HomeMy WebLinkAbout24. ScreencheckFEIR50Alternati 5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-1
Final EIR
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that an “EIR shall
describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,
which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives” (Section 15126.6).
The CEQA Guidelines state that “the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed
by a rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the
EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the Project (Section 15126.6).
In defining feasibility of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines state that “among the factors
that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent
can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site” (Section
15126.6).
The alternatives must adequately represent the spectrum of environmental concerns in
order to permit a reasoned choice among alternatives. The document must also provide the
rationale for selecting or defining the alternatives evaluated throughout the document,
including the identification of alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but
rejected as infeasible during the scoping process.
The alternatives analysis for this EIR is presented in four major parts. The first section
describes the objectives of the Avila Ranch Development Project (Project). The second
section summarizes the potentially significant unavoidable short- and long-term impacts
of the Avila Ranch Development Project (Project) from information presented in Section
3.0, Environmental Analysis and Mitigation Measures. The third section discusses
potential impacts under the Project alternatives. The final section concludes with the
selection of an environmentally superior alternative, based on a Project configuration that
results in the fewest significant impacts and feasibly attains most of the Project objectives.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-2 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
5.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Applicant and City objectives of the Project are described in Section 2.5 and restated
below:
1) Development of an economically feasible specific plan that is consistent with, and
implements policies within the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE)
and Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP).
2) Establishment of a complete “linked” community with the inclusion of amenities
such as neighborhood parks and commercial goods and services that can serve the
neighborhood.
3) Provision of a variety of housing opportunities for a wide range of socioeconomic
groups and affordability levels.
4) Provision of a well-connected open space network that includes the addition of
community gardens, neighborhood parks, bicycle paths, pedestrian sidewalks, open
space buffers, and spaces for recreational activities.
5) Establishment of an internal transportation and circulation network of collector and
residential roads; Class I, II, and III bicycle paths; and pedestrian sidewalks that are
integrated and enhance the regional transportation system.
6) Restoration of Tank Farm Creek with improvements to the riparian creek corridor
and establishment of open space buffers.
7) Model sustainable development practices and design features and achieve
compliance with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Neighborhood
Development (LEED-ND) Silver standards and the County of San Luis Obispo’s
Emerald certification rating.
5.3 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, noise, public
services, and transportation and traffic.
5.3.1 Air Quality
In the short term, the projected emissions for the Project were found to be above the
established APCD Tier 1 quarterly thresholds for construction emissions of ROG, NOx and
PM2.5. Implementation of MM AQ-1a and -1b would minimize construction-related air
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-3
Final EIR
quality impacts; however, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable, even after
mitigation.
In the long term, air emission impacts from ROG + NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 as a result of
vehicle trips, natural gas energy emissions, and additional area source emissions associated
with the Project would be significant and unavoidable. In accordance with the San Luis
Obispo APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, all standard mitigation measures and
feasible discretionary mitigation measures would be incorporated into the Project (see MM
AQ-2a and 2b). Even so, the residual impacts would remain above the significance
threshold identified in Section 3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The Project was also found to have significant and unavoidable impacts related to
consistency with the County of San Luis Obispo APCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan. The design
of the Project would require relatively substantial changes to reduce inconsistency with
overall land use planning principles contained in the Clean Air Plan to less than significant.
The Project could hinder the County’s ability to attain the state ozone standard because the
emissions reductions projected in the Clean Air Plan may not be met. The anticipated
population growth and increase in vehicle trips associated with the Project is inconsistent
with the projections contained within the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, inconsistencies
with assumptions in the Clean Air Plan would remain significant and unavoidable, even
after implementation of MM AQ-2b and MM TRANS-12.
5.3.2 Noise
In the short term, even with implementation of MM NO-1a through MM NO-1c,
construction-associated noise levels from equipment and vehicles would temporarily
exceed City noise thresholds established in the City’s General Plan Noise Element and
Noise Guidebook for noise-sensitive residential uses approximately 100 feet from the
Project site during grading and construction activities. Standard mitigation measures
restricting hours of construction would minimize impacts; however, due to the location of
sensitive land uses adjacent to the Project site, noise standards would be periodically
exceeded, and therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
5.3.3 Transportation and Traffic
Impacts to traffic and transportation upon implementation of the Project would consist of
delays and/or exceedance of intersection capacities. More specifically, Project generated
traffic would cause exceedance of intersection capacities at the Buckley Road/State Route
(SR) 227 intersection, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. Although the
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-4 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Project would implement MM TRANS-5 and the Applicant would pay a fair share fee to
offset Project contributions to this impact, as no County or Caltrans program for
improvements is currently adopted, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
In addition, the Project would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to
near-term operational conditions for the Prado Road/South Higuera Street. Although MM
TRANS-15a would apply, there currently are no feasible funded or scheduled programs
for improvements to this intersection to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
5.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
This section discusses alternatives to the proposed project, including alternatives which
were considered and discarded. Each of these considers the ability of a particular
alternative to comply with the City’s General Plan or substantially reduce or eliminate the
project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting basic project objectives.
The EIR also includes a No Project Alternative and an analysis of possible alternative sites
that may not have the same environmental resource sensitivity as the selected project site.
These alternatives include:
• CEQA “No Project” Alternative A and B;
• Mitigated Project Alternative; and
• Business Park Alternative.
5.4.1 Alternatives Considered but Discarded
As discussed above, CEQA Section 15126.6(c) requires that an EIR disclose alternatives
that were considered and discarded and provide a brief explanation as to why such
alternatives were not fully considered in the EIR. In particular, as required by the State
CEQA Guidelines, the selection of alternatives included a screening process to determine
a reasonable range of alternatives, which could reduce significant effects but also feasibly
meet project objectives. If an alternative does not clearly provide any environmental
advantages compared to the proposed Project, meet key Project objectives, nor achieve
overall agency policy goals, it is eliminated from further consideration. For the proposed
Project, characteristics used to eliminate alternatives from further consideration include:
• Failure to meet basic Project objectives;
• Limited effectiveness in reducing Project environmental impacts;
• Inconsistency with City policies regarding jobs/housing balance and provision of a
mix of housing types;
• Potential for inconsistency with adopted agency plans and policies; and
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-5
Final EIR
• Reasonableness of the alternative when compared to other alternatives under
consideration.
The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis by the
Lead Agency due to infeasibility or inconsistency with primary Project objectives.
5.4.1.1 Retention of Agricultural Uses Alternative
Under this alternative, the site would continue to be used for agricultural production, which
could be facilitated by a possible rezone of the site to an agricultural zoning district and
General Plan amendment to an agricultural land use designation. This alternative would
entail continuation of ongoing agricultural uses. Under this alternative, ongoing
agricultural water use would continue; Tank Farm Creek would not be restored; and no
substantial new source of automobile trips would be generated with associated impacts to
congestion, air pollutant, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the 2014 LUCE performance
standards for the Project site and would not meet any of the Project objectives, which
include the provision of a variety of housing types and affordability. In addition, the City’s
2014 LUCE reviewed agricultural resource issues and did not designate this site for
agricultural uses, instead identifying standards to mitigate site development impacts upon
agricultural resources. Further, retention of the site for agricultural uses would not meet
identified housing needs and would be inconsistent with City goals to provide a mix of
housing types and increase the City’s housing stock for residents. Therefore, this option
was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.1.2 Increased Housing Development Alternative
Under this alternative, substantially more housing as well as the number of affordable units
would be developed in the site in order to address concerns over housing shortages within
the City, lack of affordable units, displacement of very low-income and extremely low-
income households to areas outside the City, and the City’s jobs/housing balance. This
alternative would reduce the number of proposed low and medium density residential units
and increase the amount of medium-high density and high density residential units to
provide a net increase of workforce housing units as well as a greater number of affordable
units for low and very low income households. Under this alternative, a minimum of 50
percent of areas designated for residential use would be developed with medium-high or
high density residential uses. This change in land use would likely increase residential
development potential to 1,000 to 1,200 units, with a higher percentage of affordable by
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-6 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
design housing than the proposed Project. With greater high density buildout, this
alternative would reduce the extent of low density units, allowing for greater amounts of
open space within the Project site.
However, the Project as proposed already includes a strong housing focus. A greater
number of housing units, and associated residential population increase under this
alternative would increase on- and offsite environmental impacts, such as those to air
quality, public services, utilities, and transportation. In addition, this alternative would be
inconsistent with the City’s 2014 LUCE, substantially exceeding allowable residential
development and potentially requiring a General Plan amendment. As such, this alternative
was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.1.3 Major Reduced Project Alternative
Under this alternative, half the amount of housing would be introduced to the Project site.
Instead of 720 units, approximately 360 units would be developed. The neighborhood
commercial area would likewise be reduced by half, proposing approximately 7,500 square
feet (sf) of development. Setbacks along Tank Farm Creek would be at least 35 feet back
from the riparian edge, which would be nearly double that of City policies. No realignment
of the Creek would occur under this alternative, preserving the existing biological and
hydrological conditions at the Project site.
This alternative would not be consistent with envisioned development densities of the
LUCE, which prescribes a minimum of 500 residential units and 15,000 sf of business
development. While benefits would include less trip generation to the Project site and
reduced construction-related air quality and noise impacts, development to provide housing
for the City would result in long-term, detrimental impacts to these resource areas via this
alternative. Reducing the Project by a major proportion would severely limit its consistency
with the LUCE policies and its intent for development within the site. This alternative
would be inconsistent with the intent of the City’s 2014 LUCE, given the promotion of
increased housing stock would not be realized. Such a substantial reduction in residential
density may potentially require a rezone and General Plan amendment. As such, this
alternative was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(c).
5.4.1.4 Reduced LUCE Buildout Alternative
This alternative would include development of 500 residential units, instead of 720 units
envisioned under the proposed Project. This alternative would include all key LUCE
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-7
Final EIR
Specific Plan requirements and performance standards for the Avila Ranch Specific Plan
Area, including:
• Preparation of a detailed specific plan which provides complete guidance on the
land use provisions that will guide future development of the site and comprise the
four planning frameworks required under State law;
o A Land Use Framework which provides detailed development densities,
development phasing, and provides at a minimum the following topics:
Land Use Classification; General Site Planning and Development
Standards; Development Standards; and, Housing Mix.
o A Design Framework detailing and illustrating development design
guidelines;
o A Circulation Framework outlining proposed circulation network system
elements, improvements, design standards, and system phasing;
o An Infrastructure/Public Facilities Framework which addresses
infrastructure requirements (water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity,
natural gas, and communications) as well as other public services and
improvements.
• Development of 500 residential units;
• Development of 15,000 sf of commercial development; and,
• Development of 50 percent of the site with open space or agricultural land.1
Under this alternative, required infrastructure improvements and amenities (e.g., open
space and park development/maintenance, extension of utility infrastructure, circulation
network improvements, bicycle lane improvements, etc.) would be provided similar to the
Project to meet the LUCE requirements for a specific plan at the Project site. However, due
to the reduction in the number of residential units, the average dwelling unit size would
need to increase by an amount equal to the reduction in the number of units to maintain the
same gross square footage of residential uses to ensure economic success and feasibility of
the development. Under this alternative, the housing mix would likely reduce the
percentage of multifamily dwellings, including affordable units, and affordable by design
units in order to facilitate development of more single family units to support the required
site improvements. By their nature, single family units require a larger footprint of land
than multifamily units. As such, it is anticipated that this alternative would result in only a
negligible decrease in the total area of development, despite the decrease of 220 residential
units compared to the Project. As a result, impacts directly related to the physical extent of
development and ground disturbance are expected to be lessened by only a negligible
1 As provided in the Land Use Element, up to 1/3 of the open space may be provided off-site or through in-
lieu fees consistent with the AASP.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-8 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
degree. That is, impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, and hydrology and water quality would be
of a similar or incrementally less severe degree due the potentially smaller area of
development and associated direct effects on land and natural resources.
With a reduction in the total amount of residential units, impacts associated with air quality,
GHG emissions, noise, public services, traffic, and utilities are expected to be slightly
reduced. However, single family units generally have greater household sizes than
multifamily units, which results in greater impacts to traffic, utility demand, noise, and air
quality. Since this alternative would likely involve development of a greater percentage of
single family residences, it is anticipated that this alternative would have only a negligible
reduction on utility demand and overall vehicle trips and vehicle emissions, as well as
associated air and GHG emissions and noise. For example, assuming 65 percent of the
residential units are single family, peak hour trips are estimated to be reduced by only 28
percent. Further, Project operational air emissions exceed thresholds as much as 5-fold for
mobile sources; this alternative would reduce total residential units by 30 percent, which
would not likely reduce air emissions below thresholds. Additionally, regarding impacts
from construction (i.e., grading, construction emissions, area of disturbance, erosion, etc.)
as well as operational noise, impacts would be similar to those anticipated under Project
due to the negligible change in total developed area under this alternative.
While a 500-unit alternative would be consistent with the minimum residential
development envisioned in the LUCE for the Project site, a reduction in the number of
proposed housing units would not meet the identified housing demands of the City. As
identified in the City Housing Element, the City is currently facing a need for an additional
525 affordable dwelling units. Additionally, the LUCE would allow for up to 4,904
additional residential units citywide, 14 percent of which is attributed to the Project site;
this alternative would reduce this portion of the LUCE housing plan to 10 percent on the
Project site. This alternative, which considers a reduction in the total number of units
planned for an area specifically identified for housing to meet the City’s demand, would
result in the development of fewer affordable units overall and would reduce the City’s
ability to meet this affordable housing demand. Therefore, this alternative has the potential
to result in potentially greater impacts associated with population and housing. Further, a
reduced housing alternative would not meet the objectives of the Project related to
providing residential housing stock within the City, providing a larger variety of housing
types, and increasing affordable housing opportunities within the City. Since this
alternative would not meet the objective of providing a substantial and diverse housing
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-9
Final EIR
supply that meets both City needs and Project objectives, as well as associated negligible
decreases in environmental effects, this option was considered and discarded, consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.1.5 Business Park Land Use Alternative
This alternative would include development of the entire site as a business park with
supporting commercial development, as indicated in the current City zoning map. To be
consistent with the site’s zoning for Business Park – Specific Plan (BP-SP), this alternative
would result in development of business and commercial-oriented uses emphasizing
employment growth. This alternative would not require a rezone from a potential business
park area to a district containing residential uses and open space allowances through the
center of the Project site.
However, this alternative would not meet the intent of the 2014 LUCE performance
standards for the Project site and would not meet all of the Project objectives, including the
provision of a variety of housing types and affordability. In addition, existing City land use
designations are thought to provide sufficient business park and commercial development
to extend through 2035, while lands such as the Project site are needed to meet identified
housing needs. Therefore, this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Analysis
5.4.2.1 No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be approved. Under this
alternative, the EIR reviews two possible outcomes.
A. No Development. One possible outcome is that the site would remain vacant for
the foreseeable future. No development would occur, including the Buckley Road
Extension (although this project has been identified by Caltrans within the Regional
Transportation Plan and the updated LUCE as a potential project, subject to future
funding and planning requirements). Under this version of the No Project
Alternative, ongoing agricultural production would continue, with associated water
use, application of pesticides and herbicides and other ongoing impacts (e.g., dust
generation). Tank Farm Creek would not be restored and no substantial new source
of new automobile trips would be generated with associated impacts to congestion,
air pollutant and GHG emissions. Development of the site would not contribute to
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-10 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
the City’s housing supply, the potential for displacement of City residents would
increase, and a greater jobs/housing imbalance would result.
B. General Plan Development. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(3)(A), “where failure to proceed with the Project will not result in
preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify a
practical result of the Project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of
artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical
environment.” As such, another possible outcome of the No Project Alternative is
development of the Project site in accordance with the 2014 LUCE.
The 2014 LUCE identifies the Project site as a Special Focus Area – SP-4, and
contains guidelines for development for between 500 and 700 residential units,
along with requirements for provision of 15,000 to 25,000 sf of commercial space
and retention of large areas of open space (50 percent) for agricultural buffers,
provision of parks and creek restoration. Buildout under this alternative compared
to the Project would ultimately be very similar. This alternative considers the
highest possible buildout scenario (700 residential units and 25,000 sf of
commercial space) to evaluate a greater extent of area disturbed with higher
densities and land use potential. Compared to the Project’s proposed 720 units,
residential units could be reduced between 20 and as much as 220 units compared
to the Project. Similarly, the Project proposes up to 10,000 sf less potential
commercial space than could be developed under this alternative, which would
allow this alternative to generate much higher amounts of traffic to the Project site
for commercial reasons. The Buckley Road Extension, as envisioned in the updated
LUCE, would occur under this alternative. Lastly, it is assumed the realignment of
the North-South Creek Segment of Tank Farm Creek would not occur.
Analysis – No Project Alternative A (No Development)
Under this version of the No Project Alternative (A), a number of direct environmental
impacts would generally be reduced compared to the proposed Project, although less
beneficial indirect and long-term impacts would occur to resource areas such as population
and housing for the City. Impacts to aesthetics and visual resources, cultural resources,
noise, public services, utilities, and impacts to and/or from hazards and hazardous materials
would be less than the Project, due to the absence of construction activities and
development on the Project site. Mitigation measures would not be necessary for these
resource areas to avoid significant impacts under this alternative.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-11
Final EIR
Agricultural Resources. This alternative would result in no impact to agricultural
resources, as there would be no development on the existing 78.2 acres of prime soils and
71.8 acres of farmland of statewide importance, allowing for a continuation of agricultural
operations.
Air Quality and GHG Emissions. Impacts to air quality and GHG emissions within the
Project site and immediate vicinity would likewise be much less than the Project, as there
would be no significant construction emissions under this alternative. Continued dust
generation from agricultural operations would contribute to air quality emissions; however,
such emissions would be substantially less than significant construction and operational
emissions produced by the Project. Further, as no new development would occur, this
alternative would remain consistent with land uses and vehicle miles traveled within the
2001 Clean Air Plan.
Biological Resources. Within the Project site, impacts to biological resources would be
negligible. Preservation of the existing wetland and riparian habitat and associated
sensitive species within the Project site would occur under this alternative. Compared to
the Project, no mitigation measures would be required to lessen the significance of impacts
upon the site’s biological resources.
Land Use. Impacts to land use would result in continued discrepancies between the
existing agricultural uses and the LUCE intent for the area to provide a substantial amount
of residential units, Neighborhood Commercial uses, and preserved open space. This
alternative would result in less than significant impacts related to consistency with LUCE
policies, Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) policies, and Airport Overlay Zones (AOZ) as no
development would occur that would result in potential airport safety hazards or conflict
with policies relating to Tank Farm Creek and development on agricultural lands.
Population and Housing. Compared to the Project, this alternative would not result in
beneficial impacts to the housing supply nor assist in meeting the City’s RHNA housing
allocation targets, and would not meet existing and future housing needs or increased
affordable housing opportunities. There would continue to be a jobs/housing imbalance
within the City as described in Section 3.10.2, Environmental Setting of Section 3.10,
Population and Housing. The continuation of these existing conditions would ultimately
require increased demand for housing to support employment opportunities and economic
growth projected to occur within the City. As a result, increasing numbers of households
may opt to find housing opportunities outside of the City, and would travel to job
opportunities within the City, as further discussed in Section 3.10, Population and
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-12 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Housing. Indirect impacts caused by the jobs/housing imbalance within the City and
associated commuter trips include increased energy consumption, GHG emissions, and air
pollutant emissions from additional commuters and increased commute distances and
times. As No Project Alternative A would not provide housing opportunities within the
Project site, this alternative would not alleviate some of these direct and indirect impacts
to population and housing.
Transportation and Traffic. Direct traffic and transportation impacts to the Project site
would be much less than the Project under this alternative, as there would be no
development that would generate additional trips to and from the Project site or on adjacent
roadways. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable impacts caused by the Project would
not occur under this alternative.
Analysis – No Project Alternative B (General Plan Development)
Under this version of the No Project Alternative (B), environmental impacts would be
somewhat similar to the proposed Project. Impacts to aesthetics and visual resources,
cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, utilities, and impacts to
and/or from hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to the Project, due to a
similar amount of buildout between the Project and this alternative. As such, significant
and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and air quality would remain
significant under this alternative. Future development projects proposed for the Project site
would be subject to further CEQA review; mitigation measures similar to the Project would
be necessary for the relevant aforementioned resource areas to avoid significant impacts
under this alternative. Overall, similar to the Project, No Project Alternative B could
continue to result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to construction and
operational air quality emissions, construction-related noise levels, and transportation and
traffic impacts.
Agricultural Resources. Impacts to agricultural resources would be similar to the Project,
as the site would be developed with nonagricultural uses resulting in the loss of similar
quantities of prime agricultural soils. Since a majority of the prime soils within the Project
site are located within the western region of the Project site, much of the prime soil would
be lost to development. However, the prime soils located along the southern buffer and the
small area along the eastern border would be preserved as no development would occur
within the Urban Reserve Line (URL), consistent with the City’s Land Use Policy 1.4 –
Urban Edges Character.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-13
Final EIR
Air Quality and GHG Emissions. Impacts to air quality and GHG emissions would be
incrementally greater than the Project, as construction and long-term maximum buildout
of residential and neighborhood commercial uses would result in an estimated increase of
at least 1,091 ADT under this alternative compared to the Project, due to the increase in
Neighborhood Commercial buildout. Associated air quality and GHG emissions from this
alternative would increase, resulting in inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan thresholds
and incrementally greater significant and unavoidable impacts than the Project.
