Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix B-NOP and Comment LettersAPPENDIX B Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Avila Ranch Development Project Final EIR This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Notice of Preparation To: EIR & Notice of Preparation Mailing List SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: (if applicable) Agency Name: City of San Luis Obispo EIR to be prepared by: Department Name: Community Development Firm Name: Amec Foster Wheeler Street Address: 919 Palm Street Street Address: 104 West Anapamu Street 204A City/State/Zip: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City/State/Zip: Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Contact: John Rickenbach, 805-610-1109/fax 805-781-7173 Contact: Dan Gira The City of San Luis Obispo will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information, which is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for this project. The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are summarized in the attachment. A copy of the Initial Study is not attached, but is available upon request from the Lead Agency (see above contact). Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be send at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to the attention of John Rickenbach, AICP, Senior Planner, in the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department at the address shown above. We will need the name of a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Avila Ranch Project Project Location: The site is composed of approximately 150 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane, and is comprised of three separate parcels: APN: 053-259- 004; 053-259-005; and 053-259-006. The site generally slopes from the northeast to southwest, although there are localized undulations. It is diagonally bisected by a drainage channel that is referred to as “Tank Farm Creek” which conveys on and offsite storm water to San Luis Creek and comprises approximately 10 acres of the 150-acre site. Project Description: Avila Ranch is a master planned residential development. The project includes approximately 700 dwelling units of various types to serve a diverse range of housing needs, a centrally located “Town Center” with 35,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail and office uses, and 19.3 acres of pocket parks, mini-parks and neighborhood parks. There will be riparian recreation, open space, community gardens and bike connections to offsite locations. It will also contribute to communitywide park facilities. Date: _____________________________________________ Signature: _____________________________________________ Title: _____________________________________________ Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375 (Revised October 1989) ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 7 NOTICE OF PREPARATION ATTACHMENT AVILA RANCH PROJECT The City of San Luis Obispo, as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is requesting comments on the environmental impact report (EIR) scope of work for the proposed project, described below and in the Notice of Preparation, and commonly referred to as the Chinatown Project. The Initial Study and detailed scope of work for issue areas identified as potentially significant are available for review upon request. Please contact Project Manager John Rickenbach at (805) 610-1109. Project Location and Setting The site is composed of approximately 150 contiguous acres at the northeast corner of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane, and is comprised of three separate parcels: APN: 053-259-004; 053-259-005; and 053-259-006. The site generally slopes from the northeast to southwest, although there are localized undulations. It is diagonally bisected by a drainage channel that is referred to as “Tank Farm Creek” which conveys on and offsite storm water to San Luis Creek and comprises approximately 10 acres of the 150-acre site. Unlike some other properties within the AASP, the site is free of problematic encumbrances such as agricultural processing facilities, hazardous substances, extreme changes in topography, or major public facilities. Project Description Avila Ranch is a master planned residential development. The project includes approximately 700 dwelling units of various types to serve a diverse range of housing needs, a centrally located “Town Center” with 35,000 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail and office uses, and 19.3 acres of pocket parks, mini-parks and neighborhood parks. There will be riparian recreation, open space, community gardens and bike connections to offsite locations. It will also contribute to communitywide park facilities. Discretionary Permits In order to pursue development consistent with the mix of land uses shown in the applicant’s development plan, the following entitlements will need to be processed: 1. Specific Plan Amendment – The LUCE identifies the Avila Ranch property as a Special Focus Area that requires the adoption of a Specific Plan prior to any development. Similar to the strategy with the recently approved Chevron Tank Farm Project, the applicant will be amending the AASP to accommodate the proposed development plan and to assure that it is consistent with existing and amended programs, policies, and guidelines. Further guidance for development is contained in Section 8.3.2.6 of the LUCE. 2. General Plan Amendment and Rezone - The subject site is designated for Business Park development in the current AASP. With the review of the LUCE, a modified land use proposal similar to the proposed development plans was programmatically evaluated in the LUCE and LUCE EIR. The LUCE designates the site for "primarily a residential neighborhood development with supporting neighborhood commercial, park, recreation facilities, and open space/resource protection. Within the project, emphasis should be on providing a complete range of housing types and afford abilities." Consistent with this, the proposed land use plan shows all four categories of residential zoning, supporting Neighborhood Commercial uses, parks, and open space for land outside the Urban Reserve Line and along the creek corridor and parks. With review of the ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 8 development plan, the zoning and land use designations shown on the land use plan would be approved. In addition, an alternative for business park development on the easterly portion of the site will be evaluated and considered. 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) - A VTM will be submitted to establish the proposed lot lines to allow individual ownership of properties and to layout the required infrastructure and utilities. 4. Architectural Review – Ultimately final architectural review of housing, commercial buildings, and some site facilities will be needed. The ARC will take an early look at design guidance in the development plan and provide comments. 5. Development Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding - these documents would outline a framework for process, fees, and a methodology for determining fair share and timing for improvements. In addition, the project will need to be formally reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. Other advisory bodies that will weigh in on aspects of the project development include the Parks & Recreation Commission reviewing park proposals, and the Bicycle Advisory Committee advising on the proposed bicycle trail network. Probable Environmental Effects/Issues Scoped for EIR Issue areas that may be determined to be potentially significant include: • Aesthetics • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Public Services • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems Issues Determined Not to be Significant under CEQA Thresholds of Significance include: • Geology and Soils (with prescribed mitigation) • Population and Housing • Recreation Development of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives Factors determining alternative project configurations include considerations of project objectives, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, General Plan consistency, and a proponent’s control over alternative sites. The EIR will discuss the rationale for selection of alternatives that are feasible and therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are infeasible (e.g., failed to meet Project objectives or did not avoid significant environmental effects) and therefore rejected. Project alternatives have yet to be finalized. ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 9 These alternatives will be general in nature since further environmental issue area analyses would be necessary before more specific project alternatives can be identified. The need for project redesign would be determined during the course of environmental review. Public Scoping Meeting A public scoping meeting has been scheduled to allow for any interested persons to supply input on issues to be discussed in the EIR: Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 Time: 6:00 p.m. Place: 990 Palm Street (City Council Chamber upstairs) The meeting is an opportunity for City and consultant staffs to gather information from the public regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project that need to be evaluated in the EIR. It is not intended to be a hearing on the merits of the project. Therefore, members of the public should keep their comments focused on potential significant changes to the environment that may occur as a direct result of project development. ATTACHMENT 2 PC2 - 10 APPENDIX B – NOP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Avila Ranch Development Plan B-1 Draft EIR INDEX TO NOP COMMENTS Appendix B includes a copy of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project, transcripts from the Public Scoping Hearings conducted on the NOP, copies of all comment letters received on the NOP during the public comment period, and an indication (Section or Sub- Section_ where each individual comment is addressed in the Draft EIR. Table B-1 lists all comments and shows the comment set identification number for each letter or commenter. Table B-2, identifies