HomeMy WebLinkAbout05_24-25_2017 PC Correspondence - San Luis Ranch (Cross) Meeting: PG
From:
Davidson, Doug
Sent:
Thursday, May 25, 2017 4:29 PM
To:
Cc:
Codron, Michael
Subject:
RE: Planning Commission Meeting 5/25/17
Please forward as agenda correspondence thanks
From: Brett Cross [
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:22 PM
To: Davidson, Doug <ddavidson@slocity.org>; Codron, Michael <mcodron@slocity.org>
Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 5/25/17
Please Forward my comments to the commissioners.
Thank you. Brett Cross
Brett Cross
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Item: �r 1/V�5 V�
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MAY 2 6 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
As I indicated at your previous meeting I am very concerned about the timeline for the San Luis
Ranch EIR, Specific Plan, Annexation, and development agreement meeting schedule.
I do not believe the timeline allows adequate review of the project and the potential environmental
impacts created by the project. I'm also concerned that Land Use Element policies were not
properly addressed either in the staff report or EIR for General Plan conformity.
As I noted the residential portion of this project could have a lifecycle of 75 years (NG 23, NG 10).
The multi -family area (NG 30) could have a lifecycle of 50 years so it is imperative that you review
this project very carefully.
The Specific Plan is not consistent with the following City Policies
Land Use Element 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 vegetation, and significant trees.
The project intends to remove a significant number of Eucalyptus trees which are nesting sites for
Blue Herons and roosting areas for Turkey Vultures. The EIR classifies this as a Class II impact
however the mitigation is speculative and is not consistent with CEQA guidelines.
The project is inconsistent with Housing Element
Policies
4.1 Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic strata
should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should be comparable to
the relative percentages of extremely low, very -low, low, moderate and above -moderate income
households in the City's quantified objectives.
The Traffic Analysis does not appear to accurately reflect current conditions. There need to be
clarification regarding the methodology used in creating baseline conditions. Are the baseline
conditions reflective of observed traffic counts and turning movements or are they based on
modeling? Turning movements onto Madonna from the NG30 area need to be fully vetted.
The Alternatives in the EIR is not in conformance with CEQA requirements that feasible alternatives
be considered. See Lopes (correspondence 5/23/2017.
The project does not meet the City's requirement for parkland In Lieu fees should not be considered
as an alternative. The rationale for the In lieu allowance should be discussed in detail.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross