HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/19/2017 Item 15, Craig
Christian, Kevin
From:Wendi Craig <wlcraig1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday,
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Avila Ranch Project
Dear Mayor Harmon and City Council Members,
This is a follow-up letter to my June 29 letter.
Mayor Harmon, I greatly appreciate your prompt reply, and I hope you followed through on your promise to
further inform yourself on this flawed project.
City Council Members, despite not getting a reply from my last letter, I hope you took the time to inform
yourself by reading the executive summary of the EIR for this project. It is quite long. There are MANY
significant issues that were mentioned. Many of them were deemed mitigable, but in my opinion there is much
wiggle room available to the developer, while the residents of San Luis Obispo will be left suffering from the
impacts.
Yes, I know there is a serious housing issue due to a variety of causes: Cal Poly inviting a considerable number
of additional students without the necessary housing being completed; Encouraging bigger businesses to come
in without having invested in truly affordable housing in advance; San Luis Obispo being an incomparable
place to live; Many long-term rentals being converted to VRBO - type housing; and, infrastructure needs being
put off to the future (often due to lack of funds). I attended your recent public meeting on housing concerns.
None of these causes justify the blatant disregard for the guidelines that have been put in place over the years to
keep San Luis Obispo a healthy, delightful destination and place to live. This project is asking you to sign
several waivers of the "significant and unavoidable" impacts Avila Ranch will inflict on all of us. These areas
are:
*Reduction of valuable Ag land.
*Short and long-term air quality impacts
*"The Project is potentially inconsistent with the County of San Luis Obispo APCD’s 2001 Clean Air
Plan."
*The proposed Project would be potentially inconsistent with several adopted City policies in the General
Plan designed to protect biological resources and agricultural resources and ensure provision of adequate
utilities and public services.
*Short-term construction activities would generate noise levels that would exceed thresholds established in
the City’s General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook, with potential impacts to sensitive receptors.
(Please note: This noise - level concern does not address noise impacts on the future residents by the air
traffic in the area. I live next door to the site and there are many times when I have to wait during a discussion
with someone standing next to me, outdoors, for a plane to fly over. The airport should brace themselves for
complaints!)
*Project-generated traffic would cause increase delays and cause exceedance of intersection capacity at the
Buckley Road/SR 227 intersection in both the AM and PM peak hours.
*Under near-term plus Project conditions, Project-generated traffic would cause contribute to delays and
exceedance of storage capacities at Buckley/SR 227 (Significant and Unavoidable). The Project would also
contribute to exceedance of storage capacities along Los Osos Valley Road/South Higuera Street and contribute
1
to road segment congestion; however, impacts to Los Osos Valley Road would be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
(Please, please, please, if you haven't already visited the area, do so before you make a decision. Visit
Suburban Road around 5:15pm. This is where the project is mitigating the traffic to keep it off of
Vachell/Buckley. Visit S. Higuera at Vachell, really at any time, but notably anytime after about 3:30pm. There
are frequent accidents at the intersection. Please spend some time on Buckley, particularly at commute times. It
has become downright dangerous. Extending Buckley through to the Octagon Barn will increase speeds and
dangers.)
*Under long-term cumulative plus Project conditions, Project-generated traffic would result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to potentially significant impacts to the operational conditions at four
intersections. (this was downgraded to "significant and mitigable" but the mitigations include "shoulds" - this is
not a mitigation!
There are also many impacts deemed "significant and mitigable". Please read these mitigations carefully. I don't
believe the mitigations are all going to solve these significant problems, particularly where flooding is
concerned. It seems we should learn from the mistakes made in Houston where flood concerns were waived.
We still have a chance to be forward thinking.
Thank you for your time,
Wendi Craig
2