Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 2 (Schmidt)Lomeli, Monique Subject: Planning Commission b8' � �" � From: Richard Schmidt Meeting: PC LO Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 11:29 AM 2 To: Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity.orp item: Subject: Planning Commission RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 0 9 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: zoning update study session — "S -overlay zoning 159 Broad Street" Dear Planning Commissioners, This is a reminder there's unfinished zoning business at 159/161 Broad Street regarding an S - overlay the Commission promised to institute in order to protect a major wildlife corridor at that location. A year ago, as part of an appeal regarding a "disappearing" conservation easement on part of this property during a subdivision action, the Commission, on motion by Mike Multari, promised to place an S -overlay on the parcel's zoning to prevent dismemberment of the major wildlife corridor that links the mountain to the creek. We were told this would be done the next time the Commission took up a zoning conformity agenda, which usually occurs at least once per year. It has been a year, and nothing's happened. Perhaps the general zoning revisions now before you would provide the opportunity to take this action. Those of us concerned with this matter respectfully request that, however it gets done, the Commission take steps now to make the S -overlay happen. Thank you. Richard Schmidt PS. To refresh your memories about the issue, I'm attaching a letter I sent to you last year in support of my neighbors' appeal. RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail: slobuild@yahoo.com Agenda Item 1, appeal, 159 Broad Subdivision Dear Planning Commissioners, support the appeal of this project. My concern is the "disappearing" open space easement, advertised on the administrative hearing notification postcard sent to nearby residents like myself, but totally gone at the hearing, without adequate explanation for its disappearance. I am asking that you restore that advertised.. easement over the southerly_ portion of the property as a condition of this subdivision approval, because presumably the easement was to protect the major wildlife corridor, shown in Figure 3 of the city's Conservation and Open Space Element, which links upland San Luis Mountain habitats with the riparian habitat of all -season Old Garden Creek, which is a very active habitat I doubt you are familiar with. The corridor also provides the oaccess for wildlife on the south, east and north sides of San Luis Mountain to natural water throughout the dry season — i.e., Old Garden Creek. (And with Laguna Lake dry, water is now essentially gone from the west side as well.) When dealing with any development entitlements on the lower fragmented portions of this corridor — i.e., to the east of North Broad Street — the city has imposed protective measures at the earliest entitlement even though it knew subsequent entitlements would be sought. The precedent for protecting this wildlife corridor at the earliest opportunity is thus established by prior city actions. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander! In light of this precedent, it makes zero sense for the city to fail to protect the single large upper corridor — i.e., west of North Broad -- when it has so studiously protected its fragmented lower portions. It is only fair that the major property owner uphill plays by the same rules as the little guys downhill and provides permanent corridor protection at the time of earliest entitlements. I will explain all of this in more detail, so please bear with me. The Bressi Wildlife Corridor. This corridor has been well recognized as a wildlife highway for many years. It is the only place undeveloped land comes down the mountain to Broad Street. Its frontage there is approximately 80 feet (excluding the driveway). That is a very small frontage for the quantity of wildlife activity accommodated there, thus it all needs to be kept open and protected by easement. There is a seasonal creek, which can become a raging torrent after a good rain, that runs along one edge of the corridor. Although this is not a scientific statement, my informed judgment from living daily with this place for more than 40 years is that the protected wildlife corridor should include everything to the south of the Bressi driveway (the 80 foot strip at the street on upwards as it widens a bit) throughout the property currently being subdivided. A crimped 20 or 30 foot strip between houses will not provide the protection required for wildlife movement of the magnitude present here. I would point out the city's General Plan, which the Commission is directed to implement, requires protection of this wildlife corridor. The operant COSE directive is policy "7.7.8. Protect wildlife corridors, which states in its essence: "Condition development ... to ensure that important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected... Linkages and corridors shall be provided to maintain connections between habitat areas." (my emphasis on "shall") Please note, this directs the Commission not just to protect the corridor, but to protect linkages "between