HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-2018 Item 2 - Bennett
Purrington, Teresa
From:Mike Bennett <mike@bikeslocounty.org>
Sent:Tuesday, January
To:Davidson, Doug; Fowler, Xzandrea; ecreel@swca.com; Advisory Bodies
Subject:Froom Ranch Specific Plan Item 2 -SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 and 12393 LOVR)
RE: Froom Ranch Item 2 -SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 and 12393 LOVR)
Dear Planning Staff and Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary review of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Please accept
my comments on behalf of the over 4800 members of Bike SLO County. Bike SLO County supports dense infill housing
projects like the proposed Froome Ranch development because they have the potential to enable residents to take full
advantage of transit and active transportation options.
We do have several preliminary comments regarding the plan and its’ ability to facilitate and encourage multimodal
transportation:
From a pedestrian’s standpoint, the widening of Los Osos Valley Road, especially the portion east of Auto Parkway will
make trying to cross the road an even more daunting proposition than it already is. It will require a pedestrian to cross
the equivalent of 12 lanes of traffic. This will not be appealing or safe for children or the elderly. If the width of the
intersection cannot be reduced, it is recommended that bulb outs and pedestrian refuges be integrated into the design
of the intersection to make it safer for pedestrians and people who may rely on motorized chairs for transportation.
Specifically, the Transit stop area can be redesigned/moved farther east so that it does not add additional width to the
roadway at the critical crosswalk area.
The Circulation plan as presented does not encourage bicycle use for transportation or recreation. In comparison, the
San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch projects included much more comprehensive on site bicycle infrastructure. The Froome
Ranch development is apparently intended to provide housing to older residents (Life Plan Community) and to young
families (multi-family units.) Both of these demographics include vulnerable road users, and additional consideration of
bicycle/ebike facilities will protect them and encourage them to use multi-modal transportation options.
At a minimum, it is recommended that the circulation plan be amended to address the following:
- The Collector Road B and the Local Roads have no bike lanes. (Class III bike lanes, in practice means no bike lane.) We
recommend incorporating Class II bike lanes on all roads within the development. An alternative is to change the
sidewalks into wider multi-use paths.
-The trails within the development are described as 6-foot-wide pedestrian paths. We recommend wider multi-use
paths that will permit bicycles and adult tricycles and motorized chairs to safely access the trails.
-Having the public trail’s south-eastern terminus not connect to Calle Joaquin is a missed opportunity. It would be great
for this to be a connector similar to the private trail, not a dead end.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike
1
Mike Bennett
LtCol USMC, Retired
Executive Director | Bike SLO County
Managing Director | CCDDAP
mike@bikeslocounty.org W:805.547.2055 | C:760.815.4069
www.bikeslocounty.org
www.CCDDAP.org
2