The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/26/2021 Item 2, Czech Wilbanks, Megan From:Genevieve Czech < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Planning Commission meeting, May 26, 2021, Item 2; SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020; re: 468-500 Westmont This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ________________________________ Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: re: Item 2, 468-500 Westmont; SBDV -0169-2020 &EID-0170-2020 I am grateful to have access, finally, to the details of the above proposal, and for being given as much as five whole days to read, understand, absorb, and respond to the 126 pages of detailed information; to share them with the neighbors, most of whom are VLTRs ( very long-term residents ) and co-ordinate their responses. I do think that more time would have been more appropriate - I hope that the Planning Commission would agree that were a continuance granted on 468-500 Westmont, it would benefit the public input and thereby bring the project to a satisfactory outcome. Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, stated that the project could have a ¨significant effect¨ on the environment, but that no further action is required since mitigation measures have been imposed. However, the project remains to be reviewed by other bodies and by public viewing . Extensive recommendations on matters like the control of dust, particulates, leaks, smell, noise, toxins to preserve the health and well being of the ¨sensitive receptors¨; we local residents are the senstive receptors., and since the project will be uondertaken in phases, the disruption is more long-term than the short-term referenced in the review. City Staff has alread recommended the PC approve the proposal as it stands; in fact, the document is written in the past tense on the assumption that the PC will indeed approve it without further objection. It states that the Planning Commission met on May 26th, 2021¨, when the document was published on the 21st May. It is like reading an obituary of someone before that person has died. This very matter came up at the Tree Commission meeting when one member inquired of the Chair if it did not appear that the City had already made a ¨determination¨ of the project in the form submitted to the TC for evaluation. The Chair assured her that such was an ongoing problem over many years, which led them to raise the concern to the City Council. If the Council has apparently addressed the matter with some improvement, thie 460-500 Westmont proposal does not bear the quality of being ¨undetermined¨ by the City staff until it has heard from the TC, PC , and the public. If this proposal is meant to be complete, having met and addressed mitigation requirements, how is it that the future development of the parcel after the groundwork, after the asbestos removal/ stormwater/ grading/water/sewage/electricity and gas/sidewalk and road construction/monitoring by an Indian representative for cultural artifacts/a biologist to monitor the burrowing owl and collect and resow seed from the hill morning glory, and other issues, AFTER all these efforts, the actual design and construction of the residential units, and possibly ADUs and JADUs is left to such ¨trust¨ and loose language as ¨it is anticipated that single family units in compatibility with existing neighborhoods will be built ¨, is not submitted.? Would anyone sign off a large project with an agreement that the major completion of the project remains to be submitted? Would anyone entrust a future plan that is merely ¨anticipated¨? 1 Again, there is (p. 68, ER) mention that future construction MAY require additional tree removal, potential earthwork, and impervious surface area with specifics UNKNOWN at this time. There are further matters entrusted to the applicant, such as the applicant providing the City with a copy of the Habitat Monitoring plan, and appointing the biological monitor responsible for the plan. Will the biological monitor ensure that the nursery site of the burrowing owl is not impeded, if that nursery site has not been identified? The plan relies on the design of a road linking Stanford Drive and Cuesta with 2 individual entry and egress areas off the eastern and western portions of Westmont. While the design of the loop Stanford/Cuesta Road appears feasible enough, it entails using roads of different widths, as Stanford is a narrow road, and already impacted by dense traffic and parking from students residing in family homes. In the event of a wildfire or nuclear alert, would there be sufficient egress for all the vehicles relying on the road design of this plan? The Math for 23 units + ADUs + JADUs and the vehicles they represent increases the vehicular impact on a modest neighborhood enormously. The further and equally serious problem is that the proposed road design necessitates the removal of the redwood trees fronting the current residence, and which if left intact would interfere with the sidewalk width proposed, namely 5 feet detached sidewalks. The design is herein fundamentally flawed, for to remove coastal redwoods is unjustifiable, given the special qualities a tree celebrated all over the world for its majesty, and celebrated by ornithologists ( and our City arborist ) for its complex nature, as host to innumerable birds and mammals. What an irony that the very weekend we study a proposal that recommends the removal of redwoods, the SLO Botanical Gardens sponsors a ¨Mystery of Trees¨ workshop for our elementary school children and parents and interested parties. The coastal redwood is naturally resistant to insects, fungi, FIRE, by its thick bark and tannin. They capture more Carbon Dioxide than any other tree on earth. They receive the morning fog, strip the fog, and it drips off not only the redwoods, but to the plant life beneath. When they are removed even nearby stream water is decreased. Eagles, egrets, herons, spotted owls and even condors are known to nest in their branches. The branches themselves receive seeds and fungi and form a canopy soil that forms a community. They are the most resilient trees on earth. Even the Humboldt Redwood Company protects redwoods whose DBH measures 48 inches. You work AROUND trees, incorporating them into creative and beautified home sites. These reservations and serious considerations were not included in the TC Minutes, and the ensuing discussion was stifled. This Environmental Review gives so much consideration to Cambrian morning glory, which while it is designated by them as rare, is growing from north of Santa Rosa, CA, to south of SLO, and here in many fields and verges, and capable of reseeding itself and being reseeded. The same review gives so little consideration to 2 redwood trees. The Big Sur is generally considered to be the southern limit of the coastal redwoods, and we are blessed to have some representatives here in SLO. Surely, the fire prevention and suppression approval would not advise the removal of the redwoods. Each individual tree should be preserved and cherished, and should enter the ethnobotanical history of San Luis Obispo. Please give yourselves and the public more time to consider these many matters before hastening to approve this project. This is one of the last parcels of pristine land on the northern rim of SLO, and to the credit of its owners has been maintained with considerable care. Its subsequent history should reflect the same care, in truth yet more, given the current ongoing drought and uncertainties of climate change. Respectfully submitted, Genevieve Czech, 612 Stanford Drive, SLO 2