HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Comments on the Draft IS-MNDCity of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 1
Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
This document has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft Initial Study-
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS-MND) prepared for the proposed 650 Tank Farm Road
Mixed-Use Project. The Draft IS-MND identifies the likely environmental consequences associated
with development of the project, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce potentially
significant impacts. This document provides a response to comments received on the Draft IS-MND
by the lead agency and makes revisions to the Draft IS-MND, as necessary, in response to those
comments or to make clarifications to material in the Draft IS-MND. This document, together with
the Draft IS-MND, constitutes the Final IS-MND for the project.
1.2 Environmental Review Process
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult
with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public
with an opportunity to comment on the Draft IS-MND.
The Draft IS-MND was circulated for a 35-day public review period that began on November 30,
2018 and ended on January 4, 2019. The Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was posted in a local newspaper and sent to local and state agencies, as well
as interested parties. The Draft IS-MND was posted electronically on the City’s website, and a paper
copy was available for public review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department.
The City received three comment letters on the Draft IS-MND. Copies of written comments received
during the comment period are included in Section 2 of this document.
1.3 Document Organization
This Response to Comments (RTC) Document consists of the following sections:
• Section 1: Introduction. This section discusses the purpose and organization of this RTC
Document and the Final IS-MND, and summarizes the environmental review process for the
project.
• Section 2: Comments and Responses. This section contains reproductions of the comment
letters received on the Draft IS-MND. A written response for each comment received during the
public review period is provided. Each response is keyed to the corresponding comment.
• Section 3: Draft IS-MND Revisions. Revisions to the Draft IS-MND that are necessary in light of
the comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in
the Draft IS-MND, are shown in this section. Underlined text represents language that has been
added to the Draft IS-MND; text with strikeout has been deleted from the Draft IS-MND.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 2
2 Comments and Responses
This section includes comments received during the circulation of the Draft IS-MND for the 650 Tank
Farm Road Mixed-Use Project.
The City of San Luis Obispo received three comment letters on the Draft IS-MND during the public
comment period. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear
are listed below.
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
1 John McKenzie, City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission 3
2 Jenna Schudson, California Department of Transportation 8
3 Nicholas Whipps and Ashley McCarroll, Wittwer Parkin LLP 12
The comment letters and responses follow in Section 2. The comment letters have been numbered
sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned
a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and
then the number assigned to each issue (Response 2-1, for example, indicates that the response is
for the first issue raised in Letter 2). All revisions are then compiled in the order in which they would
appear in the Draft IS-MND (by page number) in Section 3, Text Revisions, of this document.
From: John McKenzie <johnnimac@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:35 AM
To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Fowler, Xzandrea <XFowler@slocity.org>
Subject: 650 Tank Farm
Hi Rachel and Xzandrea,
I have reviewed the staff report and ND for 650 Broad and I have the following questions/concerns:
General comments
Creek setback – the Conceptual Plan graphic does not seem to correspond with the bio report’s creek
alignment, nor the riparian/wetland boundaries and corresponding setbacks for Acacia Creek. This would
appear to potentially affect the proposed design. The bio report also does not seem to show it reviewed
the current conceptual design, its impacts or propose project specific mitigation. The ND mentions the
City’s 35-foot setback policy but then seems to rely exclusively on the inaccurate conceptual plan and not
the bio report information. There also does not seem to be discussion of the crossing of Acacia creek, nor
the amount of associated temporary or permanent disturbance. What about proposing the removal of the
non-native eucalyptus trees as a part of the riparian habitat restoration efforts (if left, they will create an
ongoing hindrance to riparian/wetland areas)? There is no discussion about any of the proposed
landscaping near the creek and if it is compatible with the riparian/wetland habitat. There should be a
condition that states all landscaping/plantings will be compatible with and non-intrusive to riparian and
wetland habitats. There are no measures that require implementation of any approved plans, nor any COA
that requires verification of successful restoration efforts.
Noise
The Noise report considered a somewhat different layout of buildings than what is currently proposed. As
building size and layouts are likely to change when the final design is proposed/reviewed, the noise
sensitive area should be referenced to known elements, such as the centerline of existing road with a
specified distance and not with elements that could easily change.
Parking Reduction
In reviewing the staff report, I found no information on which to base the requested 23% parking
reduction. Where can I find this analysis? I am also wondering if the new parking standards are in place
and if the request is based on the new calcs?
COA/Mitigation Measure comments
1. With regards to AQ-1, as worded, it is unclear if the four required measures to choose from are
in addition to the list provided, or if the list is to be used to make the selection.
2. With regards to Bio-1(c) Restoration Plan, I did not see any provisions that require this Plan to
be implemented – some reference should be made to require the approved Plan be installed. Also
given the difficulty of successfully reestablishing certain special status species plants, there
should be a performance standard to verify long-term success to the City.
3. On Bio-2(a), 3rd bullet - Why not require that vehicle refueling and maintenance be further than
50 feet from waterways or known riparian- wetland areas, especially for Acacia Creek and the
wetlands area?
4. On Bio-2(f) – the raptor nesting period is commonly earlier than Feb. 1 (At least 1/1 might be a
better time to reference, but some raptors are known to nest in the Fall); given nesting could be
high up on the tall eucalyptus, can the vertical element be factored in, where maybe the 300ft
distance is measured ‘line of site’ from the nest location? Either way it would help to define how
active nest distance measurements will be done. How will new active nests that are established
after the survey be addressed? Suggest also that a preventive worker’s education program be
required to make sure that material/equipment storage and all other construction areas are
managed in a way to keep birds from establishing active nests during construction. It only takes
1-2 days to establish an active nest.
5. On Bio 3, there should be a statement that the applicant will implement the Plan and the City
will verify its successful implementation.
6. On CR-2(b), since nothing was found during the Phase 1 report, this measure should be deleted
with some elements added to CR-2(c) (e.g., if resources encountered during grading, this would
trigger an extended Phase 1 and possibly Phase 2 work before construction can continue near
affected area). Even though creeks are generally more sensitive areas, it seems that this low-
laying area would not likely have had much, if any, permanent Native American occupation.
7. On CR-3, since the report identifies that the Pleistocene sediments are at least 6 feet down, there
does not appear to be the need for any paleo work until that depth is achieved. Therefore, it
appears that a 6’ grading depth qualifier to trigger the paleo work should be added?
8. On N-1, the ‘Tank Farm- facing’ building trigger is vague with potential unintended
consequences. and should be replaced with a specified distance from Tank Farm (centerline
would be cleanest) as the trigger for noise conditions. The east and west ends of the outer
buildings should also be given some consideration. Further, the 3 buildings on Tank Farm in the
conceptual plan do a reasonably good job to attenuate the noise – however, if there are larger gaps
between buildings in a final design, loud noise could ‘leak through to the second layer of
buildings. The noise study graphics should be used to determine distance and replace the vague
reference to the first row of buildings; and, some general design guidance should be added that
the first row of buildings will in effect create a ‘solid wall’ with minimal space allowed between
structures.
9. N-2(a) Since there is only 1 house in the vicinity in a non-residential zone, these measures seem
excessive for normal construction during regular hours. Can we not rely on complaints received
and have the Planning Director determine if additional measures are appropriate to address the
complaint should there be one? Suggest deleting all except recognition of Noise Element
limitations on hours of construction operation.
10. Figure 3 in ND (and elsewhere in staff report) shows Tank Farm access is not aligned with
Mind/Body access – based on no off-set discussion and COA provision to align with MindBody
intersection, it appears this graphic should be amended to reflect intersection alignment.
11. Transportation – is widening of Acacia Creek bridge proposed at Tank Farm? – It is not clear
and should be mentioned (I did see the potential for a roundabout at Santa Fe).
Let me know if you will be making changes to address these items or if I should be bringing them up at
the hearing. Thank you.
John McKenzie
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 5
Letter 1
COMMENTER: John McKenzie, City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
DATE: December 16, 2018
Response 1-1 – General Comments
The commenter states that the Conceptual Site Plan in the Draft IS-MND (Figure 3) does not
correspond with the creek alignments shown in the Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) &
Jurisdictional Delineation (Appendix B), and notes potential inconsistencies related to the City’s 35-
foot setback policy, the potential crossing of Acacia Creek, and planned landscaping near
riparian/wetland habitat. The commenter recommends that the project be conditioned to state that
all landscaping/plantings would be compatible with riparian and wetland habitats. The commenter
states that there are no measures that require implementation of any approved plans or conditions
that require verification of successful restoration efforts.
Figure 3 in the Draft IS-MND depicted a misalignment of the conceptual project elements and creek
alignment boundaries over the background aerial imagery. This figure has been revised to correct
the misalignment, and to accurately reflect the creek alignments, the associated 35-foot setback
boundaries, and the intersection of the planned access to the site from Tank Farm Road at the
existing Tank Farm Road/MindBody signalized intersection. The associated discussion of these
elements is correct and does not require revision. Accordingly, no further analysis or mitigation is
required in the Draft IS-MND.
Landscaping/plantings in riparian and wetland habitats would be subject to the requirements of
Mitigation Measures BIO-2(a) and BIO-3 and the City’s 35-foot setback off both Acacia Creek and
Orcutt Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires the preparation of a Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan by a qualified restoration ecologist. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been revised to
reflect the requirements that the applicant would be responsible for implementing the Plan, and the
City will be responsible for verifying success of the Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has also been
revised to require removal of non-native invasive plants in disturbed areas within riparian and
wetland habitats and within City’s 35-foot creek setback from Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek, and
revegetation of such areas using native plants.
