Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-2016 PC Correspondence - Item 2 (Cooper 2)Meeting: U 10 1 Lp Item: 2 - To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Re: Review Scope of Work for 2016 Zoning Regulations Update From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUG 0 9 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Honorable Chair and Commissioners - I would like to draw your attention to two LUE Programs omitted from the proposed scope of work which are particularly pertinent and could have bearing on revisions to the Zoning Regulations. 2.13. `Neighborhood Compatibility' would address new regulations for Low -Density and Medium -Density Residential areas requiring special review for incompatible infill projects. This LUE Program is especially pertinent given the number of appeals recently filed by neighborhood groups regarding infill projects in low-density and medium -density residential areas. See below: Approx. Date February 4, 2014 February 17, 2014 October 18, 2014 November 17, 2014 March 6, 2015 May 15, 2015 June 2, 2015: ARC September 17, 2015 September 23, 2015 May 3, 2016 June 27, 2016 City Ruling/Other Setbacks CC appeal lost: Monterey Place CC appeal lost: Monterey Hotel CC appeal lost: Mission School CC appeal upheld: 1327 Osos St. St. Fraty's Party Roof Cave -In Court case lost: Cal Poly Master Plan Update EIR CC appeal upheld: Mini -dorms Grand Ave. 323-353 CC appeal lost: 1144 Chorro St. Discovery SLO PC appeal lost: 159 Broad St. CC appeal lost: 48 Buena Vista CHC lost: 71 Palomar Neighborhood Dana/Monterey Street Neighborhood San Luis Drive Neighborhood Mission Orchard Neighborhood Old Town Neighborhood Hathway Neighborhood Alta Vista Neighborhood Alta Vista Neighborhood Downtown Neighborhood N. Broad/Serrano Neighborhood Monterey Heights Neighborhood N. Broad Neighborhood 9.10. `Urban Forest' would address the need for an update to the master tree plan and develop recommendations to renew and maintain the urban forest and plant more trees. Particular attention should be given to Ordinance No. 1544 (2010 Series). Because of recent questions raised regarding the proposed clear cut of 48 old growth trees at 71 Palomar, we have uncovered the need for more clarity on the protocols regarding evaluation of trees and evaluation of "cultural landscapes". These protocols could address the following policies: 1. The City Arborist's unilateral decision-making ability. Does he unnecessarily diminish the role of the Tree Committee? 2. The Tree Committee's right to initiate a discussion on any issue. 3. The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the final outcome. Also, discussion could center on how these arborist consultants are selected. 4. The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely dependent on the public to identify trees suitable for this program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be more proactive in this regard? 5. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how trees maintain biodiversity, i.e., the role certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting grounds and pollination pastures for a wide range of insects and animals? 6. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address the role trees play in sequestering greenhouse gases? By the way, some species do this better than others. 7. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how various species of trees are not only more drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water than newly planted specimens? 8. Clarification is needed on existing, ambiguous and conflicting policies. For example look at the following link "San Luis Obispo Heritage Tree Program Information Packet" available online (see: http:l/www.slocity.org/homelshowdocument?id=3373). This information packet states the following: "The Tree Committee proposes the following plan to formalize this Heritage Tree Program, so that citizens and groups may participate in this community program." "How To Apply For Designation a. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services b. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff c. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee d. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council — adopt resolution — designation as Heritage Tree" What is not clear is when did the Tree Committee propose this plan and when does it become effective? It is also not clear who comprises the "Urban Forest Services staff"? Moreover a "Heritage Tree Program of San Luis Obispo Information Packet and Form" contains the following verbiage: "There are three categories of Heritage Trees: a. Public trees — parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc. b. Voluntary cooperation — privately owned trees. c. Required cooperation — tree preservation in new developments, etc. However there is serious ambiguity surrounding the term "required cooperation" for new developments. Does this "required cooperation" override the owner's consent? In conclusion, please add LUE 2.13 and LUE 9.10 to your list of priority tasks. Thank you!