HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-2018 Item 4, CochranRECEIVED
NOV 19 2018
From: William R. Cochran I Sf_D I~Y CLE
To: Architectural Review Commission advisorybodios@slocity.org w
Monday, November 19, 2018
Subject: ARC Item 4 — 40 Buena Vista Drive, 11-19-18
Re: Item 4 of 11-19-18 Meeting: 40 Buena Vista Drive (aka 42 Buena Vista Drive, 48 Buena Vista Drive,
and 2390 Loomis Street)
Item 4 in the agenda for the meeting of 19 November 2018 contains a draft resolution for an "original
permit revision". I request that you do not accept this draft as it contains recommendations which are
non-compliant with the General Plan. This is within your purview regarding appropriateness of site.
I ask that the draft resolution be replaced by one based on a suggestion made in 2015 by the Director
of Community Development: "Given that the original permit and its proposed revision are based on
erroneous information supplied by the city staff to the city council and relevant advisory bodies, be it
hereby resolved that the property at 40 Buena Vista Avenue be purchased by the city at fair market
value and be added to the city Open Space adjacent to the north side of the property."
This is the only fair resolution of the dilemma caused by the granting of the non-compliant permit in
2015, which has engendered a wide -spread lack of confidence in the integrity of the city government
and its staff. It should be noted that the application for the original permit was denied by the Planning
Commission in a 5-1-1 vote.
As I am the resident closest to the site of the project I am at a disadvantage. My motives will be
ascribed to self-interest. I admit to some of that. But my overwhelming concern is the precedent set
when the Planning Department can misstate the facts of a proposal, knowingly disregard their
mistakes, and willfully present to the City Council a flawed plan non-compliant with the General Plan.
If city residents cannot rely on adherence to well -formulated rules and regulations, and city staff and
elected officials can govern by whim, what protection do they have? I hope your committee accepts
the proposed substitute resolution. I would be happy to discuss this further with any or all members of
the Commission. An overview of the errors in the original staff report appears below.
Sincerely,
William Cochran, 43 Buena Vista Avenue
"...no council can approve any project that does not fit the city's General Plan and policies.... The
city's strong General Plan, which protects our hills from development... has essentially been in place
since 1994."— Caroline Christianson, member SLO City Council; Tribune Letters, July 12, 2018
"All land use decisions are governed by the ueneral Plan and musr oe cons15renr with the Ueneral
Plan's direction..." — SLO City Website
A summary of the errors, misstatements, and missteps upon which the permit was granted in 2016 and
remain unresolved is given below:
1. Assignment of an inexperienced newly appointed staff member to the preparation of the staff
report. When the city decided to apply "S" overlay to hillside properties some years ago, there
was an implied obligation that the city would assign its most experienced staff in urban
aesthetics to oversee the processing of applications for building in "S" overlay zones. [Ken
Schwartz, letter to Michael Codron, 1 May 2016.]
2. The initial notice of the permit application was posted at 2390 Loomis Street, and stated that
the proposed project would be built at that address. The actual building site was half a mile
away by city streets. The current posting is misplaced some 60 feet from the lot line.
3. Staff failed to consider access from Loomis Street. Such access has been designated since at
least 1984. Professionals have examined the site and recommend access from Loomis Street,
as was specified on the original permit application.
4. Neglect by staff of dangers of access from Buena Vista, which would require vehicles to back
into the street at the apex of the blind curve known locally as "Dead Man's Curve".
5. Buena Vista Avenue is a narrow fire lane and on -street parking is not permitted. No
consideration was given by staff to the problem of access by visitors or service vehicles.
6. The staff claimed that "The property is a downward sloping lot from west to east with an
average grade of approximately 30%"...and "grading for the site is in substantial conformance
with the Grading Ordinance." Both these statements are incorrect, likely conjured up because
the building code prohibits grading on slopes greater than 30%. In fact the General Plan
prohibits building on slopes greater than 20%; the actual value of the slope is 50% +/-10%.
Staff now admits privately to 45%. The value along the northern boundary is closer to 100%.
7. Assertion by staff that the developer's proposal complies with the General Plan. It does not.
The General Plan states in part "The community has strived for attractive urban development....
Protection of these assets enhances the community's quality of life and economic vitality.
Protection involves both the integrity of the resource being viewed, and lines of sight of the
resource." The hillside in question has long been a protected valuable scenic asset, "The
Gateway to San Luis Obispo".
8. The city's Hillside Development Guidelines require that "each structure shall be located on the
least visually prominent ... portion of the site.... Any structures must be located at the lowest
possible elevation on the site." The proposed building is located on the highest possible most
visually prominent elevation of the site.
9. Improper use of staff and resources; numerous examples can be cited. Here's Mayor Schwartz
again, writing to the Planning Departing in 2015: "1 also urge you to stop the procedure
wherein City planning staff act as the developer's agent...."
10. The claim that "the project... reflects the existing development and architectural design." No
home in the area is suspended on girders over a slope nearly three times the limit imposed by
the General Plan. Any structure at that site destroys one of the city's most prominent and
valuable scenic assets.
11. Section 9 of the General Plan recommends a sharp edge be maintained between open space
and development. Buena Vista Avenue currently provides a text -book example of edge, which
would be destroyed if the proposed project is approved.
END