Response 1-2 – Noise
The commenter states that the Sound Level Assessment (Appendix D) considered a different layout
of buildings than what is shown in the Draft IS-MND Conceptual Site Plan, and recommends that the
identified noise-sensitive area should be referenced to known elements, such as the centerline of
Tank Farm Road with a specified distance and not with elements of the site plan that may change.
Mitigation Measure N-1 has been revised to reference interior noise mitigation requirements to
Tank Farm Road, using a conservative distance of 150 feet from the roadway centerline to identify
residential units that may be exposed to interior noise levels in excess of the City’s interior noise
standard. Mitigation Measure N-1 has also been revised to require that final building design and
location collectively provide an effective attenuation shield from Tank Farm Road noise for active
outdoor areas within the development with the intent to achieve 60 dBA CNEL or less at a distance
of 250 feet from the centerline of Tank Farm Road.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 6
Response 1-3 – Parking Reduction
The commenter requests additional information regarding the parking reduction request. This
request is no longer proposed as part of the project. The Draft IS-MND has been revised to reflect
this change. Accordingly, no further analysis or mitigation is required in the Draft IS-MND.
Response 1-4 – COA/Mitigation Measure Comments
The commenter provides the following recommendations and requests for clarifying revisions to
Draft IS-MND Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) – the commenter states that it is unclear if the four required
measures are in addition to the list provided in the measure, or if the list is intended to be
used to make the selection. Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) has been revised to clarify that the
applicant shall implement a minimum of four of the listed standard emission reduction
measures from the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c) – the commenter recommends that the measure clarify the
implementation and verification requirements, and requests that the measure include a
performance standard to verify long-term success to the City. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(c)
has been revised to clarify that the required Restoration Plan shall be implemented by the
applicant with the City verifying that the success criteria have been met.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a) – the commenter recommends that vehicle refueling and
maintenance should be located farther than 50 feet from waterways and known
riparian/wetland areas. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a) has been revised to clarify that all
refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at least 50 feet
from defined edges of riparian and wetland vegetation, and Acacia Creek and Orcutt Creek
and in a location where a spill would not drain toward aquatic habitat.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2(f) – the commenter notes that raptors may nest earlier than
February 1, and requests that the distances in this measure be revised to account for
vertical distance (height). The commenter also recommends inclusion of a preventative
worker’s education program to ensure that construction is managed in a way that keeps
birds from establishing active nests during construction. Nesting birds encountered in the
City of San Luis Obispo typically nest between February 1 to September 15. This measure
notes that active nests are located during the pre-construction survey or during
construction would require all construction work shall be conducted outside a buffer zone
from the nest to be determined by the qualified biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(f) has
been revised to describe buffer distances from the nest tree for clarity. Mitigation Measure
BIO-2(f) has also been revised to refer to the Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(Mitigation Measure 2[b]), noting that the Program shall provide good housekeeping
practices of equipment and materials that discourage nests being established within the
construction area.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 – the commenter recommends that this measure state that the
applicant will implement the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, and that the City will verify its
successful implementation. Refer to Response 1-1.
Mitigation Measure CR-2(b) – the commenter notes that cultural resources were not
identified during the surface-level review of the site, and recommends that the Extended
Phase I (XPI) Testing Program be removed, and that elements of this requirement be added
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 7
to Mitigation Measure CR-2(c), such that encountering undiscovered resources during
construction would trigger an extended Phase 1 and possibly Phase 2 work before
construction could occur near the affected area. Mitigation Measures CR-2(b) and CR-2(c)
have been modified to first provide the requirements that would be triggered by
unanticipated discovery of cultural resources during construction, and then to describe the
requirements for an extended Phase 1 testing program (and any subsequent requirements).
Mitigation Measure CR-3(a) – the commenter recommends that a six-foot grading depth
qualifier be added to the measure. Mitigation Measure CR-3(a) has been revised to add the
recommended requirement.
Mitigation Measure N-1 – the commenter states that requirements in this measure are
vague, and recommends revising the measure to identify a specific distance from Tank Farm
Road as the trigger for interior noise mitigation. The commenter also notes that gaps
between buildings in the final design may result in higher roadway noise levels on the
project site than anticipated. Refer to Response 1-2.
Mitigation Measure N-2(a) – the commenter states that the require construction equipment
best management practices (BMPs) are excessive, and recommends using received noise
complaints as a basis for the Planning Director identifying whether additional measures are
appropriate to address noise concerns during construction. The commenter specifically
recommends deleting all the required BMPs other than the limitations on hours of
construction activity. Mitigation Measure N-2(a) has been revised to include a statement
that applies the listed BMPs only to construction activity that exceeds 60 dBA at the
property line with the existing residence to the southeast.
The commenter also notes that on Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan, access to the site from Tank Farm
Road is not aligned with the existing signal at the existing Tank Farm Road/MindBody signalized
intersection. Refer to Response 1-1.
The commenter requests that the Draft IS-MND clarify whether widening of the Acacia Creek Bridge
is proposed at Tank Farm Road. Development of the project site under the proposed project would
require widening of the north side of Tank Farm Road, including the existing crossing of Acacia Creek
along the western portion of the project site. The Draft IS-MND discusses potential environmental
effects associated with work within Acacia Creek and/or Orcutt Creek, and requires mitigation
measures, primarily in Section 4, Biological Resources, to address such impacts. These measures
include measures to protect sensitive riparian plant and animal species, and riparian and wetland
habitats (refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1[a] through BIO-1[c], BIO-2[a] through BIO-2[g], and
BIO-3). The Draft IS-MND concludes that the potential effects of work in riparian/wetland areas are
mitigable, and would not result in a significant environmental effect after mitigation.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 10
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Jenna Schudson, California Department of Transportation
DATE: January 4, 2019
Response 2-1 – Intersections Included in the Transportation Study
The commenter states that Caltrans intersections that could be affected by the project were not
included in the Multimodal Draft Transportation Impact Study (transportation study, Appendix E of
the Draft IS-MND). The commenter requests analysis of trip distribution and fair share calculations
be included for potential impacts at the SR 227/Buckley Road intersection, the Los Osos Valley
Road/Higuera Street intersection, and the U.S. 101/Los Osos Valley Road interchange.
Caltrans was included in the scoping of the traffic study; in the State’s response, no additional
intersection or segments were requested (Attachment E: September 18th, 2017 Caltrans Scoping
Response). Based on the project trip generation and distribution provided in the transportation
study, project traffic would not contribute to a substantial increase in traffic at the U.S. 101/Los
Osos Valley Road Interchange. The project would contribute to the Citywide traffic impact fee
program, which funds multiple local transportation projects identified to alleviate Citywide traffic,
most notably the Prado Road Interchange, which is forecasted to improve operations at the U.S.
101/Los Osos Valley Road Interchange
The project trip generation and distribution provided in the transportation study, including the
planned transportation improvement projects identified in the January 2017 State Route 227
Operations Study, which have been adopted into the County SR 227 transportation improvement
fee program, identify that project traffic would not contribute to a substantial increase in traffic at
SR 227 intersections. In addition, City staff will be recommending that the project be conditioned to
participate in the County’s SR 227 fee program.
As shown in the Table 11 of the transportation study, project trips at the Higuera/Tank Farm Road
intersection do not adversely affect the V/C or Delay to result in a Level of Service (LOS) impact to
the intersection. Therefore, these additional trips do not generate a project specific impact at this
intersection. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that impacts at intersections further
downstream from the project would not generate project specific impacts at those intersections.
The cumulative scenario estimates volumes with several planned network improvements, as shown
on page 30 of the transportation study. These improvement projects are “planned network and land
use changes expected upon buildout of the City’s General Plan” (page 30) and with indicated
funding in the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee program and in the San Luis Obispo General Plan
Circulation Element. Potential impacts to the Higuera/Prado Road intersection and to the U.S.
101/Los Osos Valley Road interchange would be mitigated by these planned network
improvements. In the cumulative scenario, potential LOS impacts at the Higuera/Tank Farm Road
intersection are addressed by the required mitigation measures.
Response 2-2 – 2016 Traffic Counts
The commenter states that the existing transportation conditions discussion in the transportation
study should compare the 2016 traffic count data to 2018 traffic counts, if the 2018 traffic counts
have been processed. The commenter also requests that the year for the cumulative conditions be
clarified. The project application and environmental review was conducted prior to 2018 traffic;
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 11
therefore 2018 counts were not available at the time environmental review was conducted. Per
CEQA section 15125(a) the 2016 counts used in the traffic study are the legal baseline on which this
Draft IS-MND analysis is based.
Cumulative conditions for the traffic impact study represent the buildout Capacity of the City under
current zoning, this is theoretically identified at 2035 but would likely occur beyond.
Response 2-3 – Trip Generation Methodology
The commenter recommends that notes 4 and 5 in Table 10 of the transportation study be clarified
to describe what trips are being captured in the internal trips number shown. The commenter also
requests that pass-by trips only be used for retail land uses, and states that new residential trips
should be considered primary trips. Table 10 of the transportation study uses the 2014 ITE Trip
Generation Handbook 2nd edition (2014) & ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition (2012) to
calculate the internal trip capture rate for the mixed-use development. Pass by trips are calculated
as a percentage of total trips for the retail portion of the development, based on the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook. The transportation study only accounts for retail pass-by trips.
Response 2-4 – Trip Distribution Figure
The commenter requests that Figure 4 of the transportation study clarify whether the figure is
meant to show the existing condition or the proposed project’s traffic volumes. Figure 4, on page 20
of the transportation study, shows the existing volumes of the project site. The title of the figure will
be revised to “Figure 4: Existing Site Trip Distribution and Volumes.”
