The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-12-2017 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Vujovich-La Barre) From: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre < Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 2:58 PM To: Advisory Bodies Cc: E-mail Council Website; Lichtig, Katie; Codron, Michael Subject: Avila Ranch Concerns for 7/12/17 Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93405 July 12, 2017 Planning Commission San Luis Obispo City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, RECEIVED CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO JUL 12 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT It is my hope that you do not approve the Avila Ranch Development Project as it is proposed. Although this project and its developers have been given numerous opportunities to resolve concerns that have been revealed during the Draft EIR and other hearings, this development still has "significant and unavoidable" impacts in regard to air quality, noise, land use and transportation, and traffic impacts. In the past, I have met with Stephen Peck and Andy Mangano at RRM and shared my observations with them. While I appreciated the collegial spirit of the meetings, many of my concerns about this development remain. 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. I have been asking for a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of Prado Road that is in the new LUCE document for over 16 years. It is written into a variety of documents as a "four -lane truck highway." It currently is being "illegally segmented" or "piecemealed" in City development. The ripple effects of development with insufficient traffic infrastructure will be absolutely catastrophic to traffic flow in this part of town. It will be for the financial benefit of a handful of people, but cause a deterioration of the quality of life for residents. To allow for development in this area without the required support for vehicular traffic is unconscionable. 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. Airport Viability and Safety The other issue that I raised with Peck and Mangano is the proximity of the lower income rental apartments for rent or purchase that are scheduled to be built close to the runway. 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. Also, I have attended a handful of Airport Land Use Commission meetings. 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. When there is an aircraft crash, who is to be held liable? Water Availability 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 were raised about the availability of quality water for all of the proposed development and current residents. remain concerned about water availability for current City residents given climate change. It was after a meeting with Stephen Peck at RRM, that Peck encouraged me to contact the public utilities department to calm my fears over one year ago. Other concerned citizens and I had meetings with both the utilities department and City Manager Katie Lichtig. I still do not believe that we have enough water for the residents and proposed developments like Avila Ranch. Water rates continue to escalate for current residents even though permanent residents and renters continue to conserve. 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. In future discussions, I am not just talking about the construction cost of the schools themselves but how to maintain the ongoing cost of staff for those schools. Emergency Services The other observation that I 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 services 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. State Law, The Desires of Developers and Public Communication Also, "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)..... 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...". This is indeed the case regarding this Avila Ranch Development Project. 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." This project involves the conversion of 68 acres of prime soils to urban development. 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. Parking, Bike Lanes and Zero Net Construction In the conversations with Peck and Mangano, I mentioned that there is not sufficient parking or Class 1 bike lanes for residents. The current bike ride along Buckley Road appears treacherous. I also have stated that I hope that the homes and apartments maximize the use of solar and sustainable building techniques and materials. In closing, this project at the time of buildout will place unavoidable and unmitigated adverse impacts on the City's current sewer, water, school, law enforcement and fire protection capacities. Our City buildout should not be played like a game of Legos. This is real life with proposed permanent structures that will create negative impacts unless all of the aforementioned matters are resolved ahead of time. Since this project is near the airport and buffered by agricultural land on two sides, the location of this project is simply not suited for dense 720 -residential units and commercial amenities. Please feel free to contact me in the event that you have any additional questions or desire clarification about these observations. Thank you for your service and consideration. Cordially, Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 milavu t,hotmail.com Cell:805-441-5818