|
|
Letter to Mayor and City Council - May 10, 2006May 10, 2006
Dear Mayor Villegas, As you can see from the overwhelming response to this plan, most citizens are vehemently opposed to the density and scale of this project. In the past, citizens felt adequately represented and trusted the City staff, Commissions and City Council to properly act on behalf of the citizens. With Heritage Valley Park and other current projects, that trust was thrown out the window and citizens are becoming alarmed and getting involved. As you can see from the responses to this Plan, many citizens have lost trust in the community leaders. We contend that there are several unresolved issues with the EIR and the North Fillmore Specific Plan. We have repeatedly requested that the EIR/Plan be re-circulated and the issue reopened to workshops for adequate community input. We believe that the traffic, air quality, land use and other issues that the EIR indicated as significant impacts that would be mitigated are not reasonably mitigated. These items should be further analyzed and addressed. Conflicts with General Plan There are numerous conflicts with the General Plan.
Density and Character The current zoning for the North Fillmore Specific Plan is RL, Residential – Low. The current zoning is appropriate for the land configuration and adding infrastructure for RR or RL density would be minimal while producing a high property tax increment if development is focused on high-end properties “Pinnacle
CEO John Lang said he thinks the potential market for such a
high-end project is "phenomenal." The company's
developments attract wealthy retirees from around the country,
and there should be plenty of local demand, too, he said.
"Within
an hour's drive of Santa Paula, there are 35,000 households
with incomes of more than half a million a year," Lang
said. Fillmore cannot afford to be the county’s doormat on poverty issues. With the lowest median income in the county the city presently houses more than its fair share of low-income families.
http://www.vchome.org/pdf/resource/Final_HOME_report_June1.pdf Growth We are concerned that the number of people per household has changed from the draft EIR and we would like to know the source of the new data.
What is the actual ratio? Since so many issues and decisions are impacted by this count, we need to have consistent data for determining the housing growth, population growth, traffic growth and air pollution growth The current rate of development has skyrocketed with the approval of :
Item 4.11.2 of the NFSP EIR states that …”population impacts are…significant if growth…would exceed projections for the area…”
…
The distribution shall seek to reduce
the concentration of lower income households in cities or
counties which already have disproportionately high
proportions of lower income households. Based upon
population projections produced by the Department of Finance
and regional population forecasts…” 6.09.030 Limitation by population. Development
allotments shall be limited to allow for a total population
increase of one hundred ninety-eight persons per year during
the years 1981 through 1999, inclusive. The numbers of each
type of dwelling unit to be constructed shall be limited to
allow for that population increase, at a maximum. (Ord. 509 §
1 (part), 1980) Even though this is outdated, it illustrates the thoughtful, intelligent direction that Fillmore went through from 1981 through 1999. We believe that in 2006 it is not realistic to keep growth at the 1999 levels. However, the current level of growth is not reasonable for this size of town which has historically one of the highest densities in Ventura County.
As you can see from the table one Population and Land Use Metrics, Fillmore had a population growth rate of over 20% from 1986 to 2000. Where is the economic incremental benefit of that 20% ? The fiscal analysis of the project shows a net income of $189,000 after stable year. If this is the net economic benefit from this plan, it will barely just pay the development consultants and does not benefit the City.
The chart also indicates that Fillmore has no designated open space land. Fillmore also has the third highest density of all Ventura County cities at 11.2 per acre. Schools The impact on the schools was also a major concern. The school district is currently extremely overcrowded and not making adequate yearly progress. With the additional students generated by Heritage Valley Parks, Townhomes at the River and other developments in progress and pending as well as proposed Piru expansion, even adding a middle school will not adequately serve the community. FUSD Superintendent Mario Contini stated the district would probably need a third school and that the Developer Impact Fees will NOT be sufficient to mitigate school impacts Parks The Specific Plan states that “with its boundaries contiguous to the mountains and Sespe Creek, hiking and wilderness trails are within easy reach of Fillmore.” These trails referred to are not easily accessible and children will not be safe attempting to access the mountains, Sespe Creek or Wilderness trails. Parks and recreation need to accessible to all residents. The City recently purchased land for parks at a cost of $262,000 per acre. We would like to know why the taxpayers are paying $700,000 per acre for acquisition costs and $185,000 for development costs for a total of $$885,000 acre for park land. Most of which will not be developed beyond grass and a park bench. This appears to be of great benefit to the landowner, Sun Cal, at great detriment to the citizens. The acquisition pricing scheme in the NFSP is an unreasonable formula and should not be used. Instead the land should be properly appraised. Circulation Element Conflicts: Traffic
and Air Quality The General Plan Circulation Element requires adequate parking The Circulation Element establishes goals and implementation measures to encourage alternate modes of transportation. If an entire new community is being established in North Fillmore, where are the “park and ride” facilities as dictated by community needs? The public realm area of thoroughfares attempts to reduce motor vehicle usage in favor of bicycles and walking. This is an admirable goal but is not realistic in Fillmore or North Fillmore, where 44% of households commute to another city to go to work. They cannot walk or take their bicycles to work. So the scaling of the thoroughfares and the parking spaces in the Plan are inadequate for the number of residents and their attendant vehicles that will be looking for spaces to park. The local streets are already full because the average home has two or more vehicles. Also, the Specific Plan conflicts with the General Plan Update because the streets do not conform to General Plan specifications, requiring another amendment to the General Plan. These streets will be too narrow and congested. Significant Impact AQ-3 must be revisited due to LOS changes. Traffic and air quality studies need to
be re-assessed since we will be at LOS E or F at State Route
126 and 23 intersection. This is a conflict with the General
Plan Circulation Element which states that “City
must maintain a LOS C or D”. All of the cumulative impacts of current developments such as Heritage Valley Parks, Townhomes at the River, Grimes Canyon Expansion, Piru Expansion, Newhall Land development have to be in the EIR and successfully mitigated or the Plan is in violation of CEQA law. The City is required to deny any development that will decrease the Level of Service on State Route 126 below a “D”. The most current data available indicates that 126 is currently operating at an “E” LOS. The delay range for a signalized intersection of between 55 and 80 seconds is considered a Level of Service “E”. Delay ranges of over 200 seconds have been documented on several occasions which puts the Level of Service below and “F”. The study used traffic volumes of 30,500 and 31,000 for SR 126. Here is most recent CALTRANS data showing traffic volumes of 31,000 and 34,000, an increase of 3,500 trips. State Route 23 traffic was not included in the traffic studies. The Plan estimates that the intersection at SR 23 currently serves 1,000 ADT’s per day. This is incorrect as the most recent CALTRANS data calculates 10,500 ADT’s per day at that location or an increase of 9,500 trips.
In a letter received from CALTRANS Regional Transportation Planning Office on June 4, 2004 in response to the NOP for North Fillmore Specific Plan, the Branch Chief requested traffic studies to specifically analyze both SR 126 and SR 23 for “both existing and future conditions in the affected area…” and “…inclusion of all appropriate traffic volumes and traffic growth other than from the project and developments.” The Background growth was listed at 836 dwelling units, when there are actually over 1100 dwelling units currently under construction Producing accurate traffic levels of service and trip generation will result in exceedance of county guidelines for traffic management plans. It will also affect the APCD and AQMD thresholds and will also not be successfully mitigated. The APCD memo dated June 16, 2004 in response to the NOP recommended stated that “…a carbon monoxide screening analyses should be conducted for any project-impacted roadway intersections that are currently operating, or which are expected to operate, at Levels of Service D, E, or F, or at any projected-impacted roadway that may be a CO hotspot. If a potential hotspot is identified, the District recommends that a complete CALINE carbon monoxide analyses be conducted for that intersection.” We are contending that hotspots exist along 126, particularly at stop lights where diesel trucks are idling and producing air toxics. A recent article in the Los Angeles
Times(March 22, 2006) states that…”Despite two decades of
cleaning up carcinogenic fumes from cars and factories,
Californians are breathing some of the most toxic air in the
