The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFinal Costco, Froom Ranch EIRFINAL Costco/Froom Ranch Environmental Impact Report SCH. No. 2002051036 Prepared for City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 June 2003 Costco / Froom Ranch Table of Contents DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………..I-1 A. Project Background And Statement of Need....................................................................I-1 B. Purpose of the EIR............................................................................................................I-1 C. EIR Contents.....................................................................................................................I-2 1. Scoping Process..........................................................................................................I-2 2. EIR Contents...............................................................................................................I-2 D. Agency Use of the Document...........................................................................................I-4 E. Project Sponsors and Contact Persons..............................................................................I-4 F. Review of the Draft EIR ...................................................................................................I-4 II. SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………..II-1 A. Project Location and Description.................................................................................... II-1 B. Project Objectives........................................................................................................... II-1 C. Project Components........................................................................................................ II-1 1. Costco Building ........................................................................................................ II-1 2. Fueling Facility......................................................................................................... II-1 3. Parcels 1 and 3.......................................................................................................... II-2 D. Abbreviations.................................................................................................................. II-2 E. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.............................................................. II-2 III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT…………………………………………………..III-1 A. General Background ...................................................................................................... III-1 B. Project Objectives.......................................................................................................... III-4 C. Permit Requirements...................................................................................................... III-4 D. Project History ............................................................................................................... III-5 1. Historic Use .............................................................................................................III-5 2. Previous Applications..............................................................................................III-5 E. Project Characteristics ................................................................................................... III-8 1. Costco Development................................................................................................III-8 2. Fueling Station.........................................................................................................III-8 3. Parcels 1 & 3..........................................................................................................III-11 4. Parcel 5...................................................................................................................III-11 5. Drainage.................................................................................................................III-11 6. Grading ..................................................................................................................III-12 7. Retaining Walls......................................................................................................III-12 8. Parcel Access.........................................................................................................III-13 9. Truck Deliveries.....................................................................................................III-13 10. Parking...................................................................................................................III-13 11. Pedestrian Accessibility.........................................................................................III-14 12. Water Use...............................................................................................................III-14 13. Utilities and Public Services..................................................................................III-14 14. Lighting Plan..........................................................................................................III-14 15. Landscaping...........................................................................................................III-15 16. Architectural Design..............................................................................................III-15 F. Required Permits and Approvals ................................................................................. III-15 G. Parcels 1 and 3 ............................................................................................................ III-16 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ……………………………………………………………….IV-1 Costco / Froom Ranch Table of Contents DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report ii A. Physical Setting and Existing Uses................................................................................IV-1 B. Surrounding Land Uses..................................................................................................IV-1 C. Consistency with Plans and Policies..............................................................................IV-1 D. Cumulative Analysis....................................................................................................IV-21 V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES…………………………V-1 A. Geologic Hazards............................................................................................................ V-1 1. Environmental Setting ..............................................................................................V-1 2. Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................................V-6 3. Thresholds of Significance .......................................................................................V-6 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology......................................................................V-7 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................V-7 6. Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................V-9 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary.......................................................................V-9 B. Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation.......................................................................... V-10 1. Environmental Setting ............................................................................................V-10 2. Design Plans............................................................................................................V-15 3. Water Quality..........................................................................................................V-15 4. Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................V-16 5. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................V-17 6. Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................V-20 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary.....................................................................V-22 C. Biological Resources .................................................................................................... V-23 1. Existing Conditions.................................................................................................V-23 2. Methods...................................................................................................................V-24 3. Natural Communities..............................................................................................V-26 4. Special-status Species.............................................................................................V-27 5. Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................V-34 6. Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................V-35 7. Impact Assessment and Methodology....................................................................V-36 8. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................V-37 9. Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................V-40 D. Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................................... V-41 1. Existing Conditions.................................................................................................V-41 2. Project Impacts........................................................................................................V-42 3. Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................V-43 4. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures.................................................V-43 5. Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................V-44 6. Significant Unavoidable Impacts............................................................................V-44 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary.....................................................................V-44 E. Traffic/Circulation Transportation............................................................................... V-45 1. Environmental Setting ............................................................................................V-46 2. Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................V-54 3. Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................V-54 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology....................................................................V-56 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures-Costco Only ...........................V-57 6. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures- Total Project All Froom Parcels (Approved plus Costco plus Froom Parcels)................................................................V-73 Costco / Froom Ranch Table of Contents DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report iii 7. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Background plus Costco plus Froom Parcels plus 10-Year Cumulative Development)..........................................................V-80 8. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................V-86 F. Air Quality .................................................................................................................... V-93 1. Environmental Setting ............................................................................................V-93 2. Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................V-96 3. Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................V-97 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology..................................................................V-103 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................V-104 6. Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................V-111 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary...................................................................V-113 G. Noise ........................................................................................................................... V-114 1. Environmental Setting ..........................................................................................V-114 2. Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................V-114 3. Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................................V-115 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology..................................................................V-115 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................V-115 6. Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................V-118 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary...................................................................V-119 H. Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................... V-120 1. Existing Conditions...............................................................................................V-120 2. Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................V-121 3. Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................................V-122 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology..................................................................V-122 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................V-122 6. Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................V-124 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary...................................................................V-124 I. Public Services and Utilities....................................................................................... V-126 1. Environmental Setting ..........................................................................................V-126 2. Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................V-129 3. Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................................V-130 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology..................................................................V-130 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................V-131 6. Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................V-134 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary...................................................................V-134 J. Visual Resources......................................................................................................... V-135 1. Existing Conditions...............................................................................................V-135 2. Methods.................................................................................................................V-135 3. Project Characteristics ..........................................................................................V-137 4. Existing Visual Character.....................................................................................V-138 5. Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................V-139 6. Thresholds of Significance ...................................................................................V-141 7. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................V-146 8. Cumulative Impacts..............................................................................................V-156 9. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary...................................................................V-158 10. Preliminary Viewshed Analysis of Front Two Parcels.........................................V-158 VI. ALTERNATIVES……………………………………………………………………………...VI-1 Costco / Froom Ranch Table of Contents DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report iv A. Introduction....................................................................................................................VI-1 B. Summary Of Alternatives Considered...........................................................................VI-1 1. No Project Alternative.............................................................................................VI-2 2. Different Project Locations Alternative...................................................................VI-3 3. Different Project Characteristics Alternative...........................................................VI-7 4. Different Front Parcel Use Alternative....................................................................VI-8 5. Proposed Project With Incorporation of EIR Mitigation Measures.........................VI-8 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………VII-1 A. Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................VII-1 B. Project Impacts..............................................................................................................VII-1 1. Economic Growth...................................................................................................VII-1 2. Employment Opportunities.....................................................................................VII-2 3. Employment Growth to Supporting Industries.......................................................VII-2 4. Competition of Similar Industries...........................................................................VII-2 5. Additional Public Services......................................................................................VII-3 6. Jobs/Housing Balance.............................................................................................VII-3 7. Precedent-Setting Effects........................................................................................VII-4 C. Relationship Between Proper Use Of Environment And Maintenance Of Long-Term Productivity.........................................................................................................................VII-4 D. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes..........................................................VII-5 1. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources.............................................................VII-5 2. Loss of Visual Resources........................................................................................VII-5 3. Loss of Biological Resources..................................................................................VII-5 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN………………………………………………………VIII-1 A. Introduction................................................................................................................. VIII-1 B. General Mitigation Measures...................................................................................... VIII-1 1. Geologic Hazards..................................................................................................VIII-1 2. Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation..................................................................VIII-2 3. Biological Resources ............................................................................................VIII-4 4. Cultural Resources................................................................................................VIII-6 5. Traffic Safety........................................................................................................VIII-8 6. Air Quality..........................................................................................................VIII-13 7. Noise...................................................................................................................VIII-19 8. Hazardous Materials...........................................................................................VIII-20 9. Public Services/ Utilities.....................................................................................VIII-21 10. Visual Resources.................................................................................................VIII-23 IX. REFERENCES AND PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED…………………………IX-1 A. References......................................................................................................................IX-1 1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards................................................................................IX-1 2. Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation.....................................................................IX-2 3. Biological Resources ...............................................................................................IX-2 4. Cultural Resources...................................................................................................IX-4 5. Traffic Safety...........................................................................................................IX-8 6. Hazardous Materials................................................................................................IX-8 7. Public Services-Utilities...........................................................................................IX-9 8. Air Quality...............................................................................................................IX-9 9. Noise........................................................................................................................IX-9 Costco / Froom Ranch Table of Contents DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report v 10. Visual Resources......................................................................................................IX-9 11. Consistency with Plans and Policies......................................................................IX-10 B. Persons And Agencies Contacted................................................................................IX-11 1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards..............................................................................IX-11 2. Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation....................................................................IX-11 3. Biological Resources .............................................................................................IX-11 4. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................IX-11 5. Traffic Safety.........................................................................................................IX-11 6. Air Quality.............................................................................................................IX-11 7. Noise......................................................................................................................IX-11 8. Hazardous Materials..............................................................................................IX-11 9. Public Services- Utilities........................................................................................IX-11 10. Visual Resources....................................................................................................IX-11 11. Consistency with Plans and Policies......................................................................IX-11 C. Eir Preparers.................................................................................................................IX-12 X. Response to Comments on the DRAFT EIR…………………………………………..X-1 Costco / Froom Ranch Table of Contents DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report vi FIGURES Figure III-1: Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................III-2 Figure III-2: Project Location Map ..................................................................................III-3 Figure III-3: Assessor Parcel Map ...................................................................................III-6 Figure III-4: Conceptual Site Plan-Parcels 1 and 3 .........................................................III-7 Figure III-5: Conceptual Site Plan-Costco Site (Parcel 2) ...............................................III-9 Figure III-6a: Grading Cross-Sections ............................................................................III-16 Figure III-6b: Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan ....................................................III-17 Figure III-7: Parking/Pedestrian Circulation Guidelines ...............................................III-18 Figure III-8: Viewshed/Building Location Guidelines ..................................................III-19 Figure III-9: Landscape Elements Guidelines ...............................................................III-20 Figure III-10: Building Design Guidelines .....................................................................III-21 Figure III-11a: Exterior Elevations ....................................................................................III-22 Figure III-11b: Exterior Elevations ....................................................................................III-23 Figure III-12: Fueling Station ..........................................................................................III-24 Figure III-13a: Landscape Enlargements ..........................................................................III-25 Figure III-13b: Landscape Enlargements ..........................................................................III-26 Figure III-14: Lighting Plan .............................................................................................III-27 Figure V-1: Location of Fault Zones ...............................................................................V-2 Figure V-2: Los Osos Fault Zone and San Luis/Pismo Structural Block ........................V-3 Figure V-3: Watershed Subbasin Delineation ...............................................................V-11 Figure V-4: Colorband Topographic of Lower Prefumo and Froom Creeks ................V-12 Figure V-5: Vegetation Map ..........................................................................................V-25 Figure V-6: Proposed and Recommended Truck Routes ............................................V-117 Figure V-7: Key Viewing Area Location Map ............................................................V-135 Figure V-8: Key Viewing Area 1 ................................................................................V-146 Figure V-9: Key Viewing Area 2 ................................................................................V-147 Figure V-10: Key Viewing Area 3 ................................................................................V-148 Figure V-11: Distant Viewing Locations ......................................................................V-149 Figure V-12: Viewshed Analysis – Location Map ........................................................V-159 Figure V-13: Viewshed Analysis – Visual Backdrop ....................................................V-160 Figure V-14: Viewshed Analysis – Conceptual Site Design .........................................V-161 Figure V-15 Front Parcel Building Height Analysis......................................................V-162 Figure V-16 Front Parcel Berm Height Analysis...........................................................V-163 Figure VI-1: Froom East Alternative Location ................................................................VI-6 Costco / Froom Ranch Table of Contents DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report vii TABLES Table II-1: Class I Impacts ............................................................................................. II-3 Table II-2: Class II Impacts............................................................................................. II-7 Table II-3: Class III Impacts......................................................................................... II-24 Table III-1: Costco Building Data ..................................................................................III-8 Table III-2: Parking Data ..............................................................................................III-13 Table IV-1: City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency ...................................IV-3 Table IV-2: City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations Consistency ......................IV-19 Table IV-3: Cumulative Development Scenario ..........................................................IV-23 Table V-1: Projected Peak Flow Increases in Froom Tributary Area ..........................V-17 Table V-2: Sensitive Plant Species ..............................................................................V-29 Table V-3: Congdon’s Tarplant Survey Results ..........................................................V-30 Table V-4: Sensitive Animal Species ...........................................................................V-32 Table V-5: Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle ..............................................V-48 Table V-6: Delay and Level of Service for All Project Conditions .............................V-49 Table V-7: Background Condition Trip Generation ....................................................V-51 Table V-8: Background LOVR Ramp Intersection Level of Service ..........................V-54 Table V-9: Signalized Intersection Thresholds of Significance ...................................V-54 Table V-10: Costco Project Trip Generation .................................................................V-57 Table V-11: Mitigation Combination for LOVR/U.S. 101/Calle Joaquin .....................V-66 Table V-12: LOVR Interchange Levels of Service With Mitigation .............................V-67 Table V-13: 10-Year Cumulative Condition Trip Generation .......................................V-81 Table V-14: Summary of Impacts, Mitigation, and Implementation Responsibility .....V-88 Table V-15: Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................V-98 Table V-16: SLOAPCD Maximum Pollutant Concentrations from 1990 -1997 ...........V-99 Table V-17: SLOAPCD 1991 Reference Year Annual Emissions Inventory ..............V-101 Table V-18: APCD Thresholds of Significance for Operational Emissions Impacts ..V-103 Table V-19: Level of Construction Activity Requiring Mitigation .............................V-103 Table V-20: Short-Term Construction Emissions ........................................................V-104 Table V-21: Long-Term Operational Emissions ..........................................................V-108 Table V-22 Fueling Station Emissions Estimate .........................................................V-111 Table V-23: Cumulative Long-term Operational Emissions .......................................V-112 Table V-24: City of San Luis Obispo Stationary Noise Standards ..............................V-114 Table V-25: Measured Noise Levels ............................................................................V-116 Table V-26: City of San Luis Obispo Water Supply Safe Annual Yield .....................V-130 Table V-27: City of San Luis Obispo 2002 Water Demand ........................................V-130 Table V-28: Costco Project Estimated Demand ...........................................................V-130 Table V-29: Projected Wastewater Generation ............................................................V-131 Table V-30: Key Viewing Areas ..................................................................................V-144 Table VI-1: Impact Comparison of Project Alternatives ................................................VI-2 Costco / Froom Ranch Table of Contents DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report viii PLATES Plate V-1a: Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .......................Appendix G Plate V-1b: Existing Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..............................Appendix G Plate V-2a: Background Condition PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes............................V-52 Plate V-2b: Background Condition Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................V-53 Plate V-3a: Costco Project Condition PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................V-59 Plate V-3b: Costco Project Condition Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...............V-60 Plate V-4a: Costco + Background PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.............................V-61 Plate V-4b: Costco + Background Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.....................V-62 Plate V-5: Project Driveway Volumes.........................................................................V-63 Plate V-6a: Froom Parcels Condition PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................V-75 Plate V-6b: Froom Parcels Condition Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes................V-76 Plate V-7a: Froom Parcels + Costco Condition PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.........V-77 Plate V-7b: Froom Parcels + Costco Condition Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes V-78 Plate V-8a: 10-Year Cumulative Condition PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..............V-82 Plate V-8b: 10-Year Cumulative Condition Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes......V-83 Plate V-9: Traffic Mitigation Schematic.......................................................................V-87 APPENDICES Appendix A: Notice of Preparation Responses to NOP Appendix B: Geotechnical Investigation Report (Kleinfelder, Inc.) Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report (Kleinfelder, Inc.) Appendix C: Rainfall-Runoff Model (Questa Engineering) Appendix D: Congdon’s Tarplant Mitigation Plan (Morro Group, Inc.) Appendix E: Wetland Assessment (Ibis Associates) Appendix F: Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2001-221 (County of San Luis Obispo) Appendix G: Traffic Exhibits Existing Conditions Studied Mitigation Alternatives Caltrans Letter Traffic Analysis Technical Appendices Appendix H: Air Quality Report – San Luis Obispo County URBEMIS Calculations Construction Emissions Calculations Appendix I: Noise Tables Costco / Froom Ranch Introduction DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report I-1 I. INTRODUCTION A. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF NEED The project site is located within the City of San Luis Obispo on the west side of Los Osos Valley Road between Madonna Road and Highway 101 and it is located between the DeVaul residential development currently under construction and the Home Depot (formerly known as the Eagle Hardware & Garden). Costco has filed an application to develop a 14.85 acre parcel for commercial uses and related site improvements. The project will include a 142,000 140,000 square foot Costco Wholesale store Warehouse with tire sales and installation, and gas pumps for the sale of gas to Costco customers. Additionally, this EIR examines two adjacent parcels for future retail development, one located between the Costco parcel and LOVR and the other between the Home Depot and LOVR. Approximately 142,000 square feet is planned for general commercial uses in multiple buildings on these two front parcels. The parcels for the multiple buildings were included in the evaluation for the Eagle Hardware & Garden Development Plan EIR that is adjacent to the project site, but neither the sizes of the buildings nor the building layouts were evaluated in that EIR. This EIR will address these two parcels in as much detail as information is available. Four other EIRs also provide information about the project area: xMadonna General Plan Amendment Final EIR, prepared by the County of San Luis Obispo in May, 1989; xLand Use Element/Circulation Element Updates Final EIR, prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo in August, 1994; and xDeVaul Ranch Planned Development Draft EIR, prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo in May, 1998. xMadonna/Eagle Hardware EIR, prepared by Morro Group, Inc. for the County of San Luis Obispo in October 1998. Select information contained in these documents has been used in the preparation of this EIR and is summarized and incorporated by reference where applicable. Copies of all referenced and incorporated documents are available for review in the Environmental Division of the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building at the County Government Center in San Luis Obispo (805) 781-5600 or by request at the Community Development Department of the City of San Luis Obispo at 990 Palm Street in San Luis Obispo. B. PURPOSE OF THE EIR In accordance with Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this Environmental Impact Report is to serve as an informational document that: Costco / Froom Ranch Introduction DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report I-2 …will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. This EIR is intended to inform the San Luis Obispo City Council, as the lead decision making body, of the environmental consequences of the proposed project so that the Council can make informed decisions on the project. The City Council has the responsibility of determining the adequacy of the EIR pursuant to CEQA. C. EIR CONTENTS This EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, revised June 1986 and with the County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Contents of the EIR were determined from the results of an Initial Study prepared by the City and responses from Notices of Preparation of an EIR sent to responsible agencies. The Initial Study and the responses to the Notices of Preparation are contained in Appendix A. The EIR focuses on the following concerns of which the scope of work for each concern is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo, 955 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401: 1. Scoping Process In compliance with State CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency has taken steps to maximize opportunities to participate in the environmental process. During the Environmental Determination process, an effort was made to contact various federal, state, regional and local governmental agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and inform the public of the proposed project. This included the distribution of the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) on May 3, 2002. 137 notices were sent to agencies, organizations and interested persons in the four-county area. The project was described, potential environmental effects associated with the project implementation were identified, and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the NOP. The close of the NOP review period was June 3, 2002. The IS/NOP and comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in Appendix B A of this EIR. Agencies, organizations, and interested parties not contacted or who did not respond to the request for comments about the project during the preparation of the draft EIR currently have had the opportunity to comment during the 45-day public review period on the draft EIR. 2. EIR Contents Based on the findings of the IS/NOP, a determination was made that an EIR is required to address the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The scope of the EIR includes issues identified by the lead agency during the preparation of the IS/NOP for the proposed project, as well as environmental issues raised by agencies and the general public in response to the IS/NOP and during the scoping meeting. Costco / Froom Ranch Introduction DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report I-3 The EIR is divided into the following major sections: Introduction. Provides the purpose of the EIR, scope and content of the document, and the use of the document. Summary.Provides a brief summary of the project description, impacts and mitigation measures, alternatives, growth inducing impacts, and the monitoring program. Project Description. Provides the general background of the project, objectives, a detailed description of the project characteristics, and a listing of necessary permits and government approvals. Environmental Setting. Describes the physical setting and surrounding land uses. This section includes a summary of the project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Discusses the environmental setting as it relates to the various issue areas, regulatory setting, thresholds of significance, impact assessment and methodology, project-specific impacts and mitigation measures, cumulative impacts and residual impacts. The following are the potentially significant environmental effects identified during the preparation of the IS/NOP, which will be addressed in this EIR. xGeology xDrainage, Erosion and Sedimentation xCultural Resources xBiological Resources xVisual Resources xTraffic Transportation xPublic Services- Utilities xHazardous Materials xAir Quality xNoise xCumulative Impacts Alternatives. Summarizes the environmental advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed project and the alternatives. Consistent with CEQA, the alternative analysis discusses impacts on a qualitative level as opposed to the project specific analysis given to the proposed project described in the previous section. Based on this discussion, the environmentally superior alternative is identified as required by CEQA. As required, the “No Action” alternative is included among the alternatives considered. If the No Action alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then an environmentally superior alternative is chosen from the other alternatives. Environmental Analysis. Identifies growth inducing impacts, including the spatial, economic, and/or population growth impacts that may result from development of the proposed project. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. This section contains a listing of all mitigation measures proposed as part of the EIR, the methods by which they will be implemented, and the method by which success criteria will be measured, and the remediation measures should success criteria not be met. Costco / Froom Ranch Introduction DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report I-4 D. AGENCY USE OF THE DOCUMENT The City of San Luis Obispo, as the CEQA lead agency, is responsible for administering the preparation of the EIR and will be responsible for certifying the Final EIR. Lead agency decision makers (i.e., the City Council) will use the document as an informational document to assist in the decision-making process, ultimately resulting in the approval, denial or assignment of conditions to the project. The lead agency will be responsible for certifying the EIR. The following jurisdictions will use this EIR in reviewing and issuing their respective permits. E. PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS Key contact persons are as follows: Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo Mr. Phil Dunsmore Community Development 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Project Applicant: Costco Wholesale Northwest Atlantic Partners Mr. Todd Bartok Mr. Todd Bartok c/o Northwest Atlantic Partners 17300 Red Hill Ave. Ste. 300 Irvine, Ca 92614 Environmental Consultant: Morro Group, Inc. Mrs. Mary B. Reents 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 F. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR This draft EIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interest parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). The 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR begins began on March 20, 2002, and during this period the EIR, including technical appendices, is were available for review at the following locations: San Luis Obispo City/County Library 995 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 Costco / Froom Ranch Introduction DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report I-5 On behalf of the lead agency, comments on the draft and final EIR shall be addressed to: Mrs. Mary Reents Morro Group, Inc. 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 The 45-day public review period for the DEIR ended will end on May 5 7, 2003. Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and available for review at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the City of San Luis Obispo when the lead agency will consider the certification of the Final EIR. These environmental comments and their responses will be are included as part of the Final EIR and the environmental record for consideration by decision-makers for the project. Costco / Froom Ranch Introduction DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report I-6 This page left intentionally blank. Costco / Froom Ranch Summary DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report II-1 II. SUMMARY A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The project applicant is proposing to construct a 140,115000 square-foot Costco Wholesale store Warehouse including tire sales, tire installation, outdoor food service, and a fuel station. The project is located at 1540 Froom Ranch Way off of Los Osos Valley Road within the City of San Luis Obispo between Home Depot and the DeVaul Residential development. The proposed project is within the General Retail land use category. The orientation of the project site does not include a true north property line. Therefore, the following directional references are used throughout the EIR: Northeast-property line adjacent to LOVR; Northwest-property line adjacent to the DeVaul residential development; Southwest- property line adjacent to the Irish Hills; and Southeast-property line adjacent to Home Depot. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objective of the Costco project is to provide retail services to its members including, but not limited to, appliances, hardware, clothing, groceries, personal supplies, photography services, tire services, and gasoline. The project will be developed on Parcel 2 (APN: 053-510-009), as identified in Figure III-3. Two parcels, approximately 8 acres in size each, separate both the Home Depot parcel and the Costco building parcel from LOVR, and these two parcels, defined as Parcel 1 (APN: 053-510-008) and Parcel 3 (APN: 053-510-010), will be evaluated in this EIR based on preliminary development plans. The particular site was chosen by the applicant for several reasons including consistency with the City’s General Plan zoning, sufficient area to accommodate Costco’s use and allow for ample parking, proximity to Home Depot (making the area a “power center”), access to transportation infrastructure, ease of visibility while remaining small in scale when compared to the backdrop of the Irish Hills, and a central location within the trade area. C. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1. Costco Building The 140, 115 140,000 square foot building is proposed to be located in the southwestern corner of the project site facing Los Osos Valley Road with the main entrance located at the northeastern corner of the building. This The warehouse square footage estimate includes the an approximate 5,200 square foot tire center facility, and an approximate 1,055 square foot outdoor food service facility. 2. Fueling Facility A three-island vehicle fueling facility is proposed with the option for future expansion to include a fourth island. Each island is designed with two double-sided gasoline dispensers, for a total of twelve fueling pumps, or sixteen fueling positions if the service station expands to include a Costco / Froom Ranch Summary DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report II-2 fourth island. Use of the fueling station will be for Costco members only. The station has been designed to be fully automated and self-service only. It is proposed to be located in the southeastern corner of the proposed project site, between the proposed Costco building and the Home Depot building. 3. Parcels 1 and 3 Located adjacent to LOVR, Parcel 1 (approximately 8.08 acres) and Parcel 3 (approximately 8.63 acres) have been included in the review of the proposed project in order to streamline the environmental review process for future development and to ensure consistency between the Costco development and future buildout of these two parcels. The applicant and the property owner has have not indicated specific future development intentions for Parcels 1 and 3. For the purposes of evaluation in this EIR, the site will be evaluated based on approximately 140,000 square feet of general commercial uses in multiple buildings on both parcels. D.ABBREVIATIONS The document includes the following abbreviations that require further explanation: TR/Impact 1, TR/mm 1, or TR-SEC/Impact 1, TR-SEC/mm-1 Format for discussion of environmental resource impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project. TR refers to the environmental resource being affected, in this case, Transportation. Impact 1 is the specific resource impact number, while mm 1 refers to the mitigation measure associated with the impact. SEC stands for secondary impacts caused by proposed mitigation measures and further mitigation to reduce the secondary impacts to less than significant levels. E. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The tables in the following pages provide a summary of the potential impacts of the proposed project. The mitigation measures associated with each impact to be applied by the applicant to reduce the environmental impacts to a level of insignificance are also summarized. In accordance with CEQA, the Summary Tables identify the following types of potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Class I Impacts – Significant environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or avoided. The decision maker must adopt a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 if the project is approved. Class II Impacts –Significant environmental impacts that can be feasibly mitigated or avoided. The decision maker must issue “Findings” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 if the project is approved. Class III Impacts –Environmental impacts which are adverse but not significant for which the decision make does not have to adopt “Findings” under CEQA. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 3 TA B L E I I - 1 - C l a s s I I m p a c t s Un a v o i d a b l e S i g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e a “ S t a t e m e n t o f O v e r r i d i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o ns ” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j e c t i s a p p ro v e d . ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t DR A I N A G E , E R O S I O N A N D S E D I M E N T A T I O N ( D E S ) DE S / I m p a c t 3 P r o j e c t s w i t h i n t h e a r e a c o u l d cr e a t e a p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c u m u l a t i v e i m p a c t d u e to i n c r e a s e d f l o w s i n t h e F r o o m C r e e k c h a n n e l a t U S 10 1 . Lo n g - t e r m DE S / m m - 3 T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e i r “ f a i r s h a r e ” o f an y m i t i g a t i o n f e e e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o t o b e u s e d to p a y f o r d r a i n a g e i m p r o v e m e n t s m a d e n e c e s s a r y b y c u m u l a t i v e p r o j e c t de v e l o p m e n t . Cu m u l a t i v e l y Si g n i f i c a n t AI R Q U A L I T Y ( A Q ) AQ / I m p a c t - 2 N O X e m i s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m co n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s e x c e e d t h e A P C D p o u n d s p e r da y a n d t o n s p e r q u a r t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n t h r e s h o l d s . Lo n g - t e r m AQ / m m - 3 Du r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l i m p l e m e n t th e f o l l o w i n g B e s t A v a i l a b l e C o n t ro l T e c h n o l o g y f o r d i e s e l - f u e l e d co n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t , w h e r e f e a s i b l e : a. Al l c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t s h a l l b e p r o p e r l y m a i n t a i n e d a n d t u n e d ac c o r d i n g t o m a n u f a c t u r e r ’ s s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . b. A l l o f f - r o a d a n d p o r t a b l e d i e s e l p o w e r e d e q u i p m e n t , i n c l u d i n g b u t no t l i m i t e d t o b u l l d o z e r s , g r a d e r s , c r a n e s , l o a d e r s , s c r a p e r s , ba c k h o e s , g e n e r a t o r s , c o m p r e s s o r s , a u x i l i a r y p o w e r u n i t s , s h a l l b e fu e l e d e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h C A R B m o t o r v e h i c l e d i e s e l f u e l . c. U s e 1 9 9 6 o r n e w e r h e a v y d u t y o f f r o a d v e h i c l e s t o t h e e x t e n t fe a s i b l e . d. U s e o f C a t e r p i l l a r p r e - c h a m b e r d i e s e l e n g i n e s ( o r e q u i v a l e n t ) to g e t h e r w i t h p r o p e r m a i n t e n a n c e a n d o p e r a t i o n t o r e d u c e em i s s i o n s o f o x i d e s o f n i t r o g e n ( N O X ) . e. E l e c t r i f y e q u i p m e n t w h e r e p o s s i b l e . f. Ma i n t a i n e q u i p m e n t i n t u n e p e r m a n u f a c t u r e r ’ s s p e c i f i c at i o n s , ex c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e r e q u i r e d a b o v e . g. U s e C o m p r e s s e d N a t u r a l G a s ( C N G ) , li q u e f i e d n a t u r a l g a s ( L N G ) , bi o d i e s e l , o r p r o p a n e fo r o n - s i t e m o b i l e e q u i p m e n t i n s t e a d o f di e s e l - p o w e r e d e q u i p m e n t . AQ / m m - 4 Pr i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , In s t a l l on e ( 1 ) c a t a l y t i c s o o t fi l t e r s o n t h e p i e c e s o f e q u i p m e n t p r o j e c t e d t o g e n e r a t e t h e g r e a t e s t em i s s i o n s . W h e r e If a c a t a l y t i c s o o t f i l t e r s a r e is d e t e r m i n e d t o b e un s u i t a b l e , t h e o w n e r s h a l l i n s t a l l a n d u s e a n di e s e l ox i d a t i o n c a t a l y s t . Si g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 4 TA B L E I I - 1 - C l a s s I I m p a c t s Un a v o i d a b l e S i g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e a “ S t a t e m e n t o f O v e r r i d i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o ns ” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j e c t i s a p p ro v e d . ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t a. S u i t a b i l i t y i s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d b y a n a u t h o r i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e f i l t e r m a n u f a c t u r e r , o r a n i n d e p e n d e n t C a l i f o r n i a L i c e n s e d Me c h a n i c a l E n g i n e e r w h o w i l l s u b m i t , f o r A P C D a p p r o v a l , a Su i t a b i l i t y R e p o r t i d e n t i f y i n g a n d e x p l a i n i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r co n s t r a i n t s t o u s i n g t h e p r e f e r r e d c a t a l y t i c s o o t f i l t e r . b. I n s t a l l a t i o n s m u s t b e c o n d u c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o m a n u f a c t u r e r ’ s sp e c i f i c a t i o n s . c. P r o o f t h a t t h e c a t a l y t i c s o o t f i l t e r s h a v e b e e n i n s t a l l e d m u s t b e pr o v i d e d t o t h e A P C D . d. T h e A P C D s h a l l b e n o t i f i e d p r i o r t o o p e r a t i o n o f t h e e q u i p m e n t wi t h t h e f i l t e r s i n s t a l l e d . e. A c c e p t a b l e p r o o f m a y b e i n t h e f o r m o f v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n b y AP C D s t a f f o r s u b m i t t a l o f f i l t e r s e r i a l n u m b e r s a n d p h o t o s o f t h e eq u i p m e n t w i t h t h e i n s t a l l e d f i l t e r s . f. Eq u i p m e n t t o b e o p e r a t e d d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d b e i d e n t i f i e d as e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e i n o r d e r t o pl a c e t h e o r d e r f o r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e fi l t e r a n d a v o i d a n y p r o j e c t d e l a y s AQ / m m - 5 Pr i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , If i t i s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t p o r t a b l e en g i n e s a n d p o r t a b l e e q u i p m e n t w i l l be u t i l i z e d , t h e c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l co n t a c t t h e C o u n t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o A P C D a n d o b t a i n a p e r m i t t o op e r a t e p o r t a b l e e n g i n e s p r i o r t o c o m m e n c e m e n t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . or Ppo r t a b l e e q u i p m e n t s h a l l b e r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e s t a t e w i d e p o r t a b l e eq u i p m e n t r e g i s t r a t i o n p r o g r a m . Co n t a c t D a v i d D i x o n , A P C D En g i n e e r i n g D i v i s i o n S u p e r v i s o r , 7 8 1 - 5 9 1 2 . AQ / I m p a c t - 4 R O G , N O X , a n d C O l o n g - t e r m op e r a t i o n e m i s s i o n s e x c e e d t h e A P C D ’ s T i e r I I Th r e s h o l d . Lo n g - t e r m AQ / m m - 1 0 Du r i n g a n d P o s t c o n s t r u c t i o n , th e f o l l o w i n g mi t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s s h a l l b e i m p l e m e n t e d t o r e d u c e a r e a s o u r c e em i s s i o n s , w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e . a. I n c r e a s e w a l l s a n d a t t i c i n s u l a t i o n b e y o n d by 1 0 % a b o v e w h a t i s re q u i r e d b y T i t l e 2 4 r e q u i r e m e n t s . b. S h a d e t r e e p l a n t i n g a l o n g s o u t h e r n e x p o s u r e s o f b u i l d i n g s t o re d u c e s u m m e r c o o l i n g n e e d s . c. S h a d e t r e e pla n t i n g i n par k i n g l o t s t o r e d u c e e v a por a t i v e Si g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 5 TA B L E I I - 1 - C l a s s I I m p a c t s Un a v o i d a b l e S i g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e a “ S t a t e m e n t o f O v e r r i d i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o ns ” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j e c t i s a p p ro v e d . ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t em i s s i o n s f r o m p a r k e d v e h i c l e s . d. U s e b u i l t - i n e n e r g y e f f i c i e n t a p p l i a n c e s , w e r e a p p l i c a b l e . e. O r i e n t b u i l d i n g s t o w a r d s t r e e t s w i t h c o n v e n i e n t p e d e s t r i a n a n d tr a n s i t a c c e s s . f. U s e d o u b l e - p a n e d w i n d o w s . g. U s e s o d i u m lo w - e n e r g y pa r k i n g l o t a n d s t r e e t l i g h t s . (e . g . s o d i u m ) h. U s e e n e r g y e f f i c i e n t i n t e r i o r l i g h t i n g . i. In c o r p o r a t e en e r g y e f f i c i e n t s k y l i g h t s i n t o r o o f p l a n (i . e . s h o u l d me e t t h e E P A / D O E E n e r g y S t a r ® r a t i n g ) . j. I n s t a l l H i g h e f f i c i e n c y o r g a s s p a c e h e a t i n g . k. I n s t a l l d o o r s w e e p s a n d w e a t h e r s t r i p p i n g i f m o r e e f f i c i e n t d o o r s an d w i n d o w s a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e . AQ / m m - 1 1 Du r i n g a n d P o s t c o n s t r u c t i o n , th e f o l l o w i n g mi t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s s h a l l b e i m p l e m e n t e d t o r e d u c e ve h i c l e e m i s s i o n s , w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e . a. I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f on e o r m o r e o f t h e f o ll o w i n g o p t i o n s , f o r a n am o u n t t o b e n e g o t i a t e d w i t h t h e A P C D : x A F l a s h P a s s p r o g r a m f o r e m p l o y e e s u s i n g p u b l i c t r a n s i t , x In s t a l l o r c o n t r i b u t e t o f u n d i n g a lt e r n a t i v e f u e l i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e (i . e . f u e l i n g s t a t i o n s f o r C N G , L P G , b i o d i e s e l , c o n d u c t i v e a n d in d u c t i v e e l e c t r i c v e h i c l e c h a r g i n g , e t c . ) x Fu n d a p r o g r a m t o b u y a n d s c ra p o l d e r , h i g h e r e m i s s i o n pa s s e n g e r a n d h e a v y - d u t y v e h i c l e s . x Re p l a c e / r e p o w e r h e a v y - d u t y d i e s e l s c h o o l v e h i c l e s ( i . e . b u s , pa s s e n g e r , o r m a i n t e n a n c e v e h i c l e s ) . x Pu r c h a s e p a r t i c u l a t e f i l t e r s o r o x i d at i o n c a t a l y s t s f o r l o c a l s c h o o l bu s e s , t r a n s i t f l e e t s . x Pr o v i d e a s s i s t a n c e i n t h e i m p l e m en t a t i o n o f p r o j e c t s t h a t a r e id e n t i f i e d i n C i t y o r C o u n t y B i c y c l e M a s t e r P l a n s . x Us e a l t e r n a t i v e l y - f u e l e d d e l i v e r y v e h i c l e s . b. Lo c a t i o n o f a n E l e c t r o n i c V e h i c l e c h a r g i n g s t a t i o n i n t h e p a r k i n g lo t . Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 6 TA B L E I I - 1 - C l a s s I I m p a c t s Un a v o i d a b l e S i g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e a “ S t a t e m e n t o f O v e r r i d i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o ns ” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j e c t i s a p p ro v e d . ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t c. Tr a n s i t s t o p e n h a n c e m e n t s ( s h e l t e r s , p h o n e s , e t c . ) wi t h i n t h e pr o j e c t i m p a c t a r e a . d. S u b j e c t t o t h e a p p r o v a l o f a t r i p r e d u c t i o n p l a n s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Pu b l i c W o r k s D i r e c t o r AP C D , i m p l e m e n t a c o m p r e h e n s i v e Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n D e m a n d M a n a g e me n t p r o g r a m f o r e m p l o y e e s . e. P r o v i d e o n - s i t e lo n g - a n d s h o r t - t e r m b i c y c l e p a r k i n g c o n s i s t e n t wi t h p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 1 6 . 0 6 0 , T a b l e 6 . 5 o f t h e C i t y M u n i c i p a l Co d e , w i t h l o c a t i o n a n d d e s i g n c r it e r i a a s e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e Ci t y ’ s B i c y c l e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n , a n d w i t h i n s t a l l a t i o n a n d de s i g n g u i d a n c e p r o v i d e d b y th e C i t y ’ s C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n Gu i d e l i n e s . O n e b i c y c l e p a r k i n g s p a c e f o r e v e r y 1 0 e m p l o y e e s i s co n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e . f. Pr o v i d e p r e f e r e n t i a l c a r p o o l p a r k i n g f o r e m p l o y e e s a n d r e s e r v e a t le a s t 2 5 s p a c e s fo r r e g i o n a l c o m m u t e m o t o r i s t s . T h e C i t y a n d AP C D s h o u l d p u r s u e a s h a r e d u s e a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e p r o j e c t ap p l i c a n t t o u t i l i z e o v e r - s u p p l i e d , w e e k d a y p a r k i n g a r e a s f o r po t e n t i a l o f a p a r k - a n d - r i d e l o t . B a s e d o n t r i p g e n e r a t i o n es t i m a t e s f o r t h e c o m m e r c i a l c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e p r o j e c t , m u c h o f th e p a r k i n g f a c i l i t y w o u l d g o u n u s e d d u r i n g n o n - p e a k t i m e s o f t h e we e k d a y s a n d c o u l d b e u s e d b y d a i l y c o m m u t e r s a s a p a r k - a n d - ri d e l o c a t i o n . A t a r g e t n u m b e r o f 2 5 s p a c e s s h o u l d b e u t i l i z e d f o r th i s p u r p o s e . T h e p a r k i n g a r e a s ho u l d b e i n d i c a t e d w i t h s i g n a g e an d r e g i s t e r e d w i t h t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o C o u n c i l o f G o v e r n m e n t s as a n o f f i c i a l P a r k a n d R i d e l o t . g. P r o v i d e s h o w e r s t a l l s a n d l o c k er f a c i l i t i e s t o e n c o u r a g e e m p l o y e e s to b i k e a n d / o r w a l k t o w o r k , a t t h e r a t e s s h o w n i n t h e t a b l e b e l o w . Em p l o y e e s Lo c k e r s St a l l s 50 - 1 9 9 1 p e r 2 0 2 20 0 + 1 p e r 2 0 4 h. E s t a b l i s h a n E m p l o y e e T r i p R e d u c t i o n P r o g r a m ( E T R P ) t o r e d u c e em p l o y e e c o m m u t e t r i p s ( i . e . c a r po o l i n g i n c e n t i v e s , v a n p o o l s , an d t r a n s i t s u b s i d i e s ) , co o r d i n a t e d w i t h a d j a c e n t c o m m e r c i a l de v e l o pme n t th a t a t t e m pts t o a c h i e v e a n A v e r a ge V e h i c l e Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 7 TA B L E I I - 1 - C l a s s I I m p a c t s Un a v o i d a b l e S i g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e a “ S t a t e m e n t o f O v e r r i d i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o ns ” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 1 5 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j e c t i s a p p ro v e d . ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t Ri d e r s h i p ( A V R ) f o r p r o j e c t e m p l o y e e s o f 1 . 6 0 o r l a r g e r . C o n t a c t th e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C h o i c e s C o a li t i o n p a r t n e r s f o r f r e e c o n s u l t i n g se r v i c e s o n h o w t o s t a r t a n d m a i n t a i n a T r i p R e d u c t i o n P r o g r a m . Co n t a c t S L O R e g i o n a l R i d e s h a r e a t 5 4 1 - 2 2 7 7 . i. E m p l o y a n d i m p l e m e n t a t r a n s p o r t a t i o n / r i d e s h a r e c o o r d i n a t o r . j. I m p l e m e n t a l u n c h - t i m e s h u t t l e t o r e d u c e s i n g l e o c c u p a n t v e h i c l e tr i p s . k. P r o v i d e o n - s i t e e a t i n g , r e f r i g e r a t i o n , v e n d i n g f o r e m p l o y e e s . l. Im p l e m e n t o n - s i t e c i r c u l a t i o n d e s i gn e l e m e n t s i n p a r k i n g l o t s t o re d u c e v e h i c l e q u e u i n g a n d i m p r o v e t h e p e d e s t r i a n e n v i r o n m e n t . AQ / I m p a c t - 8 R O G , N O X , a n d C O e m i s s i o n s re s u l t i n g f r o m c u m u l a t i v e p r oj e c t s e x c e e d t h e A P C D ’ s po u n d s p e r d a y a n d t o n s p e r y e a r t h r e s h o l d . Lo n g - t e r m I m p l e m e n t m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s A Q / m m - 3 t h r o u g h A Q / m m - 1 1 . TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t GE O L O G I C H A Z A R D S ( G H ) GH - I m p a c t 1 Th e p r o j e c t s i t e i s l o c a t e d o n ex p a n s i v e s o i l s a n d e x c a v a t i o n s h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l t o ex t e n d b e l o w g r o u n d w a t e r . Sh o r t - t e r m GH / m m - 1 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l co m p l y w i t h a l l r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e G e o t e c h n i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n R e p o r t pr e p a r e d b y K l e i n f e l d e r ( 2 0 0 0 , 2 0 0 1 ) . In s i g n i f i c a n t GH - I m p a c t 2 P a r c e l s 1 a n d 3 h a v e n o t b e e n sp e c i f i c a l l y e v a l u a t e d f o r e x p a n s i v e s o i l s ; h o w e v e r t h e ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s w o u l d b e s a m e a s P a r c e l 2 a n d p r o j e c t ac t i v i t i e s w o u l d h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l t o e x t e n d b e l o w gr o u n d w a t e r . Sh o r t - t e r m GH / m m - 2 Pr i o r t o s u b m i t t a l o f p l a n s f o r P a r c e l s 1 a n d 3 , t h e ap p l i c a n t f o r t h o s e p a r c e l s s h a l l o b t a i n a G e o l o g i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n R e p o r t fr o m a C e r t i f i e d / A p p r o v e d E n g i n e e r i n g G e o l o g i s t . In s i g n i f i c a n t DR A I N A G E , E R O S I O N , A N D S E D I M E N T A T I O N ( D E S ) DE S / I m p a c t 1 V a c a n t g r a z i n g l a n d w i l l b e r e p l a c e d wi t h i m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e s , w h i c h w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e t o t a l vo l u m e o f s t o r m w a t e r r u n o f f a n d t h e pea k f l o w o f Lo n g - t e r m DE S / m m - 1 P r i o r t o a p p r o v a l o f a b u i l d i n g p e r m i t , d r a i n a g e p l a n s w i t h su p p o r t i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s m u s t b e s u b m i t te d a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y o f S a n Lu i s O b i s po P u b l i c W o r k s D e par t m e n t (an d b y t h e C o u n t y i n a c o o per a t i v e In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 8 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t ru n o f f a n d c o n t r i b u t e t o d o w n s t r e a m f l o o d i n g r i s k s . r e v i e w p r o c e s s ) . T h e d e s i g n s m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t p e a k d i s c h a r g e f r o m th e s i t e w i l l b e l i m i t e d t o t h a t of t h e 2 - , 1 0 - , a n d 1 0 0 - y e a r s t o r m re d e v e l o p m e n t r a t e s . DE S / I m p a c t 2 S u r f a c e w a t e r q u a l i t y h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l to b e i m p a c t e d d u r i n g p r o je c t a c t i v i t i e s d u e t o t h e ex p o s u r e o f l a r g e a r e a s o f s o i l t o e r o s i v e f o r c e s , a n d d u e to t h e p r e s e n c e o f f u e l , o i l , a n d o t h e r p o l l u t a n t s o n s i t e fo r c o n s t r u c t i o n p u r p o s e s . Sh o r t - t e r m DE S / m m - 2 P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f p e r m i t s , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l p r e p a r e an d s u b m i t t o t h e R W Q C B o r S W R C B f o r a p p r o v a l a N o t i c e o f I n t e n t a n d SW P P P i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e S t a t e G e n e r a l O r d e r re l a t e d t o c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s . T h e S W P P P s h a l l i d e n t i f y t h e s e l e c t e d po l l u t i o n c o n t r o l t e c h n o l o gi e s ; s p i l l r e s p o n s e p r o c e d u r e s , a n d o t h e r m e a n s th a t w i l l b e u s e d t o m i n i m i z e e r o s io n a n d s e d i m e n t pr o d u c t i o n a n d t h e re l e a s e o f p o l l u t a n t s t o s u r f a c e w a t e r du r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . C o m p l i a n c e w i l l be v e r i f i e d b y t h e p r o j e c t E n v i r o n m e n t a l M o n i t o r t h r o u g h s u b m i s s i o n o f co m p l i a n c e r e p o r t s . A c o p y o f t h e SW P P P s h a l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C i t y of S a n L u i s O b i s p o f o r a p p r o v a l . Th e s t o r m w a t e r p o l l u t i o n p r e v e n t i o n p l an w o u l d t y p i c a l l y i n c l u d e b u t n o t be l i m i t e d t o : 1. I n s t a l l a t i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e e r o s i o n co n t r o l d e v i c e s ( i . e . , h a y b a l e s , s i l t fe n c e s ) a r o u n d t h e p e r i m e t e r o f e a c h c o n s t r u c t i o n z o n e a n d a r e a s ex p e r i e n c e g r o u n d d i s t u r b a n c e . 2. P r o t e c t i o n o f a l l s t o r m d r a i n s a n d g u t t e r s l e a d i n g t o d r a i n a g e a n d we t l a n d a r e a s b y i n s t a l l a t i o n e r o s i o n c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s . 3. A l l e r o s i o n c o n t r o l d e v i c e s s h a l l b e c h e c k e d a n d r e p a i r e d ( i f n e e d e d ) on a r e g u l a r b a s i s a n d a f t e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n t s t o r m e v e n t s t o e n s u r e pr o p e r f u n c t i o n . 4. A l l c l e a n i n g a n d r e f u e l i n g o f e q u i p m e n t a n d v e h i c l e s s h a l l b e d o n e ou t s i d e o f t h e v i c i n i t i e s o f e x i s t i ng d r a i n a g e s a n d a s s o c i a t e d w e t l a n d ha b i t a t . 5. P l a n n i n g f o r a c c i d e n t a l s p i l l s o r ot h e r r e l e a s e s a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f pr o p e r e q u i p m e n t , 6. W o r k e r t r a i n i n g s h a l l o c c u r t o en s u r e a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r s o n n e l a r e fa m i l i a r w i t h t h e S W P P P a n d a r e p r o p e r l y t r a i n e d t o h a n d l e s m a l l sp i l l s . 7. I n s t a l l a t i o n o f f i l t r a t i o n d e v i c e s , de s i g n e d t o r e m o v e o i l , g r e a s e , a n d ot h e r pot e n t i a l pol l u t a n t s f r o m s t o r m w a t e r r u n o f f f o r a l l pro jec t s i t e In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 9 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t st o r m d r a i n s l e a d i n g t o t h e r o a d s i d e d r a i n a g e c h a n n e l a n d S a n L u i s Ob i s p o C r e e k . BI O L O G I C A L R E S O U R C E S ( B R ) BR / I m p a c t - 1 A p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 0 0 C o n g d o n ’ s ta r p l a n t w i l l b e r e m o v e d b y p r o j e c t c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h i n th e s t u d y a r e a . Lo n g - t e r m BR / m m - 1 Pr i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l i m p l e m e n t t h e Co n g d o n ’ s T a r p l a n t M i t i g a t i o n P l a n a s p r e s e n t e d i n A p p e n d i x B D. Co m p l i a n c e w i l l b e v e r i f i e d b y t h e pr o j e c t E n v i r o n m e n t a l M o n i t o r t h r o u g h su b m i s s i o n o f c o m p l i a n c e r e p o r t s . In s i g n i f i c a n t BR / I m p a c t - 3 C o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t h a s p o t e n t i a l to i n d i r e c t l y i m p a c t a q u a t i c h a b i t a t s l o c a t e d do w n s t r e a m f r o m t h e s i t e . Sh o r t - t e r m BR / m m - 2 Pr i o r t o a n d d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l im p l e m e n t e r o s i o n a n d s p i l l c o n t r o l be s t m a n a g e m e n t p r a c t i c e s a s pr e s e n t e d i n t h e D r a i n a g e , E r o s i o n , a n d S e d i m e n t a t i o n s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R , an d i n t h e p r o j e c t S t o r m W a t e r P o ll u t i o n P r e v e n t i o n P l a n ( S W P P P ) . Co m p l i a n c e w i l l b e v e r i f i e d b y t h e pr o j e c t E n v i r o n m e n t a l M o n i t o r t h r o u g h su b m i s s i o n o f c o m p l i a n c e r e p o r t s . BR / m m - 3 a: At t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t p l a n s f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a b i o s w a l e bi o r e t e n t i o n ar e a ( a s d e s c r i b e d b y t h e E P A S t o r m w a t e r T e c h n o l o g y F a c t S h e e t - Bi o r e t e n t i o n - [ w w w . e p a . g o v / o w m / m t b / b i o r t n . p d f ] , ) i n l i e u o f t h e p r o p o s e d re t e n t i o n b a s i n . cl o s e d c u l v e r t a d j a c e n t t o t h e f u e l i n g f a c i l i t y a n d a l o n g t h e so u t h e a s t e r n p r o p e r t y l i n e t o t h e d r iv e w a y a c c e s s p o i n t f r o m F r o o m R a n c h Dr i v e , i n a d d i t i o n t o i n s t a l l a ti o n o f o i l - w a t e r s e p a r a t o rs a t a l l s i t e d r a i n a g e ou t l e t l o c a t i o n s . T h e b i o r e t e n t i o n a r e a s h a l l : 1. B e a d e q u a t e l y v e g e t a t e d w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e p l a n t s p e c i e s a n d co n s t r u c t e d w i t h p r o p e r s o i l s to e n s u r e a d e q u a t e o p e r a t i o n . 2 . B e c o m e p a r t o f t h e l a n d s c a p e p l a n a n d m a i n t a i n e d a s n e c e s s a r y in c l u d i n g p e r i o d i c r e m o v a l o f t r a s h , w e e d s , a n d d e b r i s . 3. S h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o i n c l u d e a n u nd e r d r a i n w i t h i n t h e s a n d b e d t o co l l e c t t h e i n f i l t r a t e d w a t e r a n d d i s c h a r g e t o t h e o p e n s w a l e a l o n g LO V R i n o r d e r t o n o t a l l o w i n f i l t r a ti o n i n t o t h e g r ou n d w a t e r b a s i n . BR / m m - 3 b At t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s f o r Pa r c e l 1 , th e f r o n t p a r c e l a p p l i c a n t s h a l l i n st a l l a b i o r e t e n t i o n a r e a a l o n g th e s o u t h e a s t e r n p r o p e r t y l i n e a s d e s c r i b e d i n B R / m m - 3 a Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 0 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t BR - I m p a c t - 4 C o n s t r u c t i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e pr o j e c t h a s p o t e n t i a l t o i n d i r e c t l y i m p a c t f o r a g i n g ra p t o r s a n d n e s t i n g b i r d s . Sh o r t - t e r m BR / m m - 4 : At t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l pr o v i d e f o r r a p t o r p e r c h e s ; w i t h i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e bi o s w a l e (t h r e e i n t h e s e c o n d a r y m i t i g a t i o n r e p l a c e m e n t a r e a ) a n d d e s i g n an d i n s t a l l a t l e a s t t w o ne s t i n g b o x e s f o r o w l s o n , o r i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e Co s t c o b u i l d i n g s u c h a s a l o n g t h e r e ar p r o p e r t y l i n e b o r d e r i n g t h e I r i s h Hi l l s o p e n s p a c e a r e a . In s i g n i f i c a n t CU L T U R A L a n d H I S T O R I C R E S O U R C E S ( C R ) CR - I m p a c t 1 P r o j e c t a c t i v i t i e s h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l t o un e a r t h s u b s u r f a c e c u l t u r a l , pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l , or hi s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l . Sh o r t - t e r m CR / m m - 1 Du r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , i n t h e e v e n t t h a t s u b s u r f a c e cu l t u r a l o r h i s t o r i c m a t e r i a l i s d i s c o v er e d o n t h e p r o p e r t y , a l l a c t i v i t i e s s h a l l ce a s e i n t h e a f f e c t e d a r e a u n t i l t h e a r e a i s s u r v e y e d b y a n ar c h a e o l o g i s t / h i s t o r i a n a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i t y . U n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e ar c h a e o l o g i s t / h i s t o r i a n , a m i t i g a t i o n p l an s h a l l b e d e v e l o p e d a n d a p p r o v e d by t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o o r d i n a t o r . Sa l v a g e o r m i t i g a t i o n e x c a v a t i o n s wo u l d b e o u t l i n e d i n t h e m i t i g a t i o n p l a n a s r e q u i r e d . CR / m m - 2 D u r i n g i n i t i a l v e g e t a t i o n r e m o v a l , a q u a l i f i e d ar c h a e o l o g i c a l m o n i t o r s h a l l b e o n s i t e t o i n s p e c t t h e d i s t u r b e d a r e a f o r pr e h i s t o r i c a n d h i s t o r i c a r t i f a c t s . A L o c a l N a t i v e A m e r ic a n M o n i t o r s h a l l be i n v i t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e o n - s i t e i n s p e c t i o n . I f a r t i f a c t s a r e f o u n d , CR / m m - 1 s h a l l a p p l y . CR / m m - 3 Du r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , i f t h e p r o j e c t l i m i t s c h a n g e t o ex t e n d b e y o n d t h e p r e v i o u s l y s u r v e y e d l o c a t i o n s a d d i t i o n a l a r c h a e o l o g i c a l su r v e y s s h a l l b e c o m p l e t e d b y a q u a l i f i e d a r c h e o l o g i s t . CR / m m - 4 D u r i n g i n i t i a l v e g et a t i o n r e m o v a l , a q u a l i f i e d pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l m o n i t o r s h a l l b e o n s i t e t o i n s p e c t t h e d i s t u r b e d a r e a f o r pa l e o n t o l o g i c a l r e m a i n s . T h e m o n i t o r s h a l l h a v e a u t h o r i t y t o t e m p o r a r i l y di v e r t g r a d i n g a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n e q u i p m e n t a w a y f r o m e x p o s e d f o s s i l s i n or d e r t o r e c o v e r t h e f o s s i l s p e c i m e n s . In s i g n i f i c a n t TR A F F I C ( T R ) TR - I m p a c t 1 T h e m i n o r s t r e e t a p p r o a c h o f A u t o Pa r k W a y t o L O V R w i l l o per a t e a t L O S F d u r i n g t h e Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 1 A m i n i m u m o f T twe l v e m o n t h s a f t e r t h e C o s t c o p r o j e c t i s open f o r b u s i n e s s , th e C i t y s h a l l m o n i t o r t r a f f i c o per a t i o n s i n c l u d i n g In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 1 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t we e k d a y P M p e a k h o u r a n d t h e S a t u r d a y p e a k h o u r . a c c i d e n t h i s t o r y , t r a f f i c v o l u m e s a n d v e h i c l e d e l a y s t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e Au t o P a r k W a y i n t e r s e c t i o n w a r r a n t s i n st a l l a t i o n o f a s i g n a l t o i m p r o v e t h e mi n o r s t r e e t a p p r o a c h t o a n a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l o f s e r v i c e . T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l pr o v i d e f o r i m p r o v e m e n t s t h ro u g h p a y m e n t o f T I F c r e d i t e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e Ci t y . TR - I m p a c t 2 T h e p r o j e c t w i l l c a u s e t h e l e v e l o f se r v i c e a t t h e L O V R / S o u t h b o u n d U . S . 1 0 1 r a m p s / C a l l e Jo a q u i n - S o u t h a n d L O V R / N o r t h b o u n d U . S . 1 0 1 r a m p in t e r s e c t i o n t o d e t e r i o r a t e f r o m a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s t o un a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s . Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 2 a P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t fo r C o s t c o , co n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t s a n d n e c e s s a r y p e rm i t s s h a l l b e s e c u r e d i n o r d e r t o co m p l e t e i m p r o v e m e n t s o f t h e L O V R / U . S . 1 0 1 /C a l l e J o a q u i n i n t e r s e c t i o n . Th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l a p p l y f o r a n E n c r o a ch m e n t P e r m i t f o r a l l w o r k d o n e i n th e S t a t e H i g h w a y Ci t y Ri g h t o f W a y a n d t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s s h a l l b e co m p l e t e d t o C a l t r a n s Ci t y s t a n d a r d s s h o w n b y a l e t t e r o f ac k n o w l e d g e m e n t f r o m t h e C a l t r a n s D e p a r t m e n t o f P e r m i t s O f f i c e . T h e ne c e s s a r y i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e a s f o l l o w s : 1. C o o r d i n a t e E x i s t i n g C a lt r a n s a n d C i t y S i g n a l s , 2. R e a l i g n C a l l e J o a q u i n - S o u t h t o C a l l e J o a q u i n - N o r t h , a n d su b j e c t t o t h e ap p r o v a l b y t h e D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c W o r k s 3. L e n g t h e n S o u t h b o u n d U . S . 1 0 1 a n d N o r t h b o u n d U . S . 1 0 1 o f f -ra m p s . TR / m m - 2 b P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t f o r C o s t c o , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l a p p l y f o r a n e n c r o a c h m en t p e r m i t f o r a l l w o r k d o n e i n t h e St a t e H i g h w a y r i g h t - o f - w a y a n d t h e i m pr o v e m e n t s s h a l l be c o m p l e t e d t o Ca l t r a n s s t a n d a r d , s h o w n b y a l e t t e r o f a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t f r o m t h e Ca l t r a n s D e p a r t m e n t o f P e r m i t s o f f i c e . T h e n e c e s s a r y p e r m i t s a r e a s fo l l o w s : 1. C o o r d i n a t e e x i s t i n g C a lt r a n s a n d C i t y s i g n a l s 2. A s u l t i m a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d b y C a l t r a n s , l e n g t h e n S o u t h b o u n d U . S . 1 0 1 o f f - r a m p s u b j e c t t o a p p r o v a l o f C a l t r a n s . In s i g n i f i c a n t TR - S E C I m p a c t 1 I n f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s a t t h e LO V R / C a l l e J o a q u i n / U . S . 1 0 1 i n t e r s e c t i o n w i l l pe r m a n e n t l y r e m o v e w e t l a n d s a n d s e n s i t i v e r i p a r i a n ha b i t a t . Lo n g - t e r m TR - S E C / m m - 1 As p a r t o f t h e d e s i g n p r o j e c t s u b m i t t a l , t h e a p p l i c a n t sh a l l c o m p e n s a t e f o r t h e lo s s o f w e t l a n d a n d r i p a r i an h a b i t a t i n a f o r m ac c e p t a b l e t o t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o a n d a l l a p p l i c a b l e a g e n c i e s . T h e su b m i t t a l s h a l l b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h m i t i g a t i o n p r o p o s e d f o r t h e r e s o u r c e se c t i o n s o f t h i s E I R a n d s h a l l i n c l u d e b u t n o t b e l i m i t e d t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 2 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t 1. P e r f o r m a w e t l a n d d e l i n e a t i o n a t t h e pr o j e c t s i t e a n d e s t a b l i s h a n o f f - si t e i n - k i n d w e t l a n d c o m p e n s a t o r y m i ti g a t i o n a r e a w i t h i n t h e F r o o m Cr e e k c o r r i d o r i n c l u d i n g n a t i v e v e g e t a t i o n a n d r a p t o r p e r c h e s , co n s i s t e n t w i t h A C O E r e g u l a t i o n s . 2. D e v e l o p a r e v e g e t a t i o n p l a n i n cl u d i n g m o n i t o r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s pu r s u a n t s t a n d a r d s e s t a b l i s h e d b y A C O E a n d C D F G . 3. B e g i n r e v e g e t a t i o n o f t h e o f f - s i t e mi t i g a t i o n a r e a p r i o r t o r e m o v a l o f ve g e t a t i o n a t t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . 4. P r o v i d e f e n c i n g a r o u n d w e t l a n d a n d r i p a r i a n a r e a s t o p r o h i b i t c o w s ca t t l e fr o m r e m o v i n g v e g e t a t i o n u t i l i z e d b y s e n s i t i v e s p e c i e s . 5. P r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i n g c o m p e n s a t o r y m i t i g a t i o n , a p r e s e n c e / a b s e n c e su r v e y s h a l l b e c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n t h e F r o o m C r e e k c o r r i d o r f o r bu r r o w i n g o w l s a n d o t h e r l i s t e d s p e c i es ( C a l i f o r n i a r e d l e g g e d f r o g , so u t h w e s t e r n p o n d t u r t l e , c o a s t h o r n e d l i z a r d , t w o s t r i p e d g a r t e r s n a k e , si l v e r y l e g l e s s l i z a r d , e t c . ) . I f s e ns i t i v e s p e c i e s a r e p r e s e n t , m i t i g a t i o n sh a l l n o t p r o c e e d u n t i l b r ee d i n g o r n e s t i n g s e a s o n i s c o m p l e t e d . A l l su r v e y s s h a l l b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h r e g u l a to r y g u i d e l i n e s . TR - S E C I m p a c t 2 I n f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s a t t h e LO V R / C a l l e J o a q u i n / U . S . 1 0 1 i n t e r s e c t i o n h a v e t h e po t e n t i a l t o u n e a r t h s e n s i t i v e s u r f a c e a n d s u b s u r f a c e cu l t u r a l a n d / o r h i s t o r i c m a t e r i a l s . Sh o r t - t e r m TR - S E C / m m - 2 P r i o r t o v e g e t a t i o n r e m o v a l , a P h a s e I a r c h a e o l o g i c a l su r v e y s h a l l b e c o n d u c t e d b y a q u al i f i e d / a p p r o v e d a r c h a e o l o g i s t a n d co n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s s h a l l b e c o n s i s t e nt w i t h c u l t u r a l r e so u r c e s m i t i g a t i o n in c l u d e d i n t h i s E I R . In s i g n i f i c a n t TR - I m p a c t 3 T h e p r o j e c t w i l l g e n e r a t e n e w pe d e s t r i a n t r i p s f r o m t h e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a l o c a t e d e a s t no r t h o f t h e p r o j e c t s i t e a n d n o r t h ea s t o f L O V R . A co n t i n u o u s s i d e w a l k i s n o t c u r r e n t l y p r o v i d e d o n t h e no r t h ea s t s i d e o f L O V R t o s e r v e t h e s e t r i p s . Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 3 Pr i o r t o s t a r t o f b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n s ( o r o c c u p a n c y pe r m i t ) fo r C o s t c o , th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l o b t a i n an d d e d i c a t e s u f f i c i e n t r i g h t of w a y d e d i c a t i o n on t h e n o r t h e a s t s i d e o f L O V R t o t h e C i t y an d c o n s t r u c t im p r o v e m e n t s o f a s i d e w a l k to C i t y S t a n d a r d s . Th e s i d e w a l k s h a l l e x t e n d fr o m t h e r e s i d e n t i a l s u b d i v i s i o n n o rt h w e s t e r l y o f t h e p r o j e c t ( G a r c i a fr o n t a g e r o a d ) , a n d s h a l l i n c l u d e a co n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s i g n a l i z e d cr o s s w a l k t h a t e x i s t s a c r o s s L O V R a t F r o o m R a n c h W a y . o n t h e n o r t h ea s t si d e o f L O V R t h a t c o n n e c t s t h e e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k s l o c a t e d o n n o r t h s i d e o f LO VR so u t h ea s t a n d no r t h we s t o f t h e p r o j e c t s i t e w i t h t h e c r o s s w a l k t h a t wi l l b e p r o v i d e d a c r o s s L O V R a t t h e m a i n p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y . U p o n p r o j e c t ap p r o v a l , t h e C i t y w i l l d e t e r m i n e t h e pr o j e c t ’ s f a i r s h a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d es t a b l i s h a r e i m b u r s e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h f u t u r e o t h e r p r o j e c t s t h a t w o u l d be n e f i t f r o m t h e s i d e w a l k e x t e n s i o n . In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 3 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t TR - I m p a c t 4 Th e p r o j e c t w i l l b e s e r v e d b y f o u r dr i v e w a y s t o L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d . T h e w e s t e r l y m o s t dr i v e w a y i s l o c a t e d t o o c l o s e t o D e V a u l R a n c h D r i v e t o pr o v i d e s a f e i n g r e s s a n d eg r e s s a t t h i s l o c a t i o n . Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 4 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s fo r C o s t c o , th e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l d e v e l o p pr o j e c t p l a n s s h a l l to s h o w t h e no r t h we s t e r l y m o s t dr i v e w a y a l o n g L O V R to b e r e l o c a t e d l o c a t e d al i g n e d a c r o s s f r o m G a r c i a Dr i v e an d c o n s t r u c t a r a i s e d m e d i a n “ w o r m ” i s l a n d a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f Ga r c i a D r i v e a t L O V R t o r e s t r i c t l e f t t u r n e g r e s s f r o m b o t h G a r c i a a n d t h e no r t h w e s t e r l y p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y . U p on p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l , t h e C i t y w i l l de t e r m i n e t h e p r o j e c t ’ s f a i r s h a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d e s t a b l i s h a re i m b u r s e m e n t a g r e e m e n t wi t h f u t u r e o t h e r p r o j ec t s t h a t w o u l d b e n e f i t fr o m t h e a c c e s s i m p r o v e m e n t s . In s i g n i f i c a n t TR - I m p a c t 5 T h e l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e a r e a p r o v i d e d o n we s t b o u n d L O V R a t t h e p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y w i l l n o t pr o v i d e a d e q u a t e s t o r a g e fo r t h e e s t i m a t e d l e f t t u r n vo l u m e u n d e r C o s t c o o n l y p r o j e c t c o n d i t i o n s . Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 5 a Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t f o r t h e C o s t c o co m p o n e n t o f t h e p r o j e c t , th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l u n d e r t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y mo d i f i c a t i o n s t o L O V R t o a c c o m m o d a t e e i t h e r : a) Ex t e n d t h e d u a l l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e le n g t h s o n L O V R a t t h e P r o j e c t ma i n d r i v e w a y . T h e i n s i d e l a n e w i l l h a v e a m i n i m u m l e n g t h o f 2 5 0 fe e t w i t h a t o t a l o v e r a l l s t o r a g e c a p ac i t y o f t h e d u a l l a n e s a m i n i m u m of 5 0 0 f e e t i n l e n g t h . A p p r op r i a t e d e c e l e r a t i o n l a n e s a n d r e v e r s e ta p e r s f o r t h e r e v i s e d t u r n l a n e s sh a l l b e d e s i g n e d a n d i n s t a l l e d pu r s u a n t t o S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n (C a l t r a n s ) H i g h w a y D e s i g n M a n u a l , o r ; A n e w l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e d e c e l e r a t i o n / r e v e r s e t a p e r s s h a l l be c o n s t r u c t e d o n L O V R a t t h e P r o j e c t no r t h we s t e r n m o s t d r i v e w a y . Th e l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e l e n g t h s h a l l b e a m i n i m u m o f 1 5 0 f e e t i n l e n g t h . Th e P r o j e c t d r i v e w a y / G a r c i a D r i v e i n t e r s e c t i o n s h a l l b e m o d i f i e d s o as t o b e r e s t r i c t e d t o r i g h t t u r n i n - a n d - o u t o n l y , w i t h l e f t t u r n s al l o w e d f r o m L O V R t o G a r c i a D r i v e a n d fr o m L O V R t o t h e no r t h we s t e r l y p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y . Up o n p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l , t h e C i t y wi l l d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o j e c t ’ s f a i r s h a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d e s t a b l i s h a re i m b u r s e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e fr o n t t w o p a r c e l a p p l i c a n t s t h a t wo u l d b e n e f i t f r o m t h e a c c e s s i m p r o v e m e n t s . TR / m m - 5 b Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t f o r C o s t c o , th e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l u n d e r t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o a c c o m m o d a t e : Th e L O V R f r o n t a ge r o a d o n t h e n o r t h ea s t si d e o f L O V R s h a l l b e e x t e n d e d f r o m In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 4 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t Ga r c i a D r i v e t o t h e P r o j e c t m a i n d r i v e w a y t r a f f i c s i g n a l t o a l l o w l e f t t u r n a c c e s s ou t o f t h a t n e i g h b o r h o o d . T h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s h a l l b e m o d i f i e d t o p r o v i d e ap p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t i o n s f o r v e h i c l e s a n d p e de s t r i a n s u t i l i z i n g t h i s n e w a p p r o a c h . Up o n p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l , t h e C i t y w i l l d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o j e c t ’ s f a i r s h a r e re s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d e s t a b l i s h a r e i m b u r s e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h f u t u r e ot h e r p r o j e c t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e f r o n t t w o p a r c e l s , t h a t w o u l d b e n e f i t f r o m t h e ex t e n s i o n . TR - I m p a c t 6 T h e l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e a r e a p r o v i d e d o n th e n o r t h ea s t bo u n d p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y a p p r o a c h t o LO V R w i l l n o t p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e s t o r a g e f o r t h e es t i m a t e d l e f t t u r n v o l u m e u n d e r C o s t c o o n l y p r o j e c t co n d i t i o n . Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 6 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t f o r t h e C o s t c o co m p o n e n t o f t h e p r o j e c t , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l u n d e r t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y mo d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e m a i n p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y ( F r o o m R a n c h W a y ) t o ac c o m m o d a t e e i t h e r : a) In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T R / m m -5a ; m o d i f y t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y ap p r o a c h t o a c c o m m o d a t e t w o n o r t h b o u n d l e ft t u r n l a n e s a n d a r i g h t t u r n la n e , o r ; b) In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T R / m m -5b ; m o d i f y in g t h e e x i s t i n g d r i v e w a y ap p r o a c h a n d t r a f f i c s i g n a l t o a c c o m m o d a t e o n e n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e , an a d d i t i o n a l s h a r e d l e f t - t h r o u g h l a n e a n d a r i g h t t u r n l a n e . In s i g n i f i c a n t TR - I m p a c t 7 T h e C o s t c o p r o j e c t w i l l h a v e a cu m u l a t i v e i m p a c t a t t h e L O V R i n t e r c h a n g e . Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 7 Pr i o r i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s , th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l co n t r i b u t e a “ f a i r s h a r e , ” b a s e d o n c u rr e n t , o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e c o s t es t i m a t e s b e i n g s t u d i e d i n t h e L O V R P S R t o w a r d s t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e LO V R i n t e r c h a n g e , t a k i n g in t o a c c o u n t i m p r o v e m e n ts i m p l e m e n t e d a s p a r t of T R / m m - 2 a a n d 2 b . P a y m e n t o f t h e C i t y ’ s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t F e e (T I F ) w i l l s a t i s f y t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i f th e T I F p r o g r a m h a s b e e n u p d a t e d t o in c l u d e d r e v i s e d c o s t e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e LO V R i n t e r c h a n g e . I f a t t h e t i m e o f is s u a n c e o f p e r m i t s , t h e T I F p r o g r a m h a s n o t b e e n m o d i f i e d t o r e f l e c t t h e s e co s t s , t h e a p p l i c a n t w i l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g c u r r e n t T I F f e e s p l u s a mi t i g a t i o n f e e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e e s ti m a t e d c o s t d i f f e r e n t i a l b e t w e e n t h e LO V R i n t e r c h a n g e c o s t a n d t h e a s s u me d T I F c o m p o n e n t f o r t h e p r o j e c t . In s i g n i f i c a n t TR - I m p a c t 7 8 T h e L O V R / C a l l e J o a q u i n / U . S . 1 0 1 in t e r s e c t i o n w i l l n o t o p e r a t e a t a n a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l o f se r v i c e w i t h t h e T o t a l P r o j e c t ( C o s t c o a n d f r o n t t w o pa r c e l s ) d e v e l o p e d . Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 7 8 Pr i o r i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s f o r t h e f r o n t pa r c e l s , s u b s e q u e n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e v i e w w i l l b e r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o as s e s s t h e a c t u a l l e v e l o f s e r v i c e a t t h e L O V R / C a l l e J o a q u i n / U . S . 1 0 1 in t e r s e c t i o n w i t h i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f th e C o s t c o p r o j e c t a n d i n f r a s t r u c t u r e im pro v e m e n t s r e qui r e d f o r t h a t pro jec t . I n t h e e v e n t i t is d e t e r m i n e d t h a t In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 5 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t no f u r t h e r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s ar e r e q u i r e d , t h e a pp l i c a n t s f o r t h e fr o n t p a r c e l s s h a l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a “ f a i r s h a r e ” a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e Ci t y f o r c o s t s o f i m p r o v e m e n t s i m p l e m e n t e d b y C o s t c o a n d f u t u r e in t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t s . TR - I m p a c t 8 9 T h e l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e a r e a p r o v i d e d o n no r t h we s t b o u n d L O V R a t t h e p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y w i l l n o t pr o v i d e a d e q u a t e s t o r a g e fo r t h e e s t i m a t e d l e f t t u r n vo l u m e a t f u l l p r o j e c t b u i l d o u t . Sh o r t - t e r m TR / m m - 89 P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t f o r t h e f r o n t p a r c e l co m p o n e n t s o f t h e p r o j e c t , t h e a p p li c a n t f o r t h e f r o n t p a r c e l s s h a l l un d e r t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o L O V R t o a c c o m m o d a t e e i t h e r : a) E x t e n d t h e d u a l l e f t t u rn s t o r a g e l e n g t h s a t t h e P r o j e c t M a i n D r i v e w a y (F r o o m R a n c h W a y ) . T h e i n s i d e l a n e w i l l h a v e a m i n i m u m l e n g t h o f 30 0 f e e t w i t h a t o t a l o v e r a l l s t o r ag e c a p a c i t y o f t h e d u a l l a n e s a mi n i m u m o f 6 0 0 f e e t i n l e n g t h . A p p r o p r i a t e d e c e l e r a t i o n l a n e s a n d re v e r s e t a p e r s f o r t h e r e v i s e d t u r n l a ne s s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d a n d i n s t a l l e d pu r s u a n t t o S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a D e p a rt m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( C a l t r a n s ) Hi g h w a y D e s i g n M a n u a l , O R ; b) A n e w l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e d e c e l e r a t i o n / r e v e r s e t a p e r s s h a l l be c o n s t r u c t e d o n L O V R a t t h e p r o j e c t ’ s w e s t e r n m o s t d r i v e w a y . T h e le f t t u r n s t o r a g e l e n g t h s h a l l b e a m i n i m u m o f 1 5 0 f e e t i n l e n g t h . T h e dr i v e w a y / G a r c i a D r i v e i n t e r s e c t i o n s h a l l b e m o d i f i e d s o a s t o b e re s t r i c t e d t o r i g h t t u r n i n - a n d - o u t o n l y . T h e L O V R f r o n t a g e r o a d o n th e n o r t h ea s t s i d e o f L O V R s h a l l b e e x t e n d ed f r o m G a r c i a D r i v e t o t h e tr a f f i c s i g n a l l o c a t e d a t t h e P r o j e c t ma i n d r i v e w a y t o a l l o w l e f t t u r n ac c e s s o u t o f t h e O c e a n a i r e n e i g h b o r h o o d . T h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l a t t h i s lo c a t i o n s h a l l b e m o d i f i e d t o p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t i o n s f o r ve h i c l e s a n d p e d e s t r i a n s u t i l i z i n g t h i s n e w a p p r o a c h . TR - I m p a c t 9 10 A d d i t i o n o f p r o j e c t - g e n e r a t e d t r a f f i c wo u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o s e v e r a l s t u d y a r e a i n t e r s e c t i o n s op e r a t i n g a t L O S E o r F u n d e r 1 0 - y e a r C u m u l a t i v e Co n d i t i o n s . TR / m m - 9 10 P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y bu i l d i n g p e r m i t s fo r th e f r o n t t w o p a r c e l s , t h e C o s t c o a p p l i c a n t a n d a p p l i c a n t s f o r t h e f r o n t t w o pa r c e l s s h a l l c o n t r i b u t e “ f a i r s h a r e ” co n t r i b u t i o n s , b a s e d o n c u r r e n t , o r d e r of m a g n i t u d e c o s t e s t i m a t e s b e i n g s t ud i e d i n t h e L O V R P S R t o w a r d s t h e co n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e L O V R I n t e r c h a n g e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . Pa y m e n t o f t h e Ci t y ’ s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t F e e ( T I F ) w i l l s a t i s f y t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i f t h e TI F p r o g r a m h a s b e e n u p d a t ed t o i n c l u d e r e v i s e d c o s t e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e LO V R i n t e r c h a n ge. I f a t t h e t i m e o f i s s u a n c e o fp er m i t s , t h e T I F pro gra m In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 6 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t ha s n o t b e e n m o d i f i e d t o r e f l e c t t h es e c o s t s , t h e a p p l i c a n t w i l l b e re s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g c u r r e n t T I F f ee s p l u s a m i t i g a t i o n f e e a s s o c i a t e d wi t h t h e e s t i m a t e d c o s t di f f e r e n t i a l b e t w e e n t h e L O VR i n t e r c h a n g e c o s t a n d th e a s s u m e d T I F c o m p o n e n t f o r t h e p r o j e c t . TR / m m -10 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s , C o s t c o a n d t h e ap p l i c a n t s f o r t h e fr o n t t w o p a r c e l s s h a l l c o n t r i b u t e a f a i r s h a r e co n t r i b u t i o n , a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e C i t y , t o e i t h e r ; a. Co n s t r u c t a s e c o n d e x c l u s i v e l e f t t u r n l a n e o n t h e s o u t h we s t bo u n d Ma d o n n a R o a d a p p r o a c h t o L O V R b y w i d e n i n g t h e so u t h ea s t s i d e o f Ma d o n n a R o a d o n b o t h t he n o r t h ea s t a n d s o u t h we s t l e g s o f t h e in t e r s e c t i o n , o r , b. Co n v e r t t h e s o u t h we s t bo u n d M a d o n n a R o a d t h r o u g h l a n e t o a s h a r e d le f t / t h r o u g h l a n e o n t h e a p p r o ac h t o L O V R a n d c o n v e r t t h e no r t h ea s t bo u n d a p p r o a c h l a n e s t o p r o v i d e a s h a r e d l e f t / t h r o u g h l a n e an d a s h a r e d t h r o u g h / r i g h t t u r n l a n e . T h e s i g n a l p h a s i n g f o r t h e no r t h b o u n d a n d s o u t h b o u n d M a d o n n a R o a d a p p r o a c h e s s h o u l d b e mo d i f i e d t o p r o v i d e s p l i t p h a s i n g o n t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s . TR / m m -11 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t s , C o s t c o a n d t h e ap p l i c a n t s f o r t h e f r o n t p a r c e l s s h a l l p a y a f a i r s h a r e t o , a t t h e t i m e o f t h e de v e l o p m e n t o f t h e “ G a p ” p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d o n t h e n o r t h ea s t s i d e o f L O V R at t h e m a i n p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y , p r o v i d e a n e a s t b o u n d a l e f t t u r n l a n e o n LO V R , a w e s t b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e o n L O V R a n d t w o s o u t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n la n e s , o n e s o u t h b o u n d t h r o u g h l a n e a n d o n e s o u t h b o u n d r i g h t t u r n l a n e o n th e n e w n o r t h ea s t i n t e r s e c t i o n l e g . AI R Q U A L I T Y ( A Q ) AQ / I m p a c t - 1 G r a d i n g a c t i v i t i e s m a y e x p o s e na t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g a s b e s t o s Sh o r t - t e r m AQ / m m - 1 P r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , a g e o l o g i c a n a l y s i s s h a l l b e co n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e p r e s e n ce o f s e r p e n t i n e r o c k . AQ / m m - 2 P r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , i f n a t u r a l l y o c c u r r i n g a s b e s t o s i s fo u n d a t t h e s i t e , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l p r e p a r e a n A s b e s t o s H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y Pr o gra m a n d a n A s b e s t o s D u s t C on t r o l P l a n w h i c h s h a l l b e a pp ro v e d b y In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 7 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t th e A C P D p r i o r t o c o m m e n c e m e n t of c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . AQ / I m p a c t - 3 P M 10 e m i s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m co n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s w i l l i m p a c t a i r q u a l i t y . Sh o r t - t e r m AQ / m m - 6 P r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , A D u s t C o n t r o l P l a n s h a l l b e pr e p a r e d a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e A P C D p r i o r t o c o m m e n c e m e n t o f co n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . T h e D u s t C o n t r ol P l a n s h a l l i n c l ud e t h e f o l l o w i n g : a. I m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t s o f t h i s p l an w o u l d b e d e t a i l e d d u s t m i t i g a t i o n me a s u r e s a n d p r o v i s i o n s f o r m o n i t o r i n g f o r d u s t an d c o n s t r u c t i o n de b r i s d u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n . . b. T h e c o n t r a c t o r o r b u i l d e r s h o u l d d e s i g n a t e a p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s t o mo n i t o r t h e d u s t c o n t r o l p r o g r a m a n d to o r d e r i n c r e a s e d w a t e r i n g or o t h e r m e a s u r e s a s n e c e s s a r y t o p r e v e n t t r a n s p o r t o f d u s t o f f - si t e . T h e i r d u t i e s s h o u l d i n c l u d e h o l i d a y a n d w e e k e n d p e r i o d s wh e n w o r k m a y n o t b e i n p r o g r e s s . c. T h e n a m e a n d t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r o f s u c h p e r s o n s s h a l l b e p r o v i d e d to t h e A P C D an d a d j a c e n t r e s i d e n t s o f G a r c i a D r i v e a n d t h e De V a u l r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n co m m e n c e m e n t . d. C o m p l i a n t h a n d l i n g p r o c e d u r e s s h a l l b e i d e n t i f i e d . e. A d a i l y d u s t o b s e r v a t i o n l o g s h a l l b e f i l l e d o u t a s n e c e s s a r y . AQ / m m - 7 D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s sh a l l b e i m p l e m e n t e d t o r e d u c e P M 10 e m i s s i o n s d u r i n g e a r t h m o v i n g ac t i v i t i e s : a. R e d u c e t h e a m o u n t o f t h e d i st u r b e d a r e a w h e r e p o s s i b l e . b. U s e o f w a t e r t r u c k s o r s p r i n k l e r sy s t e m s i n s u f f i c i en t q u a n t i t i e s t o pr e v e n t a i r b o r n e d u s t f r o m l e a v i n g t h e s i t e . I n c r e a s e d w a t e r i n g fr e q u e n c y w o u l d b e r e q u i r e d w h e n e v e r w i n d s p e e d s e x c e e d 1 5 mp h . R e c l a i m e d ( n o n p o t a b l e ) w a t e r s h o u l d b e u s e d w h e n e v e r po s s i b l e . c. A l l d i r t s t o c k - p i l e a r e a s s h o u l d b e s p r a y e d d a i l y a s n e e d e d . d. E x p o s e d g r o u n d a r e a s t h a t a r e p l an n e d t o b e r e w o r k e d a t d a t e s gr e a t e r t h a n o n e m o n t h a f t e r i n i t i a l g r a d i n g s h o u l d b e s o w n w i t h a fa s t - g e r m i n a t i n g n a t i v e g r a s s s e e d an d w a t e r e d u n t i l v e g e t a t i o n i s es t a b l i s h e d . In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 8 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t e. A l l d i s t u r b e d s o i l a r e a s n o t s u bj e c t t o r e v e g e t a t i o n s h o u l d b e st a b i l i z e d u s i n g a p p r o v e d c h e m i c a l s o i l b i n d e r s , j u t e n e t t i n g , o r ot h e r m e t h o d s a p p r o v e d i n a d v a n c e b y t h e A P C D . f. A l l r o a d w a y s , d r i v e w a y s , s i d e w a l k s , e t c . t o b e p a v e d s h o u l d b e co m p l e t e d a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e . I n a d d i t i o n , b u i l d i n g p a d s s h o u l d be l a i d a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e a f t e r g r a d i n g u n l e s s s e e d i n g o r s o i l bi n d e r s a r e u s e d . g. V e h i c l e s p e e d f o r a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n v e h i c l e s s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 1 5 mp h o n a n y u n p a v e d s u r f a c e a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e . h. A l l t r u c k s h a u l i n g d i r t , s a n d , or o t h e r l o o s e m a t e r i a l s a r e t o b e co v e r e d o r s h o u l d m a i n t a i n a t l e a s t t w o f e e t o f f r e e b o a r d (m i n i m u m v e r t i c a l d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t o p o f l o a d a n d t o p o f t r a i l e r ) in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C V C S e c t i o n 2 3 1 1 4 . T h i s m e a s u r e h a s t h e po t e n t i a l t o r e d u c e P M 1 0 e m i s s i o n s b y 7 - 1 4 % . i. I n s t a l l w h e e l w a s h e r s w h e r e v e h i c l e s e n t e r a n d e x i t u n p a v e d r o a d s on t o s t r e e t s , o r w a s h o f f t r u c k s a n d e q u i p m e n t l e a v i n g t h e s i t e . Th i s m e a s u r e h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l to r e d u c e P M 1 0 e m i s s i o n s b y 4 0 - 70 % . j. S w e e p s t r e e t s a t t h e e n d o f e a c h d a y i f v i s i b l e s o i l m a t e r i a l i s ca r r i e d o n t o a d j a c e n t p a v e d r o a d s . W a t e r s w e e p e r s w i t h re c l a i m e d w a t e r s h o u l d b e u s e d w h e n f e a s i b l e . T h i s m e a s u r e h a s th e p o t e n t i a l t o r e d u c e P M 1 0 e m i s s i o n s b y 2 5 - 6 0 % . k. P e r m a n e n t d u s t c o n t r o l m e a s u r e s s h a l l b e i m p l e m e n t e d a s s o o n a s po s s i b l e f o l l o w i n g c o m p l e t i o n o f a n y s o i l d i s t u r b i n g a c t i v i t i e s . AQ / m m - 8 Pr i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , th e f o l l o w i n g m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s ar e r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o r e m a i n i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e A P C D : a. T h e a p p l i c a n t m u s t o b t a i n a c o m p l i a n c e r e v i e w w i t h t h e A P C D pr i o r t o t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f a n y c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . b. A l i s t o f a l l h e a v y - d u t y c o n s t r u c ti o n e q u i p m e n t o p e r a t i n g a t t h e si t e m u s t b e p r o v i d e d t o t h e AP C D . T h e l i s t s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e ma k e , m o d e l , e n g i n e s i z e , a n d y e a r o f e a c h p i e c e o f e q u i p m e n t . Th i s c o m pli a n c e r e v i e w w i l l i d e n t i f y a l l e qui pme n t a n d o per a t i o n s Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 1 9 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t re q u i r i n g p e r m i t s an d w i l l a s s i s t i n t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f s u i t a b l e eq u i p m e n t f o r t h e c a t a l y z e d d i e s e l p a r t i c u l a t e f i l t e r . c. Th e a p p l i c a n t m u s t a p p l y f o r a n Au t h o r i t y t o C o n st r u c t f r o m t h e AP C D wh e r e n e c e s s a r y . AQ / m m - 9 D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , M o n t h l y c o m p l i a n c e c h e c k s th r o u g h o u t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p h a s e i s r e qu i r e d t o v e r i f y t h a t a l l e q u i p m e n t an d o p e r a t i o n s c o n t i n u e t o c o m p ly w i t h t h e A P C D r e q u i r e m e n t s . AQ / I m p a c t - 6 5 B e n z e n e e m i s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m th e f u e l i n g s t a t i o n w i l l i m p a c t a i r q u a l i t y . Lo n g - t e r m AQ / m m - 1 2 P r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e g a s o l i n e d i s p e n s i n g f a c i l i t y (G D F ) w i l l r e q u i r e a p e r m i t f r o m t h e A P C D . AQ / m m - 1 3 P r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n , a H e a l t h R i s k A s s e s s m e n t m a y b e re q u i r e d b y t h e A P C D . In s i g n i f i c a n t AQ / I m p a c t - 7 6 P M 1 0 e m i s s i o n s r e s u l t i n g f r o m cu m u l a t i v e p r o j e c t s e x c e e d t h e A P C D ’ s p o u n d s p e r d a y th r e s h o l d . Lo n g - t e r m I m p l e m e n t m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s A Q / m m - 3 t h r o u g h A Q / m m - 1 1 . I n s i g n i f i c a n t NO I S E ( N ) N- I m p a c t 1 T r u c k d e l i v e r i e s c o n d u c t e d u s i n g t h e pr o p o s e d r o u t e a d j a c e n t t o t h e D e V a u l r e s i d e n t i a l de v e l o p m e n t w i l l e x c e e d t h e C i t y ’ s n i g h t t i m e n o i s e st a n d a r d s . Sh o r t - t e r m N/ m m - 1 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f p e r m i t s , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l a l t e r t h e t r u c k de l i v e r y r o u t e f o r d e l i v e r i e s p r i o r t o 7 : 00 a m ( n i g h t t i m e f o r n o i s e p u r p o s e s ) to d e l i v e r m e r c h a n d i s e t o a n d f r o m Co s t c o t h r o u g h t h e p a r k i n g l o t a n d al o n g t h e s o u t h e a s t e r l y s i d e o f t h e b u i l d i n g . In s i g n i f i c a n t N- I m p a c t - 2 Ro o f t o p e q u i p m e n t c o u l d c a u s e di s t u r b a n c e t o t h e D e V a u l r e s i d e n t s l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t t o th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t . . Sh o r t - t e r m N/ m m - 2 P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s , pr o j e c t p l a n s s h a l l s h o w no i s e b a f f l e s i n s t a l l e d s u r r o u n d i n g t h e r o o f t o p e q u i p m e n t . In s i g n i f i c a n t HA Z A R D O U S M A T E R I A L S ( H M ) HM - I m p a c t 1 T h e p r o j e c t w i l l c a u s e a n i n c r e a s e d po t e n t i a l o f f i r e a n d / o r e x p l o s i o n d u e t o t h e h a n d l i n g an d s t o r a g e o f l a r g e v o l u m e s o f g a s o l i n e . HM - I m p a c t 2 T h e p r o j e c t w i l l c a u s e a n i n c r e a s e d po t e n t i a l f o r s u r f a c e a n d g r o u n d w a t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n th r o u g h u n c o n t r o l l e d s p i l l s or u n d e r g r o u n d l e a k s o f fu e l . Lo n g - t e r m HM / m m - 1 T h e a p p l i c a n t s h a ll c o m p l y w i t h t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s Ob i s p o p e r m i t c o n d i t i o n s a n d s t a t e U S T r e g u l a t i o n s ( T i t l e 2 3 , C h a p t e r 1 6 ) an d S t a t e F i r e C o d e f o r t h e i n s t a l l a ti o n a n d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e U S T s y s t e m . Im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n c l u d e s t h e f o l l o w i n g c o m p o n e n t s : 1. Q u a l i f i e d l i c e n s e d c o n t r a c t o r 2. S e c o n d a r y C o n t a i n m e n t f o r a l l t a n k p e n e t r a t i o n s 3. D o u b l e w a l l v e n t a n d v a p o r l i n e s , w i t h c r a s h p r o t e c t i o n p o s t f o r v e n t ri s e r s In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 2 0 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t 4 . W a t e r t i g h t t a n k s u m p l i d s a n d wa t e r t i g h t t r a f f i c g r a d e m a n w a y s 5. O v e r f i l l p r e v e n t i o n e q u i p m e n t 6. T r a f f i c - r a t e d d r a i n w a y s b e t w e e n t h e d i s p e n s e r i s l a n d s l e a d i n g t o a n oi l / w a t e r s e p a r a t o r 7. U S T l e a k d e t e c t i o n s y s t e m ( a ut o m a t e d ) w i t h p o s i t i v e s h u t d o w n 8. T e s t i n g a n d m o n i t o r i n g i n c l u d i ng m a n u a l i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e U S T sy s t e m 9. P e r i o d i c i n s p e c t i o n s o f U S T s y st e m b y t h e f i r e d e p a r t m e n t 10 . A b i l i t y t o c l e a n u p o v e r f i l l s a n d a c c i d e n t a l s u r f a c e s p i l l i m m e d i a t e l y 11 . P r o m p t r e p o r t i n g o f t h e d i s c o v e r y o f a l e a k i n g o r r u p t u r e d U S T sy s t e m o r m a j o r s u r f a c e s p i l l 12 . R e c o r d k e e p i n g i n c l u d i n g s t a ti s t i c a l i n v e n t o r y r e c o n c i l i a t i o n ( S I R ) 13 . E m e r g e n c y p l a n n i n g 14 . E m p l o y e e t r a i n i n g 15 . Pa y t e l e p h o n e i n s t a l l e d i n c l o s e p r ox i m i t y t o t h e f u e l i n g f a c i l i t y f o r em e r g e n c i e s . PU B L I C S E R V I C E S a n d U T I L I T I E S PS - I m p a c t - 1 T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l c r e a t e a n ad d i t i o n a l l o n g - t e r m u s a g e o f e x i s t i n g C i t y w a t e r su p p l i e s a n d h a s t h e o p p o r t un i t y t o r e d u c e c u m u l a t i v e lo n g - t e r m i m p a c t s . Lo n g - t e r m PS / m m - 1 Du r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l i n s t a l l p u r p l e pi p i n g pr o j e c t d e s i g n , f o r i r r i g a t i o n o f a l l l a n d s c a p e d a r e a s i n p r e p a r a t i o n fo r u s e o f t h e C i t y ’ s p l a n n e d w a t e r r e -us e p r o g r a m t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l de s i g n a l l i r r i g a t i o n o n a n d o f f s i t e f o r u s e o f r e c y c l e d w a s t e w a t e r . A l l wa t e r u t i l i t y s e r v i c e s s h a l l be d e s i g n e d f o r co m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h o n s i t e u s e o f re c y c l e d w a t e r f o r i r r i g a t i o n . In s i g n i f i c a n t PS - I m p a c t - 2 C o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s h a v e t h e po t e n t i a l t o d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y i g n i t e a f i r e . Sh o r t - t e r m PS / m m - 2 D u r i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e pr o j e c t s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h st a n d a r d r e g u l a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e S a n L u i s O b i s p o F i r e De p a r t m e n t . In s i g n i f i c a n t PS - I m p a c t - 3 T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l i n c r e a s e tr a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n i n t h e a r e a , w h i c h w i l l s e c o n d a r i l y im p a c t C i t y i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , n e i g h b o r i n g r e s i d e n t s , a n d su r r o u n d i n g o p e n - s p a c e a r e a s . Lo n g - t e r m PS / m m - 3 P r i o r t o o c c u p a n c y , t h e a p p li c a n t s h a l l p r o v i d e e m p l o y e e s wi t h C i t y b u s i n f o r m a t i o n a n d i m p l em e n t i n c e n t i v e s f o r c a r - p o o l i n g a n d us e o f p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . B u s R o u t e a n d b i c y c l e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n in f o r m a t i o n s h a l l b e p o s t e d o u t s i d e t h e s t o r e wa r e h o u s e i n a c o n v e n i e n t lo c a t i o n s o a s t o e n c o u r a g e c u s t o m e r ’ s u s e o f a l t e r n a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . A st o r e d i s c o u n t o r o t h e r i n ce n t i v e a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o sh a l l b e p r o v i d e d f o r a t l e a s t t h e f i r s t m o n t h o f b u s i n e s s t o c u s t o m e r s w h o ut i l i z e n o n -ve h i c u l a r o r p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 2 1 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t VI S U A L R E S O U R C E S ( V R ) VR / I m p a c t 1 A r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y a s s e e n fr o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d , a n d i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h De s i g n G u i d e l i n e s f o r L a r g e - S c a l e R e t a i l P r o j e c t , B - 1 wi l l o c c u r d u e t o v i s i b i l i t y a nd v i s u a l d o m i n a n c e o f t h e pr o p o s e d p a r k i n g l o t a n d r e l a t e d v e h i c l e s . Lo n g - t e r m VR / m m – 1 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f p e r m i t s f o r f r o n t p a r c e l s , t h e C i t y sh a l l c o n s i d e r r e z o n i n g t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h a n “ S ” o v e r l a y . T h i s S p e c i a l Co n s i d e r a t i o n z o n e w i l l e n s u r e t h e in c o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s i g n fe a t u r e s t h a t w i l l r e d u c e vi s u a l i m p a c t s : T h e fr o n t p a r c e l g r a d i n g p l a n sh a l l i n c l u d e a c o n t i n u o u s e a r t h e n b e r m a l o n g t h e e n t i r e p e r i m e t e r o f f r o n t pa r c e l s f a c i n g L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d a n d a l o n g t h e n o r t h e r n e d g e o f t h e ma i n d r i v e w a y t o t h e p o in t w h e r e t h e d r i v e w a y o p e n s t o t h e C o s t c o p a r k i n g lo t . T h e b e r m s h a l l b e a m i n i m u m o f f i v e f e e t t a l l w i t h m a x i m u m s i d e sl o p e s o f 2 : 1 ( H : V ) . T h e b e r m s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o a p p e a r a s a n a t u r a l l y oc c u r r i n g l a n d f o r m a n d s h a l l i n c l u d e s u b t l e h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e r t i c a l un d u l a t i o n . B r e a k s m a y o c c u r i n t h e b e r m t o a c c o m m o d a t e p e d e s t r i a n f l o w to p u b l i c r o a d w a y s , h o w e v e r t h e b r e a k s s h a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o m i n i m i z e vi s u a l a c c e s s t o t h e p a r k i n g l o t f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d . VR / m m – 2 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f p e r m i t s f o r f r o n t p a r c e l s , t h e fr o n t pa r c e l a p p l i c a n t s s h a l l s u b m i t a r e v i s e d l a n d s c a p e p l a n f o r r e v i e w a n d ap p r o v a l , i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g de s i g n g u i d e l i n e s . T h e l a n d s c a p e pl a n s h a l l i n c l u d e a c o n t i n u o u s p l a n t i n g s c r e e n o n a n d a d j a c e n t t o t h e b e r m al o n g t h e f r o n t t w o p a r c e l s f a c i n g Lo s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d a n d a l o n g t h e no r t h e r n e d g e o f t h e m a i n d r i v e w a y t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e d r i v e w a y o p e n s to t h e C o s t c o p a r k i n g l o t. T h e p l a n t i n g s h a l l c o m p l e m e n t t h e n a t u r a l l y ap p e a r i n g f o r m o f t h e b e r m a n d n o t l o o k l i k e a f o r m a l , m a n i c u r e d la n d s c a p e . T h e d e s i g n s h a l l a v o i d a l i n e a r p l a n t i n g a l o n g t h e " r i d g e " o f t h e be r m . In s i g n i f i c a n t VR / I m p a c t 2 A r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y a s s e e n fr o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d w il l o c c u r d u e t o v i s i b i l i t y of t h e g a s s t a t i o n i n t h e v i s u a l g a p b e t w e e n t h e l a r g e Co s t c o a n d H o m e D e p o t s t r u c t u r e s , a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g in c r e a s e i n v i e w e r - p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e a m o u n t o f o v e r a l l de v e l o p m e n t a l o n g t h e v i e w i n g c o r r i d o r . Lo n g - t e r m VR / m m – 3 Pr i o r t o a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a r e v i s e d l a n d s c a p e p l a n f o r r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l . Th e l a n d s c a p e p l a n s h a l l i n c l u d e a c o n t i n u o u s p l a n t i n g a l o n g t h e no r t h ea s t e r n s i d e o f t h e g a s s t a t i o n f a c i l i t y w h i c h a t m a t u r i t y w i l l co m p l e t e l y s c r e e n t h e c a n o p y a n d v e h i c l e s o f t h e g a s s t a t i o n a s s e e n f r o m Lo s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d . T h e p l a n t i n g s h a l l i n c l u d e s h r u b s , w h i c h r e a c h a mi n i m u m h e i g h t o f s i x f e e t a n d a s o l i d r o w o f e v e r g r e e n t r e e s w i t h a mi n i m u m h e i g h t a t m a t u r i t y o f t w e n ty - f i v e f e e t . T h e l a n d s c a p e s c r e e n i n g sh a l l b e d e s i gne d a n d c o n s t r u c t e d s u c h t h a t i t w i l l s c r e e n a n y f u t u r e In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 2 2 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t ex p a n s i o n o f t h e g a s s t a t i o n a n d t h a t i t w i l l n o t b e i m p a c t e d b y f u t u r e de v e l o p m e n t . VR / I m p a c t 3 A r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y a s s e e n fr o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d m a y o c c u r d u e t o t h e h i g h re f l e c t i v e v a l u e a n d h i g h c o n t r a s t o f t e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h "p l a s t e r " w a l l s a n d r e d - t i l e r o o f s o f t y p i c a l S p a n i s h - st y l e a r c h i t e c t u r e , r e s u l t i n g i n a n i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e De s i g n G u i d e l i n e s f o r L a r g e - S c a l e R e t a i l P r o j e c t s , se c t i o n D - 3 . e . Lo n g - t e r m VR / m m – 4 Pr i o r t o a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a p r o p o s e d m a t e ri a l a n d c o l o r p l a n . T h e p l a n s h a l l de m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e m a i n e x t e r i o r w a l l s u r f a c e s i n c l u d e c o l o r s h a d e s a n d ch r o m a t h a t s u p p o r t t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l t h e m e o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d a t t h e s a m e ti m e h a v e l o w r e f l e c t i v e q u a l i t i e s o r b r ig h t n e s s , g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o b e le s s t h a n a v a l u e o f s i x ( 6 ) o n t h e M u n s e l l c o l o r c h a r t . In s i g n i f i c a n t VR / I m p a c t 4 A r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y a s s e e n fr o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d m a y o c c u r d u e t h e bu i l d i n g ’ s “ b i g - b o x ” o u t w a r d a p p e a r a n c e , r e s u l t i n g i n an i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e De s i g n G u i d e l i n e s f o r L a r g e - Sc a l e R e t a i l P r o j e c t s , S e c t i o n D . Lo n g - t e r m VR / m m – 5 Pr i o r t o a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s i s s u a n c e of o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l i n s t a l l p u b l i c a r t a l o n g t h e so u t h e a s t e r n a s p e c t o f t h e b u i l d i n g (f a c i n g t h e g a s s t a t i o n ) . T h e a r t w o r k sh a l l b e d e s i g n e d t o e n h a n c e t h e s c en i c v a l u e o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g o p e n sp a c e b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e I r i s h H i l l s i n t o t h e t h e m e o f t h e a r t w o r k . T h e ar t w o r k c o u l d b e i n t h e an y f o r m o f a t i l e d m o s a i c m u r a l o r o t h e r l a r g e sc a l e d e s i g n a p p r o p r i a t e t o b r e a k i n g u p t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e l a r g e w a l l . In s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c a r t s h a l l b e su b j e c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f S a n Lu i s O b i s p o C o m m u n i t y D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s Se c t i o n 6 . 