Attachments
Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the
Proposed Avila Ranch Development Project
SCH No. 2015081034
November 2016
Prepared for:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Prepared by:
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A
Santa Barbara, California 93101
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-4 Avila Ranch Development Project
Draft EIR
neighborhood groups. The NOP comment period ran from August 14, 2015 through
September 14, 2015, and a public hearing was held on August 26, 2015. During the NOP
comment period, City received 30 written comment letters. Comments received during the
NOP comment period were considered during EIR preparation and are included in
Appendix B.
ES-5 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
The significance of each impact resulting from implementation of the Project has been
determined based on impact significance criteria and applicable CEQA Guidelines for each
impact topic. Table ES-1 presents a summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and
residual impacts from implementation of the Project. In summary, the proposed Project
would result in significant and unavoidable construction-related and long-term impacts to
air quality, construction-related noise, potential inconsistency with City General Plan
policies, and long-term transportation and traffic impacts.
Agricultural Resources
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the conversion of approximately
94.6 acres of agricultural lands and a loss of approximately 26.6 acres of farmland of
statewide importance. Though the Project includes a landscaping plan that dedicates 27
acres of land outside the Urban Reserve Line to the cultivation of dryland rotational crops,
conversion of prime soils within the Project site totals approximately 68 acres. Mitigation
requiring offsite agricultural conservation or payment of in-lieu fees would reduce the
severity of impacts of converting the property from agriculture to nonagricultural uses, but
since the impact cannot be fully attenuated, impacts to agricultural land would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 mitigation measures would minimize construction-related air
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Avila Ranch Development Project ES-5
Draft EIR
Obispo APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, all standard mitigation measures and
feasible discretionary mitigation measures would be incorporated into the Project. Even so,
the residual impacts would remain above the significance threshold.
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 maintain attainment of 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 mitigation measures.
Noise
In the short term, even with implementation of mitigation measures, 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 significant
and unavoidable.
Land Use
After a review for consistency with City General Plan policies, the Project is potentially
inconsistent with several policies designed to protect agricultural resources. The Project
would not fully replace or recreate the lost agricultural land onsite, which is inconsistent
with Policy 1.9.2, Prime Agricultural Land allowing development on prime agricultural
land if the development contributes to the protection of agricultural land within the City
Urban Reserve Line (URL) and, therefore, would be significant and unavoidable.
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-6 Avila Ranch Development Project
Draft EIR
traffic would cause exceedance of intersection capacities at the Buckley Road/State Route
(SR) 227 intersection, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. Although the
Project would implement mitigation measures 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
operational conditions for the Prado Road/South Higuera Street. Although mitigation
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.
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
Impacts Mitigation Measures Residual Significance
3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
VIS-1. Implementation of the Project 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
VIS-2. The proposed Project 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
VIS-3. Construction of the Project would create
short-term disruption of the visual appearance of the
site for travelers along Buckley Road, Vachell Lane,
and Venture Drive.
MM VIS-3 Significant but
Mitigable
VIS-4. The proposed Project 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
3.2 Agricultural Resources
AG-1. The proposed Project 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
AG-2. Development of the proposed Project 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
SLO prepared for population growth of 10,000, officials say
| The Tribune
sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article80211237.html
Nacimento Lake is one of the city of San Luis Obispo’s water sources and the City Council
increased its allocation by more than 2,100 acre-feet of water per year in March. David
Middlecamp dmiddlecamp@thetribunenews.com
San Luis Obispo is prepared on all fronts for an estimated population growth of more than
10,000 residents over the next 20 years, officials said Wednesday, even as some residents
questioned whether the city will have enough affordable housing and water to handle the
influx.
Community development director Michael Codron laid out the city’s growth projections during
a study session at Tuesday’s Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was for discussion
purposes only, with no decisions made.
Codron said the city has made sure available resources will match the city’s growth as part of
San Luis Obispo’s General Plan. The city has been projecting a population of 56,686 by 2035 ,
up from 46,456 as of 2015.
“We look very closely at water availabily, air quality, access to open space, capacity in our
water reclamation facility and absolutely capacity on our roadways,” Codron said.
Codron said one city objective is to encourage people to use bicycles, carpool or walk around
town. Fees assessed to developers for building new housing help pay for new pathways and
alternative transportation routes.
We look very closely at water availabily, air quality, access to open space, capacity in our water
reclamation facility and absolutely capacity on our roadways.
Michael Codron, city of San Luis Obispo community development director
Some residents and commissioners in the audience, however, called for more affordable
housing, saying they feared an increasing number of people will have to commute to work in
San Luis Obispo from other communities with cheaper housing. Some commented that
climate change requires the city to take a more cautious approach to growth to avoid
overconsuming water.
San Luis Obispo resident David Brody said he would like to see an estimate on the number of
jobs generated by nonresidential development, saying there must be a balance between the
number of new jobs and new affordable homes.
1/2
“If we provide housing, but people who work here in San Luis Obispo can’t afford them, they’ll
be living in all the surrounding communities, they’ll negatively impacting air quality,” Brody
said.
Brody said the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council that limits be
placed on new nonresidential development, and that the types of jobs created relative to the
annual growth in housing should be reviewed.
(Secondary dwellings) are a great solution to provide affordable rental and homes for aging
parents.
Charles Stevenson, San Luis Obispo Planning Commission chair
Commissioner Hemalata Dandekar suggested that zoning for smaller homes and more units
will create more affordable housing.
“Studio units, if you can build more of them on the same site, you might get more developers
to build these kinds of projects,” Dandekar said. “I’d just urge (the city staff) to explore this.”
Commissioner Charles Stevenson also suggested allowing more secondary dwellings.
“(Secondary dwellings) are a great solution to provide affordable rental and homes for aging
parents,” Stevenson said. “It’s something we should really encourage and promote.”
Codron, however, noted that secondary units now require full impact fees and owner
occupancy of one or both dwellings, and are part of a larger neighborhood discussion on
housing. He said the city will limit growth to its 1 percent growth policy through its issuance of
building permits as it phases in development projects.
Nick Wilson: 805-781-7922, @NickWilsonTrib
2/2
QuickFacts
census.gov/quickfacts/sanluisobispocitycalifornia
NOTICE: Due to a lapse in federal funding this website is not being updated. Learn More
What's New & FAQs
San Luis Obispo city, California
QuickFacts provides statistics for all states and counties, and for cities and towns with a
population of 5,000 or more .
Clear
1Table
Map
Chart
Dashboard
More
Table
San Luis Obispo city,
California
Population estimates, July 1, 2018, (V2018)NA
Population
Population estimates, July 1, 2018, (V2018)NA
Population estimates, July 1, 2017, (V2017)47,541
Population estimates base, April 1, 2010, (V2018)NA
Population estimates base, April 1, 2010, (V2017)45,164
Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 (estimates base) to July 1, 2018, (V2018)NA
Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 (estimates base) to July 1, 2017, (V2017)5.3%
Population, Census, April 1, 2010 45,119
Age and Sex
Persons under 5 years, percent
3.7%
Persons under 18 years, percent
12.8%
1/5
Persons 65 years and over, percent
12.3%
Female persons, percent
48.6%
Race and Hispanic Origin
White alone, percent
84.7%
Black or African American alone, percent(a)
2.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent(a)
0.5%
Asian alone, percent(a)
5.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent(a)
0.0%
Two or More Races, percent
3.6%
Hispanic or Latino, percent (b)
17.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent
72.3%
Population Characteristics
Veterans, 2013-2017 1,927
Foreign born persons, percent, 2013-2017 9.2%
Housing
Housing units, July 1, 2017, (V2017)X (Not
applicable)
Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2013-2017 38.3%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2013-2017 $590,800
Median selected monthly owner costs -with a mortgage, 2013-2017 $2,279
Median selected monthly owner costs -without a mortgage, 2013-2017 $450
Median gross rent, 2013-2017 $1,403
Building permits, 2017 X (Not
applicable)
Families & Living Arrangements
Households, 2013-2017 18,728
Persons per household, 2013-2017 2.44
Living in same house 1 year ago, percent of persons age 1 year+, 2013-2017 66.8%
2/5
People
Language other than English spoken at home, percent of persons age 5 years+, 2013-
2017
16.7%
Computer and Internet Use
Households with a computer, percent, 2013-2017 92.9%
Households with a broadband Internet subscription, percent, 2013-2017 88.0%
Education
High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2013-2017 92.6%
Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2013-2017 49.1%
Health
With a disability, under age 65 years, percent, 2013-2017 5.7%
Persons without health insurance, under age 65 years, percent
7.5%
Economy
In civilian labor force, total, percent of population age 16 years+, 2013-2017 60.8%
In civilian labor force, female, percent of population age 16 years+, 2013-2017 60.3%
Total accommodation and food services sales, 2012 ($1,000)(c)220,943
Total health care and social assistance receipts/revenue, 2012 ($1,000)(c)685,502
Total manufacturers shipments, 2012 ($1,000)(c)219,233
Total merchant wholesaler sales, 2012 ($1,000)(c)442,399
Total retail sales, 2012 ($1,000)(c)1,390,690
Total retail sales per capita, 2012(c)$30,313
Transportation
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16 years+, 2013-2017 15.2
Income & Poverty
Median household income (in 2017 dollars), 2013-2017 $49,640
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2017 dollars), 2013-2017 $29,748
Persons in poverty, percent
32.4%
Businesses
Total employer establishments, 2016 X (Not
applicable)
3/5
Businesses
Total employment, 2016 X (Not
applicable)
Total annual payroll, 2016 ($1,000)X (Not
applicable)
Total employment, percent change, 2015-
2016
X (Not
applicable)
Total nonemployer establishments, 2016 X (Not
applicable)
All firms, 2012 5,579
Men-owned firms, 2012 2,856
Women-owned firms, 2012 1,654
Minority-owned firms, 2012 753
Nonminority-owned firms, 2012 4,385
Veteran-owned firms, 2012 525
Nonveteran-owned firms, 2012 4,590
Geography
Geography
Population per square mile, 2010 3,531.3
Land area in square miles, 2010 12.78
FIPS Code 0668154
About datasets used in this table
Value Notes
@? Estimates are not comparable to other geographic levels due to methodology differences that
may exist between different data sources.