the location where each individual comment is addressed in the Draft EIR. Comment letters are present chronologically followed by the transcripts from the Public Hearing. Table B-1. NOP Commenters and Comment Set Numbers Agency /Affiliation Name of Commenter Date of Comment NOP Comment Set Interested Party Karen Brower 8/27/2015 1 Caltrans – District 5 Adam Fukushima 8/28/2015 2 Interested Party Max and Jeanne Eggert 8/28/2015 3 Interested Party Marge Barinka and Mark Wheeler 8/28/2015 4 Central Coast Environmental Protection Ted J. Case 8/29/2015 5 Interested Party Kathy Longacre 8/30/2015 6 Interested Party Donna Di Gangi 9/1/2015 7 Interested Party Donna Di Gangi 9/1/2015 8 Interested Party Miriam Weisenberger 9/4/2015 9 Interested Party William Palmer 9/11/2015 10 Interested Party J.K. Waldsmith 9/11/2015 11 Interested Party Mary Grimes 9/11/2015 12 Interested Party Thomas Amato 9/13/2015 13 Interested Party Mechell Vieira 9/13/2015 14 Interested Party Ann Palmer 9/13/2015 15 Interested Party John Purvis 9/13/2015 16 Interested Party Eric Norrbom II 9/13/2015 17 Interested Party David Smith 9/13/2015 18 Interested Party Kurt Sutherland 9/13/2015 19 Interested Party Tess Barket 9/13/2015 20 Interested Party Josh Sutherland 9/14/2015 21 Interested Party Karen Krahl 9/14/2015 22 Interested Party Joe E. Grimes 9/14/2015 23 Interested Party Sandy Agalos 9/14/2015 24 Interested Party Pamela Krahl 9/14/2015 25 Interested Party Mila Vujovich-Barre 9/14/2015 26 APPENDIX B – NOP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES B-2 Avila Ranch Development Plan Project Draft EIR Agency /Affiliation Name of Commenter Date of Comment NOP Comment Set Interested Party Dawn Sirois 9/14/2015 27 Interested Party Paul Rys 9/14/2015 28 Interested Party Ernie Peterson 9/14/2015 29 Interested Party Kayla Plourde 9/14/2015 30 Caltrans – District 5 Adam Fukushima 9/14/2015 31 SLO County APCD Melissa Guise 9/18/2015 32 Table B-2. Response to NOP Commenters Comment # Responses Karen Brower 1-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Adam Fukushima 2-01 General Inquiry. Comment noted. The NOP and Initial Study will uploaded by the City on the website located at: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/planning-zoning/specific-area-plans/avila-ranch Max and Jeanne Eggert 3-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 3-02 Construction Related Impacts. Comment incorporated. Construction related impacts to air quality are assessed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Marge Barinka and Mark Wheeler 4-01 Existing Land Use. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the land use impacts is included in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 4-02 Existing Land Use. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the land use impacts is included in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 4-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 4-04 Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR includes analysis with the Airport Land Use Plan in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 4-05 Existing Conditions and Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of median income and housing availability is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. Ted J. Case 5-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Kathy Longacre 6-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 6-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the population and housing impacts is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. Donna Di Gangi 7-01 Mitigation Measures. Comment incorporated. Mitigation measures for potential impacts to water quality are discussed in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. Donna Di Gangi 8-01 General Inquiry. For additional information regarding the Planning Commission meeting, please visit http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/planning- commission. Miriam Weisenberger APPENDIX B – NOP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Avila Ranch Development Plan B-3 Draft EIR Comment # Responses 9-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 9-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 9-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the air quality, noise and aesthetics impacts is included in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 3.9, Noise, and 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. 9-04 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 9-05 Comment noted. Bill Palmer 10-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 10-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the hazards and hazardous materials impacts is included in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 10-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the biological resources impacts is included in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. J.K. Waldsmith 11-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 11-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the land use impacts is included in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 11-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 11-04 Comment noted. 11-05 Comment noted. 11-06 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the hazards and hazardous materials impacts is included in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 11-07 Comment noted. Mary Grimes 12-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 12-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 12-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the population and housing impacts is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. 12-04 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 12-05 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the population and housing impacts is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. 12-06 Comment noted. Thomas Amato 13-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 13-02 Comment noted. Mechell Vieira 14-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 14-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 14-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the public services impacts is included in Section 3.11, Public Services. APPENDIX B – NOP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES B-4 Avila Ranch Development Plan Project Draft EIR Comment # Responses 14-04 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the public services impacts is included in Section 3.11, Public Services. 14-05 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the population and housing impacts is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. 14-06 Comment noted. Ann Palmer 15-01 Comment noted. 15-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 15-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 15-04 Comment noted. John Purvis 16-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 16-02 Comment noted. Eric Norrbom 17-01 Comment noted. 17-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 17-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the hazards and hazardous materials impacts is included in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 17-04 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. David Smith 18-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 18-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the population and housing impacts is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. Kurt Sutherland 19-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the air quality impacts is included in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 19-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the agricultural resources impacts is included in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources. 19-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 19-04 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the hazards and hazardous materials impacts is included in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Tess Barket 20-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 20-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. Josh Sutherland 21-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the biological resources impacts is included in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. 21-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 21-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the population and housing impacts is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. Karen Krahl 22-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. APPENDIX B – NOP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Avila Ranch Development Plan B-5 Draft EIR Comment # Responses 22-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 22-03 Comment noted. 22-04 Alternatives. Comment incorporated. An analysis of alternatives is included in Section 5.0, Alternatives. Joe Grimes 23-01 Comment noted. 23-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the hazards and hazardous materials impacts is included in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 23-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 23-04 Comment noted. Sandy Agalos 24-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 24-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the population and housing impacts is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. 24-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 24-04 Comment noted. Pamela Krahl 25-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 25-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the land use impacts is included in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 25-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. Mila Vujovich-La Barre 26-01 Comment noted. 26-02 Comment noted. 26-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 26-04 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 26-05 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the population and housing impacts is included in Section 3.10, Population and Housing. 26-06 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the hazards and hazardous materials impacts is included in Section 3.