Biological Resources. Impacts to biological resources within the North-South Creek
Segment would be less severe than under the Project, as Tank Farm Creek would retain its
existing alignment, which would avoid some construction-related impacts to biological
resources and reduce the loss of wetland and riparian habitat compared to the Project.
However, the Project includes mitigation measures and features that replant and/or replace
habitat, and it is possible that such features may not be included in future development
plans under this alternative; this would result in a greater adverse impact compared to the
Project. Ultimately, adverse impacts to biological resources could occur from construction
and operation within the Project site under this alternative.
Land Use. Since the alternative would result in a similar amount of development and result
in similar land uses to the Project, a similar set of tract map approvals, architectural review,
etc. would be necessary with this alternative’s implementation, and result in similar land
use and planning policy impacts to the Project. Similar to the Project, future development
would also be subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which
would ensure the site design would be consistent with the ALUP.
Noise. This alternative would continue to result in construction-related noise, where City
noise thresholds for noise-sensitive residential uses approximately 100 feet from
construction vehicle routes would be temporarily exceeded during construction activities.
The potential for higher total buildout intensity would result in incrementally more noise
impacts during construction activities and would be expected to increase operational
ambient noise levels due to increased density and intensity of uses. Therefore, noise
impacts as identified in Section 3.9, Noise, would be incrementally more than the Project
under this alternative, and remain significant and unavoidable.
Transportation and Traffic. Impacts to traffic and transportation would be incrementally
greater than the Project, as construction impacts and long-term maximum buildout would
result in an incrementally higher amount of trip generation. The total allowable buildout
would enable 10,000 more sf of commercial development, which, using the trip generation
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-14 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
value for Neighborhood Commercial used within Table 9 of the Transportation Impact
Study (TIS; Appendix P), would result in up to 1,300 additional trips associated with the
addition of neighborhood commercial uses compared to the Project. These additional trips
would contribute to an increased amount of traffic and transportation impacts from
automobiles within the Project site and adjacent roadways. Considering maximum
residential buildout, this alternative proposes 700 units, which would be a reduction of 20
residential units compared to the Project’s proposed 720 units. Using the low density
residential trip generation value as depicted in Table 9 of the TIS (Appendix P), this
reduction of 20 units could result in up to 209 fewer trips, which would reduce the amount
of associated traffic and transportation impacts from residential housing. Combined, there
would be an increase of 1,091 trips under this alternative compared to the Project, most of
which is associated with the increase in Neighborhood Commercial development. This
increase in trip generation would likely result in significant and unavoidable impacts to
transportation and traffic greater than that identified within Section 3.12, Transportation
and Traffic, notably towards exceedance of certain intersection capacities and cumulative
impacts.
5.4.2.2 Mitigated Project Alternative
The Mitigated Project Alternative (MPA) includes redesign of key Project elements
intended to further reduce environmental impacts identified in the EIR. Required permits,
findings and discretionary actions would be similar to the proposed Project:
Discretionary Actions:
• General Plan Amendment;
• Rezone;
• Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Amendment;
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM);
• Development Agreement/ Memorandum of Understanding; and
• Architectural Review approval.
Findings:
• General Plan Conformity Determination; and
• Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) Conformity Finding by the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC).
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-15
Final EIR
Responsible and Trustee agency permits would remain similar to the Project (refer to
Section 2.6.1, Required Approvals). The MPA would include five primary features
intended to reduce identified Project impacts: 1) Tank Farm Creek would not be realigned
and the existing 600-foot long North-South Creek Segment would be retained to protect
riparian habitat and no direct connection with the Chevron Tank Farm property would be
provided; 2) the East-West Channel in the northeastern part of the site would be retained
to accommodate surface drainage; 3) the mix of allowable uses within the Town Center
development would be modified with the intention to reduce trip generation;
4) development setbacks from Tank Farm Creek would be increased to a minimum of 35
feet along a majority of the creek, with a minimum 20-foot setback along approximately
700 feet, primarily from the proposed Class I paved bicycle path, instead of the Project’s
setbacks of as low as 5 feet; and, 5) a number of onsite and offsite road and circulation
improvements would be included as part of the MPA (see Circulation below for a list of
proposed road improvements). Please see Figure 5-1, Figure 5-2, and Appendix Q for the
Draft Development Plan for the MPA. Included in Appendix Q are revised CalEEMod
results, an updated Biological Impact Analysis, an updated floodplain/drainage study, an
updated Water Supply Assessment (WSA), an updated and revised Development Plan and
an updated Vesting Tentative Map for the MPA.
Land Use Plan
The overall land use plan and site design under the MPA would be similar to the Project
(see Figure 5-1). The MPA would continue to provide residential land uses with varying
densities, and the same overall number of residential units, but would slightly decrease the
number of R-1 low density and R-2 medium density units and increase the number of R-3
medium-high density units. R-1 low density single-family residential neighborhoods would
continue to be located south of Tank Farm Creek. Land uses northwest of the creek would
continue to consist of a predominantly R-2 medium density single-family neighborhood,
with R-4 high density residential uses continuing to be proposed along both sides of the
Earthwood Lane at the site’s northwest corner. The planned R-3 medium-high density
residential uses would continue to be located in the northeast area of the site, although the
configuration of this area would differ from the Project because of the revised alignment
of Tank Farm Creek. The Town Center would continue to be located in the eastern portion
of the site, south and east of the creek along the west side of the Jespersen Road Extension,
and would include 15,000 square feet (sf) of commercial buildings. The size and
configuration of open space areas would change, resulting in more contiguous open space
EXTENSIONEARTHWOOD LANEHORIZON LANEEXTENSIONBUCKLEY ROAD EXTENSIONSAN LUIS OBISPO CITY BOUNDARYSAN LUIS OBISPO CITY BOUNDARYSOUTH HIGUERA STREETJESPERSEN ROAD
VENTURE DRIVEBUCKLEY ROADVACHELL LANESUBURBAN ROADEARTHWOODD
LANE
HORIZON LANE
VENTURE DRIVEVENTURE DRIVEEARTHWOOD LANE
EARTHWOOD LANEJESPERSEN ROAD
SUBURBAN ROADBUCKLEY ROADVACHELL LANE
JESPERSEN ROAD
SOUTH HIGUERA STREETHORIZON LANE
EARTHWOODD
LANE
POCKET PARKNEIGHBORHOODPARKSAN LUIS OBISPO CITY BOUNDARYURBAN RESERVE LINESAN LUIS OBISPO CITY BOUNDARYTankFarm CreekEast Fork San Luis Obispo CreekBUCKLEY ROAD EXTENSIONEXTENSIONEARTHWOOD LANEHORIZON LANEEXTENSIONBABCCDFAE21346788955-1FIGURE0600SCALE IN FEETNConceptual Mitigated Project AlternativeLEGENDProposed Project Land Use*Changes Compared to the ProjectA Retain and widen 600-foot North-South Creek Segment of Tank Farm CreekB Retain and enhance East-West ChannelC Creek setbacks increased to 20-40 feet along the entire length of Tank Farm CreekD 700 feet of Class I Bicycle Path moved to be at the 20-foot creek setbackE Horizon Lane to be extended by 580 feet to connect with Jespersen Road ExtensionF Class I bicycle path realigned to provide improved connectivity to theBuckley Road + Class II bicycle lanes*Land use locations are approximated.Project Site BoundaryBike PathRoadwayCommercial – 1.86 acresOpen Space – 51.96 acresPark – 19.08 acresR1 Residential – 101 unitsR2 Residential – 297 unitsR3 Residential – 197 unitsR4 Residential – 125 unitsCross Section Location(Refer to Figure 5-3)XPark Key1 0.85 Acres2 0.16 Acres3 0.84 Acres4 0.42 Acres5 1.51 Acres6 0.38 Acres7 0.90 Acres8 11.55 Acres9 2.47 AcresAerial Source: Google 2015.5-16
INTERIM FIRE STATION
TANK FARM CREEK
CLASS I BICYCLE PATH
BUCKLEY ROAD
CLASS I BICYCLE PATH
TANK FARM CREEK
BRIDGE NO. 1
TANK FARM CREEK
BRIDGE NO. 2
R-4
R-3
R-3
OPEN SPACE/FARMING
OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE/FARMING
LANDSCAPED BERM ACOS RESERVATION AREA – 100’ X 1,200’
TOWN
CENTER
POCKET PARK/BIORETENTION
VENTURE DRIVE
VACHELL LANEBUCKLEY ROAD
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
EARTHWOOD LA NE
R-1
R-2 HORIZON LANEJESPERSEN ROADR-2INTERIM FIRE STATION
TANK FARM CREEK
CLASS I BICYCLE PATH
BUCKLEY ROAD
CLASS I BICYCLE PATH
TANK FARM CREEK
BRIDGE NO. 1
TANK FARM CREEK
BRIDGE NO. 2
R-4
R-3
R-3
TOWN
CENTER
OPEN SPACE/FARMING OPEN SPACE/FARMING
OPEN SPACE
LANDSCAPED BERM ACOS RESERVATION AREA – 100’ X 1,200’POCKET PARK/BIORETENTION
BUCKLEY ROAD
VENTURE DRIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
EARTHWOOD LA NE
R-1
R-2 HORIZON LANEJESPERSEN ROADVACHELL LANER-2
b
b
EARTHWOOD LANE
EXTENSION
HORIZON LANE
EXTENSIONNORTH-SOUTH
CREEK SEGMENT
EAST-WEST
CHANNEL
EARTHWOOD LANE
EXTENSION
HORIZON LANE
EXTENSIONNORTH-SOUTH
CREEK SEGMENT
EAST-WEST
CHANNEL
URBAN RESERVE LINEURBAN RESERVE LINE
5-2Mitigated Project Alternative Composite Site Plan FIGURE
N
0 250
SCALE IN FEET
5-17
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-18 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
This page intentionally left blank.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-19
Final EIR
Table 5-1. Comparison of Proposed MPA to the Proposed Project
Item MPA Project MPA Difference
Tank Farm Creek
North-South Creek
Segment
Not Realigned, widened to
accommodate flood flows
Realigned and
extended through to
Tank Farm property
Reduced riparian
habitat impacts
East-West Channel Channel retained Channel removed Reduced hydrological
impacts and in-
channel wetland
preserved
Creek/Riparian
Buffer Setback
35 feet, with 20-foot minimum
along no more than 700 linear
feet
Generally 5-35 feet Improved habitat and
wildlife corridor
connectivity
Tank Farm Creek
Class I Bicycle Path
Minimum of 35-foot setback
from top of creek bank/
riparian canopy with 20-foot
minimum along no more than
700 lineal feet
Inside creek/
riparian buffer
Improved/ habitat and
wildlife corridor
Retaining/flood walls
at toe of slope along
creek corridor
At setback along east side of
the creek
Not included Improved erosion
protection and bio-
filtration for runoff
Residential Uses
Residential: Acreage 55.3 acres 68.23 acres -12.93 acres
Residential: Units 720 units 720 units none
Mix of Units 101 R-1 units
297 R-2 units
197 R-2 units
125 R-4 units
105 R-1 units
305 R-2 units
185 R-3 units
125 R-4 units
-4 R-1 units
-8 R-2 units
+12 R-3 units
ALUP Safety Areas
Units within ALUP
Safety Areas
No residential units within S-
1B and S-1C Safety Areas
7 R-3 units within
S-1B Safety Area
Residential units
relocated outside of S-
1B Safety Area
Neighborhood Commercial Uses
Acreage 1.86 acres 3.34 acres -1.48 acres
Maximum Square
Footage
15,000 sf 15,000 sf none
Potential Uses Local uses Broader mix of uses Potential trip
reduction
Open Space & Parks
Open Space: Acreage 51.96 acres 55.3 acres -3.34 acres
Parks: Acreage 19.08 acres 16.00 acres +3.08 acres
Parks: Number 1 Neighborhood Park
1 Pocket Park
7 mini-parks
1 Neighborhood
Park
1 Pocket Park
5 mini-parks
+2 mini-parks, 1
located in the creek
setback; 1 located
within R-3
development
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-20 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
compared to the Project, with open space concentrated in and adjacent to the 300-foot wide
buffer along Buckley Road, along the creek, and in the northeast and southeast corners of
the site. Park distribution and layout would change under the MPA, and park acreage would
increase to a total of 19.08 acres, and with parks located throughout the Project. Park areas
would be increased in the northwest R-2 (Phase 3) area, and in the R-3 (Phase 4) area.
Resulting park area would be approximately 11.5 acres per thousand population. Primary
internal circulation would remain similar to the Project, although neighborhood street
layout in Phases 3 and 4 would change substantially in response to the new land use plan
and drainage modifications. Phase 5 streets would be modified to reflect the inclusion of
alley units with common open space (see Figure 5-2).
The proposed MPA would include 55.3 acres of residential land uses (12.93 acres less than
the Project), 71.04 of open space and parks (0.27 acres less than the Project), and 1.86 acres
of Neighborhood Commercial development (1.48 acres less than the Project), with the
balance of the site (approximately 21.71 acres) remaining in roads (see Table 5-2). The
MPA would include development of 720 residential units. This level of development
allows for a 20-unit density bonus, similar to that as proposed under the Project. Similar to
the Project, low, medium, medium-high, and high density residential developments would
be constructed along proposed residential collector and local roadways. One Neighborhood
Park, seven mini-parks, and one pocket park would occupy 19.08 acres of developed park
space, similar to the Project with two added mini-parks (see Figure 5-1).
Table 5-2. Summary of Proposed MPA Land Uses
Land Use Acreage Proposed Development Breakdown
Residential 55.3 720 units
R-1 Low Density (7 du/acre) 12.8 (14%) 101 single-family units
R-2 Medium Density (12 du/acre) 27.3 (41.7%) 297 single-family units
R-3 Medium-High Density (20 du/acre) 10.8 (26.1%) 197 multi-family units
R-4 High Density (24 du/acre) 4.4 (17.2%) 125 multi-family units
Affordable Housing Units N/A Consistent with City policies and
requirements
Neighborhood Commercial 1.86 15,000 sf
Roadways 21.71 14.4% of site acreage
Open Space and Parks 71.04 47.4% of site acreage
Open Space 51.96 34.6% of site acreage
Parks 19.08 12.7% of site acreage
1 Total exceeds 700 units as allowed in Section 8.1.6 of the Land Use Element due to assumed density bonus units. This
total assumes all units planned within residential land uses.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-21
Final EIR
Proposed Housing
The proposed mix of housing types under the MPA would be similar to the Project with
slight modifications to the location of residential zones and distribution of units within each
zone; the allocation of units between different allowable densities and product types (e.g.,
single vs. multiple family homes) would remain similar. The MPA would alter the land use
plan and incrementally adjust dwelling unit allocation, resulting in a reduction of the R-2
units in the early phases of the Project, a reduction of R-1 units in Phase 5, and the addition
of 12 R-3 units to Phase 4. Based upon preliminary plans, R-1 single-family home densities
would increase somewhat, leading to incremental decreases in lot size compared to the
Project (see Table 5-3).
Similar to the Project, proposed housing would include R-1 and R-2 single-family homes
and higher density R-3 and R-4 multiple-family condominiums and apartments.
Residential uses would have a similar mix of housing densities and average lot sizes as
proposed for the Project. Similar to the Project, R-2 units would be arranged along
driveways in “four pack” and “six pack” layouts. The R-2 development program would
include 76 small “cottage” single family detached units ranging in size from 750 sf to 1,075
sf. The Applicant projects that unit sizes would range from 650 sf for R-4 studio apartments
to 2,300 sf for larger R-1 single-family residences, with the average size of 1,477 sf per
dwelling unit across the entire MPA.
Similar to the Project, the MPA would be consistent with the City-adopted Community Design
Guidelines, would be LEED-ND “Silver” certified, and would include specific design standards (see
Appendix F). Architectural styles of residential structures are anticipated to incorporate ranch,
bungalow, mission, contemporary, mid-century modern, and craftsman features.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-22 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-3. Summary and Comparison of Housing and Population
Residential MPA Project
Housing Type MPA Proposed
Units
Estimated Population1 Project
Proposed
Units
Estimated
Population1
R-1 Single-family 101 (14.0%) 232 105 240
R-2 Single-family 297 (41.3%) 680 305 698
R-3 Multi-family2, 3 197 (27.3%) 451 185 424
R-4 Multi-family2 125 (17.2%) 286 125 286
TOTAL 720 1,649 720 1,649
1 Population estimates are based on the number of units multiplied by the average number of persons per household. In
the City of San Luis Obispo, the average number of persons per household is 2.29 (City of San Luis Obispo 2015).
2Per City zoning and Specific Plan policies R-3 and R-4 units are expressed as density units, and R-1 and R-2 densities
are expressed as dwelling units. The number of actual dwelling units in the R-3 and R-4 zone may vary depending on
the number of bedrooms.
3 Density of R-3 and R-4 units would utilize the incorporated density bonus in accordance with Chapters 17.16.010 and
17.28 of the City’s zoning regulations.
Proposed Inclusionary Affordable Housing
Similar to the Project, the MPA would provide a mix of market rate, inclusionary housing
and housing targeted to those making 160 percent of the area median income through
provision of different densities and designs of proposed new units; inclusionary affordable
housing would be provided consistent with City policies and ordinance requirements.
Under City Ordinances, inclusionary units would be required to constitute 15 percent of all
housing, subject to any reductions available by Housing Element policy. The exact
distribution of these units among different housing types and densities would be
determined during consideration of the MPA by City decision-makers.
Proposed Neighborhood Commercial Uses
Similar to the Project, the MPA would include the Town Center, which would be
constructed adjacent to the Jespersen Road Extension and allow for Neighborhood
Commercial uses that may comprise offices, service, and retail purposes aimed towards
local residents.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-23
Final EIR
The MPA would include development of up
to 15,000 sf of new building space, similar
to the Project. The Town Center would be
shifted approximately 175 feet north of the
location proposed in the Project to
accommodate a four-way intersection and
lie in closer proximity to proposed R-3 and
R-1 residential uses. Additionally, the MPA
proposes a different mix of uses compared
to the Project, with the mitigation objective
of potentially reducing the amount of
offsite trips that may be generated (refer to
Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic).
General retail store square footage would
be limited to 7,500 sf, and individual stores
would not exceed 1,800 sf. General (non-
medical) professional, business, and
services offices would be allowed. Uses
within the proposed Town Center may include the following:
•General (non-medical) accessory, professional, business and service offices;
•General retail
•Restaurants
•Limited indoor commercial recreation and/or fitness/gym facilities;
•Religious facilities;
•Specialized and technical schools, private schools and tutoring services;
•Laundromats;
•Communication facilities, including community Wi-Fi/Wireless/digital in
conformance with ALUP and FAA requirements;
•Public and quasi-public spaces;
•Community meeting rooms;
•Outdoor recreation and event locations (amphitheater, etc.) in conformance with
ALUP density restrictions; and
•Fruit, vegetable and flower stands.
The Town Center would contain 15,000 sf of
commercial space, consisting of a variety of uses
that may include retail, recreational/gym
facilities, laundromats, community meeting
rooms, vegetable and flower stands, etc.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-24 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Proposed Parks and Open Space
As with the Project, approximately 16.49 acres of parks would be required under the MPA
by Parks and Recreation Element Policies 3.13.1 and 3.15.3. The MPA would include an
increase of approximately 18.0 acres of parks, approximately 1.5 acres more than the City
requirement of 16.5 acres of park area for the 1,649 residents.
The MPA would provide a total of seven mini-parks, one Neighborhood Park, and one
pocket park, which is two additional mini-parks compared to the Project. The MPA
proposes an approximately 9.8-acre Neighborhood Park (0.3 more than the Project) east of
the Town Center to fulfill Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.15.1, which requires an
8-acre Neighborhood Park for the planned population. The MPA would also enable
installation of two additional mini-parks compared to the Project. One 1.5-acre mini-park
would be provided within the R-3 medium-high density residential zone along the East-
West Channel, and one mini-park is proposed adjacent to Tank Farm Creek within the R-
1 low density residential zone under the MPA. No riparian vegetation clearance would
occur within the creek setback areas during development of the mini-park, and landscaping
would be limited to native species; grading would be minimized and walkways limited to
natural surfaces, with any hard improvements (e.g., picnic facilities) adhering to a
minimum setback.
Tank Farm Creek and the riparian buffers along its sides would also provide an open space
area between the creek and residential development totaling approximately 15 acres (3
acres less than the Project, and includes one new mini-park).
Relationship of Development to the ALUP Safety Areas
Similar to the Project, the MPA adheres to the constraints imposed by airport noise
corridors included in the ALUP, as no development is proposed within the 65 dB single
event noise contour. Like the Project, the MPA would adhere to land use density limitations
for the respective ALUP Safety Areas, for the location of the zones as determined by the
ALUC during the Project’s pre-application.2 Additionally, compared to the Project, the
MPA has eliminated all seven R-3 residential units permitted by the ALUP in Safety Area
S-1B.
2 The ALUC, during a hearing held on December 21, 2016, determined through the Project, as well as the
MPA, were in conformance with the City’s General Plan and the AASP (ALUC 2016).
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-25
Final EIR
Circulation
Circulation improvements under the MPA would include a similar network of roads and
trails within the Project site as the proposed Project. Integration with the surrounding
roadways would also be similar to the Project, with the addition of the extension of Horizon
Lane north from the Project site (see Figure 5-1 and Appendix Q).
