Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-11-2017 PC Correspondence - Items 1 and 2 (Krahl, original Jan 10 letter) From: Karen Krahl, D.C. < Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:33 PM To: Advisory Bodies; Corey, Tyler; Harmon, Heidi Cc: pamela Krahl; Kayla Plourde; Kathy Borland; Chitwood; Mila Vujovich-La Barre Subject: Avila Ranch Project Dr. Karen J. Krahl, D.C. 5057 Davenport Creek Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 January 10, 2017 RE: Avila Ranch Plan To the City Council Members To the Planning Commission Dear Sirs and Madams, RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JAN 11 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I have lived in San Luis Obispo, since 1977. After completing chiropractic college in Pasadena, and having spent several years in the polluted and traffic impacted Los Angeles freeways and streets, I traveled through California trying to find a right sized town in a semi -rural area. San Luis Obispo was the city that held the greatest appeal for me for several reasons. Clean air, Mediterranean climate, beaches, and a place where I could open my practice, without having to spend hours commuting, or worse, simply idling in traffic jams. Additionally I could afford to rent an office, a small 2 bedroom house close to my office, and in just a few years achieved something I'd been dreaming about my whole life: owning a piece of property outside the city but not a long commute, where I could build a house, ride my horses, get married, start a family, and build a barn. Up until recently the quality of life in SLO just kept getting better. Not nuts about all the big box stores and Madonna Mall, but the Farmer's Markets, improved edifices of buildings downtown, the PAC, the great restaurants, and local events are just wonderful. I live on Davenport Creek, and have listened to prop run -ups from the airport, and now jets for 35 years. I signed an aviation agreement when I bought our place, I never complained about the noise, it was a trade off. But now the Avila Ranch has been annexed by the city, the city has encroached on county property as far as a I see it, and the proposed developments pose many problems already, and not enough mitigation of those projected detractors in the project have been provided for; note in some cases, the mitigation suggested moves a digit or two off the MT of material and pollutants that are coming our way... nor is there an infrastructure for traffic circulation set in place to precede the approval of the project. Nobody builds a house or a building without a foundation, and so you cannot intend to build this all out with out the traffic infrastructure improved first. To go forward with Avila Ranch without reasonable and effective solutions to gridlock traffic, several times a day, not just at rush hour after work for: Buckley and 227, Buckley and Vachell Lane at South Higuera, Tank Farm Road and South Higuera. Los Osos Valley Road overpass. The 101 N exit at LOVR backs up all the way down the ramp and stops the slow lane on 101. I agree with the findings in this draft EIR stating that air quality, noise, land use and transportation, and traffic impacts created by this project will be "significant and unavoidable." The problem we're stuck with here as rural residents, is the potential for big city pollution on our doorsteps. Add "Permanent" to Significant and Unavoidable. A few of the significant unavoidable impacts are: -Air Quality The air quality will be impacted by the increase of vehicles and the increase of idling vehicles due to the traffic. -Traffic Infrastructure Next, the traffic infrastructure needs to be analyzed, especially because when this development was discussed in the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) meetings, it factored in some roads that are scheduled for the Chevron remediation plan. These have not been built. In addition, Avila Ranch assumed that the Prado Road overpass or interchange would be built to alleviate traffic. To approve this project in isolation would be ignoring the cumulative effects that should be expected from all of the proposed development in this part of town. -Several times during the day, morning, noon and evening rush bumper to bumper traffic from South Broad to 227 and Buckley intersection. Also heavy traffic for hours on 227 to Price Canyon, through Price Canyon, as well as 101 S. and N. -Turning onto Buckley, my only egress from Davenport, has become increasingly time consuming, waiting for cross town traffic in both directions to leave me a gap long enough to turn. Davenport Creek Road has several equestrian facilities, a large and small veterinary clinic, boarding and training facilities, and horse owners abound on Evans, DPC, Serpa Ranch Road. There are many horse trailers coming and going on weekdays and weekends. Pulling out into traffic with a long bed truck and 3 horse trailer or even a two horse, takes time to accelerate to make the turn in either direction. THE EIR REPORT AND AIR POLLUTION 1. The Project may be inconsistent with several adopted City General Plan policies designed to protect biological and agricultural resources and to ensure adequate utilities and public services 2. Additional traffic would increase delays at Buckley & 227. At peak times of day, traffic would exceed the intersection's capacity. (Traffic on So. Higuera, Buckley, LOVR, and 227 is expected to increase by over 6,600 of vehicle trips per day.) 3. Project -generated traffic would result in significant impacts at four intersections (all on South Higuera). NOTE: There is no impact cited for the intersections of Buckley and Esperanza, Hoover, Santa Fe, Davenport Creek, Mello Lane, Thread Lane, or Hidden Springs. Getting onto Buckley from Davenport is increasingly difficult throughout the day, not just at AM/PM rush hours. 4. The Project as projected in the EIR would be in violation with the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District's 2001 Clean Air Plan. It would be in violation of the California Clean Air Act. 5. Drilling wells could affect ground water for people already residents of Edna Valley and on Davenport Creek Road. If there are no wells to be drilled, how is the water to be supplied to the project when we are still in a drought, drawing from Nacimiento? 6. What enforcement would exist to potential buyers of homes in this project to prevent them from being absentee landlords and filling the houses with college students? Where depending on the size of the apartment, condo or home, as many as 6 or 10 people could rent. This would cause a worse problem with traffic and additional trips. 7. This is supposed to be a bike friendly community, however I do not see in the EIR any adequate commutable bike lanes, or road widening on Tank Farm or on Buckley. Many times a week I have to slow to a stop behind a cyclist and wait for oncoming traffic to stop because cyclists do not ride on the edge of the lane. They routinely ride in my lane. To give one a 3ft berth, I must idle and wait till I can pass in the oncoming lane. I fear for the safety of avid cyclists without changes to both roads to make bike lanes. There are bike lanes within the proposed project but they don't connect with adequate ways to get to town as far as I can see. If there were to be over 6,000 more car trips a day generated by this project, the risks of car/cyclist accidents would increase. 8. There are some impacts that the EIR states can be mitigated where the mitigation measures are either not reasonable or not consistent with other constraints already in place. For instance, the report calls for the widening of LOVR where there is an agreement in place between the city and Los Verdes residents that LOVR will not be widened. The residents there, already sued the city and won over that matter. 9. Having read the special section of the EIR on Air Pollution I am unconvinced that air quality will be maintained. The pollution caused during the construction process will be impactful on local residents that are downwind of the project and most of Edna Valley will be impacted. Our particular climate, and the inversion layers that happen in this basin is a bad situation during certain seasons of the year, where the polluted air goes out over the ocean and comes back in again. One way the document makes it look like it will be in compliance with the numbers set by the state, is by "amortizing," the pollutants' impacts until 2029 when most of the construction and pollution will happen in the first ten. We will all be breathing this air that is over the limits for those 10 years: 24/7. 10. "Affordable Housing" Avila Ranch will not be "affordable housing." There will only be a few units in this category. The developer will charge what the market will allow. 11. Airport Viability and Safety The proximity of the lower income rental apartments for rent or purchase that are scheduled to be built close to the runway is a concern. Complaints from these future residents will jeopardize the operation of the airport. It is critical in the coming years to increase the viability of our airport, not threaten it with housing close to the runway. I am concerned at a time when we are trying to increase visits to our county for tourism, complaints and safety concerns of people who buy those units could hamper early morning and late evening flights which are the ones we ourselves need to make good connections in Phoenix, or SF, or LA. It is still of concern to me and some commissioners that there are three flight paths that intersect over the proposed construction. I fear for the safety of future residents, pilots and passengers. Also, I feel that the City could be held liable in the event of an airplane catastrophe. 12. Water Availability What I am also concerned about is the simple availability of quality water for these 700 homes. In the LUCE meetings "quality water" was discussed very briefly. In the LUCE minority report, concerns are raised about the availability of quality water for all of the proposed development and current residents. I remain concerned about water availability for current City residents given this epic drought and climate change. I remain concerned that we do not have enough water for the residents and proposed developments like Avila Ranch. Water rates continue to escalate for current residents even though they continue to conserve. 13. School Availability The other omission in this report that is important is school availability. Discussions should be initiated immediately with the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). The SLCUSD is scheduled to lose $8-$10 million per year when Diablo Canyon Power Plant closes. There will be "Draconian" cuts in the SLCUSD according to the Superintendent Eric Prater. The children in "family homes" that are being built for Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch will have a severe impact on the already crowded K-12 schools. 14. Emergency Services An observation Mila Vujovich-La Barre made after she discussed with Peck and Mangano was the availability of emergency services. Without a new fire station, there is no way with the proposed traffic infrastructure that emergency service could reach the new development. Peck mentioned a "satellite," temporary fire station, but people who are firefighters have stated that that idea has not been properly analyzed. She also said in a letter she sent to the Planning Commission re: State Law, The Desires of Developers and Public Communication Also I wish to echo the same concerns of Allan Cooper. In a recent letter to you about this development, Cooper stated that "The two additional findings to the significant and unavoidable land use impacts," are that under "LUCE Performance Standards" a "footnote appears stating that a `Density bonus program for affordable housing would allow additional units, consistent with existing City policies. Source: (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a)'. Cooper stated that "This may be true 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...". Cooper concluded, "This is indeed the case regarding this Avila Ranch Development Project." "The second finding which should be added to this draft EIR is as follows: The California Legislature `also 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.' I hope that you are all aware of both of these logical points of state law. My note: this is a loss of 96+ acres of prime agricultural land. Mila also wrote, "Again, the LUCE document that supported development at this location was funded by a state grant to maximize development in town! In my opinion, that is where part of this miscommunication with the general public started. In addition, there were not sufficient public outreach meetings in the neighborhoods that were going to be affected. Many of the concerns that I have stated would have come up then in conversations with constituents. In Summary: I am against the project. It is an irresponsible plan to build out a project that will pollute Edna Valley first and contribute to the ongoing traffic jams, and queues in the south end of town. To push it through and give green lights to developers and their investors smacks to me of the financial contributions those building permits would generate for the city. Four and five story buildings downtown? The city building residences for Cal Poly students on historical property? It's untenable. The quality of life is quickly changing in the city and county. The quality of life is the very thing that SLO prides itself on and advertises to attract tourism. It is no secret the City of SLO has some daunting financial problems, including but not limited to loans and interest payments on underfunded pensions. Is that why were are seeing so much development? I did not move to a small town, with ag land and semi -rural landscapes, to see the general plan suddenly change, to tolerate projected violations of the Clean Air Act, and to get stuck in traffic wherever I go. I am directly referring to the Avila Ranch, in the above letter, but San Luis Ranch 500 residences, Madonna's projected 250 homes and elder residences too, two more build outs of the projects on Tank Farm on Orcutt at Islay Hill, will be contributing in the very near future to much much more traffic gridlock on the major N/S arteries/highways, and cross town routes South, Tank Farm and Buckley. I am a "No Project" supporter. Thanks for taking these things into consideration. Sincerely, Dr. Karen J. Krahl, D.C.