4 , P u b l i c A r t . In s i g n i f i c a n t VR / I m p a c t 5 A r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y a s s e e n fr o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d m a y o c c u r d u e t o v i s i b i l i t y of u t i l i t y l i n e s o v e r t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y . Lo n g - t e r m VR / m m - 6 P r i o r t o a p p l i c a n t f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , t h e a p p l i c a n t sh a l l s u b m i t p l a n s t o u n d e r g r o u n d al l u t i l i t i e s p r o p o s e d f o r t h e p r o j e c t . In s i g n i f i c a n t VR / I m p a c t 6 A r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y a s s e e n fr o m t h e r e s i d e n c e s o f t h e D e V a u l R a n c h E a s t de v e l o p m e n t d u e t o v i s i b i l i t y o f r o o f t o p m e c h a n i c a l eq u i p m e n t r e s u l t i n g i n a n i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e D e s i g n Gu i d e l i n e s f o r L a r g e - S c a l e R e t a i l P r o j e c t s , s e c t i o n E - 5 . Lo n g - t e m VR / m m – 7 P r i o r t o a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a c c u r a t e c r o s s - s e c t i o n s a n d s i g h t - l i n e i n d i c a t o r s de m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t a l l p r o p o s e d r o o f to p m e c h a n i c a l e q u i p m e n t i s n o t vi s i b l e f r o m t h e s e c o n d f l o o r o f t h e r e s i d e n c e s i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t t o t h e pr o j e c t . T h e d e s i g n e m p l o y e d t o c o n c e a l t h e r o o f t o p e q u i p m e n t s h a l l n o t in c r e a s e t h e p e r c e i v e d s c a l e o r m a s s o f t h e b u i l d i n g a s s e e n f r o m t h e ad j a c e n t r e s i d e n c e s o f r f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d . In s i g n i f i c a n t VR / I m p a c t 7 A r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y a s s e e n fr o m r e s i d e n c e s o f t h e D e V a u l R a n c h E a s t d e v e l o p m e n t an d u s e r s o f t h e p r o p o s e d C o s t c o g a s s t a t i o n d u e t o vi s i b i l i t y o f t h e e n g i n e e r e d , a n g u l a r e a r t h w o r k a n d re l a t e d e l e m e n t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r det e n t i o n b a s i n . Lo n g - t e r m VR / m m – 8 Pr i o r t o a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a r e v i s e d l a n d s c a p e p l a n f o r r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l . Th e l a n d s c a p e p l a n s h a l l i n c l u d e a n a t u r a l - a p p e a r i n g p l a n t i n g a l o n g t h e no r t h , s o u t h a n d e a s t p e r i m e t e r o f t h e r det e n t i o n b a s i n w h i c h a t m a t u r i t y wi l l c o m p l e t e l y s c r e e n t h e e n g i n e e r ed l a n d f o r m a n d a n y r e q u i r e d p u m p s , gat e s o r o t h e r e qui pme n t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e b a s i n f r o m t h e v i e w o f t h e In s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 2 3 TA B L E I I - 2 - C l a s s I I I m p a c t s Si g n i f i c a n t E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s T h a t C a n b e F e a s i b l y M i t i g a t e d o r A v o i d e d (D e c i s i o n - m a k e r m u s t i s s u e “ F i n d i n g s” u n d e r C E Q A G u i d e l i n e s S e c t i o n 15 0 9 3 i f t h e p r o j ec t i s a p p r o v e d ) De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t De V a u l R a n c h a n d t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e p r o p o s e d g a s s t a t i o n . T h e b a s in s h a l l be c o n s t r u c t e d a s a v e g e ta t e d b i o s w a l e de s i g n e d t o f i l t e r r u n o f f f r o m t h e pr o j e c t s i t e b e f o r e e n t e r i n g t h e w a t e r s h e d a n d t o v i s u a l l y s c r e e n t h e rdet e n t i o n b a s i n , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e B R / m m -3. I f f e n c i n g is r e q u i r e d , u n c o a t e d g a l v a n i z e d c h a i n l i n k s h a l l n o t b e u s e d . N o b a r b e d o r ra z o r f e n c i n g s h a l l b e u s e d . VR / I m p a c t 8 D i r e c t v i s i b i l i t y o f t h e s o u r c e o f t h e ar c h i t e c t u r a l l i g h t i n g a t t a c h e d t o t h e n o r t h s i d e o f t h e Co s t c o b u i l d i n g w i l l r e d u c e v i su a l q u a l i t y a t n i g h t f o r ne a r b y r e s i d e n t s o f D e V a u l E a s t a n d r e s u l t i n in c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h t h e D e si g n G u i d e l i n e s f o r L a r g e - Sc a l e R e t a i l P r o j e c t s , S e c t i o n H . Lo n g - t e m VR / m m – 9 A t t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a l i g h t i n g p l a n d e mo n s t r a t i n g t h a t d i r e c t v i e w s o f t h e li g h t s o u r c e s a l o n g t h e n o r t h we s t s i d e o f t h e C o s t c o a r e s h i e l d e d f r o m t h e ad j a c e n t r e s i d e n c e s . In s i g n i f i c a n t VR / I m p a c t 9 V i s i b i l i t y o f a m b i e n t l i g h t c a u s e d b y th e c u m u l a t i v e n u m b e r a n d a m o u n t o f l i g h t i n g as s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p a r k i n g l o t , g a s s t a t i o n a n d st r u c t u r e s w i l l r e d u c e v i s u a l q u a l i t y a t n i g h t f o r t h e vi e w e r s o n L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d a n d t h e n e a r b y co m m u n i t y . Lo n g - t e r m V R/ m m – 1 0 A t t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l s u b m i t a l i g h t i n g o p er a t i o n s c h e d u l e f o r r e v i e w a n d ap p r o v a l . T h e s c h e d u l e s h a l l d e s c r i be t h e n u m b e r , l o c a t i o n a n d a m o u n t o f li g h t s , a n d t h e p r o p o s e d h o u r s o f o p e r a t i o n f o r t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r t y , in c l u d i n g t h e g a s s t a t i o n . T h e l i g h t i ng s c h e d u l e s h a l l p r o p o s e t h e m i n i m u m nu m b e r o f l i g h t s , l e v e l o f i l l u m i n a n c e , an d h o u r s o f o p e r a t i o n a l l o w e d b y Ci t y c o d e s a n d o r d i n a n c e s . T h e a p p r o v ed l i g h t i n g s c h e d u l e s h a l l b e c o m e a re q u i r e d c o n d i t i o n o f t h e l e a s e b e t w ee n t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r a n d t h e t e n a n t . In s i g n i f i c a n t VR / I m p a c t 1 0 A r e d u c t i o n i n v i s u a l q u a l i t y a s s e e n fr o m t h e I r i s h H i l l s o p e n s p a c e a r e a d u e t o t h e d i r e c t vi s i b i l i t y o f t h e C o s t c o b u i l d i n g a n d a s s o c i a t e d de v e l o p m e n t . Lo n g - t e r m VR / m m – 1 1 A t t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a n t f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s , t h e ap p l i c a n t s h a l l r e q u e s t t h a t t h e C i t y re q u e s t t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y o w n e r p l a c e Pa r c e l 5 i n t o a c o n s e r v a t i o n e a s e m e n t , so t h e a p p l i c a n t c a n v e g e t a t e t h e pa r c e l w i t h n a t i v e t r e e p l a n t i n g s d e s i g n e d t o c r e a t e a b u f f e r b e t w e e n t h e de v e l o p m e n t a n d t h e o p e n s p a c e a r e a . In s i g n i f i c a n t VR / I m p a c t 1 1 C u m u l a t i v e l y , t h e vi s i b i l i t y o f t h i s pr o j e c t , s e e n i n c o n j u n c t i o n wi t h o t h e r r e s i d e n t i a l a n d co m m e r c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t s w i l l d i m i n i s h t h e r e m a i n i n g ru r a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h i s d e f i n e d c o m m u n i t y g a t e w a y a n d wi l l r e s u l t i n l o n g - t e r m v i s u a l i m p a c t s a s s e e n f r o m L o s Os o s V a l l e y R o a d a n d t h e n e a r b y c o m m u n i t y . Lo n g - t e r m I m p l e m e n t m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s V R / m m - 1 t h r o u g h V R / m m - 7 . I n s i g n i f i c a n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Su m m a r y DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II - 2 4 TA B L E I I - 3 - C l a s s I I I I m p a c t s En v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t s W h i c h A r e A d v e r s e B u t N o t S i g n i f i c a n t De s c r i p t i o n o f I m p a c t Sh o r t / Lo n g T e r m Mi t i g a t i o n M e a s u r e S u m m a r y R e s i d u a l I m p a c t GE O L O G I C H A Z A R D S ( G H ) DE S / I m p a c t 4 A l e s s t h a n s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n cu m u l a t i v e f l o w s c o u l d o c c u r i n t h e L o w e r P r e f u m o cr e e k a r e a d u e t o c u m u l a t i v e b u i l d o u t w i t h o u t d e s i g n i n g on - s i t e d e t e n t i o n i n p r o j e c t s i n t h i s a r e a . Lo n g - t e r m N o m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s a r e r e q u i r e d . I n s i g n i f i c a n t BI O L O G I C A L R E S O U R C E S ( B R ) BR - I m p a c t - 2 A p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 2 a c r e s o f a n n u a l gr a s s l a n d h a b i t a t w i l l b e r e m o v e d b y p r o j e c t im p l e m e n t a t i o n . Lo n g - t e r m N o m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s a r e r e q u i r e d . In s i g n i f i c a n t NO I S E ( N ) N- I m p a c t 2 3 N o i s e l e v e l s a t t h e f r o n t o f t h e h o m e s of f G a r c i a D r i v e w i l l e x c e e d 6 0 d B A i n t h e f r o n t y a r d s of r e s i d e n c e s o f f G a r c i a D r i v e . Sh o r t - t e r m No m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s a r e r e q u i r e d . In s i g n i f i c a n t Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-1 III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT A. GENERAL BACKGROUND Project Title: Costco/Froom Ranch Development Project Applicant: Costco Wholesale Corporation Todd Bartok 999 Lake Drive Issaquah, WA 98027 Project Representative: McClellan Hunter MulvannyG2 Architecture Ken McKently Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP 120 West Bellevue 1110 112th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Pasadena, CA 91105 Bellevue, WA 98004 Property Owner: Mr. Alex Madonna Madonna Construction Company P.O. Box 3910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City Land Use Designations: General Retail (C-R) City Case Number: Use Permit (U 173-00), ARC Review (ARC 173-00), and Environmental Review (ER 173-00) State Clearinghouse Number: 2002051036 Assessor’s Parcel Number: 053-510-008, 053-510-009, and 053-510-010 Project Location: 1540 Froom Ranch Way located on the southwest side of Los Osos Valley Road between Madonna Road and Highway 101, between the DeVaul residential development currently under construction and Home Depot (See Figures III-1 and III-2). Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-2 VICINITY MAP FIGURE III-1NORTH Not to Scale PROJECT SITE Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-3 Figure III-2 (Project Location Map) PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE III-2NORTH Not to Scale So u r c e : U S G S q u a d r a n g l e – S a n L u i s O b i s p o PROJECT SITE Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-4 B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES Costco has filed an application for the development of a 140,115 140,000 square-foot Costco Wholesale store Warehouse (referred to as Costco warehouse) including an approximate 5,200 square foot tire sales and tire installation facility, an approximate 1,055 square foot outdoor food service facility, and a fuel station on the property defined as Parcel 2, APN 053-510-009 (refer to Figure III-3). Parcel 2 consists of an approximately 14.85-acre parcel southwest of Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) between the existing Home Depot development and the DeVaul Ranch residential development project currently under construction. The parcel was recently annexed from the County of San Luis Obispo to the City of San Luis Obispo, and is zoned as General Retail (C-R). Another approximately 7 acre parcel referred to as Parcel 5 is a remainder parcel adjacent to the Irish Hills open space area and a portion of the drainage basin is shown located on this parcel (refer to Figure III-6b). Two parcels, approximately 8 acres in size each, separate both the Home Depot parcel and the Costco building parcel from LOVR. These two parcels, defined as Parcel 1 (APN: 053-510-008) and Parcel 3 (APN: 053-510-010), will be evaluate in this EIR. The parcels for the multiple buildings were included in the evaluation for the Eagle Hardware & Garden Development Plan EIR (now Home Depot) that is adjacent to this project, but neither the potential sizes of the buildings nor the building layouts were evaluated in that EIR. The property owner, Mr. Alex Madonna, has indicated his interest to develop both parcels that front LOVR. Both parcels are located in the same Commercial Retail Zoning District as the proposed Costco parcel. The current application for development does not include any detailed plans or phases for construction of Parcels 1 and 3. These parcels will be developed as a future phase to be determined at a later date. However, both parcels will be evaluated in this EIR based on preliminary development schematics and the maximum development potential for the Commercial Retail Zone as defined by the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance. This maximum development potential would be equal to approximately 140,000 square feet of general commercial uses in multiple buildings on two parcels. The applicant is planning to begin project construction of Costco (Parcel 2) in the summer of 2003 2004. Grading and construction are proposed to take approximately four to five months. The property owner for Parcels 1 and 3 does not have any plans to develop at this time. C. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS In December 2001, amendments to the City’s Commercial Zoning Districts were adopted in order to facilitate large-scale retail developments that reflect the City’s “expectations for quality and excellence in the design of large-scale retail projects.” Large-scale retail projects are those with an individual building in excess of 40,000 square feet. In order for a large-scale retail project to be approved, the planning commission must determine that the project meets the following standards: 1. The proposed use will serve the community, in whole or in significant part, and the nature of the use requires a larger size in order to function, Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-5 2. The building in which the use is located is designed in discrete elements that respect the scale of development in the surrounding area. 3. The new building is designed in compliance with the City’s design guidelines for large-scale retail projects. The applicant has expressed a willingness to amend the details of the conceptual design per direction from staff and the ARC guidance in an effort to meet all provisions of the Large Scale Retail Ordinance. D. PROJECT HISTORY 1. Historic Use Historically, the Froom Ranch property was used for grazing of cattle and dairy production (dating back to the 1850’s). Dairy operations no longer occur on the project site, and existing use of the property is currently cattle grazing with a small area within the ranch complex used for construction material and equipment storage. A portion of the ranch (adjacent to the project site) is developed as a Home Depot. The original ranch house to the east of the Home Depot is unoccupied. 2. Previous Applications a. General Plan Updates San Luis Obispo County (County) adopted a new General Plan in 1980, including Froom Ranch (project site) in the Agriculture land use category for zoning purposes. The City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) General Plan, which extends to areas currently outside of City jurisdiction, designated the flatter areas of the ranch, near Los Osos Valley Road, as a residential expansion area. In 1994, the City updated its General Plan and re-designated this area as a commercial expansion area, meaning that upon annexation by the City, the area could be used for commercial uses, instead of residential uses. Following the City’s lead, in 1996 the County changed the land use category of the same area from Agriculture to Commercial Retail, but applied a planning area standard that limited uses to those allowed in the Agriculture land use category until future annexation of the property site. b. Annexation The Costco property was approved on September 5, 2000 (Resolution 2000-354) for annexation from the governing authority of the County to the City. Annexation of Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 5 (residual parcel) occurred at the same time as the adjacent Home Depot site (Refer to Figure III- 3). Agricultural resource impacts were addressed for the project area in the City and County General Plan Update EIRs. As a result of the annexation, the City Council designated the land use and zoning for the Home Depot parcel and the parcels under review in this EIR as General Retail (C-R). Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-6 ASSESSOR PARCEL MAP FIGURE III-3NORTH Not to Scale Parcel 5 Study Area Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-7 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN – PARCELS 1 & 3 FIGURE III-4 So u r c e : M u v a n n y / G 2 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 3 NORTH Not to Scale Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-8 E. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 1. Costco Development The Costco Wholesale Corporation is a nationwide, wholesale store warehouse that provides a wide variety of products to its members. This particular store warehouse as proposed will include a tire center, and a freestanding fueling station for Costco member use only, and may also provide an outdoor food service court. The Costco building represents the equivalent of several stores under one structure. Services proposed include, but are not limited to, the sale of appliances, hardware, clothing, groceries, personal supplies, photography supplies, photography processing, tires, sporting goods, etc. The Costco facility is expected to employ approximately 300 people, totaling 75 to 125 people per shift. The proposed project submitted by the applicant is for the construction of a 140,115 140,000 square foot commercial wholesale building to be used by the Costco Wholesale Corporation on a 14.85-acre parcel (APN 053-510-009) (See Figures III-4 and 5.). The lot coverage of all proposed structures on parcel two, constitutes building lot coverage of 21.63% of the total site. The Costco warehouse building is proposed at the southwest corner of the parcel, facing LOVR. The main entrance would be located on the northeast corner of the building. The tire center is proposed along the southeast side of the building, immediately adjacent to the main entrance. Loading/unloading of delivery trucks will take place on the southeast corner of the building facing Home Depot and away from the residential areas located to the northwest of the parcel. The loading/unloading area is designed to accommodate four trucks at a time. An outdoor food court and outdoor seating area are proposed next to the main entrance on the northeast side of the building. The proposed building floor area is summarized in Table III-1 below. TABLE III-1 Costco Building Data Building Area (square feet) Main Building Floor Area 134,915 133,742 Tire Center 5,200 Food Service 1,055 Total Building Warehouse Floor Area Not to Exceed 140,115 140,000 *Building size exceeds City building cap size by 115 square feet 2. Fueling Station The applicant is proposing to include a three-island vehicle fueling facility with the option for future expansion to include a fourth island. Each island is designed with two double-sided gasoline dispensers, for a total of twelve fueling pumps, or sixteen fueling positions if the service station expands to include a fourth island. Use of the fueling station will be for Costco members only. The station has been designed to be fully automated and self-service only. It is proposed to be located in the southeastern southern corner of the proposed project site, between the proposed Costco building and the Home Depot building. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t CO N C E P T U A L S I T E P L A N – C O S T C O S I T E ( P A R C E L 2 ) FI G U R E I I I - 5 NO R T H No t t o S c a l e Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-11 In order to operate the fueling facility, Costco shall meet requirements of local, state and federal regulatory agencies, including San Luis Obispo County City Fire Protection District Bureau, San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health-Hazardous Materials Division (Hazardous Materials. Underground Tank Permit), San Luis Obispo Certified Unified Program Agency, San Luis Obispo Air Quality Management District, California Accidental Release Program (Risk Management Plan), State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency and the US EPA. 3. Parcels 1 & 3 Parcels 1 and 3 are located adjacent to LOVR. Parcel 1 (approximately 8.08 acres) is located between LOVR and the proposed Costco parcel. Parcel 3 (approximately 8.63 acres) is located between the Home Depot building and LOVR (Refer to Figure III-4 and Figure III-8). The applicant and the City of San Luis Obispo have requested inclusion of these two parcels in the review of the current Costco development in order to streamline the environmental review process for future development and to ensure consistency between the Costco development and future buildout of these two parcels. Both Parcels 1 and 3 are zoned for General Retail Commercial Uses, as is parcel two (Costco site). The City of San Luis Obispo has limited development standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance for the General Retail District. Warehouse stores in excess of 45,000 square feet will require Planning Commission approval. Retail uses under 45,000 square feet may be approved by the Architectural Review Commission and approval of construction permits. The applicant and the property owner have not indicated specific future development intentions for Parcels 1 and 3. According to the Zoning Ordinance, a property zoned for General Retail can have a building lot coverage that completely covers the entire site. However, due to physical constraints on the property relating to parking, landscaping, easements, and other factors, the complete development of either property is not realistic. For the purposes of evaluation in this EIR, the site will be evaluated based on approximately 140,000 square feet of general commercial uses in multiple buildings on both parcels. 4. Parcel 5 Parcel 5 is located adjacent to the Irish Hills, between the hills and the Costco parcel. Construction of the drainage basin for Costco will be within this residual parcel. This parcel consists of annual grassland and ruderal areas associated with the historic Froom Ranch buildings. Annual grassland and seasonal freshwater marsh habitats of the area have been impacted by a variety of agricultural practices, including cattle grazing. Ruderal areas are the result of grading, road construction, ranch operations, and utility installation activities. No trees or large shrubs are present in undeveloped portions of the study area. 5. Drainage Surface water currently flowing from the Irish Hills open space onto the property will be contained and channelized at the southwestern property line, as shown in Figure III-6b. From Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-12 this location it will flow either to a proposed detention pond located west to be constructed southwest of the Costco site. that has been developed for Home Depot or in a channel behind Home Depot to a detention pond located in front of the Froom Ranch if these two uses exceed the capacity of the pond. The existing proposed detention pond is located to be constructed immediately adjacent to the southwestern property line of the Costco parcel (APN: 053-510-012). The detention basin has a capacity to contain approximately three acre-feet of runoff from the immediate vicinityoff-site. The low point of the detention basin is approximately 20 feet below the top of the detention basin. The proposed project will increase runoff from the site due to the increase in impervious surfaces associated with the building footprint and paved parking area. Surface water will be directed through storm sewers to a central drainage easement under the main access drive between the parcels and then into a storm drain channel along LOVR. The proposed detention basin will reduce the combined existing off-site and proposed developed runoff from an existing 50-year runoff to a 2-year runoff. 6. Grading Grading for the project will occur in a single phase for all three parcels, as shown in Figure III- 6b, Grading and Drainage Plan. The proposed development, and all components of this development, will result in an estimated 45,000 42,000 cubic yards of earthwork. The applicant is proposing to remove 30,000 approximately 40,000 cubic yards of earth to level the site Parcel 2 and construct the proposed detention basin. Of the soil that is proposed for grading on Parcel 2, 15,000 approximately 24,000 cubic yards of earth will be re-compacted and used as fill material. The remaining 15,000 16,000 cubic yards of earth will be removed from the site and disposed of at an offsite location as yet to be determined placed on Parcel 1. Grading on Parcels 2 and 3 1 will be minimal (rough grading involving approximately 2,000 cubic yards of cut and import of 16,000 cubic yards from Parcel 2) and limited to leveling the site and installing the drainage swale across the frontage (refer to Figure III-6). Finish grading will occur after plans have been approved for the front two parcels. 7. Retaining Walls The proposed project will may utilize retaining walls along the northwestern and southwestern property line in an effort to stabilize the grading and site development work (See Figure III-6a and b, Grading Plan). Alternatively, the project may utilize a minimum 2:1 slope setback from the property line to accommodate changes in grade for the property adjoining the residential developments to the northwest. Along the northwestern property line, adjacent to the DeVaul Ranch residential development, a series of stepped retaining walls will be utilized to stabilize the soils. When completed, there will be a difference of eleven feet between the top of grade and the bottom of the retaining walls. Along the southwestern property line, a single retaining wall will be utilized to stabilize the soils. This single retaining wall will result in a grade difference of approximately eight feet. Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-13 8. Parcel Access Access to the Costco Parcel will occur by way of four points on LOVR through the use of easements across the frontage parcels, see Figure III-7. The main center driveway, eighty (80) feet in width, will be perpendicular to LOVR, extending from the common boundary between Home Depot and Costco. The second entrance to the Costco Parcel will also be perpendicular to LOVR with a width of approximately forty (40) feet and will be located along the northwestern boundary of the frontage parcel. This entrance will be a right-in, right-out only intersection. The final two access points will be right-in, right-out, forty (40) foot wide access points from LOVR. These two access locations will be located where the flag portion of the Home Depot parcel meets LOVR, and along the southeast boundary of the southern-most Home Depot frontage parcel. A common drive aisle running parallel to LOVR along the northeast boundaries of the Costco and Home Depot parcels will connect the four drive aisles that provide access from LOVR. Vehicles coming to the Costco parcel west-bound on LOVR will primarily use the main center driveway. Vehicles coming east-bound on LOVR may use any of the four driveways. Vehicles departing from the Costco parcel to west-bound LOVR will use the main center driveway, and vehicles departing to LOVR east-bound may use any of the four driveways. 9. Truck Deliveries The main Costco building and all of its components will require approximately 18 truck deliveries on a typical weekday, resulting in approximately 100 truck deliveries in an average week. It is anticipated that the delivery trucks will be routed from Highway 101 along LOVR to the main entrance of the shopping center, then proceed along the east, north and west perimeters of the Costco parcel to the loading/unloading docks (See Figure III-3). They will depart over the center drive aisle to LOVR and back to Highway 101. Truck delivery times for the main Costco building are proposed to occur between the hours of 4:00 AM to 12:00 PM, averaging about 2 to 3 trucks per hour. The majority of the deliveries will occur before the 10:00 AM opening time. 10. Parking Parking for the project is provided primarily on the southeast and northeast sides of the Costco building and nearest to the main entrance of the building. The Large-Scale Retail Ordinance allows a maximum parking ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area for stores that are greater than 45,000 square feet. At 140,000 square feet, the ordinance would allow Costco 700 parking spaces. The proposed site plan provides 700 parking spaces (See Figure III-7). Landscaping requirements dictated by the parking and driveway standards have been achieved by the applicant’s proposed landscape plan (Refer to Figures III-9, III-10, and III-11 III-13a, and III-13b). Sixteen accessible parking spaces for use by disabled persons are to be located immediately adjacent to the main building entrance. Costco will vacuum sweep the parking lots two to three times a week to remove heavy metals and sediments from the parking area. Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-14 TABLE III-2 Parking Data Parking Types Spaces Provided 10-foot wide space 684 Handicap space 16 Total 700 11. Pedestrian Accessibility Pedestrian walkways have been provided on the project site to meet provisions of the Large Scale Retail Ordinance, as shown on Figure III-7. The Costco site plan provides pedestrian walkways to link the parking area and adjacent future commercial pads to the front entrance of the store warehouse. The pathways end at the front entrance to the store warehouse and intersect the driveway at the front of the store warehouse. The primary pedestrian access to the Costco warehouse building will be from the sidewalk on LOVR at the existing bus turnout immediately south of the main center driveway. A pedestrian access through the retaining wall adjacent to the DeVaul residential development will be located at the junction of Parcel 3 and the front portion of the Costco parcel. Additional access will be located along the main access drive to the Home Depot frontage. 12. Water Use The project will connect to existing City infrastructure located adjacent to the project site at the terminus of Froom Ranch Way and the applicant will pay Water and Wastewater Impact Fees established by the a fair share of City infrastructure improvements. 13. Utilities and Public Services Sewage facilities are proposed to connect into the sewer line that extends into the Home Depot access road and the applicant will pay a fair share of City infrastructure improvements. 14. Lighting Plan The parking lot will be illuminated with downward pointing lights, each containing two 400-watt halide bulbs, as shown in Figure III-16 14. Each light will be affixed to a pole that will be 26- feet above the finished grade. The lighting fixtures are of a shoebox style with the bulbs recessed in the shoebox to minimize dispersion and glare that would affect adjacent residents. The locations of the lighting poles are sited in a uniform pattern across the entire site, approximately 100 feet apart. Lighting poles located adjacent to the DeVaul Ranch residential development will contain only one 400 watt bulb on the lighting pole so as not to cause substantial glare to adjacent residents. The City ARC would approve the final lighting plan design. Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-15 15. Landscaping The preliminary landscape plan proposes a number of drought tolerant landscape trees, shrubs and groundcover plants. Landscape elements and enlargements are shown on Figures III-9, III- 1013a, and III-1113b. Costco has developed the landscape plan to meet the City’s Large Scale Retail Design Guidelines. In an effort to break up the building massing and parking expanses, the applicant has utilized tree clustering and a mixture of tree varieties at the request of the ARC. Partial screening of the project from the DeVaul Ranch residential development has been accomplished through the use of a variety of plant species along the northwestern edge of the property. 16. Architectural Design a. Building Orientation. The building is oriented at the southwestern corner of the site, adjacent to the DeVaul residential development, with the main entrance to the store warehouse facing the northeast. The tire center has been placed to the southeast of the building elevation and the food service area has been located on the northeast elevation based on the recommendations by the ARC. The proposed gas station would be located at the southeast corner of the site. b. Overall Design. The building is proposed to incorporate the Spanish style architecture that can be found throughout central California. The design features are depicted in Figures III-13 and III-14 III- 10, III-11a, and III-11b. The applicant has designed the Costco building based on the mission theme that was recommended by the City of San Luis Obispo ARC. Spanish tile roofs, wood trellis, concrete columns, and plaster finish dominate the exterior façade. Wrought iron accents and wood headers are used in some of the roof forms to add additional articulation. The final design would be subject to review and approval by the ARC. F. REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS Required permits may include the following: xArmy Corps of Engineers permit if wetlands/endangered species are present xRegional Water Quality Control Board wastewater discharge permit if individual systems discharge more than 2,500 gpd xAir Pollution Control District permits xCounty right-of-way encroachment permit xCity Planning Commission approval of use permit to allow a large retail store warehouse xCity Architectural Review Commission xCaltrans review for any improvements to the Highway 101 corridor and LOVR/U.S.101 interchange. Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-16 G.PARCELS 1 AND 3 CEQA requires that the whole project be evaluated at the earliest possible time in order to determine the total environmental impact of a development. Parcels 1 and 3 are included in this EIR at the request of the property owner in order to determine potential environmental effects associated with proposed development. No development plans have been submitted at this time and the parcels were assessed based on the highest development potential allowed. The EIR assesses these parcels on a general level but subsequent environmental review will be required at a minimum in the areas of Traffic Resources, Air Quality, Water and Wastewater Capacity, and Visual Resources. Costco / Froom Ranch Project Description DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report III-17 GRADING CROSS-SECTIONS FIGURE III-6a So u r c e : M u l v a n n y / G 2 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t CO N C E P T U A L G R A D I N G AN D D R A I N A G E P L A N FI G U R E I I I - 6 b NO R T H No t t o S c a l e Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II I - 1 9 PA R K I N G / P E D E S T R I A N C I R C U L A T I O N G U I D E L I N E S FI G U R E I I I - 7 Source: Mulvanny/G2 Not e : T h i s pla n d e pic t s pro pos e d c i r c u l a t i o n o n l y a n d i s n o t a n a c c u r a t e s i t e d e v e l o pme n t s c e n a r i o . Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II I - 2 0 VI E W S H E D / B U I L D I N G L O C A T I O N G U I D E L I N E S FI G U R E I I I - 8 Source: Mulvanny/G2 Not e : T h i s pla n d e pic t s pot e n t i a l v i e w s h e d o n l y a n d i s n o t a n a c c u r a t e s i t e d e v e l o pme n t s c e n a r i o . Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t II I - 2 1 LA N D S C A P E E L E M E N T S G U I D E L I N E S FI G U R E I I I - 9 Source: Mulvanny/G2 Not e : T h i s pla n d e pic t s pro pos e d l a n d s c a pin g o n l y a n d i s n o t a n a c c u r a t e s i t e d e v e l o pme n t s c e n a r i o . Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t BU I L D I N G D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S FI G U R E I I I - 1 0 NO R T H No t t o S c a l e Not e : T h i s pla n d e pic t s b u i l d i n g e l e m e n t s o n l y a n d i s n o t a n a c c u r a t e s i t e d e v e l o pme n t s c e n a r i o . R e f e r t o F i gur e I I I - 5 f o r a c c u r a t e s i t e d e s i gn. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S FI G U R E I I I - 1 1 a Source: Mulvanny/G2 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S FI G U R E I I I - 1 1 b Source: Mulvanny/G2 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t FU E L I N G S T A T I O N FI G U R E I I I - 1 2 Source: Mulvanny/G2 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t LA N D S C A P E E N L A R G E M E N T S FI G U R E I I I - 1 3 a Source: Mulvanny/G2 - Nowell Associates, Landscape Architecture Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t LA N D S C A P E E N L A R G E M E N T S FI G U R E I I I - 1 3 b Source: Mulvanny/G2 - Nowell Associates, Landscape Architecture NOR T H W E S T Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Pr o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n DR A F T FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t LI G H T I N G P L A N FI G U R E I I I - 1 4 NO R T H No t t o S c a l e Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Setting DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IV-1 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A. PHYSICAL SETTING AND EXISTING USES The proposed project is located at 1540 Froom Ranch Way in the City of San Luis Obispo. The parcel is located within the terrace and hilly portions of the Irish Hills approximately midway between Madonna Road and Highway 101. Encompassing approximately 14.87 acres, the parcel of land for the Costco property is to be created from a portion of APN 053-510-009 (refer to Figure III-3). The Costco parcel, located on the Froom Ranch is currently vacant undeveloped. This parcel, traditionally in agricultural use is generally flat, with a gradual slope from northwest to southeast. The site is covered with low dense grasses and shrubs. No mature trees are located on site. The existing condition of the two parcels that front Los Osos Valley Road is similar to the conditions found on the Costco parcel. B. SURROUNDING LAND USES Northwest of the project site along Los Osos Valley Road is the DeVaul Ranch Planned Development, a 221.7-acre site consisting of single family and multifamily housing. Construction of the DeVaul development is in progress and total buildout of the site is planned to include 105 single-family custom detached homes, 42 patio homes, and 106 multi-family units. Adjacent to the project site and immediately to the southeast is the recently approved Home Depot Development site. The Home Depot project construction is currently underway.complete and includes a Total buildout of the Home Depot will include 120,000 square foot commercial retail building. Two parcels are located along Los Osos Valley Road adjacent to the project site, 8.08 and 8.63 acres respectively. These two parcels (APNs 053-510-008 and 053-510-010) separate the Home Depot project site and the Costco parcel from LOVR (refer to Figure III-3). These two parcels are evaluated in this EIR based on projected intended uses as the applicant has not submitted plans or indicated future development intentions for the two parcels. C. CONSISTENCY WITH PLANS AND POLICIES Resolution 2000-354, September 5, 2000, approved the annexation of Froom Ranch, which includes both the Home Depot site and the Costco Parcel, from the County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction to the City of San Luis Obispo. After the annexation approval for the site, the City zoned the property as General Retail (C-R). This annexation of the property from the County to the City also gave land use governing authority to the City. CEQA Guidelines, subsection 15125 (b) states, "the EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans." This section provides general information as to the plans, policies and ordinances applicable to the proposed project actions as stated in the following listed documents. It is the responsibility of the City Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Setting DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IV-2 Council to make the final decision regarding consistency issues. The following plans and policies are applicable to the proposed project: xThe City of San Luis Obispo General Plan xCity of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations The General Plan consists of the following nine elements: Land Use, Housing, Open Space, Circulation, Noise, Safety, Conservation, Energy Conservation, Parks and Recreation and Water and Wastewater. The following consistency analysis describes applicable sections of these policy documents followed by comments related to the proposed project's consistency. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 3 TA B L E I V - 1 Ci t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o G e n e r a l P l a n C o n s i s t e n c y CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n LA N D U S E E L E M E N T LU E 1 . 3 : U r b a n E d g e s C h a r a c t e r Th e b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n S a n L u i s O b i s p o ’ s u r b a n d e v e l o p m e n t a n d su r r o u n d i n g o p e n l a n d s h o u l d b e c l e a r . D e v e l o p m e n t j u s t i n s i d e t h e bo u n d a r y s h a l l p r o v i d e m e a s u r e s t o a v o i d a s t a r k a p p e a r i n g e d g e b e t w e e n bu i l d i n g s i n t h e c i t y a n d a d j a c e n t o p e n l a n d . Th e V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R pr o v i d e s m i t i g a t i o n t o a v o i d a s t a r k a p p e a r i n g ed g e b e t w e e n t h e p r o j e c t a n d o p e n s p a c e . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n LU E 1 . 4 : J o b s / H o u s i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p Th e g a p b e t w e e n h o u s i n g d e m a n d ( d u e t o m o r e j o b s a n d c o l l e g e en r o l l m e n t ) a n d s u p p l y s h o u l d n o t i n c r e a s e . Th e p r o p o s e d C o s t c o w i l l p r o v i d e a n a d d i t i o n a l 30 0 j o b s t o t h e a r e a , b u t d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a n y ho u s i n g u n i t s . S e c t i o n D . 8 o f R e s o l u t i o n N o . 83 3 2 s t a t e s o v e r r i d i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o ma i n t a i n t h e C i t y ’ s “ f i s c a l h e a l t h a n d h u b r o l e , an d a v o i d i n g f u r t h e r e x p a n s i o n o f r e s i d e n t i a l de v e l o p m e n t i n t o o p e n s p a c e a r e a s . ” Co n s i s t e n t LU 1 . 7 . 5 : B u i l d i n g D e s i g n a n d S i t i n g Al l n e w b u i l d i n g s a n d s t r u c t u r e s s h o u l d b e s u b o r d i n a t e t o a n d i n h a r m o n y wi t h t h e s u r r o u n d i n g l a n d s c a p e . Th e C o s t c o b u i l d i n g i s p r o p o s e d w i t h sc r e e n i n g v e g e t a t i o n o n a p o r t i o n o f t h e p a r c e l at t h e f a r t h e s t p o i n t f r o m L O V R s o a s t o l i m i t th e v i s u a l i m p a c t s o n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g la n d s c a p e . Co n s i s t e n t LU 1 . 7 . 6 : W i l d l i f e H a b i t a t Co n t i n u o u s w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t — i n c l u d i n g c o r r i d o r s f r e e o f h u m a n di s r u p t i o n — s h a l l b e p r e s e r v e d a n d , w h e r e n e c e s s a r y , c r e a t e d . Th e p r o j e c t s i t e d o e s n o t i n f r i n g e o n t h e I r i s h Hi l l s a n d i s b o r d e r e d o n t w o s i d e s w i t h e x i s t i n g or a p p r o v e d d e v e l o p m e n t . Co n s i s t e n t LU 1 . 1 1 . 4 : N o n r e s i d e n t i a l G r o w t h R a t e Ea c h y e a r t h e C i t y C o u n c i l w i l l e v a l u a t e t h e a c t u a l i n c r e a s e i n no n r e s i d e n t i a l f l o o r a r e a o v e r t h e p r e c e d i n g f i v e y e a r s . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d b y th e C i t y C o u n c i l a s a d d i t i o n a l n o n r e s i d e n t i a l fl o o r a r e a a n d i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n n u a l ev a l u a t i o n . Co n s i s t e n t LU 1 . 1 3 . 4 : D e v e l o p m e n t a n d S e r v i c e s Ac t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t i n a n a n n e x e d a r e a m a y b e a p p r o v e d o n l y w h e n ad e q u a t e C i t y s e r v i c e s c a n b e p r o v i d e d f o r t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t , w i t h o u t re d u c i n g t h e l e v e l o f s e r v i c e o r i n c r e a s i n g t h e c o s t s o f s e r v i c e s f o r e x i s t i n g de v e l o p m e n t a n d f o r b u i l d - o u t w i t h i n t h e C i t y l i m i t s a s o f J u l y 1 9 9 4 , i n ac c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e C i t y ’ s w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t p o l i c i e s . Wa t e r f o r t h e p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t o f C o s t c o is a v a i l a b l e f r o m t h e C i t y w a t e r s u p p l y . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 4 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n LU 1 . 1 4 : C o s t s o f G r o w t h Th e c o s t s o f p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s a n d s e r v i c e s n e e d e d f o r n e w d e v e l o p m e n t s h a l l be b o r n e b y t h e n e w d e v e l o p m e n t , u n l e s s t h e c o m m u n i t y c h o o s e s t o h e l p pa y t h e c o s t s f o r a c e r t a i n d e v e l o p m e n t t o o b t a i n c o m m u n i t y - w i d e b e n e f i t s . Th e C i t y w i l l a d o p t a d e v e l o p m e n t - f e e p r o g r a m a n d o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e fi n a n c i n g m e a s u r e s , s o t h a t n e w d e v e l o p m e n t p a y s i t s s h a r e o f t h e c o s t s o f ne w s e r v i c e s a n d f a c i l i t i e s n e e d e d t o s e r v e i t . Ci t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o w i l l c h a r g e ap p r o p r i a t e c o s t s t o t h e a p p l i c a n t v i a p e r m i t pr o c e s s i n g f e e s . Co n s i s t e n t LU 1 . 1 5 : S o l i d W a s t e C a p a c i t y In a d d i t i o n t o o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a d e q u a t e r e s o u r c e s a n d s e r v i c e s p r i o r to d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e C i t y m u s t d e t e r m i n e t h a t a d e q u a t e s o l i d w a s t e d i s p o s a l ca p a c i t y w i l l b e a v a i l a b l e b e f o r e g r a n t i n g a n y d i s c r e t i o n a r y l a n d u s e ap p r o v a l w h i c h w o u l d i n c r e a s e s o l i d w a s t e g e n e r a t i o n . Ci t y h a s d e t e r m i n e d a d e q u a t e s o l i d w a s t e fa c i l i t i e s e x i s t t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e p r o p o s e d de v e l o p m e n t Co n s i s t e n t LU 1 . 1 8 . 3 : D e v e l o p m e n t R e v i e w Th e C i t y s h a l l c o n s u l t w i t h t h e A i r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l D i s t r i c t o n a l l si g n i f i c a n t d e v e l o p m e n t . Th e A i r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l D i s t r i c t w a s co n t a c t e d a n d t h e i r c o m m e n t s w e r e in c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e E I R . Co n s i s t e n t LU 2 . 1 . 4 : N e i g h b o r h o o d C o n n e c t i o n s Al l a r e a s s h o u l d h a v e a s t r e e t a n d s i d e w a l k p a t t e r n t h a t p r o m o t e s ne i g h b o r h o o d a n d c o m m u n i t y c o h e s i v e n e s s . T h e r e s h o u l d b e c o n t i n u o u s si d e w a l k s o r p a t h s o f a d e q u a t e w i d t h , c o n n e c t i n g n e i g h b o r h o o d s w i t h e a c h ot h e r a n d w i t h p u b l i c a n d c o m m e r c i a l s e r v i c e s t o p r o v i d e c o n t i n u o u s pe d e s t r i a n p a t h s t h r o u g h o u t t h e C i t y . A pe d e s t r i a n l i n k f r o m t h e D e V a u l r e s i d e n t i a l de v e l o p m e n t t o t h e p r o j e c t s i t e i s p r o v i d e d a t th e s o u t h w e s t e d g e o f P a r c e l 1 . Pe d e s t r i a n ac c e s s i s a l s o p r o v i d e d t o L O V R a n d H o m e De p o t f r o m t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . Co n s i s t e n t LU 3 . 0 . 1 : S l o p e Co m m e r c i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l u s e s s h o u l d b e d e v e l o p e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e a r e a s wh e r e t h e n a t u r a l s l o p e o f t h e l a n d i s l e s s t h a n t e n p e r c e n t . Th e n a t u r a l s l o p e o f t h e s i t e i s l e s s t h a n t e n pe r c e n t Co n s i s t e n t LU 3 . 0 . 2 : A c c e s s Co m m e r c i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l u s e s s h o u l d h a v e a c c e s s f r o m a r t e r i a l a n d co l l e c t o r s t r e e t s , a n d s h o u l d b e d e s i g n e d a n d l o c a t e d t o a v o i d i n c r e a s i n g tr a f f i c o n r e s i d e n t i a l s t r e e t s . Tu r n l a n e s p r o p o s e d a c c o m m o d a t e f o r co m m e r c i a l t r a f f i c a n d a r e d e s i g n e d t o a v o i d in c r e a s e d t r a f f i c d e l a y s o n L O V R Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 5 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n LU 3 . 1 . 1 : P u r p o s e a n d I n c l u d e d U s e s Th e C i t y s h o u l d h a v e a r e a s f o r Ge n e r a l R e t a i l us e s a d e q u a t e t o m e e t m o s t de m a n d s o f C i t y a n d n e a r b y C o u n t y r e s i d e n t s . G e n e r a l R e t a i l i n c l u d e s sp e c i a l t y s t o r e s as w e l l a s d e p a r t m e n t s t o r e s , wa r e h o u s e st o r e s , d i s c o u n t st o r e s , r e s t a u r a n t s , a n d s e r v i c e s s u c h a s b a n k s . N o t a l l a r e a s d e s i g n a t e d Ge n e r a l R e t a i l a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e f u l l r a n g e o f u s e s ( s e e L U P o l i c i e s 3. 1 . 2 a n d 3 . 1 . 5 ) . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s a w a r e h o u s e s t o r e wi t h i n t h e G e n e r a l R e t a i l c a t e g o r y . Co n s i s t e n t LU 3 . 1 . 2 : L o c a t i o n s f o r R e g i o n a l A t t r a c t i o n s Th e C i t y s h o u l d f o c u s i t s r e t a i l i n g w i t h r e g i o n a l d r a w i n t h e l o c a t i o n s o f do w n t o w n , t h e a r e a a r o u n d t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f M a d o n n a R o a d a n d H i g h w a y 10 1 , a n d t h e a r e a a r o u n d H i g h w a y 1 0 1 a n d L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d . Th e p r o p o s e d C o s t c o h a s r e g i o n a l d r a w a n d i s lo c a t e d o n L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d . Co n s i s t e n t LU 3 . 1 . 5 : S p e c i a l t y S t o r e L o c a t i o n s Mo s t s p e c i a l t y r e t a i l s t o r e s s h o u l d b e d o w n t o w n , i n t h e M a d o n n a R o a d ar e a , o r t h e L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d a r e a ; s o m e m a y b e i n n e i g h b o r h o o d sh o p p i n g c e n t e r s s o l o n g a s t h e y a r e a m i n o r p a r t o f t h e c e n t e r s a n d t h e y pr i m a r i l y s e r v e n e i g h b o r h o o d r a t h e r t h a n c i t y w i d e o r r e g i o n a l m a r k e t s . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t , l o c a t e d o n L O V R , i s in t e n d e d t o s e r v e t h e c i t y w i d e a n d r e g i o n a l ma r k e t Co n s i s t e n t LU 3 . 1 . 6 : B u i l d i n g I n t e n s i t y Th e r a t i o o f b u i l d i n g f l o o r a r e a t o s i t e a r e a s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 3 . 0 , e x c e p t t h a t do w n t o w n s i t e s , w h i c h r e c e i v e t r a n s f e r s o f d e v e l o p m e n t c r e d i t s f o r o p e n sp a c e p r o t e c t i o n s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 4 . 0 . T h e Z o n i n g R e g u l a t i o n s w i l l e s t a b l i s h ma x i m u m b u i l d i n g h e i g h t a n d l o t c o v e r a g e , a n d m i n i m u m s e t b a c k s f r o m st r e e t s a n d o t h e r p r o p e r t y l i n e s , a s w e l l a s p r o c e d u r e s f o r e x c e p t i o n s t o s u c h st a n d a r d s i n s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . A r c h i t e c t u r a l r e v i e w w i l l d e t e r m i n e a pr o j e c t ’ s r e a l i z e d b u i l d i n g i n t e n s i t y , t o r e f l e c t e x i s t i n g o r d e s i r e d ar c h i t e c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i n a n e i g h b o r h o o d . W h e n d w e l l i n g s a r e p r o v i d e d i n Ge n e r a l R e t a i l d i s t r i c t s , t h e y s h a l l n o t e x c e e d 3 6 u n i t s p e r a c r e . S o l o n g a s th e f l o o r a r e a r a t i o i s n o t e x c e e d e d , t h e m a x i m u m r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t y m a y b e de v e l o p e d i n a d d i t i o n t o n o n r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o n a s i t e . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s s u b j e c t t o A r c h i t e c t u r a l re v i e w . Co n s i s t e n t LU 3 . 6 . 2 : C o n v e n i e n c e F a c i l i t i e s Co n v e n i e n t f a c i l i t i e s s e r v i n g d a i l y n e e d s , s u c h a s s m a l l f o o d s t o r e s , b r a n c h ba n k s , c h i l d c a r e a n d e l d e r c a r e , a n d a m e n i t i e s s u c h a s p i c n i c a r e a s , w i l l b e al l o w e d i n c e n t e r s o f e m p l o y m e n t . S p a c e f o r s u c h a m e n i t i e s m a y b e re q u i r e d w i t h i n l a r g e c o m m e r c i a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l d e v e l o p m e n t s . Pr o p o s e d p r o j e c t h a s i n c l u d e d a n o u t s i d e f o o d co u r t f o r u s e b y e m p l o y e e s a n d c u s t o m e r s a n d fu t u r e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e f r o n t t w o p a r c e l s wi l l p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e s . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 6 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n LU 3 . 7 . 9 : N o i s e C o n t r o l Zo n i n g R e g u l a t i o n s a n d A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w G u i d e l i n e s w i l l i n c l u d e me a s u r e s s u c h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g t o p r e v e n t u n a c c e p t a b l e n o i s e e x p o s u r e f o r re s i d e n t i a l a r e a s o r o t h e r n o i s e - s e n s i t i v e u s e s : l o c a t i o n a n d s h i e l d i n g o f me c h a n i c a l e q u i p m e n t , l o c a t i o n o f t r u c k l o a d i n g , t r a s h c o l l e c t i o n a r e a s , a n d lo u d s p e a k e r s ; l a n d s c a p e d s e t b a c k s o r n o i s e a t t e n u a t i o n w a l l s a l o n g p r o p e r t y li n e s . Th e N o i s e s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R p r o v i d e s me a s u r e s t o m i t i g a t e n o i s e i m p a c t s c a u s e d b y tr u c k d e l i v e r i e s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n LU 5 . 8 : P u b l i c A r t Th e C i t y w i l l e n c o u r a g e i n c l u s i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e p u b l i c a r t i n a l l p r o j e c t s . Th e V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R pr o v i d e s o p t i o n s t o c o m p l y w i t h t h i s m e a s u r e . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n LU 6 . 2 . 6 : H i l l s i d e P l a n n i n g A r e a s H) T h e I r i s h H i l l s a r e a s h o u l d s e c u r e p e r m a n e n t o p e n s p a c e w i t h n o bu i l d i n g s i t e s a b o v e t h e 1 5 0 f o o t e l e v a t i o n . I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a n y su b d i v i s i o n o r d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e l o w e r a r e a s / Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s b e l o w t h e 1 5 0 f o o t el e v a t i o n . Co n s i s t e n t LU 6 . 3 . 1 : D e s i g n a t i n g S e n s i t i v e S i t e s Su b d i v i s i o n a p p r o v a l i n h i l l s i d e p l a n n i n g a r e a s w i l l i n c l u d e d e s i g n a t i o n o f “s e n s i t i v e s i t e s , ” w h i c h a r e s u b j e c t t o a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e v i e w . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w f r o m th e C i t y A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n . Co n s i s t e n t LU 6 . 3 . 3 : A r c h i t e c t u r a l G u i d e l i n e s Th r o u g h a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e v i e w g u i d e l i n e s , t h e C i t y w i l l e s t a b l i s h t h e pr e s u m p t i o n t h a t a l l h i l l s i d e d e v e l o p m e n t o c c u r s o n s e n s i t i v e s i t e s , w h e r e ar c h i t e c t u r a l r e v i e w i s r e q u i r e d . T h e C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D i r e c t o r w i l l sc r e e n a l l p r o p o s a l s t o i d e n t i f y a n y w h i c h d o n o t n e e d a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e v i e w . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w f r o m th e C i t y A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n . Co n s i s t e n t LU 8 . 1 0 : I r i s h H i l l s A r e a Th i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 1 0 - a c r e a r e a e x t e n d s f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d t o th e b a s e o f t h e I r i s h H i l l s , a n d f r o m M a d o n n a R o a d t o A u t o P a r k W a y . I t sh a l l b e z o n e d C o n s e r v a t i o n / O p e n S p a c e u p o n a n n e x a t i o n , a n d s h a l l b e zo n e d f o r a p p r o p r i a t e u r b a n d i s t r i c t s u p o n a p p r o v a l o f d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s . Th e p o r t i o n o f t h e I r i s h H i l l s a r e a a n n e x e d t o th e C i t y w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s zo n e d G e n e r a l - R e t a i l . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 7 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n LU 8 . 1 0 . 2 : G e n e r a l R e t a i l Ab o u t 7 2 a c r e s s o u t h e r l y f r o m t h e v i c i n i t y o f t h e G a r c i a D r i v e i n t e r s e c t i o n is d e s i g n a t e d G e n e r a l R e t a i l . Wh i l e a s p e c i f i c p l a n i s n o t r e q u i r e d , d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n s ( d e s c r i b e d i n L U Po l i c y 1 . 1 3 . 3 ) a r e r e q u i r e d a n d s h o u l d i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : A) S t r e e t i n t e r s e c t i o n s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h th e C i r c u l a t i o n E l e m e n t a n d n o d r i v e w a y ac c e s s , t o m i n i m i z e d i s r u p t i o n o f t r a f f i c f l o w a l o n g L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d . B) P e d e s t r i a n , b i c y c l e , a n d v e h i c l e a c c e s s i n t e g r a t i n g c i r c u l a t i o n a m o n g a n y se p a r a t e d e v e l o p m e n t s i t e s , i n a d d i t i o n t o a c c e s s p r o v i d e d b y L o s O s o s V a l l e y Ro a d . C) B u i l d i n g h e i g h t s , s e t b a c k s , a n d s p a c i n g t o a l l o w v i e w s o f t h e Ir i s h H i l l s f r o m L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d . D) P e r m a n e n t o p e n s p a c e p r o t e c t i o n o f h i l l a r e a s a t l e a s t e q u a l t o t h e de v e l o p m e n t a r e a . A) C e n t e r t u r n l a n e s a r e p r o p o s e d t o m i n i m i z e di s r u p t i o n o f t r a f f i c f l o w a l o n g L O V R . B) P e d e s t r i a n , b i c y c l e a n d v e h i c u l a r a c c e s s be t w e e n C o s t c o a n d H o m e D e p o t w i l l b e pr o v i d e d b y F r o o m D r i v e . T h e D e V a u l de v e l o p m e n t w i l l h a v e p e d e s t r i a n a n d bi c y c l e a c c e s s a t t h e c o r n e r o f t h e C o s t c o Pa r c e l a n d P a r c e l 1 . C) B u i l d i n g h e i g h t , s e t b a c k , a n d p r o p o s e d ve g e t a t i o n i s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e v i e w s o f th e I r i s h H i l l s . D) A P e r m a n e n t o p e n s p a c e e a s e m e n t w a s cr e a t e d a s a r e s u l t o f p a r c e l m a p s u b d i v i s i o n in 2 0 0 1 . Co n s i s t e n t HO U S I N G E L E M E N T H 2 . 