Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05_24-25_2017 PC Correspondence - San Luis Ranch (Vujovich-La Barre) Meeting: P& bS z� "ZS • 7.o1� From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:22 PM To: E-mail Council Website; Advisory Bodies Subject: San Luis Ranch - Planning Commission 5/24 and 5/25 May 24, 2017 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Planning Commissioners, Item: SLIM, Uv✓� PAht ij RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAY 2 5 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT It is my understanding that determinations for the annexation of the San Luis Ranch project and comments about the project design are on the agenda for the next two evenings. Although this property has not yet been annexed, you are making observations that will be advanced to the City Council. By bringing this project before the Planning Commission at this point, it appears that the CEQA process is being dismissed by the developers. This final design approval and recommendation to Council should be postponed until the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is certified. The Final EIR indicates that this project will have significant, unavoidable impacts on traffic and air quality. Since I travel Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road daily due to the proximity of both streets to my work, any additions to this traffic pattern should be properly analyzed. Additionally, the Final EIR public review period has not been well publicized. It seems that it should be much better notification and that the time to comment should be extended. Apparently, there are 12 significant and unavoidable environmental impacts from the current design. Alternatives have not been well established. The impacts could be eliminated and/or mitigated by a revised design. All mitigation measures and alternatives should be studied and considered before this property is allowed to be advanced through the City planning process. In short, this project is too dense. Pursuant to the Final EIR, a large number of residential units in this project will have significant unavoidable impacts on traffic, particularly, but not limited to the southern section of our city. I also believe that the public will be alarmed by the trees that are scheduled to be cut down along Madonna Road especially when confronted with 40 -foot, R-4 structures in their place. There are still many residents who need to be convinced that our City water supply is secure for both current residents and those that will be here in the projected buildout. The Prado Road extension or overpass is not included or expected to be built before or even concurrently with this project. This San Luis Ranch project was highlighted in the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE). However, it was in the LUCE with the Prado Road overpass or interchange also highlighted. At the developer's meeting with the public and with the Architectural Review Commission two nights ago, the overpass is identified in the pictures of the project. However, the developer does not identify the funding for it. His development team has also stated that he only plans to pay for 28% of the overpass or interchange. This does not seem ethical. In my conversations with CalTrans personnel over the years, it remains unclear whether or not an overpass or interchange is even possible at this particular location. Last year, the City Council allocated $17,000 for a feasibility study of the Prado Road overpass or interchange. Where are the results of that study? Without that long -anticipated extension or overpass, the density of this project will cause the level of service at many of intersections surrounding the project to be disastrous, especially since this overpass or interchange is part of the traffic circulation for other nearby proposed developments such as Avila Ranch on Buckley Road. As a citizen, I have asked for a comprehensive EIR of Prado Road to Madonna Road for many years. It has been on the City General Plan since 1960. It is being "piecemealed" or "illegally segmented." Again, what is not highlighted in the San Luis Ranch plan are the cumulative effects of this portion of Prado Road. Even if an overpass is built, where does the traffic go from there? In Curtin's California Land Use it states that "the court held that the appropriate standard of review for the necessity of an additional EIR is whether it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental impact." In Citizens Association the court held that "chopping up" a large project into many little ones, each with minimal impact on the environment, with the use of negative declarations, did not comply with CEQA, as it would result in overlooking the cumulative environmental consequences which could be disastrous. Citizens Association, 172 Cal.App.3d at 151. Currently, the traffic from all of the preliminary construction at San Luis Ranch is to be diverted to Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road. Residents will be forced to wait in long queues for several light -signal cycles, creating severe congestion and fumes. While some occupants of this project may ride bikes and utilize the bus, no one can truly believe those alternatives will result in a significant reduction of traffic from this project. I was happy to hear that the developer may include a secondary transit center in the commercial portion of his development. At the recent ARC meeting, I mentioned that the portion of that secondary transit center may also be used for additional parking for residents and their guests. The reality is that each adult in the development will own a vehicle. The draft for the street layout and garages will not have sufficient parking. Additional parked vehicles will impact the Laguna Lake neighborhood unless some changes are made. Also, unless a pedestrian -bike bridge is constructed into the Laguna Lake recreation area, many pedestrians and bicyclists will deem the journey too unsafe to bike or walk. The severely increased traffic will be a violation of the Clean Air Act. One of the goals of the Clean Air Act, with regard to new development in "Title 1, Part C—Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality," is to "protect public health and welfare from any adverse air pollution effects from the new development." The Final EIR recognizes the severe adverse effects to our air quality from excessive traffic which is detrimental to all City residents. This development team is selectively disregarding traffic complications with the cry of "workforce housing." This housing will not necessarily be "workforce." The design of the units is ideal for affluent retirees and Cal Poly students. While affordable housing is one of our City's major goals, it should not come at such a great cost to our residents' safety, quality of life, and air quality. Please postpone final determinations on this project until residents have more of an opportunity to provide input. Please make sure that the Prado Road overpass or interchange is fully analyzed and funded before you allow construction on this parcel of 131 -acres of Class 1 agricultural land. Also, the Final EIR is inadequate because it gives the public no viable alternatives to the project .... and there is one. I will say again that a wonderful alternative exists that would create a "win -win-win" situation. There should be a good, old-fashioned land swap. This entire development should be built on non-agricultural land at Cal Poly as a public-private partnership. The residential design is perfect for students, staff, and young professionals. The proximity to Cal Poly would actually allow for them to ride a bike or walk to work. Then, this beautiful piece of Class 1 agricultural land could then become owned by Cal Poly. It could be utilized at a working farm for decades to come. This alternative should be considered. Farmhouse style student dorms could be constructed where the current structures in San Luis Ranch exist. There could be a "farmer's market" type stand with local produce including Cal Poly's food products including cheese, meat, wine, and more. In addition, Gary Grossman would be saved the cost of the overpass. This is an ideal alternative and it has not been given proper consideration. Why not take a bold move and explore this option? Thank you. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre