The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/5/2017 Item 12, Cooper To:SLO City Council From:Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Re:Review of the San Luis Ranch Project Including the SpeciÐc Plan Date:July 3, 2017 On July 5, 2017 you will be certifying a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the San Luis Ranch SpeciÐc Plan. The Final EIR states that this project will be inconsistent with the SLOAPCD 2001 Clean Air Plan because it would result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would exceed the rate of population growth. The overriding consideration in response to this unavoidable environmental risk is that the San Luis Ranch SpeciÐc Plan includes workforce housing intended to balance jobs and housing and signiÐcant entry-level housing that is speciÐcally Åaffordable by designÆ. This is an unacceptable overriding consideration because, in fact, the San Luis Ranch project will not provide workforce or affordable housing Åby designÆ. You may think otherwise because this subdivision is comprised of small houses on small lots. Yet the price of this housing will still hover in the $500,000 range because: 1)each household will have to carry the exorbitant costs of a ÅCommunity Facilities DistrictÆ; 2)each household will have to carry the developerÈs cost of extending roads; 3)each household will have to carry the costs of installing new parks and bikeways; 4)the selling prices of these so-called Ånet zeroÆ homes will have to include the costs of solar panels, super-sealed building envelopes, ductless mini-split heat pumps and highly insulated windows and doors; and 5)by the time these houses are built, housing inÑation will have already taken its toll. Moreover, there is no certainty that any of the 30,000 workforce currently commuting into SLO from outside communities will live here. Why? Because they will be making a tradeoff between a larger home on a larger lot in a quieter, outlying community to a smaller home on a smaller lot under a noisy airport Ñight path. So who will buy these homes? AfÑuent parents of Cal Poly students and wealthy retirees¼ not our workforce. Irrespective of the cost of housing, I am proposing that you balance jobs and housing by following the example set by the Avila Ranch Project. The Avila Ranch Project achieves the most trafÐc reduction for each home by giving existing SLO workers Ðrst priority for their units. The Avila Ranch developers have already identiÐed over 500 SLO employees currently commuting into SLO who have expressed interest in buying into their project.They will also limit the R-1 and R-2 units for owner-occupants only during the initial 5 years of occupancy to make sure that local SLO workers will not have to compete with investors for these units. Finally, I am urging you to reduce the number of units proposed for this project (Alternative 3: Historical Resource Preservation) in such manner to insure the preservation of the historic farm complex and, perhaps more importantly, to insure the preservation of 244 mature trees. Even though Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b) will replace impacted riparian trees, it will require a prolonged period of time to nurture these replacement trees and it is impossible to predict if these replacements will survive climate change. Moreover, drought tolerant, pest free trees such as eucalyptus are irreplaceable carbon sequesters and invaluable habitats for butterÑies and egrets. All mature native and non-native trees should be protected and preserved. 1 I concur with the Ðndings in the EIR which state that air quality, cultural resources (historic resources and cumulative historic resources), land use/ policy consistency (General Plan policy consistency), noise (construction noise), and transportation (existing and near-term intersection operations, existing and near-term lane capacities, existing and near-term segment operations, cumulative intersection operations, cumulative lane capacities, and cumulative segment operations) created by this project will be signiÐcant and unavoidable. This project at the time of buildout will also place unavoidable adverse impacts on the CityÈs current sewer, water, school, law enforcement and Ðre protection capacities. But more speciÐcally, the proposed tree replacements, particularly along the riparian corridor, will result in not only signiÐcant but unavoidable adverse impacts - not mitigable impacts as the EIR states. The mitigations involving replacement in-kind minimum ratios, particularly with regards to the proposed removal of the mature eucalyptus trees, will hardly mitigate the permanent loss of the monarch overwintering grove and active great blue heron nest habitat. Monarchs need tall trees(of at least 60 feet) because they roost in the intermediate level of the canopy where wind protection is greatest. Tall Eucalyptus trees are hugely important as habitat trees as they provide cover and nest sites for Great Blue Herons as well as for Double-Crested Cormorants, hawks and Great Horned Owls. The report notes that one mitigation - creating new offsite nesting habitat for great blue herons - is experimental and that the relocation techniques described in Crouch et al. (2002) were used to relocate black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), not great blue herons. 1 Often during the Spring, an area of high pressure will build at the surface over the western United States and produce Santa Lucia (northeasterly) winds, also referred to as Åoffshore windsÆ because they Ñow from the land out to sea especially during the night and morning hours. Severe temperature differences in the vertical plane occur resulting in an . A temperature occurs when a warmer, less dense air mass covers cooler, denser air at the surface. The temperature changes are because of cool moisture-laden northwesterly (onshore) winds from the PaciÐc Ocean blowing through Los Osos Valley while hot and dry Santa Lucia northeasterly (offshore) winds move from the Santa Lucia Mountains through Avila Valley. As you know the relocation of the historic house and viewing stand should not be done arbitrarily. Two questions should be asked: 1) Why is it necessary to relocate these properties? and 2) Is the City ÅapprovingÆ the RRM-designed ÅIllustrative Agriculture Heritage CenterÆ site plan? The layout of these relocated buildings - in a circle - is non-historic. There should have been an attempt to lay these structures out relative to one another in a more traditional manner assuming that they have to be relocated in the Ðrst place. Finally, the California Government Code - Gov Title 7. Planning And Land Use \[65000 - 66499.58\]) Å¼recognizes 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 Ðber 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 lands¼Æ This project involves conversion of 68 acres of prime soils to urban development. In the Ðnal analysis, your review of this SpeciÐc Plan should note that this project is Åinconsistent with State Planning LawÆ. Thank you for your time and consideration.