HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-14 PH-3A WilvertKremke, Kate
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 11:09 PM
To: Kremke, Kate
Subject: Fwd: San Luis Ranch
Agenda Correspondence for 10/07 PH -3A. AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Begin forwarded message: Oale ?'��` Item# I = A 6
From: rosemary wilvert <rwilvert o,sbcglobal.net>
Date: October 1, 2014 at 10:34:00 PM PDT
To: "Ashbaugh, John" <jashbaughnslocit�org >, "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpenternslocity.org >,
"Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristianson@slocitLorg >, "Codron, Michael"
<mcodron@slocit y�org >, "Dietrick, Christine" <cdietricknslocity.org >, "Lichtig, Katie"
<klichtig @slocity.org >, "Marx, Jan" <jmarx a,slocit�org >, "Smith, Kathy"
<ksmith@slocity.org >, "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia@slocity.org>
Subject: San Luis Ranch
Reply -To: rosemary wilvert <rwilvert@sbcglobal.net>
Dear Mayor Marx, City Council, and Staff,
I attended the special meeting last Tuesday evening but missed the public comment period.
I am very concerned that the City is forgetting the voter mandate by referendum in 2006. It is
imperative that we hold to this mandate and to the 1994 LUCE ordinance that provides for 50% of
the original, gross tri- parcel to be retained in ag /open space. Roads are development, not open
space. This means that 65.5 acres of the original 131 acres owned by Ernie Dalideo must remain in
ag /open space.
The 50% open space agreement was a mitigation for zone change from ag to commercial, and none
of that land can be re- mitigated. A 10 -acre mitigation offsite, no matter how much multiplied, can
never replace contiguous acreage of the unique, class -one soil of the parcel. The intent of the 1994
Land Use Update was to retain this irreplaceable land in our City's agricultural heritage.
With climate conditions worsening globally, we could be faced with increasing droughts in the West.
It is time we looked at the future and think about safeguarding our City's local food supplies. If we
don't, our grandchildren will ask how we could be so short- sighted.
On the issue of overriding the statewide safety regulations of the ALUC, we mustn't be short- sighted
here, in order to let a developer add more density to his 50% of the parcel. Whether for workforce
housing or retail or hotel, safety rules are there for a reason. In an area where there have already
been crashes, how many more deaths would be OK?
We should not even be considering an interchange at Prado when it is against Caltrans guidelines.
Who are we to go against safety regulations? What kind of planning is this?
Instead of developer- driven, it's time to have public - safety- driven planning.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Wilvert