Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2018 Item 4, Lopes (2) Goodwin, Heather From:James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net> Sent:Sunday, November To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Bill Cochran; Naomi Hoffman; Nick Wilson; Peter Johnson Subject:Re: ARC item 4 - 40 Buena Vista Drive - 11-19-18 REVISED RECOMMENDATION Architectural Review Commission RE: Item 4 of 11-19-18 Meeting: 40 Buena Vista Drive - Revised Evaluation and Recommendation Dear Commissioners: I wish to revise my previous recommendation and go on record as opposing this project as proposed at this location. For the previous project at this location, Associate Planner Kyle Bell stated on October 28, 2015, in an email to me, that "...the S overlay is in place doe to the visibility from Highway 101 and because of the sensitive nature of hillside development." Staff subsequently ignored my observation from the southbound lanes (correction to my statement in the previous email) of Highway 101, that the site is clearly visible for 14 to 20 seconds. The view will clearly be to the underside of this square building, which will not conform with the General Plan, specifically the Conservation and Open Space Element, Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.5. Section 9.1.1 states clearly that development in natural landscapes...shall, "1) Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20 percent." (emphasis added) This site slope is over 40 percent..."3) Incorporate building forms, architectural materials and landscaping, that respect the setting, including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid stark contrasts with its setting." The project does the opposite - it ignores well articulated buildings, slope-conforming hipped roofs, and extensive landscaping in most of the projects on this scenic hillside..."4) Preserve scenic or unique landforms..." Clearly the project does not preserve this scenic hillside, but it will alter its character to a poorly developed hillside. The project was not technically reviewed for visual impacts, as required by CEQA, given the obviously long length of time visible from Highway 101, the direct view up to the project and the sensitivity of the hillside, which is why it has the "S" overlay. Highway 101 is a candidate scenic highway in the City (COSE: Figure 11) and also in the County Conservation and Open Space Element. A technical visual assessment should be conducted finally on this project, before this hearing is concluded. I should note from the Land Use Element, "...San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher and most visible hillsides. (page 1-69; Policy 6.4). Policy 6.4.3 requires that development on hillside parcels shall "B) Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes...C) Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles or columns;" Somehow staff has concluded that this project escapes the full import of these standards on the project. The project proposes to do what these standards prohibit, and the staff report makes no reference to this conflict. It is up to your Commission to uphold these policies and standards, especially when staff will not. As noted for the previous project, this site extends down to Cuesta Canyon Road, where it is technically feasible to construct a home into the base of the hill with an excavated first floor retaining wall. Previously Tim Bochum mentioned that a 20-foot easement could be obtained from the City to enable yard access. I previously noted this approach as a superior project site in order to meet the City's policies. However, your staff gave this concept a rejection without any serious, experienced evaluation by a technical expert. Hopefully, this Commission will treat this alternative more seriously than the staff response, and require a qualified evaluation of the visual impact of the proposed location and design, and of the feasibility of locating the project at the base of the hill. 1 If your Commission does not wish to require full evaluations as suggested above, then I recommend that the project be extensively modified as proposed in my previous email below. Sincerely, James Lopes, AICP On 11/16/2018 4:51 PM, James Lopes wrote: Architectural Review Commission RE: Item 4 of 11-19-18 Meeting: 40 Buena Vista Drive Dear Commissioners: The project changes are welcome and yet do not respond to the visibility of the building from Highway 101. My previous visual survey found that the site is visible for at least 20 seconds from Northbound lanes of Highway 101. Two other residences on this hillside were approved with hipped roofs and stepped floor plans, as well as facade articulation. They provide a gradient similar to the hillside and succeeded in "blending" into the hill. This project will not come close to that. This hill is too steep to build in conformity with the slope. Or is it? Can the building be stepped back on the upper floor more, to approximate the 40+% slope? The roof is an extremely low pitch, and the effect is going to be viewed as a horizontal plane. The roof should be slightly taller, and most importantly, it should have hipped ends instead of gables. Gable ends extend the long facades, which are too tall due to the desire by the applicant to have tall rooms. The north facade particularly is too linear and massive. The building as a box is the problem. The building floors should be shifted so that the first floor would have a roof for several feet on the north facade. If the upper floor north wall is located where the stairs are on the first floor, the upper floor stair entry could be next to the exterior wall. Shifting the floors may not that expensive, and the resulting stepped roofs and hipped angles will present a similar appearance as previous projects, which will benefit the experience of countless drivers on Highway 101 and the reputation of the City. Given its location, I think this project deserved to have more scrutiny by staff to achieve compliance with City policies. It is clear that the staff report just delivers the details with no significant analysis. It should be noted that the project should have a Variance if it is approved at this location. It exceeds the maximum allowable slope. An alternative location is on the property at the bottom of the hill. An excavated project could be built as is often done on steep lots. A recent example is the line of residences on Price Canyon Road just east of Pismo Beach. Another example is the homes under construction in the Righetti Hill project. Excavations for steep hillside homes is a common practice and should not be shrugged off as infeasible without technical review. The location of the project will cause dangerous exit/entry movements for vehicles, which could endanger walkers, bicyclists and drivers on Buena Vista Drive. The traffic engineer, Tim Bochum, noted previously that the site has poor sight distance. This means that the safety of all in the street is at risk. Sincerely, James Lopes -- 2 James Lopes Ph. 805-602-1365 3