Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-2017 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Barinka)July 11, 2017 Email : advisorybodies@slocity.org Avila Ranch comments As adjacent property owners to the proposed Avila Ranch Project, currently before the Planning Commission, w e would like to again go on record and state the various reasons we are opposed to the Avila Ranch Project as it is currently proposed and recommend rejection of the EIR and the project. We have attempted to keep our comments categorized and brief. Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Appears to be a high density residential peninsula, almost an island, surrounded by heavy commercial/industrial and Ag related uses. LUCE may recommend that it be re-zoned, but that does not make it the right thing to do. Agriculture Resources • Prime Ag land permanently (forever) removed. • Removing the benefit of having Prime Ag land within the City sphere. The small amount of farmed ag land within this proposed development appears to be a “token” and most likely would not be economical for any local grower. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions • This “valley” that we live in is going to suffer with a terrible inversion layer of large amounts of vehicle/equipment emissions if this Project is built and the number of daily vehicle trips comes to pass. Now adding vehicle emissions to the soon expected “odors” from the recycle plant located just to the east (Waste Connections). This increase in greenhouse gas emissions cannot be healthy for anyone. • We encourage more local residents to use bicycles for local transportation, however, with the air quality being so highly degraded with the build out of this Project and the tremendous increase in traffic, how is that healthy to the local population? • With the current sewer plant at maximum capacity, won’t there be violation of the Air Quality laws when this Project (and the numerous other projects under construction or planned) adds to that supply? • 18 acres of pocket parks, 55 acres open space including riparian corridors and farmed Ag land is such a small percentage of the land dedicated to clean air. Biological Resources • native species identified? How is that being mitigated? Cultural Resources • Archeological considerations not addressed Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Land is identified as a flood plain. • With the build out of this proposed project (huge increase in paved/concrete surfaces) where will the water flow during our next major rain year? There is already a flooding issue at the corner of Buckley/Vachell – how is that intersection going to be improved to prevent flooding in the future? • Potential future damage due to flooding • Flood Insurance requirements • As adjacent property owner, what will our potential flooding issues be with the massive grading for the Project, immense increase in land covered with paving/concrete? Who bears this liability? The City of San Luis Obispo? Hydrology and Water Quality • The existing creek situation causes flooding (and closure) at the Buckley/Vachell corner during storm activity. • We can only assume that there will be additional water runoff generated because of the build-out and pave-over of these acres. Is that additional water runoff being addresse d? The southwest corner of this property already has a serious drainage situation during heavy storm weather. The bridge (stream below) that is just east of the Buckley/Vachell corner cannot handle the current run-off that occurs, causing overcapacity and flooding of this corner. This flooding requires road closure. That is the current issue-how is this addressed? • To our knowledge the county has identified at least a good portion of this property a “Flood Zone”. This identification cannot be ignored. Does this identification just disappear with the construction of this Project? • The site has numerous weak springs (have they been identified during the EIR process?) that ooze for days, or weeks, after a strong storm, enough to keep the existing farming operation at a standstill for weeks (months) after a series of strong storms. Builders, Engineers and Buyers and City of San Luis Obispo beware! • Our property that border this site on the east all have natural drainage from our acreage flowing west onto this property. Is this accounted for in the drainage plan? Will there be a backup/flooding issue onto the adjacent east property during severe weather? We believe the City will bear the liability responsibility for any backup/flooding onto our property. • How can the statement “the City has plenty of water” be made when current residents of the City have been required during the drought to conserve; the current sewer plant is at capacity with no plans to expand to accommodate this and other Projects either under construction or in the pipeline. Land Use and Planning • Appears to be a high density residential peninsula, almost an island, surrounded by heavy commercial/industrial and Ag related uses. LUCE may recommend that it be re-zoned, but that does not make it right. Noise • noise from Commercial/Industrial business directly adjacent to the Project, i.e. Air Vol Block , Cal Portland’s concrete batch plant (both which run 24/7 during certain times of the year), Lockeed Martin Drone Testing facility (testing at various times of the day and night), Ag wind machines for vineyard along Buckley Road (run periodically through the night and early mornings during frost weather periods), and numerous heavy industrial businesses along the north side of the Project. • Larger buffers are required between Project and existing uses/structures/residences, roads. Specific to our property we would like to see a WIDE row of trees due east of the highest density structures which are adjacent to our property. These trees would help to mitigate the visual/noise impact from this Project. Population and Housing • We understand the need for affordable housing, but the circulation/infrastructure must be in place before residential construction begins, in addition, how many of these housing units are considered “affordable”? • Are there going to be requirements for number of individuals per household? 