Some estimates presented here come from sample data, and thus have sampling errors that
may render some apparent differences between geographies statistically indistinguishable.
Click the Quick Info icon to the left of each row in TABLE view to learn about sampling error.
The vintage year (e.g., V2018) refers to the final year of the series (2010 thru 2018). Different
vintage years of estimates are not comparable.
Fact Notes
(a)Includes persons reporting only one race
(b)Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories
(c)Economic Census - Puerto Rico data are not comparable to U.S. Economic Census
data
4/5
Value Flags
-Either no or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a
ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls
in the lowest or upper interval of an open ended distribution.
DSuppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
FFewer than 25 firms
FNFootnote on this item in place of data
NANot available
SSuppressed; does not meet publication standards
XNot applicable
ZValue greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown
QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census
of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates,
Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County
Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners,
Building Permits.
5/5
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 36
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Nicholas Whipps and Ashley McCarroll, Wittwer Parkin LLP
DATE: January 4, 2019
Response 3-1 – Introduction & Project Description
The commenter summarizes the project description, and states concerns related to the following
project description components:
Potential off-site access improvements;
Floor area of the residential component of the project;
Whether the existing mobile home units on the project site are vacant or non-vacant;
The level of detail provided regarding the proposed General Plan and Airport Area Specific
Plan (AASP) amendments;
Whether the project would require state or federal permits;
The projected population increase associated with the project; and
Whether the project is within the City Limits.
The project includes General Plan and AASP amendments, a rezone of 10.1 acres of the property to
Service Commercial with the Specific Plan overlay (C-S-SP), and a Conditional Use Permit for a
mixed-use project within the C-S-SP zone. The project does not include a development plan;
however, the Draft IS-MND includes several mitigation measures that impose requirements on
future development plans on the project site. The Draft IS-MND includes a conceptual site plan that
depicts potential vehicle access to the project site through the adjacent properties to the west and
east, and potential pedestrian/bicycle access to the project site through the Damon Garcia-Sports
Fields to the north. The exact location of access to the project site through these identified areas is
not yet finalized. However, the locations of potential off-site access improvements are shown in
Figure 4 of the Draft IS-MND, and the Draft IS-MND includes analysis to address the full range of
potential environmental effects within these improvement areas.
The Draft IS-MND includes the number of buildings, as well as the number of residential units and
square footage of commercial and mixed-use development in Section 7 of the Initial Study,
Description of Project, and Table 4, Summary of Conceptual Site Plan. The project proposes
approximately 17,500 square feet of commercial space and 249 residential units.
The existing mobile home park includes 35 mobile units that would be removed to facilitate
development of the project site. The Draft IS-MND states that the existing mobile units are vacant.
However, 13 of the existing 35 mobile units are occupied by rental tenants with limited leases based
on the commencement of the project. The project includes approval of a mobile home park
Conversion Impact Report (CIR), which documents replacement housing assistance activities,
pursuant to Section 5.45.030 of the Conversion Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 5.45.150 of the City
Municipal Code, current tenants would be given priority for renting units in the new development.
All of the existing mobile units would be vacated pursuant to the limited leases with the property
owner prior to development of the project site. Section 7 of the Initial Study, Description of Project,
has been revised to reflect the existing occupancy level of the existing mobile units.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 37
The Draft IS-MND description of the proposed amendment to the General Plan, and the associated
map and text amendments to the AASP, provided a sufficient basis for the environmental analysis.
For further clarification, the following additional detail is provided. The General Plan Amendment is
requested to make changes to the project site’s land use designation in the City’s Land Use Element.
The 3.25-acre Business Park (BP) portion of the site and the 6.85-acre Medium-Density Residential
(MDR) portion of the site would be re-designated to Services & Manufacturing (S-M). Associated
text amendments to the AASP would include the following:
1. Revise Figure 4-1 in the AASP to the land use designation map of the AASP to designate the
3.25-acre BP portion of the site and the 6.85-acre MDR to S-M; change the zoning of the
3.25-acre Business Park (BP-SP) portion of the site and the 6.85-acre Medium Density
Residential (R-2-SP) portion of the site to C-S-SP as depicted in Figure 2;
2. Update the AASP area build-out statistics in Table 4.1;
3. Add a note to Section 4.2.2 “Service Commercial” to stipulate that the development of this
specific site would be for a commercial and residential mixed-use project with a
predominant residential component; and
4. Strike the reference to the mobile home park development in the discussion of Section 4.2.6
“Medium Density Residential (R-2).”
As described in Section 9 of the Initial Study, Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required,
development of the project site, including widening of Tank Farm Road along the project’s frontage
and the potential off-site access improvement areas, may involve work within Acacia Creek and/or
Orcutt Creek, which may require permitting per Section 401/404 of the Clean Water Act from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Any
permits would be required to be obtained from the state and federal agencies prior to issuance of
grading permits by the City of San Luis Obispo. Potential environmental effects associated with work
in Acacia Creek and/or Orcutt Creek, and requirements that may be imposed on the project by
permitting agencies (e.g., California Department of Fish & Wildlife [CDFW], USACE, RWQCB, Federal
Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]), are discussed in Section 4 of the Environmental Checklist,
Biological Resources.
The project baseline includes 35 existing mobile units on the project site, 13 of which are currently
occupied by rental tenants with limited leases based on the commencement of the project. The
Draft IS-MND estimates that the project would result in approximately 498 new residents, based on
a net increase of 214 residential units (249 potential new residential units minus 35 existing mobile
units), and a Citywide average residential density of 2.33 persons per household (pph) (Department
of Finance [DOF] 2017). Using a more conservative estimate of the net increase in residential units
(249 potential new residential units minus 13 existing occupied mobile units) and the most recently
available DOF average residential density for the City of San Luis Obispo (2.27 pph, DOF 2018), the
project would result in approximately 536 new residents. The following sections of the Draft IS-MND
have been revised to use this more conservative estimate of potential new residential growth,
which is based on the most recent available population data from DOF:
Section 3 of the Environmental Checklist, Air Quality
Section 7 of the Environmental Checklist, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Section 13 of the Environmental Checklist, Population and Housing
Section 14 of the Environmental Checklist, Public Services
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 38
Section 15 of the Environmental Checklist, Recreation
None of the resulting revisions to the Draft IS-MND result in new or increased environmental
impacts not already discussed in the Draft IS-MND. No other sections of the Draft IS-MND rely on
the estimated residential growth to draw analytical conclusions regarding the project’s potential
environmental impacts.
The project site is located within the City Limits.
Response 3-2 - Aesthetics
The commenter claims that the Draft IS-MND incorrectly identifies the project site as occurring in
the “moderate” scenic value section of Tank Farm Road, and that the analysis of General Plan
policies designed to protect the aesthetic values of the project site is inadequate.
As shown on Figure 11, Scenic Roadways and Vistas, in the City’s General Plan Conservation and
Open Space Element, Tank Farm Road west of Broad Street has a “high or moderate scenic value
outside city limit” (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a). However, the Draft IS-MND identifies Tank Farm
Road has having high scenic value west of the intersection with Santa Fe Road, and moderate scenic
value east of the intersection with Santa Fe Road. Section 1 of the Environmental Checklist,
Aesthetics, in the IS-MND has been revised to reflect Figure 11 in the City’s General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element. This revision would not affect the analysis of impacts and
significance conclusions regarding scenic vistas and visual character and quality in the Draft IS-MND.
The Draft IS-MND adequately analyzes whether the project would (1) have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista (Checklist Item 1.a.) or (2) substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings (Checklist Item 1.c.). Project impacts to scenic vistas and
visual character and quality would be less than significant because future three-story buildings
facilitated by the project would block views from Tank Farm Road of other structures to the east,
but would not block views of hillsides or other natural resources. In addition, the project would not
degrade or block any designated high scenic views or otherwise degrade the existing quality of the
site or surroundings, and the project would incorporate on-site landscaping and vegetation
consistent with background views of open space land uses. The project would be visually consistent
with existing and planned development on the north side of Tank Farm Road and development
along Broad Street to the east of the project site. Project impacts to scenic vistas and visual
character and quality would be less than significant.
The Draft IS-MND also states, “The project would be required to adhere to applicable policies and
programs in the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space and Circulation Elements,
including Circulation Element Policy Policies 9.1.5 and 9.2.1, which require environmental review to
ensure that the City preserves and improves views from public scenic places.” The project complies
with such policies and programs in the City’s General Plan in that the Draft IS-MND provides the
environmental review required in these policies and programs. Therefore, the City is not deferring
environmental review requirements in the General Plan; rather, the Draft IS-MND for the project
fulfills the City’s requirement to conduct environmental review of the project, pursuant to CEQA.
