for purposes of CEQA. (2007) 155 Cal.AppAth 1214, 1221. The Court reaffirmed prior caselaw holding: "Courts have considered separate activities as one CEQA project and required them to be reviewed together where... both activities are integral part of the same project." Id. at 1229 citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation Dist. (2005) 128 Cal.AppAth 690, 698. CEQA case law admonishes that if two integral parts of a Project are separately analyzed: [T]he combined or interactive environmental effects are not fully recognized until the review of the second matter, the opportunity to implement effective mitigation measures as part of the first matter may be lost. This could result in mitigation measures being adopted in the second matter that are less effective than what would be have been adopted if the matter had been analyzed as a single project. Id. at 1230. Separating out analysis of the environmental impacts associated with development of Luneta Drive from the rest of the Project, which includes demolition, relocation, destruction of trees, and construction of six apartment buildings, is prohibited under CEQA. The facts here are similar to the ones presented in Tuolumne County Citizens. The Luneta Drive frontage improvements and road opening are expressly acknowledged as a requirement of the Project. Any proposed alternatives to the opening of Luneta Drive, including road closure, must be analyzed concurrently with the rest of the Project. The road improvements to Luneta Drive are an integral and inseparable part of the Project. The environmental impacts of the whole of the Project must be analyzed together. The Project's unlawful segmentation and failure to analyze the whole of a Project constitutes a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. b. Initial Study/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze Traffic Impacts for the Project Additionally, the traffic analysis for the MND is flawed because it fails to establish whether the analysis is based on Luneta Drive as a public roadway or on Luneta Drive as a Mayor and City Council, City of San Luis Obispo Agenda Item 16: Appeal of APPL-0158-2017 March 31, 2017 Page 8 private road. Clearly the traffic impacts analysis would vary depending on the final decision concerning Luneta Drive, and thus, any traffic impacts analysis provided at this juncture is incomplete. The traffic analysis is also flawed because it neither provides information as to the current LOS for the residential streets surrounding the Project nor does it provide analysis as to whether the additional estimated trips will result in an exceedance in the maximum LOS for local residential streets. The evaluation simply cites the standard set forth in the General Plan without any analysis on how that standard would be impacted by additional estimated trips. Without first establishing whether the Project contemplates opening up Luneta Drive or closing it the traffic analysis remains incomplete and premature. It is also inadequate because it does not provide meaningful analysis as to effect of additional trips on the current LOS on residential streets near the Project. IV. Conclusion Based on the foregoing reasons, the City Council should uphold the appeal and deny the Project because the Project fails to adequately analyze significant adverse impacts to the Sandford House, a historical resource. In addition, the Project improperly segments review of the Luneta Drive improvements from the rest of the Project, which prevents the public from assessing the true environmental impact of the whole Project. Due to these CEQA violations, the Project should be denied. Very truly yours, WITTWER PARKIN LLP Pearl Kan cc (via email): Heidi Harmon, Mayor Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson, Council Member Aaron Gomez, Council Member Andy Pease, Council Member Michael Codron, Community Development Director Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Client Cn co y 0 _ C)ma` _ca)iK- C/) o 0� CO -0 CD � = CD n 90 D co CA) 0-0 o o o 0 _ � i' n _ N CO v �. ,, f��y ;u o —040 WK 0�fj � 9 G) —4 D69S8000a&Z90