HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-01-2017 ARC Correspondence - Item 2 (Smith)RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Cox, Rebecca MAY -1 2017
From: carolyn smith <
Sent: Sunday, April 30, Meeting:.11G
To: Advisory Bodies
Subject: ARC Meeting - May 1, 2017 - Item 2 - San Luis RanchlteM:_ fii Y'
Chair Wynn and Commissioners:
It's quite perplexing to me as to why, at this point in the process, you are being
asked to review the final design of this project and make recommendations to
the City Council for their consideration and approval. This project has not yet
completed the CEQA process. Bringing this project before the ARC at this point
not only seems to thwart the CEQA process, but has the appearance of
preferential treatment by expeditiously advancing the project to Council.
Further, the property on which this project sits is still in the County and has not
yet been annexed. Shouldn't this final design approval and recommendation to
Council be postponed until the Final EIR is certified and the property is
annexed into the city?
The Draft EIR indicated that this project will have significant, unavoidable
impacts on traffic and air quality. After the Draft EIR public input, there were
numerous additional issues and concerns that needed to be addressed in the
Final EIR. Additionally, the Draft EIR public review period was extended to just
recently, April 17th, in order to further the discussion in the Draft EIR relating
to energy impacts that were not sufficiently addressed in the first round of
review. To my knowledge, a Final EIR has not been published and/or certified.
It's my understanding that the purpose of CEQA is to identify possible and
probable environmental impacts before decisions are made so those impacts
can be eliminated or at least mitigated by proper design of the project.
Therefore, it seems inappropriate for this commission to be looking at a final
design of this project when it's uncertain that this will be the final project after
all mitigation measures and alternatives have been studied and considered.
Consequently, I'm asking you to continue this meeting until the Final EIR has
been certified which will allow this body to review and consider all impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives before making any final
recommendations to the City Council.
However, if you choose not to continue this meeting, I would like to comment
on a couple of the utmost important impacts identified in the Draft EIR. While I
understand your purview is primarily design and materials, you will, in
essence, and at the same time, be approving the density of this project which
has repercussions on other issues.
Pursuant to the Draft EIR, the large number of residential units in this project
will have significant unavoidable impacts on traffic, particularly, but not limited
1
to the southern section of our city. The Prado Road extension or overpass is not
included or expected to be built before or concurrently with this project.
Without that extension or overpass, the density from this project will cause the
LOS at many of our intersections surrounding this project, and even beyond, to
fall to "F." Residents will be forced to wait in long queues for several light -
signal cycles, creating severe congestion. While some occupants of this project
may ride bikes and the bus, no one can truly believe those alternatives will
result in a significant reduction of traffic from this project. In fact, because of
the horrendous traffic in the area, bicyclists will be afraid to ride their bikes, as
many have already expressed.
The severely increased traffic will also have significant unavoidable impacts to
our air quality per the Draft EIR. In fact, it will cause our city to deliberately
violate the Clean Air Act. One of the goals of the Clean Air Act, with regard to
new development (Title 1, Part C—Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality), is to protect public health and welfare from any adverse air pollution
effects from the new development. The Draft EIR recognized the severe
adverse affects to our air quality from excessive traffic which is detrimental to
all residents. Our city has always been very environmentally cautious and
protective, but, for some reason, the ruination of our air quality from this, and
other projects in the southern portion of the city, appears to be casually
disregarded as unimportant.
While affordable housing is one of our city's major goals, it should not come at
such a great cost to our residents' safety and air quality. Certainly there can be
an alternative smaller project design that would not have such profound
impacts on the community, while still providing additional housing.
Carolyn Smith
SLO City (Laguna Lake) resident
2