HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-16 PC Correspondence - Item 2 (Vujovich-LaBarre)Lomeli, Monique
Subject: RE: PC communication - 3/23/16 - San Luis Ranch
From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre [
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:19 PM
To: Advisory Bodies; Maier, John Paul
Subject: PC communication - 3/23/16- San Luis Ranch
March 23, 2016
To: Planning Commission - San Luis Obispo
Cc: San Luis Obispo City Council Members
Re: Concerns about the San Luis Ranch Development
From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MAR 2 4 2016
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
IUleetl Ig. ; d3 kp
Item: D
Dear Planning Commission Members,
Although many of these concerns have been shared at various meetings, for the record, I am
emphasizing my ongoing concerns with the proposed development on "San Luis Ranch," previously
known as the Dalidio property.
Since this property is still located in the County of San Luis Obispo, I find it interesting that the
developer and his team are scheduling multiple City meetings prior to annexation. I feel that once this
plan is made public that the developer will feel he has done much to comply with the desires of City
staff. However, I sense the public will feel like they have not had an opportunity to give appropriate
input. A development of this magnitude will cause a significant amount of public angst. It just seems
like the common person should be given ample time now to voice their concerns.
It came to my attention that the developer did host a "public" meet and greet to a select group of
residents in December. Most of them shared the same concerns that follow here.
My concerns include:
1. Water.Where is the water of this development? City and County residents have been asked to
conserve for months and I do not see water levels increasing at the local sources of our water.
Recently, I attended meetings with the head of the Public Utilities Division, Carrie Mattingly,
the City Manager Katie Lichtig and other members of the community. The City of San Luis
Obispo has validated that there is 3.5 years of water for current residents. This number does
not include new residents. I have publicly asked for a temporary building moratorium until the
factors from EI Nino can be analyzed. Thankfully, the City's new water report will have factors
in regard to climate change highlighted - the previous report from 2010 did not.
The adjacent Laguna Lake is dry and has not been given the attention that it deserves. Experts
have stated that EI Nino will not remedy the drought to the degree that residents had hoped.
It is the current residents that I feel the elected and paid City officials as well as the volunteer
City officials have the obligation to provide for and protect.
2. My next concern is traffic. The number of proposed residential units - 500- in addition to the
proposed office and commercial space will produce an absurd number of 1,000-2,000 vehicles
making anywhere from 2-4 trips daily. Will this next generation focus on walking, biking and
bus travel? Perhaps. However, the people in -the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses
of Laguna Lake deserve an authentic study of what traffic will look like with this proposed
developMe.ot.
Traffic from the proposed business development should also be part of that same study.
The previous rendering of this development had the streets being narrow - to make more room
for the houses. If the streets are to be narrow, one-way streets in the development should be
considered.
Also, there does not appear to be enough parking for the new townhomes.
In the preliminary conceptual plan there is a new traffic light in between Dalidio Drive and
Oceanaire. This is going to be problematic as it is going to create traffic jams throughout the
day.
It is very important for the cumulative impacts of traffic to be addressed in these traffic models.
The traffic model should take into consideration the traffic that is currently there, the traffic with
the proposed San Luis Ranch development and the traffic with the proposed development on
the Madonna property near Costco.
3. Prado Road. The proverbial "elephant in the room" is Prado Road. Is it an interchange or an
overpass? Where is it as a four -lane truck highway on the plans? Prado Road was indeed part
of the updated Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) Plan. The LUCE plan is cited in meetings
as the rationale for this immense and dense San Luis Ranch development, so I think that the
public deserves to see the entire plan and the inclusion of the Prado Road overpass or
interchange.
The truck traffic should also be addressed in the traffic study. To not do so is turning a blind
eye to the reality of the development.
The truck traffic will not just be on Prado Road but on the extension of Froom Ranch Road as
well. This fact should be depicted on the architectural renderings.
Also, I have always heard that the developer is solely responsible for traffic/road
improvements.Or is this developer and his development team assuming that residents will help
pay for it?
For the City to entertain any development on the San Luis Ranch without getting a clear,
consistent answer on whether or not the overpass or interchange is even viable is
unconscionable.
