Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2014 flickinger (2)Kremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 3:55 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Public Comment, Council Agenda Item for 09/16/2014 Attachments: Financial Considerations. pdf Agenda Correspondence for 09/16/14 PH3 Anthony J. Mejia, MMC I City Clerk of sm) luis omspo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel J 805 787.7102 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE -3 Date" I Item #..� From: Sarah Flickinger [mailto:sarah @flickimc.com] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 3:52 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Cc: 'Donna'; 'Walter Bremer'; 'Darrell Goo'; Murry, Kim; Mandeville, Peggy Subject: Public Comment, Council Agenda Item for 09/16/2014 Dear Council (and staff), I have attached a third separate public comment from the Los Verdes Park 1 and 2 joint committee, for this Tuesday's City Council Meeting (September 16, 2014). Please find our 3 -page public comment attached. This is thethird of three public comments you will receive from the committee. Please confirm receipt. Thank you, Sarah Flickinger Join Committee Member Los Verdes Parks 1 & 2 Homeowners' Associations CON F=IDFN i'lAI-IYY NUT ICE-.-: This e -mail and any attachments may contain confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, any distribution, copying, or use of this e -mail or its attachments is prohibiled. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e -mail and delete this message and any copies. September 15, 2014 City Council of San Luis Obispo, CA City Council Public Comment Agenda Item: LUCE FEIR Certification Council Members: Please be aware that the current status of the LUCE may limit Development Plan negotiations with Chevron, costing both the developer and the City to spend needlessly on a stop -gap measure for addressing poor LOS traffic conditions at the LOVR and South Higuera intersection. We apologize that not all references may be included at this time; preparation time and resource limitations force us to not yet have every citation referenced, but we are continuing the effort. We have reviewed the full EIR for the Chevron project. Two mitigation measures are proposed in the Chevron EIR. The full text of the T -5e Mitigation Measures from the Chevron EIR (December 2013, 4.3- 35) is as follows: "South Higuera Street and Los Osos Valley Road — The applicant shall participate in their pro -rate share of either (1) The right -of -way acquisition, design, and installation of a second southbound through lane, second southbound right -turn lane, and an eastbound right turn overlap signal phase concurrent with the northbound left turn; or (2) The extension of Buckley Road to the Los Osos Valley Road interchange (LOVR Bypass). This project is not currently in the City's Circulation Element and is not contained in any impact fee programs established by the City or County. It is cumulative in nature and the City shall add this project into the TIF or AASP if the Circulation Element Update identifies it as an appropriate infrastructure improvement." Throughout our conversations with City Staff via email and at a joint meeting between the Parks and Staff July 17, 2014, it our understanding that the traffic mitigation measures for the first option would be approximately $3 million, exclusive of secondary mitigations resulting from increased traffic between and around the neighborhoods. We were also told an estimated high of $15 million for the Bypass, though figures could come in lower, as land acquisition costs and mitigation measures for impacted agriculture and creek impacts are unknown without further study. Securing land while it is still zoned agriculture could prove fiscally advantageous. Our neighborhoods are expressly against the first stated mitigation measure option in the Chevron EIR as currently stated, for the myriad reasons addressed with the City during the Los Osos Valley Interchange Project development which resulted in a joint settlement agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo, CALTRANS, and our two homeowners' associations, including but not limited to noise, air quality, safety, and other significant impacts. This first option, as referenced in the LUCE findings, requires secondary mitigation measures with regard to impacts on existing neighborhoods beyond the proposed City traffic mitigation. These secondary measures have the potential to exceed costs of a completed Bypass project. $15,000,000 Cost of Bypass - $3,000,000 Traffic Mitigation Measures for Mitigation Option 1 $12,000,000 Remaining $12,000,000 Remaining / —500 Aggrieved Residents and Homeowners with impacts and decreased home values $24,000 Per Aggrieved Party remaining for Secondary Mitigation The above stated figures do not take into account legal fees, land acquisition, secondary mitigation measures that may be constructed, and so forth. The same scenario, beginning with the $12 million figure, taking into account only homeowners claiming loss of property values due to encroachment of LOVR would look like this: $12,000,000 Remaining / 180 178 Single Family Homes plus 2 Homeowners' Associations $66,666 Per Aggrieved Party, exclusive of mitigation measure costs et al stated above The preferred mitigation measures have yet to be sorted out through the development agreement process between Chevron and the City. We recognize there is an environmental trade off here. However, in the question of long -term