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 26-07 Comment noted. Dawn Sirois 27-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 27-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 27-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the air quality impacts is included in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 27-04 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the aesthetics impacts is included in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Paul Rys 28-01 Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR includes consistency analysis with the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 28-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. APPENDIX B – NOP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES B-6 Avila Ranch Development Plan Project Draft EIR Comment # Responses 28-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 28-04 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the noise impacts is included in Section 3.9, Noise. 28-05 Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR includes consistency analysis with the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 28-06 Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR includes consistency analysis with the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 28-07 Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR includes consistency analysis with the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 28-08 Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR includes consistency analysis with the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 28-09 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the air quality impacts is included in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 28-10 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the noise impacts is included in Section 3.9, Noise. Ernie Peterson 29-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. Kayla Plourde 30-01 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the hydrology and water quality impacts is included in Section 3.7, Hydrology and Water Quality. 30-02 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the biological impacts is included in Section 3.4, Biological Resources. 30-03 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. Adam Fukushima 31-01 Comment noted. 31-02 Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. The Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is incorporated within Appendix P of this EIR. 31-03 Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 31-04 Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 31-05 Comment noted. 31-06 Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures on the state highway system would be included. A qualitative analysis of the traffic and transportation impacts is included in Section 3.12, Transportation and Traffic. 31-07 Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR includes consistency analysis with the Airport Area Specific Plan in Section 3.8, Land Use and Planning. 31-08 Comment noted. Melissa Guise 32-01 Comment noted. 32-02 Construction Equipment. Comment incorporated. A list of typical construction equipment and construction activities associated with site development has been incorporated into the Project Description, Section 2.7.2 Construction Activities. 32-03 Building Demolition. Comment noted. No building demolition is anticipated in site development. 32-04 Asbestos. Comment noted. No building demolition is anticipated in site development. 32-05 Developmental Burning. Comment noted. No developmental burning of vegetative material is anticipated for site development. 32-06 Operational Permit Requirements. Comment incorporated. The Project will comply with all operation permit requirements as stated in the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. APPENDIX B – NOP COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Avila Ranch Development Plan B-7 Draft EIR Comment # Responses 32-07 Existing Air Quality. Comment incorporated. Existing air quality and emissions are assessed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-08 Impacts Discussion. Comment incorporated. A qualitative analysis of the air quality impacts is included in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-09 Alternatives. Comment incorporated. An analysis of alternatives is included in Section 5.0, Alternatives. 32-10 Mitigation Measures. Comment incorporated. Mitigation measures for potential impacts to air quality are discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-11 Greenhouse Gases. Comment incorporated. Regional greenhouse gas emissions and existing settings are included in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-12 APCD Clean Air Plan. Comment incorporated. Compliance and consistency with the APCD Clean Air Plan is discussed in the Local section of Section 3.3.2, Regulatory Settings, and any potential inconsistencies are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-13 Population/Employment Projections. Comment incorporated. Population and employment projects for proposed Project are described in Section 4.0, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR. 32-14 Climate Action Plan Incorporation. Comment incorporated. Compliance and consistency with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Climate Action Plan is discussed in the Local section of Section 3.3.2, Regulatory Settings, and any potential inconsistencies are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-15 CEQA Air Quality Handbook Reference. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR references the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook when determining the significance of each impact and mitigation measure identified in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-16 Alternatives Air Quality Analysis. Comment noted. Analysis of alternatives are described in Section 5.0, Alternatives. 32-17 CAP Consistency Analysis. Comment incorporated. Compliance and consistency with the APCD Clean Air Plan is discussed in the Local section of Section 3.3.2, Regulatory Settings, and any potential inconsistencies are described in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-18 CEQA Air Quality Handbook Reference. Comment incorporated. The Draft EIR references the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook when determining the significance of each impact and mitigation measure identified in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 32-19 Comment noted. August 27, 2015 The impact of this proposed development on the city's water supplies needs to be addressed, and how this development will impact the city current requirements for water conversation. In other words are current residents going to be asked to converse more water, and see our parks deteriorate further from restrictions on water use, so that new developments can be built. Karen Brower 8-28-15 Adam: John is acting in a contract staff capacity. His contact information may be found below. Doug Davidson is the internal City staff contact although he is dealing with some health issues that make him not available right now, so I would encourage questions to be directed to John. We do have a web site with some information but it doesn’t appear the NOP/Initial Study has been uploaded yet. http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning- zoning/specific-area-plans/avila-ranch Scoping comments are due Sept. 14th. I’ve attached the PowerPoint from the Planning Commission scoping meeting from Wednesday night in case you find that helpful as a summary. John F. Rickenbach, AICP JFR Consulting 7675 Bella Vista Road Atascadero, CA 93422 805/610-1109 JFRickenbach@aol.com Thanks Adam! Let me know if I can field any additional questions in Doug’s absence. Kim Murry Deputy Director Community Development - Long Range Planning Community Development Long Range Planning 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E kmurry@slocity.org T 805.781.7274 slocity.org From: Fukushima, Adam J@DOT [mailto:adam.fukushima@dot.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 3:29 PM To: Murry, Kim Subject: contact for Avila Ranch Initial Study and NOP Hi Kim, I received the Initial Study notice and NOP notice for the Avila Ranch development through the State Clearinghouse. It says that John Rickenbach was the contact but didn’t supply an email address. Would you mind giving me his email? Or forwarding this to him? Also, I was wondering if the documents were posted on the city’s website or if I could somehow get a PDF of them in addition to the hardcopy I have. Lastly, when is the due date for comments? Many thanks, Adam Fukushima, PTP Caltrans - District 5 50 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo CA (805) 549-3131 8-28-15 A few comments on the proposed development. 1. With the drought we are very concerned about such a development, we all hope it rains this year, but what if it doesn't? Where is the water going to come from? We think it would be wise to put it on hold until we find out what's going to happen with the water situation. 2. Under the "initial concerns" part of the article, it said "since the project COULD exacerbate already congested conditions around South Higuera," it COULD also exacerbate conditions on Hwy.227 (Broad St.). We laughed when we saw the word COULD, the word WILL would have been a better choice. Why are the plans not being drawn up to widen the road and put in a good infrastructure prior to building, that just makes so much more sense than the way it is being done. Sincerely Max and Jeanne Eggert Long time SLO residents very concerned about the rate of growth and development in our lovely town. 8-28-15 Regarding article in the SLO Tribune August 28, 2015. As adjacent property owners to this proposed project we have several comments: 1. This property was originally annexed with a designation of “Business Park”, which we supported. We were never aware/asked/involved in any change of zoning to “mixed use” with Medium and High Density residential, which we are not in favor of and will not support. From “Business Park” to a major residential project with a small percentage of business/commercial is a very large leap. 2. We are unable to identify any Residential Low Density on the map, only Medium and High Density. 