HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/5/2017 Item 12, Sullivan (2)
Christian, Kevin
From:Michael Sullivan <mcsgday@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, July
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:Michael Sullivan; Brett Cross; James Lopes; Carolyn Smith; Sandra Lakeman
Subject:Summary of My Concerns - San Luis Ranch - for Council hearing of 05 July 2017 -
from Michael Sullivan
Attachments:2017-07-05
__SLO_City_Council_San_Luis_Ranch_hearing_Comments_of_M_Sullivan_SUMMARY_c.d
oc
05 July 2017
RE: City Council hearing of 05 July 2017 - San Luis Ranch
A Summary of My Concerns is found in the attachment (MS Word 2003 document).
Michael Sullivan
9557 Coosa St., Ventura, CA 93004 Tel. 805-647-4101
1
2017-07-05__SLO_City_Council_San_Luis_Ranch_hearing_Comments_of_M_Sullivan_SUMMARY_c
Page 1 of 2
05 July 2017
To: City Council of City of San Luis Obispo
From: Michael Sullivan, 9557 Coosa St., Ventura, CA 93004 Tel. 805-647-4101
REGARDING: San Luis Ranch project - Council hearing of 05 July 2017
SUMMARY OF MY CONCERNS
The City is has an obligation under the law to revise the San Luis Ranch Final EIR
Alternatives analysis, in order to cure the various legal defects listed below.
(1) The City has allowed the use of conclusory arguments to dismiss and reject
project alternatives proposed by various persons in comments on the San Luis
Ranch Draft EIR. This violates CEQA Guidelines 15088(c).
(2) The City has not provided a reasonable range of project Alternatives, because:
(a) CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(c) require
that the selected project alternatives must satisfy city objectives and/or project
objectives. The four project alternatives in the Final EIR fail to do that. See the
San Luis Ranch Council report of July 5, 2017 at p. 329.
(b) The City has refused to provide fair, objective, fact-based reasons for
rejecting various proposals for other project alternatives, in violation of CEQA
Guidelines 15088(c).
(3) “Alternative 3A” as proposed by Michael Sullivan in comments on the San
Luis Ranch Draft EIR is one example of a suitable project alternative which meets
project objectives and potentially could offer a similar number of affordable
housing units. “Alternative 3A” slightly reduces the number of housing units by
about 6 %, so it could help reduce traffic and air pollution impacts. “Alternative
3A” (a) adds about 6 more acres of open space, (b) gives better habitat protection
for Prefumo Creek riparian area and nearby trees, and (c) provides a more
effective buffer space between the project and residences on Oceanaire Drive.
2017-07-05__SLO_City_Council_San_Luis_Ranch_hearing_Comments_of_M_Sullivan_SUMMARY_c
Page 2 of 2
(4) The responses in the EIR misinterpret and/or misunderstand CEQA and/or
CEQA Guidelines, and are prejudicial against certain proposed project
alternatives.
For example, in the San Luis Ranch Final EIR Volume 2, Master Response 1 on -
Adequacy of Draft EIR Alternatives, it states that an alternative with only 350
housing units (500 fewer than the maximum allowed in the City’s policies) “would
not reduce any identified significant impacts to less than significant level.” However,
CEQA Guidelines does not require a project alternative to offer reduction of
significant impacts to less than significant level. CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(c)
states, "The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include
those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and
could avoid, or substantially lessen, one or more of the significant effects." CEQA
Guidelines 15126.6(c).
(5) The City has failed to make a good-faith effort to reduce the severity of
significant environmental impacts, such as traffic congestion and air pollution, by
proposing alternatives that reduce the intensity of uses, for example, in the total
square footage of commercial use or in the number of housing units, factors
important in significant impacts such as traffic and air pollution. This violates
CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(b) which states that “the discussion of alternatives shall
focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or
substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,
or would be more costly.” CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(b).
(6) The feasibility of certain mitigations, such as for traffic, remains uncertain
until the Development Agreement is finalized. Will the people of San Luis Obispo
need to help pay for such mitigations by a City-wide community services district
which would tax the local citizens? This dilemma may be incompatible with
CEQA and CEQA Guidelines because the funding for mitigations remains highly
uncertain at the time of project approval and Final EIR Certification.
Michael Sullivan