HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/5/2017 Item 12, Lopes
Christian, Kevin
From:James Lopes <jameslopes@charter.net>
Sent:Saturday, July
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Letter regarding San Luis Ranch - Council hearing July 5, 2017
Attachments:SLRanch_Letter_CityCouncil_Lopes.docx.doc
Please forward this email to council members and the Mayor regarding the San Luis Ranch hearing on July 5, 2017.
The attached letter encourages an improved Project Alternatives chapter in the Final EIR. It should identify impacts of a
variety of levels and combinations of land uses, using the range of intensities in the Land Use Element, which is the City's
goals for the property. The ranges were set because the City was going to rely on an EIR for a specific project. It would
determine acceptable levels of project sizes and combinations which would minimize significant impacts.
Thank you,
James Lopes
1
1336 Sweetbay Lane
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
RE: San Luis Ranch – July 5, 2017 Hearing
Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members:
On July 5, the SLO City Council will deliberate on approval of the San Luis Ranch project.
As proposed, it would bring over 580 homes, 200,000 square feet of commercial space,
150,000 square feet of office space, a 200-room hotel, with major impacts to roadways,
traffic, city services and the environment that a development plan on that scale implies. It
doesn’t have to.
The center of that process is the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Final EIR
before the Council identifies huge impacts to residents within the project and the city, which
cannot be lessened to insignificance. San Luis Obispo is THE city where strict
environmental review has maintained a high quality of life. The city staff and leaders have
an obligation to keep the tradition alive, in the face of single minded development proposals.
The Final EIR may be inadequate because it does not inform the public of potential
commercially viable project alternatives. The duty of the EIR is to identify project
alternatives which would meet most of the City’s land use goals but reduce significant
impacts, preferably to a level of insignificance.
The Final EIR should be rewritten to determine smaller-scale project alternatives
which would result in impacts which are lower or even insignificant. The author of the EIR,
for instance, used a very low-level alternative – Phase I at 200 units, which is at the bottom
of the City’s range for residential development. It would need major intersection and long
turn-lane improvements for intersections at Madonna Road & Dalidio Drive and Los Osos
Valley Road & Froom Ranch Way. But, it would avoid six other major road improvements
needed for the proposed maximum of 580+ units. Perhaps this is a decent level of
residential project.
The EIR did not analyze an alternative where these units might be accompanied by
significant commercial development and construction of the Prado Road overpass. Perhaps
this alternative combination of development would cause fewer and lower impacts to
surrounding major streets.
However, the author rejected the alternative because it would not accomplish most of
the developer's project objectives, meaning the maximum allowed project. The EIR
consultants apparently thought that all of the developer's project objectives have to be met
by any project alternative.
However, the City of San Luis Obispo, not the developer, set the project objectives in
the Land Use Element. The City defined ranges of residential units and commercial floor
areas and uses, since their impacts were unknown. The developer is using the maximum
end of the City's Performance Standards (Land Use Element, page 1-88).
The minimum ends of the ranges are not inviolate though. The minimum listed sizes
are preceded by a footnote, "1. There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based
on specific physical and/or environmental constraints." A project below even the minimum
thresholds is allowed if it will avoid significant impacts.
1
The EIR author should take the low figures and perhaps mid-point figures of these
ranges to identify impacts of each, and in combinations of uses, so that public input and
decisions can have a menu of project sizes to provide meaningful returns to the developer
and the lowest level of community impacts.
The Council does not have to – and shouldn’t -- make decisions about the project or
any alternatives on July 5. The community should have better information about alternative
project levels and combinations which will avoid very problematic impacts on the residents
and visitors. This could include a study session or workshop to discuss combinations of
alternatives with the applicant and the community.
Sincerely,
James Lopes
2