March 31, 2005
Planning Commission
City of Santa Barbara
630 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
Subject: Appeal of Modification Hearing Officer’s Approval of 30’ Front and 10’ Side Yard Encroachment at 220 East Junipero Street (MST 2004-00581)
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
The undersigned neighbors to the above referenced case request reconsideration of the Modification Officer’s approval of proposed encroachments into the front and side yard setback at 220 East Junipero Street because we do not support the findings that the modification is necessary to secure an appropriate improvement on the property, nor is it consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Finding 1: The modification is not necessary to secure an appropriate improvement on the property.
The proposed project could be accomplished without granting a modification to the side yard setback. The result, according to the applicant’s architect, would be the removal of an existing hedge on 220 East Junipero’s property.
Finding 2: It is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
The following are reasons why a finding of compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, bulk, and scale cannot be made and thus, modifications should not be granted.
- All homes on lots within the notification area between Garden and Santa Barbara Streets, from Pueblo to East Junipero on lot sizes of less than the required zoning under E-1 are one-story residences.
- Where two-story homes are developed, they are on large lots with generous setbacks from the street.
- The existing house at 220 is an existing non-conforming use. The City should not encourage its continuation as a non-conforming use. The zoning ordinance allows non-conforming uses to exist until they have no further economic value. The expectation is that the non-conforming use would then be razed and rebuilt to comply with existing zoning regulations. By approving the modification, the City is encouraging continuation of a non-conforming use.
- The request for a side yard modification places the structure closer to an existing residence at 226 East Junipero than it was under its existing non-conforming situation.
- The proposed project with a 900 square foot second story element is not visually compatible with the streetscape facing south on East Junipero. There is an existing plate height that slopes to the west. The proposed second-story element would break the aesthetic line that presently exists.
Request for Planning Commission to Review the “whole of an action” under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The property at 220 East Junipero recently received a Certificate of Compliance, which was not open to public review or appeal. The creation of a separate lot with access through 220 East Junipero is inconsistent with the City General Plan and zoning designation of E-1. The property has historically been considered as one lot. Long-time owners named Hicks had the lot appraised as one lot before selling it to Raymond Karem, who subsequently sold it to John Luca. Mr. Hicks and Mr. Karem were informed by the neighbors that objections would be made if the substandard parcels were developed as two separate houses. John Luca, a professional real estate agent, was made aware of the neighbors’ concerns. Therefore, the lot has historically been transferred as one lot with the same owner. The ABR stated in their December 22, 2004 meeting on this project, that it more closely resembles a planned development (R-2) configuration. Therefore, the neighbors request that the two cases (MST 2004-00581 and MST 2004-00585) be considered together.
There are complexities and interrelationships between the above referenced case at 220 East Junipero and MST 2004-00585 (222 East Junipero), the rear portion of the lot that links the two cases. It should be noted that the two lots taken together do not equal the minimum square footage for the E-1 zone district.
In emails between Roxanne Milazzo and the Burns’, staff stated the following regarding the approval of the Modification for 220 E. Junipero. Our comments follow.
Comment: MST 2004-00585 has been determined to be complete for processing and should be considered. Severing the project into two separate components defeats good planning principals and is counter to the California Environmental Quality Act’s guideline regarding assessment of the cumulative effects of projects in the planning “pipeline”.
Comment: The “future development” (MST 2004-00585) is not remote and speculative, but a specific project that has been reviewed by the ABR and referred to the Modification Officer for two Modifications.
Comment: The neighbors’ request that the Modification specify that it is granted only 220 East Junipero. Alternatively, the Planning Commission should acknowledge that the two lots owned by the same owner and previously reviewed by the ABR would develop together in the near future.
Comment: City staff acknowledge that MST 2004-00585 at 222 East Junipero is a pending development.
