Speech to City Council - May 9, 2006

During the past several weeks the planning commissioners and city council members have heard many comments from the citizens of Fillmore and our group, Citizens for Responsible Growth.

As you can see from the overwhelming response to this plan, most citizens are vehemently opposed to 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.

There have been hundreds of valid comments and questions and we have not been satisfied with the responses and answers received. At all of the public hearings there have been only three or four speakers in favor of this Plan. Every one of those in favor of the plan has been a developer.

Conflicts with General Plan

There are numerous conflicts with the General Plan.

1. The Urban Form (Land Use Element 2005, #1 reads…”Maintain the City’s small-town, rural character in order to enhance the physical, emotional and mental well-being of the City’s residents.” This is a conflict. The City’s residents have repeatedly requested a lower density, rural zoning. And, my emotional and mental well-being are being strained right now.
2. “Ensure that proposed land uses are consistent with the desires of the community.” This is a conflict. Again, we request lower density and rural ranch zoning. Also, as we have stated before there has been little community participation since most citizens have been unaware of the project until recently. The North Fillmore Neighborhood Council has also had very little input into the project and in fact, did not receive the EIR or Plan in a timely manner.
3. Housing and Community Development of the Land Use Element states…”Manage population growth so as to enhance the economic, social and physical environment of the City.” First, we are not managing population gror population growth well since the City has consistently exceeded the SCAG forecasts f
4. Economic Growth (Land Use Element 2005, 22) Encourage a balanced community with a variety of housing, economic activities, and employment investment opportunities. This is a conflict based on the fact that we have no very high end housing and we have the lowest median income. We have neglected employment investment opportunities and in fact, have hindered businesses in their efforts to integrate into the community. There are several established businesses in North Fillmore who will eventually be forced off of their properties and relocate elsewhere. Maybe southwest or maybe to another city. This will result in job loss

Circulation Element Conflicts

There are also conflicts in the Specific Plan in the Circulation Element of the General Plan

The General Plan Circulation Element requires adequate parking.

The Specific Plan states that they are attempting 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. In our neighborhood it seems like 4 or 5 vehicles per house. There’s nowhere to park.

Traffic and air quality studies need to be re-assessed since we will be at lower LOS E or F at State Route 126 and 23 intersections. 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 need 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 study used existing 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.

The delay range for a signalized intersection of between 55 and 80 seconds is considered a Level of Service “E”. I have randomly documented delay ranges of over 200 seconds on several occasions which puts the Level of Service below and “F”.

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.

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.

Growth

We have been told repeatedly that we have “to meet the growth the state demands…how do we do it? Here is a paragraph from the state housing element law…

“65584

A …The distribution of regional housing needs shall, based upon available data, take into consideration market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need… 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.”

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. The North Fillmore Specific Plan and other current developments such as Heritage Valley Parks will increase population to over 22,000. 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.

Fillmore had the highest housing production rate in Ventura County between 2000 and 2002 according to a study by Solimar. The current rate of production has skyrocketed since then. This is not slow, controlled or responsible growth.

Parks Financing

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, Suncal, at great detriment to the citizens.

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.” I disagree in that if I had young children I could not tell them to run over to the mountains or wilderness trails and play. These trails are inaccessible and in fact I don’t even know where to locate them.

Community Input

During the public hearing portion of the meeting numerous individuals approached the commission to voice their views and concerns.  Some of the speakers said they had just heard out about the project a few weeks ago.  City staff pointed out the North Fillmore Specific Plan has been worked on over a period of four to five years

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. 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.

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. Which community does this refer to? 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. The listed meetings and workshops were not for citizen input but for developers to coerce the city into maximum density and beneficial financial arrangements.

Vision 2020

City staff has commented on the number of people who are complaining that the plan is not consistent with Vision 2020.  They say that Vision 2020 is only a guide and has no legal authority. 

Jobs and Existing Industrial Use

Does not specifically address what will happen to the industrial section of the area. What about the employers and employees. Will this be rezoned and built out as residential in the future? What will it cost the city to relocate the existing businesses? How many will leave the area to a more reasonable location to conduct business? What will this do to the jobs in Fillmore which is already lacking in jobs. 

This VCOG chart shows a decrease in employment in Fillmore. If this is due to the decrease in agricultural acreage, we are creating an even worse situation for jobs/housing ratio in Fillmore as well as losing jobs and creating more unemployment.

  This chart shows that Fillmore had the highest housing production rate in Ventura County between 2000 and 2002. The current rate of production has skyrocketed since then. This is not slow, controlled or responsible growth.

 This chart shows there is a very large unmet demand for high end/upscale housing in Fillmore area and a negative demand for multifamily units. Why aren’t we addressing the demand for upscale housing?

http://www.vchome.org/pdf/resource/Final_HOME_report_June1.pdf

 Conclusion

After all of these comments if you can look your constituents in the eye; the people who elected you and say “we don’t care what you think, we have a different agenda, an agenda of maximum growth as quickly as possible.

 We don’t care about your quality of life. We have a different agenda - maximum growth