Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2014 PH2 Vujovich-LaBarre 2Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:28 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: For City Council Meeting - 10/21/14 PH 2 10/21/14 I OCT 21 2014 COUNCIL M EEJ'ING- From: Mila Vujovich- LaBarre [mailto:milavu @hotmail.com] i "i EM NO.;I Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:25 PM To: Mejia, Anthony; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Marx, Jan; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Johnson, Derek Cc: Andrew Christie; jud e; rosemary; bill wilson; Alan Thomas; Bert Forbes Subject: For City Council Meeting - 10/21/14 To: Mayor Jan Marx and San Luis Obispo City Council Members San Luis Obispo City Planning Department From: Mila Vujovich -La Barre Re: Concerns of the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) - 2035 Date: October 20, 2014 At the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting I spoke during public comment in regard to some concerns I have about the LUCE document. With this communication I am hoping to clarify my concerns since the public comment period of three minutes is insufficient at times to fully highlight concerns. As a resident of San Luis Obispo, I endorse "smart growth." The LUCE document has not reflected some of the tenants of smart growth. As I stated earlier in writing and at the podium, it is clear to me that the LUCE grant was tied to maximizing development and not necessarily trying to build an optimal City for 2035. Although I appreciate the recent strengthening of the language in the LUCE document in regard to global warming, climate change and multi -modal transportation, it still falls short. Also, it seems there still needs to be a statement somewhere in the LUCE document that addresses a proverbial "Plan B" for future development in the City of San Luis Obispo in the event this epic drought continues. For posterity, it seems that the dissenting opinion authored by three members of the LUCE team should be included in this final document. It is not. Since I addressed my concerns in an earlier letter specifically about not overruling the Airport Land Use Commission due to safety, liability and noise, Jamie Lopes, Eugene Jud and I joined Derek Johnson of the City of San Luis Obispo on Friday, October 17, 2014 for clarification on why some members of the City Council are in still in favor of the overrule vote. The meeting did not leave me satisfied with the research by the City. The airport noise numbers did not take into consideration the additional noise that would be caused by a four -lane truck highway, Prado Road. I have also reviewed the information in letters sent to Derek Johnson by Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. The City is putting itself at risk for legal action in my opinion. Even more important, the overrule vote would put human lives in jeopardy and hamper the viability of the airport. What alarmed me the other night in the October 7, 2014 City Council meeting was the analysis of Prado Road. As you know Prado Road has been on the City master plan since 1960 as an east -west connector. In late night City Council meeting over early 14 years ago, a small portion of the eastern extension of Prado Road named the "Northern Alignment," was positioned on seven acres of land that was originally in the City resolution for sports fields and open space. This was to placate the Damon and Garcia families who, in the purchase agreement with the City, sold their land for sports fields, but reserved seven acres for a possible road for their future housing development. The Damon and Garcia families wanted to build upwards of 200 homes for profit on their farmland. I maintain that we can abide by the purchase agreement if we simply make sure people have access to Broad via Industrial Way or a widened Tank Farm Road at Santa Fe. The document known as "the resolution" made the land exempt from an EIR and CEQA due to section 13525. In the current LUCE document and discussion at the last City Council meeting there was a slide displayed labeled "street network changes." Prado Road is shown as four -lane truck highway with the east -west connection both at the Northern Alignment in between the Damon - Garcia Sports Fields and the South Hills open space, connecting with Broad Street and an extension going south to Santa Fe at Tank Farm Road. The four -lane truck highway in the LUCE document also extends west to Madonna Road via an overpass. It is not ethical to ignore the fact that Chevron will be taking the "flower mounds" on their property to a 3% grade. An EIR of the Northern Alignment should be done so that people will recognize a connection with the signalized intersection at Industrial Way or a connection with a widened Tank Farm Road at Santa Fe is the more prudent alternative. If the Northern Alignment is allowed, the additional proposed stoplight at Broad Street and Prado Road will jam up traffic and have children playing soccer in between two truck routes, Broad Street and Prado Road, both with idling trucks! The City's concept that children are going to go from the fields to the new developments via a tunnel under the proposed road is also costly and unsafe. Some people can say that the Northern Alignment will probably never be built. That does not make me feel any better. This LUCE document will become the proverbial play book for future development. This matter should not be ignored. If all the matters are transparent, it seems that these alternatives should be addressed somewhere instead of blatantly saying that the Northern Alignment is set in stone. Derek Johnson and others can state repeatedly that the Northern Alignment has been "looked at," "studied" or "voted on" but there has never been an EIR done on it. On more than one occasion, I have forwarded the letter from Wendy George- SLO City Administrative Assistant to me in 2003 that states that one was never done. Having a four -lane truck