3. Traffic is a major issue and should be front and center in any discussion of this property. Buckley Road should be aligned with LOVR at the signal. One lane in each direction on Buckley Road is insufficient for the increase in daily traffic. Any proposed project at this location should require all traffic improvements to be completed prior to occupancy within any part of the project. 4. Airport Land Use Commission found this proposed project inconsistent with their Airport Safety Plan. What gives the City of SLO the right to ignore their Sphere of Influence and forge ahead with Medium/High Density residential in line with the alternate runway which is quite heavily used, especially on weekends. 5. The article refers to the median income of the City of San Luis Obispo as $45,032. We would question the up to date accuracy of this statement. Using the referred to median income, as an example, we believe that it is customary to allocate 20-25% of household income to housing. If our calculations are correct that would place the monthly housing budget at $750-$938. Please provide us with a list of current housing available within the City limits in this range, to buy or to rent. If this is the category of prospective tenants within this proposed project, WHO will be subsidizing the housing costs, which we all know will be considerably higher than $750-$938 monthly? Is this an attempt to place “low income housing” in this area? If so, we are opposed to such a project. Please provide us with dates/locations of any future discussions regarding the future of the Avila Ranch. We believe, as adjacent property owners, we are entitled to all information regarding proposed developments surrounding our property. Progress is inevitable, but progress should be realistic. A timely response to our communication would be appreciated. Marge Barinka Mark Wheeler 4341 Esperanza Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 8054416674  1   August  29,  2015     To:    Doug  Davidson,  SLO  Deputy  Director  of  Development  Review   Re:  Avila  Ranch  EIR     I  am  a  retired  professor  of  ecology  from  the  University  of  California  at  San  Diego.    I   have  served  as  an  expert  witness  and/or  consultant  in  several  CEQA  related   lawsuits  in  San  Diego,  County.    I  have  received  grants  and  contracts  for  research   relating  to  environmental  conservation  issues  from  the  Metropolitan  Water  District,   National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA),  Fish  and  Wildlife,   California  Fish  and  Game,  California  State  Parks,  National  Science  Foundation  among   others.    I  have  authored  textbooks  dealing  with  mathematical  modeling  of  complex   environmental  issues.    In  2004  I  was  elected  into  the  American  Academy  of  Arts  and   Sciences.     I  am  presently  the  leader  of  Central  Coast  Environmental  Protection.    Our  mission  is   to  preserve  and  enhance  the  environmental  quality  of  the  central  coast.    One   pressing  issue  that  the  EIR  for  Avila  Ranch  must  deal  with  is  the  gravely  depleted   water  reserves  in  the  Central  Coast.    There  are  credible  scientific  analyses   recognizing  that  the  current  drought  is  likely  to  be  extended  for  a  considerable   period  of  time.    Figure  1  is  one  example  that  is  based  on  the  analysis  of  tree  ring  data   for  western  North  America.   Figure 1. Normalized precipitation over Western North America (five-year mean) from 22 climate models used to formulate the 2013 IPCC report, as summarized by Schwalm et al., 2012, Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America. The horizontal line marks the precipitation level of the 2000 - 2004 drought, the worst of the past 800 years. Droughts of this intensity are predicted to be the new normal by 2030, and will be considered an outlier of extreme wetness by 2100. The paper states: "This impending drydown of western North America is consistent with present trends in snowpack decline as well as expected in-creases in aridity and extreme climate events, including drought, and is driven by anthropogenically forced increases in temperature with coincident increases in evapotranspiration and decreases in soil moisture.  2   Forecasted precipitation patterns are consistent with a probable twenty-first century megadrought." Image credit: Schwalm et al., 2012, Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America, Nature Geoscience 5, 551-555, Published online 29 JULY 2012, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1529, www.nature.com/naturegeoscience. Based  on  this  and  other  studies,  the  current  water  supply  conditions  in  California   and  more  particularly  the  Central  Coast,  combined  with  the  fact  that  state  and  local   municipalities  have  declared  them  “urgent”  and  “critical”  if  not  “emergencies”,  it  is   essential  that  projected  water  demands  for  a  project  be  analyzed  rigorously  and   with  peer  review.    I  would  like  to  be  included  on  the  mailing  list  for  all   environmental  documents  for  this  project  as  it  moves  forward.         The  EIR  should  use  the  best  available  science  to  determine  the  likely  future   precipitation  rates,  reservoir  levels,  and  draws,  and  not  simply  extrapolate  from   past  historical  precipitation  records.      If  assumptions  about  possible  domestic  water   conservation  measure  or  water  demand  offsets  are  analyzed  for  possible  inclusion   in  building  permits,  their  quantitative  estimates  should  be  based  on  actual  data  from   their  use  in  cities  with  comparable  climates,  not  on  hypothetical  assumptions.     In  the  analysis,  any  perceived  economic  advantages  that  might  accrue  to  city  coffers   by  creating  yet  another  large  development,  need  to  be  weighed  against  the  financial   costs  to  the  area’s  existing  residents  and  businesses  caused  by  accelerating  the  time   that  water  reserves  are  depleted.     Thank  you  for  your  consideration  of  these  vital  concerns.         Respectfully  submitted    Ted  J.  Case   Leader,  Central  Coast  Environmental  Protection   211  Porterville  St   Pismo  Beach,  CA  93449   CCEnvProt@gmail.com   8-30-15 Att: John Rickenbach Doug Davidson Comments: • Infrastructure prior to starting project. We have suffered thru Costco/HomeDepot/Target developments going in before LOVR overpass was improved and now we all have to suffer for 2 years while the work is finally being done. Don't ruin all these years of getting this done by allowing ANY more development until Buckley Road is put through to South Higuera. When the current big industrial building was put in on Vachell, no improvements to the Vachell/South Higuera intersection................just a bottleneck trying to turn left onto S.Higuera, and a very sharp un-improved right hand turn from South Higuera on to Vachell. • If they are going to pave over Class 1 and 2 Agriculture land, we need Work Force Housing!!!! Not $600K starter homes, there are plenty of those. And work force rental housing that CAN NOT be rented to students. Our landscapers, hotel maids and janitors need to live close to where they work. Kathy Longacre 6445 Corral de Piedra San Luis Obispo, 93401 Hi Doug and John, I would like to obtain video copies of the last night's Planning Commission meeting. I am not sure where to get them. Council meetings are on-line, but I could not find Planning Commission videos on-line, to download. Would you please let me know how I can obtain the video, easily? Thank you. It can be emailed to me, since I can receive messages of any size. Donna Di Gangi Principal Consultant DiGangi Consulting, LLC Phone: (805) 541-3344 Email: donna@digangi.net From: Donna [mailto:donna@digangi.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 10:21 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Public Comment - Avila Ranch Scoping - Drought Impact Comment from Donna Di Gangi Resident, San Luis Obispo Impacts related to the environment to include in EIR -- Drought Mitigation I think it is in the best interest of the City, and its water supply, to evaluate the project for impact to the water supply, with the goal of achieving a net zero impact (or positive overall impact) on the water supply. We know the issues, which should be addressed in the EIR. Some mitigations include: • Dual flush toilets (1.6 gpf/0.8 or 0.9 gpf) • Dishwashers in the highest efficiency category • Graywater systems • LEED level buildings with geothermal and/or solar (electric and water heating) to cover 80+% of power usage during operation, to offset power generators' water use. Buildings like these are similar to requirements of other municipalities, such as Santa Monica, Riverside, Temecula. • Pervious surfaces, including driveways and parking lots • 90 to 100% drought tolerant landscaping, with minimal lawns or lawns made from drought tolerant ground cover, e.g. Dymondia margaretae (Silver Carpet) for desired play surfaces. • Reclaimed water, where graywater is insufficient • Offset irrigation water use in other parts of the city by twice the impact of the development. One way to do this is to calculate the typical amount of water used per resident and comparable business use, and then multiply it by two. This figure would be used as the basis to provide grants to landowners for retrofit of existing homes and businesses, on a first come, first serve basis. Ideally, grant awards would begin during project construction, so that by the time the project is completed, so are the retrofits. • Offset interior use of water (e.g. toilets) by retrofit of businesses and residences that have not already replaced their fixtures. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. 