Therefore, the analysis of impacts and significance conclusions regarding scenic vistas and visual
character and quality are adequate and no further analysis is required.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 39
Response 3-3 – Air Quality
The commenter states that the air quality analysis in the Draft IS-MND does not analyze cumulative
impacts for air quality and other issues areas, incorrectly assumes that that the existing mobile
home park is operational, does not fully account for the potential increase in population, incorrectly
evaluates the project’s potential increase in vehicle travel, does not correctly analyze consistency
with the City’s Land Use and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), and that the required
mitigation measures would not adequately address identified impacts.
Section 3 of the Environmental Checklist, Air Quality, evaluates whether the project would conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the SLOAOCD 2001 Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan has been
developed by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) to attain and maintain
attainment with federal and State air quality standards for the South Central Coast Air Basin
(SCCAB). Based on SLOAPCD standards, projects that are consistent with the Clean Air Plan and
would not exceed applicable SLOAPCD significance thresholds would not result in significant
cumulative air quality impacts. Because the project is consistent with SLOAPCD’s long-term planning
effort to attain and maintain attainment with federal and State air quality standards, and because
the project would not exceed applicable SLOAPCD significance thresholds with required mitigation,
the project would not result in a significant contribution to a cumulative air quality impact. The
commenter notes that the Avila Ranch Development Project EIR concluded that project would result
in a significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impact; however, this conclusion was reached
on the basis that the Avila Ranch Development Project was found to result in operational emissions
of NOX, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 that would not be mitigable below applicable SLOAPCD significance
thresholds. This is not the case for the proposed 650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project. Other
cumulative impacts are discussed in the Draft IS-MND in Section 19 of the Environmental Checklist,
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
The operational emissions estimates shown in Table 4 of the Draft IS-MND assume that the existing
mobile home park land use is operational. As discussed in Response 3-1, this is consistent with the
environmental baseline for the project. The emissions estimates provided in Table 4 of the Draft IS-
MND for both the existing mobile home park land use and the potential development on the site
with implementation of the project are based on the total number of units (249 new residential
units and 35 existing residential units), standard default SLOAPCD assumptions for these land use
types, and other project-specific factors and data provided in the Draft IS-MND. This approach to
estimating project emissions is consistent with recommended methodologies from SLOAPCD’s CEQA
Air Quality Handbook (2012).
The estimated increase in residential population that would result from the project is discussed in
Response 3-1. SLOAPCD identifies significant impacts related to consistency with the 2001 CAP by
determining whether a project would exceed the population projections used in the CAP for the
same area. The commenter provides estimates of current and future population in the City of San
Luis Obispo from several sources. The Draft IS-MND evaluates the project’s consistency with
SLOCOG population growth estimates used by SLOAPCD for the purpose of evaluating the project’s
consistency with the SLOAPCD Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the SLOCOG 2050 Regional Growth
Forecast, which was adopted by SLOCOG in June 2017, is the appropriate source for future
population projections. As described in the Draft IS-MND, the anticipated increase in residential
population of 498 new residents (revised to 536 new residents based on Response 3-1) would not
cause the City’s population to exceed the population projects contained in the Clean Air Plan. The
project would not result in a significant contribution to a cumulative air quality impact.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 40
The Draft IS-MND concludes that the project would not result in an increase in the City’s daily
vehicles miles traveled (VMT) that would exceed the increase in population. The commenter states
that the project would exceed the estimated General Plan daily trip volume under buildout
conditions. The Draft IS-MND compares the growth in VMT from the project to General Plan
buildout conditions, but does not conclude that the project would be inconsistent with General Plan
buildout projections. The commenter’s statement is not supported by evidence. The commenter
also states that the estimated VMT increase is incorrect due to their earlier critique of the
population estimation methodology; however, as described in Section 16 of the Environmental
Checklist, Transportation/Traffic, and Appendix E, the transportation study, the trip generation
estimates used in the Draft IS-MND are based on the net change in the number of residential units
and square footage of non-residential development, rather than estimated residential population
growth.
It should also be noted that while earlier SLOAPCD guidance recommended evaluation of a project’s
consistency with population growth estimates and projected vehicle trip rate increases to
determine whether a project would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan, Section 3.2 of the 2012
SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that projects that are consistent with the Land Use
Measures and TCMs and the strategies outlined in the Clean Air Plan are consistent with the Clean
Air Plan. As described in the Draft IS-MND, the Clean Air Plan land use strategies include locating
residential development within an urban area proximate to existing roadways and locating new
development near transit services and commercial and retail shopping areas. The SLOAPCD TCMs
encourage co-location of new development and local transit connections, transit infrastructure and
connectivity improvements, bicycling and bikeway enhancements, and traffic flow improvements.
The project would locate mixed-use development in close proximity to stops on the SLO Transit 1A
(Johnson/Tank Farm) route, as well as commercial business park and industrial uses south of Tank
Farm and east of Broad Street. Broad Street and Tank Farm Road both have Class II bike lanes on
both sides of the road throughout the study segments. The Draft IS-MND describes the manner in
which the project would be consistent with these applicable Clean Air Plan Land Use Measures and
TCMs. As a result of these project components, the Draft IS-MND concludes that the project would
be consistent with applicable Land Use Measures, TCMs, and the strategies outlined in the Clean Air
Plan, and that the project would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan.
The Draft IS-MND identifies potentially significant air quality impacts associated with long-term
emissions during project operation and impacts to sensitive receptors in the project vicinity during
project construction, and requires Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a), SLOAPCD Operational Emissions
Reduction Measures, and Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b), Fugitive Dust Control Measures, to address
these impacts. The commenter states that the Draft IS-MND does not quantify reductions that
would be achieved by the required mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) addresses
identified impacts associated with long-term emissions during project operation consistent with
SLOAPCD’s guidance that projects with the potential to generate at least 25 but less than 30 lbs/day
of combined ROG + NOX should implement at least four measures from the SLOAPCD CEQA Air
Quality Handbook’s mitigation measure list (Table 3-5). These measures have been developed by
SLOAPCD to enhance the consistency of projects with the goals and policies of the Clean Air Plan,
and SLOAPCD has identified the measures as contributing to achieving and maintaining attainment
of State and federal ambient air quality standards, and thereby protecting human health and the
environment. SLOAPCD does not quantify the potential emission reduction that may be achieved by
the measures in Table 3-5. Therefore, additional detail has been added to the discussion of
Mitigation Measures in Section 3 of the Environmental Checklist, Air Quality, and to Mitigation
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 41
Measure AQ-1(a), to demonstrate quantitatively that compliance with Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a)
would achieve the required reduction in ozone precursor emissions.
During preparation of the updated language for Section 3 of the Environmental Checklist, Air
Quality, described in the previous paragraph, the emissions estimates prepared for the Draft IS-
MND were updated to incorporate additional project-specific weekend traffic data, and to account
for additional aspects of the project setting that affect anticipated vehicle trip generation and trip
lengths. The internal capture and trip diversion rates were applied uniformly to weekday and
weekend trip generation. In addition, 150 daily trips were removed from estimated future weekday
and weekend trips to account for the existing land use (the 150 trips were based on traffic counts
conducted as part of the transportation study (Appendix E). The project setting was updated to
account for on-site pedestrian improvements and intensification of residential units and
employment (the project would provide approximately 25 dwelling units per acre and
approximately 1 job per acre). As a result, the emissions estimates in Tables 3 and 4 of the Draft IS-
MND, and the CalEEMod results in Appendix A, have been updated.
In November 2017 SLOAPCD published a Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo County
Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which clarify the mitigation
measure list in Table 3-5, and states that alternate mitigation measures may be suggested by the
project proponent if the SLOAPCD-suggested measures are not feasible. Mitigation Measure AQ-
1(a) has been revised to incorporate applicable mitigation options from the updated mitigation
measure list in the November 2017 SLOAPCD Clarification Memorandum.
Attachment 4 to the November 2017 SLOAPCD Clarification Memorandum also notes the
improvements in air quality in San Luis Obispo County that have occurred as a result of factors
including implementation of SLOAPCD’s Clean Air Plan, federal, state and local regulations, APCD-
administered incentive programs, and a reduction in mobile source emissions. These observed
improvements can be also be estimated for future development. For informational purposes, the
project operational emissions estimated in the Draft IS-MND for buildout by 2021 have been
estimated for 2023 and 2025. These estimates identify that by 2023 the project’s net daily emissions
of ROG + NOX would not exceed the SLOAPCD daily threshold of 25 lbs/day, and by 2025 the
project’s gross daily emissions would not exceed the SLOAPCD daily threshold.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1(b) addresses identified impacts to sensitive receptors in the project
vicinity during project construction consistent with SLOAPCD’s guidance that standard dust control
measures be implemented for construction activities where sensitive receptors are located within
1,000 feet of the project site and development of the project site would involve grading of more
than 4.0 acres.
Response 3-4 – Biological Resources
The commenter states that:
The analysis of impacts to special status plants does not support a less-than-significant
conclusion; specifically, the commenter states that the City does not prohibit construction
prior to conducting special status plant surveys;
Mitigation measures associated with animal species protected under the federal and state
Endangered Species Acts would not effectively mitigate impacts to less-than-significant
levels; and
The evaluation of impacts to wildlife movement is not supported by evidence and analysis.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 42
Special Status Plant Species
As stated in Section 4 of the Environmental Checklist, Biological Resources, of the Draft IS-MND, six
special status plant species were determined to have potential to occur within the project’s
biological study area, based on the presence of suitable habitat, which occurs within the creek
margins and setbacks around Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek, and the wetland and grassland on the
northern portion of the study area. The Draft IS-MND identifies the potential for significant impacts
to special status plants if ground distance occurs within the suitable habitat areas on the project site
and at the potential off-site improvement areas. The Draft IS-MND includes three mitigation
measures to minimize and reduce potentially significant impacts to special status plant species to
less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) requires a survey for special status plants
within suitable habitat by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation management and construction
activities. The survey must be conducted at a time when the six special status plant species with
potential to occur in the study area are recognizable (i.e., usually during the blooming period for the
species). The survey will be valid for five years and must be repeated if construction has not
commenced within that five-year period. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a) prohibits the
start of vegetation management activities on the project site and any construction activities within
potential off-site improvement areas. This mitigation measure would be enforced by the City in that
no grading or building permits would be issued to the project developer prior to completion of the
special status plant survey. In addition, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(b) and BIO-1(c) provide measures
to be implemented if any special status plants are discovered during the survey, including avoidance
and, if avoidance is not feasible, replacement of individual plants at a minimum 2:1 ratio during
habitat restoration. Accordingly, with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-
1(c), potential impacts to special status plants would be less than significant. Therefore, the analysis
of impacts, significance conclusions, and mitigation measures regarding special status plants species
are adequate and no further analysis or mitigation is required.