222 East Junipero.
Development of the rear parcel, which would be set in motion by approval of the two requested modifications, would potentially affect the health of two mature oak trees located in the rear of the property. Testimony at the Architectural Board of Review indicated that having cars parked under the oak tree owned by Dave Conway at 2324 Santa Barbara Street could jeopardize its health. Similarly, we as the owners of 2319 Garden Street have provided Mr. Karam and Mr. Luca, previous and current owners respectively, with a licensed survey and an arborist’s report on the oak tree that straddles the property line between 2319 Garden Street and the rear portion of 220 East Junipero Street (Attachment C). An adjacent owner cannot contribute to the death of a significant tree that is on a shared property line (Section 383.90 (2) Ownership of Trees on the Boundary Line and 384.13 Tenants in Common) (Attachment D). This tree is an important visual asset to 2319 Garden Street. Construction of a home within the drip lines of this oak may threaten its long-term health.
A long driveway on a narrow lot makes maneuvering cars and rescue vehicles difficult. For example, if cars park outside the garage in the driveway, there would be no maneuvering around them. If someone parks in the driveway, other vehicles would have difficulty getting out. In cases of emergency, not being able to get cars out of the driveway could create a fire hazard. That is why the Fire Department would condition the development of the back lot with sprinklers.
A survey of FARs to the ABR from all the homes surrounding the subject property (see Attachment B) shows that the proposed project is designed at approximately twice the FAR of surrounding properties. It would be the first two-story home approved in this vicinity on lot smaller than the required E-1 zoning.
We understand that the City and County are under pressure to provide additional “workforce” housing. I think this goal could be better served by allowing the front house to “own” the back parcel, such that the rear parcel would be developed with a full kitchen and bathrooms allowing it to be used as a rental, but with all required parking on E. Junipero. A rental unit for teachers or artists-in-residence, especially as it is tied to educational facilities nearby (Santa Barbara Middle School, Waldorf School) would be a welcomed addition to the neighborhood, as needed housing would be provided with minimal automobile trips.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project that, as proposed, would have adverse aesthetic impacts and be inconsistent with zoning in the E-1 district.
Sincerely,
W. Scott Burns and Lisa Knox Burns
2319 Garden Street
Margaret Marble
226 East Junipero Street
Greg Giloth
2336 Santa Barbara Street
Attachments:
A. Email from Roxanne Milazzo in response to Burns’ (3/29/05)
B. Floor Area Ratio survey for E. Pueblo, E. Junipero, Garden and Santa Barbara Streets (previously submitted to ABR and Neighborhood Steering Committee)
C. Property survey by Waters Land Surveying and Arborist’s report on preserving health of Live Oak
D. Municipal Code regarding duty of property owners to preserve health of Live Oaks straddling property lines.
E. Bill Spiewak, Consulting
Arborist’s Report
Attachment A. Email from Roxanne Milazzo in response to Burns’ (3/29/05)
Roxanne - From your email regarding clarification of the Modification condition, I want to make sure that I understand that it will state that the driveway approved as part of MST2004-00581 at 220 East Junipero shall (1) be used only for access to the garage and/or back-up turn around areas for 220 E. Junipero, and (2) that access shown to the rear lot shall be deleted from the plans, and (3) the Modification granted does not imply use of the driveway for access to the rear lot in the future.
The current approval was for the 220 E. Junipero project only - Future development for an adjacent lot was not a part of Staff's review.
As you know, the neighbors are uncomfortable with this situation in that the ABR reviewed the two projects (for 220 and 222 E. Junipero) concurrently and driveway access to the interior lot was to be provided across 220 E. Junipero as shown on the plan that you reviewed on 3/23. We believe the access provided in the approval for the Modifications on 3/23 sets in motion development of the rear lot using that same access, Therefore the cases appear to be linked and should be reviewed together by the Planning commission and ABR. While you clearly stated that the issues involved in construction on the rear lot at the Modification hearing on 3/23/05 were not part of this application and that the driveway to it would be removed from the plans, it is important that the intent and actual wording of the conditional approval of MST2004-00581 be clarified. Please give us the actual wording of the condition a.s.a.p.
