HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/2021 Item 2, Czech (2)
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Genevieve Czech <
To:Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Codron, Michael; CityClerk; E-mail Council Website
Subject:Comment on 468-500 Westmont
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
________________________________
Dear Development Planner and Director and City Clerk:
Following the PC meeting of 26-05-21, we are encouraged to address further some of the concerns expressed at that
meeting by local residents, ourselves included. You invited us to gather more data and testimony to support our
concerns, above all those with environmental significance.
It is not easy to gather concrete images toward the ¨just in case¨ presence of the burrowing owl, given that the ranch is
private property and that the owl´s nesting period is from October to April.
However, the redwood trees are visibly there, and their ecological (and commercial value estimated at $10,000 per tree)
value should not be ignored. Rather than repeat their individual characteristics, we remind staff that they are natural
water retention mechanisms with their root zones absorbing stormwater.Their benefits in fire prevention have already
been mentioned - common knowledge. You will have received a letter from Allan Cooper in which he has suggested a
reconfiguration of lots #23 to #19, and lots #9 to 12, with certain alternative grading concepts and some alternative
circulation concepts that might result in the preservation of these trees and others, and possibly reduce traffic impacts
on existing neighborhoods. On p. 195 of the CEQA guidelines, they advise a recirculation of the EIR if ¨feasible project
alternatives considerably different from others analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impact¨.The greatest
threat to coastal redwoods is human interference, 95% of the original old growth having been felled by humans. It does
not make sense to cut down trees that sequester carbon dioxide and retain water in a period of drought and climate
change. I look forward to your response to Mr.
Cooper´s suggestion.
Stanford Drive residents remain uncomfortable with assumptions made in the City traffic flow study. Students from
Cuesta College are already leaving their rentals on our road as their term is over, and Cal Poly´s term finishes in another
two weeks. While some students remain occupants over the summer, outside term time it is hard to get a visual image
of the full impact of parking and traffic on the road.
Our neighbor counted 35 cars parked at sunrise on Stanford on Friday, May 28th, not including those on driveways and
in garages. The problem that Stanford Drive is 37 feet wide will not go away, and the proposed road for the Westmont
project is 54 to 60 feet. Apparently that is now standard given the issue of emergency access. Cars exiting a 60 foot road
to enter a bottleneck of 37 feet - with cars parked on either side! - create a situation inviting accidents. We feel that the
LUE
2.2.3 guideline is a flawed model as the assumption is that there would be two cars per unit on the Westmont project.
This is a college neighborhood, and since more than 50% of the houses, single family residences, are student rentals, it is
rather obvious that the Westmont houses will reflect that trend. It is hard to project car ownership for ADUs, although
once again, it is fair to assume that there would indeed be cars attached to the properties, as access to the beaches,
trails, and out of town visits imply car ownership. While we respect the city goals of more pedestrian/cycle/public
transport dependence, we notice that the students own both cycles and cars and trucks. Given the likelihood of a far
greater number of vehicles, and daily trips they represent, Stanford Drive will be impacted more significantly than the
report references. Given the further fact that most students drive trucks and recreational vehicles, visibility exiting both
1
driveways and Stanford Drive onto Highland will be substantially impaired far worse than it is already now. You have
repeated that you cannot control what happens after the houses are purchased; however you need to project the
requirements of sewage, water, electricity and parking and traffic safety in advance. This is known as PLANNING.
The applicant plans to undertake the project in phases, and phase 1 is meant to be on the western portion of the parcel,
abutting Westmont Drive, the riparian and creek areas. We feel strongly that this is misguided, and that phase 1 should
be the work on the eastern portion of the project. If work were to commence on the western portion, the disturbances
to the wildlife, the erosion from grading, the disturbance to watersheds would preempt botanical/biological monitoring,
and block modifications that have been proposed. Twice the Planning Commission stressed that it would have been
better to reduce the impact to the western portion of the parcel, and transfer more density to the eastern portion. The
applicant could be more creative and flexible to avoid damage to the more fragile western area. Our house on Stanford
abuts the creekside, and I recall Mr. Havlik stressing that one must not interfere with the embankment to the creek.
Although you have foreseen a considerable disruption from the construction work in this area, and have imposed
mitigation measures, better conservation could be secured by adopting the advice to transfer more density to the
eastern portion. While the current plan describes a 20 foot setback and easements, it is hard to trust that nearby heavy
construction work will not damage the site. In truth, modifications to the geometrical pattern of the project can be
made now, to avoid the project becoming the ¨lost opportunity¨ described by the PC. It will only be lost when serious
concerns are dismissed, when suggestions for a superior design which preserves the environment, enhances road safety,
gives the neighbors greater satisfaction that their concerns are heard and addressed, are rejected as too tedious and
expensive and time consuming. We appreciate that 2 years of planning are considerable. However, long-term effects will
last far more than two years, e.g. the survival of mature trees and rare species.
We wish to thank the PC for their active listening to the concerns raised both in writing and orally at the Zoom meeting
of 26-05-21. The open discussion was sincere, empathic, and showed great sensitivity to the environment. There was a
consensus that it would be premature to approve the proposal in its current form, before exploring further those
concerns. We thank the City for devising the Zoom so skilfully to include us, even to offer a tutorial to enable us to feel
secure with the Zoom meeting. We are reassured to hear a pledge that our concerns will be addressed, responded to in
writing, and that further communication and notices will arrive at their destination.
Respectfully submitted,
Geneviieve and Adolf Czech, 612 Stanford Drive, San Luis Obispo
2