Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05_24-25_2017 PC Correspondence - San Luis Ranch (Flickinger) 2 Meeting pL b5-LLJ- ?Ai; U 1 -7 - From: Sent: To: Subject: Sarah Flickinger < Item:Luis Thursday, May 25, 2017 4:51 PM Advisory Bodies Attn: PC re: Agenda Item 2, 1035 Madonna Road, Updated public comment and statement of document inconsistencies Attn: PC re: Agenda Item 2, 1035 Madonna Road. SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015 Summary and updated comments for personal comment on project May 25, 2017 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAY 2 6 1017 COMMUNITY DCVELOPMENT Dear SLO Planning Commission: Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Daniel Knight, John Larson, Ronald Malak, John Fowler and Charles Stevenson: In reviewing the testimony and letters with regard to this project, I see two main themes: we need housing; and development cannot come at the expense of our existing communities; it is not seamlessly integrated with them if it significantly degrades conditions for existing neighborhoods and facilities for multimodal transportation along arterials. I am fortunate to already live in a similarly designed planned urban development. Our neighborhoods are low density, single family homes that were designed as a grouping of two legacy developments in the mid-1970s. And it achieved that—I know because the original developer (and some of his family) are still our neighbors residing right across the way from us. At the time, our homes were highly innovative, utilizing zero lot lines and narrow setbacks to maximize both density and open space to create a community where neighbors are encouraged to coexist with nature and one another through walking paths, parks and additional communal features. The architectural design of our units is purposefully designed to take advantage of passive heating and cooling through the use of architectural elements, site layout and structure alignment with solar and wind access, and landscaping both on residential parcels and the adjacent open spaces. There is truly an incredible neighborhood / building / open space integration. Additionally, our neighborhood includes common use facilities like a playground, gym, pool and flex space residents can reserve and use as needed that makes small lot sizes and tight spacing well worth the benefits. This type of design encourages community interaction, while reducing impacts on the environment (i.e. common pool rather than larger lot sizes with everyone putting in a pool and heating it, etc.). With community -centric design comes challenges. My husband and I have both served as past presidents of our homeowners' association, my husband still serves on the structural architecture committee and I have served on various committees over the 12 years we have lived in our neighborhood. I understand our development is set up in a rare utopian -style community fashion, as was the goal of many developments the 1970s, and that newer developments operate differently on a day-to-day basis, but ours has managed to survive and thrive. Along those lines, some feedback based on lessons learned: Please do not create any landscape design requirements or restrictions on the front yards that would prevent owners from using that space to produce personal agriculture, including design elements to accommodate organic growing practices. In fact, it would be best to specifically allow for them. When your lot is 3500 square feet and you want to grow your own food, you need every square foot of that outdoor space to feed a family. Personal agriculture in developments with overriding rules and design guidelines is currently only protected for rear or otherwise enclosed areas under State law. Please don't restrict the use of driveways for overnight parking (restrict all you want on streets, though). My car lives in my driveway so that my bike can live in the garage and be babied, protected and ready to go with just the garage door opener. As an alternative to on street parking our neighborhood uses scattered clusters of parking spaces, intermingled with the neighborhood design, with permit -restricted overnight usage (anyone can use them during the day). Park 1 and Park 2 do differ on this policy, I believe. Our neighborhood was and is an asset to what makes living in San Luis Obispo unique. Any growth should not compromise the quality of life in existing communities like ours or within any other neighborhood around the City. Nor should it impact our ability or safety to go about our pleasant multi -modal lifestyle that includes moving freely and safely from our residential space to our work, commercial and recreational and other spaces around the City. We need housing, but we need to ensure that it does not degrade existing neighborhoods or overburden our already stressed facilities. I will provide additional separate comments with regard to Oceanaire. Overall I can see that this developer has worked hard to create a unique, sustainable community that will contribute positively to our City, on the condition that final details relating to circulation concerns are worked out effectively with existing residents so as not to compromise the character of our neighborhoods or the usability by all for our infrastructure. And, as I stated at the meeting, there is a major discrepancy between what was published in the original draft EIR document posted with the state clearinghouse and provided on CD upon request by the City and what appears in the final EIR document and draft EIR document currently posted on the City's website. The discrepancy has to do with circulation and lane striping at and around the vicinity of the Los Osos Valley Road and S. Higuera Street intersection and along those two same routes. During the meeting last night Jake Hudson characterized the mitigations as "some minor restriping along Los Osos Valley Road," while quickly breezing past the slide showing changes on LOVR eastbound only to the point that someone watching closely couldn't see what was being depicted. The proposed changes, both those on LOVR and S. Higuera as posted in the original DEIR, with relation to striping and lane configurations are neither minor nor insignificant in nature and included elongated and additional lanes—and they are especially significant to the residents of our neighborhoods. These changes significantly increase vehicle capacity beyond what is necessary for this project (though any increase is significant) and increase stacking at intersections, emissions, noise and potentially speed between and around our neighborhoods and have impacts to those neighborhoods, an adjacent school, school bus stops, safe routes to schools and adjacent residences and businesses with regard to noise, light pollution, air quality and vehicular and multimodal safety at and around the intersection. I have sought, to no avail as of 2:25 p.m. May 25, 2017, to obtain clarification on the discrepancies between the published and circulated documents from both the City and the applicant's representative so that I can make informed public comments on the proposed restriping, which our neighborhoods find expressly unacceptable as proposed and published in the original draft EIR and the currently published FEIR. Without being able to have my questions answered as two which of these is up for input and acceptance by the Planning Commission, my ability to provide adequate public participation on behalf of the 175+ residential parcels I represent is being significantly compromised. Likewise, the ability for any of those residents or other concerned parties to provide input on the decision is being suppressed. Our neighborhoods worked hard to create an agreement with the City and CALTRANS during the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project to purposefully and knowingly limit and calm traffic flows. All parties knowingly and willingly agreed to this, understanding the downstream effects. Thereafter we were active participants in the LUCE update process to develop alternative improvements and new roadways to accommodate increased traffic due to developments' increasing demand on the circulation network in our portion of the City, while also preserving the character and safety in our homes and neighborhoods and the surrounding infrastructure for our residents and all users. Any change to striping is significant, as we have spent years working hard to cooperatively determine the current acceptable striping layout which addresses the concerns of all participants in the process. Two very different things are being proposed in the documents. I need to know which one is being reviewed and proposed for certification. The staff report for this agenda and responses to comments published in the FEIR refer to one set of changes contained in the original draft EIR. The changes published in the FEIR document text and currently published (via slocity.org) version of the draft EIR are significantly different. Knowing which is being reviewed is imperative to preparing a formal statement from the neighborhoods. The fact that there is any discrepancy between separately published DEIR documents is highly concerning. If I noticed this one, there may be others. In the meantime, I respectfully request that any certification or acceptance of the FEIR specifically exclude any and all proposed mitigation measures for the portions of the S. Higuera Street between the intersections of Tank Farm and Los Osos Valley roads, the intersection at S. Higuera Street and Los Osos Valley Road, and the portion of Los Osos Valley Road between the intersections of S. Higuera Street and 500 feet north/west of the intersection with Los Verdes Drive, until such time that the issue can be resolved. As an alternative, any acceptance or certification of the FEIR could be stayed until such time as these issues are sorted out and adequate public review and input can be provided in accordance with appropriate policy procedures. Sincerely, Sarah Flickinger San Luis Obispo