Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2017 PC Correspondence - San Luis Ranch (Vujovich-La Barre) 2 Meeting: o.(,(.q--1T From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < item: I - SaM, l�vf S yu1/tk /L Sent: To: Subject: June 7, 2017 Wednesday, June 07, 2017 12:52 PM Advisory Bodies; E-mail Council Website; Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy; Gomez, Aaron; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Lichtig, Katie San Luis Ranch To: Planning Commission - City of San Luis Obispo Cc: San Luis Obispo City Council Members Katie Lichtig - City Manager Re: San Luis Ranch From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JUN 0 7 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Planning Commission Members - Thank you for the opportunity to voice opinions about the proposed development for San Luis Ranch. Since I have attended several of the meetings about this property over the years, I will again express some ongoing concerns for your consideration and the public record. The developer and his team have scheduled a variety of City meetings prior to today. Only this morning was there a complete public story on this in the front page of The Tribune. This story alerted the common person to the magnitude of the development. Now, the common person will realize that it is indeed time to provide input to City staff as well as appointed and elected representatives. As you know, a few years ago, the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) was funded by a state grant whose mandate was to maximize 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. The LUCE minority report highlights that fact. 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. Rates are going up. Do we have enough City water for a development of this magnitude? 2. Traffic The number of proposed 580 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 have 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 and an authentic appraisal of parking for the proposed new vehicles. Traffic flow from the proposed business development should also be part of that same study. Streets still 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. In recent meeting there is discussion about residents walking from the development to the agricultural land. There will be trucks on this road. What will be on the agricultural land that will be so enticing for a child to visit? Will there not be properly managed crops growing? The pedestrian ingress and egress to this land is not well-defined. Will there be a stop sign or stoplight along Froom Ranch Road? 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 systems 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. This is what was stated at the LUCE meetings. For the developer to now have a plan to build homes in the first phase, and have all the resulting traffic be directed onto Froom Ranch Road and Madonna Road and then onto Los Osos Valley Road is not what was discussed in the LUCE plan. Residents voted in 2010 to have Prado Road completed. Since the developer's representative has quipped, "Who knows when the Prado Road overpass will ever be built!" it makes me feel like the developer will build the homes and then charge residents and future residents for the overpass that he should be paying for! This factor should not be an afterthought. This should be discussed now to avoid extreme congestion on Los Osos Valley Road. Everyone also 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 $40,000,000 is factored in that is still a gross profit of $160,000,000. 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. Gary Grossman and his team should be paying for the overpass and it should be completed during the first phase of development as was discussed in multiple LUCE meetings. 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. In recent meetings, the developer has stated that the housing will be sold to San Luis residents first - ideally those in the service sector, teachers, nurses, firefighters and police officers via a lottery. As wonderful as that seems, I think that idea needs to be completely investigated to see if it is legal. 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 is 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 along Froom Ranch Road and Madonna Road. 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? An answer should be secured. 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. question that decision due to the wildlife that makes those trees their home. 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 the 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. Gary Grossman and his development team talk about how wonderful and people- friendly this dense development will be. They have reduced the amount of park land in their proposal and have not, to date, agreed to a pedestrian and bike friendly overpass for Madonna. 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. believe only that only one meeting was been held at a local Italian restaurant, but residents and business owners have not had an opportunity to voice their concerns since then. Gary Grossman has escorted members of advisory bodies out to his property but has not hosted an "Open House" for current residents. 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. That is the quality of land people used to fight over a century ago. It seems very short sighted to pave over half of that land and to remove one -three feet of the topsoil from the remaining agricultural land to provide for construction on the other half. Given everything that is written about climate change in the world, and the value of prime agricultural land, it is ludicrous to pave over soil of this quality. It also seems inconsistent with promises made during the past LUCE meetings for less than 50% to be preserved in agriculture. 13. Other options As you know I wanted an alternative for this project. I wanted Gary Grossman to complete and "old- fashioned land swap" with Cal Poly. They have plenty of acres 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. On a map in the Cal Poly Master Plan, I can show anyone exactly where these homes could be built. This is the best idea to create a "Wi-Win-Win" for everyone involved. It just takes some communication and courage from individuals on the Planning Commission and in City government. 14. Transit Hub This "land swap concept" would not stop a proposed secondary transit center on a portion of the 131 -acres that the developer wants to build. That transit center could still be built and would be welcomed at that location. Given that retail has experienced a significant metamorphosis these past few years, the transit center would complement the multi -modal goals in our General Plan, highlighted in the LUCE conversations. In closing, thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre Mila Vujovich-La Barre San Luis Obispo, CA 93405