Offsite Improvements and Integration with the External Circulation Network
Similar to the Project, offsite roadway improvements included as part of the MPA would
consist of:
1. The extension of Buckley Road along the Caltrans alignment to South Higuera Street
and the establishment of connections from the Project to the external circulation
system. This is proposed as part of Phase 2 of MPA development.
2.Buckley Road frontage improvements along the Project site (i.e., left and right turn
lanes, and 8-foot wide Class II bicycle lanes on both sides where not constrained by
bridge width or right-of-way).
3. The extension of Earthwood Lane from the Project site north to its current terminus
approximately 580 feet north of the Project site to provide circulation through to
Suburban Road. This road would meet the standards for a residential collector (e.g.,
44 to 60 feet in width) and would be completed in Phase 1 of development.
In addition, the MPA would include several offsite roadway improvements intended to
minimize traffic and transportation impacts identified for the Project. These would include
the following:
4.The extension of Horizon Lane from the Project site north approximately 100 feet,
north to the existing partially developed Horizon Road, which would provide a second
connection through to Suburban Road. This would be completed as part of Phase 4 of
MPA development.
5. Installation of left turn restrictions at the Vachell Lane/South Higuera Street
intersection after the completion of the Buckley Road Extension under Phase 2
development.
6.Temporarily restricted ingress and egress to the Project site from Venture
Drive/Vachell Lane and Earthwood Lane, except for emergency vehicles, bicycles,
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-26 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
and pedestrians during Phase 1 development. Measures would be removed after
Buckley Road Extension is completed and operational under Phase 2.
7.Offsite intersection improvements, to the South Higuera Street/Suburban Road
intersection, including restriping to make the westbound turn lane into a shared
right/left turn lane to extend the length of the westbound left and right turn-lane and
protected signal phasing for left turns.
8.Offsite improvements to the currently substandard reach of Horizon Lane would bring
this road segment to City standards for a residential collector, with a width between
44 to 60 feet. This would also include intersection improvements to Horizon
Lane/Suburban Road to achieve standards within the City Uniform Design Criteria
and Municipal Code.
9.Improvements along Suburban Road in order to bring this road to conformance with
City standards for a commercial collector to effectively serve commercial and
industrial uses and through traffic generated by the MPA. Improvements to the
western end of Suburban Road would be completed within Phase 1, while
improvements to the eastern end would be completed within Phase 4.
Proposed Vehicular Circulation within the Project Site
Circulation within the Project site would remain
largely consistent with the Project, retaining the 60-
foot wide primary access collector roads of
Jespersen Road Extension, Venture Drive
Extension, and the north-south portion of the
Earthwood Lane Extension. The Jespersen Road
Extension within the Project site would be shifted
east approximately 25 to 50 feet to accommodate the
Tank Farm Creek flood control expansion, and a
portion of Earthwood Lane would be shifted away
from Tank Farm Creek to provide a wider buffer
from the creek.
Venture Drive and Jespersen Road/Horizon Lane extensions within the site would be
classified as residential collectors, Earthwood Lane north of Venture Drive would be
classified as a 60-foot wide residential collector, Earthwood Lane south of Venture Drive
Traffic calming measures for
residential collectors would include
speed tables with parklets, and zebra
striped pedestrian crossings.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-27
Final EIR
(to its east-west portion) would be classified as a 48-foot wide residential road, and the
remaining street segments would be classified as residential local streets.
The 48-foot wide residential road configuration would also remain largely consistent with
the Project under the MPA, though would be altered slightly with removed street portions
and an increased number of cul-de-sacs. These changes would alter circulation within the
Project site for some streets affecting up to 46 residential units. Proposed residential roads
that would change from the Project would be “Bravo Street”, “Foxtrot Court”, “Kitty Hawk
Court”, “Memphis Belle Way”, “Earthway Lane”, and “Hughes Lane” as labeled on the
VTM for the MPA (see Appendix Q).
Special street standards and cross sections are established for each area. Traffic calming
measures would be included throughout, especially along the extensions of Venture Drive,
Horizon Lane, and Jespersen Road (see Appendix Q). Project roadways and driveway
design would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure compliance with City and
Caltrans standards and best practices (e.g., aligning driveways on opposite sides of the
roadway, positioning driveways as far upstream from intersections as possible).
Class I Paths and Class II Bicycle Lanes, and Pedestrian Circulation
The widths and circulation patterns of all Class I and Class II bicycle paths would remain
consistent with the Project. However, an approximately 450-foot stretch of the MPA Tank
Farm Creek Class I bicycle path adjacent to the northwestern edge of the southwestern
reach of Tank Farm Creek would be setback further from the creek than proposed under
the Project. The hardscape paving of the Class I bicycle path would be constructed outside
the minimum 20-foot setback along this stretch of the creek, instead of within the setback
as proposed within the Project. The Buckley frontage Class I bicycle path would be
realigned to provide a more direct connection across Tank Farm Creek.
Pedestrian circulation under the MPA would be similar to the Project, with sidewalks and
bicycle paths throughout the Project site following a pattern almost identical to the Project.
However, as described above, some residential local road configurations would terminate
in cul-de-sacs in order to conform to City access management guidelines. Pedestrians could
travel similar routes by walking through the ends of some cul-de-sacs to adjacent areas. In
addition, when compared to the Project, under the MPA two local residential road
connections to the Earthwood Lane Extension within the R-2 residential zone would be
removed and replaced with cul-de-sacs. Additionally, parts of at least two roads would be
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-28 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
removed entirely, focusing access within the Project site and reducing the number of
potential pedestrian or bicycle routes.
In addition, the following bicycle and pedestrian measures would be included as part of the
MPA that are not included for the Project, in order to minimize impacts to bicycle
circulation:
1. Design and construction of Class II bicycle lanes that connect to the regional
bicycle network along the entire stretch of Vachell Lane, between Buckley Road
and South Higuera Street, as part of Phase 1 development.
2.Move the location of the Buckley Road Class I bicycle path to be adjacent to
Buckley Road, west of Tank Farm Creek to provide continuous bicycle connection
along Buckley Road. This would result in consistency with the Bicycle
Transportation Plan (BTP). The Buckley Road Class I bicycle path would be
realigned to reduce the curvature of the bicycle path and to provide a more direct
and visible route across Tank Farm Creek (and around the Buckley/Tank Farm
Creek bridge.
Parking
The MPA’s parking arrangements and locations are largely similar to the Project, with on-
street parking available in residential areas, covered onsite garages, and onsite guest
Proposed 60-foot wide residential collectors would
contain two vehicle travel lanes, 8-foot Class II
bicycle lanes, 5-foot sidewalks, and 7-foot planters
on both sides.
Proposed 48-foot wide residential local streets
would contain two vehicle travel lanes, street
parking, and 6-foot sidewalks on both sides.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-29
Final EIR
parking spaces. At least 810 spaces (10 less than the Project) would be provided for R-1
and R-2 single-family residences, which require a minimum of two spaces, and R-3 and
R-4 multi-family units would provide spaces in accordance with the associated Zoning
Ordinance as proposed for the Project. Portions of the R-2 development for “cottage” units
would have a one car garage and an adjacent parking space. Approximately 60-70 spaces
would be provided to support the Town Center, a 35 percent reduction from the Project.
Added parking will be included in the final design of the Neighborhood Park to support
that use.
Transit Improvements
Similar to the Project, the Applicant would coordinate with SLO Transit to accommodate
changes in bus routes that would utilize new collector roads and to install two bus stops:
one at the Town Center and one adjacent to the R-4 area on Earthwood Lane north of
Venture Drive, and would ensure that adequate service would be provided to the two
proposed bus stops. The bus stops would be constructed within the respective phase’s
development area. The proposed transit service onsite would meet standards stated in
Policy 3.1.6, Service Standards, which require a transit route within 0.125-mile of R-2, R-
3 and R-4 zones. In addition, during ongoing construction of the Project, the City and
Applicant would work with SLO Transit to establish an interim route in the Project vicinity
during Phase 1. This would include an interim turn-around location within the Project site
at Venture Drive/Earthwood Lane, or other measures as deemed appropriate by the City to
accommodate this interim transit access due to required site access limitations.
Utilities and Services
Similar to the Project, water, sewer, police, and fire services would be provided by the City.
Natural gas service would be provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas),
and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) would provide electrical service. Charter
Communications would provide cable and television services. Water facilities would be
installed to the Project site in a similar manner to the Project, as would integration of natural
gas and electrical services. In addition, the MPA would abandon the exiting well within
the northwest corner of the site (within the Phase 3 area) and install a replacement well in
the open space buffer outside the URL to be used for agricultural irrigation within the
Project site. This well would be used to irrigate the proposed 27 acres of agricultural area
within Project site.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-30 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Police services would also be provided in a manner similar to the Project. Similar to the
Project, fire protection services would be improved through dedication of a 0.3-acre site to
house an Interim Fire Station. The 2009 Fire Department Master Plan recommended the
establishment of a fifth fire station for coverage of the southern areas of the City. Adoption
of the 2016 Fire Department Master Plan finalized plans for the establishment of a fifth
fire station for coverage of the City’s southern and southwestern (and southeastern areas
like Islay) areas. A two-person crew is recommended to be housed and staffed upon 50
percent buildout of the Project site, and a full, three-person crew at 90 percent buildout of
the southern planning area of the City as identified in the 2016 Fire Department Master
Plan (see also Section 3.11, Public Services). Funding is still being acquired to enable
construction and operation of the full station, and development projects in this area are
anticipated to pay fair share of the cost. The Interim Fire Station is proposed as part of the
MPA at 50 percent buildout of the Project site and would be staffed by a two-person crew
to serve development under the MPA and nearby projects. The Interim Fire Station would
be located within the Project site, on Earthwood Lane north of Venture Drive. This Interim
Fire Station would remain in operation until the City’s fifth fire station is constructed and
fully operational, at which point the City’s fifth fire station would provide fire protection
services for the new residential units and surrounding populace near the City’s southern
edge, and the Interim Fire Station will be decommissioned, and the site converted to a
public park.
Stormwater Conveyances
Similar to the Project, development under
this alternative would be subject to the Low
Impact Development (LID) requirements of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s
(RWQCB’s) Post Construction
Requirements. Development would also
integrate the seven proposed culverts and
infrastructure plan to direct surface runoff
from streets and sidewalks via gutters
throughout all phases of construction; this is
one less outfall compared to the Project (see
Appendix Q). The drainage culverts
throughout the site would be installed
Under the MPA, the 600-foot North-South Creek
Segment would retain its existing alignment. In
addition, this segment would be widened and
enhances in order to carry greater offsite flows
from the north.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-31
Final EIR
beneath proposed Project roadways, and similar to the Project, a dual pocket
park/bioretention basin would be located at the southwestern edge of the Project site.
Like the Project, proposed stormwater conveyance infrastructure would include an
approximate 1,600-foot long collection swale along the northern boundary of the Project
site that would be managed and maintained by the local homeowners association
Community Facilities District (CFD). Culvert and concrete apron sizes at Tank Farm Creek
drainage outlets would be similar to the Project.
In contrast to the Project, under the MPA, the 1,600 foot-long collection swale along the
northern site boundary would increase to 20 feet in width (8 feet wider than the Project)
and rather than concrete would be unpaved, enabling a shallower grade of runoff, increased
groundwater infiltration and establishment of limited native vegetation. The 20-foot wide
collection swale would continue to extend from the northwest corner of the Project site to
the proposed Jespersen Road Extension. The swale would be backed on the south side by
a concrete block gravity wall rising 18 inches to 24 inches (reduced from the Project’s 2 to
4 feet height) above the existing grade, with both banks graded to 3:1 slopes (instead of the
Project’s proposed 2:1 slopes). The swale would collect offsite runoff entering the site from
north, particularly from the three existing retention basins located offsite adjacent to the
northern Project boundary; the swale would contain a 5 percent longitudinal slope that
would send runoff flows to the east and convey stormwater south via three culverts that
would ultimately discharge to Tank Farm Creek. Stormwater conveyances and discharges
to Tank Farm Creek would be of a similar configuration as the Project (refer to Figure 2-
10 and Table 2-6).
Tank Farm Creek Alignment and Setbacks
Similar to the Project, the MPA would restore disturbed areas of Tank Farm Creek and
enhance existing habitats. Substantial grading would occur along both sides of the creek
corridor outside of existing riparian canopies to raise finished floor elevations for new
building pads, and the creek would also undergo a series of modifications to control flood
flows.
Unlike the Project, the MPA would not realign the North-South Creek Segment of Tank
Farm Creek nor remove the East-West Channel, and would not include installation of a
culvert through the existing 15- to 20-foot high berm along the Project site/ Chevron Tank
Farm property boundary. Instead, drainage from Tank Farm Creek would continue to be
routed around the berm along its current course toward areas to the north of the western
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-32 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
half of the Project site. The existing North-South Creek Segment would undergo widening
and restoration to convey flood flows and improve habitat between the proposed Jespersen
Road Extension and proposed residential areas to the west. Additionally, the channel would
be widened south of the Venture Drive Extension at the confluence of the North-South
Creek Segment with the East-West Channel to accommodate flood flows. The widening of
Tank Farm Creek described above would add 0.63 acres of wetlands under the MPA.
Under the MPA, creek setbacks for new development would be increased along much of
Tank Farm Creek. Setbacks along a majority of the creeks would be increased to
approximately 35 to 40 feet, with development setback beyond these boundaries (see
Figure 5-3). Development of portions of two proposed mini-parks would occur partially
within creek setbacks and portions of the Earthwood Lane and Venture Drive extensions
north of the creek as well as segments of local collector streets to the south would be located
within 35 to 40 feet of the creek. The increased setbacks include the following adjustments
to components within the MPA:
1.The proposed 16-foot-wide Tank Farm Creek Class I bicycle path corridor,
consisting of 12 feet of paving with 2-foot decomposed granite shoulders on either
side, would be located outside of a 20-foot minimum creek setback along the
southwestern extent of the route. A total of 700 feet of the proposed path runs
adjacent to the minimum 20-foot setback in two separate locations, comprising
approximately 10 percent of the total creek frontage area of approximately 7,300
feet. The majority of the path adheres to setbacks of 35 to feet from the top of bank
or edge of riparian canopy (whichever is further) of Tank Farm Creek.
2.The MPA would include a low gravity wall adjacent to fill slopes bordering Tank
Farm Creek. The walls would be placed at the edge of the 35-foot setback, and
would include slope stabilization, reinforcement, filtration, and drainage
improvements. Associated fill slopes would not exceed a slope of 3:1.
3.In order to increase setbacks of the Class I bicycle path from Tank Farm Creek,
under the MPA, Earthwood Lane would be shifted 25 to 50 feet west compared to
the Project’s proposed alignment. This realignment would change the function of
Earthwood Lane from a residential collector to a residential local street with Class
II on-street bicycle lanes on both sides of the street, and no street parking. In
addition, replacement park space is proposed on the east side of Earthwood south
of Venture Drive between Earthwood Lane and the creek setback to accommodate
the realignment of Earthwood.
NorthwestSoutheast16’ 20’ 13’5’ 7’ 8’ 8’ 6’10’54’Right-of-Way10’ 44’ 35’6’31Class 1Bike PathRiparianSide-walkPark-WayPark-WayBikeLaneBikeLaneTravelLaneTravelLanePropertyLineRiparian Creek SetbackCreekSetbackPropertyLineWetlandTank FarmCreekExistingTopographyLimit of FillEarthwoodLaneWestEast16’35’25’15’18’35’Creek SetbackClass 1BikepathRetaining WallsLimit ofFillRight-of-Way31Wetland RiparianRiparianPropertyLineProperty LineCreek SetbackLot DepthTank FarmCreekExistingTopographyVENTURE WAYBUCKLEY ROADVACHELL LANETank Farm CreekAB0700FEETNProject SiteCross SectionLocationXLEGEND5-3FIGUREIllustrative Tank Farm Creek Cross Sectionsfor the Mitigated Project AlternativeCROSS SECTION ACROSS SECTION B5-33
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-34 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
4.In contrast to the Project, under the MPA no residential development, housing pads,
manufactured slopes, would be constructed within the minimum 35-foot creek
setbacks; with the exception of the 700 feet discussed above, most paved bicycle
path segments would adhere to this 35 foot setback as well. Further, one mini-park
would be constructed along almost 450 feet of the creek, with designated parkland
extending up to the top of the creek bank (Figure 5-2). Development of the mini-
park would thus be limited by creek protection standards, with all improvements
within 20 feet of the top of the creek bank or edge of riparian canopy limited to
native habitat restoration. However, outside the 20-foot minimum setback,
recreational facilities could be developed along with further restoration and use of
native landscaping as appropriate.
5.Approximately 350 feet of the Jespersen Road Extension, west of the North-South
Creek Segment and north of Venture Drive would meet only a 20-foot minimum
setback.
Project Construction and Phasing
Similar to the Project, MPA construction would occur over six phases, and is anticipated
to be completed over a period of approximately 10 years between 2020 and 2030 (see Table
5-4). Phase 1 would involve grading activities of Phase 3 and Phase 5 to borrow 6,517
cubic yards (cy) of fill soils needed for Phase 1. Phase 4 would involve grading activities
of Phase 5 to borrow 4,302 cy of fill soils needed for Phase 1. Building construction,
regarding, paving, and architectural coating activities would occur within each phase
sequentially. Each phase would be subject to permit review to ensure conformity with the
approved Avila Ranch Development Plan and the AASP, and consistency with applicable
regulations. Each phase would identify the development activities to be performed during
the phase and specify mitigation measures and best management practices (BMPs) that
would apply.
Each phase of the MPA would follow a progression of stages similar to that proposed for
the Project, as follows: re-construction design and permitting, site preparation and grading,
construction, and final landscaping. Equipment anticipated for use during these stages
under the MPA would be similar to that of the Project. The MPA would include a different
assortment of construction activities within each construction phase, though would follow
a similar progression of development within the Project site. Table 5-4 identifies which
items would occur within each phase.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-35
Final EIR
Table 5-4. MPA Construction Phasing
Phase Project Component Year Grading
(cy)1
1
•Construction of 177 R-2 units.
•Installation of Class II bicycle lanes along Vachell Lane from
Buckley Road to South Higuera Street.
•Extension of Earthwood Lane from the roadway segment off of
Suburban Road through the Project site and connecting to Vachell
Lane, along with Class II bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
•Improvements to Suburban Road between Earthwood Lane and
Higuera Street.2
•Extension of Venture Drive along the frontage of the phase through
the Venture Drive/Earthwood Lane roundabout and connection of
Earthwood to Suburban, with Class II bicycle lane.
•Restrict vehicle access to the Project site from Venture
Drive/Vachell Lane and from Earthwood Lane until the completion
of the Buckley Road Extension.
•South Street/Higuera Street intersection improvements to provide
more storage capacity.2
•South Higuera Street/Prado Road intersection improvements.2
•Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street intersection improvements.2
•Restriping of Suburban Road at Suburban Road/South Higuera
Street intersection.
•Construction of the sewer pump station and force main along
Earthwood Lane Extension.
•Extension of dry utilities proposed within Phase 1.
•Completion of pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Tank Farm Creek
in the southwestern portion of the site (Class I Tank Farm Bridge
No. 1).
•Construction of Class I bicycle path from the southwest corner of
the Project site north of Tank Farm Creek and paralleling Buckley
Road to Class I Tank Farm Bridge No. 1 within the Project site, and
along Tank Farm Creek within Phase 1 of the site.
•Construction of residential roads.
•Installation of transit stop to the east of the proposed roundabout at
Venture Drive/Earthwood Lane.
•South Higuera Street/Suburban Road intersection improvements.
•Development of the pocket park/bioretention basin and mini-parks.
•Development of the open space buffer and landscaped berm.
•Grading of Phase 3 and 5 areas to provide 6,517 cy of fill.
2020 -
2023
110,800 cut/
117,317 fill
2
•Construction of 29 R-2 units.
•Extension of utility lines throughout the Phase 2 area.
•Completion of Buckley Road Extension from the Project site to
South Higuera Street, including Class I & II bicycle paths.
•Installation of turn restrictions on Vachell Lane/ South Higuera
Street following completion of the Buckley Road Extension.
•Installation of the Tank Farm Creek Class I bicycle path along Tank
Farm Creek within Phase 2.
2024 74,450 cut/
74,850 fill
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-36 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-4. MPA Construction Phasing (Continued)
Phase Project Component Year Grading
(cy)1
3
•Construction of 91 R-2 units.
•Construction of 125 R-4 units.
•Extension and completion of MPA collector and residential roads
throughout the site along the Project site frontages to Tank Farm
Creek.
•Construction of the Phase 3 mini-park.
•Completion of the Tank Farm Creek Class I path.
•Construction of 20-foot swale.
•Construction of the Interim Fire Station.
2024 -
2025
70,258 cut/
64,186 fill
4
•Construction of 197 R-3 units.
•Development of the Neighborhood Park and community gardens.
•Construction of 1.5-acre mini-park within R-3 housing.
•Construction of vehicle and pedestrian bridge from Venture Drive
to Jespersen Road.
•Construction of the offsite Horizon Lane Extension.
•Buckley Road frontage improvements from Tank Farm Creek to the
eastern Project site boundary.
•Completion of Jespersen Road to Buckley Road roadway segment
and utilities along this roadway.