9-4-15 Gentlemen, I am a resident of Arroyo Grande and my family and I are extremely concerned about the proposed development in the Buckley Road area that is owned by the Avila family. Driving into San Luis from our home off of Orcutt Road has become an unpleasant experience due to traffic that can be not only heavy but dangerous as well. Many days we drive Buckley Road only to find it totally congested by the airport, close to Davenport Creek and then again when entering Higuera. I can't even imagine what the traffic situation would be like once this area is developed with 700 dwellings! Where is the infrastructure to handle the subsequent traffic? There are very few streets in that area and how will all the new vehicles be accommodated?! Building the bridge over Los Osos Valley has been very difficult to navigate at times and that is a fraction of the amount of highway that will be neccesasary for traffic to be at all manageable. What about the air, noise, and light pollution that will be added if this plan for an excessive number of dwellings materializes? Lastly, the most obvious question is WHERE WILL THE WATER COME FROM? How can the most crucial consideration be ignored? Just because the precious resource may be there now, it isn't infinite as we all are painfully aware. And with positively no regulations or restrictions on groundwater drilling in the immediate agricultural area, we run the risk of becoming another 'Cambria' or even 'Porterville'. We are against this proposal unless it is cut back drastically or the EIR proves that our quality of life won't be so adversely affected. All of these issues must be studied ad nauseum.Sign me An alarmed citizen, Miriam Weisenberger 1400 Filaree Way A.G. 93420 From: Ann Palmer [mailto:apalmer@charter.net] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 11:09 AM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Avila Ranch EIR - STOP To whom it may concern – We are against the Avila Ranch project – 700 new homes in this location is absolutely ridiculous. Not enough water, too much traffic, no need for a development of this size anywhere in SLO – Please review this project for its resource use and impact on the surrounding area – Sincerely, Ann Palmer Local resident Ann M. Palmer Certified Public Accountant apalmer@charter.net 1345 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone (805) 541-8589 fax (805) 542-0776 From: EdnaVet@aol.com [mailto:EdnaVet@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 4:58 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Plan for 700-home Avila Ranch in SLO to face environmental review Doug Davidson Deputy Director of Development Review for the City of SLO ddavidson@slocity.org; Dear Mr. Davidson, This email is to register my opposition to this project for the following reasons: Adequate, sustainable water is not documented to be present to support this development. Agricultural Land is being displaced. Traffic is already a large concern in this area. Further commercial development is unnecessary, and the community's needs are already being met. Further commercial development will harm existing businesses in the area. Open space by the airport is being decreased. This project is on the alternate approach to the airport. We have recently had an airplane crash in this vicinity. While I support the need for affordable housing for families, I think such projects would be better placed in the vicinity of Tank Farm and Orcutt roads. Have a nice weekend. J.K.Waldsmith, DVM 4850 Davenport Creek Road San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 USA Telephone 805-541-6367 Fax 805-549-9237 MailAtTEC@AOL.com www.theequinecenter.com 9-11-15 Dear Mr. Rickenbach: You have got to be kidding! A huge development off of Buckley Road that is a road used for agriculture purposes, off of an agricultural area where we already are concerned about our water supply, where we already have so much traffic on Buckley Road that it's difficult to turn corners at various times of the day. Seven-hundred new homes?? What?! This is a very bad concept. Seven-hundred new homes that close to an airport?!! What?! You want more places for people to live here? Okay. How about this: If Poly provides more rooms for its students, there won't be as many homes used by students in the city. Those homes would be freed up for families and/or singles who need them. OR the city could approve plans for downtown buildings to be built upward like condos. Traffic is already bad on Buckley. Is the county going to pay for widening the road to four lanes that will be needed for occupants of all those new houses? It IS a county road, right?! Another thing: Isn't there a concern that such a concentrated population in such a small area as the Avila Ranch would turn into an unsavory development after a short time? So far, the only good thing I see on the "map" printed in the Tribune is the bike path that is actually needed NOW! Sincerely, Mary Grimes From: Thomas Amato [mailto:tfamato@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 6:24 AM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Avila Ranch EIR I am writing to express my concern about the proposed Avila Ranch Development. I only recently purchased my home on Evans Road and chose that location because of the rural setting with limited vehicle traffic and quiet setting, notwithstanding the proximity to the airport. The only way in or out is through Buckley Road. Even now, at times, there is considerable traffic on that road due to the numerous commercial businesses. A development which would add 700 homes plus additional commercial space would most certainly lead to untenable traffic nightmares. I implore you and the planning commission to avoid the shortsighted attraction of an increased tax basis at the cost of destroying what is now a very pleasant rural community. Sincerely, Thomas F. Amato 638 Evans Road, SLO From: Mechell Vieira [mailto:mechell.vieira@brightstarcare.com] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 10:40 AM To: Davidson, Doug Cc: slovava@gmail.com Subject: Proposed homes on Buckley and Vachell Lane Mr. Davidson, I am writing to voice a very strong NO on the proposal for 700 home on the 150 acre plot of land at the corner of Vachel and Buckley. First of all, it's not a corner! This area is a very tight turn where you will often be met with fast moving oncoming vehicle traffic, joggers or bike riders. There is a large factory in this area as well as an RV storage area. The 'plan' for this area with this project is jumbled and the flow of the expansion of the city would be strange. Secondly, as a second generation San Luis Obispo native who grew up on Jespersen Road, I find the idea of placing 700 homes on this tiny space of land mind boggling! Buckley road has never expanded to facilitate the people who use this road to avoid the late afternoon traffic jams on 101 going south bound. Or, the increased traffic coming over who are trying to avoid the back up on the narrow and inadequate two lane road that is Tank Farm Road. For every 700 homes I would assume each home would have a minimum of one care per home; I won't insult you with the math calculations, but they are mind boggling for an already congested area. Besides the congestion that would be caused by such a massive development, did anyone address the drought issue or water in general? A project of this size should be on hold until water resources achieve at the minimum a non-drought status! My family owns property in this area and the constant concerns about water tables are a nightmare! This massive project is beyond the stretch of our current water situation. Besides the water issue, where are these children, I assume their will be children somewhere in this project, where are they going to school? Los Ranchos? Good luck getting them there on the current roads and good luck finding space in the already over populated school!! A project of this size should have their own school! Then you want to worry about safety. The police department and more important the fire depart, in my opinion is not prepared for this project and as a tax payer I don't want to pay for the upgrades needed. Of course there has always been a cry for housing in SLO, however, where are these people going to work? We don't have enough jobs in the area to support home ownership.. In conclusion, I was born and raised in this small area of the county. I understand the rights of a family trying to capitalize on the value of their property. But seriously, to go from farmland to a project of this size is beyond the resources of this area. It is unrealistic and does not reflect anything in the area!! Build now and deal with the problems later is a disaster in the making. I do not support the proposed project and urge you and your colleagues to resist the urge to build, build, build, build. Mechell Vieira Joint Commission Accredited President, Premium Life Care, Inc DBA BrightStar® San Luis Obispo 3220 South Higuera Street, Suite 315 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401  24/7: 805 548 8811 |  C 805 748 1693  F 805 715 3460 -----Original Message----- From: William Palmer [mailto:bpalmer25@me.