3 . 1 : N e w D e v e l o p m e n t P r o j e c t R e q u i r e m e n t s Th e C i t y s h a l l r e q u i r e t h a t n e w d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s i n c l u d e a f f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g u n i t s , d e d i c a t e l a n d f o r a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g , o r p a y a n i n - l i e u f e e t o as s i s t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g C i t y w i d e . A f f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r c o m m e r c i a l p r o j e c t s a r e : Bu i l d 1 A D U p e r a c r e , b u t n o t l e s s t h a n 1 A D U p e r p r o j e c t ; o r p a y i n - l i e u fe e e q u a l t o 2 % o f b u i l d i n g v a l u a t i o n Pa y m e n t o f i n - l i e u f e e t o t h e C i t y o f S a n L u i s Ob i s p o t o c o n t r i b u t e t o a f f o r d a b l e h o u s i n g w i l l mak e p r o j e c t c o n s i s t e n t . Co n s i s t e n t OP E N S P A C E E L E M E N T OS 5 . 1 . 1 : G r a s s l a n d P r o t e c t i o n W i t h i n C i t y L i m i t s Pr o t e c t g r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h i n t h e c i t y l i m i t s Pa r c e l m a p s u b d i v i s i o n i n 2 0 0 1 i n c l u d e d a n op e n - s p a c e e a s e m e n t t o t h e C i t y a n d C o u n t y t o pr o t e c t g r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 8 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n OS 5 . 2 . 1 : G r a s s l a n d P r e s e r v a t i o n T e c h n i q u e s A) D u r i n g t h e d e s i g n o r r e v i e w s t a g e s o f a n y d e v e l o p m e n t t h a t m a y im p a c t u n i q u e r e s o u r c e s a n d s e n s i t i v e h a b i t a t , t h e r e s h o u l d b e co o r d i n a t i o n a m o n g a p p r o p r i a t e l o c a l , S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l a g e n c i e s t h a t pr o t e c t a n d p r e s e r v e s u c h r e s o u r c e s . C) L a n d s o r p o r t i o n s o f l a n d ( s ) c o n t a i n i n g n a t i v e g r a s s l a n d s p e c i e s , un i q u e r e s o u r c e s o r s e n s i t i v e h a b i t a t s h o u l d b e d o n a t e d t o , o r e x c h a n g e d wi t h , n o n - p r o f i t e n v i r o n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s o r r e s p o n s i b l e a g e n c y . A) A p p r o p r i a t e l o c a l , S t a t e a n d F e d e r a l ag e n c i e s t h a t p r o t e c t a n d p r e s e r v e s u c h re s o u r c e s h a v e b e e n c o n s u l t e d . C) P a r c e l m a p s u b d i v i s i o n i n 2 0 0 1 i n c l u d e d a n op e n - s p a c e e a s e m e n t t o t h e C i t y a n d C o u n t y t o pr o t e c t g r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s . Co n s i s t e n t OS 5 . 2 . 2 : G r a s s l a n d s A p p r o p r i a t e D e v e l o p m e n t P r a c t i c e s A) G r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s s h o u l d b e p r e s e r v e d a s h a b i t a t b u f f e r s a n d op e n s p a c e . B) G r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s s h o u l d b e p r o t e c t e d b y r e q u i r i n g p u b l i c a n d / o r pr i v a t e d e v e l o p m e n t t o : 1) P r e s e r v e g r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s t h r o u g h e a s e m e n t s o r d e d i c a t i o n s . Su b d i v i s i o n p a r c e l l i n e s o r e a s e m e n t s s h al l b e l o c a t e d t o o p t i m i z e g r a s s l a n d pr o t e c t i o n . E a s e m e n t s a s a c o n d i t i o n o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e v e l o p m e n t a p p r o v a l s sh a l l b e r e q u i r e d i n g r a s s l a n d s o n l y f o r s t r u c t u r a l a d d i t i o n s o r n e w s t r u c t u r e s , no t f o r a c c e s s o r y s t r u c t u r e s o r t r e e r e m o v a l p e r m i t s , a n d i n a m a n n e r c o n s i s t e n t wi t h a c q u i s i t i o n p o l i c i e s c o n t a i n e d in S e c t i o n 1 5 o f t h i s e l e m e n t . C) G r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s s h o u l d b e p r o t e c t e d f r o m d e v e l o p m e n t i m p a c t s by r e q u i r i n g a h a b i t a t b u f f e r a r o u n d t h e s e a r e a s . T h e h a b i t a t b u f f e r sh o u l d : (1 ) b e l o c a t e d b e t w e e n t h e g r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t y a n d p r o p o s e d , e x i s t i n g or p o t e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t ; ( 2 ) b e a s u f f i c i e nt w i d t h a n d s i z e t o p r o t e c t t h e s p e c i e s mo s t s e n s i t i v e t o d e v e l o p m e n t d i s t u r b a n c e s a n d t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r p r o j e c t im p a c t s a s d e t e r m i n e d b y a q u a l i f i e d b i o l og i s t d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l p l a n n i n g p h a s e o f de v e l o p m e n t ; a n d ( 3 ) b e d e s i g n e d t o c o m p l i m e n t t h e h a b i t a t v a l u e a s s o c i a t e d wi t h t h e g r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t y . Pa r c e l m a p s u b d i v i s i o n i n 2 0 0 1 i n c l u d e d a n op e n - s p a c e e a s e m e n t t o t h e C i t y a n d C o u n t y t o pr o t e c t g r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s . Co n s i s t e n t OS 5 . 2 . 3 : P r o t e c t i o n o f G r a s s l a n d s P l a n t s a n d A n i m a l s Th e C i t y w i l l e n c o u r a g e , a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h , S t a t e a n d C o u n t y a g e n c i e s an d l a n d o w n e r s t o i d e n t i f y a n d p r o t e c t p l a n t s a n d a n i m a l s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h gr a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s w h i l e r e s p e c t i n g a n d p r o t e c t i n g p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y ri g h t s a n d C o u n t y l a n d u s e p r a c t i c e s . Co n s u l t a t i o n w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e a g e n c i e s h a v e be e n c o n s u l t e d i n p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s E I R a n d me a s u r e s h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d t o a d d r e s s t h e s e im p a c t s . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 9 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n OS 6 . 1 . 1 : P l a n t a n d A n i m a l P r o t e c t i o n Pr o t e c t p l a n t a n d a n i m a l r e s o u r c e s f o r t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l a n d e c o l o g i c a l v a l u e , to m a i n t a i n w i l d l i f e d i v e r s i t y a n d c o m m u n i t y b e a u t y . Th e B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s i n c l u d e s m i t i g a t i o n to p r o t e c t i m p a c t e d p l a n t a n d a n i m a l r e s o u r c e s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n OS 1 1 . 1 . 4 : V i e w P r o t e c t i o n Pr o t e c t i m p o r t a n t v i e w c o r r i d o r s , v i e w s h e d s , a n d g a t e w a y s w i t h i n t h e C i t y an d i t s P l a n n i n g A r e a . Wi t h i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f p r o p o s e d b u i l d i n g se t b a c k s a n d p r o p o s e d V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s mi t i g a t i o n , t h e p r o j e c t w i l l n o t b l o c k v i e w s o f th e I r i s h H i l l s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n OS 1 1 . 2 . 3 : D e v e l o p m e n t P r a c t i c e s f o r P r o t e c t i n g S c e n i c R e s o u r c e s Pu b l i c o r p r i v a t e d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o p r o t e c t s c e n i c re s o u r c e s b y : C) I n c l u d i n g l a n d s c a p i n g w h i c h : (1 ) p r o v i d e s a l a n d s c a p e t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n de v e l o p e d a r e a s a n d a d j a c e n t o p e n s p a c e o r u n d e v e l o p e d a r e a s : a n d ( 2 ) i s co m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e s c e n i c r e s o u r c e b e i n g p r o t e c t e d . D) I n c o r p o r a t i n g s o u n d S o i l C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e p r a c t i c e s a n d mi n i m i z i n g l a n d a l t e r a t i o n s . L a n d a l t e r a t i o n s s h o u l d b e m i n i m i z e d b y : (1 ) ke e p i n g c u t s a n d f i l l s t o a m i n i m u m ; ( 2 ) l i m i t i n g g r a d i n g t o t h e s m a l l e s t p r a c t i c a l ar e a o f l a n d ; ( 3 ) l i m i t i n g l a n d e x p o s u r e t o t h e s h o r t e s t p r a c t i c a l a m o u n t o f t i m e ; (4 ) r e p l a n t i n g g r a d e d a r e a s t o i n s u r e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f p l a n t c o v e r b e f o r e t h e n e x t ra i n y s e a s o n ; a n d ( 5 ) c r e a t i n g g r a d i n g c o n t o u r s t h a t b l e n d w i t h t h e n a t u r a l co n t o u r s o n t h e s i t e o r t h a t l o o k l i k e c o n t o u r s t h a t w o u l d n a t u r a l l y o c c u r . E) D e s i g n i n g r o a d s , p a r k i n g . A n d u t i l i t i e s t o m i n i m i z e v i s u a l i m p a c t s . I f po s s i b l e u t i l i t i e s s h o u l d b e u n d e r g r o u n d . R o a d w a y s a n d p a r k i n g s h o u l d f i t th e n a t u r a l t e r r a i n . F) D e s i g n i n g p r o j e c t s t o f i t t h e s i t e ’ s s c a l e a n d c h a r a c t e r . S t r u c t u r e s sh o u l d b e d e s i g n e d a n d l o c a t e d s o : (1 ) t h e y d o n o t s i l h o u e t t e a g a i n s t ri d g e l i n e s , m o u n t a i n s , o r h i l l t o p s , ( 2 ) r o o f l i n e s a n d v e r t i c a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l f e a t u r e s bl e n d w i t h a n d d o n o t d e t r a c t f r o m t h e n a t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d o r ri d g e o u t l i n e , ( 3 ) re s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t y a n d m a s s i n g i s d e c r e a s e d w i t h i n c r e a s e d e l e v a t i o n w h e r e i t wo u l d m a r t h e s c e n i c q u a l i t y o f t h e s c e n ic r e s o u r c e , ( 4 ) t h e y f i t t h e n a t u r a l te r r a i n , a n d ( 5 ) t h e y u t i l i z e b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s, c o l o r s , a n d t e x t u r e s t h a t b l e n d w i t h th e n a t u r a l l a n d s c a p e a n d a v o i d t h e c r ea t i o n o f h i g h - c o n t r a s t s i t u a t i o n s . C) T h e V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R pr o v i d e s m i t i g a t i o n t o v e g e t a t e t h e a r e a be t w e e n t h e C o s t c o a n d t h e I r i s h H i l l s . D) S t a n d a r d d r a i n a g e , e r o s i o n a n d se d i m e n t a t i o n m e a s u r e s h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d i n th i s E I R t o r e d u c e l a n d a l t e r a t i o n i m p a c t s . E- F ) T h e V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R pr o v i d e s m e a s u r e s t o r e d u c e v i s u a l i m p a c t s o f th e p r o j e c t . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n OS 1 1 . 2 . 4 : V i e w s h e d P r o t e c t i o n Im p o r t a n t v i e w c o r r i d o r s . V i e w s h e d s , a n d g a t e w a y s s h o u l d b e p r o t e c t e d b y : A) A s s e s s i n g n e w d e v e l o p m e n t ’ s p o t e n t i a l i m p a c t o n t h e s e r e s o u r c e s . V i s u a l a s s e s s m e n t w a s p e r f o r m e d d u r i n g t h e pr e p a r a t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e v i e w C o n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 0 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n OS 1 3 . 2 . 1 : U r b a n R e s e r v e L i n e Wi t h i n t h e c i t y l i m i t s t h e C i t y w i l l , a n d o u t s i d e w i l l e n c o u r a g e t h e S t a t e a n d Co u n t y t o : A) R e q u i r e t h a t ( 1 ) u r b a n u s e s l o c a t e w i t h i n t h e C i t y ’ s U r b a n R e s e r v e Li n e E) R e q u i r e p r o p o s e d u r b a n u s e s l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t t o t h e U r b a n R e s e r v e Li n e t o p r o v i d e a t r a n s i t i o n t o o p e n s p a c e o r G r e e n b e l t a r e a s . T r a n s i t i o n ar e a s s h o u l d a d d t o t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f o p e n s p a c e l a n d s o r r e s o u r c e s . A t a mi n i m u m a 5 0 f o o t t r a n s i t i o n a r e a ( p r e s e r v e d i n e s s e n t i a l l y a n a t u r a l s t a t e ) sh o u l d b e p r o v i d e d w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t a l o n g t h e p r o j e c t b o u n d a r y w i t h t h e UR L ( u n l e s s t h e t r a n s i t i o n i s d e f i n e d e l s e w h e r e i n t h i s e l e m e n t ) . A) A p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t ( d r a i n a g e b a s i n ) i s lo c a t e d i n t h e I r i s h H i l l s o p e n s p a c e , o u t s i d e o f th e C i t y ’ s U r b a n R e s e r v e L i n e . E) T h e V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R pr e s e n t s m i t i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e a t r a n s i t i o n w i t h th e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d o p e n s p a c e . A) I n c o n s i s t e n t E) C o n s i s t e n t , wi t h m i t i g a t i o n OS 1 4 . 2 . 9 N e w D e v e l o p m e n t O p e n S p a c e B u f f e r s Th e C i t y s h a l l r e q u i r e t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t a d j a c e n t t o e x i s t i n g o p e n s p a c e pr o v i d e : A) A b u f f e r b e t w e e n p r o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t a n d e x i s t i n g o p e n s p a c e pa r c e l s / r e s o u r c e s t o m i n i m i z e c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n d e v e l o p m e n t a n d e x i s t i n g op e n s p a c e l a n d s . T h e b u f f e r s h o u l d p r o v i d e f o r a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e o p e n sp a c e h o l d i n g . Th e V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R pr e s e n t s m i t i g a t i o n f o r o p e n s p a c e b u f f e r s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n OS 1 5 . 2 . 6 N e w D e v e l o p m e n t Th e C i t y s h a l l r e q u i r e n e w d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n t h e C i t y ( i n c l u d i n g an n e x a t i o n r e q u e s t s ) t o p r o v i d e o p e n s p a c e p r e s e r v a t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s el e m e n t a n d t h e L a n d U s e E l e m e n t v i a d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s . Pa r c e l m a p s u b d i v i s i o n i n 2 0 0 1 i n c l u d e d a n op e n - s p a c e e a s e m e n t t o t h e C i t y a n d C o u n t y t o pr o t e c t o p e n s p a c e g r a s s l a n d c o m m u n i t i e s . Co n s i s t e n t CI R C U L A T I O N E L E M E N T CI 3 . 4 : N e w D e v e l o p m e n t Ne w d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d p r o v i d e b i k e w a y s , s e c u r e b i c y c l e s t o r a g e , p a r k i n g fa c i l i t i e s a n d s h o w e r s , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h C i t y p l a n s a n d s t a n d a r d s . Th e A i r Q u a l i t y s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R i n c l u d e s mi t i g a t i o n t o i n c l u d e s h o r t - t e r m a n d l o n g - t e r m bi c y c l e p a r k i n g . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n CI 4 . 3 : N e w D e v e l o p m e n t Ne w d e v e l o p m e n t s h a l l p r o v i d e s i d e w a l k s a n d p e d e s t r i a n p a t h s c o n s i s t e n t wi t h C i t y p o l i c i e s , p l a n s , p r o g r a m s a n d s t a n d a r d s Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t p r o v i d e s s i d e w a l k s a n d pe d e s t r i a n p a t h s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h C i t y p o l i c i e s , pl a n s , p r o g r a m s a n d s t a n d a r d s Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 1 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n CI 4 . 4 : P e d e s t r i a n A c c e s s Ne w o r r e n o v a t e d c o m m e r c i a l a n d g o v e r n m e n t a l p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s s h o u l d pr o v i d e c o n v e n i e n t p e d e s t r i a n a c c e s s f r o m n e a r b y s i d e w a l k s a n d p e d e s t r i a n pa t h s , s e p a r a t e f r o m d r i v e w a y s a n d v e h i c l e s e n t r a n c e s . Pe d e s t r i a n a c c e s s f r o m n e a r b y s i d e w a l k s a n d pe d e s t r i a n p a t h s , s e p a r a t e f r o m d r i v e w a y s a n d ve h i c l e s e n t r a n c e s a r e p r o v i d e d . F u r t h e r ac c e s s p r o v i s i o n s a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e T r a f f i c Se c t i o n o f t h i s E I R . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n CI 8 . 1 : N e w D e v e l o p m e n t Ne w d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g n e w s t r e e t , b i k e la n e s , s i d e w a l k s , p e d e s t r i a n p a t h s a n d b u s t u r n - o u t s o r r e c o n s t r u c t i n g ex i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s . Ap p l i c a n t i s r e q u i r e d t o p a y “ f a i r s h a r e ” o f Ci t y i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s . Co n s i s t e n t CI 8 . 5 : L i v a b i l i t y Th e C i t y w i l l s e e k o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o i m p r o v e t h e l i v a b i l i t y o f e x i s t i n g a r t e r i a l st r e e t s t h r o u g h r e d e s i g n o f s t r e e t c o r r i d o r s . Im p r o v e m e n t s o n L O V R a s m i t i g a t i o n f o r t h e Ho m e D e p o t p r o j e c t w i l l o c c u r a n d t h e pr o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l p a y t h e i r “ f a i r s h a r e ” o f in f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s . Co n s i s t e n t CI 8 . 6 : T i m i n g o f S t r e e t P r o j e c t s St r e e t p r o j e c t s s h o u l d b e i m p l e m e n t e d a s d e v e l o p m e n t o c c u r s . Ap p l i c a n t i s r e q u i r e d t o p a y “ f a i r s h a r e ” o f pl a n n e d s t r e e t i m p r o v e m e n t s , w h i c h w i l l b e im p l e m e n t e d a s s o o n a s p r a c t i c a l . Co n s i s t e n t CI 1 4 . 1 : S c e n i c R e s o u r c e s Vi e w s o f i m p o r t a n t s c e n i c r e s o u r c e s f r o m m a j o r s t r e e t s s h o u l d b e p r e s e r v e d an d i m p r o v e d t o t h e m a x i m u m e x t e n t f e a s i b l e . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t , w i t h V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s mi t i g a t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e d w i l l p r e s e r v e v i e w s o f sc e n i c r e s o u r c e s t o t h e m a x i m u m e x t e n t fe a s i b l e Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n CI 1 4 . 2 : S c e n i c R o a d w a y s Th e r o u t e s e g m e n t s s h o w n o n F i g u r e 6 a r e d e s i g n a t e d a s s c e n i c r o a d w a y s . LO V R f r o m H i g h w a y 1 0 1 t o A u t o P a r k w a y an d H i g h w a y 1 0 1 f r o m t h e C i t y l i m i t s t o n o r t h of L O V R a r e i d e n t i f i e d o n F i g u r e 6 a s r o a d s o f hi g h s c e n i c v a l u e . V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s m i t i g a t i o n pr o p o s e d i n t h i s E I R w i l l r e d u c e p r o j e c t im p a c t s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 2 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n CI 1 4 . 3 : D e v e l o p m e n t A l o n g S c e n i c R o a d w a y s De v e l o p m e n t a l o n g s c e n i c r o a d w a y s s h o u l d n o t b l o c k v i e w s o r d e t r a c t f r o m th e q u a l i t y o f v i e w s . A) P r o j e c t s i n t h e v i e w s h e d o f a s c e n i c r o a d w a y s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d as : ” s e n s i t i v e ” a n d r e q u i r e a r c h i t e c t u r a l r e v i e w . B) D e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s s h o u l d n o t w a l l o f f s c e n i c r o a d w a y s a n d b l o c k vi e w s C) A s p a r t o f t h e c i t y ’ s e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e v i e w p r o c e s s , b l o c k i n g o f v i e w s al o n g s c e n i c r o u t e s s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l im p a c t . A) T h e p r o j e c t i s s u b j e c t t o C i t y a r c h i t e c t u r a l re v i e w . B, C ) T h e p r o j e c t , w i t h V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s mi t i g a t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e d w i l l n o t b l o c k v i e w s o f th e I r i s h H i l l s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n CI 1 5 . 7 : N e w D e v e l o p m e n t De v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s s h o u l d b e a r t h e c o s t s o f n e w t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s or u p g r a d i n g e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s n e e d e d t o s e r v e t h e m . Ap p l i c a n t i s r e q u i r e d t o p a y “ f a i r s h a r e ” o f Ci t y i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s . Co n s i s t e n t CI 1 5 . 1 1 : E v a l u a t i o n o f D e v e l o p m e n t P r o p o s a l s Th e C i t y s h a l l e v a l u a t e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i r e f f e c t o n th e e n t i r e c o m m u n i t y . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t ’ s e f f e c t o n t h e co m m u n i t y i s a d d r e s s e d i n t h e e a c h r e s o u r c e Cu m u l a t i v e I m p a c t s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R . Co n s i s t e n t CI 1 5 . 1 5 : D e v e l o p m e n t P r o p o s a l s Ma j o r d e v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l s i n t h e C i t y w i l l i n c l u d e d i s p l a y s o f t h e pr o p o s a l ’ s i n t e r f a c e s w i t h n e a r b y n e i g h b o r h o o d s , a n d i n d i c a t e e x p e c t e d si g n i f i c a n t q u a l i t a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n e f f e c t s o n t h e e n t i r e c o m m u n i t y . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t d o e s n o t i n t e r f a c e w i t h th e a d j a c e n t r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . Co m m u n i t y - w i d e e f f e c t s a n d m i t i g a t i o n i s in c l u d e d i n t h e T r a f f i c S e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n NO I S E E L E M E N T N 1 . 1 . 1 : N o i s e E x p o s u r e P r o t e c t i o n Pr o t e c t p e o p l e f r o m t h e h a r m f u l a n d a n n o y i n g e f f e c t s o f e x p o s u r e t o n o i s e . Pr o p o s e d w a l l a n d l a n d s c a p e d b e r m w i l l re d u c e n o i s e i m p a c t s t o a d j a c e n t D e V a u l re s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e N o i s e s e c t i o n o f th i s E I R p r o p o s e s a n o t h e r s o u n d w a l l b e t w e e n LO V R a n d G a r c i a D r i v e t o f u r t h e r m i t i g a t e no i s e i m p a c t s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 3 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n N 1 . 1 . 4 : E m p h a s i z e C a r e f u l S i t e P l a n n i n g Em p h a s i z e t h e r e d u c t i o n o f n o i s e i m p a c t s t h r o u g h c a r e f u l s i t e p l a n n i n g a n d pr o j e c t d e s i g n g i v i n g s e c o n d p r e f e r e n c e t o t h e u s e o f n o i s e b a r r i e r s a n d st r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s . Th e p r o j e c t i n c l u d e s a n o i s e b a r r i e r w a l l w i t h ve g e t a t i o n t o r e d u c e n o i s e i m p a c t s t o t h e De V a u l d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e b u i l d i n g l o c a t i o n wa s d e t e r m i n e d a p p r o p r i a t e t o r e d u c e n o i s e fr o m t h e g a s s t a t i o n t o t h e a d j a c e n t r e s i d e n t i a l de v e l o p m e n t . T h e N o i s e s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R pr o p o s e s a n o t h e r s o u n d w a l l b e t w e e n L O V R an d G a r c i a D r i v e t o f u r t h e r m i t i g a t e n o i s e im p a c t s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n N 1 . 1 . 5 : N o i s e R e d u c t i o n En c o u r a g e p r a c t i c e s a n d t e c h n o l o g i e s w h i c h r e d u c e n o i s e . Pr o j e c t a c t i v i t i e s a n d o p e r a t i o n s w i l l b e de s i g n e d t o r e d u c e n o i s e i m p a c t s . T h e N o i s e Se c t i o n o f t h i s E I R i n c l u d e s m i t i g a t i o n t o ch a n g e t h e d e l i v e r y r o u t e t o r e d u c e n o i s e im p a c t s c a u s e d b y t r u c k d e l i v e r i e s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n N 1 . 2 . 1 1 : P r e f e r r e d N o i s e M i t i g a t i o n A p p r o a c h e s Wh e n a p p r o v i n g n e w d e v e l o p m e n t o f n o i s e s e n s i t i v e u s e s o r n o i s e s o u r c e s , th e C i t y w i l l r e q u i r e n o i s e m i t i g a t i o n i n t h e d e s c e n d i n g o r d e r o f d e s i r a b i l i t y sh o w n b e l o w : F o r e x a m p l e , w h e n m i t i g a t i n g o u t d o o r n o i s e e x p o s u r e pr o v i d i n g d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n s o u r c e a n d r e c i p i e n t i s p r e f e r r e d t o p r o v i d i n g be r m s a n d w a l l s . B e f o r e u s i n g a l e s s d e s i r a b l e a p p r o a c h . T h e a p p l i c a n t m u s t sh o w t h a t m o r e d e s i r a b l e a p p r o a c h e s a r e n o t e f f e c t i v e o r t h a t i t i s n o t pr a c t i c a l t o u s e t h e p r e f e r r e d a p p r o a c h e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r d e s i g n cr i t e r i a b a s e d o n t h e G e n e r a l P l a n . Pr o j e c t a c t i v i t i e s a n d o p e r a t i o n s w i l l b e de s i g n e d t o r e d u c e n o i s e i m p a c t s a n d t h e N o i s e Se c t i o n o f t h i s E I R i n c l u d e s m i t i g a t i o n t o re d u c e n o i s e i m p a c t s . T h e p r o j e c t i n c l u d e s a no i s e b a r r i e r w a l l w i t h v e g e t a t i o n t o r e d u c e no i s e i m p a c t s . T h e b u i l d i n g l o c a t i o n w a s de t e r m i n e d a p p r o p r i a t e t o r e d u c e n o i s e f r o m th e g a s s t a t i o n t o t h e a d j a c e n t r e s i d e n t i a l de v e l o p m e n t . M i t i g a t i o n p r o p o s e d t o c h a n g e th e t r u c k d e l i v e r y r o u t e w i l l r e d u c e n o i s e im p a c t s c a u s e d b y t r u c k d e l i v e r i e s a n d a n o t h e r so u n d w a l l b e t w e e n L O V R a n d G a r c i a D r i v e wi l l f u r t h e r m i t i g a t e n o i s e i m p a c t s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n N 1 . 2 . 1 2 : M i t i g a t i n g N o i s e S o u r c e s B) L i m i t t h e o p e r a t i n g t i m e s o f n o i s e p r o d u c i n g a c t i v i t i e s . C) P r o v i d e f e a t u r e s , s u c h a s w a l l s , w i t h t h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f b l o c k i n g no i s e . Th e N o i s e s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R i n c l u d e s mi t i g a t i o n t o r e s t r i c t t h e d e l i v e r y r o u t e f o r ni g h t t i m e d e l i v e r i e s a s t o n o t i m p a c t t h e De V a u l r e s i d e n t s a n d a w a l l i s p r o p o s e d b y t h e ap p l i c a n t a l o n g t h i s b o u n d a r y f o r f u r t h e r re d u c t i o n o f n o i s e i m p a c t s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 4 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n N 1 . 2 . 1 3 : M i t i g a t i n g O u t d o o r N o i s e E x p o s u r e A P r o v i d e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n n o i s e s o u r c e a n d r e c i p i e n t ; B P r o v i d e d i s t a n c e p l u s p l a n t e d e a r t h e r n b e r m s ; C P r o v i d e d i s t a n c e a n d p l a n t e d b e r m s , c o m b i n e d w i t h s o u n d w a l l s ; D P r o v i d e e a r t h e r n b e r m s c o m b i n e d w i t h s o u n d w a l l s ; E P r o v i d e s o u n d w a l l s ; F I n t e g r a t e b u i l d i n g s a n d s o u n d w a l l s t o c r e a t e a c o n t i n u o u s n o i s e b a r r i e r . Th e a p p l i c a n t c h o s e b u i l d i n g l o c a t i o n t o mi n i m i z e n o i s e i m p a c t s o f t h e g a s s t a t i o n a n d ti r e s t o r e t o a d j a c e n t s e n s i t i v e n o i s e r e c i p i e n t s . Mi t i g a t i o n p r o p o s e d t o c h a n g e t h e t r u c k de l i v e r y r o u t e i n t h e N o i s e s e c t i o n i f t h i s E I R wi l l r e d u c e n o i s e i m p a c t s t o a d j a c e n t de v e l o p m e n t . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n N 1 . 2 . 1 5 : S o u n d W a l l s No i s e m i t i g a t i o n w a l l s ( s o u n d w a l l s ) m a y b e u s e d o n l y w h e n i t i s s h o w n th a t p r e f e r r e d a p p r o a c h e s a r e n o t e f f e c t i v e o r t h a t i t i s n o t p r a c t i c a l t o u s e th e p r e f e r r e d a p p r o a c h e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r d e s i g n c r i t e r i a b a s e d o n t h e Ge n e r a l P l a n . W h e r e n o i s e m i t i g a t i o n w a l l s a r e u s e d , t h e y s h o u l d h e l p cr e a t e a n a t t r a c t i v e p e d e s t r i a n , r e s i d e n t i a l s e t t i n g t h r o u g h f e a t u r e s s u c h a s se t b a c k s , c h a n g e s i n a l i g n m e n t , d e t a i l a n d t e x t u r e , p l a c e s f o r p e o p l e t o w a l k th r o u g h t h e m a t r e g u l a r i n t e r v a l s , a n d p l a n t i n g . I n t h e I r i s h H i l l s S p e c i a l De s i g n A r e a a n d t h e M a r g a r i t a a n d O r c u t t e x p a n s i o n a r e a s , d w e l l i n g s s h a l l be s e t b a c k f r o m R e g i o n a l R o u t e s a n d H i g h w a y s , P a r k w a y A r t e r i a l s , Ar t e r i a l s , R e s i d e n t i a l A r t e r i a l s , a n d C o l l e c t o r s t r e e t s s o t h a t i n t e r i o r a n d ex t e r i o r n o i s e s t a n d a r d s c a n b e m e t w i t h o u t t h e u s e o f n o i s e w a l l s . Th e a p p l i c a n t c h o s e b u i l d i n g l o c a t i o n t o mi n i m i z e n o i s e i m p a c t s o f t h e g a s s t a t i o n a n d ti r e s t o r e t o a d j a c e n t s e n s i t i v e n o i s e r e c i p i e n t s . Th e b u i l d i n g i s l o c a t e d a t t h e f a r t h e s t s e t b a c k on t h e p r o p e r t y f r o m L O V R . T h e v e g e t a t e d wa l l i n c l u d e s a d e q u a t e p e d e s t r i a n a c c e s s . Co n s i s t e n t N 1 . 3 . 2 : N o i s e S t u d i e s Wh e r e a p r o j e c t m a y e x p o s e p e o p l e t o e x i s t i n g l e v e l s o r p r o j e c t e d b u i l d - o u t no i s e l e v e l s e x c e e d i n g a c c e p t a b l e l i m i t s , t h e C i t y s h a l l r e q u i r e t h e a p p l i c a n t to p r o v i d e a n o i s e s t u d y e a r l y i n t h e r e v i e w p r o c e s s s o t h a t n o i s e m i t i g a t i o n ma y b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r o j e c t d e s i g n . T h e C i t y w i l l m a i n t a i n s t a n d a r d s a n d pr o c e d u r e s f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f n o i s e s t u d i e s . A n o i s e s t u d y w a s p r e p a r e d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h th e C i t y ’ s s t a n d a r d s a n d p r o c e d u r e s . Co n s i s t e n t SA F E T Y E L E M E N T S 2 . 1 : A d e q u a t e F i r e S e r v i c e s De v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d b e a p p r o v e d o n l y w h e n a d e q u a t e f i r e s u p p r e s s i o n se r v i c e s a n d f a c i l i t i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e o r w i l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e c o n c u r r e n t wi t h d e v e l o p m e n t , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e t t i n g , t y p e , i n t e n s i t y , a n d f o r m o f t h e pr o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t . Ap p l i c a n t i s r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e o f ad e q u a t e f i r e s e r v i c e s a n d t h e P u b l i c Se r v i c e s / U t i l i t i e s S e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R a d d r e s s e s th e s e i m p a c t s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 5 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n S 3 . 