The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/19/2017 Item 15, Vujovich-LaBarre Christian, Kevin From:Mila Vujovich-LaBarre <milavu@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 19, To:Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy; Gomez, Aaron; Rivoire, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; E-mail Council Website Subject:Avila Ranch 9/19/17 September 18, 2017 Mayor Harmon and City Council Members City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council Members, Although it is my assumption that the Avila Ranch Development will be approved this evening by a majority of the Council, I am hoping that concerns about the air quality, noise, land use, transportation, and traffic impacts that will be created by this project will be mitigated. They appear to be significant and unavoidable. A majority of the pro-growth members of the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) Plan approved this area for residential development a few years ago. One understands how the developer would assume that he is entitled to receive full approval for the entire proposal as is. However, there were two parts to this plan, one being “Land Use” and the other “Circulation Element.” They were designed to complement each other. This project at the time of buildout will place unavoidable and unmitigated adverse impacts on the City’s current sewer, water, school, law enforcement and fire protection capacities because the current plan still does not honor everything that was discussed in the past. Since I met with the developers of this project on two occasions, I was able to express concerns. 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 and land use designation 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 extensive bike paths through the remediated land. It also highlighted the fact that traffic on South Higuera would be eased by the Prado Road overpass or interchange. To allow for development in this area without the required support for vehicular traffic is unconscionable. Hopefully, you as the Council can secure commitments for this traffic infrastructure before approving the development. 2) The other matter is access to emergency services. Without the aforementioned traffic infrastructure, the response times are not possible. 3) There are significant gaps in the bike paths that should be resolved. There are a number of letters in the current agenda correspondence from individuals who are avid bikers. Please heed their recommendations to provide for the safety of people from all age groups who desire to bike for their primary mode of transportation and for recreation. 1 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. 4) 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. 5) Also, to 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.” 6) Please have the applicant fully delineate the breadth of the “inclusionary housing” on site. It sounds lovely and very politically correct. What does it look like and who is it for? 7) Please clarify the price point for this “affordable housing.” It appears that a small percentage of it will be available for those in the “middle income” bracket. 8) It is my understanding that a portion of the high density housing has been repositioned on the plan. It appears to be away from the runway where it was originally. While I think this is a noble redesign, I am still concerned with the viability of our airport with the development being so close to the airport. I believe in keeping the airport viable for our economy the next 20 years, especially with the closure of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. We should maintain a viable airport to attract businesses from throughout the nation. Currently Avila Ranch is underneath where three flight paths intersect. It seems like it is not the best place for high density housing. Please do not approve Avila Ranch, as a project, until these inconsistencies with State Planning Law and the documented circulation element in the LUCE are resolved. It 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 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93405 milavu@hotmail.com 2 3