Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/10/2024 Item 6c, Smith Colunga-Lopez, Andrea carolyn smith < To:E-mail Council Website Subject:City Council Meeting, December 10, 2024; Item 6c. - San Luis Ranch This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Mayor Stewart and Council Members, The San Luis Ranch applicant's request to remove thousands of square feet of commercial and replace it with 276 market rate residential units, diverging from the original project plan that was vetted through a thorough EIR process, should be denied. I was very involved in this project during its inception studying the EIR, attending and commenting at numerous council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and Airport Land Use Commission meetings. It was very clear from the FEIR that this project would create significant unavoidable negative impacts to the community such as increased traffic, air quality deterioration, removal of natural habitat for birds and other wildlife by removing mature trees, removal of prime Class 1 agricultural land, and create danger to residents directly under an airport flight path where there have been several aircraft crashes in past years. Changing this project to now include a different configuration of a phase from commercial to residential with significantly higher density, should require an updated EIR. It should include an updated traffic study that can demonstrate real life consequences from what has already been built (not just using modeling), as well as addressing the increased flight danger, parking congestion, and other issues. The traffic mitigation recommended in the FEIR of this project was that the Prado Road Exchange be at least shovel ready before Phase II of the project was to be built and that was the condition under which this project was approved. However, at a later date, the developer asked the city to allow him to build more phases without the Prado Road Exchange which was approved, using over-riding considerations to ignore the FEIR's primary traffic mitigation recommendation. Now the applicant wants to change the plan again, adding even more residential units without construction of the Prado Road Exchange. This should not be allowed since the traffic congestion on both Madonna Road and LOVR has become gridlocked at many hours of the day. Vehicles are idling while sitting through several light changes which I experience on nearly a daily basis. This not only increases carbon emissions in the city, it causes some drivers to become impatient, making stupid and dangerous maneuvers to get to their destination quicker, causing accidents. Since construction of the Prado Road Exchange was vital to mitigate some of the traffic congestion in the FEIR and since it appears its still years away from beginning construction--at a current estimated cost of $100 million--this application should be denied. Furthermore, the loss of sales taxes for the city from the removed commercial will result in less revenue that could be used to help pay for the Prado Road Exchange. Nearby residents' concerns about insufficient parking in this proposed phase modification should be seriously considered since it is a quality-of-life issue that can cause strife and ire to an entire neighborhood. Residents from other phases of this development already have insufficient parking, so they're parking blocks away, creating parking congestion problems for residents on other streets. While the parking ratio proposed for this revised phase may be per state and city codes, guidelines and policies, it will be a significant problem for all residents in this project and should be of 1 concern to this council. Despite the city's best efforts, people who rent and buy homes in SLO have cars--oftentimes more than 2 cars to a home. If parking requirements are insufficient for those living in these proposed additional units, they'll just park in other neighborhood streets causing severe parking congestion resulting in conflicts with their neighbors. I continue to be troubled about the danger of building homes directly under a flight path where there have been several aircraft accidents. including fatalities. The debris from the 1994 aircraft crash killing 4 people, adjacent to the post office, was widely scattered throughout nearby areas where there are now homes. When I attended numerous ALUC meetings and hearings on this project several years ago, two pilots on the commission, with no connections to development interests, warned the public that building the amount of density in the original project, directly under a flight path, would put its occupants in peril, stating it's not if, but when a crash will reoccur causing serious injuries and fatalities. Now, with the increased number of flights and larger jets continually taking off and landing over this project, this warning is even more dire. Ernie Dalidio was restricted to building less than 100 residential units in his project plan years ago because the ALUC at that time understood the dangers and didn't succumb to political pressure or influence to approve a project that would put residents in peril. It would be short-sighted and a tragedy to see the goal of wanting more housing result in even more people living in potential danger. Therefore, this request to add hundreds more residents living directly under a flight path should not be allowed or, at the very least, be thoroughly and seriously studied with a supplemental ALUC review. Thank you for your service and consideration. Carolyn Smith 44 year Laguna Lake area resident 2