Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/1/2025 Item 8a, Peck March 28, 2025 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 92410 RE: April 1st City Council Meeting, Item 8a Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: Thank you for your attention to this matter. And, thank you to the staff members who ana- lyzed the relevant issues associated with the Broadstone project. The project is at an important junc- ture to determine the necessary and desired entitlements going forward. Your action on this matter will determine whether we proceed with the “bypass” option to solve the short - and long-term traffic issues in the area and set up the Bob Jones Trail for completion, or to proceed with the “non -bypass” option and proceed only with a General Plan and Zone Change as called for in the Housing Element. The City staff has summarized the relevant General Plan policies that warrant moving forward with the project as proposed, including the annexation. We support the staff recommendation. Our first task on the project was to do the “feasibility study” for the bypass called for in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE). Somewhat to our surprise, the bypass was found not only to be a desirable element, but a necessary element to address traffic, ped and bicycle operational issues in the vicinity, and the project team therefore focused on how that could happen. During that process the alignment for the Bob Jone Trail was also evaluated to ensure its safe operation and financial fea- sibility. The project before you addresses the various technical, jurisdictional, and engineering issues associated with the bypass and Bob Jones Trail extension. Our selection of the densities and product types for the project was deliberate. As our pop- ulation ages, and as we receive more retirees, there is a need for housing geared to seniors. This “move down”/”move out” housing will free up existing housing for “move up” and new home buyers. The requested R-4 zoning will ensure the financial feasibility of the bypass and bike path and to make the best use of the land resources. For the “South” site, since the bypass chews up about 1.4 acres of developable land, and the lot line adjustment to accommodate the Los Verdes Park II fence encroach- ment chews up another 0.2 acres of developable land, the proposed R-4 zoning on that property yields the same number of density units (164.16 density units) as an R-3 zone without the bypass (164.4 density units). The densities, and the resulting number of units are important factors in deter- mining the feasibility and reasonableness of the improvements and costs borne by the project. The R- 4 density also allows us to provide a wider range of sizes and types of housing, with more studios, 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom units. As you can see from the application materials and agenda correspondence, we have spent a great deal of time exploring design alternatives with the Los Verdes neighbors. In all , there have been six meetings with these two groups, with more to come. We have provided written responses to the questions and issues that were raised at those meetings in our application materials and in separate transmittals to the City and Los Verdes participants. We have addressed many of the original issues and modified the project, but there are more studies to come during the actual entitlement process. We recognize that there is healthy skepticism about the impact of additional housing on the local cir- culation network, and we are committed to working together to evaluate design options when we know more from the traffic and environmental studies that still need to be prepared. We believe, however, based on the traffic study that has been prepared to date , that 3,400 vehicle trips per day would be diverted to the bypass from the Los Verdes frontage and Higuera south of LOVR; even with new project traffic and the greater number of units than the existing zoning on the Broadstone prop- erty, there would likely be a reduction of 2,750 to 3,000 vehicle trips per day on the LVP frontage. By contrast, development under the existing zoning or lower-yield R-3 zoning, would increase traffic on LOVR across the LVP frontage by 500-750 vehicles per day because the bypass would not be con- structed, and no existing trips would be diverted. Our meetings have made us aware of many of the issues addressed in the agenda correspondence. Some specific responses to issues raised: • Noise Impacts: The noise study prepared for the application concludes that the principal source of noise is State Highway 101 traffic. The proposed buildings would block that noise and there would be no real net increase in noise with the bypass option. • Traffic and Congestion: The application materials demonstrate that the project with the bypass will divert significant vehicle trips and there will be a net reduction of trips at the LOVR/Higuera intersection and across the Los Verdes Park frontage. As part of the entitle- ment process the traffic study will be expanded to address other intersections and seg- ments, including the entrance to Los Verdes Park I and II. • Intersection Location: The traffic signal proposed for the project has adequate spacing to allow turning movements in and out of Los Verdes Parks, the NB State Highway 101 ramps, and the project. • Number of Dwelling Units: The environmental document will review the relative impact of the “no project” alternative, meaning development under existing zoning. Development with the existing zoning (+/- 130 units), or the level identified in the Housing Element (+/- 211 units) is not adequate to support the construction and maintenance cost of the traffic signal, the bypass and the Bob Jones Trail since those development levels won’t generate enough Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) on their own to fund the City TIF’s share of con- struction. Development of fewer units will exacerbate the current issues, while develop- ment of more units will relieve congestion by funding the needed improvements. In in this case “more” development will result in “less” congestion. • Setbacks and Interface: There were a number of comments about project scale and the interface of the project with the existing R-1 Los Verdes developments. The project has been revised to address many of those comments, and exceeds the City’s “Edge Condi- tions” requirements for the interface between multi-story multifamily developments and existing Single-Family properties. The site views and photo-sims also show limited visual impact or privacy issues. • Drainage and Flooding: The project will meet all City and FEMA flood control and manage- ment requirements. This issue is a special focus area since it has been necessary to “mary” the City’s flood maps and the County’s flood maps. As noted in the drainage study, “…the Broadstone project has minimal impact to the floodplain and floodway through most of the project limits and any increase in flood elevation or velocity would be within allowable lim- its….” And, since the bypass itself will be located between Los Verdes II and the South pro- ject, the LVP II project will now have protection from 100-year flooding because the bypass road itself is required to be above the 100-year flood elevation. (Currently, the southeast corner of LVP II is in the floodway and flood zone.) We are also sympathetic to the City’s financial constraints and have proposed a number of strategies to minimize the impact on the General Fund, to not use Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) beyond those generated by the project, nor to use assume financial contributions beyond those that are currently budgeted for the Bob Jones Trail and the LOVR/Higuera improvements (which the by- pass would replace). The CFD mentioned by the staff can be used for operations and maintenance, as well as for some improvement costs. The feasibility of this tool depends on the reasonableness of the assessment imposed which is directly related to the cost of the improvements and the number of units assessed. We are committed to working with your staff to find a solution that works for the Cit y and the project. Finally, we are committed to meeting the City’s affordable housing requirements. The den- sity bonus senior housing project will create opportunities elsewhere in the community as its resi- dents move out of their current units. Our program is based on providing small-sized units that can meet the workforce housing needs. As we complete the technical, economic and environmental stud- ies for the project, we’ll be in a better position to commit to a particular program. We expect that this will be a key element of the Development Agreement for the project. Sincerely, Stephen J. Peck, AICP