•Connection of Horizon Lane to Suburban Road, and related
improvements to Suburban Road from Horizon Lane to Earthwood
Lane.
•Grading of Phase 5 area to provide 4,302 cy of fill.
2026
2028
22,200 cut/
26,502 fill
5
•Construction of 101 R-1 units.
•Installation of utilities with the R-1 residential area.
•Installation of park facilities between the R-1 area and Jespersen
Road.
2026 -
2028
62,000 cut/
53,950 fill
6
•Construction of the Town Center.
•Construction of the remainder of utilities along Buckley Road, and
open space/buffer area along Buckley Road.
•Widen Buckley Road from Tank Farm Creek to western edge of the
Project site to accommodate westbound Class II bicycle lane and
installation of the westbound Class II bicycle lane along Buckley
Road from Tank Farm Creek to the eastern edge of the Project site.
20229 -
2030
8,756 cut/
8,756 fill
TOTAL 348,646 cut/
345,561 fill
1 Grading estimates (cy) are approximate.
2 Indicates required mitigation that would be subject to reimbursement agreements.
Analysis
The significance of each impact resulting from implementation of the MPA has been
determined based on impact significance criteria and applicable CEQA Guidelines for each
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-37
Final EIR
impact topic. Table 5-5 presents a summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and
residual impacts from implementation of the MPA.
Table 5-5. MPA Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
VIS-1. Implementation of the MPA would result in
impacts to the existing scenic resources present at the
site, particularly due to conversion of agricultural
land to urban development, loss of mature native
trees along Tank Farm Creek, and impairment of
distant views of the Santa Lucia Mountains, Islay
Hill, and Irish Hills from adjacent public roads.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
VIS-2. The proposed MPA would result in a change
in the existing visual character of the site with the
change of the rural character to a commercial and
residential neighborhood.
None required Less than Significant
(Incrementally Less)
VIS-3. Construction of the MPA would create short-
term disruption of the visual appearance of the site
for travelers along Buckley Road, Vachell Lane, and
Venture Drive.
None required Less than Significant
(Less)
VIS-4. The proposed MPA would introduce a major
new source of nighttime light, impacting the quality
of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
3.2 Agricultural Resources
AG-1. The proposed MPA would impact agricultural
land within the Project site and offsite Buckley Road
extension with the direct conversion of historically
cultivated farmland to urban development.
MM AG-1 Significant and
Unavoidable
(Similar)
AG-2. Development of the proposed MPA would
create potential land use conflicts with continued
agricultural operations to the south and east of the
Project site.
MM AG-2a
MM AG-2b Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
AQ-1. The MPA would result in potentially
significant construction-related air quality impacts
from dust and air pollutant emissions generated by
grading and construction equipment operation.
MM AQ-1a
MM AQ-1b
MM AQ-1c|
Significant and
Unavoidable
(Similar)
AQ-2. The MPA would result in significant long-
term operation-related air quality impacts generated
by area, energy, and mobile emissions.
MM AQ-2a
MM AQ-2b
Significant and
Unavoidable
(Similar)
AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions during
initial construction and long-term operation of the
MPA could expose nearby sensitive receptors to
such emissions.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-38 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-5. MPA Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
AQ-4. Construction and operation of the MPA would
result in impacts to global climate change from the
emissions of GHGs and would be potentially
inconsistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan.
MM AQ-2a
MM TRANS-2d
MM TRANS-2f
MM TRANS-10a
MM TRANS-10b
MM TRANS-10c
MM TRANS-12
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
AQ-5. The MPA is potentially inconsistent with the
County of San Luis Obispo APCD’s 2001 Clean Air
Plan.
MM AQ-2b
MM TRANS-12
Significant and
Unavoidable
(Similar)
3.4 Biological Resources
BIO-1. Construction activities within the Project site
and Buckley Road Extension site, including
extensive grading, excavation, and fill, would result
in permanent and temporary impacts to sensitive
habitats and species, particularly in areas within or
near Tank Farm Creek.
MM BIO-1a
MM BIO-1b
MM HYD-1a – 1c
Significant and
Mitigable
(Less)
BIO-2. Onsite MPA development would result in
permanent loss of habitats within the Project site,
including protected wetlands and riparian areas
associated with Tank Farm Creek.
MM BIO-2b
MM BIO-2c
MM BIO-2e
MM BIO-2i
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
BIO-3. Onsite MPA development would interfere
with the movement of common wildlife and special
status species through establishment of confined
wildlife corridors within the Project site.
MM BIO-1a
MM BIO-1b
MM BIO-2b
MM BIO-2c
MM BIO-2e
MM BIO-2i
MM BIO-3a – 3d MM
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
BIO-4. Offsite improvements to and extension of
Buckley Road and associated bicycle and pedestrian
paths have the potential to create permanent impacts
to special status species through removal of suitable
habitat.
MM BIO-1a
MM BIO-1b
MM BIO-3a
MM BIO-3b
MM BIO-4
Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
BIO-5. Long-term operation of the MPA has the
potential to create significant impacts to biological
resources as a result of increased light, noise, and
increased human presence and other urban edge
effects.
MM BIO-5a
MM BIO-5b
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
BIO-6. MPA development could impact offsite
biological resources from sedimentation into Tank
Farm Creek.
MM BIO-1a
MM BIO-1b
MM BIO-6
MM HYD-1a – 1c
Significant but
Mitigable
(Incrementally Less)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-39
Final EIR
Table 5-5. MPA Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
3.5 Cultural Resources
CR-1. The MPA would result in adverse impacts to
the octagonal silo foundation, historic feature P-40-
038310.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
CR-2. Development and grading would result in
direct significant impacts to known prehistoric
resources within the site.
MM CR-2a
MM CR-2b
Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
CR-3. Earthwork and ground disturbing construction
activities for the MPA could potentially uncover
significant unknown prehistoric or historic
archaeological resources. If improperly handled,
such resource could be adversely impacted.
MM CR-3a
MM CR-3b
Significant but
Mitigable
(Incrementally Less)
3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1. During grading/construction activities and
Project operations, the Project would potentially
expose persons to potentially toxic, hazardous, or
otherwise harmful chemicals through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accidental conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.
MM HAZ-1 Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
HAZ-2. The proposed MPA would not create a
hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
HAZ-3. The Project site is located within the LUCE
defined AOZs and ALUP Safety Areas and would
potentially result in an airport-related safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project site.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
HAZ-4. Implementation of the proposed MPA could
expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildfire.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
3.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1. The MPA would result in potentially
significant impacts to water quality due to polluted
runoff during construction activities.
MM HYD-1a
MM HYD-1b
MM HYD-1c
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
HYD-2. MPA development would substantially alter
existing drainage patterns on the Project site and
Buckley Road Extension property, including burial
of two segments of Tank Farm Creek and
realignment of restored upstream reaches of the
creek, which could potentially result in substantial
flooding, erosion, or siltation onsite and offsite.
MM BIO-2a
(MM MPA-1)
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-40 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-5. MPA Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
HYD-3. The MPA could potentially result in
flooding, including increased flood water surface
elevations across the Project site, adjacent properties,
and within Tank Farm Creek.
MM HYD-3a
MM HYD-3b
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
HYD-4. Installation of a water utility line using
horizontal directional drilling would bisect Tank
Farm Creek and has the potential to impact water
quality.
MM HYD-4a
MM HYD-4b
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
HYD-5. Operation of the MPA would result in
potentially significant impacts to water quality of
Tank Farm and San Luis Obispo Creeks due to
polluted urban runoff and sedimentation.
MM HYD-2a
MM HYD-5
Significant but
Mitigable
(Incrementally Less)
HYD-6. The MPA would potentially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local
groundwater table level.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
3.8 Land Use and Planning
LU-1. MPA development would include residential
uses located within the LUCE-defined Airport
Overlay Zones (AOZs) that would be consistent with
AOZ density and use restrictions and that would not
interfere with airport operations or create safety
impacts under recognized state and federal guidance
for airport operations and safety.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
LU-2. The proposed Project would include
development within ALUP Safety Areas S-1B, S-1C,
and S-2; however, the Project would be potentially
consistent with the ALUP.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
LU-3. The proposed MPA 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.
MM AG-1
MM BIO-2b
MM BIO-2c
MM BIO-2e
MM BIO-2i
MM TRANS-4
MM TRANS-10a – c
MM TRANS-12
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less Similar)
3.9 Noise
NO-1. 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.
MM NO-1a
MM NO-1b
MM NO-1c
Significant and
Unavoidable
(Similar)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-41
Final EIR
Table 5-5. MPA Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
NO-2. Short-term noise construction activities could
result in exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground-borne vibration.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
NO-3. Long-term operational noise impacts would
include higher roadway noise levels from increased
vehicle traffic generated by the MPA, MPA
operational noise, and exposure of future residents to
high noise levels that could result in the exceedance
of thresholds in the City’s General Plan Noise
Element and Noise Guidebook.
MM NO-3a
MM NO-3b Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
NO-4. Development within the ALUP noise contours
could cause persons within the Project site to be
exposed to unacceptable noise levels.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
3.10 Population and Housing
PH-1. Residential development and associated
population growth resulting from the MPA would
not exceed the adopted annual growth rate threshold.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
PH-2. The construction of 720 units under the
Project would provide additional housing for the City
of San Luis Obispo, having beneficial impacts
related to the jobs/housing imbalance.
None required Beneficial
(Similar)
PH-3. The construction of affordable housing units
under the MPA would provide additional affordable
housing for the City of San Luis Obispo.
Non required Less than Significant
(Similar)
3.11 Public Services
PS-1. Implementation of the MPA would potentially
increase demand on the SLOPD for police protection
services.
MM PS-1 Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
PS-2. Project implementation would increase the
demand for SLOFD fire protection services, create
potential declines in firefighter to resident ratios, be
located outside of accepted response time
performance area and necessitate construction of an
additional fire protection facility, with potential for
secondary environmental impacts.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
PS-3. Development of 720 new homes as part of the
MPA would generate increases in enrollment at
public schools (Los Ranchos Elementary, Laguna
Middle, and San Luis High).
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
PS-4. Implementation of the MPA would potentially
increase the demand for park services beyond current
capacity.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-42 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-5. MPA Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
3.12 Transportation and Traffic
TRANS-1. MPA construction activities would
potentially create traffic impacts due to congestion
from construction vehicles (e.g., construction trucks,
construction worker vehicles, equipment, etc.) as
well as temporary traffic lane and sidewalk closures.
MM TRANS-1 Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
TRANS-2. Phased MPA development combined
with limited site access and related increases in
congestion on surrounding roadways would have the
potential to cause transportation deficiencies
throughout the Project vicinity.
MM TRANS-2a Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
TRANS-3. MPA-generated traffic would potentially
create turning movement conflicts at driveways and
intersections on the Project site.
MM TRANS-3a Significant but
Mitigable (Less)
TRANS-4. MPA-generated traffic would exceed
Circulation Element maximum volume thresholds at
Vachell Lane, Earthwood Lane, Horizon Lane, and
Suburban Road.
MM TRANS-4 Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
TRANS-5. MPA-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.
MM TRANS-5 Significant and
Unavoidable
(Similar)
TRANS-6. MPA-generated traffic would exacerbate
existing queuing at the South Street/Higuera Street
intersection northbound right-turn lane, resulting in
significant impacts.
MM TRANS-6 Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
TRANS-7. MPA-generated traffic would cause
exceedance of storage capacities at several
intersections along South Higuera Street.
MM TRANS-7a
MM TRANS-7b
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
TRANS-8. MPA-generated traffic would cause
delays and exceedance of intersection capacities at
several intersections along Los Osos Valley Road.
MM TRANS-8a
MM TRANS-8b
Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
TRAN-9. The proposed MPA would generate and
attract trips to and from U.S. Highway 101,
incrementally increasing congestion of the region’s
main highway.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
TRANS-10. The proposed MPA would potentially
degrade level of service for various pedestrian
facilities serving the Project vicinity.
MM TRANS-4
MM TRANS-8a
MM TRANS-10a
MM TRANS-10b
MM TRANS-10c
Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
TRANS-11. MPA development would increase
demand for bicycle facilities in an underserved area
and would potentially conflict with the City’s
None required Less than Significant
(Less)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-43
Final EIR
Table 5-5. MPA Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
Bicycle Transportation Plan regulations and General
Plan thresholds.
TRANS-12. The proposed Project would increase
demand for transit services in an underserved area,
presenting a barrier to both transit dependent and
non-transit dependent households for using transit.
MM TRANS-12 Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
TRANS-13. Under near-term plus MPA conditions,
Project-generated traffic would cause delays and
exceedance of storage capacities at Buckley/SR 227
and Los Osos Valley Road/South Higuera Street and
contribute to road segment congestion.
MM TRANS-13 Significant but
Mitigable Significant
and Unavoidable
(Similar)
TRANS-14. Under near-term conditions, the
proposed MPA would cumulatively contribute
incrementally to increased demand for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, potentially conflicting with the
City’s BTP regulations and General Plan thresholds.
MM TRANS-10b
MM TRANS-14
Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
TRANS-15. Under long-term cumulative plus
Project conditions, MPA-generated traffic would
result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
potentially significant impacts to the operational
conditions at four intersections.
MM TRANS-5
MM TRANS-15a
MM TRANS-15b
MM TRANS-15c
MM TRANS-15d
Significant and
Unavoidable
Significant but
Mitigable
(Similar)
3.13 Utilities
UT-1. MPA generated wastewater would contribute
to demand for wastewater collection facilities and
remaining capacity of the City’s Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF).
None required Less than Significant
(Incrementally Less)
UT-2. The MPA would require the expansion of
utility infrastructure to serve new development,
including water, sewer, gas and electricity into the
site; the construction of which could cause
environmental effects.
MM AQ-1a
MM BIO-1a – 1b
MM CR-2a – 2b
MM CR-3a – 3b
MM HAZ-1
HYD-4a – 4b
MM NO-1a – 1c
MM TRANS-1
MM UT-2
Significant but
Mitigable
(Less)
UT-3. Project-related increases in water use would
incrementally increase demand for the City’s potable
water supply.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
UT-4. The MPA would generate additional solid
waste for disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill.
None required Less than Significant
(Similar)
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-44 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Aesthetics. Under the MPA, overall site layout would be similar to the Project, including
development of approximately 52 acres of onsite rural open space and agriculture land with
720 one- and two-story single and multiple family residences, limited commercial
development, parkland, roads, bridges and infrastructure and associated changes in views
from public roads. Similar to the Project, MPA design would continue to include a 300-
foot setback of open space buffer from Buckley Road for new residential development as
well as construction of a landscaped berm during Phase 1 to screen new development from
public viewing areas along Buckley Road. Overall, residual impacts would be similar to
the Project.
Impact VIS-1 regarding changes to Key Viewing Areas (KVAs), would be similar to the
Project, since adverse visual impacts from converting agricultural land to urban
development and impairment of distant medium to high value scenic views KVAs of the
Santa Lucia Mountains, Islay Hill, and Irish Hills from adjacent public roads would still
occur. The open space buffer and landscaped berm would continue to provide a transition
to the agricultural uses adjacent to the site and buffer views of new development from
Buckley Road. Therefore, Impact VIS-1 under the MPA would remain less than significant
with no mitigation required.
Impact VIS-2, which addresses impacts to visual character of the Project site, under the
MPA would be incrementally less compared to the Project. Overall levels of development
with associated changes in area aesthetic character would be similar to the Project;
however, the MPA would not include realignment of Tank Farm Creek, thereby reducing
removal of mature trees that add to the aesthetic character of the site. Further, the MPA
would include increased setbacks between Tank Farm Creek and adjacent housing
compared to the Project, thereby increasing open space adjacent to the creek. There would,
therefore, be a reduced number of native trees lost along Tank Farm Creek due to increased
setbacks. Similar to the Project, Impact VIS-2 would be less than significant.
Impact VIS-3, regarding visual impacts associated with short-term construction, would be
lessened compared to the Project. In contrast with the Project, the MPA would develop the
entire 300-foot wide open space buffer and landscape berm along Buckley Road as part of
Phase 1 development instead of Phases 5 and 6, which would allow vegetation within the
buffer to become established and provide partial screening of ongoing construction. This
would eliminate the need to implement mitigation measure MM VIS-3. Therefore, short-
term construction activities under this alternative would not substantially disrupt the visual
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-45
Final EIR
appearance of the site for travelers along Buckley Road and Impact VIS-3 would be less
than significant.
Impact VIS-4, associated with increased night lighting, would remain largely similar to the
Project as the levels and location of lighting would be similar under the MPA, and,
therefore, would be less than significant.
Agricultural Resources. Similar to the Project, development of 720 new units and
associated urban infrastructure under the MPA would continue to result in permanent
conversion of 68 acres of prime soils to urban development, along with loss or disruption
of agricultural production on a further 30 acres of farmland of statewide importance.
Similar to the Project, implementation of the MPA would result in development of the
majority of the prime farmland onsite with urban uses. The majority of prime farmland
impacted by the MPA is located within the City’s Urban Reserve Line (URL); however,
27 acres of farmland located outside the URL would be maintained for farming within the
proposed open space buffer, of which 10 acres are considered prime soils when irrigated.
Under the MPA, the existing onsite well would be abandoned and a new well would be
installed within the open space buffer to irrigate these proposed agricultural lands.
Under the MPA, Impact AG-1, which addresses
permanent conversion of agricultural land to urban
uses, would be similar to the Project, as
development within the Project site would result in
a direct loss of nearly 68 acres of agricultural land
identified by the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NCRS) as prime soils. In
addition, similar to the Project, the extension of
Buckley Road Extension would continue to result
in conversion of 3 acres of offsite prime soils. This
would result in a total loss of approximately 71
acres in prime soils. Implementation of mitigation measure MM AG-1 would apply to
establish an offsite agricultural land conservation of at least 71 acres or payment of in-lieu
fees for the preservation of agricultural land. However, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable due to the permanent loss of prime farmland that could not be
replaced.
Impact AG-2 addressing potential agricultural land use conflicts would be similar to the
Project, as development of the MPA would still create potential conflicts with agricultural
Similar to the Project, the MPA would
result in a permanent loss of
approximately 71 acres of prime
agricultural soils.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-46 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
operations to the south, west, and east of the Project site. Construction of the MPA with
six phases over approximately 10 years would generate substantial construction-related
fugitive dust and traffic, potentially interfering with adjacent agricultural production.
Additionally, over the long term similar to the Project, the introduction of residential uses
adjacent to existing agricultural operations could cause conflicts surrounding agricultural
lands due to increased potential for theft, vandalism, and complaints by future residents
about noise, dust, and pesticide use associated with agricultural activity. MPA buildout
would substantially increase traffic on area roads, potentially interfering with movement
of farm equipment. However, like the Project, the MPA includes a 300-foot wide open
space setback from agricultural operations to the south along Buckley Road, and a 150-
foot setback on the eastern boundary of the Project site. Implementation of MM AG-2a and
MM AG-2b, which would identify and incorporate appropriate measures to reduce public
access to agricultural cultivation areas, as well as reduce the potential for noise, dust, and
pesticide drift to affect future MPA residents, would reduce potential conflicts with
adjacent agricultural uses. Therefore this impact is significant but mitigable under the
MPA.
Air Quality and GHG Emissions. The MPA would generate similar air quality emissions
as the Project as the MPA would follow a similar construction schedule using the same
equipment, contains largely similar land uses, the same number of residential units, and
would result in similar trip generation. A separate CalEEMod run was completed for the
MPA, and the results of this run are quantitatively compared to the Project run below (see
Appendix Q). Overall, impacts identified within Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, would be slightly less compared to the Project.
Impact AQ-1, which addresses construction emissions, would be similar to the Project. As
the MPA has a similar construction schedule, equipment, and very similar land uses to the
Project, construction-related air quality impacts from dust and air pollutant emissions
generated by construction activities would be similar, according to CalEEMod estimates
(Table 5-6 and 5-7). Therefore, construction-related air quality impacts would still exceed
the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Tier 1 Quarterly thresholds for
construction emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and
for construction emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), although the MPA
emissions would fall below the APCD Tier 2 Quarterly thresholds.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-47
Final EIR
Table 5-6. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated)
ROG NOx ROG +
NOx CO SO2 PM10 DPM
(fugitive
PM2.5)
CO2e
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
(lbs/day) 827.93 81.07 909 160.25 0.29 36.95 14.20 23,908
(tons/qtr) includes
Fugitive Dust
2.77 2.29 5.06 3.09 <0.01 0.56 0.24 586
APCD Daily
Thresholds (lbs/day)
-- -- 137 -- -- -- 7 --
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 1
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 2.5 2.5 0.13 --
Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO YES --
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 2
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 6.3 -- -- -- 0.32 --
Above Threshold? -- -- NO -- -- -- NO --
See Appendix Q for CalEEMod worksheets.
Table 5-7. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Mitigated)
ROG NOx ROG +
NOx CO SO2 PM10 DPM
(fugitive
PM2.5) CO2e
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
(lbs/day) 827.87 77.01 904.88 151.48 0.29 25.88 8.74 23,302
(tons/qtr) includes
Fugitive Dust
2.75 2.14 4.89 3.15 <0.01 0.55 0.14 586
APCD Daily
Thresholds (lbs/day)
-- -- 137 -- -- -- 7 --
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 1
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 2.5 2.5 0.13 --
Above Threshold? -- -- YES -- -- NO YES --
APCD Quarterly
Thresholds – Tier 2
(tons/qtr)
-- -- 6.3 -- -- -- 0.32 --
Above Threshold? -- -- NO -- -- NO NO --
See Appendix Q for CalEEMod worksheets.
