Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05_24-25_2017 PC Correspondence - San Luis Ranch (Smith, C.) Meeting: P L K - LK az L00 - From: Sent: To: Subject: carolyn smith < item: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 400 PM Advisory Bodies Planning Commission Meetings May 24 and May 25, 2017 - San Luis Ranch Chair Stevenson and Commissioners: RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAY 2 4 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' have lived in the Laguna Lake area for 37 years. I am not a nay -sayer to new housing in SLO and agree that there needs to be more housing built that is affordable for our workforce. However, I have several comments and concerns about this project. 1. LAND USE INCONSISTENCIES: This project does not adhere to Land Use Element goals and policies such as: "GOAL 4. MIXED -INCOME HOUSING Preserve and accommodate existing and new mixed -income neighborhoods and seek to prevent neighborhoods or housing types that are segregated by economic status. Policies: 4.1 Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should be comparable to the relative percentages of extremely low, very -low, low, moderate and above -moderate income households in the City's quantified objectives. " I have attended most of the "pre meetings" and Draft EIR meetings on this project and commissioners, both at the ARC and the Planning Commission meetings, expressed concern that this project does not mix housing types per the Land Use Element Goals and Policies. As far as I can tell, this project continues to segregate the housing types with the higher density homes adjacent to the busy arterials and the commercial development, with the lower density and single-family housing adjacent to the open space. I hope this Commission will require the developer to change this project to better adhere to this goal. 2. BUILDING HEIGHTS: It appears the heights of single-family and muti-family buildings in this project are above what our zoning code allows in new developments. Height limits should be adhered to in this project. With significantly reduced front set -backs and significant side yard reduction on small lots, taller buildings can create a "canyon" like feel in a large project. 3. PARKLAND: There is no foot/bike path proposed to allow safe passage to Laguna Lake Park amenities for the residents in this developments. Residents will have to cross a very busy Madonna Road using signals that will exacerbate traffic congestion. Therefore, more park space in the project should be added. Open areas are not parklands and if these homes are expected to be inhabited by families, the parkland space in this project is insufficient and should be increased. 4. SMALL LOTS/LARGE HOMES: Many of the homes in this project are on very small lots, however, some of the homes being built on them are rather large, taking up nearly the entire lot. This means there will be very little space in between homes with minimal front yards and no back yards. While some families won't mind living in this type of home, many will prefer to live in a more traditional single-family home on more traditional sized lots with a front and back yard where their children can play and families can socialize within their own homes (BBQ's, family celebrations, birthday parties, etc.) There should be more of these types of homes in this development to attract our workforce families to purchase them. There is a large demand for student housing in SLO and there is a concern that a large number of the homes on small lots will be purchased by investors for student rental purposes. 5. AFFORDABILITY: Unfortunately, some of the housing that has been approved and built during the past several years was promoted as affordable when presented to the various city commissions and council. However, once built, the majority of the homes listed for market prices. An example is the AVIVO Condominiums. While a few may have been designated to sell as affordable units, I have seen the majority of them selling for $550,000+. This is hardly affordable for many of our working families. While it is my hope that this project will truly be an affordable housing project, I am skeptical. There has been a hint that this project may require a Mello Roos tax in order to help pay for the traffic and other infrastructure improvements to mitigate significant unavoidable impacts created by this project. If a Mello Roos tax is added to the price of these homes, it could make them unaffordable for our workforce. It would be disappointing if residents had to endure the significant impacts from this project, with minimal affordable housing actually being created. 6. TRAFFIC: This is my biggest concern. The traffic congestion from this high density project (500- 580 residential units plus commercial and hotel), will only exacerbate the already untenable existing traffic situation in the area. The Final EIR of this project has declared traffic impacts as significant and unavoidable. It pinpoints numerous intersections being insufficient to handle the congestion with LOS at many being reduced to the lowest level, contrary to the goals in our LUCE. The developer is requesting that he be allowed to build 200+ residential units prior to the Prado Road overpass/exchange being constructed. I hope you will not approve of this. Many of us living in the Laguna Lake area already endured 10 years of significant traffic problems from the commercial development in the Froom Ranch area because stores were allowed to be built long before the improvements to the 101 interchange occurred. Additionally, even after the improvements were made to the 101 interchange, the results have been disappointing. It hasn't improved the traffic flow that we had all hoped for, therefore, please require that the Prado Road improvements be done along with or prior to the project. If the developer is not willing to fund the Prado Road improvements, with some reimbursement from other project developers such as Avila Ranch and the Froom Ranch Senior Housing development (which will add to the traffic impacts), then he should not be allowed to build any portion of his project until all the funding for the project is in place and construction of the road is shovel ready. 7. ALTERNATIVE PROJECT: I think there could be an alternative smaller project that would still meet our housing needs. When you include Avila Ranch and the Froom Ranch, the impacts from these three projects will be unimaginable and uncontrollable. Please look for a smaller project that has less significant unavoidable impacts on existing residents. Goal #7 of the LUE requires that new development should: "maintain, preserve, and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability, and owner occupancy and improve neighborhood appearance, function and sense of community." Additionally, #7.1 indicates: "7.1. Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that respects the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. "[emphasis added] Many of us moved to San Luis Obispo for the slower pace with reasonable traffic, small-town atmosphere. The density of this project will destroy that atmosphere and will significantly diminish existing neighborhoods' quality of life, contrary to the LUE policy #2.1 which states: "2.1 Neighborhood Focus. The city shall preserve, protect, and enhance the City's neighborhoods and strive to preserve and enhance their identity and quality of life within each neighborhood." Thank you for your consideration of this very important project. Carolyn Smith SLO City Resident