Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSan Luis Ranch DEIR Public Comment received 1-25-2017 (Vujovich-La Barre 1)Meeting: R -- January 25, 2017 To: Planning Commission - City of San Luis Obispo Cc: San Luis Obispo City Council Members Katie Lichtig - City Manager RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 2 7 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) San Luis Ranch Development From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre Date: January 25, 2017 Dear Planning Commission Members - Thank you for the opportunity to voice opinions about the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for San Luis Ranch. Many of my concerns were expressed during the scoping meeting for this same project on November 17, 2015. Since I was at the last Planning Commission meeting, I wanted to express my ongoing concerns for your consideration and the public record. Although this property is still located in the County of San Luis Obispo, the developer and his team are scheduling multiple City meetings prior to annexation. I feel that once this plan is made truly 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 the public angst. The common person should be given time now to voice their concerns and ideas. The Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) was funded by a state grant that maximized development in San Luis Obispo. It may have been good in theory for the majority of the LUCE members who had a background in development. However, it did not take into consideration many realities, some of which I have enumerated and discussed below. The LUCE process did not provide for substantial public input. My concerns about the proposal are primarily the following: 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 sources of our water for a development of this magnitude. 2. Traffic The number of proposed 550 residential units, in addition to the proposed office and commercial space will produce a minimum of 1,000-2,000 vehicles making anywhere from 2-4 trips daily. This upcoming generation may focus on walking, biking and bus travel out of respect for climate change, however most people will still utilize a car. People in the surrounding neighborhoods and businesses of Laguna Lake deserve an authentic study of what traffic will look like with this proposed development. They also deserve an authentic appraisal of parking for the proposed development. Traffic flow from the proposed business development should also be part of that same study. Streets appear to be narrow. One -way streets in the development should be considered. There does not appear to be enough parking for the new townhomes. In the preliminary conceptual plan there was a new traffic light in between Dalidio Drive and Oceanaire. It was not clear to me whether there is one or not in this new plan. If there is one, it is going to be problematic. 3. Prado Road. As I wrote previously, the proverbial "elephant in the room" is Prado Road. For years now, people have been asking whether Prado Road is going to be an interchange or an overpass. They have been asking whether or not it a four -lane truck highway as it appears on the LUCE plans. Prado Road was indeed part of the updated Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) Plan. Also, the LUCE plan is cited in meetings as the rationale for this immense and dense San Luis Ranch development. Prado Road is also part of the traffic circulation plan for Avila Ranch. The public deserves to see the entire plan and the inclusion of the Prado Road overpass or interchange. One cannot "cherry pick" the LUCE plan and provide for just the parts that are "easy" and/or profitable. All of the support system should be in place. Since the developer is solely responsible for traffic/road improvements - his "fair share" - this overpass or interchange will substantially impact the cost of the residential units that are being proposed there. For City staff to entertain any development on the San Luis Ranch - formerly known as the Dalidio property - without getting a clear answer on whether or not the overpass or interchange is even viable is unconscionable. A transparent discussion should occur with CALTRANS about the interchange and/or overpass as soon as possible. City elected 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. At last week's meeting the developer surprised me by stating that the plan is now to build homes in the first phase in back of Target and funnel all of the resulting traffic onto Froom Ranch Road and then onto Los Osos Valley Road. Then, the developer's representative quipped, "Who knows when the Prado Road overpass will ever be built." This factor should not be an afterthought. This should be discussed now to avoid extreme congestion on Los Osos Valley Road. Everyone needs to remember that another development - the Madonna family's Continued Care Residential (CCR) Facility is also being proposed with traffic to also be funneled on to Los Osos Valley Road. In the current plans, Madonna's CCR also has 280 homes scheduled to be built. The traffic will become unbearable. 4. Affordable housing. Affordable housing is proposed and the question is, "At what price?" The cost of road improvements needs to be factored into the purchase price so that the developer can make a profit. It would be good business sense to know this obligation beforehand. 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. Please look into these numbers and let the public know what the homes would be priced at. 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, or the actual cost of the residential construction. 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. Noise The noise from this development will need to be mitigated. 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. Airport Viability and Safety 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 last 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. Trees Having viewed the preliminary plan, my attention is also on the fact that it shows the construction of three-story structures on Madonna Road. The row of eucalyptus trees will need to be eliminated. I question that logic. If people think clear cutting that row of mature trees is a good idea, then 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. Animal protection Parts of the property is home to some environmentally sensitive animals, specifically herons. Please address how those animals will be protected during and after construction. 10. Access to Laguna Lake Access to the adjacent Laguna Lake recreational area has not been given the attention that it deserves. Having looked 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. This would allow people who bike or walk an opportunity to cross Madonna Road without having to halt traffic. 11.Public Input As I mentioned a year ago during the scoping meeting for this project, it seems that the developer is taking inordinate amounts of time meeting with groups of elected officials. It would serve the developer - Gary Grossman and his development team including members of the architectural firm RRM - well to send a notice to the neighborhoods and receive public feedback on the development. After I made these comments last year, I believe only one meeting was held at a local Italian restaurant, but residents and business owners have not had an opportunity to voice their concerns since then. 12. Class 1 Agricultural Land 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. 