Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-11-2017 PC Correspondence - Items 1 and 2 (P. Krahl)Meeting: 01 ' RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 JAN 12 2017 Pamela Krahl M.D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1088 Hidden Springs Rd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 11 January 2017 To: The City Council Members The Planning Commission Members Dear Madams/Sirs, I would like to address the numerous problems I see with the Avila Ranch Project, based on the current EIR and common sense. All of these issues will also be relevant to other plans already in the pipeline, such as the San Luis Ranch project, the huge Froom Ranch Specific Plan, and Righetti Ranch. My neighbors and I were attracted to the small town atmosphere of San Luis Obispo, its open spaces, and agricultural lands. My husband and I bought a rural property for our home and horses on Hidden Springs Rd. to escape large city congestion. We happily signed the avigation easement for the benefits of a nearby airport with connections to major hubs. As locals, we fight to keep the current size of land parcels, and to preserve the local character of this area. I appreciate the landscape every day as I traverse Buckley Rd. and look up to the Santa Lucia mountains. Those views are about to be destroyed. The city had a slow grow initiative and mindset, that seems to have faded. Large infill projects will change the character of the downtown area, and commercial building on the south end of Broad St. continues to grow. The city annexed this portion of rural land to attract this project. It will destroy valuable farm land and is bordered on three sides by prime agricultural land. The Project violates the tenants of the: 1. Country General Plan - to preserve agricultural land, and open space, and to ease urban borders. 2. CEQA- County Environmental Quality Act 2016 guidelines 3. LUCE Land Circulation Element for streets, congestion and movement 4. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan- to preserve prime agricultural land, limit daily and peak hour traffic, decrease traffic congestion to maintain air quality, encourage expansion of air services and interstate air service, and to require new projects to mitigate traffic congestion. (2.11,2.12,2.15,7.1.1,7.1.2,11.1.1,) Also it was to work with the county so that noise and safety problems are not created in areas targeted for future development. Key to this and any project is an ample supply of clean water. It is not clear how this is to be provided, when we are in a semi -arid climate AND a drought, and the rest of us are already limiting water use. With some projected 1600-1700 new residents, even with low flow devices, they could use 66,800 to 100,200 gallons per day. Also, are our sewage facilities ready to handle the outflow? Paved roads and the development increase the changes of floods and damage to creek quality. The proximity of the project to the airport is another key concern. The Airport Use Land Commission advised against a housing development in this location and was ignored. Due to flight paths, this is an area of choice should pilots find the need for an unscheduled landing from aircraft problems on take -off. It is not a matter of "possible" liability but an absolute one. The noise will be significant to the new homeowners. They will not need alarm clocks since the 06:00 - 08:00 flight cluster will be more than loud enough to awaken them! The hew and cry will follow, to limit these early (and late) flights and reduce our connections to major cities and hubs. The traffic section of the EIR cites evaluations at peak AM and PM traffic flows. I would also mention that the city has indeed attracted flex time and flex traffic, that has smaller but evident peaks at the noon hour and starting at 2:30 p.m. (best example is traffic near Suburban Lane and Vachell Rd.) By 3-4 p.m. construction trade traffic builds significantly along the roads. This will worsen significantly with this project. Plans are offered to mitigate road flows that are already quite high and problems at 8 intersections, 7 of which are significant. Traffic exceeds designated space for queues already in several places and the proposed solution is to make longer queue spaces. Tank Farm Rd. is heavily traveled and double turn lanes in at least 2 directions are proposed. However, this is no help if one dumps more traffic onto South Higuera St. that is already backed up from the Los Osos Valley Rd. intersection. (every day in the 3-5 p.m. time range) Tank Farm Rd. is to be widened to 4 lanes, which would countermand a legal agreement the City has to not do this. Buckley Rd. will connect with S. Higuera to ease traffic and very unsafe situations with left/southbound turns at Vachell, (adding 2 lights), and this will take 2+ years to accomplish (Phase 2 of build out). Double turn lanes at the Prado Rd. intersection and widening of the bridge and road are proposed, with fees contributed by the Project. However, the City here has no jurisdiction over some of the land, and there is no funding for its part of the project. Further, it will be delayed until the Prado over -crossing is done, and there is no time line for this in the foreseeable future. Plans, funding and permits are not there, and these take a long time. Another idea is to add a Los Osos Valley Rd. bypass to enter farther down S. Higuera. Again, this is not anywhere near being accomplished, if indeed the idea is approved. It would mean 5 major (4 signalized) intersections within one mile, and a total of 6 within 2 miles, and a web of roads that looks like something out of L.A. The morning and evening traffic entering and leaving town via 227 has become a nightmare already, well in advance of the added trips that will come with the project in question. As you must know already, southbound through traffic in the evening begins early and can extend from the Buckley Rd. intersection to, and BEYOND the airport grounds. Many drivers, to avoid this, cross Buckley Rd. and wait to make a southbound turn. The resultant queue FAR outstrips the limited lane, and can run 1000 ft. and up to 50 cars at a time. They move to the right to allow for northbound turning traffic, and block the bike lane and ingress and egress at Hidden Springs Lane. Please come out and experience it with me as I wait 15 min. in this line to enter my street. Conditions here are determined to currently be at a very low and unacceptable LOS (level of service) as stated in the report. A possible plan to widen Highway 227 as far as Los Ranchos (and then narrow back to 1 lane) is in analysis stage, and thus many years from being accomplished. Daytime trips across Buckley Rd. are currently brisk, with transfer trucks, trash trucks, the new food digester vehicles and many cross-town trips. The EIR implies there will be little increase from the project but I beg to differ. There could be multiple trips to and from the project to deliver children to the Los Ranchos school, or to merely cross town, as so many others do. The current traffic hampers residents from safely exiting their homes and side streets such as Davenport Creek Rd. and others, that are not investigated in the EIR traffic plan. Surely with a main entrance from the project on Buckley Rd., there will be added car trips here. Will Buckley Rd. then be widened by the county (not the city's issue) at the cost of more valuable farm land and front yards for the right of way? Such infrastructure improvements should be planned and DONE before a large scale project is begun, and then adds to the already congested traffic. Construction trucks and traffic at the project will add a significant number of trips to these local roads. A point was made re: trips using Highway 101 and exiting for the project at LOVR. That new ramp currently backs up into the slow lane of the freeway, causing a significant hazard. Gradually, household trips, some estimated 5800 car trips a day will be added. Sidewalks need to be built, lanes changed, and roads or turn sites be augmented. All this will cause prolonged lane closures, construction delays, and further traffic mayhem. It is a key detail to note: these long term changes and disruptions will be on-going for the ten years of the build out of the project. By then, other proposed projects will be adding to these problems with their own. In conclusion, I contend that the project violates most local tenants of key planning documents, and stated intentions of the City and County, as well as CEQA, and the Airport Land Use Commission. The mitigation measures will be painful, clearly inadequate and with long term delays, and in several instances, non-existent. It will have significant negative impacts. I urge you to vote NO on this project's development. Thank you for your consideration of these issues.