Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-2017 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Vujovich-La Barre) From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:26 PM To: Advisory Bodies; E-mail Council Website; Lichtig, Katie Cc: Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy; Gomez, Aaron; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Froom Ranch Scoping Meeting Concerns To: Planning Commission - City of San Luis Obispo Cc: San Luis Obispo City Council Members Katie Lichtig - City Manager Re: Froom Ranch Development From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre Date: July 26, 2017 RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JUL 26 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear Planning Commission Members - Thank you for the opportunity to voice opinions about the Froom Ranch Development. Many of my concerns were expressed during the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) meetings a few years ago and at some recent meetings, due to the rush of development in the southern part of our city. I wanted to express my concerns for your consideration and the public record. From the publicity, it is my understanding that "John Madonna plans to transform 111 -acres in San Luis Obispo into a $500 million mixed-use project that caters to the city's aging population. The proposed Froom Ranch project includes a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) that offers 350 residential units for seniors, 150,000-350,000 square feet of commercial retailers for its residents, 200 apartments and around 60-100 single-family detached units." This particular developer has long and honorable ties to our community. It is my hope that he will realistically adjust his development plans after this scoping meeting. A development of this magnitude will drastically alter the traffic and the visual attractiveness of this part of town. As you all know, the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) 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 or personal financial interest in development. However, the LUCE document - which has become the blueprint for future development - did not take into consideration many realities. The minority report from the LUCE highlights this and the fact that the LUCE process did not provide for substantial public input. My concerns about the Froom Ranch Development are primarily the following: 1.Water. Where is the water for this development? City and County residents have been asked to conserve for months and I do not see water levels increasing at the sources of our water for a development of this magnitude. John Madonna has stated that, "The project would use some existing wells on the property and draw from the city's reservoirs to satisfy its water needs." 2. Design The continuing care retirement community (CCRC) that offers 350 residential units for seniors, will be an asset. However, the proposed 200 apartments and 60-100 single-family detached units and commercial space are not necessary. By changing this configuration, and just building the CCRC there will be no need to encroach over the 150 foot height line established in the LUCE document. 3. Traffic This upcoming generation may focus on walking, biking and bus travel out of respect for climate change, however most people will still utilize 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, including the cumulative impacts of the traffic from San Luis Ranch and the traffic from the Avila Ranch development. They also deserve an authentic appraisal of parking for the Froom Ranch development. Traffic flow from the existing proposed business development should also be part of that same study. If John Madonna wants to include commercial development in the Froom Ranch development, that increased traffic also needs to be factored in. 4. 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 adopted LUCE plan. 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 immense and dense developments. Prado Road is also part of the traffic circulation plan for San Luis Ranch and 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 system should be in place. Since the developers are to date solely responsible for traffic/road improvements - their "fair share" - this overpass or interchange, will substantially impact the cost of the projects being proposed. City staff continues to entertain and even approve development without getting a clear answer on whether or not the overpass or interchange is even viable. This is unconscionable. A transparent, public discussion should occur with CALTRANS about the Prado Road interchange and/or overpass with both the Planning Commission and City Council present as soon as possible. Real financial figures and real measurements should be included at that meeting. I have personally been on the course of the planned Prado Road with an old-fashioned tape measure and elected officials, and made the point very clear that at certain points along the route - Prado Road - as a "four lane truck highway" simply does not fit. After a public meeting City staff and 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. The developer of San Luis Ranch has already received approval to build homes in the first phase in back of Target and funnel all of the resulting traffic onto Froom Ranch Road and then onto Los Osos Valley Road. This was not what was guaranteed in the LUCE and in public meetings. The San Luis Ranch developer's representative has publicly quipped, "Who knows when the Prado Road overpass will ever be built?" For those of us that care about "smart growth" and keeping one's word, that statement is not comforting. The construction of Prado Road cannot be an aft9rthought. According to CEQA, when "a larger project is identified" - as in Prado Road from Madonna Road to Broad Street that has been on the City Master Plan since 1960- it needs to have a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and be evaluated on the merits of that study. Currently, city staff is allowing Prado Road to be "illegally segmented" or "piecemealed" which is in violation of CEQA. As was mentioned in the previous Planning Commission meeting on San Luis Ranch, what happens when people transit in cars over Highway 101 eastbound towards Broad Street. The "four -lane truck highway" - Prado Road - will then cross South Higuera... and then what? Will traffic be funneled to two lanes through Serra Meadows? Turn North or South onto South Higuera? We deserve to have these answers now. 5. Affordable housing and Workforce 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 where the workers for this CCRC will be living. Will they be making a "living wage?" Most employees in these types of developments are making $12-$18 per hour. There are only a handful of highly -paid doctors and therapists that will be employed. Let's analyze this ratio ahead of time and discuss where the housing exists for these modestly paid workers. 6. 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 proposed homes and apartments, who is to say that the residential units will not be turned into a mass of student rentals. 7. Noise The noise from this development will need to be mitigated. The noise will be from the people and the vehicular traffic. Currently that area has a rural atmosphere. 8. Trees and animal protection Having viewed the preliminary plan, my attention is also on the fact that construction is on environmentally sensitive areas. It is my hope that any development will be below the 150- foot line to preserve the view as established in the LUCE. Even with that, it is my hope that any development will include as many trees and preservation of the public viewshed of the foothills. 9. Access to existing commercial development and recreation Since this is a scoping meeting, I would also like to see access to walking and biking trails be apparent. I would also like to see access to public transportation for these seniors and future residents. Access to the 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 as many Class 1 bike paths in the development to ensure the safety of residents and workers. 10.Public Input As I mentioned at the LUCE meetings, it would serve the developer well to send a notice to the neighborhoods that will be impacted and receive public feedback on the development. 11. Agricultural Land wish that John Madonna could use a good portion of this land for grazing or crops. I mourn the demise of local agricultural land in the name of infill. I believe that it is myopic for the sake of the next generation. In closing, thank you for the opportunity to enumerate concerns now so that they can be addressed in the near future. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405