HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-01-2013 ac hurd ph1Mayor Jan Marks Vice Mayor Kathy Smith, Council Members Dan Carpenter, Carlyn
Christianson, and, John Ashbaugh 22 September 2013
I am writing concerning the VTM No. 3044, to be reviewed on 1 Oct 2013 at the
City Council Meeting regarding the Wingate Property, 3725 Orcutt Road, San Luis Obispo.
This past week we received our notice of this meeting with the city planner, Pam
Ricci, going forth with requesting the VTM for this property.
As I spoke to you at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, 17 September 2013, the
Parks and Rec commission did not agree that the proposed pocket park the applicant
established in the plat constituted a PARK, as defined in the GASP. This is a significant
development. As I told you at the meeting, the applicant is accomplishing important
measures by having this "park" officially designated as such. This "park" allows them to
provide "green space" on site. The creation of this "park" allows the applicant to avoid
payment of the required fee to aid establishment and maintenance of the regional park at
Righetti Hill. Additionally, there is no other green space in the whole project from what I
see on the map. This 1 acre "park" was it, a combo of drainage ditch, required by the
slope of the property, and a private plot of grass for tots that becomes public only during
7 AM and 4 PM.
I wish to say I misspoke at the City Council meeting on 17 September when I said
that the park would allow the applicant greater density for the project. The park, as I read
the OASP, only allows him to avoid payment of the regional park ongoing(?) fee. It is the
quantity of affordable housing which is purported to be over requirements that allows the
applicant greater density.
I reported to you on the 17th that I attended the Parks and Rec meeting on the 4
September 2013, at which the vote was 4-0 denying that this area was indeed a "park". .
It was not considered a park under code of the OASP. I have been waiting and trying to
get the minutes of the 4 Sep Parks and Rec meeting to get the code. I did not know what
the next step was. I was stunned to see the notice in my mail today which essentially
ignores that vote and sends the project to you for the vesting process without any
apparent correction being accomplished to the plat.
This is putting the cart before the horse. I was unable to attend the Planning
commission meeting on this project due to a lack of communication, but watched it on
television. It was very disheartening to hear the summary of the commissioners
comments how little it truly adheres to the OASP in spirit and in fact. The chair even had
a bit of a hard time trying to get anyone to make a motion to even consider a vote on the
project. The plans did not include a true green pedestrian area, there were no alleyways,
,nd hence all vehicles were going directly into the garage, on the main thoroughfare,
both contrary to the spirit of the GASP. Residents will be required to walk down the
middle of the street to get to most other parts of the project, east to west, including the
retail and/or business end of the property. There are few sidewalks in the whole 10-
acre development. The planning commission even directed the staff planner to come up
with some of the changes they were directing be made so that the project came more
under the requirements and the spirit of the OASP. I feel they should have sent the whole
project back to the applicant as I heard far too many "problems" voiced by commissioners
in their public deliberation, with the project. I urge you to please view the last 30 minutes
of the tape of this 18 August meeting. The minutes of the vote portion of that meeting
does not contain their comments. I was stunned when they voted 5-0 to approve the
project with "changes" that they directed Pam Ricci, the senior planner, to make.
Stunned. Their main defence of their vote was their desire to move this project along
because they knew the applicant had been working on this for a couple of years, and they
basically wanted to see this development proceed.
We are neighbors to the immediate north, northeast of this project. We and our
neighbors will be severely impacted by this plot of houses. By their own design, this
project will take approximately 7 years to build out. The required low cost housing,
which allows them a significantly greater density, was not scheduled until year 4 of the
buildout. After listening to the applicant in a few meetings, I would wonder if that
housing should be put in first and the project be built out from west to east (east being
Orcutt road boundary). As we and our neighbors live off the intersection of Orcutt Road
and Johnson Avenue, we have very limited ability to bypass this development. It is further
our understanding that this is the template property of this whole OASP development.
There will be 930 homes in this segment of Orcutt from Johnson to Tank Farm.
As this is the "official" template for all the other properties that come after it, the
applicant is already off to a bad start in my opinion by trying to ease his responsibility of
doing this project correctly. SLO is a unique city. We do not wish to see this
development become the first project as is; it needs to be done beautifully, with open
spaces, areas to walk, meet with neighbors in green areas and rest to view the beauty of
the surrounding area. There should be a true park, or an easy way to get to the regional
park. Instead, much of the housing style doesn't meet the OASP, per the discussion in
the May 6 Architectural Review Commission. There is grossly inadequate provision for
guest parking. In fact, every meeting I attended or watched on television proved to be
lukewarm promotion of this property. You could easily surmise that there was very little
"right" with the project as planned.
The words of recommendation contained in the ARC meeting of 6 May 2013,
discusses changes as moved by the commissioners to "explore the possibility," "work with
adjacent property owners," "recommend digital model..." None of these suggestions
requires firm compliance. We fear there is no recourse should the applicant not wish to
accommodate the recommendations.
It is not honoring the unique residents of this city to allow this deficient property to
proceed as is. It seems to me, the two plus years our planning department has been
working on this has not achieved the desired outcome of the OASP for these properties.
Our other concern and it is really the biggest, is the ONE entrance into the property
at the beginning. There is one 40' entrance driveway on Orcutt Road just south of the
Johnson/Orcutt intersection. I have read in the project proposal that some other road,
which does not currently exist, will be built prior to the construction. I do not believe this
for one minute. First this road needs the permission of 3 other property owners to be
built, again the cart before the horse. Next, as the most expensive properties in the plan
are located at this entrance, how does the applicant think the potential owners of these
houses will feel with 7+ years of loud rumbling construction vehicles with their
obnoxious back-up beeping at their very doorsteps? Unfortunately, we have discovered
that we can easily hear the beeping of the vehicles that work in the PGE compound from
our house. It is located across from the property at 3725 Orcutt. It is a very annoying
noise, and will continue for many long years.
Our complaints are about the quality of this property and the planning for
somehow mitigating the effects of building out approximately 930 homes, and adding
another 2000 people on Orcutt Road. The spirit and letter of the OASP requires green,
open spaces, flowing water where available, walkable, bike -friendly areas, and housing
style compatible with the town. These tenants are required by the OASP to retain the
uniqueness of this newly annexed rural area of San Luis. This property, again, the
template, really accomplishes none of those things. It is crammed with houses, no
parking, no significant green open spaces and, no walking areas primarily due to the
severe lack of sidewalks. The OASP also requires trees and park -like settings in the
housing areas. If there are no sidewalks, where are the shady areas to occur?
We realize the applicant feels he needs to move this property along quickly to
recoup his investment to date. Our concern is that the property be properly adhering to
the OASP. At this date, it does not. And, relying on it to be redrawn to satisfaction will
likely not occur. What is the rush? Do we really need almost 1000 new homes without
1000 head of household jobs in place first? Cart before the horse. Or, as someone said
of another situation at the meeting the other day, a solution in search of a problem.
Thanks for listening. Please act to slow this down and require it adhere to OASP.
AGENDA I
CORRE.c3PONDENCE
Date lLI)' / _ _ tt w m # ���
414a a-,o�la�ewCz�4 �O