habitat areas" such as between the mountain and riparian habitats in this particular case. I hope I have made this point clearly enough. (I've separately attached a photo of the Bressi wildlife corridor — apologies, but haven't figured out how to reduce the size of photos from my new camera so they'll fit in an email capable document size.) Timeliness of Requiring the Open Space Easement Now. When should the Bressi wildlife corridor be protected by easement? I believe now, at the first entitlement sought on the property, is the proper time for securing the portion of the corridor on that property. As alluded to previously, the city has already established this timing as a precedent. So, why, then the delaying? I believe part of the problem is the mischaracterization of the project as a subdivision of "four parcels" plus a "remainder parcel." I call this "mischaracterization" because it is a silly and inaccurate description. The project actually involves subdividing a single parcel into five parcels, each with a single residence on it. Staff has said there's "nothing happening" on the "remainder parcel," that "fact" somehow making it different. My response is there's "nothing happening" on any of the parcels — it's strictly a subdivision of one parcel into five, each with a pre-existing residence. Subdivision of property is a discretionary entitlement, meaning the city has the right not just to say yes or no, but also to set conditions, such as implementing provisions of the General Plan. This subdivision involves a second, higher, level of discretionary approvals beyond mere subdivision — variances for each of the four smaller parcels. Variances are exceptions to established rules which traditionally the city has been loathe to grant. For a subdivision to involve multiple variances and the city to require nothing in return for that privilege is in my experience most unusual. Failing to pursue the open space easement it must obtain to implement the General Plan feels as if the city is being negligent. When one properly characterizes this as a five parcel subdivision with multiple variances, shouldn't that be all the impetus needed to secure an open space easement over the wildlife corridor that crosses one of those parcels? The Precedents. As stated above, when dealing with property entitlements to the east of Broad, the city has assiduously sought protection of wildlife passages through established R-1 lots. I claim some credit for educating staff about the need for this, after watching one key property fence out wildlife, leaving them running along the street, dodging nighttime traffic, seeking passage elsewhere. In those days staff was receptive to citizen insights and input. I've included a diagram that illustrates these precedents. The first precedent came with subdivision of 172 Broad, a deep lot, into three lots. This property is directly across Broad from the lower end of the Bressi wildlife corridor, contains the lower end of the seasonal creek that comes down the mountain, and was famous in neighborhood annals for recently having housed a young cougar for a season while he grew to adult cougarhood, at which point he returned to wild lands. I spoke with staff, explained how important the wildlife passage through this property was, and they got it. The result was a requirement for a linear passageway through the length of the property, to provide access from the street to Old Garden Creek, which is just beyond the property's east boundary. Approval also included S -designations on the new lots to assure wildlife compatibility, among other things. After that project had made its way through the process, the Deputy Director penned a letter to me thanking me for the effort to educate staff about neighborhood wildlife issues, and saying how helpful it had been. Note that the wildlife corridor protections were sought at the first entitlement stage, and not reserved for the subsequent S -designation review. Also note that, unlike the Bressi subdivision, this was a simple subdivision that required no exceptions or variances. The second precedent was 148 Broad, another deep lot project, involving addition of a second large house to an existing parcel that was large enough for a second house to potentially be approved — in other words, a different type of discretionary entitlement, a use permit. Staff knew this would be the first of several entitlements sought (the plan for the house was drawn on something that was clearly a subdivision map), but nonetheless sought wildlife protections at the time of this first entitlement. I would argue that a second house permit is an entitlement of lower planning magnitude than a subdivision, so we can see the city's use of even minor permits to implement the COSE wildlife corridor directive. urged staff to require a wildlife passageway similar to that at 172 Broad, and staff on their own also required two additional wildlife -protective measures: 1, a substantially larger than minimum setback of the house from the top of bank of the creek, and 2, an open space easement over the portion of the property east of Old Garden Creek, which is forested, to protect its habitat from future development. This is an interesting precedent akin to the Bressi property — this was