Like the Project, implementation of MM AQ-1a, which requires a Construction Activity
Management Plan (CAMP), MM AQ-1b, which requires the use of low or zero VOC
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-48 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
emission paint, and MM AQ-1c, which requires the development of an offsite mitigation
strategy, would also apply to the MPA. Implementation of these mitigations would reduce
construction emissions but would remain above the APCD Tier 1 quarterly thresholds.
Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ-2, which addresses long-term impacts of operational air emissions, would be
similar to the Project. As the MPA has similar land uses to the Project and similar trip
generation, operational-related air quality impacts generated by area, energy, and mobile
emissions would be comparable to the Project, according to CalEEMod estimates. Like the
Project, projected emissions for the MPA were also found to be above the established
APCD daily thresholds for operational emissions of ROG + NOx, PM10, and DPM, even
after mitigation measures are implemented (see Tables 5-8 and 5-9).
Table 5-8. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
ROG NOx ROG + NOx CO SO2 PM10 DPM
(fugitive
PM2.5) CO2e
Overall Operational (Maximum Daily Emission)
Area
(lbs/day)
94.06 0.68 94.74 59.41 0.0032 0.33 -- 109
Energy
(lbs/day)
0.56 4.78 5.34 2.04 0.0305 0.39 -- 6,139
Mobile
(lbs/day)
17.33 31.94 49.27 152.09 0.5231 37.15 9.77 36,859
Total
(lbs/day)
111.9
5
37.40 149.35 213.54 0.5568 37.86 9.77 43,108
Threshold
(lbs/day)
-- -- 25 550 -- 25 1.25 --
Threshold
(tons/year)
-- -- 25 -- -- 25 -- --
Significant? -- -- YES NO -- YES YES --
See Appendix Q for CalEEMod worksheets.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-49
Final EIR
Table 5-9. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Mitigated)
ROG NOx ROG + NOx CO SO2 PM10 DPM
(fugitive
PM2.5) CO2e
Overall Operational (Maximum Daily Emission)
Area
(lbs/day)
74.50 0.68 75.18 59.41 0.0032 0.33 -- 109
Energy
(lbs/day)
0.44 3.78 4.22 1.61 0.0242 0.31 -- 4,859
Mobile
(lbs/day)
16.47 27.76 44.23 136.47 0.4373 30.85 8.11 30,810
Total
(lbs/day)
91.41 32.22 123.63 197.49 0.4646 31.49 8.11 35,779
Threshold
(lbs/day)
-- -- 25 550 -- 25 1.25 --
Threshold
(tons/year)
-- -- 25 -- -- 25 -- --
Significant? -- -- YES NO -- YES YES --
See Appendix Q for CalEEMod worksheets.
Like the Project, implementation of MM AQ-2a, which includes water, solid waste, and
fugitive dust conservation strategies, and MM AQ-2b, which requires implementation of
all feasible measures within Table 3-5 of the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, would
also apply to the MPA to reduce adverse operational effects, although impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ-3 addressing toxic diesel emissions would be similar to the Project, as the MPA
would generate similar levels of DPM emissions from construction and operational
activities within 1,000 feet of single-family residences adjacent to the east and the Calvary
SLO Church to the northwest, which are considered sensitive receptors. As the MPA is
also outside the recommended buffer zone of potential Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC)
emitters, the MPA is also not expected to expose these sensitive receptors to substantial
levels of TACs. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Impact AQ-4, which address contributions to global climate change from greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, would be less than the Project, as the MPA would reduce GHG
emissions and have a greater consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan than the
Project. This analysis uses consistency with the Climate Action Plan, as it is a Qualified
GHG Reduction Plan, to determine impact significance rather than a quantitative approach,
although the CalEEMod estimates of GHGs are provided below. Based on CalEEMod
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-50 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
estimates, construction activities for the MPA would generate an estimated 15,015.16 MT
of CO2e (see Table 5-10). Amortized over a 25-year period (consistent with APCD
methodology), construction of the MPA would generate approximately 600.61 MT of CO2e
per year. These CalEEMod estimates are similar to the Project.
Table 5-10. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)
Year Annual Emissions MT CO2e
2020 933.83
2021 907.18
2022 587.40
2023 581.25
2024 1,177.14
2025 1,926.89
2026 1,529.81
2027 1,739.42
2028 2,345.51
2029 1,867.31
2030 1,419.43
Total 15,015.16
Amortized over 25 years 600.61
Total unmitigated operational GHG emissions generated by the MPA would be
approximately 8,719.77 MT CO2e. Combined with construction emissions amortized over
a 25-year period (600.61 MT CO2e), total GHG emissions for the MPA would be
approximately 9,320.38 MT CO2e, which is 59.39 MT CO2e less than the Project’s total
GHG emissions (Table 5-11 and 5-12).
Table 5-11. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)
Emission Source Annual Emissions MT CO2e
Area 16.39
Energy Use 2,429.94
Solid Waste 468.88
Water Use 117.80
Mobile Sources 5,686.76
Total 8,719.77
See Appendix Q for CalEEMod computer program output and for GHG emission factor assumptions.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-51
Final EIR
Table 5-12. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Mitigated)
Emission Source Annual Emissions MT CO2e
Area 16.39
Energy Use 1,764.01
Solid Waste 468.88
Water Use 94.95
Mobile Sources 4,754.04
Total 7,098.27
See Appendix Q for CalEEMod computer program output and for GHG emission factor assumptions.
MM AQ-2a, MM TRANS-10a through c, and MM TRANS-12 would apply to the MPA.
After factoring in this proposed mitigation, total mitigated operational GHG emissions of
the MPA would be approximately 7,098.27 MT CO2e. Combined with construction
emissions amortized over a 25-year period (600.61 MT CO2e), total GHG emissions for
the MPA would be approximately 7,698.88 MT CO2e, which is 46.81 MT CO2e less than
the Project.
The MPA would achieve greater consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan goals,
actions, and strategies. Like the Project, the MPA is consistent with the City’s goal for
building efficiency since the MPA’s buildings would be at least 25 percent more energy
efficient than state or local regulations require. The MPA is consistent with the goal for
renewable energy with its inclusion of at least 50 percent the residential units with
photovoltaic (PV) energy systems that would provide at least 50 percent of the units’
electrical energy demand. The MPA is consistent with the transportation and land use goal
given the proposed development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, a dense street pattern,
and the inclusion of nearby transit, including the creation of two new bus stops. The MPA
would also include additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements that are not part of the
Project, in order to minimize impacts to bicycle circulation. In addition to the transit
improvements included in the Project, the MPA would include the establishment of an
interim transit route in the Project vicinity during Phase 1, in order to accommodate interim
transit access. These additions under the MPA would further help to retain consistency with
the City’s transportation and land use goal even during the early phases of development. The
MPA is consistent with the water goal with its inclusion of features to reduce average daily
potable water usage, provide recycled water for outdoor use, and implement progressive
storm water treatment and management improvements. The MPA is consistent with the solid
waste goal with its compliance with the City’s waste management practices. The MPA is
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-52 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
consistent with the parks and open space goal with its inclusion of approximately 19.08 acres
of parks, which is 3.08 acres more than the Project. The MPA would also provide 51.96 acres
of open space and maintain Tank Farm Creek and the riparian buffers, which would provide
an additional open space area between the creek and residential development. The MPA is
consistent with the government operations goal considering the range of inclusions discussed
above. Therefore, the MPA would be consistent with the Climate Action Plan after
implementation of all applicable actions and measures, and, with implementation of MM
AQ-2a, MM TRANS-10a through c, and MM TRANS-12, impacts from GHG emissions
would be significant but mitigable.
Regarding consistency with the Clean Air Plan, Impact AQ-5 would be similar to the Project,
as the MPA would also be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. This is because the MPA
would include the same increase in population as the Project, and would only incrementally
reduce the total added average daily trips (ADT) compared to the Project by 7 trips (from
6,776 ADT to 6,767 ADT), as detailed below and in Section 3.12, Transportation and
Traffic. Therefore, the anticipated population growth and increase in vehicle trips is also
inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan under the MPA. Even with the implementation of MM
AQ-2b and MM TRANS-12, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable similar to the
Project. As the MPA would also result in significant and unavoidable long-term operational
air quality impacts within an Air Basin that is in non-attainment, the MPA would contribute
cumulatively and considerably to air quality emissions throughout the region. In addition,
the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Final EIR also determined that full
buildout under the LUCE would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan, and cumulative
impacts related to this increase in air quality emissions resulting from the MPA would be
significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative GHG impacts would remain less than significant similar to the Project with
implementation of Project mitigation. Since the analysis of GHG emissions is inherently
cumulative in nature, and the preceding analysis found the MPA to have less than significant
after mitigation impacts, the cumulative impact is the same.
Biological Resources. Under the MPA, biological resource impacts related to loss of
wetland, riparian, and upland habitats and potential effects on sensitive species, particularly
within Tank Farm Creek, would be substantially reduced when compared to the Project.
The MPA would leave in place the North-South Creek Segment and the East-West
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-53
Final EIR
Channel, which would reduce loss of riparian and wetland habitats and impacts to sensitive
species. Further, the MPA would reduce direct and indirect impacts to these habitats and
sensitive species through inclusion of wider riparian buffers with larger creek setbacks of
at least 20 to 35 feet, consistent with COS Policy 7.7.9 and Section 17.16.025 B(c) of the
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations.
Under the MPA, Impact BIO-1 addressing
construction impacts would be less severe than
under the Project, as Tank Farm Creek would be
retained in its existing alignment, and wider creek
setbacks would reduce construction activities
adjacent to the creek. However, construction would
still include extensive grading, excavation, and fill,
which would result in permanent and temporary
impacts to riparian and upland habitats and sensitive
species, specifically in the vicinity of Tank Farm
Creek. For example, while direct grading
immediately adjacent to or within the riparian canopy would be reduced, the installation of
retaining/flood walls along the toe of fill slopes bordering the creek corridor would result
in additional major construction activities after completion of rough grading with added
potential for disturbance related to the presence of construction equipment and personnel.
MM HYD-1a through 1c in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality would help avoid
significant impacts to sensitive biological resources within the creek corridor with
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and noticing to
reduce construction impacts to water quality. In addition, MM BIO-1a would require
preparation of a Biological Mitigation Plan with BMPs to reduce or avoid construction-
related impacts to sensitive habitats and species, and MM BIO-1b would require a qualified
Environmental Monitor and/ or a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-
approved biologist to oversee compliance of the construction activities with the Biological
Monitoring Plan and applicable laws, regulations, and policies. With implementation of
the aforementioned mitigation measures, impacts to biological resources during
construction would remain potentially significant but mitigable.
Under the MPA, Impact BIO-2, which addresses permanent loss of biological resources,
would be slightly less severe than under the Project. While the North-South Creek Segment
of Tank Farm Creek and the East-West Channel would be retained in place, thereby
reducing direct removal of riparian and wetland habitats, relocation of the Buckley Road
Wider creek setbacks of at least 20 to 35
feet under the MPA would reduce
impacts to biological resources within
the Tank Farm Creek corridor.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-54 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Class I bicycle path and bridge would result in the removal of additional wetland and
riparian habitat. Compared to the Project, the MPA would reduce the loss of in-channel
wetland habitat by 0.77 acre. However, under the MPA, the loss of isolated wetlands
located within agricultural lands would increase by 0.11 acre more than the Project and the
loss of riparian habitat would increase by 0.15 acre (see Table 5-13).
Table 5-13. Permanent Impacts to Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Feature
Type Impact Description MPA Impact Area
(acres)
Project Impact Area
(acres)
In-Channel
Wetland
Removal of North-South Creek Segment 0.17 0.41
Removal of East-West Channel 0.00 0.53
Drainage headwalls and aprons 0.04 0.04
Total 0.21 0.98
Isolated
Wetland
Housing pads and roads 0.97 0.86
Total 0.97 0.86
Riparian Pedestrian/bicycle bridges 0.31 0.06
Storm water pipes 0.03 0.03
Class I bicycle path 0.00 0.10
Total 0.34 0.19
Source: Althouse and Meade, Inc 2016; see Appendix Q.
The MPA and the Project include replacement of habitat removed and would occur using
the following ratios: 3 to 1 acres of in-channel/federal wetlands, 1.5 to 1 acre of isolated
wetlands/state, and 1.5 to 1 acre of riparian habitat.
In contrast to the Project, the MPA would result in a loss of habitat due to the relocation of
the Class I bicycle lane along Buckley Road. This improvement would result in the loss of
0.31 acres of riparian and wetland habitat adjacent to Buckley Road. This may also include
the loss of potentially suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog, western pond
turtle, and southern steelhead trout. However, impacts to riparian and wetland habitats
under the MPA would remain potentially significant but mitigable though application of
MM BIO-2b, Biological Mitigation Plan; MM BIO-2c, replacement of riparian trees,
wetlands, and riparian habitat; MM BIO-2e, stockpiling sufficient emergent vegetation;
and, MM BIO-2i to hydroseed all bare disturbed soils for reducing erosion. For example,
replacement of riparian habitat lost due to the bridge over Tank Farm Creek for the Buckley
Road Class I bicycle path would occur up creek slightly in an area that currently lacks
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-55
Final EIR
sufficient viable riparian vegetation. All other mitigations listed under Impact BIO-2 would
not be required under the MPA. Therefore, this impact is significant but mitigable.
Impact BIO-3 addressing wildlife corridors would be substantially less severe compared to
the Project, as retention of the existing North-South Creek Segment and East-West
Channel, and increased development setbacks from the creek would reduce impacts to
special status species and wildlife movement through the creek corridor. The MPA would
establish a typical creek/riparian canopy setback of 35 feet with a 20-foot minimum setback
along no more than 700 linear feet. These setbacks would improve habitat and wildlife
corridor connectivity adjacent to Tank Farm Creek. However, implementation of the MPA
would still reduce overall connectivity through the Project site for wildlife due to more
than 78 acres of urban development and associated roads, bridges and other infrastructure
and loss of habitat. Development under the MPA would also continue to have potentially
significant but mitigable impacts to special status species, such as the California red-legged
frog, southern steelhead trout, western pond turtle, etc. Under the MPA, application of
mitigation measures MM BIO-1a and -1b, MM BIO-2b, -2c, -2e, and -2i would ensure that
such impacts would be mitigable. In addition, MM BIO-3a to conduct training for
construction personnel, MM BIO-3b to address wildlife and special status species
movement under the Biological Mitigation Plan, MM BIO-3c to protect the California red-
legged frog, and MM BIO-3d to protect the western pond turtle would continue to apply.
Impact BIO-4 would be the same as the Project, as offsite improvements including the
extension of Buckley Road and associated bicycle and pedestrian paths would also occur
under the MPA and have the potential to create permanent impacts to special status species
through removal of suitable habitat. Implementation of MM BIO-4 to address bat colonies
for the Buckley Road Extension site within the Biological Mitigation Plan, in addition to
MM BIO-1a, MM BIO-1b, MM BIO-3a, and MM BIO-3b, would be necessary to retain a
significant but mitigable impact.
Impact BIO-5 addressing disturbance of habitat and species from MPA operation would
be less than under the Project, however, increased light, noise, and increased human
presence would also occur under the MPA. Impacts would be slightly reduced as the MPA
includes larger creek setbacks that would set development and associated noise, light and
glare further back from the creek corridor. However, the MPA would continue to have the
potential to create significant impacts to biological resources during long-term operation,
potentially resulting in sensitive species onsite fleeing the area, disruption in
breeding/nesting cycles, and/or mortality. Implementation of MM BIO-5a to introduce
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-56 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
lighting restrictions near Tank Farm Creek and MM BIO-5b to ensure native vegetation is
installed along the creek frontage in order to minimize light spillover would be necessary
to retain a significant but mitigable impact.
Impact BIO-6 would be incrementally less than the Project, as the amount of grading would
be reduced under the MPA by approximately 13,000 cy. As a result, the MPA would
involve less potential erosion during rainy seasons in close proximity to Tank Farm Creek.
Under the MPA, installation of retaining/flood walls at the toe of fill slopes at the setback
along the creek corridor along the east side of the creek would improve erosion protection,
reducing sedimentation. Though potential sedimentation would be reduced, continued
extensive grading could degrade sensitive habitats downstream with offsite impacts to
sensitive species, such as southern steelhead trout and California red-legged frogs. Impacts
would be mitigated with implementation of MM BIO-6 to restrict all work in and within
100 feet of Tank Farm Creek, including work within the creek setback to occur outside the
rainy season. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1a and 1b, and
MM HYD-1a through -1c would apply. Therefore impacts from construction of the MPA
on offsite biological resources would retain a significant but mitigable impact.
Cumulative impacts would be significant but mitigable with implementation of all
mitigation measures mentioned within this biological resources subsection.
Cultural Resources. Under the MPA, impacts to cultural resources would be similar to
the Project. Extensive site preparation and grading would still occur within areas of known
sensitive cultural resource remains. The dispersed nature of cultural resource remains over
15 acres of potentially developable area of the site would limit potential for avoidance
while still achieving basic project objectives, particularly given other site constraints.
Impact CR-1 addressing impacts to the octagonal silo foundation would be similar to the
Project, as construction of the Buckley Road Extension would also occur under this
alternative with demolition of historical feature P-040-038310. This feature is not
considered a significant historical resource or eligible for listing on the California Register
of Historic Resources (CRHR), and this alternative would maintain an adverse but less than
significant impact.
Impact CR-2, which addresses known prehistoric resource CA-SLO-2798/H, would be
similar to the Project as extensive excavation, grading, and eventual residential
development would occur within a known area of sensitive cultural resources. Under the
MPA, avoidance of the cultural resource site CA-SLO-2798/H site would remain infeasible
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-57
Final EIR
due to the large scale of the site, dispersed remains, and other major site constraints that
limit potential for Project redesign to avoid this cultural site. To illustrate, no development
could occur outside the URL. Additionally, ALUP and City density restrictions within the
ALUP Safety Areas and City Airport Overlay Zones (AOZs) and Tank Farm Creek
required setbacks all constrain development and limit potential for redesign to avoid
cultural resources, which appear to be dispersed across approximately 15 acres of the site
at unknown densities. With implementation of MM CR-2a and MM CR-2b, which would
ensure proper monitoring efforts and systematic grading practices, impacts would remain
significant but mitigable.
Impact CR-3 addressing potential cultural resources would be slightly less severe than
under than the Project as grading activities under the MPA would be reduced by
approximately 13,000 cy. However, construction activities could continue to potentially
uncover significant unknown prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. Construction
of the Buckley Road Extension, roadway improvements, and utility easements, among
other features that are generally similar in arrangement to the Project have the potential to
encounter unknown prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits within the Project site
and during offsite improvements. Due to the reduced amount of potential cut and fill within
the Project site, the chance of encountering these resources is incrementally less than the
Project. Implementation of the mitigation measures MM CR-3a and MM CR-3b, which
require a cultural resource monitor and training for construction personnel, would ensure
appropriate precautions to avoid potentially significantly impacts to unknown or
undiscovered archaeological resources, resulting in significant but mitigable impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Under the MPA, impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials would not substantially vary from the Project due to similar
construction activities, and the amount and layout of development in relation to aircraft
hazard areas. Impacts from hazardous materials and contamination during construction
would remain similar to the Project, and no new hazards due to use of hazardous materials,
increased exposure to airport safety hazards, or wildfire risk would occur.
Impact HAZ-1 related to exposure to hazardous materials during construction and
operations would be similar to the Project, and still require implementation of MM HAZ-
1, which would address safe removal of potential hazardous building materials and cleanup
of contaminated soils. The alternative would continue to potentially expose persons to
toxic, hazardous, or otherwise harmful chemicals based on the Project site’s proximity to
the Chevron Tank Farm property and contaminants. In addition, the potential presence of
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-58 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
asbestos containing material (ACM) within the offsite structures on the Buckley Road
Extension site, and the past use of pesticides and herbicides within the Project site would
remain a hazard during construction. Therefore, the potential would remain for
construction workers and/or nearby occupants to be exposed to potentially toxic,
hazardous, or harmful chemicals during excavation, grading, and site preparation activities.
Inclusion of MM HAZ-1, implementation of the Health and Safety Plan, would reduce
potential impacts to the construction workers and nearby general public associated with
hazardous materials, and this would remain a significant but mitigable impact.
Impact HAZ-2 would remain similar to the Project, as the MPA site design would not
create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. Implementation of BMPs, site maintenance, and
compliance with standards and regulations, as further discussed in Section 3.7, Hydrology
and Water Quality, would reduce potential impacts related to routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials to less than significant.
Impact HAZ-3 related to airport hazards would be similar to the Project, as MPA design
and the location of residential uses would also adhere to the established AOZs and Airport
Safety Areas as indicated within the LUCE and ALUP, respectively. Though residential
unit densities would vary throughout the Project site, no residential development would be
located within more restrictive City LUCE AOZs or Airport Safety Areas S-1B and S-1C,
and the site layout would not exceed or conflict with any established airport safety
standards. Therefore, similar to the Project, the MPA would be subject to review and
approval by the ALUC for consistency with the ALUP. As further discussed in Section 3.8,
Land Use and Planning, airport safety impacts to residents and commercial Town Center
employees or patrons within the Project site would be less than significant.
