HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2017 Item 5, MulhollandCOUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.: _�..-
kE-CEIVED
MAY 16 2017
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Christine Mulholland (
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 12:44 PM
To: Mila Vujovich-La Barre <
Cc: Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.ore>; Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn
<cchristianson@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <ag"omez2slocitv.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire slocit .or >; E-mail Council
Website <emailcouncil@slocitv.ore>; Johnson, Derek <diohnson@slocity.o>; Lichtig, Katie <klichtig@slocitv.org>;
Advisory Bodies <advisorybodies@slocity-or >
Subject: Re: AVILA RANCH - Please do not approve on "Consent Agenda" 5/16/17
Hi, All,
Thank you to Mila for her review of this project and her request not to authorize the noted discussions.
I am in total agreement with her assessment and you can count me as a second to Mila's words. This project
represents urban sprawl at its worst, and is not representative of sound smart growth principles. It should not
be
allowed to proceed.
Christine Mulholland
On May 16, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Mila Vujovich-LaBarre wrote:
May 16, 2017
Mayor Harmon and City Council Members
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council Members,
Please do not authorize Consent Agenda Item No. 5 - Development Agreement
Discussions with Avila Ranch, LLC this evening. You will be authorizing discussions with
Avila Ranch, LLC for a Development Agreement.
The findings in the Draft EIR(DEIR) state that the air quality, noise, land use,
transportation, and traffic impacts created by this project will be significant and
unavoidable.
This project at the time of buildout will also place unavoidable and unmitigated adverse impacts
on the City's current sewer, water, school, law enforcement and fire protection capacities. I have
met with the developers of this project on two occasions at RRM. They have personally heard
my concerns yet I do not see the concerns addressed in the DEIR. Since this project is near the
airport and buffered by agricultural land on two sides, the location of this project is simply not
suited for dense 720 -residential units and commercial amenities.
In an effort to be brief, a few noteworthy examples of problems with traffic circulation are:
1) During the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) hearings, people on the LUCE team gave
this location tentative approval based on the surrounding traffic infrastructure. The infrastructure
that is in the LUCE document involves both the remediation of the Chevron land with proposed
road improvements and bike paths through the remediated land and the Prado Road overpass
or interchange. To allow for development in this area without the required support for vehicular
traffic is unconscionable.
2) The other matter is access to emergency services. Without the aforementioned traffic
infrastructure, the response times are not possible.
Our City buildout should not be played like a game of Legos. This is real life with proposed
permanent structures that will create negative impacts without the aforementioned matters
being resolved ahead of time.
In addition, State California Government Code - Gov Title 7. Planning And Land Use [65000 -
66499.58] ) "...recognizes that premature and unnecessary development of agricultural lands for
urban uses continues to have adverse effects on the availability of those lands for food and fiber
production and on the economy of the state. Furthermore, it is the policy of the state that
development should be guided away from prime agricultural lands..." This project involves the
conversion of 68 acres of prime soils to urban development.
Also, this DEIR should further make reference to a "LUCE Performance Standards" footnote
which states that a "Density bonus program for affordable housing would allow additional units,
consistent with existing City policies." Source: (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a). This may be
true elsewhere but it should be stated that this City policy, when applied to this site, is in conflict
with Paragraph 2 of the California Government Code Section 65589.5 which states that "a local
agency shall not disapprove a housing development project, unless ... the development
project ... is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation and is surrounded
on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes...".
This is indeed the case regarding this Avila Ranch Development Project which is flanked on the
east and south sides by strips of land zoned Conservation Open Space.
The Project site is surrounded by a mix of incorporated City and unincorporated County lands,
with urban uses within the City to the north and west and rural and agricultural uses within the
County of San Luis Obispo (County) to the south and east... Unincorporated County lands
immediately abutting the site to the south and east are generally rural agricultural."
Please do not authorize staff to negotiate a Development Agreement (DA) based on Avila
Ranch's application. This project is inconsistent with State Planning Law and is not in
the best interests of current and future residents. I believe that many of my concerns are
shared by other community members and are echoed in the Minority Report written by
dissenting members of the LUCE team.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mila Vujovich-La Barre