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 3:03 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Avila Ranch EIR Mr. Davidson, I would like to comment on the proposed development of the Avila Ranch located on Buckley Road at Vachell Lane. My family has lived in southern San Luis Obispo for nearly 70 years. I have personally lived and worked off of Buckley Road for more than 25 years. My family also owns a Montessori School at the corner of South Hiquera and LOVR. I am very familiar with the excessive amount of travel that goes thru the proposed development area on a daily basis. Buckley Road is sometimes a high speed, dangerous road mixed with agricultural use that sometimes places farm equipment on the road. The addition of another cluster of homes in the area will put the traffic over the top. The addition of 700 households using Buckley, Vachell and South Hiquera will have a very negative impact on the traffic and safety in the area. Right now, that area is already a corridor into and out of the City on a daily basis for thousands of cars. Secondly, having lived in the area for a long period, I would truly hate to see us lose a beautiful, agriculture filled buffer around the flight paths of the airport. Very frequently, you will see airplanes flying quite low over the subject area as they circle the field prior to landing. Again, placing 700 households in the area could be catastrophic should a plane go down. Finally, what is the true impact of losing beautiful, fertile, open space that not only provides food, but also shelter for wildlife in the creek beds and fields, Best Regards, Bill Palmer 740 Evans Road 805-305-2100 From: John Purvis [mailto:j_purvis11@icloud.com] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 2:17 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Avila Ranch development Hello Doug, I wanted to express my concern over the proposed Avila Ranch development. I am the Director of the Lockheed Martin facility located on Venture drive located adjacent to the proposed development. As it currently stands, traffic on Vachell lane is often congested, and turning into Higuera street is extremely difficult during morning/evening "rush hour." The traffic infrastructure is already inadequate to meet the needs of my 104 employees. The proposed development will make this considerably worse. We already have frequent trespasser onto our secure facility, mistakenly thinking our parking lot is a through street. This development will undoubtedly exacerbate this issue, forcing me to heighten security further. I would be happy to discuss these issues further if the opportunity presents itself. Regards, John Purvis From: Eric Nor rom [mailto:ericnorrbom@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 3:31 PM To: Davidson, Doug Cc: John Purvis; Kayla Plourde; Anele Brooks; CHUCK PRATT Subject: Avila Ranch Project Doug, I would like to express my concerns on the SEVEN HUNDRED UNIT project. The ALUC was totally SHUTDOWN on their rejection of the project. That board is made up of logical, KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE whom understand the delicate nature of HIGH DENSITY housing under the traffic pattern of an airport. To then discount their recommendations, shows either arrogance or special interests running the show... I reside on Evans Rd. within the "sphere of influence of the city". Being this close to a project of such MAGNITUDE, will without a doubt cause massive increases in Cyclists injuries and Death, which SLO is already known for, due to increased vehicular use on our NARROW, RURAL, roads. This project also, again develops viable agricultural land/open space, that can give a LIFE SAVING landing option to a pilot and passengers, these will be people that YOU know! Our Airport has provided this city with economic vitality and convenience for nearly a century, more high density development will only be another step toward its closure... Now I would like to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room... The WATER SUPPLY. The days of water credits, reduced use, HIGHER rates for less use, DO NOT produce more water! We chose to live in a COASTAL DESERT, let's start acting accordingly. Please pardon my zeal on this matter as I was late to the party when hearing about the Avila Ranch Project... Thanks for your consideration. Eric Norrbom II September 13, 2015 TO: John Rickenbach at JFRickenbach@aol,com & Doug Davidson at ddavidson@slocity.org FROM: David Smith RE: Avila Ranch EIR My name is David Smith, and I live at 4575 Mello Lane, San Luis Obispo. Mello Lane is a side street off of Buckley Road, therefore my family and I are greatly concerned with the proposed plans for the Avila Ranch property. We have lived here since 1973, and have seen the increased traffic mushroom in the last 10 years on Buckley Road, South Higuera Street, and Broad Street. Obviously, the plan to build 700 new homes at the end of Buckley Road will increase traffic and congestion at the intersections of Higuera Street and Broad Street, and Santa Fe Road. The bridge on Sante Fe Road is already a dangerous location, due to the fact that two vehicles cannot cross the bridge at the same time. This bridge would have to be upgraded and widened to accommodate increased traffic. I have no problem with building a reasonable number of homes on the Avila property, but 700 is excessive. The city has a problem with housing, but to force the existing residents in the Buckley Road area to accept this proposal is unacceptable. David Smith 805-544-1504 September 13, 2015 Dear Mr. Rickenbach, The proposed Home development in the Avila Ranch Property concerns me. Here are my concerns, and I appreciate your time to look at them: 1. The particles of clay and cement from Air Vol Block are directly up wind from the proposed houses. I can’t believe that any family would want to be breathing those particles or have their children inhaling such potentially damaging particles. Air Vol Block is a productive asset to our town, but who would risk breathing that debris? 2. Losing precious agricultural land is irreversible. It seems a shame to forfeit fabulous farming land. The benefit of having it close to town supports sustainable practices such as the "grow and buy local’’ idea, and less fuel used to bring food to town. (Although, crop produce may be shipped elsewhere, which I don’t know for certain.) 3. Traffic levels would add to the already dangerous conditions on Buckley Road and Vachell Lane. There are several safety issues pressing on Buckley Road. A serious one is the horrible bike lanes. There are areas where the bike lanes are less than two feet in width. Also, there is very little shoulder width, and several telephone poles that are too close to the road... More home development would bring more cars and potentially greater chance of accidents and injuries. I’m very concerned about this. 4. Air traffic/ Airport: Is it true that the SLO Airport operation would be in jeopardy due to further home development at the Avila Ranch? This makes no sense to me. We need the airport there for numerous reasons. The developers had this for knowledge, so why would this change it? Thanks again for you time. Sincerely, Kurt Sutherland 4565 Mello Lane 543-4523 September 13, 2015 San Luis Obispo does not have the water to sustain this project. Neither is this area of town suitable for the traffic that already exists. If ANY more homes are built here, the effects on traffic will be disastrous! Airport safety found this project unacceptable. WHY is this project still being considered??? Tess Barket From: Josh Sutherland [mailto:joshman94@ymail.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 8:46 AM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Avila Ranch EIR Mr. Davidson, I am a life long resident of San Luis Obispo, and live in proximity to the proposed area for the Avila Ranch Development. I've driven Buckely Rd. all of my life from going to friends houses on LOVR, my two years at Laguna Middle School, and four years to Cuesta College. Having spent much of my life traveling, and for most of my adult life driving on Buckley to Vachell Ln., there are numerous environmental, traffic, and economic concerns that come to mind from what I have observed growing up on Buckley Rd. Among environmental concerns are noise, light, air, soil, and water pollutants. How will these effect the local ecology of wildlife, open space, and water sources that are near to and upon the site, and how do each of these effect another? I have observed a vary special and diverse range of wild life of deer, Red Tail and Brown Hawks, vultures, egrets, Blue Heron, Osprey, Bald Eagles, owls, bats, snakes, and many other creatures that all dependent on the unique ecosystem of Edna Valley. How will the noise and light pollution effect the habits of the nocturnal animals? Will the loss of habitat and gain of vehicle traffic result in a decreasing of the wildlife population? How will the increased consumption of well water, during the construction continual use of the project, add to the strain that wildlife and current residents are already experiencing under these conditions? It is possible that the population of residence and wildlife can be fully sustained under the present conditions, however with a larger population, there would be a greater deficit in similar or more extreme circumstances. How would all of the above pollutants effect the quality of the water and soil for wildlife use? The current level of these factors are already a detriment to the ecology, how much more so with more residents? Traffic concerns are probably similar to what you may have already heard from other concerned citizens. The renovations to LOVR have been very inconvenient to commuters on a daily basis, but as much as people are resistant, the change will greatly ease traffic in the specific area. However it seems implausible for similar changes could be made on Buckley and Vachell. Would increased traffic require lane additions? Would traffic lights be imposed to regulate safety? How will construction effect the current volume of traffic, and how will an increase in volume effect the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, and wildlife? The economic ideas behind this project, stated in an article by Cynthia Lambert of The Tribune, sound very considerate, and are quite needed in this area. Many who were born and raised in San Luis are no longer able to live in the area with the high cost of living. But is it this demographic that these houses are being built for? Or, are they being built to bring in new residents and expand San Luis Obispo? Is the city trying to look out for its residents or its revenue? It is stated in the article that the "units are expected to be affordable to families with moderate and workforces incomes..." How will we be sure that the stated target pollution of this development is truly who will be residing there, rather than upper income families who can afford more? The article stated that, "The median income in San Luis Obispo was $45,032 in the U.S. Census Bureau's 2009-13 five year estimate." According to Forbes.com, the current median household income is $59,425. Will this continue to rise so that those who once could afford these units no longer are able once building is complete? for A family may have a yearly income of $45,032, but does the future cost of living in these developments taking into consideration the expenditures of these same families? Also, if the target population for theses units is unable to afford them once building is complete and the units are sold to higher income families, will this change policy for future developments? Thank Mr. Davidson for hosting public input on this matter, it is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Joshua The Tribune: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/08/27/3780941_avila-ranch-buckley-road- housing.html?rh=1 Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/places/ca/san-luis-obispo/ From: Karen Krahl [mailto:karen@karenkrahl.