HomeMy WebLinkAboutComment Received 07-12-2017 - Avila Ranch (General) (Peck, Flickinger Family)July 12, 2017
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
RE: June 29, 2017 Flickinger Family Letter
Peck Rlannine and Development, LLC
Planning Development Economics
RECEIVED
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
JUL 12 2017
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
We have reviewed the June 29, 2017 correspondence from the Flickinger Family commenting on the
Avila Ranch Project Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") and would like to provide the following
responses to their comments.
0 The commenter states that mitigation for air quality and circulation impacts is being "put off" to
the development agreement.
The commenter does not identify which air quality or circulation mitigation measures it considers de-
ferred, but none of the necessary or feasible mitigations are being put off to the development agree-
ment stage of the project. The mitigation set forth in the FEIR is the mitigation for the project; no miti-
gation measures are being withheld from the public or deferred. The development agreement identifies
a number of desirable project features that are being added above and beyond the legal CEQA and City
regulatory requirements.
CEQA requires the imposition of all the feasible mitigation measures that the agency can legally impose
and does not prohibit the City from approving a project with significant impacts if all feasible mitigation
has been imposed. (Pub. Resources Code, 21081, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4.) A mitigation meas-
ure is feasible if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal social and technological factors. (CEQA Guide-
lines section 15364.) Mitigation measures may be enforced only the extent that they are considered
consistent with constitutional limits on essential nexus and proportionality. In that context, mitigation
cannot exceed the project's fair share.
There are no significant and unmitigable traffic impacts in the vicinity of the project, and the project will
be responsible for its share of the traffic improvements for the improvements to LOVR/Higuera and
Prado/Higuera intersections. The project will also install improvements at the Higuera/Suburban, Higue-
ra/Tank Farm Road, Higuera/South, and Higuera/Vachell intersections. (See MM TRANS 7a FOR p. 3.12 -
60 through MM TRANS 10c FOR p. 3.12-70.) In addition, the project will install the Buckley Road Exten-
sion. (See FEIR p. 3.12-43.)
The FEIR identifies three significant and unavoidable air quality impacts and imposes all feasible mitiga-
tion measures to reduce these impacts. (See FEIR pages 3.3-24 through 3.3-41 and 3.3-47 through 51.)
To the extent that air quality mitigation requires a future plan, the FEIR includes performance standards
as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(A)(1)(b). (See MM AQ -1a on FEIR page 3.3-26 through
3.3-29.)
The commenter states that the project has significant and unavoidable air quality impacts and
therefore should not be approved.
The FEIR identifies three significant an unavoidable air quality impacts and imposes all feasible mitiga-
tion measures to reduce these impacts. (See FEIR pages 3.3-24 through 3.3-41 and 3.3-47 through 51.)
The most significant source of air emissions and greenhouse emission is vehicle traffic. To address those
issues, the project is implementing bicycle and transit improvements to encourage alternate forms of
transportation. (SEE eg. FEIR p. 2-2; 2-11, 2-25.) The project has also proposed a program that would
provide priority for existing employees which will address the fact that two-thirds of San Luis Obispo's
employees commute to San Luis Obispo each day, generating 30,000 average daily trip in to and out of
the City (see Avila Ranch's July 12, 2017 PC Correspondence and submitted Affordable Housing Plan).
The project's priority for local employees is anticipated to result in the 50-75% of the dwelling units be-
ing occupied by existing commuters, resulting in the potential reduction of (720 units*50% capture*1.5
employees/HH*26 miles per trip)=14,400 vehicle miles travelled per day and 3.3.million vehicle miles
per year.
The commenter suggests aggressive planting and urban forestry practices to improve air quality
and noise.
The most aggressive form of mitigation for local air quality concerns is the reduction of local vehicle
miles traveled and an associated reduction of ROG, SOx NOx, particulate matter and greenhouse gas
emissions. The effect of additional tree planting is small by comparison; however the project will result
in the elimination of 16 willow trees for needed circulation improvement and the planting of an addi-
tional 525 trees on site according to Appendix Q of the EIR. The Tank Farm Creek Corridor will be pro-
tected as a forested riparian corridor, providing habitat and air quality benefits. (FEIR page 2-15.)
