HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/18/2017 Item 14, Flickinger (2)
Christian, Kevin
From:Sarah Flickinger <sarah@flickimc.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July 18,
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:RE: San Luis Ranch Agenda Item
Attachments:Flickinger FEIR Council SL Ranch Personal.docx
Good morning,
Please find attached a personal letter about the proposed San Luis Ranch development for Council review.
Sincerely,
Sarah Flickinger
1
July 18, 2017
Dear City Councilmembers:
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 businesses. I
agree with both those statements. And there is a solution—in prioritizing and funding long term
mitigations rather than temporary ones that will just need to be redone with the next project to come
down the pipeline.
I am fortunate to already live in a similarly designed planned urban development, the Los Verdes Park. . I
recognize the importance of others having access to this type of opportunity as our City continues to
grow. 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 aligned 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.).
I see a lot of the same good here in San Luis Ranch. As my daughter and I bike through this area on our
commute to CL Smith School, we have raised concerns (as have those who live in neighborhoods
adjacent to the development) about safety for cyclists and maintaining safe routes to schools. Below are
some specific things that have been semi‐addressed, and, while they should be fully addressed publicly
prior to moving forward, they are headed in the right direction, and I support them:
‐ Improvement to the intersection of Oceanaire and Madonna for bicycles and pedestrians
‐ Protected intersection improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians at Froom Ranch Road
and LOVR
‐ Safe crossing (perhaps a HAWK signal) on Froom Ranch Road at Oceanaire/Target
Pathway/Bob Jones
However, there are impacts and concerns about sustainability of mitigations further down LOVR and
Madonna that are not being addressed. Neither are the ones on South Higuera.
Poor circulation planning is something that this City is constantly struggling to “repair.” It has cost lives
(South Street; Laurel Lane) and bodily harm (South Higuera, Broad), it has cost lawsuits (LOVR, among
others), it has cost losses of precious open space within existing developments (proposed herein with
improvements to Froom Ranch/LOVR intersection) that were already at the bare minimum requirement
in their own planning, and it costs developers and us as a City hundreds of thousands of dollars in
striping for mitigations only to restripe them later for safety or traffic calming (Broad Street, Madonna,
Foothill/Ferrini, High Street, among others). Eventually, it will end up costing us our “SLO Life” as we
instead turn the City into a zone of constant construction and gridlock. That will cost us our position as a
desirable place to be for visitors, businesses and residents.
Something needs to change in the planning process to favor long‐term, sustainable solutions for
circulation changes relating to development over shortsighted mitigations that may live for less than
two years before they must be redone for safety, traffic calming or multimodal accommodation—or
worse: to accommodate increased single user motor vehicle capacity. The desire for this change was
clear in the work done cooperatively by all in the LUCE. Beyond the immediate confines of San Luis
Ranch, we are making the same mistakes with the mitigation measures in this FEIR.
While this developer has done a great job within and directly around his project to address concerns,
downstream mitigations are not getting the same attention, though their impacts will be just as
severe—if not more so—in the cumulative scenario, especially as they are made time and time again
with each new development coming through the pipeline or each new tragic injury or loss of life. We
need to plan and fund now for long‐term, sustainable solutions, as designed in the LUCE. They are
possible, but only if we begin collecting funding now, rather than wasting developers’ funds putting in
band‐aid mitigation measures time and time again, which leave the City no money downstream for the
real solutions. At our end of town, we are already in that downstream position. Since any new
development can only contribute fair share to a solution, each development should be doing so—for the
long‐term solutions in the LUCE—in order to break the current cycle we are in.
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 in order
to achieve some semblance of safety. All parties knowingly and willingly agreed to this, understanding
the downstream effects. We were also 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. Our team included city and regional planning experts, environmental engineers
and the City’s own staff. Any change to striping is significant, as we have spent years working hard to
cooperatively determine the current acceptable striping layout and long‐term alternative which
addresses the concerns of all participants in the process.
It is disappointing to see the City now looking at undoing all of that with a small, but significant, change
tucked into this development as a “minor” mitigation measure. This project needs significantly more
consideration of the publics’ feedback before it moves forward.
Sincerely,
Sarah Flickinger
79 Del Oro Court
San Luis Obispo