HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-2014 PH1 SchmidtGoodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
12/02/14 PH1
Anthony J. Mejia, MMC I City Clerk
city of SAn Ims c7mspo
990 Palm Street
Barn I uis Obispo, CA 93401
tel1805- 78",'/ 02
Mejia, Anthony
Monday, December 01, 2014 12:14 PM
Goodwin, Heather
FW: Avila Ranch and the override
council Avial ranch delete.doc
From: Richard Schmidt [mailto:slobuild @ yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 10:06 AM
To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Rivoire, Dan
Cc: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: Avila Ranch and the override
Dear Council Members,
RECEJVED
DEC 01 2014
SLID CITY CLE RK
U ,VIL MEETING: I CI aJl
Whatever else might be said about it, the proposed residential use of Avila Ranch is really bad city
planning, and should not be approved. Please see attached note.
Dec. 1, 2014
Re: PH1 — airport override
Dear Council Members,
I totally agree with others who argue against the override for safety and noise reasons
(and have previously so communicated with the council).
But there is an even greater reason why the Avila Ranch must not be designated
for residential use, and that is it's just really bad city planning to stick a residential
enclave out there all by itself, separated from the rest of the residential city by miles of
ag and industry. This is not how a good city is laid out!
A bit of background. In the previous LUE updates, which were run democratically
instead of hardwiring the Chamber and developers into drafting the update as you have
allowed staff to do this time, it was determined that the SLO we all wanted was one with
connectivity, inclusion and proximity among its neighborhoods. We specifically ruled
out isolated enclaves like Avila Ranch, and also walled subdivisions, because we
wanted a city where new neighborhoods in effect continue existing neighborhoods and
become an integral part of the urban fabric.
We wanted this both for social reasons, so people could relate to one another easily
and so that there would be more of a sense of social cohesion, and for physical and
environmental reasons, so that people could walk and bike instead of having to drive
places.
The proposed land use map appears to have been guided by no such principles, but
rather has been shaped in response to what certain developers desire, whether that is
good for the long -range or not. Thus, you now find yourselves not only faced with a
retrograde land use map, you also are about to embroil the city in protracted litigation to
defend something that's not even in the city's best interests. This makes no sense.
The Avila Ranch will forever be an isolated enclave, a place where use of
automobiles will be necessary to go anyplace, a place from which walking to the rest
of town will be unpleasant (one of my urban planning acquaintances says such a walk
will only be done by derelicts given how unpleasant it will be). This enclave will become
the latest entry in the future Slum Luis Obispo this plan envisions the Happiest Place
becoming by 2035.
Please don't include this awful scheme in any general plan update.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt