HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/28/2021 Item 4a, Czech
Wilbanks, Megan
From:Genevieve Czech <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Fwd: 468-500 Westmont Project, Item 2 for July 28th
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
________________________________
Attached is my e-mail for the Correspondence for the Planning Commission meeting of July 28th which I mis-addressed
in the first attempt. Please ensure that it arrives. Thank you. Genevieve Czech
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Genevieve Czech <
Date: Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 4:08 PM
Subject: 468-500 Westmont Project, Item 2 for July 28th
To: <advisorybodies@slocity.gov>
Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: It is my privilege to work together with you as a resident of
Stanford Drive.
I look forward to the ¨de novo meeting on July 28th. Those 3 members who missed the May 26th meeting will have had
opportunity to read the earlier correspondence and acquaint themselves with the substance of their colleagues´
discussion and the public comment. In the 2 month interim the City has made an effort to address some of the issues
raised and has incorporated some of those concerns in the newly published report.
The minutes of the May 26th PC meeting under ¨Action¨ advised the City to address grading alternatives, to consider
how to preserve more trees, and to look further into traffic impact issues on neighboring streets. I wrote an e-mail to
the Planning Commission who approved those minutes, objecting that they did not appear complete enough.
They failed to mention that an agreement had been reached by the City to ask the City Biologist to visit the property (
for the first time ) with a highly qualified resident neighbor to the Westmont project, whose findings on the Twin Creek´s
flow and amphibian life conflicted with the City findings.You will be receiving his comments and video evidence of
several extant pools ( even in the driest of years ). This is a matter of considerable concern; the City, the lead agency,
invited the applicant to submit an alternative grading plan with a view to saving the non-native trees at the riparian site,
The applicant submitted a workable plan ( which attachment I have not been successful in downloading ), and the City
has summarily dismissed it as a viable option, repeating their objection that the non-native trees are a fire hazard
according to the Fire report. The latter objection has already been answered regarding the acacia trees, which are
mature and well established, and could rather be interpreted as a fire resistant benefit. Are we to readily accept the
City´s easy dismissal? Have you studied the attachment and drawn your conclusions about the feasibility and desirability
of the option of alternative grading and retention of those trees? As you, the PC, recommended the analysis be further
studied, are you satisfied with the City´s conclusions? While the City does not give the Twin Ridge a setback status, it is
curious that a creek that is at the source of the San Luis Creek, issuing from nearby Bishop Peak, which directly
influences the City´s major creek is overlooked as significant. When we first moved to San Luis Obispo over 2 decades
ago, the City was steward of the Creek and made annual visits. Budget constraints have meant that the private
homeowners assume responsibility for the creek.
1
Responsibility implies care, and we have genuine concerns about the reduction of the quality of the creek with the major
disturbances described in the Westmont design, in spite of all the mitigations described, with rip-raps, storm water
retention systems, etc. We hope you appreciate that our concerns are not NIMBY alarm, but rather the observations of
residents who have long-term awareness of the environment throughout the seasons.The Westmont project site is
described as ¨highly manipulated¨ by the City report. This descriptor certainly does not apply to the riparian and wetland
area where a rare and intact ecosystem has established itself. It is noteworthy that the project takes great care in its
replanting of the Cambrian morning glory, while being cavalier about removal of mature trees, stating that replanting
will compensate for the loss. We all know that replanting new trees in gallon buckets, in a time of severe drought,
cannot replace mature trees.
At the May 26th meeting I myself advocated for the preservation of the redwood trees adjacent to the existing homes,
and was promptly told by Katie, that no change could be undertaken to the plan, that the sidewalk would not admit
proximity to the trees. Subsequently, Allan Cooper wrote the City that it would not be difficult to reconfigure the lots
proximate to the redwood trees. His contribution has not been given any consideration, and it is an example of the
thinking that is not ¨creative, flexible¨ ( words gratefully heard from one of your PC members on May 26th ), nor does it
demonstrate a high value given to our native redwood trees of which there are not many in the Central Coast area.
While the City did answer some questions, they have not answered the option of a different configuration
accommodating conservation of prime trees. Tyler Corby stated on May 26th that the City could incorporate
adjustments, which I hope the PC will remember in its repeated recommendations.
A further answer that is a City staff ¨opinion¨ rather than a reply based on studies and analysis is that Stanford Drive
and Cuesta will be ¨safer¨ roads with their newly conceived design. While at face value, this could be true, given the
removal of the no through design, it does not reflect an accurate projection of the number of cars that would be using
both Stanford and Cuesta, whether in ordinary daily vehicle trips, or emergency conditions. The analysis for traffic
should rather be based on the true over-impacted status of the roads during student rental time with 4 to 5 vehicles per
house. Further, this projection is made in July, 2021, before the Sacramento legislature likely passes the SB9 bill,
allowing for split parcels, and 4 units per parcel with ADUs and ADJUs. Would it not be more realistic to delay a final vote
on the Westmont project during the 9 month long term time to assess traffic impact, and allow for the SB9 impact as
well, when a subdivision lot can mean 4 units, and hence 4x the number of vehicles quoted in the City report?
We are told that future development of the parcel is beyond City control, which is indeed true of itself. However, given
the very real present of the Cal Poly rental quality of the neighborhood, the very real near future of an imposition of a
state mandated local program pushing 4x higher density in single family neighborhoods, a ¨one size fits all¨ approach to
housing development is not a realistic standard to apply to the current Westmont project. Further, to repeat myself
from an earlier letter to the PC, ¨Planning¨ means looking into the near future in terms of flood, earthquake, fire, climate
change, energy and water resources, let alone the effects of the state mandate.
Nor is it appropriate to use the 1958 plans designed for the northern tract as a basis for the current design.( It would
have been interesting to see what the Cal Poly Department of Architecture would have produced with the Westmont
parcel as a student design project ).
The 1958 tract map is very similar indeed to the current design.
Sixty-three years have passed since the first plan was conceived with
63 years of an established ecosystem thriving, becoming the last few acres on the northern edge of the City to have
escaped disappearing under concrete. The Meinhold family has taken very good care of their ranch, beautifying and
landscaping the entry and road leading to their homes. It has become home to a large variety of fauna and flora.
Surely, it can transition to a subdivision of lower human density and greater conservation of its natural features. If the
City were really to respect existing contours, as is claimed in their reference to the LUE regulations, there would be less
need for gradng, and thus for tonnage of soil removal, new decontaminated soil added, trees cut down and wildlife
nesting places obliterated.
2
The Westmont project is called a short-term project by the City. It would appear that four phases of construction,
mitigation measures, 5 year monitoring, the possibility of subsequent building with second units and AdJU´s with further
disturbance and tree removal ( ironically perhaps removal of the newly planted trees ), it should concede that it is rather
a long-term project with long-term consequences.
It is our hope that we can continue to work together to complete a project which all can be proud of: the applicant, the
Engineers, the Environmental Consultant, the Advisory Bodies, the existing neighborhoods, the City Staff, and the City
itself - a Project which includes true concern for the non-consulted residents: flora and wildlife.
Respectfully, Genevieve Czech, 612 Stanford Drive
3