Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/2021 Item 2, Schroeter Wilbanks, Megan From:Schroeter Family < To:Advisory Bodies Cc:Schroeter Family Subject:Fwd: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Public Meeting Comments May 26th Attachments:2021040701_Schroeter Comment to 500 Westmont Meinhold Property Housing Development.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Schroeter Family <schroeters617@gmail.com> Date: Wed, May 26, 2021 at 2:54 PM Subject: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Public Meeting Comments May 26th To: <advisorybodies@slocity.org> Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen Please find the attached comments for tonights public comment period for the 500 Meinhold Project. Thanks for your time! Robert Schroeter 530-219-9693 1 Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen May 25, 2021 Page 1 May 25, 2021 Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 kvanleeuwen@slocity.org REVIEW OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TRACT 3157) TO CREATE 23 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON AN EXISTING 4.98-ACRE SITE WITHIN THE LOW- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 468-500 WESTMONT AVENUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP – DATED APRIL 2021 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2021040701) Mr. Van Leeuwen: We recently learned of the Tentative Tract Map (Tract 3157) and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for 468-500 Westmont Avenue (Project). We own property adjacent to the proposed development and have concerns about the lack of outreach to the community, Project density and potential significant environmental impacts related to Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation, and Wildlife. While mitigation measures are proposed, without any scientific analysis or additional details regarding the Project, it is unknown whether the mitigation measures will be sufficient to address these impacts. Thus, the MND should be revised to identify these potentially significant impacts. Thank you for considering the comments below: Lack of Direct Outreach to the Community The Project includes 4.98 acres divided into 23 parcels and with 23 proposed residential dwellings (with associated ADUs and JADUs). As such, this is considered a major project requiring minimum notification to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the Project boundaries and those that will be affected by traffic and pollution effects. Our property at 617 Jeffrey Drive is adjacent to the Project and we did not receive any notification of the Project. In addition, inquiring with our neighbors at 623 Jeffrey and 629 Jeffrey, which are also adjacent to the Project and within 300 feet of the Project boundaries, they also did not receive any notification of the project. Additionally, it appears that the CEQA public comment period is from April 29, 2021 – May 31, 2021. Please clarify how the Planning Commission can review all public comments and adopt the MND prior to the close of the public comment period? Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen May 25, 2021 Page 2 Request: • Please review public notification radius and confirm that all property owners and tenants of these properties have received formal notification of the Project, If property owners or tenants were omitted from this process, please re -notice this agenda item, so they have adequate opportunity to provide public comment. • Please include these property owners and tenants on the formal Interested Parties List to receive any future correspondence. 1. Maintaining Open Space and Project Density a. The Project is converting considerable natural open space to multiple dwellings with minimal open space, due to the high number and density of proposed lots. Please consider reducing the number of parcels to maintain a portion of the current open space, which functions as both important wildlife habitat and a corridor to the upstream freshwater emergent wetland and surrounding open space (annual grassland) located on undeveloped land to the north of the project site. The open space with greatest ecological value on the Project site is adjacent to the high priority riparian area and creek. Maintaining this area as open space is consistent with the City’s LUE Policy 2.3.7 and LUE Policy 2.3.10 and can be accomplished by removing only a small subset of the parcels (i.e. proposed parcels 1-3) of the Project. LUE Policy 2.3.7. Natural Features: The City shall require residential developments to preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as landforms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants. LUE Policy 2.3.10 Site Constraints: The City shall require new residential developments to respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, native vegetat ion, and significant trees. b. Project Density and Determination of Allowed Development - The Project is converting a two-residence property into 23 parcels with proposed residential dwellings on land designated as R1 or low-density development. Furthermore, the Project indicates that each single-family residential property has the potential to include an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU), which would further increase the density of buildings and residents. This density seems excessive for the 4.98 acre property, based upon the regulations and calculations for the Determination of Allowed Development listed in the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations - August 2014. Please clarify the maximum number of units (number of homes and number of bedrooms per home on lots 1-23) that would be allowed for the Project, prior to approving the Tract Plan. Leaving this open ended until the time of construction leaves too much room for error and possible violation of Project density and puts excessive burden on public oversight. 