Federally- and State-Listed Animal Species
The biological study area was assessed for the potential to support special status animal species by
qualified biologists. This assessment concluded that the project site and/or potential off-site
improvement areas contains suitable habitat for three federally-listed animal species (California red-
legged frog [Rana draytonii] and south-central California Coast distinct population segment
steelhead [steelhead; Oncorhyncus mykiss irideus]) and one state-listed animal species (American
bald eagle [Haliaeetus leucocephalus]). No other federally- and/or state-listed animal species have
the potential to occur within the study area. The Draft IS-MND states that the project has the
potential to result in significant impacts to the three aforementioned species but includes mitigation
measures to minimize and reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.
With regard to California red-legged frog, the majority of the habitat on the project site is not
suitable for the species. California red-legged frog would only be expected to occur in disturbance
areas incidentally, if at all, during periods of overland movement occurring during or immediately
after rainstorms, due to the disturbed nature and limited vegetative cover in the project footprint.
Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure BIO-2(c) requires a pre-construction survey for California red-
legged frog, and, if the species is observed in the work area during pre-construction surveys or
during construction of the project, construction activities will be halted and the developer will be
required to comply with all relevant requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act prior to
resuming project activities. The developer may elect to pursue take coverage through consultation
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, or
through Section 7 if there is a federal nexus such as a permit under the Clean Water Act. If the
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 43
applicant does not obtain take coverage, the project would be required to fully avoid take of
California re-legged frog.
During biological surveys of the study area, no water or steelhead were observed within Acacia
Creek where project construction would occur. However, if steelhead are present within the work
area during modifications to the existing crossing over Acacia Creek, significant impacts to steelhead
could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2(e) would ensure avoidance and/or
minimization of potential impacts to steelhead. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(e) restricts construction
of the proposed widening of existing crossing over Acacia Creek to the dry season (April 16 through
October 31). In addition, the proposed widening of the crossing will comply with City design
standards and will not impede wildlife movement.
The American bald eagle has potential to nest and/or forage on or near the project site. The project
is not anticipated to result in removal of substantial foraging habitat for raptors due to the existing
development and disturbed condition of the project site; therefore, no impact to bald eagle foraging
habitat would occur as result of the project. No bald eagle nest was observed on or near the project
site during the biological survey for the project but it is possible that an active bald eagle nest could
occur in the area prior to project construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(f) would be required to
avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to nesting bald eagles (as well as other migratory and
protected bird species) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(f) requires pre-
construction surveys for nesting birds be conducted no more than 14 days prior to vegetation
removal. If active nests are discovered, this mitigation measure includes additional actions
necessary to avoid/minimize impacts to nesting birds in accordance with the California Fish and
Game Code and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Specifically, if a bald eagle nest is discovered, a no-
activity buffer a minimum of 660 feet from the nest will be implemented until appropriate
authorizations are obtained in consultation with the City, USFWS, and California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW).
Accordingly, because no federally- or/and state-listed animal species are known to occur on or near
the project site at this time, there is currently no requirement for the City or project applicant to
consult with USFWS or CDFW. If special status species are detected in the project area prior to or
during construction, work will be halted and the appropriate consultation with the wildlife agencies
would occur. Therefore, the analysis of impacts, significance conclusions, and mitigation measures
regarding federally- and state-listed animal species are adequate and no further analysis or
mitigation is required.
Wildlife Movement
The impact analysis and significance conclusion for wildlife movement corridors presented in the
Draft IS-MND are summarized from the detailed analysis included in the project-specific Biological
Resources Assessment prepared in August 2018 by qualified biologists at Rincon Consultants, Inc.
The Biological Resources Assessment is included as Appendix B of the Draft IS-MND. Wildlife
movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat
patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal
populations. Wildlife movement corridors can be large (regional) or small (local) in scale.
Regionally, the project site and immediate vicinity are not located within an Essential Connectivity
Area (ECA) as mapped in California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving
a Connected California, prepared by CDFW and California Department of Transportation in 2010.
ECAs are regions in which land conservation and management actions should be prioritized to
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 44
maintain and enhance ecological connectivity. Therefore, no impact to regional wildlife movement
corridors would occur as result of the project.
Within the project area, Acacia Creek and Orcutt Creek provide suitable small-scale corridors for
wildlife to travel locally; however, the existing crossing over Acacia Creek is likely a barrier to fish
passage due to its small capacity, and the formation of a scour pool below the outfall of the
elevated culvert suspended five feet from the bed on the south side of the crossing. No other
wildlife movement corridors occur on or near the project site as the majority of the project site and
surrounding area is not conducive to frequent use as a movement corridor due to existing
development and hardscapes.
As stated in the Draft IS-MND, construction of potential off-site improvements could potentially
result in temporary short-term impacts to local wildlife movement within and near the project site.
In addition, future development facilitated by the proposed project would result in increased
residential development in proximity to the wildlife movement corridors along Acacia Creek and
Orcutt Creek. However, because the project site and immediate vicinity are already developed and
disturbed, the increase in lighting, noise, and human activity onsite due to future development
associated with the project would not result in a substantial change or long-term impact to wildlife
movement. Furthermore, the proposed modified crossing over Acacia Creek could result in net
improvements to flow and passage potential and future development would be designed consistent
with the City’s required 35-foot creek setback from Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek, which would
ensure that development would not result in long-term adverse effects to these local wildlife
movement corridors. Accordingly, impacts to local wildlife movement corridors would be less than
significant. Therefore, the analysis of impacts and significance conclusions regarding wildlife
movement corridors are adequate and no further analysis is required.
Response 3-5 – Cultural Resources
The commenter states that the paleontological resources impact analysis in the Draft IS-MND is
inadequate as the analysis does not specifically state the maximum grading depth required for the
proposed project, and the impact analysis related to human remains is incorrect as the analysis
states that there is a potential to encounter human remains but does not include any mitigation.
The analysis of potential impacts to paleontological resources in the Draft IS-MND is based on the
project-specific Paleontological Resources Assessment dated November 2017, which is included as
part of the Draft IS-MND as Appendix C. As discussed in the Draft IS-MND, sediments at ground
surface at the project site have low paleontological sensitivity but sediments that have high
paleontological sensitivity underlie the project site at as few as six feet below ground surface.
Because the maximum depth of ground disturbance would not be determined until project design is
finalized, the Draft IS-MND conservatively determines that impacts to paleontological resources
would be significant and includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than
significant levels. As stated in the first paragraph under “Mitigation Measures” under Section 5 of
the Environmental Checklist, Cultural Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-3(a)
through CR-3(c) would be required during all phases of project construction that would disturb the
buried Pleistocene alluvium (approximately six feet below ground surface). These mitigation
measures, which include monitoring of ground-disturbing activities within previously undisturbed
sediments at depths greater than six feet by a paleontological monitor, would ensure that any
significant fossils present on-site are preserved through the recovery, identification, and curation of
previously unrecovered fossils. Therefore, the analysis of impacts, significance conclusions, and
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 45
mitigation measures regarding paleontological resources are adequate and no further analysis or
mitigation is required.
The Draft IS-MND acknowledges that ground-disturbing activities associated with project
construction has the potential to encounter or disturb undiscovered human remains, which is true
for any project that includes ground disturbance. Accordingly, all projects within California are
subject to compliance with the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which
requires immediate halting of activities at and near the discovery of human remains until the County
Coroner has determined origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
In addition, the project site is not in an area with known cemeteries. Because all projects in
California are required by law to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and no known
cemeteries occur on or near the project site, the potential for project construction to disturb
previously undiscovered human remains would not constitute a significant impact under CEQA, and
does not require additional mitigation beyond compliance with applicant laws and regulations
pertaining to the handling of human remains. Therefore, the analysis of impacts and significance
conclusions regarding disturbance of human remains are adequate and no further analysis or
mitigation is required.
Response 3-6 – Geology and Soils
The commenter states that the existing (baseline) conditions, impact analyses, and mitigation
measures related to geology and soils in the Draft IS-MND are inadequate as the Draft IS-MND does
not state the project-specific impacts to geology and soils and therefore cannot provide mitigation
that would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Existing geology and soil conditions on the project site are provided under “Setting” in Section 6 of
the Environmental Checklist, Geology and Soils. The analysis of impacts to geology and soils is
directly based upon these existing conditions. The Draft IS-MND acknowledges that the project site
is identified in the Safety Element of the San Luis Obispo General Plan as being located in an area of
very high liquefaction potential. The General Plan states that development may be located in areas
of high liquefaction potential only if a site-specific investigation by a qualified professional
determines that the proposed development would not be at risk from settlement and liquefaction.
