|
|
Letter to Planning Commission - May 15, 2006May 15, 2006 Planning Commission
Commissioner Mark Austin (Chair) Commissioner Douglas Tucker Commissioner Vance Johnson Commissioner Diane McCall Commissioner Wallace Schaefle Re: North Fillmore Specific Plan Dear Commissioners, At the May 3rd Planning Commission meeting a Sun Cal/Rincon representative addressed some of the issues that Citizens for Responsible Growth and other citizens have brought up. We appreciate their efforts to enlighten us. They state that they did an adequate analysis on air quality, water, agriculture. However, they have just repeated what is in the EIR which does not directly address our concerns in a satisfactory manner. 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. We contend that there are several unresolved issues with the EIR and the North Fillmore Specific Plan. We are recommending the following:
We have substantial reasons for these recommendations. 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. We also believe that this is not the best plan for Fillmore. Conflicts with General Plan There are numerous conflicts with the General Plan.
Density and Character The current zoning for the North Fillmore Specific Plan area is RL, Residential – Low. This zoning is appropriate for the land configuration. Adding infrastructure for RR or RL density would be less costly while producing a high property tax increment if development is focused on high-end properties The April 9, 2006 issue of the Ventura County Star published an article regarding a proposed development in Santa Paula indicating that there are needs for high end housing… “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. This chart shows a very large unmet demand for high end/upscale housing in the Fillmore area and a negative demand for multifamily units.
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. According to data from SCAG and VCOG, the City of Fillmore is exceeding its growth projections and requirements. The current SCAG forecast is 17,384. Why are we exceeding SCAG forecasts which the City says is driving this density and growth? The State requirements have already been met just with current production of housing thus requiring a slower pace of development than currently exists. The current rate of development has skyrocketed with the parcels pending development:
This is NOT slow, controlled or responsible growth.
Item 4.11.2 of the NFSP EIR states that,
”population impacts
are…significant if growth…would exceed projections for the
area…” Here is a paragraph from the state housing element law… …
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…” The Fillmore Municipal Code reads; 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. From 1988 – 2004 there were 595 homes developed. From 2005 – 2020 there will be 2,024 homes developed. This is a 240% increase! This is an unreasonable and irresponsible level of growth and this is why we believe that the density and the number of homes and developments must be revised.
As you can see from the table below, 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 Plan shows a net income of $189,000 after stable year. That does not compensate for the loss of agriculture, air quality, traffic headaches or quality of life. 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. With the NFSP we will be at the top of the list of highest density per acre.
The impact on the schools is 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. 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. 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. Sespe Creek and the hills surrounding Fillmore are all private properties posted with No Trespassing signs. The acquisition pricing scheme in the NFSP is an unreasonable formula and should not be used. Instead the land should be properly appraised. The City recently purchased land at a cost of $262,000 per acre. We would like to know why the taxpayers are paying $700,000 per acre to Sun Cal for acquisition costs and $185,000 for development costs for a total of $885,000 per acre for park land. Most of which are “pocket parks” 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. Circulation Element Conflicts: 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 and the General Plan? 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 require 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. Traffic and Air Quality Significant Impact AQ-3 must be revisited due to LOS changes due to increased traffic counts. Traffic and air quality studies need to
be re-assessed since we will be at LOS E or F at State Route
126 and State Route 23 intersection. This is a conflict with
the General Plan Circulation Element which states that “City
must maintain a LOS C on City streets or D on SR 126”. 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 put the Level of Service below an “F” at SR 126 and SR 23 intersection. The study used traffic volumes of 30,500 and 31,000 for SR 126. There is more recent CALTRANS data(attachment 1) 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 in the Plan was listed at 836 dwelling units, when there are actually over 1100 dwelling units currently pending construction. 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. 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. 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 SR 126, particularly at stop lights where diesel trucks are idling and producing air toxics. Community
Input 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 states 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 noticed 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 if they desire. Redevelopment funds cannot be used if it will segregate a community. 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, community and employment. With approval of this project you will be squandering this city’s most precious resources; 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 including former City employees have left the area. Many City employees choose not to live in Fillmore. Many residents state that they can’t
wait to be retired or sell out so they can get out of here.
This is a sad
reality since Fillmore truly could and should be “the last,
best, small town in With a progressive and visionary city management team and city leadership 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 of water, air and sunshine. Please raise the bar higher, not lower. Gayle Washburn Todd VanDeMheen Citizens for Responsible Growth 1355 Goodenough Rd. Fillmore, CA 93015 cc: City Council Mayor Pro-tem Ken Smedley Council Member Steve Conaway Shirley Micarelli 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.” Attachment
1. Caltrans
Current Traffic Counts
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/truck2004final.pdf
|
|
| 2006 - Gayle Washburn for City Council -
|