The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-09-2017 PC Correspondence - Items 1 and 2 (Cooper)To: SLO Planning Commission Re: 175 Venture Drive. Review of the Avila Ranch Project and related entitlements From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: August 9, 2017 Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioner - I am asking you to consider the cumulative impacts of unbridled housing growth (exempliﬁed by the San Luis, Righetti and Froom Ranch developments) when reviewing this project. Though the Avila Ranch project cannot be faulted with all of the negative impacts which I’ve listed below, it in combination with the other projects you’ve approved, will seriously erode our quality of life. And this will happen with the added insult that we taxpayers are subsidizing these kinds of developments. Please consider scaling back the size of these developments before approving them. Thank you! - Allan Cooper Negative impacts the "build, baby, build” housing mentality will have on San Luis Obispo: *increased deforestation Mature trees sequester more carbon, require less water and provide habitat for more endangered species than replacement trees. Replacement trees are typically inferior species that will never grow large enough to provide the shade, habitat, or GHG sequestration that we so sorely need in light of climate change. 374 native and non-native trees will be removed by the following 3 housing projects: Imel (Righetti) Ranch, San Luis Ranch & 71 Palomar. *loss of productive farm land and grazing land Three housing projects you’ve recently reviewed will result in the loss of 203 acres of prime soils and grazing land. This includes San Luis Ranch (loss of 57.3 acres of farm land), Avila Ranch (loss of 94.6 acres of farm land) and Froom Ranch (loss of 50.7 acres of grazing land). The California Government Code - Gov Title 7. Planning And Land Use [65000 - 66499.58] ) “…recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and ﬁber production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands…” *fragmented habitats Loss of connected habitat along and to creeks and loss of wildlife movement corridors will lead to the demise of coyotes, skunks, oppossums, mountain lions, bears, San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, bobcats, pronghorn antelope, California newt, giant kangaroo rat and San Joaquin antelope squirrel. *reduced biodiversity The Imel Ranch, San Luis Ranch and 71 Palomar projects will be removing 374 mature trees, many of which are Eucalyptus. Removal of mature eucalyptus groves (60 foot high and taller) will result in loss of habitat and migration corridors for butterﬂies, double crested cormorants, pallid bat, California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, white tailed kite, American peregrine falcon, egrets, herons and other raptors. Creek contamination will lead to the demise of herons, egrets, sandhill cranes, mountain plovers, steelhead trout, prickly sculpin ﬁsh and mariposa lily. (San Luis Creek has been placed on California’s 303 (d.) list of impaired bodies of water). Wetland destruction (i.e., Froom Ranch) will threaten the Western/Southwestern pond turtle, California red-legged frog, La Graciosa thistle, marsh sandwort and Gambel’s watercress. *increase in income inequality The real estate market in California coastal communities remains and will continue to remain very hot suggesting that all future housing will be affordable to only high-income populations. At the same time, economic growth in the tourism-related industries will grow the service economy. A service economy predominantly employs poverty wage workers who will always have an unmet demand for affordable housing. *increase in air pollution Often during the Spring, an area of high pressure will build at ground level and produce Santa Lucia (northeasterly) winds, also referred to as “offshore winds” because they ﬂow from the land out to sea especially during the night and morning hours. Severe temperature differences in the vertical plane occur resulting in an inversion. As a result of this, San Luis Obispo in 2017 was one of the most polluted metropolitan regions by average year- round concentration of particulate matter. Four California cities—Visalia, Bakersﬁeld, San Jose- San Francisco and San Luis Obispo—had their very worst year-round levels of air pollution. Yet we are adding more housing that will inevitably result in more CO2 emissions. *increased vulnerability to natural disasters Urban encroachment into woodlands will increase the risk of ﬁres. Fires not only threaten people but threaten the survival of blue-oak woodlands and pine forests. Increasing urban density within ﬂood plains (like Avila Ranch) puts residents at risk and complicates evacuation plans. Needless to say, placing more people in close proximity to a nuclear power plant (later to become a nuclear waste storage facility) and within a high seismic zone is highly ill-advised. *increase in crime It is well known that an increase in population increases the per capita crime rate. Even though San Luis Obispo is a comparatively small community, it already falls in the lowest decile of safe cities in America (see: http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/ san-luis-obispo/crime/). Compounding this problem is that both Cal Poly and Cuesta College are continuing to grow and the City continues to accommodate these additional students by allowing the construction of more off-campus student housing (in place of workforce housing). Over the period of 2000 - 2015, Cal Poly grew 3 times faster than the previous 13 years (1987 - 2000) or 1.6% per year. An increase in the student population results in an increase in non- violent crime and much of this crime is alcohol-related. Within our Downtown Core (where there is a concentration of 66 alcohol outlets) and over the past two years there has been an 80% increase in alcohol offenses, a 215% increase in property thefts and a 235% increase in both non-aggravated and aggravated assaults. *fewer local retail businesses and a less diverse economy results in less money circulating in the local economy More housing growth increases commercial rents because the corresponding increase in population increases the desirability of having a retail business either downtown or in the suburbs. Higher rents usher in high-revenue- generating tenants like corporate stores, bars and nightclubs. This in turn pushes out locally owned retail businesses that offer locally produced goods. One of the "most active ideas" on SLO’s Mindmixer Online Community Workshop Update was "Increase The Retail Mix In Downtown" which can only happen after we've successfully stemmed the proliferation of bars and nightclubs in our downtown core and after we’ve established a more proactive stance in supporting the small, independent retail business owner. Moreover, the Downtown Association’s April 24, 2013 town hall meeting focused on a top concern related to the growing number of corporate stores replacing local-owned businesses and more restaurants and bars than retail shops. *reduced neighborhood cohesion and dampened civic engagement Accommodating Cal Poly’s enrollment growth by building highly-transient, student-oriented housing and promoting the tourism industry which caters to an impermanent out-of-town population effectively disenfranchises the property owners who live here. These residents become increasingly outnumbered by those who do not have a long-term interest or investment in this community. What compounds this problem is that the City fathers are distracted from resident concerns because they have become primarily focussed on the two primary economic drivers that pay the bills at City Hall - tourism and Cal Poly. *reduced socio-economic diversity What happens to the longtime residents of modest means as well as the new arrivals serving the needs of the many members of the afﬂuent ‘creative class’ who can afford the current cost of housing? Working families of four will get pushed out. Moreover, new housing (particularly detached single family housing) will always cost more than existing housing which in turn accelerates this gentriﬁcation process. *fast-tracked housing-related environmental and design review The fast-tracked, “housing-at-all-costs” mentality will mitigate against well-planned and well- designed projects. This is compounded by the fact that outdated local legislation (such as our “climate action plan”) was developed under assumptions of stable climate conditions and fails to anticipate the extreme variability of climate change. Climate change will result in longer, hotter summers and reduced rainfall further stressing our water supply (source: National Wildlife Federation). Fast-tracked development short-changes ofﬁcially sanctioned monitoring projects and waives environmental review (source: National Wildlife Federation). *over-taxed infrastructure You have recently reviewed major housing projects that will, at the time of buildout, place unavoidable adverse impacts on the City’s current sewer, water, school, law enforcement and ﬁre protection capacities. Moreover, the EIR’s assessing the impacts of these projects have repeatedly stated that air quality, cultural resources (historic resources and cumulative historic resources), noise (construction noise), and transportation will be signiﬁcant and unavoidable.