720 residences and 1600+- individuals living there. For the high cost of any of these units, we can only assume there will be more than 2 individuals living in most of these units. • The quality of life for the current residents of this area is going to be forever changed, for the worse. Progress is inevitable, but that progress has to be realistic. This area has a large population of larger landowners (1 acre+), many who raise livestock. To place high density housing adjacent to that situation, plus adjacent to commercial/industrial uses is not using common sense. • Housing prices – what will be the stated housing sales prices? Are any of these actually “affordable”? How many units will be required to fall under the “5 year deed limitation” ruling to rule out buyers that will quickly flip housing units for a much high price? Public Services • With increased traffic and congestion, how are Emergency vehicles going to gain access to calls anywhere in this area? The City has a fiduciary responsibility/and liability when allowing the development of a Project such as this to provide for the Health and Safety of the current residents and the new residents. Transportation and Traffic • Gridlock will become a reality on Buckley Road.. Gridlock/congestion/increased traffic accidents/decline in health and safety for all traveling through this area. • The extra traffic created by the Project cannot be “mitigated away” with some magic language in the EIR. The existing roads and City services (H20, Sewer, Fire/Safety, etc) simply cannot currently support the Project, no matter what the EIR says. Off-site infrastructure has to come first and be in place – not mitigated. • With Project – Traffic will increase significantly even with the minimal mitigation”, let’s call it like it really is. Words are thrown around at the Planning Commission meetings as to the improvement in traffic patterns/roads/intersections, path of travel (“most traffic from this project will exit to the north side”), however it appears that so much of the discussion is just that, discussion, no concrete timelines for improving the already overcrowding on these streets. • Intersections of Vachell/So. Higuera, LOVR/So. Higuera, So. Higuera/Industrial, So. HIguera, Prado, So. Higuera/Tank Farm and numerous residential cross streets in-between will be massively affected by the large increase in vehicular traffic. There are small to no plans in place, or recommended to alleviate these problems. • Highway 101/North and South bound off ramps at LOVR are already demonstrating backup ONTO THE HIGHWAY during certain periods of the day. This situation is dangerous and only going to get worse not even taking into consideration the Projects that are under construction and those that are in the pip eline. • Buckley Road extension to South Higuera. Although not a fix-all, this plan MUST be in place prior to the initial phase of the Project, not at the end. A quote heard recently was “you don’t built a house without completing the foundation first”, well this Project should not be allowed to complete Phase One without the circulation and infrastructure in place (extension of Buckley Road to So. Higuera, widening of Buckley Road with bike lanes, correcting the congestion the Vachell/So. Higuera intersection and the Buckley Road/Hwy 227 intersection). • As an adjacent property owner/resident, we make numerous trips weekly onto Buckley Road pulling a livestock trailer. The current traffic on Buckley more often than not ignores the speed limit posted and this makes for a very challenging and dangerous environment with ingress/egress of Buckley/Esperanza. There have already been fatal accidents on numerous areas of Buckley Road and without major upgrading and widening the additional vehicle trips mentioned in the EIR will make this an impossible situation. • Prado Road overpass is listed in the EIR as mitigation, BUT it is our understanding that issue has been decided that Prado Road overpass WILL NOT ever go through. Utilities • How can the statement “the City has plenty of water” be made when current residents of the City have been (up until our recent heavy rain year) required to conserve; the current sewer plant is “at capacity” with no plans to expand to accommodate this and other Projects either under construction or in the pipeline. FINAL COMMENTS There are so many issues within the EIR that realistically should not or cannot be mitigated and so many issues that have been passed over, it seems irresponsible for the Planning Commission to approve this P roject as it stands currently. The Planning Commission is responsible for looking forward (20-30 years) and using realistic methods to develop the progression of our beautiful area. Cramming 1600+/- additional individuals into this south area of the City surrounded by Commercial (noisy/truck traffic)/Vineyard (noisy)/Dog Boarding (noisy)/Ag zoned land with residences is completely irresponsible and we hold the Planning Commission and the City of San Luis Obispo liable for the negative impact this project will have on our community, and on all our individual lives. Please reject the Avila Ranch Project as it is currently proposed. Please respond that this communication has been received by the Planning Commission. Thank you. Mark Wheeler/Marge Barinka 4341 Esperanza Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-441-6674 cowgirl@barinka.us