HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/2002, COMM. 1 - MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY q I
RECEIVED
communication DEC 0 2002
SLO CITY CLERK
December 2, 2002
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Christine Mulholland
SUBJECT: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
RECOMMENDATION- Reaffirm support of the extension of the Sanctuary to include the
San Luis Obispo Coastal Areas
Earlier this year, the Council sent a letter to the Management Plan Coordinator of the Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary expressing support for the extension of the boundaries of the
existing sanctuaries to cover the San Luis Obispo coastal areas.
Given that almost a year has passed since we sent our letter of support to the Sanctuary and the
decision to include our coastal areas is still pending, I suggest that the Council send another letter
to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, reaffirming our support for sanctuary status off
our coast. Included in this letter would be a request to endorse the formation of a committee to
research the formulation of an independent sanctuary in the San Luis Obispo coastal area or the
expansion of the existing sanctuary to cover our coastal areas to at least Port Sal. Participants
who have worked on committee to coordinate the public input effort should also be thanked.
Attachment: Letter to Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary dated January 23, 2002
AA(LC '
COUNCIL TCDD DIR,
Z CAO Z. FIN DIR
RED FILE �ACAO Ia FIRE CHIEF
MEETING AGENDA t ATOfL"RNEY 2 PW
DIR
CLERKlORIG POOLICE CHF
DATL� rrEM # '(Amm. I ❑ DEPTHEADS2REC DIR
2 r�[h HRIDRIR
DI
Clt ® SWIS OBISPO
y
OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
990 Palm Street a San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 ■ 805/781-7119
January 23, 2002
Sean Morton
Management Plan Coordinator
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
299 Foam St.
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Extension of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to include San Luis Obispo Coastal Areas
Dear Sean:
I am writing to you on behalf of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo. It is my understanding that
MOAA is currently taking comments on the management plans for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary,
including boundary extensions. On behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo, I would like to express our support for
the extension of the boundaries of existing sanctuaries to cover San Luis Obispo coastal areas.
-he Pacific Coastal area of San Luis Obispo is situated between two National Marine Sanctuaries, the Channel
_slands National Marine Sanctuary to the south and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to the north.
Situated within our coastal environs are: the Morro Bay National Estuary, the Santa Lucia Bank, a major off-shore
bank;the five-fingered, mile deep Arguello Canyon;three major upwellings, including one that is persistent
between Pt. Concepcion and Pt. Sal, which form the basis for the basin's lush web of life that provides nutrients to
the entire Northern Pacific Basin; a world class benthic community, supported by the permanent upwelling; and
Chumash archeological sites, some of which were continuously occupied for 9,000 or more years. The Los
Padres National Forest and the many state and county park areas dotted along the coastal areas from San Simeon to
the Nipomo Dunes are natural activities that account for a significant part of San Luis Obispo's tourist population
dollars.
All of these features, located within the San Luis Obispo coastal region, clearly illustrate the significance of the
area. Therefore, on behalf of the City" of San Luis Obispo,I urge you to consider extending the existing Monterey
Bay Marine Sanctuary to cover San Luis Obispo coastal areas, at least to Pt. Sal.
Sincerely,
Allen Settle
Mayor
RECEIVED7' ..
Congresswoman Capps
Congressman Sam Farr JAN 2 4
Congresswoman Anna Eshoo SLO CITYCity Council
Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Pamela Heatherineton. ECOSLO Director
Dave Romer-520 Grand Avenue Page-1-
From:
age1From: <ANCARTER@aol.com> 4--
To:
To: <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <kschwartz@slocity.org>,
<jewan@slocity.org>, <dromero@slocty.org>
Date: Mon, Dec 2, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: 520 Grand Avenue
Dear Council Members:
I urge you to deny this appeal. I agree with the specifics in the resolution
of denial in your packet:
Inconsistency with SLOMC 17.24.010 (Purpose and Application of the R-1
zone) —specifically as it has to do with"provid[ing]for compatible infill
development...."
Inconsistency with LUE 2.2.10 (Compatible Development within Existing
Neighborhoods)
Inconsistency with HE 7.2.1 (Character, Size, Density, and Quality of
New Residential Development)
With respect to the LUE and HE inconsistencies, I remind you that SLOMC
17.02.030 (General Requirement of the Zoning Regulations) requires you to
"interpret and apply"all zoning regulations"in a manner consistent with the
general plan."
I believe, however, that there are other particulars which provide an even
stronger rationale for denial.
In part, the PC denied this application because it found, "The project design
does not provide convenient or reasonable access from the detached bedrooms
to the kitchen area of the main residence, which increases the likelihood
that the study are will be converted into a kitchen."
Staff believes that the side entry/trellis redesign "adequately addresses the
Commission's concern." I strongly disagree. I believe it is impossible for
the applicant to eliminate the likelihood (in fact, the probability) that the
study will be converted into a kitchen/dining room.
The study Will have a table and chairs. It will have a bar sink. It will
have counter space and outlets, making the addition of hot plates and
microwaves likely. [twill have under-counter space and outlets, making the
addition of a compact refrigerator likely.
I think anyone living in this"detached bedroom unit" (the applicant's
description at the PC)will tum this study area into a"secondary
kitchen/dining room"(my words)for breakfast, light meals, and snacks. Who
wants to walk downstairs and outside to the real kitchen in pajamas and
slippers, particularly at night or on a cold rainy winter's day?
No amount of reasonable oversight by the City or the landlord will be able to
prevent this kitchen-conversion from happening. The only way for the
applicant to prevent this from happening is to eliminate the study.