It recently came to my attention that meetings have started between members of CALTRANS,
the City, the County and the members of the Airport Land Use Commission. I was told that
these meetings were not open to the public. Perhaps you as Planning Commissioners could be
informed of their topics of concern and decisions.
City officials should insist that the traffic infrastructure - out of the pocket of the developer - be
completed either at the same time the development is being constructed or prior to it so that
residents are not plagued with traffic snarls for years before the congestion is addressed.
4. Affordable housing. Affordable housing is proposed and the question is "At what
price?" The cost of road improvements needs to be factored in to the purchase price so that
the developer can make a profit. It would be good business sense to know this obligation
before hand. For the common person to look at the simple equation of 500 homes x
$400,000= $200,000,000, it gives a citizen an idea of the profit that Gary Grossman and his
team stand to make. Even if the cost of the land at roughly $20,000,000 and the overpass or
intersection at an estimated $60,000,000 is factored in that is still a gross profit of
$120,000,000. The hypothetical cost of construction at $150 per square foot x a 1,500 square
foot building = a true cost of $225,000. If one takes that true cost of $225,000 x 500 dwellings
the result is $112,500,000.
Please look into these numbers and let the public know what the homes would be priced at.
Given this simple equation, one might recognize that the developer is not going to be willing to
fund the overpass and cut into his profits so substantially.
Of course, this simple equation does not factor in the cost and profit of the proposed
commercial development that is also in the preliminary plan.
5. Affordable housing vs. Student rentals. Unless there is an opportunity for deed restrictions
and/or strict "Conditions, Covenants and Restraints"
(CC and R's) on the property who is to say that the units will not be turned into a mass of
student rentals.
6. The next concern is noise. The noise will need to be mitigated in these developments. The
noise will be from the people, the vehicular traffic and air travel.
What is not in the preliminary plans is the anticipated noise from the four- lane truck highway
known as Prado Road and the extension of Froom Road that will connect with Los Osos Valley
Road. On the preliminary plan, Froom Road appears that it is a line of trees, when in reality it
will be a road. It should be made more clear on the plans. Also, the proposed elevation of the
units on the plan are two and three stories tall ( 35 feet and 50 feet respectively). The residents
will be negatively affected by the fumes and the noise of vehicular traffic.
7. My other concern is safety from air travel. The proposed development is at the actual site of
a plane crash. I was not a proponent of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) override
vote that was supported by a majority of the City Council due to concerns for the safety of
residents on the ground and pilots and passengers in the sky.
No one to date has been able to answer the question, "When a crash occurs on the
development, who will be held legally responsible?" Is it the City? The developer? The airport?
And/or the taxpayers?
8. Having viewed the preliminary plan, my attention is also on the fact that it shows the
construction of three-story structures on Madonna Road. Will the row of eucalyptus trees be
felled? If so, I think that it should be in the plans for a row of trees to be planted to the east of
the development near the proposed agricultural land so that the view from Highway 101 is one
of trees with a foreground of agricultural land and not a cluster of dense homes. From the
residents' point of view, it seems that they also would appreciate a view of trees rather than
one of the highway.
9. 1 would also like to know how the traffic and residents will impact the environmentally
sensitive animals, specifically herons that are on the property. Please address how those
animals will be protected during and after construction.
10. In looking at the preliminary plan, I would also like to see an above road, pedestrian access
to Laguna Lake Park facilitated for future residents, especially due to the fact that the yards on
the proposed properties are small and/or non-existent.
11.1-astly, it seems that the developer is taking inordinate amounts of time meeting with groups
of elected officials and special interest groups. It would serve the developer - Gary Grossman
and his development team including members of the architectural firm RRM - well to send a
comprehensive notice to the neighborhoods and receive public feedback on the development.
The meeting could occur at Laguna Middle School multi-purpose room.
At a neighborhood meeting, concerns about affordable and workforce housing, our City
resources including water and the additional infrastructure could be addressed.
The citizens of the City of San Luis Obispo have the right to determine if they want this Class 1
agricultural land to be annexed into the City and used for residential housing and commercial
office space.
In closing, thank you for the opportunity to enumerate concerns now so that they can be addressed in
the near future.
Sincerely,
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
Mila Vujovich-La Barre
650 Skyline Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
milavuhotmail.com