HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/19/2017 Item 15, Flickinger (2)
Christian, Kevin
From:Sarah Flickinger <sarah@flickimc.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Personal Comments_Flickinger_Avila Ranch Agenda Item
Attachments:AR FEIR Council Personal Comments 1 Flickinger.pdf
Good morning,
Attached, please find the first in a series of personal comments I will be providing on the Avila Ranch Development being
considered at tonight’s City Council meeting.
Sincerely,
Sarah Flickinger
1
Sarah Flickinger
79 Del Oro Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.215.2561
September 19, 2017
To City of San Luis Obispo Councilmembers:
First and foremost, thank you for your service to our City. I recognize the commitment and drive you
have in stepping forward to guide our City through this time of growth and change.
I am a 19-year resident of the City, with 12 of those years being spent living in the Los Verdes Park 1
neighborhood at the south end of town. I have spent 10 years working to encourage smart solutions to
the traffic challenges raised by growth both in the City and the surrounding County areas. I was one of
the many concerned and engaged citizens who contributed to the LUCE process to guide us toward SLO
2035, recognizing our need for growth. Our City is truly fortunate to have so many that care deeply
about sustaining this thing we call “the SLO life.”
In that time, a lot of research has been gathered by the City, County, individuals, SLOCOG and
Developers through various processes. I’ve personally spent a lot of time reviewing this research,
through the LUCE Process, listening to staff and public comments, EIRs, DEIRs, lawsuits and the like.
Throughout that time, together with others, I’ve submitted comments based on research and personal
experience with regard to Avila Ranch and several other development projects.
One such piece of research that I still find compelling, which you may or may not be familiar with, was a
public input study done by Kittelson & Associates in February 2015 on behalf of SLOCOG and the County.
The purpose was to seek input for prioritizing roadway and circulation improvements for regional
transportation and commuting in southern San Luis Obispo County.
There were 60 comments received. Amidst those 60 comments, there were 14 areas brought up. Of
those 14 areas, 35 comments were made in favor of the extension of Buckley Road. Of those 35
comments in favor of Buckley Road, 24 favored direct connection of the extension to Los Osos Valley
Road near 101, an improvement known as the LOVR bypass in our City’s LUCE. One of the 35 comments
went so far as to suggest an overpass of US 101 (without interchange) at Buckley that extended all the
way to Calle Joaquin / Ontario Road.
The next most common comment topic was Prado Road. There were three comments encouraging
connection of Prado from its current terminus to Broad Street / 227, one comment encouraging the
Prado Overpass be built, one comment encouraging Prado Bridge Widening and one comment in favor
of a full interchange being added at Prado Road. In total, that’s six comments. The only other
improvement within City limits that came up was Froom Ranch Road’s extension to Dalidio Drive.
If length and depth of reasoning written into comments were a factor in prioritizing, the results would
be even more significant.
This study, coupled with the findings in the LUCE, public comments received throughout the public
environmental review process for this and many other developments (see Chevron, San Luis Ranch,
Target et. al.), and staff’s own assessments and findings during the LUCE, it is clear that the LOVR bypass
is a necessary and preferred alternative to relieve some of the traffic congestion at the southern end of
San Luis Obispo as the City and County continue to grow.
I have spent ten years, give or take, focusing on finding amenable solutions to the traffic issues in this
corner at the south end of town—ones that serve commuters, businesses and residents using all modes
of transportation. I recognize that you may or may not have read or listened to all of the hundreds of
comments that came in on this project from its beginning scoping phase until now. I recognize that you
probably don’t know how many projects were accepted for construction in this area based on traffic
studies that assumed a full interchange at Prado Road as already having been built in the existing
condition. In fact, many of them were based on Prado having an interchange and full connection to 227
in the existing condition.
Well, we are where we are now as far as traffic and congestion are concerned. While the Prado overpass
may offer some relief as outlined with San Luis Ranch, it will not be enough. This can be seen by
reviewing the LUCE analysis as well as analysis contained in the Chevron EIRs, among others. Turnover
happens, people move around and the community changes, but what has remained consistent is the
feedback that long term planning and execution of long term plans needs to be done, and funding for
long term solutions needs to be done sooner rather than later.
While band-aid measures like extra lanes and extended turn lanes may provide some minimal,
temporary relief, they will never solve the problem—and they aren’t what the people using the
roadways want. These measures sacrifice neighborhoods’, cyclists’ and pedestrians’ safety. That was
made clear as undesirable in the LUCE, which looked at these types of alternatives then excluded them,
preferring to work toward a safe, enjoyable multimodal model instead. To spend money on them is
irresponsible, as they will just require additional funding to undo in the future (see Johnson, South
Street, High Street, Madonna Road, and now Laurel Lane). These temporary smaller measures end up
costing taxpayers twice—or more—as they create hazards and sacrifice safety, often leading to lawsuits,
injuries and their eventual undoing.
It takes strength to stand up and say, “We recognize that housing is desperately needed and that we
want it in this location, but this is not the right way to do it,” when a project is already so far along and is
so strongly desired. This project is close, but it does need more work that includes truly incorporating
the public’s feedback, not simply responding to it with dismissal of concerns then proceeding as
proposed.
We can do this, but we need to do it right. That starts with sorting out the myriad traffic concerns
transparently and together with staff, the developer and the public, with the guidance of the LUCE,
before advancing this project any further.
Sincerely,
Sarah Flickinger