I also believe the proposed use violates the intent of our High Occupancy
Residential Use Regulations(17.93). 17.93 never once mentions"detached
Davy Romelb-520 Grand Avenue Page 2
bedroom units"or"guesthouses." At all pertinent points, it uses"dwelling"
in the singular. Also, under 17.93.030.8, it states, "Where this chapter
does not contain a particular type of standard or procedure, conventional
zoning standards shall apply."
There is nothing "conventional" about this three-bedroom detached unit. As
staff states on p. 2-27, "[T]his building would be the first that staff is
aware of that includes multiple bedrooms."
Most importantly, you must deny this appeal because of the precedent it will
establish. As stated on p. 2-5, 'The Commission did believe the project
would be precedent setting in a Citywide contact."
By allowing the use of"detached bedroom units"for high occupancy purposes,
you greatly expand the potential for high occupancy permits in R-1 zones all
over town. I do not think this is something the community supports. And the
only required review will be by staff, since high occupancy permits are
normally approved at the administrative level.
More importantly, Finding 3 of the resolution for approval, p. 2-54, in
effect says this"detached bedroom unit' IS a "guest house" under our zoning
regulations. Consider the implications when occupancy by six or more adults
is NOT contemplated. You've just established a"by right'allowance for
detached multiple-bedroom units in R-1 zones all over town.
And by extension, Finding 4, p. 2-55, establishes a"by right" impetus for
the establishment of detached three-lodger boarding houses all over town.
(The boarding house definition only applies when one is renting to four of
more lodgers.)
Do you really want to do all this? I believe we need to increase housing
densities in town, but not by this backdoor methodology.
As I stated at the PC meeting, the appropriate methodology for increasing the
density on this site is for it to be rezoned from R-1 to something higher.
Many on the PC seemed to agree with me on this, by either upzoning the three
lots on the south side of Loomis or upzoning all property facing Grand.
(As an aside, when Mr. Barasch bought this house last year, it had only 3
bedrooms. He's already added 2 additional bedrooms following normal zoning
and building guidelines. The house used to be a"U"with a patio in the open
space. He can certainly wait for the property to be upzoned before he adds
more.)
As a final note, the fact that this site can take further density is not, I
believe, a valid argument for accomplishingit in the manner the applicant
proposes. The means do notjustify the ends because of the Pandora's box you
open.
I apologize for my long-windedness.
Andrew Carter
l2-/311OR
Q -
RESIDENTS FOR QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS
0
Cliff C0
December 3, 2002 C _
/oaf p t,IE&
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Re: Minor Subdivision with Exceptions to Lot Depth and Setback Requirements, 530 Serrano.
Meeting Date: 12-03-02
Item# PH -3
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
RQN opposes the subdivision of the abovementioned parcel for the following reasons:
1. The current staff report fails to disclose a previous application for subdivision of this
property that was denied by an Administrative Hearing Officer. The denial was based in
part on the steepness of the sloped lot.
2. Because the previous application was not disclosed there is no way to determine
whether there has been any substantial change that might merit a reversal of the
decision.
3. The methodologies used by both staff and the project engineer to determine the average
cross-slope of the property should have been provided or verified by independent
analysis.
4. Due to the steepness of the slope this project does not seem consistent with the other
subdivided lots in the neighborhood.
5. The existing residence is a student rental owned by the absentee landlord/applicant and
there is fear among the residents that mote of the same will cause further erosion of the
quality of life in their neighborhood.
6. We are very concerned with what appears to be a concentrated effort to increase the
density in and dilute the current zoning requirements for our low density residential
neighborhoods.
Therefore, we request that you deny this application,
Sincerely,
Cydney Holcomb
Chairperson, RQN
P.O.Boz 12604 a San Luis Obispo=CA•93406 www.rgnsio.org
December 3, 2002
City of Stan Luis Obispo
AFEN: City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: High-Occupancy Residential Use Permit Application, A 90-02, for 520 Grand Avenue
Dear Councilmembers:
1 honestly do not understand why we are still discussing this project. As the stag report states,
this is not a guest house—review of the municipal code confirms that —and it's not a garage or a
shed, either.
So, if it's not one of these structures, what is it'? Trudging through the city's land use and zoning
regulations, l could find only three types of what 1 would call "outbuildings" allowed in areas zoned
for single-family residences: guest house, garage and shed. Nothing like this proposed structure is
allowed in R-1. Actually, nothing like this proposed structure is allowed anywhere.
Looking at R-2 zones, second residences may be built on the same lot. There are size and
configuration restrictions, of course. This structure would not meet those requirements.
The conclusion 1 reached was that this project involves erecting an inexpensive second
residence consisting of 3 bedrooms, 1 bath and space for a kitchenette—which would not meet city
standards in R-2, 3 or 4—and putting it in a single-family neighborhood where it isn't allowed
either.
1 know "density" is a hot topic these days. A common belief is that by increasing density in our
city, major problems will be solved. Often forgotten are the problems created by density. So . . . if
we are to increase housing density in the city, we need to insure it is well-planned density so that we
can avoid as many of the problems as possible. Approving projects here and there throughout the city
because they contribute to density can have far-reaching and unintended results. It would seem
much better to wait until the Housing Task Force completes its task and let the city grow in a well-
thought-out, planned manner.
The concept of this project on Grand Avenue is defective. A side door and covered walkway do
not make it any less defective. The Planning Commission's ruling should stand;this structure
should not be built; the high occupancy permit should not be issued.
Sincerely,
Sandra Rowley