planning and transferring existing open space land uses into residential developments, it has to be expected. The first mitigation measure's primary and secondary costs could easily surpass those of the bypass. New developments not yet designed will be better equipped to incorporate primary and secondary mitigation of impacts by design, lessening expensive retrofit secondary mitigation investments to be required of existing developers. The San Luis Obispo County APCD works closely with new developments to achieve this balance as projects are proposed. The LUCE FEIR document as it stands could tie Council's hands with relation to negotiating in the matter of impact mitigation as it pertains to the Chevron development. In the Planning Commission hearings related to LUCE thus far, Commissioners appear to have opted to leave some of these major policy decisions for Council to inform. Council itself wanted to hold off on informing development negotiations until the findings of the LUCE were fully discussed. At this time the Parks want to preclude any further delay to upcoming development projects or certification of the LUCE, and we want to work proactively with City Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council to resolve circulation issues throughout the lower Higuera and eastern LOVR corridors in a way that does not compromise the character and safety of our neighborhoods, does not interfere with future planned or proposed projects, and enhances our ability, as residents, contributes to the City's stated goals for meeting development and a sustainable City model. Additionally, adding beneficial infrastructure that meets current and impending City circulation needs in advance will support and encourage accelerated development of much needed workforce housing to support a long term sustainable community structure as supported by the City, the LUCE document with additional recommended amendment included herein, and the San Luis Obispo County Chamber of Commerce. The Bypass provides additional benefits, which should not be dismissed as localized, because that term herein is used only in relation to traffic levels of service programmatic analysis. Among others, these include regional commuter traffic relief, US 101 corridor congestion relief within the City limits, connectivity between US 101 and State Road 227, Air Quality issues related to poor levels of service, a scenic purpose -built gateway to the southern access point to the City, improved grid structure circulation as preferred by most circulation plans, ample space for multimodal services, improved infrastructure that encourages residential development, among others. Some of these benefits were included in public comment FEIR P -6 (attached). There are alternatives beyond what is suggested within the LUCE for the Bypass. Not all of the signals are necessarily needed in some alternatives, which would allow longer stretches between signalized intersections, preventing traffic impacts related to poor spacing known to be in the area. The existing LOVR could be adjusted to a limited circulation element dedicated to supporting multimodal travel between two developing areas of the City, giving a shorter preferential safe route for those traveling via bike or pedestrian traffic for everyday trips between connected areas, while retaining safe, protected (with or without signalization), limited localized access for existing and future residential projects in the area. It may even be a perfect opportunity to look at the parklet and Class 1 bike boulevard concepts referenced in the LUCE. With your consent and direction, we are happy to work with the City to explore these options so that collaboratively, with myriad input we can find a win - win -win for environmental impacts, multimodal transportation goals, and future development that support continued enjoyment of the SLO Life for all. These benefits can provide additional outside funding sources, in the form of a broad range of grants, regional transportation funds and State connectivity grants, and multimodal transportation grants, lessening the financial burden of the Bypass by distributing it across a broad number of sources, including Chevron and other development agreements and an early TIF funding cycle specific to the Bypass project. Please, we urge you, to make your certification of this document dependent on Staff advancing the Bypass Project with reverting to the LUCE finding originally stated in the June 3, 2014 document. Otherwise, Council summarily accepts a mitigation measure that has not yet been fully vetted through the development planning and mitigation review process, and could cause a cumulative effect of developer and City monies wasted on stop -gap measures that make the situation worse, and a costlier fix between now and the maximum build year that discourages future developers. Advancing the Bypass with the June 3, 2014 LUCE finding as part of your acceptance of this document allows Staff to create a project and fully vet this concept, its funding alternatives and its structural alternatives. This process will serve to support Chevron Development Agreement negotiations, encourage future developments (i.e. Creekside Development, Madonna at LOVR Development, among others identified within the LUCE), and take advantage of an extended funding cycle while planning early for an already identified, and previously recommended, long -term solution. Thank you. (Prepared by: Sarah Flickinger, on behalf of the Los Verdes Parks 1 and 2 committee)