HomeMy WebLinkAbout06_28-29_2017 PC Correspondence - Avila Ranch (Cooper) 2To: Chair Stevenson and Planning Commissioners
Re: Avila Ranch Project and Related Entitlements
From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo
Date: June 25, 2017
The Avila Ranch project should be rejected because it is another example of urban
sprawl and runs counter to “smart growth” principles - principles much touted by both
SLO City Council and Advisory Body members. But perhaps more importantly, the Avila
Ranch project will not provide workforce or affordable housing “by design”.
You may think otherwise because this subdivision is comprised of small houses on small
lots. Yet the price of this housing will still hover in the $500,000 range because:
1)each household will have to carry the exorbitant costs of a “Community Facilities
District”;
2)each household will have to carry the developer’s cost of extending Buckley Road to
South Higuera
3)each household will have to carry the costs of installing new parks and bikeways;
4)the selling prices of these so-called “net zero” homes will have to include the costs of
solar panels, super-sealed building envelopes, ductless mini-split heat pumps and
highly insulated windows and doors; and
5)by the time these houses are built, housing inflation will have already taken its toll.
Moreover, there is no certainty that any of the 30,000 workforce currently commuting into
SLO from outside communities will live here. Why? Because they will be making a
tradeoff between a larger home on a larger lot in a quieter, outlying community to a
smaller home on a smaller lot under a noisy airport flight path. So who will buy these
homes? Affluent parents of Cal Poly students and wealthy retirees…not our workforce.
Even if you fail to find the reasons stated above compelling for rejecting this project, the
Final EIR should convince you otherwise. The Final EIR states that air quality, noise,
land use, transportation and traffic impacts created by this project will be significant and
unavoidable. In the final analysis, there are no overriding considerations to justify this
project, particularly if you accept my premise that this project will not address the unmet
demand for more affordable, workforce housing.
Nevertheless, anticipating that you will approve this project, I have some additional
comments to make which you may want to consider.
I congratulate the developer for his efforts in attempting to preserve the riparian habitat
along Tank Farm Creek. Having recently corresponded with Mr. Stephen Peck with Peck
Planning and Development, LLC, I learned that only 14 willow trees will be removed and
that 87 native trees will be preserved. However, the Final EIR led me to believe that
there were far more than 101 trees lining this riparian corridor. The EIR states there are
150 willows and 15 cottonwoods plus an unknown number of oaks. If the EIR is correct
and one is to believe that 87 trees will be saved, then one must conclude that 78+ trees
will be removed and this is far too many. I am asking you to verify if the Final EIR is
indeed correct or if, as Mr. Stephen Peck previously stated, the EIR is in error in this
regard.
With regards to the Design Guidelines, I would like to emphasize the importance of
fencing off access to this riparian corridor for both safety and habitat preservation
purposes. This has not been mentioned anywhere in the Design Guidelines and it is my
understanding that the ARC failed to address this issue.
I would also like to commend the project team on its effort to anticipate the 2020
deadline for Net Zero Energy (NZE) housing. However, more needs to be done in this
regard. The City’s Climate Action Plan recommends the home installation of recycled
water, grey water or rainwater-harvesting systems. You should be in support of this. The
City is also recommending the expansion of recycled water infrastructure to encourage
the use of grey water in new construction and landscape projects.
The Guidelines call for at least 75 percent of the structures in a neighborhood should
have the longer roof line axis within 15 degrees of east-west. However this can be more
effectively achieved if the long lot dimensions are oriented E-W to open buildings to the
south sun and there is no mention of optimal lot configurations in these Guidelines.
The Guidelines stipulate that Solar PV systems shall be included on all structures and
buildings but does nothing to protect these PV systems from being shaded by neighbors.
Moreover, permeable paving in driveways and parking lots should be required to reduce
surface drainage and the heat-island effect.
Lastly, there is no mention within these Guidelines of natural daylighting. In typical
commercial buildings, lighting accounts for approximately 50% of electric usage (35% for
lights and the rest for dealing with excess heat from lighting). Daylighting (i.e., using
daylight to illuminate interiors) can make a huge dent in this at practically no cost if
commercial buildings are designed to capture daylight. This, of course, applies to
residential development as well where top-lighting should be encouraged through the
use of skylights as well as side-lighting using carefully configured windows and light
shelves to direct light inwards.
Thank you for your time and consideration!