highway, less than 35 feet from children on sports fields, does not promote the sense of a safe, healthy, bike and pedestrian friendly community. New alternatives for that portion of road are being made available due to the Chevron remediation and mention of those alternatives should be made somewhere. So, a supplemental EIR for the Northern Alignment or a real EIR for the very first time should be executed. If you as Council members are so willing to give the San Luis Ranch development a sidebar with caveats for their development, then I think that there should be a sidebar about the Northern Alignment in the LUCE document discussed in tonight's meeting in respect to maintaining the integrity of the South Hills open space and Damon - Garcia sports fields and the new options for the Northern Alignment presented by the Chevron remediation. Also, during the City Council meeting on October 7, 2014 there was also a discussion and brief presentation by City staff that discussed an analysis of Prado Road at Highway 101. The discussion involved whether or not Prado Road would best serve as an interchange or an over pass. In all of the years that I have spent concerned about Prado Road, I have always been told that an interchange at that site would not be feasible due to the proximity of Madonna Road interchange and Los Osos Valley Road interchange. That being said, the huge problem with the analysis that was presented to the public at the last City Council meeting is that the study of this development driven road started at Prado Road on the east side roughly where the Mangano homes development is near South Higuera Street and Prado Road. A complete analysis would have included the cars that will eventually be passing through there from as far away as the Marigold area and of course the new homes and commercial development through the Margarita Area, the Damon and Garcia homes and the 800,000 square feet of commercial development that is proposed by Chevron. The interchange or overpass should also be analyzed on how many people would eventually be using Prado Road instead of Tank Farm Road if it is built as it is on the LUCE- 2035 Master Plan. City staff showed a small portion of Prado where it intersects with Highway 101 and the numbers displayed to the oublic were very skewed and inaccurate. The other part of the scenario that Was problematic was whether or not Prado Road was four- lanes or two- lanes. Currently, the Mangano Homes development has been allowed to just build two lanes with a round -a bout and bike lanes. How awkward is that going to be when the neighboring development is four- lanes and then transition to two - lanes? The LUCE document should paint a picture for residents who care about proper planning and for developers who need to figure the cost of the road into the projects that they build. Also, during the same meeting on October 7, 2014, some people referred to the work done by City staff on the "Highway 101 / Prado Interchange versus Overpass" presentation as an "EIR "; other people that night referred to it as a "traffic study." If it is indeed a comprehensive EIR for the Prado Road interchange versus an overpass, then it seems that there should have been additional data included. Of course thorough input from Caltrans on whether or not an interchange with a "clover leaf" is even feasible at that location should be front and center in the conversation! An interchange at Prado Road does not make sense traffic wise. As a case in point, I challenge anyone who is reading this in San Luis Obispo to do the following. Get in your car and go South on Highway 101 using the Southbound Highway 101 entrance on Madonna Road. As you accelerate onto Highway 101 and pass Embassy Suites on your right, you pass where the Prado Road exit is being penciled in. You would be running into people in their cars slowing down to exit at Prado Road— clover leaf or not! It seems ludicrous on the LUCE document to make the Prado Road interchange a priority without addressing reality. One must examine a logical diagram and then predicate development on what is actually even feasible at that location. It is irresponsible to tell developers that they can maximize housing in a certain location, have to pay for the road infrastructure and then have the road infrastructure not be based on logic. As just indicated, the interchanges of Madonna Road and Prado Road would be too close together. Then once the Los Osos Valley Road interchange goes through the long- awaited improvement process, it is also my assumption that the proposed Prado Road south bound onramp will be illogical for the southbound Los Osos Valley Road exit ramp. Prado Road is a development driven road. The Prado overpass or interchange is not a "public benefit' when people will be confronting 1,200 to 20,000 more cars on that road from the proposed work -force housing, maneuvering round- a- bouts and proposed bike lanes as well. Prado Road will not provide a "quick trip" across town. A widened Tank Farm Road with Class 1 bike lanes nearby and an improved Buckley Road will alleviate traffic better and legally. Since the grant that the LUCE document was funded by sought to maximize development, not necessarily provide the best City for the next generation, it also concerns me that there is another contradiction. In the LUCE document it states that the "prime agricultural land in our City will be protected." In another part of the same document, there are homes and commercial development on half of the 131 -acres of prime agricultural land known as the San Luis Ranch. The contradiction is mind - boggling for people who truly want to keep San Luis Obispo viable and the best it can be for the next generation. Please have the courage to correct these serious errors to reflect what the people, and not just the developers of San Luis Obispo, want. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, Mila Vujovich -La Barre Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93405