HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-2017 PC Correspondence - Items 1 and 2 (Lopes)
From: James Lopes <
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 5:17 PM
To: Advisory Bodies
Subject: PC Hearing 8-9-17 - Avila Ranch
Dear Planning Commission,
RE: Avila Ranch public hearing
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AUG 0 9 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I have to note that not one public comment from previous hearings appears to have a staff response in your report. My
previous concerns about the layout of the multi -family areas and concerns about Buckley Road safety have not been
addressed. The staff might want to indicate why they favor the project design over a more robust pedestrian -oriented, low -
carbon project layout. In addition, the ratio of single-family residences to multi -family suits the margin for the developer, but it
works against the use of rare land to reduce the most pressing housing needs of San Luis Obispo.
An urban neighborhood in the 2000s should have a retail neighborhood center very near or at the fronting arterial road
(Buckley Road), not removed from it. Behind and on its sides, the center should be surrounded by multi -family neighborhoods
with mini -parks, plazas and a neighborhood park further into the site should denote the second social heart of the project. In
back of these multi -family areas, a smaller number of units should be designed for higher incomes. This design places the most
units closest to the retail center and a transit stop, which benefits lower income people with short walking trips to a store,
service or transit. Placing the higher income units the furthest from the retail center grades the density downwards so that
fewer people will be relying on cars for these local trips. The developer has it half right, but the design should have long ago
been planned by the planning staff, with your commission fully involved in a conversation about the design I am suggesting.
You as public representatives are obliged to "check" if the developer and the staff, especially, have it right. Hard questions
about this crippled layout should be asked.
The number of units which will be affordable to moderate and low incomes should be the great majority, for this project to
qualify as meeting housing needs in San Luis Obispo. The number of above -moderate income units should be in the small
minority. The city does not need more upper middle income units. Probably only 30% of the city workforce has the upper
middle incomes needed to buy the detached homes, especially upon resale of these units in a few years. Probably 70% of the
workforce makes moderate or lower incomes, and the ratio of units should
reflect this ratio of incomes. Again, staff should have stood on
chairs to get the project redesigned to provide market affordability in the range of the actual earnings of local employees. The
issue has not been addressed because the staff are CEQA experts and process -oriented, not design oriented or socially
progressive about sustainable, affordable design. It is then your Commission's duty to look into this shortcoming and prevail
upon staff to diligently seek the more basically needed project design which I've suggested.
What I expect is that members of your commission will be trying to pin down the thousands of details of the project impacts,
the minutiae of bike lane widths and other specialized issues which reflect the skills and concerns which you have brought to
the commission. Not enough has been done or said to address the urban design or planning to create a more vibrant and
affordable environment. This project will be dysfunctional against the broader general plan goals of keeping San Luis Obispo a
special, urban place different from the hundreds of suburban towns across California and the United States. Staff have used
their bureaucratic skills well to provide a constellation of minor requirements which do not really address the continued
livability or sustainability of San Luis Obispo. In fact, staff may just be doing as directed to meet a vague imperative to provide
more housing, without the managerial support or authority to craft housing into more smaller scale, inter -connected, walkable
and livable neighborhoods.
Lastly, Buckley Road is mentioned in the mitigation measures only for intersection improvements and a roundabout at SR227.
Yet, this country road with no safety shoulders, much less bike lanes, is allowed to remain as is and with no intersection
improvements at Davenport Creek and other road intersections. Is this a San Luis Obispo concern?
Again, your Commission is duty bound to protect the public from staff miscalculations and errors. Do you wish to allow a
project like this to land on a country road with no additional safety dimensions? Maybe I missed something, given the vertical
as well as horizontal layers of general plan policies to subdivision engineering details in single hearings.
Overall, the public process has been done with blinders against any reflection about this and other projects' potential
cumulative degradation of the city's scale of traffic, the worsening congestion and tense driving, and the ultimate failure to
secure affordable neighborhoods for the great majority of the workforce. All of this done against the slow -growth history which
created a very livable city.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
James Lopes