an estate -sized property with plenty of space to do things correctly, and the city drew upon that fact in setting its wildlife requirements. In both of these precedents, the city required wildlife corridors though individual pre- existing R-1 lots in return for entitlements less than those being sought by the Bressi applicants. So, the timinc} precedent — seeking wildlife corridor protection as early as possible in the entitlement process — is well established. This precedent merits Commission support. The Bressi subdivision, with its discretionary approval with variances, together with its creation of an entirely new entity in the form of the mischaracterized "remainder parcel," offers the city the opportunity to protect a wildlife corridor and thus implement the General Plan COSE at the earliest opportunity, just as it did on the lots below. 148 BROAD 001-014-014 1. -lite az cur CJ'0A' / d� '304d 5J. 11,E k:s t 4wo wird Ae �ia �i7 tar -radar 4Y Oa 64eWO 41" /It I -,F . Z . Irl► s} u Tkv-J, w4K 17Z Bra")------------------ �u1 ►vi l; ter. 4 . " d,Aw ""'v. a sr [f CriY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GEODATA SERVICES 955 MORRO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93901 'YL^FY i 751-7167 l]wim ISA8 Old Garden Creek/ 100 block of Broad habitat. Commissioners should also be aware that loss of the Bressi wildlife corridor would not just harm upland species seeking to move about and to find summer water, but also would cut off the vibrant riparian habitat of the interior of our block from the nearest wild land, and would thereby diminish its viability as habitat. Fragmentation of habitats and isolation of habitats from one another are reco niz d as major threats to wildlife sustainability. WildlifeI nnin today is all about "connectivity," at whatever scale that connectivity needs to be managed. Our block is most extraordinary — few understand a place like this exists in San Luis Obispo. With deep lots and an all -year stream at its heart, it is unique. I call it "urban wilderness," a slight exaggeration to those who know true wilderness, but an apt description nonetheless, for we have incredible biodiversity in the isolated core of the block that is most unusual inside any city. The late Councilman Myron Graham once visited my back yard, which is at one end of the block far from the center habitat core, and remarked while standing in the forest by Old Garden Creek: "This is like going to Big Sur." Unfortunately, like so much of town this unique place is being impacted by real estate pressures and official policies encouraging densification rather than being appreciated by outsiders and officials as something unique and worth protecting, yet thus far the core remains strong. So, this is a very unusual place. We have, as mentioned, cougars in our block. And bears. We have deer families who seem to live there all the time. We have trout (OK, they don't use the Bressi wildlife corridor, but it's interesting they're still there), and the occasional muskrat swimming in the creek. And lots more. (I've appended a list I made several years ago highlighting some of the animal diversity, for your possible interest and understanding.) The viability of all of this would be threatened if cut off from wild land by the loss of the Bressi wildlife corridor. Conclusion. I urge you to restore the "disappeared" open space easement to protect the portion of the Bressi wildlife corridor that falls on the property being subdivided. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment 1: Some species observed in Old Garden Creek habitat, 100 block Broad Mammals Deer' * Cougar' Fox Muskrat Raccoon Possum Bats (various)* California Black Bear Amphibians and Reptiles Pacific Pond Turtles Frogs, possibly Red -Legged Snakes (various) Lizards (various) Fishes Various small native fishes Crayfish Rainbow trout, and possibly steelhead Birds Hawks (various)* Kestrels* Kites Owls (various) Egrets* Herons* Wild ducks3 ' The block's interior appears to be a nursery ground, as well as a dry -season refuge, where does raise their fawns. Evidence suggests it may be a birthing ground as well as each year does are seen there with babies for a number of months. ' Although cougars are seldom sighted, one less wily juvenile spent a season in the large backyard of a vacant house, and was photographed by neighbors. More recently was the notorious attack of a cougar on piglets, a front-page newspaper story just weeks after the city biologist had dismissed — in testimony to the Planning Commission — all claims of megafauna in the block. 3 Ducks fly in and out of the creek area, and some live there for months at a time, especially in late winter/early spring. Presumably these are protected migratory birds. * Designated "Species of Local Concern," Appendix A, City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006. Pheasant Quail Woodpeckers (various) Song birds (too many to list here; wrens* nest successfully here) Migratory birds (change by season) Hummingbirds (several species)* Jays (Stellar's and scrub) Insects Honey bees (wild hives) Native bees (various) Monarch butterfly wintering grounds (small scale, but persistent)* This is undoubtedly not a complete list of what's present, but one person's notations.