HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/5/2017 Item 12, Cross (7)
Christian, Kevin
From:Brett Cross <brettcross@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, July
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Park Space (again)
Dear Council Members,
The lack of adequate Parks with this new neighborhood is truly appalling. And the more I think about it the worse it gets.
That the staff is actuality promoting a project that does not to provide the required developed neighborhood parks is just
as bad. As an example, staff writes in the report on the project under Parks, "As required by Land Use Element Policy
8.1.4, the San Luis Ranch project is required to provide 5.8 acres of developed parkland." That isn't what the Land Use
Element Policy actually says. The performance standards actually say a MINIMUM of 5.8 acres is required. There is a
footnote "1" but that actually isn't relevant "1 There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific
physical and/or environmental constraints." That footnote is actually recognizing that maybe you can't build as much on
the site if there are Significant Unavoidable Impacts, of which there are many with the proposed project.
When the Land Use Element was created and the housing ranges for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area were
included there obviously wasn't a known a project so the 5.8 acre MINIMUM of developed parkland was an estimate
based on the low housing range of 350 units. Which would have been most likely been calculated on a mix of Single-
family and Multi-family units. The provision of a MINIMUM of 5.8 acres of developed parkland was intended to keep future
decision makers from doing exactly what the staff is recommending- paying In-Lieu fees instead of providing the required
developed neighborhood parkland.
The Environmental Review document accurately calculates the required Parks. I've already sent you that section, but as a
refresher the actual Park land required is 12.9 Acres, of which 6.5 acres is required to be neighborhood parkland.
Not Open Space, but actual parkland. The project is only provided 2.8 acres of neighborhood parkland. You cannot
believe that this appropriate, can you?
It's not that this amount doesn't meet City policies but doesn't meet the needs of this new neighborhood. The estimate is
for around 1300 people living there. The amount of parkland provided immediately means this new neighborhood will be
underserved. That's ridiculous. The policies the City has adopted are there for a reason, not to just ignore, or worse yet
manipulate.
Lastly, the In-Lieu fee calculation is based on the inaccurate parkland requirements. The project is actually required to
provide 12.9 acres of parkland, of which 6.5 acres is suppose to be developed parkland. The project is providing 2.8 acres
which is only 21% of the actual requirement. The actual In-Lieu required would be $4,762, 539. The difference between
the staff's recommended In-Lieu fees are $1,587,513 less than what is required if you don't actually follow the City's
policies with regards to the required developed neighborhood parkland.
I've got this sense of a "we need more affordable housing, no matter what the cost", and the word "cost" is used in the
context of serious traffic impacts, loss of viewsheds, impacted parking, loss of natural features- such as cutting down
trees, not requiring neighborhood parks, all those things that are commonly bunched together as Quality of Life
measures. There is a point by which you could inadvertently create affordable housing by lowing the quality of life so
much that no one wants to move here or a lot folks decide to leave. In all honesty we have Student/Housing Imbalance
just as much as we have a Job/Housing Imbalance.
I truly hope you understand the impacts that this project and others in the pipeline can create if they are not properly
planned. And yes, I get the other side of the equation that this community needs to address to the affordability of housing
for families, those who work here and would like to live here but can't because of housing costs, and renters. Whether or
not this project will create "affordable" housing is anyone's guess. The terms "Affordable" and "Workforce" housing is
sloppily thrown about with the interpretation up to one's own definition. There is definition and actual prices that the
County calculates for "Workforce" housing but when you see those prices they are probably higher that what people
consider affordable.
1
I'll leave you with this thought. Providing housing and maintaining the community's quality of life are not mutually exclusive
goals, however it takes very careful planning to do that. This project isn't meeting that goal with respect to mixing housing
types, providing adequate neighborhood parks, cutting down of 244 mature trees, and avoiding the significant traffic
impacts.
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
1217 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA
2