1 From: Benjamin Ortiz < >
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 7:31 PM
To: Web-City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment on Dec. 5, 2023 City Council Meeting, Item 14.a *** EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution when opening links or attachments.***
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of Santa Maria writing regarding agenda item 14.a for the meeting on December 5, 2023.
I am writing to voice my support for Alternative B: City Infill.
Infill development is the option the majority of stakeholders surveyed chose as the future they wanted for their city. In that same survey, stakeholders indicated an overwhelming desire for a city that is walkable with reduced traffic congestion.
Focusing on infill development is how you deliver on that desire. For a city to be walkable, destinations must be within walking distance of residents, and that can only be achieved with increased density. Traffic congestion is similarly served by increased density. Increased density allows more pedestrian trips and improves the effectiveness of our transit network. More concretely, the infill alternative is the best for dealing with traffic congestion as it is the only alternative that does not need a VMT mitigation strategy.
The hybrid option splits growth between infill development and greenfield development, falling short of delivering a walkable city with reduced traffic congestion and leaving the majority of stakeholders dissatisfied. Traffic congestion improvements coming from increased density will be offset by the increased VMT of activities occurring in the annexed land. With growth spread out, density will be lower, diminishing the potential walkability of an area--marginally increasing density without the upsides. In addition, by annexing with the intention of building "complete neighborhoods", we will be repeating a sprawling pattern of development that stakeholders specifically do not want.
By backing Alternative B, you would be standing with stakeholders' desires.
Infill development is also the most fiscally forward looking alternative of those considered. Annexation makes little sense for the future of our city as it is repeating the patterns of development that have caused our present day financial troubles .
Choosing to continue down that path for another 30 years will only cause more trouble. According to the Fiscal Impact Analysis, annexation is the alternative that would generate the most revenue for the city, but I believe this does not tell the whole story. As far as I can tell, the cost of new infrastructure, roads, transit, utilities, etc. is not included in the costs for the annexation or hybrid alternative. This will skew results when infill development comparatively has minimal additional costs. In addition, with infill development creating a more desired city (as evidenced by the stakeholder survey), a positive feedback loop is created. A more desired city attracts more businesses, more businesses means more jobs, more jobs means more people, and so on. City revenue stands to benefit from this positive feedback loop brought on by infill development whereas a less desirable city based on, to varying degrees, sprawl and annexation will not have this feedback loop.
By backing Alternative B, you would be setting up Santa Maria for a more prosperous future.
The largest downside, in my opinion, to infill development is its potential to displace existing residents. I did not see this discussed in any of the related material. I trust that this discussion comes later in the general planning process, so for now, all I have to ask is that in implementing an infill development policy, you do not neglect to consider and protect existing residents. They have made Santa Maria what it is today and deserve to be a part of Santa Maria tomorrow.
2 Set Santa Maria up for success by standing with its residents. Set Santa Maria up for its next stage of growth. Back Alternative B.
Thank you for your time,
Benjamin Ortiz