Because a site-specific investigation regarding liquefaction has not yet been prepared, the Draft IS-
MND conservatively states that potential geotechnical hazards would be a potentially significant
impact since development of the site could result in the exposure of people or structures to
liquefaction hazards. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 in the Draft IS-MND requires preparation of a site-
specific geotechnical study and incorporation of all applicable engineering requirements and
recommendations included in the geotechnical study into the project site plans. Furthermore, the
project applicant is required to submit the geotechnical study for approval by the City prior to site
development. Approval of the geotechnical study and site plans by the City is required before the
grading and building permits can be issued for the project. Therefore, the analysis of impacts,
significance conclusions, and mitigation measures regarding geology and soils are adequate and no
further analysis or mitigation is required.
Response 3-7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The commenter states that the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis in the Draft IS-MND does
not provide justification for using the SLOAPCD’s GHG efficiency threshold, does not accurately
address the most recent legislative guidance and goals in Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), and does not
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 46
correctly address the project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan and the California Air
Resources Board’s (ARB) 2017 Scoping Plan.
The Draft IS-MND describes the GHG emissions thresholds recommended by SLOAPCD, which
include consistency a qualified GHG reduction strategy, a bright-line threshold, and an efficiency
threshold. The SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012) states that lead agencies may use any
of the three options to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions impact to a level of
certainty. The efficiency threshold is appropriate for large projects that may exceed the bright-line
threshold because of their size, but would otherwise incorporate emissions-reducing features
and/or that are located in a manner that results in relatively low VMT. In addition, the DRAFT IS-
MND evaluates the project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan and the goals of ARB’s
2017 Scoping Plan.
The commenter notes that SLOAPCD’s CEQA guidance was last updated in 2012 in reference to the
GHG targets adopted under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). The Draft IS-MND’s discussion of GHG
significance thresholds includes a summary of the background and timing of AB 32, the SLOAPCD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the City’s Climate Action Plan, as well as SB 32 and the ARB 2017
Scoping Plan. The evaluation of potential GHG emissions impacts in the Draft IS-MND compares
anticipated project emissions to quantitative thresholds developed by SLOAPCD to address the
requirements of AB 32, as well as quantitative thresholds included in ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan to
address the requirements of SB 32. In addition, the Draft IS-MND includes qualitative discussions of
the project’s consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions.
The Draft IS-MND describes the manner in which the project would be consistent with the goals and
policies in the City’s Climate Action Plan and the ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, including by locating
mixed-use development in close proximity to transit services, as well as existing commercial
business park and industrial uses, which facilitates walking, biking, and use of transit. In addition, as
noted above, the IS-MND describes the project’s consistency with the six metric tons CO2e per
capita goal, which would be consistent with the 2030 statewide target established by SB 32. As a
result of these project components, the Draft IS-MND concludes that the project would be
consistent with the emissions reduction goals of the City’s Climate Action Plan and the ARB 2017
Scoping Plan.
The commenter states that the discussion of the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is
impermissible pursuant to the California Supreme Court’s decision in the Center for Biological
Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife case. The Court’s decision identified three potential
options for evaluating the significance of a project’s GHG emissions:
A lead agency may determine what level of reduction a project must contribute to comply
with statewide goals.
A lead agency may assess consistency with AB 32’s goal by evaluating compliance with
regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG emissions from particular activities, such as
high building efficiency and conservation standards.
A lead agency may use an existing quantitative threshold of significance for GHG emissions,
providing there is substantial evidence that the threshold would be consistent with the
state’s emissions reduction goals.
The Draft IS-MND evaluates the project’s consistency with the full range of locally adopted
quantitative and qualitative standards and policies, as well as available statewide guidance
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 47
identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan, all of which are based on substantial evidence regarding local
and statewide emissions, and the measures that projects can follow to attain the state’s emissions
reduction goals. Based on this comprehensive evaluation, the Draft IS-MND concludes that the
project’s GHG emissions would result in a less than significant impact.
Response 3-8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The commenter states that the hazards and hazardous materials analysis in the Draft IS-MND
incorrectly concludes that no schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site, does
not confirm that Federal Aeronautics Administration consultation has occurred, and does not
discuss whether any airport accidents occurred near the project site.
The Draft IS-MND reviewed the project site vicinity for public and charter schools, consistent with
the guidance established in Public Resources Code Section 21151.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15186, which consider potential impacts to public school districts. In addition, because the project is
primarily residential and commercial in nature, it would not reasonably be anticipated to emit
hazardous air emissions or handle hazardous substances in a quantity equal to or greater than the
state threshold quantity specified pursuant to subdivision (j) of Section 25532 of the Health and
Safety Code.
The Draft IS-MND reviewed the project for potential hazards, and determined that such hazards
would be less than significant. Consistent with the requirements described in 14 Code of Federal
Regulations Part 77, notification of proposed construction near the airport would be submitted 45
days prior to construction or the date when the building application is filed, whichever is earlier.
This notification requirement is independent of the requirements of CEQA pertaining to potential
airport hazards, and is not required to establish that the project’s impacts would be less than
significant.
As described in Section 8 of the Environmental Checklist, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there
have been five incidents resulting in emergency landings within the Land Use and Circulation
Element defined Airport Overlay Zones between 1984 and 2014, none of which occurred within or
adjacent to the project site.
Response 3-9 – Hydrology and Water Quality
The commenter states that the hydrology and water quality analysis in the Draft IS-MND incorrectly
evaluates the proposed re-grading of the project site and associated flooding impacts, does not
address potential residual impacts associated with the proposed re-grading, and does not accurately
disclose baseline conditions regarding water quality impacts or evaluate cumulative water quality
impacts.
The commenter states that the project ground elevations would be raised by the City, which is
incorrect. As described in Section 7 of the Initial Study, Description of Project, the project applicant
is proposing to re-grade the project site to raise building ground elevations above the existing 100-
year floodplain as part of the project. As described in Section 9 of the Environmental Checklist,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is required to ensure the resulting post-
development floodplain would exclude areas proposed for housing and confirm that the Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application to redefine FEMA 100-year floodplain boundary is
approved and an official letter of map revision (LOMR-F) is issued by FEMA. Because the project
includes re-grading of the site to raise building ground elevations above the existing 100-year
floodplain, and Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would ensure that the post-development floodplain
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 48
would exclude areas proposed for housing, potential floodplain impacts are identified as less than
significant with mitigation.
The Draft IS-MND discusses the potential for the project to substantially alter existing drainage
patterns or result in increased post-development flows, including the City requirement that the final
grading plan be consistent with the requirements in the City’s Drainage Design Manual, matching
post-development flows to pre-development for the 2-year through 100-year storm events. The
Draft IS-MND concludes that compliance with applicable permit requirements would ensure that
the runoff flows are less than or equal to existing conditions, and that the project would not result
in an increase in post-development peak runoff from the project site.
Section 9 of the Environmental Checklist, Hydrology and Water Quality, discusses the existing water
quality in Orcutt Creek, Acacia Creek, and the San Luis Obispo Groundwater Basin. The Draft IS-MND
discusses potential water quality impacts that may result from the proposed grading activities,
including the requirements associated with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) General Permit and the City’s and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) Post-
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast
Region. The Draft IS-MND concludes that compliance with applicable permit requirements would
ensure that the project would result in less than significant impacts to water quality. As discussed in
Section 19 of the Environmental Checklist, Mandatory Findings of Significance, the project is
consistent with General Plan goals, programs, and policies, and Municipal Code requirements for
the proposed service commercial zoning, which have been developed by the City to protect natural
resources, including local hydrology and water quality. Consistency with these local policies, and
mitigation of site-specific hydrological and water quality impacts to a less than significant level
would ensure that the project would not contribute substantially to cumulative impacts to
hydrology and water quality.
Response 3-10 – Land Use
The commenter states that the Draft IS-MND shifts the baseline in a manner that downplays the
significant land use impacts of the project by treating the existing mobile home units on the project
site as vacant, and does not evaluate whether the project would comply with applicable laws and
policies to protect mobile home communities.
As discussed in Response 3-1, the existing mobile home park includes 35 mobile units that would be
removed to facilitate development of the project site, 13 of which are occupied by rental tenants
with limited leases based on the commencement of the project. Section 10 of the Environmental
Checklist, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft IS-MND has been revised as follows to reflect the
existing conditions on the project site:
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The property was previously utilized as a mobile home park; however the coaches
remaining on site are currently vacant existing mobile home park includes 35 mobile units
that would be removed to facilitate development of the project site. All existing coaches are
currently vacant or have limited leases based on the commencement of the project.
Therefore, no residents would be displaced with the redevelopment of the site. There is one
single-family home adjacent to the project site, but this residence does not use the project
site for access. The proposed service commercial zoning would be consistent with the
surrounding land uses. No project components would divide an established community, or
place pressure on adjacent properties for future development.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 49
The project includes approval of a mobile home park Conversion Impact Report (CIA), which
documents replacement housing assistance activities, pursuant to Section 5.45.030 of the
Conversion Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 5.45.150 of the City Municipal Code, current tenants
would be given priority for renting units in the new development. Other applicable laws and policies
pertaining to mobile home communities would be evaluated as part of the project approval process,
but compliance with these laws and policies is not related to the potential for the project to result in
a significant impact the land use and planning under the requirements of CEQA.