nation” The only proposed mitigation for getting the Level of Service to a somewhat acceptable”D” range is adding an additional lane to SR 126. This is also a violation of CEQA 15091 in that these changes are within the responsibility of another agency other than the City. During the public hearings numerous individuals have approached the Planning Commission and City Council to voice their views and concerns. Many of the speakers said they had just heard out about the project a few weeks ago. City staff insists that the North Fillmore Specific Plan has been worked on over a period of four to five years. However, this work was largely between the City and the Developers and consultants and done without community input. The Introduction of the Specific Plan 1.1.1 Purpose states that “The Plan reflects intensive work with the community to discuss the priorities and expectations for the area. According to Appendix L, Key Meeting Dates of Key Meetings and Discussions/Decisions, there was very little community involvement. We would like to know why the community was not involved in the planning process or the workshops. North Fillmore Neighborhood Council was somewhat involved but only to a limited extent. Only one workshop was notice to homes in City limits within 300’ of the project. Fillmore is such a small community this development will affect everyone in the City and everyone should be allowed to fully participate. Redevelopment funds cannot be used if it will segregate a community. Can’t be over 50% minority The Specific Plan appears to conflict with the General Plan Circulation Element Goal #30 “Encourage various means of communication opportunities to promote public involvement in the ongoing community development process. What were the various means of communication opportunities? Having public hearings is the final step of the process. None of the prior steps in the development process have “encouraged” communication opportunities for public involvement. Conclusion We would like to know what the actual benefit to citizens will be. Is there a true, measurable benefit? Growth does not always lead to prosperity. What does lead to prosperity is health; clean air, clean abundant water, peace of mind, employment. With approval of this project you will be squandering this city’s most precious resource; land, water and air; agricultural land that our children and grandchildren will need to grow on. Think ahead…plan for the future, not for the past and not for the present moment. We have the potential to make this a wonderful place. If there is an “out migration” as indicated by the City Finance Director, it’s time to seriously consider what this means. Does it mean that our quality of life is deteriorating? Yes. Many long time City residents and former employees have left the area. A recent Ventura County study shows that we have lost 10,000 middle class citizens. Think about that. Let’s stop being the bottom of the barrel. Many residents state that they can’t wait to be retired or sell out so they can get out of here. This is an absurdity since Fillmore is “the last, best, small town in Southern California”. Fillmore has a lot to offer and this needs to be appreciated by our leaders so that Fillmore will be more desirable and create more value. We don’t need to be the dumping ground for low income housing, highest disability, highest unemployment, lowest median income and other characteristics that Fillmore has been noted for in the past. With a more progressive and visionary city management leadership and city council we could develop Fillmore into a wonderful, vibrant, beautiful city with much more potential than is currently realized. Why can’t we try to make Fillmore better? There is no reason to think that Fillmore can’t be a jewel of Southern California. We have the most desirable climate, natural beauty, natural resources; water, energy, sunshine. Please raise the bar higher, not lower. Todd VanDeMheen Citizens for Responsible Growth 1355 Goodenough Rd. Fillmore, CA 93015 Article
from Ventura County Star 6/19/2001 “In an effort to revitalize
Fillmore, Ventura County's historically
rural and now poorest city, officials worked out a
20-year plan to expand its area from 1,748 to 3,238 acres,
increase its population from 14,000 to 20,000 and build about 1,200
homes, including many in an "executive
style" attractive to upscale professionals. Officials say
the city, with the county's
highest unemployment rate and housing density, needs this
growth to lure affluent residents whose taxes would help pay
for its deteriorating services. But critics, reports Los
Angeles Times writer Catherine Saillant, immediately hit the
plan as leading to urban sprawl, productive farmland loss and
Santa Clara River flooding. They also accused officials of
rushing the plan through before voters can adopt growth
control measures similar to those passed in seven other area
cities in the past years. The writer quotes resident
Paul Harding, the leader of the local Save Open Space and
Agricultural Resources (SOAR) campaign, who suspects landowner
and development interests of "fueling this fast-track
approach." City Councilman Evaristo Barajas responds that
the city's has been updating its growth plan for three years,
holding numerous workshops for residents. While a similar
city-backed growth proposal was soundly defeated last
November, so was a rival SOAR growth-control measure, he says,
considering it a sign that most voters "are happy with
the way that the City Council has been handling future
growth." Officials intend to conduct environmental
studies, hold public hearings and then present the formal plan
to the state's Local Agency Formation Commission this fall.” Legal
Reference for Cumulative Impacts Legal
Reference for Air Quality Impacts Caltrans
Current Traffic Counts
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/truck2004final.pdf
|
|
| 2006 - Gayle Washburn for City Council -
|