Impact HAZ-4 addressing wildfire would be similar to the Project, as wildfires burning
into open space surrounding the Project area could still occur with potential impacts related
to exposing people or structures to wildfires. The acreage of open space with associated
natural fuel risks would be greater under the MPA than the Project. However, compliance
with California Building Code (CBC) and International Building Code (IBC) construction
requirements for residences would continue to minimize any associated risks. Further,
compliance with policies within the Safety Element would reduce the risk of damage or
injury. In addition, the inclusion of the Interim Fire Station within the Project site, as well
as eventual development of the Fifth Fire Station within the southern extent of the City,
would result in the provision of additional fire protection services to respond to fire hazards
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-59
Final EIR
within the vicinity. This alternative would therefore result in less than significant impacts
related to exposing people or structures to wildland fires.
Hydrology. Under the MPA, the realignment of the North-South Creek Segment of Tank
Farm Creek and the burial of the East-West Channel would not occur. Wider setbacks
would be implemented between Tank Farm Creek and proposed development, and the
storm water collection swale along the northern boundary of the Project site would be
widened and unpaved. These differences in the MPA from the Project would reduce
adverse effects on water quality and hydrological systems. Overall, impacts identified
within Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality would be reduced compared to the
Project.
Impact HYD-1 associated with increased erosion and sedimentation into Tank Farm Creek
would be less than the Project, as there would be reduced construction within and along
Tank Farm Creek due to the retention of the North-South Creek Segment and provision of
wider creek setbacks during construction activities. In addition, under the MPA, one less
storm water outfall would be constructed within the creek, reducing disturbance of creek
channel banks and bottom and associated potential for water quality impacts due to erosion
and sedimentation. However, potentially significant impacts to water quality due to
polluted runoff during construction activities would continue to occur under the MPA due
to grading and use of heavy construction equipment, which creates potential for sediment
laden or polluted runoff to enter Tank Farm Creek. In addition, unlike the Project, the MPA
would include installation of retaining/flood walls along portions of the creek channel and
would result in additional construction activities taking place near the creek corridor, with
added potential for excavation, soil disturbance and sedimentation due to operation of
construction equipment near the creek channel. MM HYD-1a, which requires the submittal
of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge, MM HYD 1-b, which requires a SWPPP, and
MM HYD-1c, which mandates that installation of all drainage outlets within Tank Farm
Creek occurs during the dry season, would all apply to the MPA as well. Therefore, Impact
HYD-1 under the MPA would remain significant but mitigable.
Impact HYD-2 regarding alteration of drainage patterns would be less severe than under
the Project, since the MPA would not include realignment of Tank Farm Creek and both
the North-South Creek Segment and the East-West Channel would remain in place. In
addition, the North-South Creek Segment would be widened to accommodate increased
flows entering the site from the northeast. In addition, MM HYD-2a, development of a
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-60 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Drainage Master Plan, would apply. Overall, with implementation of the above mitigation,
impacts under the MPA would be significant but mitigable.
Impact HYD-3 related to onsite flooding would be less severe than under the Project, since
channel design under the MPA would be able to accommodate higher flood flows. The
widening of the North-South Creek Segment under the MPA would allow the creek to carry
greater offsite flows from properties to the north. The retention of the East-West Channel
in the northeastern part of the site would also help to accommodate surface drainage from
the east within the existing 100-year flood plain. In a change from the Project, the MPA
would also include widening the proposed 1,600 foot-long collection swale along the
northern site boundary by 8 feet. The swale would be unpaved, which would increase the
ability to collect and convey surface water drainage under the MPA. Further, under the
MPA, the proposed Jespersen Road Extension would be shifted east approximately 25 to
50 feet to accommodate the widened North-South Creek Segment, and a portion of
Earthwood Lane would be shifted away from Tank Farm Creek to provide a wider buffer
from the creek. These features of the MPA would reduce flooding impacts compared to the
Project, but would still require mitigation measures to ensure that such flooding impacts
do not remain significant. MM HYD-3a, which ensures that the Master Drainage Plan
considers cumulative regional drainage and flooding impacts, and MM HYD-3b, which
ensures that all modifications to the creek channels must comply with and receive of
approval of the City, would also fully apply to the MPA.
However, in contrast to the Project, the 100-year floodplain offsite to the north of the
Project site would not experience a reduction in the 100-year floodplain associated with
potential Chevron Tank Farm improvements, and this area would continue to be subject to
flooding (see Appendix Q); this region is already contained within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood plain and is not considered a change from
baseline conditions. Absent realignment of Tank Farm Creek to connect with the Chevron
Tank Farm property, it is unclear how or whether these existing regional flooding and
drainage issues can be resolved. However, overall, Impact HYD-3 would be significant but
mitigable.
Impact HYD-4 related to the use of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) would be less
severe compared to the Project. The MPA would also include use of HDD beneath Tank
Farm Creek to install utility lines, which could impact water quality; however, MPA HDD
activities would only occur at one location along the creek, compared to two locations
under the Project. Due to the risk of frac-outs, MM HYD-4a, which requires a geotechnical
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-61
Final EIR
investigation for areas proposed for HDD, and MM HYD-4b, which requires the
implementation of a Frac-out Contingency Plan, would also be necessary to mitigate this
potential impact under the MPA. Therefore, Impact HYD-4 would be significant but
mitigable.
Impact HYD-5, which addresses long-term impacts to water quality, would be slightly less
severe when compared to the Project; however, long-term operation of the MPA would
also impact the water quality in Tank Farm and San Luis Obispo Creeks due to polluted
urban runoff and sedimentation. The MPA would contain wider creek setbacks that would
incrementally reduce runoff, erosion and sedimentation from manufactured slopes;
increased setbacks of the Class I bicycle path from the top of the creek bank would also
incrementally reduce such impacts. Nonetheless, development under the MPA within the
vicinity of the creek would still potentially produce increases in polluted urban runoff due
to the increases in impervious surfaces and increased population within the site. MM HYD-
2a, which requires a Master Drainage Plan, and MM HYD-5, which requires a
Development Maintenance Manual, would also apply to the MPA. Therefore, Impact
HYD-5 would be significant but mitigable.
Impact HYD-6 involving impacts to groundwater would be similar to the Project, as the
MPA would result in impervious surfaces that would incrementally reduce areas for
groundwater percolation. Like the Project, the MPA would also include a new dual use
bioswale and pocket park in the southwest portion of the Project site to help offset the
decreased percolation caused by the substantial increase in impervious surfaces with
development of the site. The northern boundary collection swale would be widened and
would be unpaved, which may also incrementally increase groundwater infiltration.
Therefore, Impact HYD-6 would be less than significant.
Cumulative impacts to water quality would be similar to the Project, as the MPA would
contribute to the cumulative trend of increased urban pollutant discharge to the San Luis
Obispo Creek system. However, under the MPA, these impacts would be mitigated by
water quality requirements and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
regulations, and, therefore, would be less than significant. Unlike the Project, the MPA
would not address cumulative regional flooding impacts due to discontinuation of
realignment of Tank Farm Creek and associated hydrologic connections to the Chevron
Tank Farm property to the north of the Project site. In not addressing such issues, the MPA
may foreclose options for regional drainage improvements that would provide long-term
solutions to area flooding. However, the MPA would not exacerbate such flooding and
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-62 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
would not contribute to this aspect of cumulative flooding impacts. Additional hydrological
investigations may be required to determine the extent of cumulative drainage impacts.
Land Use and Planning. Under the MPA, the layout, acreage, and placement of residential
units, parkland, roadways, and the Town Center with the Project site would differ slightly
from the Project. However, the total number of resident units and square footage of
Neighborhood Commercial uses would remain the same. Additional roadway, pedestrian,
and bicycle improvements would be implemented under the MPA, which would improve
consistency with applicable General Plan Circulation Element policies. Further, like the
Project, the MPA would be consistent with standards that apply to City AOZs and ALUP
Safety Areas. Overall, impacts identified within Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning,
would be slightly less compared to the Project.
Impact LU-1 regarding consistency with LUCE-defined AOZs would be similar to the
Project, as the MPA would also include residential uses that would be consistent with AOZ
density and use restrictions and would not interfere with airport operations or create safety
impacts. Like the Project, all residential units would be located either within AOZ-6 or
outside the AOZs, both of which have no limitations on development intensity for either
residential or non-residential uses (Table 5-14).
Table 5-14. Residential Units Proposed within AOZs
City's Airport
Overlay Zone in
Project Site
Allowable Densities
Project Site
Designation
(acres)
MPA
Proposed
Residential
Units in
Zone
Project
Proposed
Residential
Units in
Zone
AOZ-4
Outer Approach/
Departure Zone
Residential = Infill to average of
surrounding density
Non-Residential = 150-200
persons/acre
5 0 0
AOZ-6 Traffic
Pattern Zone
No Limitations 142 712 712
Outside AOZ No Limitations 3 8 8
Source: ALUC 2014.
The AOZs are designed to provide development standards that address airport safety
consistent with the City’s local authority. Given the location, type, and density of proposed
development, the MPA would be consistent with the City’s AOZs, and, therefore, land use
compatibility impacts with the LUCE Airport policies, and associated AOZs would be less
than significant.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-63
Final EIR
Impact LU-2 regarding ALUP consistency would be similar to the Project, as development
of the MPA would result in no construction of residential units within ALUP Safety Area
S-1B or Safety Area S-1C, and would not conflict with allowable density permitted under
the ALUP (Table 5-15). All residential development would fall within Safety Area S-2,
which does not restrict residential density and would be consistent with standards for the
current ALUP Safety Areas.
Table 5-15. ALUP Airport Safety Area Standards for Residential Densities1
ALUP
Safety
Area
Project Site
Designation
(approximate
acres)
Maximum
Land Use
Density –
Residential
(units/acre)
Maximum
Allowable
Units in
Safety
Area on
Project site
MPA Proposed
Residential Units
within ALUP
Safety Area
Consistent
with
ALUP
Project Proposed
Residential Units
within ALUP
Safety Area
Consistent
with
ALUP
S-1B 34.9 0.2 7
Total: 0
Yes R-3: 7
Total: 7
Yes
S-1C 7.6 0.2 1.5
Total: 0
Yes
Total : 0
Yes
S-2 107.5 unlimited unlimited R-1: 101
R-2: 297
R-3: 197
R-4: 125
Total: 720
Yes R-1: 105
R-2: 305
R-3: 178
R-4 : 125
Total: 713
Yes
1 Airport safety zone standards are based on Clustered Development Zone project classification and Project/MPA
compliance with a Detailed Area Plan that would be developed in consultation with ALUC and determined to be
consistent with ALUP.
2 Maximum density of residential land is unlimited with approved ACOS, and Clustered Development Zone (CDZ) and
Development Area Plan.
Source: ALUC 2005.
Like the Project, the MPA would still continue to be subject to review by the ALUC, the
MPA would be consistent with the LUCE AOZs, consistent with direction in the State
Aeronautics Act, the FAA regulations, and guidance provided in the Caltrans California
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook and the ALUP; therefore, no resultant substantial
physical airport-related safety hazards would occur as result of MPA implementation,
consistent with ALUP policies. As a result, airport land use planning impacts to residential
and Neighborhood Commercial uses under the MPA would remain less than significant.
Regarding Impact LU-3, the MPA would achieve greater General Plan consistency than
the Project as the MPA is more consistent with several General Plan policies designed to
protect agricultural resources, biological resources, and ensures provision of adequate
transportation, as further summarized below.
Agricultural Resources
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-64 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Similar to the Project, the MPA would result in the conversion of 71 acres of agricultural
land and is therefore subject to mitigation under Policy 1.9.2. MM AG-1 would satisfy the
criteria of Policy 1.9.2, therefore making the MPA consistent with this policy after
mitigation.
Biological Resources
In contrast to the Project, the MPA would not result in development within designated City
creek setbacks, consistent with COS Element, Policy 7.7.9 and Section 17.16.025 of the
City Zoning Regulations. The MPA would have less severe impacts to wildlife movement
through the Tank Farm Creek corridor than the Project due to its increased development
setbacks from the creek and its retention of existing creek features. However, the MPA’s
potential interference with wildlife passage through the creek corridor and depreciation in
value as a wildlife corridor would still have the potential to be inconsistent with LU Policy
6.6.1, and COS Policies 7.3.3 and 7.7.8. Impacts to riparian and wetland habitats under the
MPA would be significant but mitigable after implementation of MM BIO-2b, 2c, 2e and
2i, requiring a biological resources plan and monitoring. Therefore, impacts associated
with COS Element policies under the MPA would also be significant but mitigable.
Traffic and Transportation
Unlike the Project, the MPA would include the extension of Horizon Lane north from the
site connecting through to Suburban Road, along with improvements to Horizon Lane to
attain City roadway standards for a residential collector, which would include intersection
improvements to Horizon Lane and Suburban Road in order to achieve standards within
the City Uniform Design Criteria and Municipal Code. This feature of the MPA would
increase its policy consistency over the Project by ensuring these roadways meet
Circulation Element maximum volume thresholds. The MPA would also provide
connections to the regional bicycle network along the entirety of Vachell Lane. These
improvements would achieve consistency with Circulation Element Policy 5.1.2,
Sidewalks and Paths, as they would provide continuous bicycle access.
Unlike the Project, the MPA would establish an interim bus route during Phase 1 of
development in order to accommodate site access limitations. These improvements would
improve consistency with Circulation Element Policy 3.1.7, Transit Service Access, by
facilitating access to transit service during all phases of development. In addition, the MPA
would implement MM TRANS-4 to address pedestrian and bicycle lane deficiencies on
Vachell Lane, Earthwood Lane, Horizon Lane, and Suburban Road; MM TRANS-10a
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-65
Final EIR
through 10c to improve pedestrian connectivity on South Higuera Street; and MM TRANS-
12 to enhance coordination with SLO Transit. As a result, impacts would be significant but
mitigable.
Cumulative impacts would be similar to the Project. Cumulative development is
anticipated in the City’s LUCE Update and would be consistent with City General Plan
policies. The MPA, in combination with pending/future developments, is aligned with the
City’s plans for buildout as projected by the LUCE Update. After mitigation, the MPA
would not have a cumulatively considerable effect on citywide land use and development.
Therefore, like the Project, the MPA’s cumulatively considerable impact to land use in
combination with other pending/future projects would be less than significant.
Noise. Under the MPA, construction and operational noise impacts would be similar to the
Project as overall development would be comparable. The MPA would include
development of 720 residential units and 15,000 sf of Neighborhood Commercial uses,
resulting in construction noise impacts. Operationally, the MPA would have a similar
amount of traffic generation with associated mobile noise from increased vehicular traffic
on area roads. The MPA would continue to avoid development of noise sensitive residential
uses within airport noise corridors.
Under the MPA, Impact NO-1 addressing construction noise would remain similar to the
Project, as construction activities and associated noise would remain similar within each
phase over the 10-year construction period. Similar to the Project, MPA would generate
short-term increases in noise that would exceed applicable standards in the City’s Noise
Ordinance from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Also, similar to the Project,
noise impacts to nearby residences associated with grading and construction, including the
Buckley Road Extension, would not exceed County standards. Impacts from heavy haul
trucks along vicinity roads could also exceed maximum noise level criteria for mobile
equipment, impacting sensitive receptors along haul routes. Implementation of MM
TRANS-1, the Construction Transportation Management Plan, and mitigation measures
MM NO-1a, MM NO-1b, and MM NO-1c, addressing construction noise, would help
avoid impacts to sensitive receptors, including the use of noise emission restrictions, noise
attenuation techniques, and resident notification of construction operations. Because
estimated sound levels associated with construction activities would exceed the City’s
threshold for noise exposure during construction, even with mitigation, similar to the
Project, onsite and offsite construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-66 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Impact NO-2 would be similar to the Project, as short-term noise construction activities
could potentially result in exposure of persons to excessive ground-borne vibration. As
described above, construction under the MPA would follow a similar progression of
development within the Project site, and vibrations would be temporary and intermittent
during the hours of construction. Vibration would attenuate as the distance from the source
increases would likely be at an imperceptible level to sensitive receptors. Therefore,
vibration impacts from construction under the MPA would remain less than significant.
Impact NO-3 addressing mobile noise sources would be similar to the Project, as the MPA
would generate a similar increase in traffic that would increase noise levels on roadways
in the Project vicinity. As with the Project, projected generation of new ADT along area
roadways would substantially increase noise levels along Earthwood Lane and Horizon
Lane, with an associated increase of 13 dBA and above. However, noise levels would be
below the 65 dBA exterior threshold and there are no identified sensitive receptors along
the affected segments of Earthwood Lane and Horizon Lane. However, projected increases
in ADT along Vachell Lane and Buckley Road are not expected to result in an increase
greater than 3 dBA on these roads. Similar to the Project, although residential units
associated with the MPA are not considered part of the baseline conditions for noise
analysis under CEQA, residences have the potential to experience future noise levels above
the City thresholds. To ensure interior noise levels are below the 45 dBA interior noise
level threshold, mitigation of any potential outdoor activity areas for R-1 and R-2
residential units planned within 600 300 feet of Buckley Road as described in MM NO-3
would be necessary, making operational noise impacts significant but mitigable. Future R-
2 and R-4 residences within the Project site near Earthwood Lane and Horizon Lane would
not experience noise levels above the City noise thresholds given the distance to the
roadway noise source.
Impact NO-4 addressing airport noise would be similar to the Project and less than
significant, as no residential units are proposed within areas identified in the ALUP has
having excessive airport noise (all applicable excessive noise contours are located in the
S-1C and S-1B areas where no residential uses will be planned) under the MPA, though
development within the Project site would still be exposed to some background airport
noise.
Population and Housing. The MPA would facilitate similar levels of new residential
development (720 units), and associated population increase (1,649 persons) as the Project.
However, this alternative would reduce the number of low and medium density R-1 and R-
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-67
Final EIR
2 units to achieve desired Tank Farm Creek corridor objectives, and there will be an
increase of 12 medium-high density R-3 units. In addition, the composition of inclusionary
affordable housing units offered by the alternative would be similar to the Project to
maintain consistency with City’s Inclusionary Housing Requirements and Specific Plan
Area Expansion Area Inclusionary Housing Requirements as indicated in Municipal Code
17.91; the exact number and distribution of affordable units would be determined during
consideration and approval of the alternative by City decision-makers.
Under the MPA, Impact PH-1 addressing housing policy consistency would be similar to
the Project and remain less than significant, as the residential development and associated
population growth would be similar to the Project and would not exceed the adopted annual
City growth rate of 1.0 percent under General Plan Policy LU 1.11.2.
Impact PH-2, which addresses the City’s jobs-housing balance, would be similar to the
Project and remain beneficial due to providing additional housing for the City that would
have beneficial impacts related to the City’s jobs-to-housing balance and assist in achieving
the target jobs-to-housing rations of 1.5 to 1. The MPA’s proposed construction of 720
units would provide additional housing for the existing and growing labor force within a
community that is currently experiencing a 1.6 to 1 jobs-to-housing ratio. Therefore, this
impact would be beneficial.
Impact PH-3 would be similar to the Project, as the MPA would adhere to the same
requirements of the Specific Plan Area and Housing Element Policies as the Project. The
distribution of inclusionary affordable units under the MPA between R-1 to R-4 housing
options may differ due to the increase of R-3 units and decrease of R-1 and R-2 units;
however, adherence to inclusionary housing requirements would maintain a less than
significant impact.
Public Services. Under the MPA, the quantity of residential units introduced to the Project
site would be the same as the Project, resulting in 1,649 estimated new residents. The new
residents would increase demand for police protection, fire protection, parks, and schools,
with impacts similar to the Project. The amount of parkland supplied under the MPA would
be greater than the Project, which would directly benefit the new residents and comply with
the City’s parkland requirements.
Impact PS-1 relating to police services would be similar to the Project, as development
within the Project site with up to 720 residential units would increase demand on the San
Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) for police protection services. Similar to the
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-68 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Project, implementation of the alternative and associated increases in population may
necessitate a need to hire two additional officers or purchase new police equipment to
maintain adequate response time objectives. The Project proposes to fund public services
through CFD assessments. The City Council would address departmental budget, staffing,
and equipment needs as part of the annual budgetary process, and determine precise timing
of services and improvements. The MPA would contribute to general revenue from CFD
assessments, sales taxes associated with local household expenditures and other revenue
associated with residential development, as itemized in Tables 2-4 of the LUCE Fiscal
Impact Analysis (plus revenues from the CFD) and such increases in revenues could be
used to hire additional officers and purchase equipment to maintain or improve SLOPD
service levels over time to meet changing demands, if determined appropriate by the City
Council. MM PS-1, which requires a site security plan, would be implemented to relieve
some demand for police services under the MPA, and this impact would remain significant
but mitigable.
Impact PS-2 relating to fire protection services would be similar to the Project. Although
the Project site is currently outside the 4-minute San Luis Obispo Fire District (SLOFD)
response time, like the Project, the MPA would include an Interim Fire Station that would
be utilized until the City’s fifth fire station is constructed and fully operational. Further, the
increased demand for SLOFD fire protection services would be satisfied by
implementation of the Interim Fire Station, and inclusion of the Interim Fire Station would
ensure compliance with the City’s Safety Element’s adequate response time performance
standards. Therefore, impacts to fire protection services under this alternative would
remain less than significant.
