HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/28/2021 Item 4a, Wight
Wilbanks, Megan
From:R Wight <
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Westmont Subdivision Proposed Project
Attachments:Westmont Subdivision letter to SLO City Planning Commission July 28 2021..doc
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Please pass this letter on to the Planning Commission meeting July 28, 2021
Thank You
Rayleen Wight
1
TO: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner
City Clerk
RE: Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 3175 Project 468 -500 Westmont Ave
Subdivision
From: Rayleen Wight
Date: July 27, 2021
Chair Robert Jorgensen and Planning Commissioners
I am again expressing my concerns regarding the Westmont Subdivision and its
negative effects it will have on the residences of Stanford Drive. This five acre
subdivision with 23 homes (plus possible ADU'/JADU's) is too big. The residential
streets can not handle the potential traffic follow, parking, noise pollution, and
environmental pollution.
I reiterate I am well aware of the applicants wish to develop their property at the
end of Stanford and Cuesta Drive. And again I feel they have a right to some type
of residential development, but I am at loss to understand WHY the City of San
Luis Obispo and the City Planning Department feel this design is appropriate.
We have expressed our concerns but somehow we have n ot been heard. We get
the standard answer "it is within the Cities codes , the cities housing plan, etc". I
feel that is not a good answer. I feel that this projec t was not examined in depth.
I will once again say why this project needs a redesign.
1. This project does not provide adequate parking, drive way or street or
paved parking areas. There will be parking available on ON SIDE OF THE STREET
ONLY.
To imply that there is public transportation available is correct, but where are the
residences going to park their vehicles. If the housing is rented to students (4-5),
where are they going to park? Where are the residences of the ADU's/JADU's
going to park? They need their cars. And to think that this development will be for
families only and not students (4-5 per house) is not true. The parking issue
stated in staffs' report is not correct in that staff has not been able to view the
actual vehicles parked on Stanford Drive end to end, on both sides of the street
when Cal Poly is in session.
2. The creek and the wildlife are very real, even in this drought. There are
several ponds still holding water for aquatic, reptile, amphibian, deer, opossums,
etc. The ponds start from the bridge on Highland Drive through the proposed
development and further on, pass the proposed development property. This creek
is vital. It has always been vital to San Luis Creek. I don't know how to express
to you the importance of keeping this creek and ALL of our creeks healthy.
3. The trees! For every tree removed a ce rtain number of young trees will
be planted as a replacement.
I am a gardener, and University of California Cooperative Extension Master
Gardener. Mortality of new tree plantings is huge, because of the lack of
knowledge as to where to plant, but mostly t he lack of care once planted. As a
Master Gardener I have learned these facts through our continuing education
requirements as well as observation. For example we learned that oak trees do
not like their roots disturbed. Pedestrian traffic, building, even sidewalks planted
near oaks have the possibility to start a slow but definite decline and eventually
death.
Removal of the eucalyptus trees in the report states they are not native. A
lot of trees in SLO are not natives. I believe the reason for removal is the
applicant needs the extra square feet for housing. The drainage issue is not the
real reason. In the case of these trees given their age and structure they support
hummingbirds with their flowering nectar, insects, butterflies, raptors, etc. These
tree are not invasive. There is no reason for their removal EXCEPT perhaps for the
development of more homes (3) in the space occupied by them.
4. SLO City Policies are not being followed. I have quoted a few of city
policies regarding subdivisions and the general plan in my previous letter. They
are not being followed, but they are being manipulated to fit this project.
Bottom line, please revisit this Subdivision and all of the impacts it will have on
Stanford Drive and Cuesta Drive, the creek, and vehicle congestion.
It needs to be redesigned and reduced for less impact on the residences and
environment.
Thank you,
Rayleen Wight