Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-2018 - Item #2 - Cooper1 Tonikian, Victoria From:Allan Cooper < Sent:Saturday, May 19, 2018 3:38 PM To:Corey, Tyler; Advisory Bodies; CityClerk Subject:San Luis Ranch Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Attachments:905_19_18...lettertopc.pdf Dear Tyler - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Planning Commission before their May 23, 2018 meeting? Thanks! - Allan Meeting Date: 05-23-2018 Received: 05-21-2018 Item Number: 2 To: SLO Planning Commission and Tyler Corey Re: San Luis Ranch Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date: May 19, 2018 Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners - I concurred with the findings in the San Luis Ranch Development EIR which states 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 significant and unavoidable. This project at the time of buildout will also place unavoidable adverse impacts on the City’s current sewer, water, school, law enforcement and fire protection capacities. Of course all of these significant and unavoidable impacts were accepted by Council on July 18, 2017 due to the following "over-riding considerations”: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations For the reasons specified below, the City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project’s unavoidable environmental risks: 1.Provision of new Residential and Commercial Uses 2.Provision of a Variety of Housing Types for all Income Levels 3.Open Space and Agricultural Protection 4.Provision of Park and Recreational Facilities 5.Well-Planned Neighborhood Would Reduce Per-Capita Vehicle Trips 6.Provision of New Jobs 7.Transient Occupancy Tax 8.National Flood Insurance Program and the Community Rating System Rating Improvement 9.Implementation of the General Plan What I find unsettling here is the following: The project applicant now proposes to adjust the phasing plan description such that each of the project phases could overlap, be out of sequence, or be concurrent, depending on market conditions and to adjust project conditions and/or mitigation measures to implement such adjusted phasing plan. Does this therefore mean that the commercial development (including the hotel) provided in Phases 4,5, and 6 may never be provided? Could this therefore invalidate overriding considerations 1, 5, 6, and 7? Without commercial nearby this would cease to be a “well-planned neighborhood”, without commercial this would no longer provide permanent jobs and without a hotel there would be no transient occupancy tax revenue. Currently Phase 1 is low-moderate density residential, Phase 2 is Medium Density Residential and Phase 3 is High Density Residential. Never getting to phase 2 or 3 would suggest that there would be little so-called “affordable” housing which would invalidate overriding considerations 2 and 9. Invalidating 6 of the 9 overriding considerations would suggest that this project alternative would become inferior to the other project alternatives. Finally, revising the mitigation measure monitoring program such that construction of the Prado Road Overpass & Northbound Ramp is not a requirement prior to occupancy of Phase 2 or any other project Phase would further exacerbate 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. Thank you!