Impact PS-3 relating to public schools would be similar to the Project under the MPA, as
development of 720 new residential units and the associated increase in population would
generate increases in enrollment at public schools. This increase would mirror that of the
Project, with a similar estimated quantity of additional students (approximately 262
students under the MPA, compared to 269 under the Project). Given district-wide capacity
and the payment of impact fees for school facilities under the MPA, impacts on school
facilities would be considered adverse but less than significant.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-69
Final EIR
Table 5-16. MPA Student Generation
Grade Level
Generation Rates Proposed Units
Additional
Students Single-Family
Units (students
per unit)
Multi-Family
Units (students
per unit)
Single-
Family
Units
Multi-
Family
Units
K-6 0.302 0.116 398 322 157.55
7-8 0.064 0.032 398 322 35.77
9-12 0.119 0.066 398 322 68.61
TOTAL (K-12) 0.485 0.214 398 310 261.93
Source: SLCUSD 2015.
Impact PS-4 relating to parkland availability would be slightly less than the Project.
Approximately 16.49 acres of parkland would be required to meet City standards under
Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.15.1, and the MPA proposes 19.08 acres of
parkland within the Project site. As the MPA includes approximately 3.08 acres of
additional park space beyond the Project, the MPA would satisfy the amount of parkland
required within 0.5 mile from residential neighborhoods. This increased quantity of
parkland would surpass the 1.5-acre contribution or fee proposed by the Project, thus no
longer requiring the payment of in-lieu fees. Accounting for in-lieu park fees under the
Project, the MPA would ultimately provide 1.58 acres more parkland. Therefore, this
alternative would comply with the City General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element and
impacts to parks would remain less than significant.
Transportation and Traffic. The MPA would substantially reduce transportation and
traffic impacts when compared to the Project. The primary factors that would contribute to
this reduction in impacts would be the incorporation of 10 onsite and offsite road and
transportation improvements into the MPA that are identified within mitigation measures
in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic (see list below) and set forth in the
Transportation Impact Study (TIS) (Appendix P).
Under the MPA, vehicular trip generation would remain similar to the Project with similar
potential for transportation and traffic impacts. Adjustments in the mix of residential units
under this alternative would incrementally reduce average daily trips (ADT) generation
compared to the Project by approximately 7 trips from 6,776 ADT to 6,769 ADT, with
approximately 405 of these trips occurring in the AM Peak Hour and 553 in the PM Peak
Hour (refer to Table 5-17). In addition, the Applicant contends that an adjusted mix of uses
in the Town Center would also reduce net new ADTs; however, this result cannot be
confirmed until a final mix of uses is selected. Therefore, a conservative approach towards
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-70 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
trip generation is used for analysis of the MPA. Under the MPA, overall trip generation,
distribution, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would be similar to the Project.
Table 5-17. Approximate Estimated Vehicular Trip Generation under the MPA
Land Use Size
Number of Trips
Daily Trip
Rate Daily
Peak Hour
AM PM
Low Density Housing (R-1) 101 units 10.46 1,057 83 110
Medium Density Housing
(R-2)
297 units 5.56 1,652 126 150
High Density Housing (R-3
and R-4)
322 units 6.46 2,081 156 188
Neighborhood Commercial 15,000 sf 0.13 1,979 49 168
Net New Trips -- 6,769 414 616
Internal Capture Trips 2
Trips added to adjacent streets -- -872
5,904
-8
406
-62
554
Source: Central Coast Transportation Consulting 2016; see Appendix P.
1 Peak hour trips for the MPA are rough approximations based on the TIS, Appendix P.
2 Internal trips refer to those that are retained within the Project site traveling between onsite uses (e.g., residents using
parks or the commercial center). Internal capture estimates use ITE method for Average Daily Trips and NCHRP
method for AM and PM trips.
As noted above (Circulation), the MPA would include key road and transportation
improvements specifically designed to reduce congestion and travel impacts:
1. Turn restrictions on Vachell Lane/South Higuera Street under Phase 2 after the
Buckley Road Extension is completed;
2. Restricted ingress and egress during Phase 1 at the Project site border on Venture
Drive and the Vachell Lane/Earthwood Lane intersection, which would be removed
under Phase 2, concurrent with the Buckley Road Extension;
3. Construction of an interim bus turn-around location within the Project site or other
measures as deemed appropriate by the City to accommodate this interim transit
access due to required site access limitations during Phase 1 construction; the
roundabout at Venture Drive/Earthwood Lane has been designed to serve this
purpose and no interim improvements should be needed.
4. Construction of Class II bicycle lanes that connect to the regional bicycle network
along the entire stretch of Vachell Lane, between Buckley Road and South Higuera
Street, as part of Phase 1 development;
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-71
Final EIR
5.Construction of Buckley Road frontage improvements from Tank Farm Creek to
Phase 1 development from Vachell Lane to the Class II bicycle lane to bicycle path
diversion, Phase 5 from the diversion up to and including the Jesperson/Buckley
intersection, and the remaining portion with Phase 6;
6. Extension of the Jespersen Road/Horizon Lane connection as well as improvements
to bring this road segment to City standards for a residential collector as part of
Phase 4.
With incorporation of the above roadway and transportation improvements into the MPA,
residual impacts would be similar to those identified in the TIS findings for Existing plus
Project Conditions (refer to Tables 3.12-7, 3.12-8, 3.12-9, and 3.12-10 within Section 3.12,
Transportation and Traffic; see Appendix P).
Impact TRANS-1 associated with construction traffic impacts would remain similar to
those described under the Project, and implementation of a Construction Transportation
Management Plan under MM TRANS-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level.
Impact TRANS-2 regarding trip generation during phased development would be reduced
when compared to the Project due to inclusion of the transportation improvements
described above into the MPA in appropriate Project development phases. Incorporation
of these elements within the MPA would eliminate the need to implement MM TRANS-
2b through MM TRANS-2f. However, MM TRANS-2a, which requires the development
of a Transportation Improvement Phasing Plan, would still be applicable to the MPA in
order to demonstrate consistency with the TIS findings and to specify design and timing of
offsite traffic improvements. Therefore, Impact TRANS-2 would be significant but
mitigable under the MPA.
Impact TRANS-3, which addresses proposed internal road circulation safety within the
Project site, would be reduced from the Project, as the MPA would include traffic calming
measures on all internal collector roadways to minimize potential turning movement
conflicts at intersections, reduce vehicular speeds to improve safety, limit pedestrian and
bicycle conflicts, and improve line of sight at driveways and intersections. This would
eliminate the need to implement MM TRANS-3b. Further, Project site roadways and
driveway design would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure compliance with
City engineering standards and best practices (e.g., aligning driveways on opposite sides
of the roadway, positioning driveways as far upstream from intersections as possible) with
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-72 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
implementation of mitigation measure MM TRANS-3a. Therefore, this impact would be
significant but mitigable under the MPA.
Impact TRANS-4, which addresses impacts to collector roads in the Project vicinity, would
be similar to the Project, as ADT and trip distribution on Vachell Lane, Earthwood Lane,
Horizon Lane, and Suburban Road are expected to be similar under both the MPA and
Project as described in the TIS (Appendix P). Due to the increase in traffic volumes, these
roadways would potentially exceed Circulation Element maximum volume thresholds,
result in impacts to roadway and intersection operations, and result in pedestrian and
bicycle path deficiencies. Application of MM TRANS-4 would require the development
and implementation of an improvement plan for Earthwood Lane and Suburban Road,
which would reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant but mitigable
under the MPA.
Impact TRANS-5 regarding capacity at the Buckley Road/SR 227 intersection would be
similar to the Project, as MPA-generated traffic would contribute towards increased delays
at this intersection. MM TRANS-5, which requires the Applicant to provide a fair share
contribution towards intersection improvements, would apply to the MPA. However,
similar to the Project, while payment of the fair share contribution would help to offset the
MPA’s relatively minor contribution to impacts at this intersection, as a financing program
for this improvement is not yet in place, impacts to the Buckley Road/ SR 227 intersection
would remain significant and unavoidable under the MPA until improvements are
designed, funded and completed by the County and/or Caltrans.
Under the MPA, Impact TRANS-6, which describes queuing at the South Street/Higuera
Street intersection, would be similar to the Project. Implementation of mitigation measure
MM TRANS-6, which includes extension of the northbound right-turn lane to provide
more storage capacity to accommodate MPA-generated traffic, would reduce impacts to
significant but mitigable.
Impact TRANS-7 regarding storage capacities at intersections along South Higuera Street
would be reduced from the Project. The MPA would include offsite traffic improvements
to facilitate acceptable LOS at the Vachell Lane/South Higuera Street and Suburban
Road/South Higuera Street intersections. With the inclusion of improvements of these
intersections, mitigation measures MM TRANS-7c and 7d would no longer be required.
However, mitigation measures MM TRANS-7a, which requires intersection improvements
at South Street/Higuera Street, and MM TRANS-7b, which requires intersection
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-73
Final EIR
improvements at South Higuera Street/Tank Farm Road, would continue to apply.
Therefore, impacts would be significant but mitigable.
Impact TRANS-8, which addresses impacts to Los Osos Valley Road intersections, would
be similar to the Project, as MPA-generated traffic would cause delays and exceedance of
intersection capacities at several intersections along Los Osos Valley Road.
Implementation of MM TRANS-8a and MM TRANS-8b, requiring the payment of Los
Osos Valley Road subarea fee, the retiming of traffic signals at the Los Osos Valley
Road/South Higuera Street intersection, and installation of signage at the South Higuera
Street/Buckley Road intersection, would reduce impacts, resulting in a significant but
mitigable impact.
Impact TRANS-9, which involves trip distribution along U.S. Highway 101, would be
similar to the Project, as the MPA would result in similar trip generation and distribution
along U.S. Highway 101. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Impact TRANS-10 regarding pedestrian LOS would be similar to the Project. The MPA
would have a similar potential to degrade pedestrian LOS surrounding the vicinity resulting
in unacceptable pedestrian operations due to the lack of pedestrian connectivity between
the Project site and surrounding areas, including commercial and recreational uses. Similar
to the Project, the MPA would exceed the City’s multi-modal threshold of significance for
pedestrian LOS at South Higuera from Buckley Road to Los Osos Valley Road, Vachell
Lane/South Higuera Street intersection, and Suburban Road from South Higuera Street to
Earthwood Lane. Implementation of MM TRANS-10a through -10c would reduce this
impact with the installation of sidewalk segments and ADA ramps on South Higuera Street
and Suburban Road; therefore, this impact would be to significant but mitigable.
Impact TRANS-11 regarding the adequacy of bicycle facilities would be reduced from the
Project under the MPA. Relocation of the Buckley Road Class I bicycle path to run parallel
to Buckley Road would improve on-road cycling safety and connectivity and ensure
consistency with the Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) and Circulation Element policies
regarding bikeway connections. This would allow cyclists travelling along the Buckley
Road westbound Class II bicycle path to migrate to the Class I bicycle path at the terminus
of the Class II path at the Tank Farm Creek Bridge. Impacts would therefore be less than
significant.
Impact TRANS-12, which concerns transit service demand, would be similar to the Project,
as the MPA would generate a similar demand on transit services. Implementation of MM
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-74 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
TRANS-12, which requires coordination with SLO Transit and payment of fair share costs
towards improvements in transit service and any physical improvements needed to
accommodate the new bus routes within the site, would reduce impacts. Accordingly,
overall impacts would be significant but mitigable.
Under near term conditions, Impact TRANS-13 would be similar to the Project, where
MPA-generated traffic would cause delays and exceedance of storage capacities at Buckley
Road/SR 227 and Los Osos Valley Road/South Higuera Street intersections, contributing
to road segment congestion and a significant and unavoidable impact to this intersection.
Implementation of MM TRANS-13, which requires the Applicant to pay its fair share fees
to fund the improvements, would mitigate the MPA’s contribution to this impact, making
this the impact to this intersection significant but mitigable similar to the Project.
Under near-term conditions (post-Phase 4 of MPA development), Impact TRANS-14
would be similar to the Project, where the MPA would incrementally contribute to
cumulative increases in demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, degrading operations
of these facilities and potentially conflicting with the City’s BTP regulations and General
Plan thresholds. In particular, the MPA would incrementally contribute towards the
decrease in LOS for bicycle facilities at the intersections of South Higuera Street/Tank
Farm Road, and Buckley Road/ South Higuera Street, and for pedestrian facilities on some
segments of South Higuera Street. MM TRANS-14, which requires fair share payment of
fees for the installation of a Class I bicycle path connection and continuous pedestrian
facilities at the Buckley Road/South Higuera Street intersection to Los Osos Valley
Road/U.S. Highway 101 southbound ramps intersection, would apply to the MPA. This
would reduce impacts to significant but mitigable similar to the Project.
Similar to the Project, under long-term cumulative conditions, the MPA would contribute
towards to potentially significant impacts to the operational conditions at four intersections:
1) Prado Road/South Higuera Street; 2) Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street; 3) Tank
Farm Road/Horizon Lane; and, 4) Buckley Road/SR 227. Similar to the Project,
implementation of MM TRANS-15b and -15c would reduce the MPA’s contribution
towards cumulative impacts at Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street, and Tank Farm
Road/Horizon Lane to less than cumulatively considerable. However, after implementation
of MM TRANS-15a and 15d, the MPA’s cumulative contribution to impacts at the Prado
Road/South Higuera Street and Buckley Road/SR 227 intersections would be significant
and unavoidable, similar to the Project, as these measures are not currently included in any
fee program.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-75
Final EIR
Utilities. Under the MPA, similar activities involving installation of public utilities and
associated trenching would occur to support residential and Neighborhood Commercial
development. The MPA would facilitate similar levels of new residential development (720
units), and associated population increase (1,649 persons) as the Project. However, this
alternative would reduce the number of low and medium density R-1 and R-2 units in favor
of a small increase of 12 medium-high density R-3 units. The alternate range of unit types
would change the demand for utilities and service system, including the amount of
estimated water demand and wastewater flows that would need to be accommodated under
this alternative. Based on the below analysis, transitioning to more multi-family units under
the MPA would generally result in an incremental decrease of estimated necessary
wastewater capacity, energy, and solid waste production compared to the Project. In
addition, more parkland under the MPA would slightly increase demand for water,
although parks would be irrigated using the proposed recycled water system. The
abandonment of the onsite well and installation of a new the onsite well for agricultural
irrigation would also not increase groundwater use by the MPA, water demand from this
well would be reduced from existing demand as irrigated acreage of land under
agricultural production would be reduced.
Impact UT-1 regarding wastewater generation would be incrementally less than the
Project, as implementation of the MPA would result a similar amount of development with
a similar increase in demand for wastewater collection and recovery facilities. Using
wastewater generation factors provided by the City’s LUCE, the MPA is estimated to
produce approximately 0.10 million gallons per day (MGD) of increased wastewater flows
(approximately 540 gallons per day less than the proposed Project), resulting in an
incremental decrease to wastewater flows. As noted in Section 3.13, Utilities, this reduced
quantity would not produce a significant increase in demand for wastewater treatment.
Also, similar to the Project, payment of development impact fees as part of standard
conditions for approval would ensure that the Applicant pays a fair share of costs associated
with the wastewater treatment infrastructure needed to serve the development and ensure
adequate Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) capacity. Therefore, impacts to
wastewater facilities would remain less than significant.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-76 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-18. Wastewater Projections Resulting from the MPA.
Land Use
Mitigated Project
Alternative Proposed
Development
Wastewater Generation
Factor1 Wastewater Flow
Single-Family 398 units 150 gallons/unit/day 59,700 gallons/day
Multi-Family 322 units 105 gallons/unit/day 33,810 gallons/day
Commercial 15,000 sf 60 gallons/1,000 sf/day 900 gallons/day
Total (Gallons) -- -- 94,410 gallons/day
Total (MGD) -- -- 0.10 MGD
1 City of San Luis Obispo 2014a.
Impact UT-2 regarding utility installation impacts would be less than the Project. The MPA
would require the expansion of utility infrastructure, including water, sewer, gas, and
electricity into the site to serve new development; however, the MPA utility layout includes
modifications to reduce potential impacts. Construction of these items would follow a
similar process as the Project, which would have similar associated environmental effects
as described within Section 3.13, Utilities. These potential adverse actions include
trenching and installation of utility-scale pipelines, HDD boring under Tank Farm Creek
with the potential for frac-outs, in addition to noise and traffic impacts, especially on
Vachell Lane and Venture Drive near sensitive land uses. However, under the MPA, HDD
boring would only occur at one location along the creek rather than two locations under
the Project. There would also be one less drainage culvert than the Project, resulting in
reduced impacts within the creek channel. To reduce the potential for significant impacts,
the MPA would require inclusion of mitigation measures within other resource sections
including: MM AQ-1a, Construction Activity Management Plan; MM BIO-1a, Biological
Mitigation Plan; MM BIO-1b, environmental monitor; MM CR-2a, systematic grading;
MM CR-2b, cultural resource monitor; MM CR-3a, stopping work upon discovery of a
buried cultural resource; MM CR-3b, cultural resource training; MM HAZ-1, Health and
Safety Plan for earthwork activities; MM HYD-4a, geotechnical investigations for HDD
activities; MM HYD-4b, Frac-out Contingency Plan; and MM TRANS-1, Construction
Transportation Management Plan. In addition MM UT-2, which requires review and
approval of utility improvements by the City’s Public Works and Utilities Departments,
would be implemented. Therefore, similar to the Project, impacts to the environment
associated with onsite and offsite utility line installation would be significant but mitigable.
Impact UT-3 regarding water demand would be incrementally greater than the Project. For
potable municipal water, implementation of the MPA would result a similar amount of
development with a similar increase in demand for the City’s potable water supply, but
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-77
Final EIR
with more irrigated parkland. The WSA estimated total water demand from the Project to
be 127.7 AFY (see Appendix Q); using the City’s more conservative water use factors
within the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the MPA is estimated to have a
water demand of approximately 193.4 AFY (see Table 5-19), which is 5.55 AFY more than
the Project (Project estimates 187.85 AFY). While the MPA would result in an increased
water demand compared to the Project, this demand is due to an increased acreage of
parkland (32 AFY for the Project, and 38.2 AFY for the MPA; see Table 5-19).
Additionally, the 5.55 AFY difference associated with the MPA could be accommodated
by the existing recycled water supply system. To address this issue, the MPA includes
measures to ensure landscaping water efficiency, consistent with the City’s General Plan
policies and similar to the Project.
Further, the MPA would include 27 acres of irrigated agricultural land. Based on a water
use factor of 3 AFY per acre, this would result in a water demand of 81 AFY of
groundwater in addition to the 193.4 AFY or municipal water sources for developed uses.
However, historically, given the relatively higher water demand associated with irrigated
agricultural crop production, water demand for the 140 acres of active onsite agricultural
land equates to approximately 420 AFY. Overall, the water usage under the MPA would
be reduced from long-term historic water use on this site. Therefore, groundwater for
irrigation would be sufficient to meet the MPA’s demand.
As described in Section 3.13, Utilities, under current conditions, there is 6,007 AFY of
reserve water supply available for new development. Therefore, based on MPA-related
water demand estimates, the Project would require approximately 5.5 percent of the water
available. At LUCE buildout, the City is estimated to have approximately 4,680 AFY of
reserve water supply available and the MPA would require approximately 7 percent of the
remaining amount of water anticipated to be available at buildout. Since the existing and
future water supply would be sufficient to serve the MPA’s estimated demands, impacts to
the City’s water supply would be considered adverse but less than significant. Development
of the Project site would also require payment of water impact fees to the City. Therefore,
impacts to the City’s water supply would remain less than significant.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-78 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-19. Estimated MPA Water Demand based on City Water Use Factors
Areas Quantity Use Factor1 Demand (AFY)
R-1 101 units 0.3 AF/unit/day 30.3
R-2 297 units 0.21 AF/unit/day 62.4
R-3/R-4 322 units 0.18 AF/unit/day 58.0
Neighborhood
Commercial
15,000 sf 0.3 AF/1,000 sf/year 4.5
Parkland 19.08 acres 2 AF/year 38.2
TOTAL -- -- 193.4
Note: AFY = acre-feet/year sf = square feet
1 Use factors based on historical water usage rates for similar land uses in the City.
Source: Cannon 2016.
Impact UT-4 regarding solid waste generation would be similar to the Project. The MPA
would generate a similar quantity of solid waste for disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill.
The MPA would contribute an estimated 2.82 tons per day of solid waste, or 0.03 less than
the Project (estimated 2.85 tons per year; see Table 5-20). The estimated waste from R-1
and R-2 residential units would be slightly reduced, and waste from R-3 residential units
would increase compared to the Project, due to the distribution of housing under the MPA.
Based on the daily solid waste projections and similar to the Project, the MPA would
contribute approximately 0.1 percent of the potential daily waste capacity of Cold Canyon
Landfill. The waste produced by the MPA would not substantially affect the landfill’s
capacity or ability to comply with federal, state, or local regulations. Therefore, impacts
regarding the generation of solid waste by the MPA would remain less than significant.
Table 5-20. Estimated Solid Waste Production under the MPA
Land Use Proposed Uses Quantity (# of Units) Waste Generation
Factor
Waste
Generation
(lbs/day)
Residential R-1 (Single Family)101 9.8 lb/day/unit 989.8
R-2 (Single Family) 297 9.8 lb/day/unit 2,910.6
R-3 (Multi-Family) 197 5.31 lb/day/unit 1,046.07
R-4 (Multi-Family) 125 5.31 lb/day/unit 663.75
Neighborhood
Commercial
Retail, local services, or
outdoor dining
15,000 sf 2.5 lb/1000 sf/day 37.5
Estimated Total Waste Generation (lbs per day) 5,647.72
Estimated Total Waste Generation (lbs per year) 2,061,418
Estimated Total Waste Generation (tons per day) 2.82
Estimated Total Waste Generation (tons per year) 1,030.7
Source: CalRecycle 2013a; 2013b; 2013c.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-79
Final EIR
5.4.2.3 Residential Plus Business Park Land Use Alternative
This alternative would combine development of the site as a residential area with
development of the site as a business park with supporting commercial development. This
alternative would provide for development of a business area, following the site’s current
zoning for “BP-SP”, or Business Park – Specific Plan, encouraging employment growth in
the eastern region of the Project site. The residential component of the alternative would
allow up to 700 units, located in the western and northeastern regions of the Project site,
contained within ALUP Safety Areas S-1C and S-2.
Tank Farm Creek Alignment and Riparian Corridor
The Residential Plus Business Park Land Use Alternative would result in avoidance or
reduction of potentially significant impacts to hydrological and biological resources by
maintaining the existing creek realignment rather than the creek alterations and relocation
as proposed within the Project. Unlike the Project, this alternative would generally
maintain the current creek alignment, with a minor modification at the current junction of
the North-South Creek Segment with the diagonal branch to form a better angle compared
to the existing sharp bend between the two branches, as depicted in Figure 5-4. Similar to
the Project, this alternative would not remain consistent with the City policies guiding 20-
foot setbacks from Tank Farm Creek, and some property lot lines would extend into the
20-foot setback area. Also similar to the Project, the East-West Channel within the Project
site would be realigned around the proposed medium-high density residential development,
and would avoid the proposed business park area. Southerly flows from the Chevron Tank
Farm’s southern border and future alterations in southerly flow from potential offsite
Chevron improvements would likewise be directed towards the relocated channel and
associated culvert. As such, this alternative would consist of incrementally less habitat
disturbance and long term alterations than the Project.
The existing North-South Creek Segment would be able to accommodate some residual
runoff from the light industrial properties to the north. A proposed 12-foot wide drainage
swale along the northern border would also function to direct some runoff into the North-
South Creek Segment; this alternative would reduce the number of subsurface drainage
culverts required to convey runoff 600 feet south to Tank Farm Creek.
BUCKLEY ROAD EXTENSIONSAN LUIS OBISPO CITY BOUNDARYSAN LUIS OBISPO CITY BOUNDARYSOUTH HIGUERA STREETVENTURE DRIVEBUCKLEY ROADVACHELL LANESUBURBAN ROADHORIZON LANE
VENTURE DRIVESUBURBAN ROADBUCKLEY ROADVACHELL LANE
SOUTH HIGUERA STREETHORIZON LANE
R4R3R1R2R2R2POCKET PARKBUSINESSPARKNEIGHBORHOODPARKNEIGHBORHOODPARKTOWNCENTERSAN LUIS OBISPO CITY BOUNDARYURBAN RESERVE LINESAN LUIS OBISPO CITY BOUNDARYTank Farm CreekEast Fork San Luis Obispo CreekBUCKLEY ROAD EXTENSION5-4FIGURE0600SCALE IN FEETNConceptual Residential Plus Business Park Land Use AlternativeAerial Source: Google 2015.LEGENDProposed Project Land Use**Land use locations are approximated.Project Site BoundaryBike PathRoadwayCommercial – 3.8 acresBusiness Park – 8.8 acresOpen Space – 59.0 acresPark – 16.0 acresR1 Residential – 66 unitsR2 Residential – 336 unitsR3 Residential – 198 unitsR4 Residential – 100 units5-80
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-81
Final EIR
Riparian buffers adjacent to the creek would be similar to the Project. Similar to the Project,
grading outside of this riparian corridor would allow for accommodation of 100-year flood
events. The proposed Tank Farm Creek Class I bicycle path would continue to be within
the riparian corridor boundary, located proximate to the creek’s natural vegetation. The
Project’s proposed dual pock park/bioswale within the southern border would likewise be
implemented under this alternative.
Housing Units
Similar to the Project, housing would range from traditional single-family homes to higher
density multiple-unit complexes, enabling a mix of residential arrangements, lot sizes,
intended income levels, and densities similar to that described in Section 2.6, Project
Overview. Unlike the Project, this alternative would not require a density bonus for
implementation. Additionally, this alternative would facilitate development of 700 units,
and would not push the limit of maximum du/acre allowances, allowing more room for
private open spaces within residential properties. Also similar to the Project, the alternative
would intermittently adhere to setback and open space buffer requirements, although
without mitigation this alternative would not maintain the necessary setbacks throughout
the entire length of the Tank Farm Creek riparian corridor. The quantity and total acre
coverage by each residential land use would be as detailed below and as summarized in
Table 5-21:
• Proposed 66 R-1 single-family units would occupy approximately 11.3 acres and
comprise 9.4 percent of all residential units. Compared to the Project, this would
be a reduction of 39 units and 6.15 acres of R-1 coverage.
• Proposed 336 R-2 single-family units would comprise approximately 48.0 percent
of the proposed residential units over an area of 36.4 acres. Compared to the Project,
this would be an increase of 31 units and 1.37 acres of R-2 coverage.
• Proposed development of 198 R-3 multi-family units would constitute 28.3 percent
of the planned residential development onsite over 10.0 acres of medium-high
density residential land uses. Compared to the Project, this would be an increase of
13 units and a decrease of 1.04 acres of R-3 coverage.
• Proposed development of 100 R-4 multiple-family units would constitute
approximately 14.3 percent of the planned residential development onsite over 4.7
acres. Compared to the Project, this would be a decrease of 25 units and 0.06 acres
of R-4 coverage.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-82 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-21. Housing Proposed under Residential Plus Business Park Land Use
Alternative
Housing type Maximum
Units/Acre2
Total Proposed
Units
Acres covered Estimated
Population1
R-1 Single-family 7 66 11.3 151
R-2 Single-family 12 336 36.4 769
R-3 Multi-family 20 198 10.0 453
R-4 Multi-family 24 100 4.7 229
TOTAL N/A 700 62.4 1,603
Development within ALUP Airport Safety Areas and AOZs
Under this alternative, no residential units would be located within the S-1C ALUP Safety
Area, in the northeastern Project area, and 198 R-3 units and 38 R-2 units would be located
within the S-1B ALUP Safety Area, adjacent to the Town Center. Finally, 100 R-4 units,
298 R-2 units, and 66 R-1 units would be located within the S-2 ALUP Safety Area. The
ALUP Safety Areas have more restrictive development intensity allowances than City
AOZs within the Project site (for instance, 75 persons per acre are permitted within ALUP
Safety Area S-1B whereas 150 persons per acre are permitted within City AOZ-4, where
each development intensity allowance areas would overlap portions of the proposed
business park area).
In relation to the City’s AOZs, this alternative would be consistent with development
standards and allowed uses and densities within the AOZs. Similar to the Project, no
residential units are proposed within AOZ-4. However, approximately 1 acre of the
proposed Business Park uses would be within this zone. AOZ-6 would overlay the majority
of the site and associated development, which includes the Town Center, up to all 700
residential units, the Neighborhood Park, open space, and the portion of the Business Park
not within AOZ-4.
Town Center and Business Park
This alternative would increase the Neighborhood Commercial buildout to 35,000 sf with
development over 3.77 acres, compared to the Project’s 15,000 sf of Neighborhood
Commercial development. Also unlike the Project, this alternative would include 120,000
sf of Business Park development over approximately 8.83 acres in the eastern region of the
park, located south of the R-3 development. Accounting for all residential, Neighborhood
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-83
Final EIR
Commercial, and Business Park acreage, approximately 75.0 acres would be developed
within the Project site under this alternative.
Parks and Open Space
This alternative would provide a similar amount of park space and a decreased amount of
open space compared to the Project, with at least 16.0 acres of park space consistent with
LUCE Policies 3.13.1 and 3.15.1, and approximately 59.0 acres of open space.
Analysis – Residential Plus Business Park Land Use Alternative
Impacts under the Residential Plus Business Park Land Use Alternative would be greater
than that of the Project. Primary tradeoffs would consist of higher intensity buildout of
Business Park and Town Center, resulting in increased impacts to land use policies, air
quality and GHG emissions, and traffic and transportation. The addition of Business Park
uses in combination with an incremental decrease in housing would result in greater
impacts to population and housing within the City. The major creek realignment would not
occur, resulting in preservation of existing biological and hydrological resources; however,
relocation of the East-West Channel and substandard setbacks similar to the Project would
result in adverse impacts of this alternative on biological and hydrological resources. Due
to increased buildout and decreased amounts of open space, potential impacts to visual and
aesthetic resources and cultural resources would be greater than the Project, and potential
impacts from hazardous resources would be greater than the Project.
Agricultural Resources. Since development is proposed in similar areas under this
alternative as the Project, impacts to agricultural resources, such as a loss of prime soils,
would be similar to the Project. Similar to the Project, the prime soils located along the
southern buffer would still be preserved under this alternative.
Air Quality and GHG Emissions. An increase in vehicle trips to the area would likewise
increase potential air quality and GHG emission impacts under this alternative, compared
to the Project. For instance, the increased maximum buildout under this alternative would
result in an increase of construction emissions. Additionally, long-term development of
residential and neighborhood commercial uses would result in an estimated increase of
approximately 2,807 ADT compared to the Project. Associated air quality and GHG
emissions from this increase would likewise increase and result in an increased intensity
of air quality and GHG emission impacts. Impacts to air quality and GHG emissions under
this alternative would remain above thresholds and be inconsistent with the 2001 Clean Air
Plan, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-84 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Biological Resources. Because the creek would not be substantially realigned as the
Project proposes, impacts to biological and hydrological resources associated with Tank
Farm Creek along the North-South Creek Segment would be reduced. By maintaining the
existing Tank Farm Creek alignment, some impacts identified within Sections 3.4,
Biological Resources would be avoided, including preservation of the cottonwood species
along the North-South Creek Segment. However, similar to the Project, relocation of the
East-West Channel and disturbance of the adjacent wetland area would result in
detrimental biological and hydrological impacts.
Hydrology and Water Quality. While this alternative would retain the existing North-
South Creek Segment alignment, the East-West Channel would be removed, and as such
would alter drainage within the eastern portion of the Project site. This would require
mitigation as listed within Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality in order to direct
runoff and flows from lands adjacent to the east of the site. By retaining the existing Tank
Farm Creek alignment, existing hydrological issues would not be addressed and may be
more difficult to resolve in the future, including ongoing flood risk to the north of the
Project site. Further, additional hydrological investigations that analyze drainage in
conjunction with any proposed creek realignment upstream within the Chevron Tank Farm
property would be required to determine how best to resolve regional drainage issues and
identify appropriate recommendations.
In addition, under this alternative and similar to the Project, development including the
Class I bicycle path, building pads, and nearby roadways would continue to be within close
proximity (e.g., less than 50 feet) to Tank Farm Creek. As such, impacts related to erosion
and runoff would be similar to the Project, and would require mitigation.
Land Use. Impacts to land use and planning would be greater than that of the Project. As
stated above, this alternative would result in 700 units within the Project site, which unlike
the Project would comply with the maximum capacity for SP-4 area under the LUCE,
without a necessary density bonus allowance. While a density bonus provides additional
housing units, increased demand upon services and resources would typically result.
However, a General Plan amendment may be required as this alternative exceeds the
maximum sf of Neighborhood Commercial uses allowed under the LUCE and contains
additional Business Park uses. As such, this alternative would potentially increase
inconsistency with the LUCE, as this alternative would exceed the maximum 25,000 sf of
commercial development allowed under the LUCE. However, the alternative would offer
a comparable amount of affordable, higher density housing for the City as the Project. Also
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-85
Final EIR
similar to the Project, the locations of the residential units, Neighborhood Commercial, and
Business Park development would partially comply with ALUP Safety Area standards for
unit and persons densities, as shown below in Table 5-22. However, this alternative would
be consistent with development standards for the City’s AOZs (see Table 5-23).
Table 5-22. ALUP Safety Area Standards for Unit or Persons Densities1
ALUP
Safety
Area
Project Site
Designation
(approximate
acres)
Maximum
Land Use
Density
Maximum
Allowable Units
(or Persons) in
Safety Area on
Project site
Proposed Quantity of
Units or Persons
within Safety Airport
Safety Area
Consistent
with ALUP
S-1B 34.9 0.2 units/acre
(or 75 persons
per acre for
non-residential)
7 (or 2,618) Units: 7
Persons: 2823
Yes
S-1C 7.6 0.2 units/acre
(or 120 persons
per acre for
non-residential)
1.5 (or 912) Units: 0
Persons: N/A
Yes
S-2 107.5 unlimited unlimited Units: 693Persons: N/A Yes
1 ALUP Safety Area standards are based on Clustered Development Zone project classification and Project compliance with
a Detailed Area Plan that would be developed in consultation with ALUC and determined to be consistent with ALUP.
2 Maximum density of residential land is unlimited with approved ACOS, and Clustered Development Zone (CDZ) and
Detailed Area Plan
3 Estimated number of persons by assuming 550 square feet per job as discussed in Section 3.10, Population and
Housing, for 120,000 sf of business park development and 35,000 sf of neighborhood commercial development.
However, additional customers and visitors may raise this value.
Source: ALUC 2005.
Table 5-23. Consistency with AOZs
City's Airport
Overlay Zone in
Project Site
Allowable Densities
Project Site
Designation
(acres)
Proposed
Residential
Units in Zone
AOZ-4
Outer Approach/
Departure Zone
Residential=Infill to average of surrounding
density
Non-Residential=150-200 persons/acre
5 0
(Consistent)
AOZ-6
Traffic Pattern Zone
No Limitations 142 +/-700
(Consistent)
Outside AOZ No Limitations 3 0
(Consistent)
Source: (ALUC 2014).
Provisions for more affordable housing opportunities and a mix of housing affordable to
various economic strata are intermixed, per Goal 4 of the City’s Housing Element. Also
similar to the Project, development of approximately 75.0 acres of the 150.0-acre area
would be consistent with maintaining a 50 percent development balance between open
space and development within the Project site. Unlike the Project, the proposed Business
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-86 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Park area and associated 120,000 sf of development would not be consistent with SP-4 land
uses, despite the existing zoning for BP-SP. As such, inclusion of the Business Park area
would require additional approvals of tract layout and use, and possibly require a General
Plan amendment. Further, an increased amount of architectural review and planning effort
would be necessary under this alternative’s implementation, and would overall result in
greater land use impacts than the Project.
Noise. Even with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, City noise thresholds
for noise-sensitive residential uses approximately 100 feet from construction vehicle routes
may be temporarily exceeded during construction activities under this alternative.
Additionally, the higher total buildout intensity would result in more noise impacts during
construction activities and would incrementally increase operational ambient noise levels.
Therefore, the intensity of significant and unavoidable noise impacts as identified in
Section 3.9, Noise, would be more than the Project under this alternative, and remain
significant and unavoidable.
Population and Housing. Impacts to population and housing would be similar to the
Project; there would be incrementally less population growth within the Project site but
would further offset the City’s jobs/housing balance. With buildout of 700 units under this
alternative, and assuming the Citywide household size of 2.29 persons per household, this
alternative would be expected to increase the City’s population by approximately 1,603
persons, or 46 persons less than that estimated for the Project and thus an incremental
difference. Assuming 550 sf per job, the 35,000 sf of Neighborhood Commercial and
120,000 sf of Business Park development would introduce approximately 282 new jobs to
the Project site.
Implementation of this alternative would result in an incremental decrease in housing
opportunities compared to the Project as described in the preceding paragraph, in favor of
more R-2 and R-3 units. Combined, there would be a reduction of 12 R-3 and R-4 units,
which would result in an incremental reduction of potential lower cost housing
opportunities; nevertheless, this alternative would still result in a similar amount of
affordable housing units. Ultimately, the decrease in housing opportunities would have an
associated decrease in job housing support compared to the Project. The estimated increase
of approximately 282 jobs provided by the 35,000 sf of Neighborhood Commercial and
120,000 sf of Business Park development would further offset the jobs/housing balance for
the City.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-87
Final EIR
Public Services. This alternative would result in similar public service impacts due to a
slight reduction in demand associated with the reduced number of potential residential
population and buildout, though an increased amount of public service demand associated
with Neighborhood Commercial and Business Park development. Similar to the Project,
an Interim Fire Station would be constructed to provide on fire protection services to the
Project site.
Transportation and Traffic. The Residential Plus Business Park Land Uses Alternative
would have greater traffic and transportation impacts than the Project. For this alternative,
three primary factors which contribute to total estimated trip generation were examined: 1)
greater Neighborhood Commercial buildout; 2) the proportion of R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4
units within the Project site; and, 3) the Business Park component. Central Coast
Transportation Consulting conducted an analysis of these components, with the following
results:
Table 5-24. Estimated Net New Daily Trips under Residential Plus Business Park
Land Uses Alternative
Land Use Total Proposed Quantity ADT
Low Density Housing 66 units 717
Medium Density Housing 336 units 1,846
High Density Housing 298 units 1,929
Neighborhood Commercial 35,000 sf 3,432
Office Park 120,000 sf 1,659
Net New Trips 9,583
Source: Central Coast Transportation Consulting 2015.
Considering the adjusted proportion of R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 units, Neighborhood
Commercial buildout, and business park development within the Project site under this
alternative, the alterations would greatly increase the total added ADT of the alternative
compared to the Project by approximately 2,807 ADT (from 6,776 ADT to 9,583 ADT).
Therefore, the Residential Plus Business Park Land Uses Alternative would greatly
increase the potentially significant and unavoidable traffic and transportation impacts
compared to the Project.
Utilities. Impacts to utilities would be greater than the Project, due to the increased amount
of overall buildout and increased Neighborhood Commercial and Business Park uses
within the Project site compared to the Project. However, with 700 units requiring water,
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-88 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
wastewater, solid waste, instead of 720, impacts to utilities would be less than the Project
for the residential component.
5.5 IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of
alternatives shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives
evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior alternative as defined by
CEQA should minimize adverse impacts to the Project site and its surrounding
environment.
Table 5-25 summarizes the environmental advantages and disadvantages associated with
the proposed project and the analyzed alternatives. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6
states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR
shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other
alternatives.
Although No Project Alternative A would result in the least amount of impacts, No Project
Alternative B would continue to result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Thus, none
of the alternatives analyzed would reduce any of the Project’s significant and unavoidable
impacts (air quality, construction noise, public services and traffic) to a level below
significance thresholds. Given this, the Mitigated Project Alternative is considered to be
the environmentally superior alternative since impacts would be reduced for most issue
areas and all Project objectives would be met. The Mitigated Project Alternative would
result in the fewest impacts to the following resource areas: biological resources, hydrology
and water quality, land use, transportation and traffic, and utilities. For instance, impacts
to biological resources would be reduced due to avoidance of realigning the North-South
Creek Segment of Tank Farm Creek, and restoring the East-West Channel, thus offering
more protection for the existing sensitive species and habitat in the associated area. Noise,
air quality and GHG emissions impacts would remain significant and unavoidable related
to short-term construction activities, similar to the Project. While impacts to transportation
and traffic would also likely remain significant and unavoidable for the Buckley Road/SR
227 intersection, offsite transportation improvements would reduce impacts compared to
the Project and other alternatives. Required traffic mitigations and improvements would be
similar to other General Plan-based development upon the Project site, as discussed under
No Project Alternative B.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
Avila Ranch Development Project 5-89
Final EIR
The Mitigated Project Alternative would also achieve all of the Project objectives. This
alternative is largely consistent with the updated LUCE and AASP with inclusion of a
Neighborhood Park and a Neighborhood Commercial area. A variety of housing
opportunities would be available, including an increased amount of potentially lower
priced, higher density R-3 and R-4 housing opportunities. The open space network would
include a variety of recreational activities and accessibility via automobile, bicycle, and
pedestrian amenities. Unlike the Project, Tank Farm Creek along the North-South Creek
Segment and along the East-West Channel would be preserved, as would flexible future
accommodation for potential future Tank Farm alterations within the Project site’s
northeast region under this alternative. The alternative would be similar to the Project in
its adherence to sustainable development practices and design features. Therefore, this
alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative over other
alternatives, as shown in Table 5-25.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
5-90 Avila Ranch Development Project
Final EIR
Table 5-25. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Issue Area
No Project
Mitigated Project Business Park A. No
Development
B. General Plan
Development
Aesthetics and
Visual Resources Less Similar Similar Greater
Agricultural
Resources Less Similar Similar Similar
Air Quality Less Similar Similar Greater
Biological
Resources Less Similar Less Less
Cultural
Resources Less Similar Similar Greater
Hazardous
Materials Less Similar Similar Greater
Hydrology and
Water Quality Less Less Less Less
Land Use and
Planning Less Less Less Similar Greater
Noise Less Similar Similar Greater
Population and
Housing Greater Similar Similar Similar
Public Services Less Similar Similar Similar
Transportation
and Traffic Less Similar Less Greater
Utilities Less Similar Less Greater
Project
Objectives Met? No Partially Yes Yes