2. Biological Resources Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen May 25, 2021 Page 3 The Project proposes to significantly reduce the amount of open space available to wildlife. In its place will be a large number of homes, ADUs and JADUs and their associated landscaped yards. This reduction in open space will significantly decrease habitat and foraging opportunities for many species that occur on the property and that rely upon the natural resources provided by the plants and animals found in the open space. Is a Negative Declaration with Mitigation an appropriate designation for a project of this scope? I believe that there are several reasons why a more detailed assessment (E IR) is more appropriate in this situation: 1) The scope and size of the project warrants a more detailed biological / environmental assessment (~5 acres with 23 lots to be built out with single family homes + ADU + JDU) 2) The sensitivity of the affected habitat types (Stre am + Riparian Habitat) and the limitation of that habitat in this area of San Luis Obispo. 3) The proximity to the habitat corridor connecting to the East side of HWY 101 and the resulting loss of habitat for sensitive species warrants a closer look at the permanent changes resulting from t his project. 4) Habitat loss is the single greatest threat to global biodiversity . This project will further contribute to loss of wildlife habitat, which in this case is the grassland surrounding the riparian forest which is used by numerous birds of prey, ground birds, reptiles, numerous mammals including an, as of yet undetermined species of wood rat. 5) The arrangement of homes and lots on this property will also result in decreased connectivity to accessible habitat corridors and upland riparian habitat, which could be utilized and accessed by species of special concern (i.e. red-legged frog) at present or at a future date or time. One of the key species of concern in the Project is the red-legged frog. As stated in the INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 2021 Document (ISECF), “ The Project site is considered designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The area is Unit SLO-3 Willow and Toro Creeks to San Luis Obispo and comprises approximately 116,517 acres. The unit occurs along the San Luis Obispo Coast, north of Morro Bay, and extends southeast into the city of San Luis Obispo.” Also from the ISECF, “The BRA concluded that the project site does not provide suitable aquatic breeding habitat for California red-legged frog. The onsite drainage is intermittent and does not contain water of sufficient depth long enough for California red-legged frog larvae to complete metamorphosis. In addition, the stream lacks any significant pools and does not contain sufficient depth to support adult frogs. Based on aerial photography of the site, there are no other potential breeding ponds nearby that could support California red-legged frog. Annual grassland and ornamental habitats are considered suitable upland and dispersal habitat for California red-legged frog; however, the nearest record of California red- legged frog is 0.4 mile at Brizziolari Creek, which is separated from the project site by SR 1. The project site does not provide connections to other suitable aquatic sites and is surrounded by urban development to the south, west, and east. Therefore, the site is considered to have low potential for upland and dispersal habitat for California red-legged frog within the designated critical habitat and Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen May 25, 2021 Page 4 impacts would be less than significant.” In their assessment, the authors of the ISECF failed to acknowledge that the Project’s riparian forest does have a unique unnamed creek that converges with Twin Peaks Creek on the Southern border of the Project. The unnamed creek is perennial from the confluence point upstream for ~40 meters where it emerges from a large culvert. The stream flows through the underground culvert for 200 meters. On the upstream end of the culvert the creek remains perennial but in the driest months of the year the water may be confined to the larger pools. This unnamed creek has many pools of sufficient habitat quality for red-legged frog breeding and rearing (Perennial flow and Depth of +2.5 feet depth during the spring breeding months from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Information Page) both above and below the culvert. Some of the pools in the perennial stream can be seen in the following images taken between 5/19/21 and 5/24/21. When looking at the images, keep in mind that this is a particular low flow drought year. The perennial stream has an established invertebrate community consisting of aquatic snails, planaria, Diptera (true flies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Odonata (dragonflies), Coleoptera (beetles) and several species of Hemiptera (mostly water striders). The pools also contain large densities of tadpoles and frogs on a seasonal basis. I am not aware of an amphibian survey that has been done on this creek, but I have personally observed tree frogs and bull frogs in the pools and vegetation surrounding the creek (see photos) in both upstream and downstream locations on this perennial stream. Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen May 25, 2021 Page 5 Given that the habitat within the perennial stream connected to Twin Peaks Creek appears suitable for red legged frog, even under the current drought conditions and the surrounding upland and wetted habitat of Twin Peaks Creek in the Project are also deemed appropriate for red-legged frog, as reported in the ISECF report, it appears that further study is warranted before a MND is issued for this project. I formally request that a detailed amphibian survey is conducted for this creek and for Twin Peak Creek, so the true level of impact can be determined prior to a MND determination. Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen May 25, 2021 Page 6 3. Hydrology and Water Quality The MND should be revised to indicate that the Project is likely to have potential significant impact on hydrology and water quality, in the following areas described below. While mitigation measures are proposed, without any specific studies, scientific analysis or details regarding the Project, it is unknown whether the mitigation measures will be sufficient to address these impacts. a) The Project will potentially result in substantial erosion and discharge of sediment and violation of turbidity water quality standards. These water quality standards protect important habitat and beneficial uses. The Project proposes construction activities directly in the creek and includes a substantial amount of ground disturbance. Without additional information regarding the Project, it is unknown whether best management practices will be sufficient to eliminate or mitigate any discharge of sediment and adequately protect water quality. The Project includes stormwater retention features as mitigation measures; it is possible that these features may change the hydrologic conditions of the creek. More detail regarding these retention features is needed to fully understand the potential environmental. It is requested that that the Project be revised to reduce Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to eliminate any construction activities, soil disturbance, or structures within the creek’s highest water elevation; as well to implement a 30-foot minimum width consisting of undisturbed soil and riparian vegetation, consistent with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). b) The Project will likely result in a substantial decrease in groundwater recharge. Maximizing groundwater recharge is critical to maintaining groundwater sustainability and important underflow to the creek and associated habitats, especially given California’s drought conditions. The Project proposes substantial impervious surface area which will significantly impact groundwater recharge. It is requested that the Project be modified to include an analysis of pre- and post-project anticipated recharge, so that the Project can be implemented to minimize the extent of impervious surface and maintain the levels of pre-Project groundwater recharge, consistent with the state and local low impact development standards. c) The Project will likely result in a substantial increase in the rate of surface runoff, which may result in localized flooding. Due to poor planning and slow draining soils, stormwater in the low-lying areas of Jeffrey Drive, Westmont Drive, and Marlene Avenue already have flooding problems during the wet season, causing overflow of storm drains and significant flow to the creek. Without additional detail, it is unknown whether or not best management practices (e.g. the proposed drainage measures) will be sufficient to maintain the pre-Project hydrology and mitigate flooding impacts. It is requested that the Project be modified to include an analysis of pre- and post-project hydrologic flow conditions, so that the Project can be implemented to maintain pre-Project flow conditions and minimize erosion and localized flooding. d) The Project proposes several modifications to Twin Ridges Creek. In the Mr. Kyle Van Leeuwen May 25, 2021 Page 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 2021 the authors state that “…..grading activity is proposed in several areas within the creek setback for stabilization, and placement of rip rap pads are proposed within or adjacent to the setback. The easement and application of creek setback standards would affect proposed Lots 1–8. With implementation of the identified mitigation measure, the project would reduce impacts to the riparian area onsite and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.” The natural stream channel needs no stabilization in the Project and it is important to point out that the proposed alterations to the stream are solely for the purpose of reducing potential impacts to structures and lots from excessive creek flow and or to expand the size of lots. These modifications including armoring the channel with riprap which would permanently alter the stream course from its natural flow patterns and should not be allowed for use within the setback of Twin Ridges Creek. Transportation The Project will connect Stanford Drive to Cuesta Drive and add an additional 23 single family and multi-family dwellings (low and medium density). Given the additional dwellings and associated residents, it is possible that an additional 80+ vehicles could be added from the development. This will result in additional stress to the neighborhood traffic flow. Currently, traffic flow is already congested on Highland Avenue, especially when Cal Poly is in session. Since the four-way stop at Highland Avenue and Cuesta Drive is an important cross-walk for young children who attend Pacheco Elementary School and students attending Cal Poly, it is important to confirm that any improvements continue to favor pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic calming measures such as narrow lanes, textured crosswalks, speed humps, and highly visible stop signs should be considered. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MND. Please also include us on your interested parties list. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me via email at schroeters617@gmail.com. Sincerely, Robert Schroeter 617 Jeffrey Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 cc: (via email) Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov