HomeMy WebLinkAbout06_28-29_2017 PC Correspondence - Avila Ranch (Flickinger)The Flickinger Family
79 Del Oro Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Public Hearing, Avila Ranch Development
June 29, 2017
To the Planning Commission and Avila Ranch Developers:
Thank you for all the time and effort you, together with Staff, have put in toward developing a project
aimed at addressing a multitude of oft-conflicting goals. It is our personal belief, that this project is
headed in the right direction, but there are still significant deficiencies in what is being proposed.
As homeowners of a parcel with a single family home and 1/91 owners in the commonly held parcels in
the Los Verdes Park 1 neighborhood, we are concerned with so many plans for mitigations being put off
to the development agreement or other such arrangements, which should be made available for public
review and comment as required under CEQA. These plans relate to air quality and circulation, which are
core concerns for anyone living in close proximity to a proposed project such as this.
Together we have owned our property for 12 years. In that time, a lot has changed in the airport area
and with regard to development and development plans throughout the Tank Farm, LOVR, S. Higuera
and Madonna corridors. We have seen our neighborhood collector street (LOVR) go from two lanes with
protected turn pockets, wide bike lanes and easy and safe access for any mode of transportation to a
busy multi-lane arterial with constant noise, traffic and particulate matter, as well as constant debris
from minor collisions in the area—most of which are likely never reported. When we purchased our
home 12 years ago, much of this was not anticipated in the City’s planning documents. My neighbors
who have lived here longer have seen even more significant changes. But, plans change, and so we have
to do our best to accommodate change.
Through the years of living in our home, we have noticed significant degradation of our air quality as
well as our ability to enjoy the indoor-outdoor quality of life so integral to living in San Luis Obispo.
These changes are directly attributable to cumulative impacts relating to development and
development-related traffic that has been accepted by the City without mitigation for years. No project
is required to make improvements, as their contributions are only fractional, but together they have
created a cumulative impact and atmosphere that is adversely affecting our quality of life and, possibly,
our health and the health of our young child.
This project has permanent negative impacts to air quality that exceed established thresholds. These
impacts must be mitigated to acceptable levels for this project to move forward. I understand and
recognize the goal of reducing commuter traffic and related emissions by building affordable housing in
the City. However, even with all the mitigations and the forecasts for commute declines, the finding in
these documents is that air quality will forever be compromised by this development. This impacts
everyone who lives, works and recreates in the City, and it especially impacts those of us who live in
direct proximity to the development and its circulation.
We are people who prefer to find solutions, so we would like to submit the following for your
consideration as you look at conditions and directions to Staff as this project moves forward. We believe
that with the addition of some of these aggressive measures toward combatting air pollution and
greenhouse gases, the air quality impacts of this development could be brought within acceptable
levels.
1. Aggressive planting and urban forestry practices on and offsite can significantly improve air
quality, as well as reduce ambient noise levels in cities. A lot of established trees have been lost
in this portion of town in recent years, and it is evident in the air quality. Specifically, the
addition of female and monoecious evergreen native trees has the benefit of reducing airborne
allergens and pollutants and breaking up sound waves throughout the year. While redwoods are
some of the most efficient at this, it is my understanding that they are not particularly
compatible with the reclaimed water used in landscaping of new developments, which can
adversely affect the vascular system for the species. I urge you to seek the guidance of your
urban forestry professionals within City Staff, advisory bodies and the Cal Poly community to
develop specific planting recommendations for species, size and quantities, designed to combat
air quality and noise impacts relating to this development in a quantifiable way.
2. Cities around the world are using new innovative design features throughout developments that
are geared toward reducing global warming, removing pollutants from the air and reducing
ambient temperatures in and around areas of significant development. Living walls, forested
building exteriors and green roofs are among the many options available to designers to offset
the impacts of developments. On occasion, such measures can be seen around San Luis Obispo,
but it would be great if our City could be an example in proactively encouraging such features.
The benefits to residents and urban areas who have incorporated such features is well
documented.
3. Active air cleaning products such as CityTree can actively reduce airborne pollutants, and offer
the added benefit of continual monitoring and feedback on localized air quality. Plus, they
provide positive visual benefits as well, serving almost as public art. Urban art installations in
Oakland, San Francisco and many other areas aggressively apply living structures to enhance and
improve environments while reducing or counteracting airborne pollutants.
4. Reducing motor vehicle trips is essential; but to do so, enhancing air quality and road conditions
for safe use of multimodal facilities is essential. If riding a bike or bus is unpleasant, people are
less likely to do it. As my daughter says every time she is on her bike, waiting at a signal behind a
motor vehicle, “Ew. Cars stink.” Or, every time she is behind or next to a vehicle that throws a
bunch of gravel or debris at her while she is riding, “Ouch. Cars hurt.” While emissions
advancements have been made, particulate matter from tires, brake pads, engine debris and
automotive fluids burned off by vehicle engines remain a hazard and a discouragement for
those considering multimodal transportation. If the goal is that more trips are made
multimodally, any mitigations serving increases in motor vehicle traffic capacity are
counterintuitive. If the goal is that the people buying into Avila Ranch are doing so to avoid
having to commute by car, then only bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities should be improved
because, in theory, these people will no longer be commuting, so the reduction of their trips as
commuters should offset demand on infrastructure from occasional motor vehicle trips relating
to operation of the development.
At the very least, we should be working to ensure that new and existing neighborhoods are not
impacted by adverse conditions relating to motor vehicles, especially with regard to air quality.
The easiest answer is to keep significant roadways out of residential neighborhoods to the
greatest extent possible through long-term planning solutions like the LOVR Bypass and the
north-south collector at Horizon/Jesperson complete to Tank Farm as provided for with this
project under the LUCE. We should not be reclassifying neighborhood streets that bisect
residential areas to commercial collectors and arterials unless we are prepared to address the
associated negative impacts.
5. Positive noise is the answer to noise pollution. Positive noise includes the sound of leaves
rustling in the wind, birds chirping, butterfly wings flapping, water trickling and so on. Positive
noise enhances riding and walking conditions and encourages use of these modes as regular
transportation methods. Ensuring that sidewalk and street-edge improvements include trees
and shading to enhance and encourage usership of multimodal facilities as part of all areas
being mitigated is essential to achieving the stated goals of the City and this development. An
added benefit is that these trees and plantings, if properly selected, can significantly reduce
negative air quality impacts in the area impacted by this development in a quantifiable way.
6. The incorporation of Green Streets throughout the development and additional facilities in lieu
of traditional paving techniques could counteract ambient temperature impacts (“heat island
effect”), improve storm water management, enhance percolation, encouraging healthy water
cycle management and further reduce negative air quality impacts. Costs associated with Green
Streets are at or near costs of traditional paving techniques. Portland, Oregon is considered a
leader in development of Green Streets. More information on this environmentally friendly
alternative to traditional paving is available through the EPA at https://www.epa.gov/G3/learn-
about-green-streets.
7. Sound deadening/reducing and active air cleansing walls are available to further reduce noise,
ambient temperatures and reduce air pollution relating to the project. These can come in the
form of green walls, rated acoustic reduction wall materials (or relatively inexpensive liners for
use with traditional materials), or even insulation products like Roxul or recycled denim
insulation, and can improve air quality while reducing noise levels in and around developments.
Speaking from personal experience, Roxul can completely deaden the sound and vibration of an
airplane overhead even when placed in just the ceiling of a home.
These are some of the many options for improving urban air quality to within acceptable levels.
Accepting irreversible air quality impacts as a necessary and unavoidable consequence of development
should be unacceptable. The technology to combat these impacts exists and is readily available without
significantly adding to the cost of construction. These impacts can be mitigated; it will just require some
creativity and proactive thinking.
All residents should have the right to clean air and water, no matter where or what type of residence
they live in (or outside of). No development or series of developments should be allowed to alter the
conditions of an area such that persons are denied those rights. Our home depends on passive cooling,
which means our windows must remain open to some degree at virtually all times. Since completion of
the LOVR Interchange Project, our indoor air quality has significantly degraded, and we deal with
additional particulate matter within our home on a daily basis. Our home does not have any air
exchange systems that allow cleaning of outdoor air before it passes into our indoor environment. Even
if that was an option, however, the nature of the active indoor/outdoor lifestyle we enjoy would be
compromised by any additional degradation of air quality in or around our parcel or neighborhood.
Our daughter suffers with eczema, which worsens if she is outdoors in our neighborhood park during
PM commute times. I live with a life-threatening allergy to hevea brasiliensis, which can be triggered
directly from particulate matter associated with motor vehicles. My allergy is recognized under the ADA
for reasonable accommodation by public-serving entities. While we do our best to ensure that our
indoor air quality is as good as it gets, I can only mitigate the outdoor air quality within our small parcel
to a certain extent (which we do, with specific air cleaning plants and other active measures within our
means), and have absolutely no control over the conditions beyond our parcel.
We recently lived through two years of 24-6 construction and the associated impacts relating to air,
noise and light pollution. Avila Ranch development is estimated to be a 10-year building cycle. Our air
quality and noise condition during construction and operation must be preserved to avoid adverse
health effects.
The technology to actively clean air and counteract noise is available and feasible for impacts relating to
this project. The City should not accept any project that degrades air quality beyond acceptable levels in
existing neighborhoods or on City facilities such as sidewalks, bus stops or streets in existing
neighborhoods or core connections. Air quality issues relating to the project and circulation changes
caused by the project must be mitigated prior to this project moving forward. In the 1960s it may have
been acceptable, but in a CEQA environment, all feasible measures need to be actively incorporated
before any overriding considerations are made with regard to air quality. The technology is out there,
and our City has now hit a point where we need to start integrating these types of solutions.
This EIR needs additional work and mitigation which should be subject to public oversight and feedback
under CEQA for it to be acceptable. Pending mitigation of air quality impacts, we look forward to
welcoming new residential neighbors and neighborhood-serving businesses in southern SLO. The more
neighbors, the better! We sincerely hope these suggestions can be of help as you look at addressing air
quality concerns.
Sincerely,
The Flickinger Family
(composed by Sarah)