13. Other options I have included below the letter that was submitted to both Gary Grossman and Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong. In short, an alternative for this project would be for Gary Grossman to complete and "old-fashioned land swap" with Cal Poly. They have plenty of acreage to build everything that Grossman desires. The agricultural land could be a Cal Poly working farm for decades to come. A ranch style dorm house could be constructed on the Grossman property by Cal Poly for agriculture students who work the land. In turn, Grossman could build an array of housing on Cal Poly land in a public - private partnership that would allow for students and staff to have affordable housing. Grossman's hotel and conference center could give students employment and real life hospitality experience. This proposal would save Grossman the cost of the interchange, it would protect the agricultural land, and decrease the amount of traffic substantially. In closing, thank you for the opportunity to enumerate concerns now so that they can be addressed in the near future. Sincerely, Wifa vujovich-Ga Barre Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 January 19, 2015 Dr. Jeff Armstrong — President California Polytechnic University San Luis Obispo, California Mr. Gary Grossman Central Coast Builders Pismo Beach, California Dear Dr. Armstrong and Mr. Grossman, In the spirit of Martin Luther King, I have a dream. This dream can become a reality with a few simple steps and make San Luis Obispo the best it can be. Although you are both hard-working modest men, I also think that people would think you were absolute saviors if you are able to follow through on what I am about to propose. Mr. Grossman, you as the new owner of the 131 -acres of land- previously known as the "Dalidio property" - now called San Luis Ranch. The name change has not changed the sentiments of many locals about that prime agricultural land that is positioned above the City's emergency water supply. Many residents and tourists are also enamored with the view shed that it provides from Highway 101, with the fertile crops and the background of our beautiful mountains. Dr. Armstrong, under your leadership, California Polytechnic University (Cal Poly) has continued to receive awards for its academic rigor and the livability of the campus. My vision, gentlemen, is for a true, old-fashioned land swap. Mr. Grossman, you can deed the 131 -acres of prime agriculture land to Cal Poly. Dr. Armstrong, Cal Poly will give, in turn 131 -acres of buildable land to Mr. Grossman. The land on the Cal Poly land would be the future site of residential housing that could be sold for the competitive market rates to the general public. Currently Mr. Grossman, of your 131 -acres of prime agricultural land, the City of San Luis Obispo will receive roughly 50% of it as open space. The remaining land would have to be the site of the residential and commercial projects that you envision as well as the road infrastructure. A deal with Cal Poly may not place those restrictions on you or your development team. Mr. Grossman, as with any development project, you would be responsible for the cost of the road infrastructure at the Cal Poly site, however I imagine that it could be off -set by the assistance of students in the various divisions of that support both Engineering and Architecture Departments. Mr. Grossman, you could also build a state -of -the- art hotel there if you and your team desire to be truly extraordinary. The hotel, with conference capabilities, could be a landmark public-private enterprise. Mr. Grossman you could opt to could build a sustainable hotel — similar to the one on Boulder, Colorado that is near zero waste. With the help of the award winning architecture department and the assistance of the professionals at RRM, it could not only have great guest rooms with rural views but a conference center as well. The restaurant at the hotel could be open to the public and could feature a "farm to table" theme with Cal Poly or local meat, fish and of course fruits and vegetables. With its proximity to Cal Poly there would never be a shortage of individuals for near minimum wage employment to serve in various jobs that the hospitality industry affords. With the assistance of Cal Poly's Transportation/ Traffic Engineering department, the new homes and hotel would have access to campus, town and Highway 1 via pedestrian paths, bikes paths, light rail or cars. Mr. Grossman, the genius of this idea if we can get it to work is that you would no longer have to pay for the cost of the contentious Prado Road overpass or interchange that may cost you as much as $70 million by today's estimates. As you know, Caltrans has stated numerous times that a safe interchange at Prado Road and Highway 101 would be very difficult to construct given the proximity of Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road. If eliminated, the interchange and/or overpass will not infringe upon the integrity of the new Homeless Service Shelter at 40 Prado Road. You would no longer have to worry about the scrutiny of the Airport Land Use Commission and the factors that may prohibit you from building the size of development that you desire. You would no longer have to be concerned about whether any local landowners would sell you land for the off-site mitigation your design team has discussed. Dr. Armstrong, Cal Poly would benefit by maintaining the showcase to the agrarian based county in perpetuity. The Cal Poly staff and students will be able to farm 131 -acres of land already adjacent to San Luis Obispo City farm. In my mind, I picture the original farmhouse on the property being refurbished to serve as a visitor center/farmer's market stand where local products from both Cal Poly and native entrepreneurs could be sold — from cheese to wine to fruits and vegetables. Although not mandatory, there could be an eight- person student dorm on site, and housing for a staff member. The site could even have a small venue for entertainment overlooking the fields, and perhaps a venue for intimate ceremonies 50 people or less. Maintaining the land for these uses would allow the row of beloved eucalyptus trees to stay in place. In addition, the Laguna Lake residents will be overjoyed with this proposal. The idea of having homes at up to 500 homes and the commercial space on that location already has voters talking to me about organizing a referendum. Gentlemen, I have been involved in City politics as a concerned citizen for over 16 years. This is simply a fabulous idea and I do hope that you will give it full and immediate consideration. Dr. Armstrong, the residential component on what is now Cal Poly land could house professionals that work in our community or students. The concept would be well-received by many voters who have been so concerned about options for housing. Mr. Grossman, you have told me on more than one occasion that you are prepared to build something tasteful that you could personally be proud of. seriously think that this is it! Please feel free if you would like to meet with me personally to further discuss this concept that would be a proverbial "win" for both of you and for the entire community as a whole. As a public school teacher, I am generally limited to the hours before 7:30am or after 3:OOpm. Sincerely, I'/C�- Mila Vujov -La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405