Response 3-11 – Noise
The commenter states that Mitigation Measure N-1 does not reduce impacts to protected species or
nearby noise-sensitive receptors. The Draft IS-MND also identifies Mitigation Measures N-2(a) and
N-2(b), which would ensure that noise levels during construction of the project would not exceed
the stationary equipment noise standards established in the City’s Municipal Code (Title 9, Chapter
9.12, Noise Control). These measures would reduce potentially significant temporary construction
noise to a less than significant level. The Draft IS-MND evaluated long-term operational noise levels
associated with on-site equipment and project-generated vehicle trips, and concluded that long-
term operation of the project would not cause a project-level or cumulative increase in noise that
would significantly impact on- or off-site noise-sensitive receptors or protected species.
Response 3-12 – Population and Housing
The commenter states that the 2035 Citywide population estimate included in Section 13 of the
Environmental Checklist, Population and Housing, is incorrect based on the City’s residential unit
projection for 2035 and an average household size of 2.44 persons per residential unit, and is not
consistent with the 2035 Citywide population estimate stated in other sections of the Draft IS-MND.
Section 13 of the Environmental Checklist, Population and Housing, relies upon the City’s 2014
Program EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update, which states that by 2035, the
maximum number of residential units in the City would be 25,762. The Draft IS-MND also utilizes
population and housing estimates provided by the DOF to determine the Citywide average
residential density of 2.33 pph. As previously stated under Response 3-1, the most recent DOF
estimate of average residential density in the City of San Luis Obispo is 2.27 pph. Using 2.27 pph, the
projected 2035 Citywide population would be 58,479, which is an increase of 1,793 persons (3.2
percent) from the population of 56,686 presented in Section 13 of the Environmental Checklist,
Population and Housing. This 3.2 percent increase in projected 2035 Citywide population does not
affect the analysis of impacts or significance conclusions presented in the Draft IS-MND and no
further analysis or mitigation is required.
Response 3-13 – Public Services
The commenter states that project impacts to fire protection services should be considered
significant due to the existing need to construct a new fire station and increase associated staff. The
commenter also states that traffic, air quality, and GHG emissions impacts caused by transporting
students associated with future development facilitated by the proposed project to and from
schools have not been analyzed.
Based on the Environmental Checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact to
public services would occur if the project would “result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 50
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services.” As discussed in Section 14 of the
Environmental Checklist, Public Services, the City’s 2009 Fire Master Plan (FMP) concludes that the
City does not have enough primary neighborhood fire stations to deliver suburban response times
to all outer areas of the City, including the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) area in which the
project site is located. In April 2018, the City’s Fire Marshal reviewed the project, and determined
that development facilitated by the project may worsen fire response times in the AASP (Maggio
2018). Also in April 2018, the City Council adopted amendments to the Capital Facilities Fee Program
to include an impact fee program to pay for acquisition and construction of a new fire station in the
southern area of the City. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to
contribute its fair share to the costs of the planned new fire station prior to issuance of building
permits. The Draft IS-MND concludes that, with payment into the impact fee program, impacts to
fire protection from future development facilitated by the project would be less than significant.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the project itself would not “result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,
or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts” because the project’s contribution to inadequate fire
response times would be incremental. Although future development facilitated by the project could
further exacerbate already deficient fire response times, insufficient response times would continue
regardless of whether the project is approved and future development occurs on the project site. It
is not reasonable to require one project to fully fund construction of a new fire station or the hiring
of additional staff. Accordingly, it is common practice in many jurisdictions, including the City, to
implement a fair-share funding program that allows developers to contribute monetary funds based
on the land use and density of projects. In addition, it is noted that the City would assess the
environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the planned new fire station,
pursuant to CEQA. Because the location and design of the planned fire station has not yet been
identified, an evaluation of environmental impacts related to the fire station at this time would be
speculative. Therefore, the analysis of impacts and significance conclusions regarding fire protection
are adequate and no further analysis or mitigation is required.
The Draft IS-MND includes quantitative analyses of project impacts to traffic, air quality, and GHG
emissions. Estimated project trip generation is based on the land use and density of a project. The
project’s transportation study (Appendix E of the IS-MND) estimates the number of vehicle trips
generated by the project using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The analysis of impacts associated with air quality and
GHG emissions in the Draft IS-MND is based on the total (daily and annual) number of vehicle trips
generated by the project. Therefore, the Draft IS-MND takes into account air pollutants and GHG
emissions from all vehicle trips, including transporting future students to and from schools.
As discussed in the Draft IS-MND, future development associated with the project would also result
in additional students to schools in the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). Consistent
with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 50, the project, similar to all projects in the City that
include residential development, would be required to pay a school impact fee (Government Code
Section 65970) to SLCUSD. SB 50 fees would be directed towards the maintenance of adequate
schools service levels, including increases in capacity, which could require new or altered school
facilities. The construction and operation of new SLCUSD facilities necessary to accommodate
increases in student population would be required to comply with CEQA, including the consideration
of the environmental effects associated with new SLCUSD facilities, which would ensure that
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 51
potential impacts associated with new school facilities (including impacts to traffic, air quality, and
GHG emissions) are identified and, if required, mitigated to reduce or eliminate impacts.
Accordingly, no further analysis or mitigation is required in the Draft IS-MND.
Response 3-14 – Traffic
The commenter states that the Draft IS-MND incorrectly assumes planned improvements to City
transportation facilities as part of the traffic analysis, and does not evaluate potential impacts to
nearby intersections that may be affected by project traffic, including the SR 227/Buckley Road
intersection and the Higuera/Prado Road intersection. Response 2-1 discusses the inclusion of
planned transportation network improvements in the transportation study and Draft IS-MND. These
improvement projects are “planned network and land use changes expected upon buildout of the
City’s General Plan” (page 30) and with indicated funding in the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee program
and in the San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element.
Potential impacts to intersections not evaluated in the transportation analysis are discussed in
Response 2-1. Based on the project trip generation and distribution provided in the transportation
study, project traffic would not contribute to a substantial increase in traffic at SR 227 intersections,
including the intersection of SR 277 and Buckley Road.
Response 3-15 – Utilities
The commenter states that the Draft IS-MND analysis of wastewater facilities does not adequately
analyze flows during peak wet weather events. The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF)
can handle up to 5.1 million gallons per day (MGD) during peak dry weather flows in accordance
with our discharge permit. During wet weather events between October and May, our permit has a
separated sampling and inspection criteria which handles wet weather peak flows based on the
current operations, and the use of a 4 million gallon equalization basin that attenuates the flows
coming into and out of the plant. As a result of stormwater infiltration in other areas of the City’s
sewer collection system, Mitigation Measure UT-1 in the Draft IS-MND includes an offset of the
additional sewer flows generated by the project, which would reduce potential impacts attributed
with peak wet weather events.
Response 3-16 – Energy Efficiency and Conservation
The commenter states that the Draft IS-MND does not discuss whether the project would result in
wasteful consumption of energy. It should be noted that the CEQA Guidelines require discussion of
energy consumption for Environmental Impact Reports, but not for NDs or MNDs. However, a brief
discussion of energy consumption is provided here for informational purposes.
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo City Limits, a reasonable distance from public
services such as police, fire protection, and schools in San Luis Obispo. A quantitative evaluation of
the project’s projected trip generation and VMT is included in Section 16 of the Environmental
Checklist, Transportation/Traffic, and Appendix F, transportation study. Project operation would
result in approximately 10,853 new daily trips, which represents approximately 0.8 percent of
estimated VMT under buildout conditions of the General Plan as currently zoned. As discussed in
the Draft IS-MND, project would locate new mixed-use development in close proximity to transit
services, as well as existing commercial business park and industrial uses, which facilitates walking,
biking, and use of transit. As a result, the project would not reasonably be anticipated to result in
longer than average trip lengths compared to existing development in the City of San Luis Obispo.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 52
A quantitative evaluation of the project’s anticipated electricity and natural gas consumption is
included in Section 7 of the Environmental Checklist, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendix A,
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Calculations. Project operation would result in the annual
consumption of approximately 1,477 megawatt hours of electricity and 3.5 million cubic feet of
natural gas. The project would be subject to energy conservation requirements in the California
Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency
Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards
Code (CALGreen) (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). Adherence to these
applicable energy efficiency requirements would ensure that the project would not result in
wasteful and inefficient use of non-renewable resources due to building operation.
In addition, Section 3 of the Environmental Checklist, Air Quality, and Section 16 of the
Environmental Checklist, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft IS-MND include mitigation measures
intended to reduce air pollutant emissions and traffic congestion, which would have the secondary
effect of reducing project-related energy consumption.
Response 3-17 – Conclusion
The commenter requests notification of CEQA actions and notices concerning the project. The City
will provide the requested notifications, and add the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters to
the list of interested parties in connection with the project.
Response 3-18 – Attachment: Avila Ranch EIR Executive Summary Excerpt
The commenter attaches an excerpt from the Avila Ranch Development Project EIR Executive
Summary, which summarizes some of the impacts and associated mitigation measures from that
document to supplement earlier comments regarding potential cumulative air quality impacts. Refer
to Response 3-3.
Response 3-19 – San Luis Obispo Tribune Population Growth Article
The commenter attaches an article from the San Luis Obispo Tribune that includes information
about population and growth projections in the City of San Luis Obispo to supplement earlier
comments regarding the population estimates in the Draft IS-MND. Refer to Response 3-1.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project Response to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Response to Comments 53
3 Draft IS-MND Text Revisions
Specific changes to the text of the Draft IS-MND described in the responses above have been made
in the main body of the document. Such changes have been made to clarify information presented
in the Draft IS-MND in response to comments received during the public review period. In no case
do these revisions result in a greater number of impacts or impacts of a substantially greater
severity than those set forth in the Draft IS-MND. Where revisions to the Draft IS-MND text are
called for, added text is indicated with underlined text. Text deleted from the Draft IS-MND is shown
in strikeout.