Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/18/2017 Item 14, Vujovich-LaBarre Christian, Kevin From:Mila Vujovich-LaBarre <milavu@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 18, 2017 To:E-mail Council Website; Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy; Gomez, Aaron; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Advisory Bodies Subject:San Luis Ranch Comments 7/18/17 July 18, 2017 Mayor Harmon and San Luis Obispo City Council Members City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Mayor Harmon and San Luis Obispo City Council Members, As I mentioned at the last meeting and in past communications, the current development plan for San Luis Ranch is flawed for many reasons. It is my hope that you will take the opportunity this evening to seek resolutions to concerns that many residents share. Although this property is still located in the County of San Luis Obispo, the developer and his team have worked feverishly scheduling multiple City meetings and meeting with groups to move his proposal forward. There have been few changes to his development plan. A development of this magnitude may provide more housing, but at a significant cost to residents. Please examine the cumulative impacts of San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch and Froom Ranch. These projects will create unprecedented gridlock unless all of the planned infrastructure is built during Phase One of each development. As you know, the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) that allowed for these developments to proceed was funded by a state grant that maximized 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, and some who may personally profit from the developments. However, it did not take into consideration many realities, many that I already highlighted in my letter from July 5, 2017. My concerns about the San Luis Ranch proposal remain the following: 1. Water. Where is the water of this development? City and County residents have been asked to conserve for months. Given climate change, is the drought truly over? Do we as a community have enough water for current residents and the aforementioned large projects being proposed? 2. Traffic 1 Currently, all the traffic from these homes will enter and exit Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road via an extension of Froom. This is not what was discussed at multiple LUCE meetings that I attended. It was stated over and over again that any development on this property would require the construction of an overpass or an interchange at Prado Road. For the developer, Gary Grossman, to state that he is “willing to build it,” only after Phase One is completed is disingenuous. What happens if Gary Grossman decides after Phase One, that Phase Two does not merit his time or expense? Where are the guarantees? 3. Prado Road. As I have written and stated on multiple occasions, the proverbial “elephant in the room” is Prado Road. Prado Road also was 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 for Prado Road to know if Prado Road is an overpass or interchange at Highway 101. One cannot “cherry pick” the LUCE plan and provide for just the parts that are “easy” and/or profitable. All of the support system should be in place in the first phase of the development. For you to entertain any development on the San Luis Ranch without getting a clear answer on whether or not the overpass or interchange is even viable is unconscionable. At past meetings, the developer’s representative quipped with a smile, “Who knows when the Prado Road overpass will ever be built.” That is not funny to me. It is also very wrong for Prado Road to be segmented or piecemealed. According to CEQA, when a large project is identified, it should be analyzed with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in that fashion. Prado Road, from Madonna Road to Broad Street has never undergone a comprehensive EIR. It has been “looked at” and “analyzed” but no one has ever had the courage to say, “What can we do with the traffic, East to West, along that route?” As an example, the disastrous piecemealing is evident if one goes to Serra Meadows. The developer there was allowed to build homes and just make Prado Road, adjacent to the construction, two lanes with roundabouts, instead of the four lanes that are in the LUCE Master Plan. Being told to “Not worry about it!” by people involved with San Luis Ranch development does not make me think they have the best interests of residents at heart. 4. Affordable housing and workforce housing Affordable and workforce housing are being 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 figure beforehand. Several of the speakers in favor of the “affordable housing” at the July 5, 2017 meeting were making an estimated $12-$18 per hour before taxes. Will they truly qualify for the “affordable housing” and ongoing obligations such as property tax? 2 Again, in Phase One, there are only 12 “affordable” units out of the 224 units. In the entire project, of 580 units, only 34 are “affordable.” Also, the developer and his team talk about a lottery system for residents of San Luis Obispo who live or work here? Is that legal? To exclude other members of our County or State from homeownership here? Can a lower income person qualify alone for an “affordable unit” and then have a more monied partner move in? I would make sure that any purchase promotions or promises are examined by an attorney who is familiar with California real estate law. 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 in Phase Two will not be turned into a mass of student rentals. 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. 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. 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 would be appreciated. I also believe in keeping our airport viable for industry and job growth. 8. Trees Having viewed the San Luis Ranch plan, it shows the construction of three-story structures on Madonna Road. The row of eucalyptus trees will need to be eliminated. I question that loss of mature trees. I also 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 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 Highway 101. 9. Animal Protection A 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 plan, there should be an above road, pedestrian access to Laguna Lake Park facilitated for future residents. There is an insufficient amount of park land in the actual 3 development. The yards on the proposed properties are small and/or non-existent. This safe public access would allow people who bike or walk an opportunity to cross Madonna Road without having to halt traffic. 11.Public Input The developer has taken inordinate amounts of time to meet with groups of elected officials, members of advisory bodies, Dwellforward and the U40 group. There has been a limited amount of avenues for public feedback on the development. The public feels marginalized. 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. Also, it is important for everyone to realize that the current plan provides for the removal of 1-4 feet of topsoil to build up the construction site. How will that leave the remaining agricultural land? One citizen, Richard Schmidt eloquently called this “terracide – land murder.” He stated “Such terracide is a crime against the earth, but also against humanity as it destroys for all time the earth’s bounty in order to satisfy our own temporary desires and greed.” The proposed development will “forever destroy this soil’s productivity. That’s because the productive soil will be compacted into uselessness, then buried under many feet of inert, infertile fill that will also be compacted into productive uselessness.” I wholeheartedly agree with Richard Schmidt. Rather than simply comment about this “terracide,” I came up with a viable alternative that several people think is pure genius. My best alternative and brainstorm was submitted to you before and to both Gary Grossman and Cal Poly President Jeffrey Armstrong. This alternative would and still can create a “win- win-win” for everyone. In short, the alternative for this project would be for Gary Grossman to complete and “old-fashioned land swap” with Cal Poly. Cal Poly still has plenty of acreage that is not prime agricultural land to build everything that Grossman desires. The San Luis Ranch agricultural land could be a Cal Poly working farm for decades to come. A ranch- style dorm house could be constructed on the 131 acres of Class 1 agricultural land 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. I still believe that this is an alternative that should be explored before this precious agricultural land is built on. 13. Access to the Agricultural Land The developer and his poised, glib representatives extol the glories of how San Luis Ranch residents will walk over to the working farm. This does not make sense. It does not seem that the crops will benefit from residents walking around the fields. It does not make sense that residents are going to cross the extension of Froom Ranch where there will 4 be cars and commercial trucks. This is not a commune. It is being billed as a commercial farm with a washing station. Plans for the development show people of all ages walking around with bags of vegetables, graced with butterflies flying nearby and blossoming fruit trees. This does not appear to be reality. 14. The Transit Center The transit center proposed for part of the commercial development is an idea worth exploring. A full service transit center for commuters, complete with a parking structure for overflow parking from residents and for commuters would be an asset to the community. Also, once the new City homeless shelter is completed at 40 Prado Road, there will most likely be lots of individuals that may need to access a bus daily. The overpass at Prado Road will make it easier for people of all backgrounds to utilize transportation services. In closing, please deny this project until all alternatives have been explored and until Prado Road is fully funded. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 milavu@hotmail.com 5