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:37 AM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: AVILA RANCH EIR Dear Mr. Davidson, I was just alerted to the Avila Ranch Proposal this A.M. I have lived in rural SLO for 29 years. The burgeoning southward development of the area from Tank Farm Road out to and including Buckley has already caused bumper to bumper traffic N to S, on 127 evenings and mornings. Tank Farm and Buckley have become increasingly clotted with traffic and cyclists, despite the lack of proper bike paths. Now there is the huge development going on at Tank Farm and S. Higuera. The traffic congestion on Higuera, and Los Osos Valley road is ungodly. Even with the completion of the over pass, Los Osos Valley road is already virtually impassable several times a day, due to the shopping developments. This is before the Dalidio project is completed and the addition of many more homes over there. Now this project. Number one, the scope of it is way out of keeping with the ability to fix the traffic flow that would result. Seven hundred homes?! I don't think the county can come up with a realistic traffic plan to accomodate those numbers. I agree too that the Slo Airport should look very carefully at this project as well as Dalidio's. I am saddened by the prospect of the carving up of a farm that has been in operation for 100 years, and the increasing urbanization of a rural and semi rural county where agriculture was king. This is just another chunk of history and active agricultural land turning into homes, condos, parking lots and stores. It would turn Buckley into a major thoroughfare. I think it is more appropriate for there to be a business park there than 700 homes, or scale it back by 50% at least. Or better yet, have it be a vineyard and tasting room, with some B&B's, that's much more in keeping with the Edna Valley I live in and love. Sincerely, Dr. Karen Krahl, D.C. From: Joe E. Grimes [mailto:jgrimes@calpoly.edu] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:47 AM To: Davidson, Doug Cc: Joe E. Grimes Subject: Avila Ranch EIR Dear Mr. Davidson: The Avila Ranch housing proposal is a poorly thought out plan that doesn’t deserve further consideration. Additional housing in the city of Seven-hundred new homes? This is a very bad concept. Seven-hundred new homes that close to an airport? If you want more places for Traffic is already bad on Buckley. Is the county going to pay for widening the road to the four lanes that will be needed for occupants of all those new houses? It IS a county road, right?! How will the city convince Another thing: Isn't there a concern that such a concentrated So far, the only good thing I see on the "map" actually needed NOW! Sincerely, Joe Grimes From: Sandy Agalos [mailto:sandy.agalos@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 12:10 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Avila Ranch EIR September 11, 2015 Mr. Doug Davidson, Deputy Director Development Review City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 We are writing to comment on what should be evaluated in the proposed Avila Ranch LLC housing plan environmental impact report. We are 25-year residents of Evans Road, which is located close by Buckley Road and the proposed housing development. We recommend the environmental impact report address: 1. Traffic issues and increased congestion around South Higuera Street at Los Osos Valley Road and the Highway 101 interchange. 2. The impact on local schools and the quality of education for our kids due to the rapid population increase as compared to the rate of hiring new teachers in the San Luis Coastal School District. 3, The impact on our water supply and rates. 4. We suggest that the name of the project be reconsidered. The name Avila Ranch leads people to believe the proposed project is in Avila Beach. Thank you in advance for your consideration in this regard. Please place us on a mailing list to receive notification on future public meetings for this project. Sincerely, Pete and Sandy Agalos 626 Evans Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 550-2260 Sandy.Agalos@gmail.com From: Pamela Krahl [mailto:krahlp@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 4:19 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: EIR for Avila Ranch project Dear Mr. Davidson, I am sure I join others in voicing the following concerns that should be addressed in the EIR for the Avila Ranch project. The primary issue would appear to be water and its source for so many dwellings. These are listed as family dwellings, and thus will have several family members that, even with low flow devices, will require large amounts of water. Is there a new or extra source of water, since we are drawing down our aquifers? The number of homes seems huge for one parcel, and for the City's "slow growth" philosophy. Also, the density of dwellings as proposed will be significant, given that large parts of the parcel are proposed for open space, parks, retail and of course, parking. Traffic flow - obviously also key. We cannot be sure that bicycles will be used for trips, and/or a trolley or van. Adding that many homes and vehicles will make the new overpass at Los Osos Valley Rd. obsolete from the outset. Traffic mitigation measures and traffic flow, already very bad at that end of town, must be evaluated and good solutions found. Merely bringing Buckley Rd. to S. Higuera is not a complete answer. More traffic will increase the already present risks to motorists, especially those with trucks, farm equipment, and horse trailers. Please place my name and email address on your list of interested and concerned citizens, so that I may be notified of upcoming meetings, announcements, and the EIR's release. Thank you for your attention to these issues. Yours truly, Pamela Krahl 1088 Hidden Springs Rd. SLO, CA 93401 805-541-4328 Date: September 14, 2015 To: John Rickenbach JFRickenbach@aol.com Doug Davidsonddavidson@slocity.org San Luis Obispo Deputy Director of Development Review From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre Re: Avila Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear John Rickenbach and Doug Davidson – By way of introduction, my name is Mila Vujovich-La Barre. As a long-term resident of San Luis Obispo, homeowner and “smart growth advocate,” I am very concerned about the proposed Avila Ranch project. As directed in a recent article in “The Tribune,” I am forwarding to you my concerns in regard to the proposed Avila Ranch Project near Buckley Road and Vachell Lane in San Luis Obispo, California. Please address them in the future Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This development was allowed to be pursed due to the efforts of the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) for the City of San Luis Obispo that was approved by a majority of the City Council. As you may know, for the version of the LUCE to be accepted, the general safety concerns outlined in the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) had to be cast aside. You may want to review the Minority Report for the LUCE authored by three members of that cohort group. The Minority Report highlights the concerns of many residents who were not actual developers, architects or in the construction trades as many of the selected LUCE members were. Also, for you to know there are many current residents who live near South Higuera and on Buckley Road who are completely unaware of this project. With the name of “Avila Ranch” many assume that this project is close to Avila Beach. Since the LUCE process did not allow for a variety of neighborhood meetings as was originally advertised to the public, it would be a wonderful courtesy to have the people in proximity to the proposed development to be invited to a “town hall meeting.” That way, their concerns could be included in the Avila Ranch EIR. My major concerns include: 1) Water The reserve of water for the City of San Luis Obispo is running low with this epic drought. Residents have been asked to conserve - maybe that will help.Perhaps the predicted “El Niño” is really going to come and this monumental drought will end. In reality, no one can truly predict rain with 100% accuracy. I trust that you have read all of the data about global warming and the melting ice in the Artic. I trust that you are aware of the annual global summits throughout the world. Locally, I trust that you have walked the shores of Laguna Lake and visited the surrounding lakes and reservoirs in our county. Please address how much water will be needed for the 700 residential homes. In the EIR, please indicate where the sustainable source of water will be for these 700 new homes, while continuing to provide water for current residents. As I have stated in public at local City Council meetings, there should be some sort of building moratorium locally until the matter of water is resolved. We need to be prudent and preserve the water resources we do have for existing residents. 2) Traffic Volume and Circulation: The LUCE document did not adequately plan for traffic from these proposed 700 homes. The access to the major roads in the area is minimal. The developer needs to pay for the traffic infrastructure. That cost should not be a burden to current taxpayers. In reality there should be some sort of ingress and egress to Highway 101 closer than the Los Osos Valley Road interchange so that the Los Verdes Park residents are not burdened. An estimate of 700 homes would mean about 1,500 more vehicles getting in and out of the area. I predict gridlock. If the homes become student rentals the number of cars could be as many as 3,000 new vehicles in that area. The EIR needs to factor in residential traffic and parking if they are family homes, and residential traffic and parking if these units are occupied by our swelling, student population. The EIR should also highlight the proximity of planned Class 1 bike paths and bus stops. 