I have been advised that the applications can and will be processed separately - Staff does not review projects on the basis of future construction fears - The condition to remove excess paving was required for this project because only the area paved for accessing the required parking and manuvers is allowed on any lot - You may see the actual condition of approval wording by viewing the attachment to this E-Mail -
If the conditional approval of the modification for the 220 driveway precludes submittal of an application to use the same driveway for access to the rear lot, then we would tend to agree that the cases are not linked. If the City will not give us that assurance then we believe that the Modifications approved on March 23, set in motion an irrevocable course of action for development of the rear lot. This is the scenario we are worried about: Step 1: a building permit is issued and the project at 220 E. Junipero is constructed including the garage encroachment; Step 2: a subsequent separate application (e.g. MST2004-00585) is then submitted for construction of a new house on the rear lot that includes a new driveway extension across 220 E. Junipero to provide access to required parking for that new house which will likely also involve one or more Modifications. It sure seems to us that the cases are linked with up to four Modifications. Since that is an excessive number of Modifications for development in our neighborhood, we still believe that the Planning Commission should review both projects concurrently.
The conditions of approval attached to the 3-23-05 Modification approval do not preclude or address future uses or potential for this lot or the one at the rear - Excess paving will be removed from the plan ibecause it is not necessary for the parking and manuvers requried for this project - I understand the neighborhood's concerns, but the Modification is related to this property only -
Also Roxanne, it would be helpful to know the current status of the MST2004-00585 that was submitted by Mr. Luca for 222 E. Junipero. Is it still pending?
Our ABR records show that this project received its 3rd concept review at the ABR on January 10, 2005 - We have not seen it since - I do not know if it's been abandoned, postphoned, or is just being phased - The agent did not appear to hide the fact that development is going to be proposed in the future - Why don't you contact him for the status - His name is Mario DaCunha @ 898-0332 - I'll keep you posted should anything be submitted here at the City -
Burns’
----- Original
Attachment B. Floor Area Ratios for City Block Bounded by E. Junipero, Garden, Santa Barbara, and E. Pueblo Streets
|
Address |
APN |
Owner |
Description |
Lot Area / Developed Square Footage (estimate) |
FAR |
|
2319 Garden |
25-132-07 |
Burns |
1-story residence |
15,000/2,200 |
.15 |
|
2325 Garden |
25-132-05 |
Olsen/Franco |
1-story residence & guest house |
13,300/1,919 |
.14 |
|
2335 Garden |
25-132-05 |
Jacobs |
1-story residence |
10,450/2,577 |
.246 |
|
226 East Junipero |
25-132-04 |
Marble |
1-story residence |
11,250/2,124 |
.188 |
|
220 East Junipero |
25-132-03 |
Luca |
1-story residence |
6,500/1,282 |
.197 |
|
216 East Junipero |
25-132-02 |
Elbert |
1-story residence |
7,800/1,868 |
.239 |
|
2336 Santa Barbara |
25-132-01 |
Giloth |
1-story residence |
9,1001,708 |
.188 |
|
2330 Santa Barbara |
25-132-16 |
Cronshaw |
1-story residence |
9,1001,737 |
.191 |
|
2324 Santa Barbara |
25-132-15 |
Conway |
1-story residence |
20,000/2,220 |
.111 |
|
2310 Santa Barbara |
25-132-11&18 |
Ure |
2-story residence |
20,000/4,222 |
.211 |
|
201 East Pueblo |
25-132-10 |
Freeman |
1-story residence (room above garage) |
10,000/2,710 |
.271 |
|
227 East Pueblo |
25-132-09 |
Vadnais |
2-story residence & detached garage |
25,000/na |
|
|
2311 Garden |
25-132-08 |
Kriegler Montgomery |
2-story residence & detached garage |
40,000/6,318 |
.158 |