® The commenter proposes living walls, forested building exteriors and green roofs to mitigate air
quality impacts and global warming
Living walls, forested building exteriors and green roofs are not part of City standards. However, the
project does include special energy conservation features in Section 13 of the Design Framework, and a
net increase of 509 trees onsite. (See FOR page 3.3-37, Appendix Q.) Global warming is associated with
the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The most significant contributors of greenhouse gasses are ve-
hicle usage and operational/area energy usage. (See FEIR page 3.3-4, Table 3.3-12.) The project will re -
1 2
duce fuel consumption through the design features and mitigation measures set forth in FOR Tables 4-7
and 4-8 on FEIR pages 4-23 and 4-24.
® The commenter proposes CityTree to reduce airborn pollutants.
The CityTree technology is as not broadly adopted or proven, and is limited to 20 cities and installations
in Europe. According to its website, the technology has the ability to filter particulate matter and to ab-
sorb CO2 in the same manner as all living plant matter. It does not claim to filter or absorb Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx), Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG), or other pollutants. The protocol for determining the
technical feasibility of air quality mitigations is contained in the California Air Pollution Control Officer's
publication Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. This document does not include the
CityTree technology and the claim that it has the mitigations claimed by the commentor are speculative.
However, the CityTree may be a useful addition or component of the sculpture garden in Park H.
The commenter states that the project should improve conditions for bicycles and keep signifi-
cant roadways out of neighborhoods. Encourages the construction of the LOVR bypass.
As noted by several commenters at the public hearing, the only way to increase the local mode split of
transit, bikes and pedestrian is to have workers live near enough to their jobs to justify bike usage for
work trips. As the commenter notes, there is likely to be a reduction in total trips and vehicle miles
travelled with the implementation of the project because of a more beneficial jobs -housing balance.
The city has a policy of not having major roads cut through neighborhoods and the project has been de-
termined to comply with those policies. Various roads on the project site are classified appropriate to
their vehicle volumes and functions. Designating them as local roads, or inconsistent with their function
would be inconsistent with the General Plan, and with the findings of the Traffic Impact Study.
At present the LOVR Bypass is a possible longer term option for re-routing vehicle traffic. However, it is
not an officially adopted roadway designation in either the City or County Circulation Elements or Gen-
eral Plan and has not been environmentally evaluated for consistency with local environmental regula-
tions. The LOVR bypass is not needed to mitigate impacts associated with Avila Ranch. (See FEIR Ap-
pendix P, page 58.)
The commenter encourages tree planting on the project site.
The effect of additional tree planting is small in comparison with other measures; however, the project
will result in the elimination of 16 willow trees for needed circulation improvement and the planting of
an additional 525 trees on site according to Appendix Q of the EIR. The Tank Farm Creek Corridor will
be protected as a forested riparian corridor, providing habitat and air quality benefits. (FEIR page 2-15.)
® The commenter suggests the incorporation of Green Streets.
The project complies with city street standards, and with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's
Low Impact Development Standards. The project will comply with the City's adopted paving standards.
Heat islands will be addressed by tree plantings and spacing in accordance with City standards that will
3
ensure shading of walkways and parking lots (Development Plan Design Framework, Section 8, and City
Zoning Ordinance).
The comment suggests green walls, rated acoustic reduction wall materials, liners for use with
traditional materials, or insulation products like Roxul or recycled denim to improve air quality
and reduce noise levels in and around the project.
The project will comply with the mitigation in the Noise section of the EIR, and will provide for architec-
tural treatments that will provide interior noise levels below those specified for the City's Noise Ordi-
nance, Noise Element and the Airport Land Use Plan. (See FEIR pages 3.9-22 through 3.9-33.)
The commenter states that the technology exists to address air quality impacts and therefore
impacts should be reduced to less than significant.
The commenter has not demonstrated that any or all of the recommendations to mitigate air quality
are feasible or would have any material impact on air quality. There is no substantial evidence that the
planting of green screens, green roofs, while desirable and attractive in and of themselves, will result in
any appreciable reduction of any of the severity of significant impacts. Energy measures described in
Section 13 of the Design Framework, the various mitigations recommended by the APCD in Table 3.3-9,
and the local worker preference will reduce area and operational emissions. The project also does not
exceed the local standards for particulate matter, and there are no demonstrated health concerns re-
lated to this. (See FOR pages 3.3-25 through 3.3-26.) All feasible mitigation measures have been inte-
grated into the project as required by CEQA. (See FOR pages 3.3-26 through 3.3-51.)
Respectfully Submitted,
Thank you,
r
Sf�phen J Peck, AICP
For Avila Ranch, LLC
4