The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/28/2021 Item 4a, Cooper Wilbanks, Megan From:Allan Cooper < To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Advisory Bodies; Corey, Tyler Subject:Letter to the Planning Commission Attachments:807_27_21...lettertopc.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Tyler & Kyle - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Planning Commission? I would also like this letter to appear in the City's Correspondence File. This letter pertains to the Planning Commission's July 28, 2021 review of Public Hearing Item 4a: 468/500 Westmont Ave. Thank you! - Allan 1 To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, Kyle Bell & Kyle Van Leeuwen Re: July 6, 2021 Public Hearing Item 4A: 468/500 Westmont Ave. Review Of Item No. 3157, 23 Lot Subdivision And Environmental Review  From: Allan Cooper, et. al., San Luis Obispo CA Date: July 27, 2021 Honorable Chair Jorgensen and Commissioners - At your May 26th hearing, you requested that the applicant review alternative grading concepts to further preserve large trees and to address concerns raised related to transportation and trafﬁc impacts. However, there has been very little modiﬁcation made to the previous design. For example, staff decided to retain the proposed street conﬁguration based on the following argument: “These new streets would improve emergency access.” Currently, the two existing streets do not terminate in a cul-de-sac turnaround, which is considered an undesirable scenario. But should Westmont Ave. run through between Jeffrey and Westmont to the east, between-lot, ﬁre truck easements running from Westmont to both Stanford and Cuesta could easily accommodate this problem. Admittedly, one of the four trees that the Tree Committee recommended saving, a 42 inch diameter eucalyptus tree adjacent to the creek, “may” remain where it is. However, staff and the applicant determined that “greater tree protection in most instances would require changes in grading or site engineering such that the project would be brought out of compliance with applicable regulations and standards related to grading and site engineering.” Unfortunately, under the consultant’s “review for preservation of trees” on pages 163 through 166, one cannot ﬁnd an argument justifying the removal of the three giant redwoods with 3-1/2 to 4 foot diameter trunks (tree #s 17, 18 and 23). As a reminder, City Standards and Ordinances pertaining to subdivisions state: “Natural contours shall be preserved in new subdivisions to the greatest extent possible.” Clearly these three redwood trees should remain if the applicant is “adhering to the natural contours”. Staff acknowledged that while retention of the non-native trees in the creek corridor is possible, this would conﬂict with a “Fire Protection Report” which calls for non-native trees within the corridor to be removed. But when inspecting the City Fire Department’s “Wildland Fire Preparedness” bulletin (which appears on the City’s website) any characterization of non- native trees and plants as highly ﬂammable cannot be found. In fact under the listing of “desirable plants” there is the Strawberry Tree, European Olive and the Holly Oak (all natives of the Mediterranean region), the Burford Holly (native to China), Pineapple Guava (native to South America), etc. The “undesirable plant list” includes many natives including coyote bush, tumbleweed, California sagebrush, and black sage. So why are we removing the European Olive #169 the eleven Acacia Dealbata, the Japanese Aralia #14 and the three Coastal Live Oaks #60, #61, #62 from the creek corridor where grading and drainage are not an issue? Staff argues that keeping the Acacias would reduce the buildable footprint of Lot 3. Considering that Lot 3 is 9,750 sq. ft. and that most of the Acacias are located within the creek setback, we do not see this as a constraint. As I’ve stated in my previous letter to you, many botanists claim that Acacia trees are ﬁre resistant when they are healthy, free of dead wood and well-hydrated. Again, your staff report does not include a map superimposing the proposed tree removals over the proposed lot lines. However, we hope you had the opportunity to study the exhibit included in the City’s Staff Agenda Correspondence File courtesy of planner Kyle Van Leeuwen and Deputy Director Tyler Corey. Thanks to this submittal, we can ﬁnally see how the lot lines could be reconﬁgured in order to save any existing trees (especially the three redwoods). One can see that the two redwood trees #17 and #18 are located within the sidewalk fronting lots 11 and 12. In order to save these trees, we are suggesting that the designer move Westmont Ave. a mere ten feet to the south with the result that lots 21, 20 and 19 would decrease in size and lots 11 and 12 would increase in size (the west property line of lot 21 could move west into lot 22 in order to maintain the minimum 6,000 sq. ft.). The third redwood tree #23 is located in the sideyard of lot 19. This lot, at 6,691 sq. ft., could easily accommodate such a tree. In conclusion, many of the residents of San Luis Obispo are becoming increasingly concerned that the City seems determined to fast-track the kind of development that eliminates thoughtful, sustainable, and yes, “resilient” design - the kind of design we used to know where every attempt was made to work around healthy mature trees in order to preserve them. Too often, we’re being confronted with generic building sites where the land is both mass-graded and clear-cut. Thank you for listening!