The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019 01 04 Tank Farm Road MND Comments 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