The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/28/2018 Item 1, Cooper (3) From:Allan Cooper < To:Corey, Tyler; Advisory Bodies; CityClerk Subject:San Luis Ranch Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Attachments:706_23_18..slrsupplementaleir.pdf Dear Tyler - Would you do me a favor? Could you remove from the correspondence file the previous letter (dated May 19, 2018 with June 23, 2018 revisions) I sent you yesterday on the topic of the San Luis Ranch Draft Supplemental EIR as it mistakenly included an excerpt from the EIR. If you can do this, please replace this letter with the corrected one below. Thanks and hope you are able to take some time off this summer. - Allan 1 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 (revised June 23, 2018 - please see my rebuttals to all three responses to my May 19, 2018 letter) 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? Response 1.1 After expressing concurrence with the conclusions of the certiﬁed FEIR, the commenter is concerned that the revised phasing would invalidate several Overriding Considerations that were part of the CEQA Findings used as the basis of approving the project in July 2017, speciﬁcally those regarding the project’s provision of new residential and commercial uses, a variety of housing types for various income levels, new jobs, and transient occupancy tax. In response, the revised phasing does not change the development parameters associated with the previously-approved project, including the provision of housing, commercial, and hotel uses that would support those issues raised by the commenter. Without the revised phasing, in fact, it may be more difficult to achieve certain aspects of the project, including the commercial and hotel uses, which would otherwise depend on the timing of construction of the Prado Road Interchange. The existing Overriding Considerations remain valid and applicable to the revised project. Rebuttal to Response 1.1 The original phasing plan was not dependent on so-called “market conditions” (however the developer might deﬁne them). The City approved this project based on at least two overriding considerations: an increase in transient occupancy taxes and the production of new (permanent) jobs through the provision of commercial development. By throwing in commercial development (which generates revenue for the City through sales taxes) and a hotel (which generates revenue for the City through transient occupancy taxes) the developer was able to “sweeten the deal”. But now the developer is left off the hook pending “market conditions” which could easily result in the permanent elimination of both commercial development and hotels. This would, contrary to the writer’s opinion, “change the development parameters associated with the previously-approved project”. 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. Response 1.2 The commenter is concerned that the revised phasing would invalidate several Overriding Considerations that were part of the CEQA Findings used as the basis of approving the project in July 2017, speciﬁcally those regarding the project’s provision of a variety of housing types, and that it implements the General Plan. In response, the revised phasing does not change the development parameters associated with the previously-approved project, including the provision of a variety of housing, and it remains consistent with the General Plan, as described in Section 2.3 of the Draft SEIR. Rebuttal to Response 1.2 The writer repeatedly states that “It should be noted that the timing of residential development (including product types) is largely a function of market conditions, and the developer’s ability to secure ﬁnancing.” This is an indefensible rebuttal in light of the fact that 1) pending favorable market conditions, affordable housing may never be built, the hotel may never be built nor the commercial development may never be built; and 2) if this developer is having problems securing ﬁnancing then we should ﬁnd another developer who has a better track record securing ﬁnancing. It is not the City’s, nor the taxpayers, responsibility to insure that any developer can secure ﬁnancing. 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! Response 1.3 The commenter expresses concern that the revised project no longer being tied to the timing of the Prado Road interchange would exacerbate potential traffic impacts. Such impacts, and updated mitigation measures to address them, are described in detail in Section 2.4 of the Draft SEIR. The SEIR concludes that the revised project description, as it relates to the timing of the Prado Road interchange, would create temporary Class I, signiﬁcant and unavoidable impacts until the Prado Road Overpass & NB ramps are completed. Rebuttal to Response 1.3 Please listen to the experts! John J. Oleinik Senior Transportation Planner with the California Department of Transportation stated the following: “We do not concur with the the statements made in section 1.3 Proposed Changes to the Approval Project on Page 103 of the Drat SEIR…Caltrans would like to see that construction of the Prado Overpass and ramps are tied to a phase of the project an not open-ended…This current proposal…does not draw a clear line of mitigation that the development has to adhere to.” We also agree with Mr. Oleinik’s recommendation that a “clear picture of mitigation measures/strategies, funding and timelines…be made available for review” for each phase.