HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2017 PC Correspondence - San Luis Ranch (Mulholland) Meeting:p.0 It .1
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Christine Mulholland < item: 1 -& �V CI- �2.�1/lC/i/l
Wednesday, June 07, 2017 10:34 AM -`
Advisory Bodies
carolyn smith
Re: Planning Commission Meeting - June 7, 2017 - San Luis Ranch
Mr. Chair and Commissioners,
I echo Carolyn Smith's concerns about the development of the former Dalidio Ranch.
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUN 0 7 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I have lived in the Laguna area for 30 years, and seen traffic congestion grow exponentially. There are times I choose
to use Foothill Rd. to go downtown to avoid Madonna Rd. and LOVR. Please expand the traffic studies to include the
impacts to the LOVR/Foothill areas. The study may need to include impacts to Chorro and Broad streets as well.
There are simply too many Class 1 impacts identified in the EIR to consider this project acceptable. In my past
experience,
Class 1 impacts were strong indications that a project would overall be more detrimental than positive for the
community.
Please do not approve this project as proposed. Sacrificing the quality of life for existing residents in exchange for
more
housing is not acceptable.
Thank you,
Christine Mulholland
On Jun 6, 2017, at 10:01 PM, carolyn smith wrote:
Chair Stevenson and Commissioners:
TRAFFIC: I have lived in the Laguna Lake area for 37 years. With the addition of the
Tolosa residential units, Home Depot, Target, Costco, and the other commercial
developments, the traffic on the major arterials in the Southern part of the city, LOVR,
Madonna Road, and South Higuera, have become increasingly worse. Even after the
completion of the 101 interchange improvements, traffic still backs up on LOVR and
Madonna Road for much of the day. It used to be that traffic was congested primarily
during commuting hours, but now, much of the day traffic is very congested. While traffic
models are being used to determine traffic impacts from this project, one would have to
be in denial not to recognize that the realistic traffic on these arterials is far worse than
is being portrayed. Traffic volume meters should be utilized (not during the summer
months when students and residents are gone) to determine actual traffic counts. When
Costco was built, it's my understanding that the traffic models were more than 30% low
in estimating traffic from that project. That has resulted in some of the traffic congestion
impacts from which we are now suffering in this part of the city. We can't afford to make
that same mistake, as it will only worsen an already bad traffic situation.
Therefore, the discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding the Prado
Road overpass/exchange was very concerning to me. If 200 residential units are allowed
to be built, without the construction of the Prado overpass/exchange, the vehicles from
these units (a minimum of 400- 500+ additional vehicles) will all exit and enter the
project from either LOVR and/or Madonna Road. Since those two arterials are already
severely congested, the additional traffic will tip us over the edge to gridlock at
numerous intersections. The Final EIR notes that traffic congestion at numerous
intersections will be a significant and unavoidable impact. While longer queuing and
additional left and/or right turn lanes are suggested, that is very pitiful mitigation for
those of us who have to use these arterials on a daily basis. Waiting to turn through
several signal cycles, with idling cars ruining our air quality (another significant
unavoidable impact), should not be desired or acceptable. Our city has banned drive-
through restaurants to avoid the damage to our air quality from idling vehicles in lines.
Why would we now welcome idling cars in long turn lanes? This seems rather
hypocritical. Furthermore, if you consider the cumulative traffic impacts from the planned
Froom Ranch Senior Complex plus additional 200+ residential units, with its vehicles also
entering and emptying onto LOUR, the traffic congestion and air quality deterioration will
be overwhelming! Even if you're an advocate for more housing, destroying existing
residents' quality of life and sacrificing our air quality should not be our goal.
Additionally, the extreme congestion on Madonna Road and LOVR has caused drivers to
cut through neighborhood streets in order to avoid congested intersections. Despite what
you might have been told, this is actually occurring on a daily basis on Oceanaire, as
drivers avoid the Madonna/LOVR intersection. As congestion gets worse, more
neighborhood streets will become unfortunate victims of this practice. Our neighborhood
streets were never meant to accommodate such significant traffic which is dangerous for
families living along those streets and is contrary to our Circulation Element which
states:
"1.7.3. Manage Traffic: San Luis Obispo should.... S. Protect the quality of
residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing or controlling traffic
routing, volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets."
Consequently, to adequately and effectively manage the increased traffic from this
project, there should be nothing built until the Prado Road overpass/extension is fully
funded and shovel ready.
Finally, the uncertainty of the funding source for the overpass should cause serious
concern to this Commission about whether or not it will ever actually be built. If I
correctly understood what was said at the last PC meeting, if for some unforeseen reason
the overpass is delayed or cannot be built (economy downturn or other unknown
circumstances), this entire project could be built without it. That is shocking to even
imagine! Have we learned nothing from the delay that occurred with the 101 interchange
improvements, where residents had to endure ten years of terrible traffic congestion,
while commercial development was built, until the improvements were finally made? You
are being asked to "trust" that it will be built but there is no certainty that it will be built.
Should we be gambling on the hope that there will be sufficient funds to build it? If the
funds are delayed or don't come through, what will happen? Will the citizens of SLO then
be forced into a no -choice situation of having to approve an additional tax to pay for the
overpass, since we have placed ourselves in a precarious legal position with the
developer? These are serious questions that should be considered and not dismissed with
vague assurances.
PARKLAND: I was very surprised and disappointed that this commission reduced the
size of the parkland. I don't understand why this was recommended. A project of this
size, with families living in it, should certainly be given enough parkland so residents
won't have to travel to a park. While Laguna Lake park is nearby, it's necessary to cross
a very busy Madonna Road which will not only be dangerous for children riding bikes or
walking, but will also add to traffic congestion as pedestrians will be pushing the walk
buttons, holding up traffic. This already occurs at Oceanaire and Madonna by pedestrians
and bikers going to school, and/or walking or biking to Laguna Lake Park, which causes
serious traffic back up at that intersection. Requiring residents of this new project to do
the same will only add to the traffic backup. Additionally, parks are important to create a
sense of community and often neighbors congregate and meet each other while their
children are playing in a park. There are play dates with children at neighborhood parks,
birthday parties, family celebrations, picnics, and neighborhood gatherings and
barbecues. Kids meet their friends at their neighborhood park to shoot hoops, ride skate
boards, bikes, and play football. An inadequate park area will deter this type of
community interaction and since these homes are going to be very close to each other,
having a large parkland area will provide residents with a feeling of openness and space
within their neighborhood. Therefore, I urge you to return the full five acres of parkland
to this project.
TREES: I also urge that you require the retention of as many of the mature trees on the
property as possible. Our city is well known for its lovely trees, however, we seem to be
willing to cut down trees for development without regard for their beauty, their
importance to wildlife habitat, and their absorption of carbon dioxide. It will take 30 or
more years for new trees to provide the extensive benefits of the existing mature trees
on this property. Therefore, please save the trees and don't allow them to be destroyed
for the sake of building. If we continue to foster a cavalier attitude of removing trees for
development, will we be able to look back sometime in the future and say we did the
right thing? Or will we regret destroying our urban forest, after it's too late?
I understand the cry from those who want to be able to purchase a home here in SLO,
but while we may need and want more AFFORDABLE housing, there should be no
urgency to rush this project through. This is a large project that will significantly affect
those of us who currently live here and those who will purchase the homes in this
project. Therefore, careful consideration should be given to assure that we get it right.
Once this project is built, it will be too late to correct any mistakes and we will all have to
live with the result.
Thank you for your service and for your careful consideration of this project.
Carolyn Smith
SLO Resident