The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/26/2021 Item 2, Cooper (2) Wilbanks, Megan From:Allan Cooper < To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Codron, Michael; E-mail Council Website Subject:Comment on the Westmont Subdivision Initial Study & Environmental Checklist Attachments:705_27_21...eircomments.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Kyle & Michael - Would you kindly open the PDF file below as it pertains to my comments regarding the Westmont Subdivision Initial Study & Environmental Checklist Form? Thanks! - Allan 1 To: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, kvanleeu@slocity.org & Michael Codron, Community Development Director mcodron@slocity.org Re: Public Comment on the Westmont Subdivision Environmental Review Document From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, CA Date: May 27, 2021 Dear Kyle and Mike - I am forwarding you my comments regarding the Westmont Subdivision Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form. I have attempted to organize my comments in the following manner: 1) Speciﬁc passage from the Initial Study; 2) My proposed changes; and 3) An explanation for the changes that I”m proposing. I have incorporated some bold type thought simply for the sake of emphasis. It is my understanding that the end of this comment period is May 31, 2021. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Aesthetics Page 13: Aesthetics - Evaluation - c): “The COSE states that scenic and unique landforms, including signiﬁcant trees or outcroppings, should be preserved. Proposed tree removal would be consistent with the City’s Tree Ordinance, which establishes requirements for compensatory planting (1:1) and preservation requirements for retaining trees with historic or unusual value. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with applicable zoning and the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, and impacts would be considered less than signiﬁcant.” Change: After “Therefore”, substitute the following: “because the project is proposing to remove all onsite signiﬁcant trees, the wildlife habitats that these trees provide will not be preserved. For this reason, this project cannot be considered consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan and impacts would be considered signiﬁcant.” Explanation: LUE Policy 2.3.10 Site Constraints states the following: “The City shall require new residential developments to respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, native vegetation, and signiﬁcant trees.” The Tree Committee included in their motion a request that the Planning Commission consider the retention of several “signiﬁcant” trees onsite. This included one eucalyptus within the creek corridor (#114), and two eucalyptus and one live oak near the southern edge of the property line on proposed lots 23 (#s 33, 34, & 91). The one eucalyptus tree within the creek corridor has a diameter of 42 inches. The two eucalyptus trees outside the riparian corridor have a diameter of 33 inches and 54 inches. The live oak has a tree diameter of 16 inches. Then there are three mature redwood trees proposed for removal. These redwood trees have diameters of 47, 40 and 48 inches. All of these trees are both signiﬁcant and unusual and could be preserved through more creative design. Biological Resources Page 23: Biological Resources - Special-Status Wildlife Species - a) Reptiles: “While no construction activity is proposed within the riparian habitat, non-native acacia trees within the riparian corridor and adjacent native and ornamental vegetation outside of the riparian corridor would be removed, and therefore could impact California legless lizard. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-4 through BIO-7 would reduce impacts to northern California legless lizard to a level that is considered less than signiﬁcant with mitigation…acacia tree removal is proposed within the riparian habitat that has the potential to disturb obscure bumble bee species present within the riparian habitat. Change: “Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-4 through BIO-8 would reduce impacts to obscure bumble bee species to a level that is (add: “still”) considered less than (remove: “less than”) signiﬁcant with mitigation.” Explanation: Unlike honeybees, bumble bees do not store honey, making them more susceptible to gaps in availability of ﬂowers and extreme weather events. Removing the silver wattle acacias, which ﬂower profusely from late winter to early spring will be a problem for the bumble bee. Reducing plant species diversity will put an end to continuous blooms throughout the season. Moreover, wildlife regularly chooses non-native plants over natives. Gardeners around the world have noticed that birds and butterﬂies and insects often spend more time on non-native plants than native plants. Non-native plants are mostly “pioneering” plants that come to repair the soil. They ﬁx nitrogen, balance soil conditions and clean up polluted water. Page 24: Biological Resources - Designated Critical Habitat - b): “In addition, the Fire Protection Plan requires removal of non-native trees within the riparian habitat, resulting in the removal of 13 trees, primarily acacia (Silver Wattle) trees, within the riparian habitats.” Change: Substitute the following: “The applicant is proposing to remove all non-native trees within the riparian habitat, resulting in the removal of 13 trees, primarily acacia (Silver Wattle) trees, within the riparian habitats.” Explanation: Reference to the ﬂammability of non-native plants should not be included in this so-called Fire Protection Plan. Not all non-native plants are ﬂammable. Moreover, not all acacias are ﬂammable. In fact, the Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata) is a relatively safe option with regards to ﬂammability. During a wildﬁre, Botanist Alan Gray observed a group of silver wattles in the path of the 1 ﬁre which was being fanned by a stiff wind. Embers and ﬂaming bark 'arrows' were ﬂying along in front of the ﬁre but were being effectively stopped or impeded by the fairly dense wattle canopies, and falling to the ground. The crowns were not igniting but were acting as efficient ember stoppers. Page 25: Biological Resources - Evaluation - Special Status Plant Species - e): “The project would result in the removal of 86 trees total onsite. Of the 86 trees proposed for removal, 51 trees are subject to the City’s Tree Ordinance, due to species, trunk size, or location within a creek setback. Based on the compensatory tree planting requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance, the applicant will be required to replant a minimum of one new tree onsite, or two Alan Gray, botanist and taxonomist, has pursued his interest in plant taxonomy, ecology and the 1 propagation and cultivation of Australian native plants. Preeminent in his taxonomic and ﬁeld knowledge of Tasmanian eucalypts as well as the eucalypts of the eastern and southern