HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-07-2017 PC Correspondence - San Luis Ranch (Marx) Meeting:
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jan Marx < Item: ` �/_l_ L LlltS
Monday, June 05, 2017 10:28 AM
Advisory Bodies; Harmon, Heidi; Christianson, Carlyn; Rivoire, Dan; Gomez, Aaron; Pease, Andy
Jan Marx; Lichtig, Katie; Dietrick, Christine; Codron, Michael
PC communication re 6-7-17 hearing on San Luis Ranch
Dear Planning Commission,
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUN 0 5 2011
W NITY DEVELOPMENT
I am writing in general support of the San Luis Ranch project and Specific Plan, and am gl tiat development will 1 -
in housing, rather than exclusively commerical .However, I have some significant concerns. As a Council Member
(1998-2002 and 2008-2010), Mayor (2010-2016) and community advocate, I have been actively engaged in land use
issues regarding this extremely fertile and productive property since 1994, when the Land Use and Circulation
Element Update required that half of this property (65 acres) be preserved in agriculture. These issues have been very
controversial, including a successful referendum of the Council decision to devote less than half of the property to
open space, followed by the then developer's county wide initiative which resulted in Measure J, butterfly farm and
all.
The 2014 LUCE update, approved when I was Mayor, reaffirmed that "50-50" principle, with the additional provision
that up to ten (10) acres of agricultural land might be mitigated off site, if needed for overpass
infrastructure. The developers in open session have repeatedly affirmed that they intend to abide by the Section
8.1.4 of the LUCE and also by Council's direction in this regard.
So, upon reading the Development Agreement Term Sheet (PC 1-166), I was taken aback to find that there is no
mention of the specific number of Ag acres which could be mitigated off-site.
Section c states: "a portion of the agricultural/open space land may be mitigated off-site through an agricultural/open
space conservation easement on comparable land by providing land for an agricultural/open space easement at a ratio
to be determined by the City's Natural Resource that contain specific characteristics of the land proposed consistent in
accordance with the FEIR, or through the payment of fees to City for City's use as a portion of monies available for
the subsequent purchase of a larger parcel of acceptable off-site mitigation property in fee...
To correct this omission, I recommend that the words "of up to ten (10) acres or less" be inserted before the word
"may", so that the sentence reads "a portion of the agricultural/open space land of ten (10) acres or less may be
mitigated off-site...
I am also very concerned that the EIR actually rejects Alternative 4, which provides that a minimum of 50% of the
land (approx 65 acres) be preserved in open space consistent with LUCE section 8.1.4. (page 1-88) See also section
1. 13.8 b, which states that "San Luis Ranch property (outside the city limit and generally bounded by Highway 101
and Madonna Road) shall dedicate land or easements for approximately one-half of the ownership that is to be
preserved as open space."
Instead, the EIR (pages PC 13 and 72) would allow the entire portion designated Ag on the map (56 acres) be
mitigated off site or through payment of fees. This is not acceptable, since the promise to the community was to allow
half of this specific, extremely fertile ag land to be developed if, and only if half of the land were preserved in
agriculture.
I strongly urge the Planning Commission to recommend to Council Alternative 4, with the provision earlier approved
by Council that up to ten (10) acres or less of agricultural land might be mitigated off site, if needed for overpass
infrastructure. The estimated thirty or so units by which the housing would be reduced could easily be recovered by
the developer redesigning presently proposed plans. Without specification of the actual acreage to be preserved in
agriculture, the cherished vision for which the community has fought so hard for so many years is in danger of being
severely compromised or lost forever. Successive City Councils since 1994 have kept the "50-50" promise to the
community, and at this point of time, in this era of climate change, agricultural preservation must be protected, not
abandoned.
Thank you for considering my comments,
Jan Marx
SLO