3) Work Force Housing: In the numerous meetings that I have attended, the sales pitch of “work force housing” is always made. However, when questioned, developers have confessed that only 15% or less of the development will be “work force housing,” - the remainder will be sold for what the market will bear. In the EIR and in the proposed plan, please be transparent about this fact. To do otherwise seems extremely disingenuous. 4) Airport Viability: In the EIR please indicate how these homes will work in concert with a viable airport. The San Luis Obispo Airport is indeed a lifeline to many tourist and business interests. To my understanding there are three different flight paths that intersect over Avila Ranch. I do not think it is wise to build residences in that area. Period. Initially that part of town was slated for industrial development. That plan made a bit more sense to me. Please clarify how you plan to keep residents, pilots and passengers safe. In the EIR, please justify the over rule of the Airport Land Use Plan. I do not think that it was a wise move. Please indicate who will be liable if a crash occurs and a plane injures people or property. Will it be the developers, the City of San Luis Obispo, the airline and /or flight personnel or the airport? In the event that residences are allowed to be built there, I predict that over time residents will eventually complain about noise, safety and jet fumes and jeopardize the viability of the airport. Please elaborate on that scenario and state how it will be avoided. 5) Quality of Life: As referenced in the LUCE public meetings, there are many constituents that are concerned about the quality of life. Most people moved to San Luis Obispo for the quality of life it provides – clean air, unique vistas, sustainable agriculture, safe neighborhoods, our lovely downtown and ease of commuting - whether by bike, bus or car. The pro-development LUCE document laid the proverbial groundwork for the approved Righetti Ranch with over 350 residential units and the San Luis Ranch with its rumored 500 residential units. With the proposed Avila Ranch with 700 residential units, we are facing the extinction of life as many love it here in San Luis Obispo. The cumulative effects and impacts of all of these developments must be considered rather than allow them to be segmented or "piecemealed" into our City plan. In closing, the parameters of smart growth support projects that utilize available resources. There is not enough water for this new development. The proposed road infrastructure is not currently able to effectively manage the traffic to and from these homes. There is absolutely no guarantee that the homes will be “affordable" for members of the “work force.” Avila Ranch will threaten the viability of our airport due for expansion and all of these aforementioned developments will impact the livability and enjoyment of life for existing residents. Thank you for your consideration and for responding to my concerns. Please feel free to contact me if have any questions about my concerns. Sincerely, Mila Vujovich-La Barre 650 Skyline Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93045 E-mail: milavu@hotmail.com Mobile: 805-441-5818 9-14-15 As a SLO resident of over 40 years; mother of two daughters attending Los Ranchos and Laguna Middle School; Cal Poly employee; and homeowner off of Buckley Road (Mello Lane), I am concerned whether the impact of the Avila Ranch development has been truly evaluated to what is best for this rural area of SLO. Buckley Road is already a dangerous roadway, with an abundance of cars during the workweek. Accidents upon accident occur on Buckley Road. My husband was rear-ended turning onto Mello Lane from Buckley Road last year, and his car was totaled. The city should be concerned for its existing homeowners and the impact this project will have on their lives. How can this county road accommodate 700 more homes? Moving forward with this project doesn't seem logical since our state is experiencing severe drought problems. When all households are being told to conserve water, why is the city creating more homes to add to our existing water shortage? This project will also impact our scenic town’s environmental air quality. More cars equal more pollution. Additionally, noise will become a factor along Buckley Road. My neighbors and I choose to live in SLO for the quality of life. This project will tear away at our little piece of paradise on the Central Coast. The congestion this project will bring to our area is inconceivable. My family lives in this part of SLO because of the serene and picturesque surroundings. For the sake of our community, please stop trying to make SLO like the overcrowded cities in Northern or Southern California. Your consideration is appreciated. Dawn Sirois Mello Lane (off of Buckley Road) From: Dianne [mailto:dsparkleye@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 5:07 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Avila Ranch EIR This project will cause significant long term (as in permanent) environmental problems in violation of the City of San Luis Obispo's circulation element, land use element, and conservation and open space element. All roads leading to and from this development will be overloaded to the point of dangerous conditions due to increased traffic. For example, Higuera Street all the way to downtown San Luis Obispo and Buckley Road to hwy 227. Hoover Lane to Tank Farm Road has a narrow bridge on Santa Fe. Besides motorized transportation, bicyclists on these road will be in more danger. Permanent degradation of the quality of life of all occupants not only in the City of San Luis Obispo, but also county residents who use Buckley Road or live near Buckley Road will experience more noise from increased traffic and congestion. This point goes against the following: Land Use Element Goal 6 - "Recognize the importance of farming to the economy of the planning area and the county, protect agriculture from development and from incompatible uses, and protect remaining undeveloped prime agricultural soils." Conservation and open space element (COSE) 8 Greenbelt, open space outside the urban area "Secure and maintain a healthy and attractive greenbelt around the urban area, comprised of diverse and connected natural habitats, and productive agricultural land that reflects the City's watershed and topographic boundaries." COSE 8.2.1 - Open Space Preserved "The city will preserve as open space or agriculture the undeveloped and agricultural land outside the urban reserve line...and will encourage...(others)...to do likewise." LUE Goal - Society and Economy. "San Luis Obispo should be a well balanced community. Environmental, social and economic factors must be taken into account in important decisions about San Luis Obispo's future. A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment." The air quality will decrease as more cars stand still with engines running on the congested road with great noise pollution. Lastly, the noisy location of this project is terrible - near Hwy 101, Buckley Road, businesses, Suburban Road, Air Vol Bloc and a concrete company, the airport flight path, and the trash trucks of nearby San Luis Obispo Garbage driving on Buckley Road starting at 5 a.m. Sincerely, Paul Rys 9-14-15 Gentlemen, From the Avila Ranch Development Plan: Traffic and Circulation Traffic impacts from the project are not anticipated to trigger the need for new, unplanned facilities. In comparison to the approved Business Park land uses for the site, traffic impacts will actually be 50-75 percent lower. Improvements are planned for Buckley Road and Vachell to mitigate those impacts. My Comment: The entirety of Buckley Road and Vachell Lane (Hwy. 227 to the east and west connection at Higuera) will be affected and need increase in capacity to accommodate this development, the Development Plan does not address this issue with effective solutions. Further, comparing traffic impacts between this Plan and a Business Park (loosely paraphrased from the plan as zoned industrial as a “placeholder” when annexed by the City) does not disprove there will not be more traffic in the already troublesome areas at Vachell/Higuera, Buckley/Hwy. 227 , Hoover Lane/Tank Farm Road and along the entire narrow roadway between those intersections. I have other concerns but in the limited time I was made aware this plan is the direction the City is taking for residential development and a deadline to submit a comment I am unable to add them at this time. Best regards, Ernie Peterson 4555 Mello Lane (abutting Buckley Road) From: Kayla Plourde [mailto:kayla@schoolyard.us] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 7:39 PM To: Davidson, Doug Subject: Avila Ranch EIR My name is Kayla Plourde, and I have lived on Evans Road since 1998. There are several things that I think need to be studied before the “Avila Ranch” project moves forward. • Water and Waste • Integrity of the creek, including protection of the turtles and other wildlife • Significant traffic impacts: o Total traffic on the Buckley Road may require four lanes each direction. Bicyclists are already both a danger, and in danger when travelling on the Buckley Road. If the overall number of vehicle trips is to increase a separate bike lane may be needed. o Feeder street access is already an issue that will be aggravated. Over the years the traffic on the Buckley Road has gotten much heavier. At this point I sometimes have to wait five minutes to make a left onto Buckley, and I drive a small, agile care. Many of my neighbors haul horses, hay, and farm equipment; I am sure their waits are even longer. o Buckley to Highway 101 –  The Vachell Lane / So Higuera intersection is already inadequate – there are several times during the day that a left turn from Vachell onto So Higuera is difficult. In the seventeen years I have lived in this area I have personally witnessed seven accidents at this intersection – all where the driver making the left turn was involved.  If Buckley road is re-routed to So. Higuera, a turn will still be required to access the freeway, and a left turn will still be excessively difficult. Always for the children Kayla Plourde 745 Evans Road 805-459-9151