mainland, he has published a number of papers since the early 1970s. He has been a contributor for Flora of Tasmania Online at the Tasmanian Herbarium. offsite, for each of the 51 being removed, as set forth in the City Municipal Code (12.24.090). This application is subject to review and approval by the City Tree Committee.” Add: “However, the City Tree Committee (TC) at their May 17, 2021 meeting did not give unqualiﬁed approval of the project. According to City staff “The TC also included in their motion a request that the Planning Commission consider the retention of several speciﬁc trees onsite. This included one eucalyptus within the creek corridor (#114), and two eucalyptus and one live oak near the southern edge of the property line on proposed lots 23 (#’s 33, 34 & 91). Explanation: Staff stated that they did not recommend retention of these trees “as retention of the eucalyptus in the creek corridor is inconstant (sic) (substitute “inconsistent”) with the wildﬁre mitigation measure W-1 (substitute “W-2”), and retention of trees near the southern property line would require a redesign of the stormwater treatment/retention system and changes in lot grading”. Staff went on to state that the Tree Committee did not condition these recommendations as part of their approval of the project. Therefore, this application was “approved” by the Committee. However, according to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Ordinance 1694, passed April 6, 2021 the Tree Committee can only make recommendations and cannot condition the approval of a project. “For all tree removal requests related to ministerial development permits, other than as speciﬁed in subsection (F)(1) of this section, the tree committee shall review and make a recommendation on the tree removal application to the community development director based on the criteria in subsections G and J of this section. The director shall consider the recommendation of the tree committee, as well as the consistency of the tree removal application with other city development policies and standards applicable to the site, and shall either approve, conditionally approve or deny the tree removal request, subject to appeal as set forth in Section 12.24.180." In this case, the director approved the tree removal request and discarded the Tree Committee’s recommendations. Page 25: Biological Resources - Evaluation - Special-Status Wildlife Species - Designated Critical Habitat - e) : “Additionally, the Fire Protection Plan for the proposed project requires removal of non-native trees within the riparian habitat…The project would not result in a conﬂict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than signiﬁcant.” Change: “Additionally, the Fire Protection Plan for the proposed project requires removal of non-native trees within the riparian habitat…The project would not (delete “not”) result in a conﬂict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than (delete “less than”) signiﬁcant.” Explanation: The CNPS Fire Recovery Guide cites eucalyptus and non-native pines as presenting severe ﬁre hazard. However according to the San Francisco Forest Alliance, evidence from recent ﬁres does not implicate non-native trees. The documents cited in this guide (pages 44-45) show that the acreage of non- native tree species that burned in the recent ﬁres was insigniﬁcant compared to the overwhelmingly native vegetation that burned. The National Park Service reports on its website that eucalyptus leaves are, in fact, ﬁre resistant: “The live foliage [of the eucalyptus] proved ﬁre resistant…” (http://www.ﬁrescape.us/ coastliveoaks.pdf). This observation is consistent with a comprehensive book about trees, (Colin Tudge, 2005): “… many trees are highly ﬁreproof, like redwoods and eucalyptus…” (page 376). The living wood does not burn easily. Dead leaf and bark litter are the main source of fuel for ﬁres. Fuel loads can be reduced by removing leaf and bark litter on the ground, without destroying the living tree. In fact, eucalyptus trees may actually ﬁght ﬁres by acting as a windbreak and blocking ﬂying embers. Many people think of the devastating Oakland Hills ﬁres, but an inquiry there noted that the eucalyptus trees were not the primary hazard. With regards to protecting biological resources, according to the San Luis Ranch EIR “The eucalyptus grove (located onsite) provides nesting habitat for raptors, great blue herons, and a variety of songbirds, and roosting habitat for owls and turkey vultures. It also provides foraging habitat for birds and small mammals. The largest eucalyptus grove in the project site is a monarch butterﬂy overwintering site.” Moreover, because of the height of these trees, they provide a haven for Great Blue Herons, Olive-sided Flycatchers, Merlin, Cooper’s Hawk and White-tailed Kite. Finally, staff is concerned should these trees be retained that this will involve a “redesign of the stormwater treatment/retention system and changes in lot grading”. Is it the City’s intention to insure that no project that comes before the City be “redesigned” as a result of advisory body recommendations to improve the project? I think not! Page 30: Biological Resources - Mitigation Measures - Conclusion: “Tree removal associated with the project would be mitigated through compliance with the City’s Tree Ordinance but could result in impact to nesting birds and roosting bats.” Add: “This impact to nesting birds and roosting bats could be reduced if only these trees could be preserved. In the case of redwood trees #17 and #18 with DBH’s of 47 and 40 inches respectively, tree preservation could be achieved by realigning southward Stanford Drive while at the same time realigning the north-south lot lines of lot #’s 23, 22, 21, 20 and 19. This would result in reducing lot #’s 23, 22 and 20 down to 6,000 square feet while maintaining lot #19 at the requisite 6,900 square feet. Lot #’s 9, 10, 11 and 12 could be increased up to 6,300 to 6,700 square feet. By doing this, all road and sidewalk improvements would completely skirt the canopies of two redwood trees, #’s 17 and 18. In the case of redwood tree #23 with a DBH of 48 inches, tree preservation could be achieved by narrowing Cuesta Drive as it negotiates its turn and before realigning with the existing Cuesta Drive. This would result in lot #16 - where the redwood tree is currently situated - being increased to approximately 6,300 square feet.” Explanation: The four Planning Commissioners who reviewed this project on May 26, 2021 voted to continue this item to the meeting of June 23, 2021 with the understanding that the applicant would return with some alternative grading concepts and some alternative circulation concepts that might result in the preservation of more trees (and possibly reduce traffic impacts on the existing neighborhoods). There was a consensus that this project was a “lost opportunity” because the applicant had not yet shown the “ﬂexibility” needed to capitalize on the inherent beauty of this site.