Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/2018 Item 1, Schmidt From:Richard Schmidt < Sent:Monday, June 25, To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Planning Commission Agenda -- North Broad Rezoning Attachments:bressi subdivision w pix PC 8.14.25.doc June 25, 2018 “North Broad Rezoning” – wildlife corridor Dear Planning Commission, I strongly urge you to protect the wildlife corridor across the Bressi estate with at least S-overlay zoning. In that sense, I’m happy to see this item finally making its way to you. Unfortunately, it’s unclear to me staff’s proposal actually accomplishes the needed protection they advertise it as providing. As I write, Mr. Codron agrees that the map in your packet is unclear, and says staff is working on clarification. Since it is unknown at present what will be changed by staff between now and your meeting, I feel I must proceed with pointing out the apparent failure of the proposal in your packet to protect the entire length of the wildlife corridor and seasonal stream through this property. This particular wildlife corridor is overdue for protection. It has been long recognized as a major – and the last -- corridor linking two distinct habitats – the upland mountain habitat and the riparian habitat along Old Garden Creek. It is used by animals large and small. In 2006 it was recognized as a feature to be protected by the General Plan (Conservation and Open Space Element), and I’d suggest zoning consistency with the General Plan is thus long overdue. With development pressures, the corridor could – absent city protective action – disappear altogether, which would fragment the now-connected habitats into non-sustainable “island” habitats. Proper protective measures could, on the other hand, maintain this connectivity in perpetuity. So I’m glad something is finally happening. 1 The problem with staff’s proposal is it apparently protects only the lower portion of the corridor/stream on the Bressi estate with a “special considerations” S-overlay. The wildlife corridor doesn’t end at the point where the indicated S-overlay ends. It continues on up the mountain on the Bressi estate to connect with the Madonna property, which is mostly outside the city. At that point, the corridor joins the general open space of the entire mountain, which in turn connects with habitats beyond via linkage to Bishop’s Peak. So it makes no sense to protect only the lower extremity of the corridor nearest Broad Street. The S-overlay needs to continue all the way upslope through the Bressi estate. Protecting the upper portions of the corridor is especially important since soil instability is so bad on the southerly portion of the C-OS-zoned area that any development on it would likely be pushed towards the corridor and seasonal stream area. And development there could be disastrous for the corridor’s functional survival. (C-OS zones are not exempt from development. Staff has previously explained to the PC that no matter how small a C-OS-20 parcel, it has development entitlements.) Thus I urge you, in approving this S-overlay, to make certain it extends from Broad Street to the Madonna property, in continuous, uninterrupted fashion. There is much background to this wildlife corridor matter that you may not be aware of. To fill that in, for those of you with interest in the background, I’ve attached a letter I sent to the commission in 2015, when the commission ended up directing the S-overlay to come back to you. The letter makes an argument about timing for protection that’s irrelevant to your present consideration, but if you ignore that, the rest provides a rich history and highlights the need for protecting this corridor. Thank you, Richard Schmidt 2 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, I 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 cityʼs 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 only access 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. Whatʼs 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 cityʼs 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. Caption: Bressi wildlife corridor viewed from Broad Street. Seasonal stream at left. The driveway is seen at center going up the hill. Land to its left needs to be protected with an open space easement. 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 thereʼs “nothing happening” on the “remainder parcel,” that “fact” somehow making it different. My response is thereʼs “nothing happening” on any of the parcels – itʼs 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, shouldnʼt 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. Iʼve 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 propertyʼs 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 cityʼs use of even minor permits to implement the COSE wildlife corridor directive. I 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 timing 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. 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 recognized as major threats to wildlife sustainability. Wildlife planning 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 donʼt use the Bressi wildlife corridor, but itʼs interesting theyʼre still there), and the occasional muskrat swimming in the creek. And lots more. (Iʼve 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 Deer1 * Cougar2 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 1 The blockʼs 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. 2 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 (Stellarʼs 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 whatʼs present, but one personʼs notations.