1 : A v o i d i n g F a u l t s De v e l o p m e n t s h a l l n o t b e l o c a t e d a t o p k n o w n f a u l t s . A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e fo l l o w i n g t y p e s o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y a p p r o v a l s w i t h i n 1 0 0 m e t e r s ( 3 3 0 f e e t ) o f a fa u l t t h a t i s p r e v i o u s l y k n o w n o r d i s c o v e r e d d u r i n g s i t e e v a l u a t i o n s h a l l b e su b j e c t t o r e v i e w a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n b y a S t a t e r e g i s t e r e d e n g i n e e r i n g ge o l o g i s t : c h a n g e t o a m o r e i n t e n s i v e l a n d - u s e d e s i g n a t i o n ; s u b d i v i s i o n i n t o fi v e o r m o r e p a r c e l s ; d e v e l o p m e n t o f m u l t i f a m i l y , c o m m e r c i a l , i n d u s t r i a l , or i n s t i t u t i o n a l b u i l d i n g s . An a l y s i s o f t h e f a u l t l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e p r o j e c t ar e a i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e G e o l o g y S e c t i o n o f t h i s EI R . Co n s i s t e n t S 3 . 3 : A v o i d i n g L i q u e f a c t i o n H a z a r d s De v e l o p m e n t m a y b e l o c a t e d i n a r e a s o f h i g h l i q u e f a c t i o n p o t e n t i a l o n l y i f a si t e - s p e c i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y a q u a l i f i e d p r o f e s s i o n a l d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e pr o p o s e d d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l n o t b e a t r i s k o f d a m a g e f r o m l i q u e f a c t i o n . T h e Ch i e f B u i l d i n g O f f i c i a l m a y w a i v e t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t u p o n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t pr e v i o u s s t u d i e s i n t h e i m m e d i a t e a r e a p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n . An a l y s i s o f l i q u e f a c t i o n i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e Ge o l o g y S e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R . Co n s i s t e n t S 8 . 6 . 3 D e v e l o p m e n t R e v i e w Co u n t y f i r e , p o l i c e , p u b l i c w o r k s , a n d u t i l i t i e s p e r s o n n e l w i l l r e v i e w ap p l i c a t i o n s f o r s u b d i v i s i o n s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s f o r c o n s i s t e n c e w i t h sa f e t y o b j e c t i v e s . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t ’ s c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h s a f e t y ob j e c t i v e s i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w b y a l l a p p l i c a b l e ag e n c i e s . Co n s i s t e n t CO N S E R V A T I O N E L E M E N T CO 2 . 1 . 9 : R e c y c l i n g Re c y c l i n g o f w a s t e w a t e r f o r b e n e f i c i a l u s e s h o u l d b e r e q u i r e d w h e r e v e r fe a s i b l e . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t d o e s n o t p r o p o s e in c l u s i o n o f w a s t e w a t e r r e u s e . M i t i g a t i o n i s pr o p o s e d i n t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e s / U t i l i t i e s Se c t i o n o f t h i s E I R . wi l l i n c l u d e a n ap p r o p r i a t e l y s i z e d m a i n f r o m t h e C i t y ’ s t r u n k sy s t e m t o i r r i g a t i o n a r e a s f o r u s e o f r e c l a i m e d wa t e r w h e n i t i s a v a i l a b l e . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n CO 4 . 1 . 1 : T h e S o i l U S D A N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e Th e S o i l US D A N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s C o n s e r v a t i o n S e r v i c e i s a p r i m a r y ve h i c l e f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n , p r o v i d i n g t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e t h r o u g h l o c a l l y ad m i n i s t e r e d a g e n c i e s . T h e C i t y s h o u l d s e e k t h e a d v i c e o f t h i s F e d e r a l ag e n c y , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e r e l a n d u s e a n d e v a l u a t i o n o f d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s is c o n c e r n e d . So i l s i m p a c t s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e G e o l o g y Se c t i o n o f t h i s E I R . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 6 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n CO 4 . 1 . 4 : S o i l E r o s i o n Re m o v a l o f g r o u n d c o v e r i n l o n g - t e r m a d v a n c e o n d e v e l o p m e n t s h o u l d b e pr e v e n t e d a n d e m e r g e n c y m e a s u r e s t o p r e v e n t s o i l e r o s i o n s h o u l d b e ut i l i t i z e d d u r i n g a n d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n . Th e D r a i n a g e , E r o s i o n a n d S e d i m e n t a t i o n Se c t i o n o f t h i s E I R i n c l u d e s b e s t m a n a g e m e n t pr a c t i c e s m i t i g a t i o n t o u t i l i z e d u r i n g co n s t r u c t i o n . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n CO 4 . 1 5 : D r a i n a g e a n d R u n o f f Th e a l t e r a t i o n o f n a t u r a l d r a i n a g e p a t t e r n s s h o u l d b e m i n i m i z e d , a n d p l a n s sh o u l d i n c l u d e n e c e s s a r y c o n s t r u c t i o n t o s t a b i l i z e r u n o f f a n d s i l t d e p o s i t i o n . Al t e r n a t i v e s t o c o n v e n t i o n a l e n g i n e e r i n g s o l u t i o n s , w i t h g r e a t e r en v i r o n m e n t a l e m p h a s i s s h o u l d b e e n c o u r a g e d . Th e B i o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R ad d r e s s e s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a v e g e t a t e d b i o s w a l e in l i e u o f a s t a n d a r d d r a i n a g e b a s i n . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n CO 4 . 1 . 6 : O p e n S p a c e Gr e a t e r e f f o r t s h o u l d b e m a d e t o i n s u r e t h a t s u f f i c i e n t g r e e n a r e a s o r o p e n sp a c e , a s c a l l e d f o r i n t h e Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e , a r e i n c l u d e d i n a l l de v e l o p m e n t . Pr o v i s i o n o f o p e n s p a c e w a s i n c l u d e d i n mi t i g a t i o n f o r t h e H o m e D e p o t E I R a n d i s di s c u s s e d i n t h e B i o l o g y S e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R . Co n s i s t e n t CO 1 0 . 1 . 3 : U n d e r g r o u n d U t i l i t i e s Un d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t i e s s h o u l d b e r e q u i r e d o f a l l d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n t h e ur b a n r e s e r v e b o u n d a r i e s , a n d a l l e x i s t i n g a r e a s w i t h o v e r h e a d l i n e s s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d t o b e u n d e r - g r o u n d e d t h r o u g h s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s . Th e V i s u a l R e s o u r c e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R pr o p o s e s m i t i g a t i o n t o r e q u i r e u n d e r g r o u n d i n g of a l l u t i l i t i e s . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n EN E R G Y C O N S E R V A T I O N E L E M E N T EC 1 . 2 . 4 : P r i v a t e S e c t o r P e r f o r m a n c e Ne w d e v e l o p m e n t w i l l b e e n c o u r a g e d t o m i n i m i z e u s e o f c o n v e n t i o n a l en e r g y f o r s p a c e h e a t i n g a n d c o o l i n g , w a t e r h e a t i n g , a n d i l l u m i n a t i o n b y me a n s o f p r o p e r d e s i g n a n d o r i e n t a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n a n d pr o t e c t i o n o f s o l a r e x p o s u r e . Th e A i r Q u a l i t y s e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R p r o p o s e s mi t i g a t i o n t o m i n i m i z e u s e o f c o n v e n t i o n a l en e r g y . T h e p r o j e c t d o e s i n c l u d e a s h a d e d ou t s i d e e a t i n g a r e a t o p r o t e c t c u s t o m e r s f r o m so l a r e x p o s u r e . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n EC 1 . 2 . 5 : E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e v i e w D o c u m e n t s En v i r o n m e n t a l r e v i e w d o c u m e n t s w i l l p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l a n d su b s t a n t i a t i o n w h e n a d d r e s s i n g p o t e n t i a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t e n e r g y i m p a c t s o f pr o p o s e d p r o j e c t s . T h e C i t y w i l l r e m a i n a l e r t t o a l t e r n a t i v e s w h i c h r e q u i r e le s s c o n v e n t i o n a l e n e r g y . En e r g y i m p a c t s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n P u b l i c Se r v i c e s / U t i l i t i e s S e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 7 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n EC 1 . 3 . 6 : B i c y c l e P a t h s Bi c y c l e p a t h s w i l l b e e n c o u r a g e d i n n e w s t r e e t s a n d s t r e e t w i d e n i n g pr o j e c t s . W h e r e s u f f i c i e n t r i g h t - o f - w a y i s a v a i l a b l e a n d b i c y c l e a n d m o t o r ve h i c l e v o l u m e w a r r a n t , s u c h p a t h s w i l l b e s e p a r a t e f r o m t h e r o a d w a y . I n ot h e r c a s e s , t h e y w i l l b e w i t h i n t h e r o a d w a y b u t c l e a r l y s t r i p e d o r d e n o t e d by d i f f e r e n t p a v e m e n t c o l o r , a n d a d j a c e n t p a r k i n g w i l l b e r e m o v e d o r li m i t e d t o o f f - p e a k h o u r s . Ap p l i c a n t w i l l c o n t r i b u t e f a i r s h a r e t o im p r o v e m e n t s o n L O V R . T h e s e i m p r o v e m e n t s wi l l i n c l u d e a b i c y c l e p a t h p r o v i s i o n . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n EC 1 . 3 . 2 5 : E n c o u r a g e m e n t o f E n e r g y E f f i c i e n t D e s i g n Th e A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n w i l l p l a y a n e x p a n d e d r o l e i n en c o u r a g i n g e n e r g y - e f f i c i e n t p r o j e c t d e s i g n b y r e q u i r i n g d e s i g n e r s t o m a k e co n s c i o u s c h o i c e s a n d t o j u s t i f y p r o p o s a l s i n v o l v i n g b u i l d i n g l o c a t i o n , or i e n t a t i o n , a n d f o r m , a s w e l l a s l a n d s c a p e t y p e a n d l o c a t i o n . T h e g o a l o f su c h r e v i e w w o u l d b e p r o j e c t s w h i c h m a k e m a x i m u m u s e o f s o l a r e x p o s u r e , na t u r a l v e n t i l a t i o n , a n d p a s s i v e m e a n s o f r e d u c i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l e n e r g y de m a n d , a s o p p o s e d t o d e s i g n i n g a p a r t i c u l a r i m a g e a n d r e l y i n g o n me c h a n i c a l s y s t e m s t o m a i n t a i n c o m f o r t . Th e p r o j e c t w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o A R C R e v i e w . C o n s i s t e n t EC 1 . 3 . 4 4 : P r o j e c t A p p r o v a l Ap p r o v a l o f m a j o r n e w c o m m e r c i a l a n d r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s w i l l b e co n d i t i o n e d o n i n c l u s i o n o f p r o g r a m s s u c h a s i n f o r m i n g re s i d e n t s / e m p l o y e e s o f c a r - p o o l a n d b u s i n f o r m a t i o n , “ f r e e ” b u s p a s s e s f o r th e f i r s t m o n t h o f o c c u p a n c y , a n d s i m i l a r m e a s u r e s d e s i g n e d t o f o s t e r en e r g y s a v i n g h a b i t s a t t h e t i m e s u c h h a b i t s a r e m o s t s u s c e p t i b l e t o c h a n g e . Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t , w i t h m i t i g a t i o n p r o p o s e d in t h e P u b l i c S e r v i c e s / U t i l i t i e s s e c t i o n o f t h i s EI R i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s e l e m e n t . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n WA T E R A N D W A S T E W A T E R E L E M E N T WW 6 . 1 . 3 : P a y i n g f o r S u p p l e m e n t a l W a t e r f o r N e w D e v e l o p m e n t Th e c o s t f o r d e v e l o p i n g n e w w a t e r s u p p l i e s n e c e s s a r y f o r n e w d e v e l o p m e n t wi l l b e p a i d b y i m p a c t f e e s s e t a t a r a t e s u f f i c i e n t t o c o v e r t h e a n n u a l d e b t se r v i c e c o s t o f t h e n e w w a t e r s u p p l i e s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o n e w d e v e l o p m e n t . Im p a c t f e e s w i l l b e c o l l e c t e d b y t h e C i t y o f S a n Lu i s O b i s p o . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 8 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O G E N E R A L P L A N Go a l s , Po l i c i e s , P l a n s , P r o g r a m s a n d St a n d a r d s P r o p o s e d A c t i o n De t e r m i n a t i o n WW 8 . 1 . 2 : S u p p l y i n g N e w D e v e l o p m e n t A) T h e C i t y w i l l d e t e r m i n e t h e w a t e r a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l o c a t i o n b a s e d o n th e a d o p t e d p e r c a p i t a w a t e r u s e r a t e t i m e s t h e c u r r e n t c i t y po p u l a t i o n . A l l o c a t i o n s w i l l b e a s s i g n e d i n a w a y t h a t s u p p o r t s ba l a n c e d g r o w t h , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e G e n e r a l P l a n . C) U n t i l t h e C i t y C o u n c i l d e t e r m i n e s a l l t o i l e t a n d s h o w e r h e a d f i x t u r e s in t h e C i t y h a v e b e e n r e p l a c e d w i t h l o w f l o w t o i l e t a n d sh o w e r h e a d f i x t u r e s , p r o j e c t s m a y b e b u i l t i f t h e d e v e l o p e r m a k e s ch a n g e s , i n f a c i l i t i e s s e r v e d b y t h e C i t y , w h i c h w i l l r e d u c e l o n g - te r m w a t e r u s a g e e q u a l t o t w i c e t h e w a t e r a l l o c a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r th e p r o j e c t . A) T h e C i t y h a s d e t e r m i n e d s u f f i c i e n t w a t e r su p p l i e s e x i s t f o r t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t . C) M i t i g a t i o n p r o p o s e d i n t h e P u b l i c Se r v i c e s / U t i l i t i e s S e c t i o n o f t h i s E I R ad d r e s s e s t h i s i m p a c t . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 1 9 TA B L E I V - 2 Ci t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o Z o n i n g R e g u l a t i o n s C o n s i s t e n c y CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O Z O N I N G R E G U L A T I O N S Po l i c y , A c t i o n o r D e v e l o p m e n t S t a n d a r d P r o p o s e d A c t i o n S c o p e Pa r k i n g R e q u i r e m e n t s B y U s e Re t a i l s a l e s - g e n e r a l m e r c h a n d i s e ( d r u g , h a r d w a r e , O n e s p a c e p e r 3 0 0 sq u a r e f e e t g r o s s f l o o r a r e a d i s c o u n t , d e p a r t m e n t a n d v a r i e t y s t o r e s Pr o j e c t p r o p o s a l i n c l u d e s a d e q u a t e p a r k i n g fa c i l i t i e s f o r d e v e l o p m e n t . Co n s i s t e n t BI C Y C L E P A R K I N G S P A C E R E Q U I R E M E N T S f o r C - 4 Z o n i n g Di s t r i c t , A. Nu m b e r o f b i k e s p a c e s a s a p e r c e n t a g e o f r e q u i r e d a u t o s p a c e s – 15 % ( R e q u i r e m e n t s a p p l y t o u s e s t h a t r e q u i r e 1 0 o r m o r e v e h i c l e pa r k i n g s p a c e s ) . B. Mi n i m u m p e r c e n t s h o r t - t e r m – 5 0 % ( S h o r t - T e r m B i c y c l e P a r k i n g i s us e d b y v i s i t o r s t o m u l t i - f a m i l y h o u s i n g a n d b y p a t r o n s o f c o m m e r c i a l an d i n s t i t u t i o n a l u s e s . B i c y c l e r a c k s a r e u s e d t o s a t i s f y t h i s n e e d ) . C. Mi n i m u m l o n g - t e r m b i c y c l e s p a c e s – 4 0 % ( “ L o n g - T e r m ” B i c y c l e Pa r k i n g i s u s e d b y e m p l o y e e s o f c o m m e r c i a l a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l u s e s a n d by r e s i d e n t s . F u l l y e n c l o s e d l o c k e r s a r e u s e d t o s a t i s f y t h i s n e e d . Lo c k a b l e r o o m s r e s e r v e d f o r b i c y c l e s t o r a g e a n d s e c u r e d p a r k i n g a r e a s ma n a g e d b y a t t e n d a n t s a r e o t h e r a c c e p t a b l e f o r m s ) . Bi c y c l e p a r k i n g f a c i l i t i e s m i t i g a t i o n i s pr o p o s e d i n t h e A i r Q u a l i t y s e c t i o n o f t h i s EI R . Co n s i s t e n t , w i t h mi t i g a t i o n 17 . 4 0 . 0 1 0 P u r p o s e a n d a p p l i c a t i o n . Th e C - R z o n e i s i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e f o r a w i d e r a n g e o f r e t a i l s a l e s , bu s i n e s s , p e r s o n a l a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e s , a s w e l l a s r e c r e a t i o n , en t e r t a i n m e n t , t r a n s i e n t l o d g i n g a n d p e r m a n e n t r e s i d e n c e s . U s e s i n t h i s z o n e wi l l g e n e r a l l y b e t h o s e s e r v i n g c o m m u n i t y - w i d e a n d r e g i o n a l m a r k e t s , a s we l l a s t o u r i s t s a n d t r a v e l e r s . I t w i l l b e a p p l i e d t o a r e a d e s i g n a t e d " r e t a i l - co m m e r c i a l " o n t h e g e n e r a l p l a n m a p . ( O r d . 9 4 1 – 1 ( p a r t ) , 1 9 8 2 : p r i o r c o d e - 9 2 0 3 . 9 ( A ) ) Th e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i l l p r o v i d e r e t a i l se r v i c e s t o t h e c o m m u n i t y a s w e l l a s t o u r i s t s an d t r a v e l e r s . Co n s i s t e n t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h En v i r o n m e n t a l S e t t i n g DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t IV - 2 0 CI T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O Z O N I N G R E G U L A T I O N S Po l i c y , A c t i o n o r D e v e l o p m e n t S t a n d a r d P r o p o s e d A c t i o n S c o p e 17 . 4 0 . 0 2 0 P r o p e r t y d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s . Th e p r o p e r t y d e v e l o p m e n t s t a n d a r d s f o r t h e C - R z o n e a r e a s f o l l o w s : A. M a x i m u m d e n s i t y : 3 6 u n i t s p e r n e t a c r e f o r a l l d w e l l i n g s , i n c l u d i n g dw e l l i n g u n i t s i n h o t e l s a n d m o t e l s , b u t n o t i n c l u d i n g o t h e r h o t e l o r mo t e l u n i t s B. M a x i m u m s t r e e t a n d o t h e r y a r d s : S e e S e c t i o n 1 7 . 1 6 . 0 2 0 . C. M a x i m u m h e i g h t : 4 5 f e e t ( s e e a l s o S e c t i o n 1 7 . 1 6 . 0 2 0 a n d 1 7 . 1 6 . 0 4 0 ) . D. M a x i m u m c o v e r a g e : 1 0 0 % . G. M a x i m u m b u i l d i n g s i z e : N o r e t a i l e s t a b l i s h m e n t ( c o m m e r c i a l b u i l d i n g ) sh a l l e x c e e d f o r t y t h o u s a n d s q u a r e f e e t o f g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , u n l e s s t h e me e t i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f s u b s e c t i o n H . H. A r e t a i l e s t a b l i s h m e n t m a y b e a l l o w e d u p t o o n e h u n d r e d f o r t y th o u s a n d s q u a r e f e e t o f g r o s s f l o o r a r e a , i f t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n de t e r m i n e s t h a t i t m e e t s t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a n d a r d s : a. T h e p r o p o s e d u s e w i l l s e r v e t h e c o m m u n i t y , i n w h o l e o r i n si g n i f i c a n t p a r t , a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e u s e r e q u i r e s a l a r g e r s i z e i n or d e r t o f u n c t i o n . b. T h e b u i l d i n g i n w h i c h t h e u s e i s t o b e l o c a t e d i s d e s i g n e d i n di s c r e e t e l e m e n t s t h a t r e s p e c t t h e s c a l e o f d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e su r r o u n d i n g a r e a . c. T h e n e w b u i l d i n g i s d e s i g n e d i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e c i t y ’ s de s i g n g u i d e l i n e s f o r l a r g e - s c a l e r e t a i l p r o j e c t s . Th e p r o j e c t i s s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w b y t h e Ar c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n a n d i s su b j e c t t o t h e L a r g e - S c a l e R e t a i l P r o j e c t pr o v i s i o n s . Co n s i s t e n t Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Setting DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IV-21 D. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in Section 15355 of the Guidelines, defines “cumulative impacts” as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or will compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project when added to other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable, probable future projects. For example, the traffic impacts of two projects in close proximity may be insignificant when analyzed separately, but could have a significant impact when the projects are analyzed together. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Cumulative impacts include either: 1) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the agency, or 2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the Lead Agency. The discussion shall also include a summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available, and a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding any significant cumulative effects of a proposed project. An analysis of cumulative effects has been included within each resource section (Section V) of this DEIR. The analysis of cumulative effects for each resource issue area (traffic, noise, air quality, etc.) assuming the second option (given above) is addressed in two documents: 1. The October 1966 San Luis Obispo Area Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (G870010X; ED93-029; (County of San Luis Obispo) State Clearinghouse Number 93401018 2. The August 1994 Land Use Element Circulation Element Updates Final Environmental Impact Report (City of San Luis Obispo) State Clearinghouse Number 92101006. Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Setting DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IV-22 In general, the two documents listed above contain information that is applicable to the wider questions of growth and development in the San Luis Obispo area (option 2 under Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines). These documents contain comprehensive inventories of project development in the area and reasonable forecasts of the related environmental effects of that development. The cumulative information contained in this DEIR augments the analyses in the above-listed documents and focuses the discussion to a smaller and more localized evaluation of cumulative effects within the vicinity of the property, defined depending on the resource issue being evaluated. In addition, for the purposes of the cumulative analysis, the “project” includes the Costco parcel only (parcel 2), not the front two parcels (parcels 1 and 3), as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(c), relating to the definition of project as referring to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. However, the operative project in the applicant’s request is the development of parcels 1, 2 and 3 of the parcel map (Refer to Figure III-3). For the purposes of this cumulative study, past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects will be used for the cumulative analysis (option 1 under the CEQA Guidelines, section 15130). Projects that fall within this category are included in Table IV-1 and divided into two scenarios. 1. Approved projects that are built or in process in the vicinity of the project area including the DeVaul Ranch and Home Depot. 2. Longer term projects estimated to be completed within the next ten years in the area including the Dalidio property, the front two parcels of Froom Ranch (parcels 1 and 3) and the proposed McBride annexation on Calle Joaquin and the COG residential Development that would affect traffic and circulation patterns on LOVR. The projects on the following table are a mix of commercial, residential and industrial projects affecting the neighboring roads, and are included in the traffic cumulative analysis. Other resource issues may incorporate projects listed on the tables in addition to the properties within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Setting DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IV-23 TABLE IV-3 Cumulative Development Scenario Project Land Use Quantity Status Scenario One-Approved Projects DeVaul Residential 414 units Building in progress Home Depot General Retail 130,000 sq. ft Construction complete Wayrich Office Commerical/Office 42,000 sq. ft. Active application Trader Joes Grocery/Restaurant 20,000 sq. ft. grocery 1,500 sq. ft. restaurant Construction complete T.K. Infill Service Commercial 24,000 sq. ft. Active application Tract 1750 Residential 54 units Active application Goldenrod Residential 45 units Active application Fuller Rd. Subdivision Residential 27 units Active application Quaglino Mixed Use Residential 16 units Active application Quaglino Mixed Use Commercial 20,000 sq. ft. Active application Autozone Retail auto parts 5,000 sq. ft. Active application Stickler Project Retail Commercial 15,000 sq. ft. Active application Rockview and Broad Residential 15 units Active application Sports Field Complex Sports Fields 5 fields Active application Cannon Project Office 104,000 sq. ft. Active application Cannon Project Gas/market/carwash 12 fueling positions Active application 4101 Broad Street Service Commercial 93,000 sq. ft. Active application AeroVista Drive Industrial 32,800 sq. ft. Active application AeroVista/Broad Commercial/Industrial 175,000 sq. ft. Active application Scenario Two-10 Year Projects Front Froom parcels General Retail 140,000 sq. ft. No plans submitted Marriott Hotel Hotel 156 Rooms Active application Vineyard Church Church 130,000 sq. ft. Active application Dalidio Development Commercial/Hotel/ Business park 600,000 sq.ft/130 rooms/ 127,410 sq. ft. Active application Strasbaugh Industrial/Health club 68,600 sq. ft./47,700 sq. ft. Active application Stoneridge II Residential 10 units Active application Aerovista/Broad Commercial/Industrial 90,000 sq. ft. Active application Morbito Tract 2368 Industrial/commercial 475,000 sq. ft. Active application County GPA Residential 10 units Active application Dioptics Light Industrial 100,000 sq. ft. Speculative Calle Joaquin Hotel Hotel 93 rooms Active application Froom East of Home D. Commercial Retail 319,000 sq. ft. Speculative Gap Property Commercial Retail 260,000 sq. ft. Speculative McBride Annexation Industrial/commercial 58,900 sq ft. On hold COG Development Residential 33 units Active application Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-1 V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES This section evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project and discusses how these impacts can be mitigated or avoided. The sections are divided based on potential impacts including: Geology; Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Traffic Safety; Air Quality; Noise; Hazardous Materials; Public Services/Utilities; and Visual Resources. These sections are further divided into Environmental Setting, Regulatory Setting, Thresholds of Significance, Impact Assessment and Methodology, and Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures. A. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 1. Environmental Setting This section is based on Geotechnical investigations by Kleinfelder conducted in 2000 and 2001 (refer to Appendix B) for the proposed Costco site (Parcel 2) as well as previous reports conducted for the adjacent Home Depot and DeVaul properties. The information included in these reports would be applicable to Parcels 1 and 3 as well. The project site is relatively flat, gently sloping toward Los Osos Valley Road. Soil conditions on the project site are relatively uniform, medium stiff to hard sandy clay to clay with occasional fine gravel. This is underlain by alternating, laterally discontinuous layers of clayey sand, fat clay and silt. An exception to these conditions is a layer of hard, moderately cemented clayey sand and gravel near the southwest corner of the project site. Desiccation cracks, 18 inches deep and one-inch wide are present across the site. These cracks are caused by cyclical moisture changes in expansive soils. a. Geologic Hazards 1) Fault Rupture The proposed project is located within, or in close proximity to, the Los Osos fault zone as defined by the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Study conducted by PG&E in 1987 (refer to Figures V-1 and V-2. This and other information was reviewed for the update of the Safety Element of the County and the Cities in the county and the report of this review (Asquith 1997) is incorporated herein by reference, and it is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, San Luis Obispo, California. Information applicable to the Los Osos fault zone, generally and at the project site, is summarized as follows: a. The Los Osos fault zone bounds the northeasterly flank of the topographical-higher San Luis Range, separating it from the topographical-lower, basin-fill deposits (San Luis and Los Osos groundwater basins) that have accumulated to the northeast of this fault zone. b. This fault zone is separated into four (4) segments: the 1) Estero Bay Segment, 2) Irish Hills segment, 3) Lopez Reservoir segment, and 4) Newsom Ridge segment. Of the 4 segments, the Estero Bay segment and the Irish Hills segment are considered active by State standards. Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-2 LOCATION OF FAULT ZONES FIGURE V-1 S o u r c e : H a l l & O t h e r s , 1 9 7 9 NORTH Not to Scale Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-3 LOS OSOS FAULT ZONE & UPLIFT RATES OF THE SAN LUIS/PISMO STRUCTURAL BLOCK FIGURE V-2 So u r c e : L e t t i s & H a l l , 1 9 9 4 NORTH Not to Scale Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-4 c. The California Geological Survey (formerly the Division of Mines and Geology) reviewed the information developed for the PG&E report (Treiman, 1989), and the State Geologist has established a Special Studies Zone (Alquist-Priolo Act, as amended) along the portion of the Irish Hills segment immediately west of San Luis Obispo City limits where the fault zone has been trenched and its location is approximately known. d. Differences in elevation of the 120,000-year-old marine terrace to the north and south of the fault zone near the westerly end of the fault on land suggest that the recurrence of movements along the fault zone resulting in significant ground rupture and damaging earthquakes (about half a meter) occur about once every 2,000 years. e. Information developed in the communities of Los Osos and Baywood Park, along the Irish Hills segment of this fault, indicates that strands of the Los Osos fault in these communities may be active and that Special Studies Zones may also be appropriate in these areas. f. The site of the proposed project is located near the southeasterly end of the Irish Hills segment near to where existing information indicates that the Los Osos fault zone transitions from active to inactive by State standards established for fault rupture hazards under the Alquist-Priolo Act, as amended. Kleinfelder (2000) determined the Los Osos fault system is capable of generating moderate to high (about 0.5g) ground motion at the project site. The potential for ground rupture along an active strand of the Los Osos fault was investigated by Earth Systems Consultants for the Home Depot parcel immediately adjacent to the proposed project by excavating a back-hoe trench to depths of 12-14 feet along the northwesterly side of the Home Depot building site. The report of this investigation (Earth Systems, 1997b) is summarized as follows: a. There was no physical evidence in the trench that would suggest the presence of faulting within the proposed building area. Trenching by Earth Systems (1997d) approximately 1,200 feet to the northwest along the potential fault trend on the DeVaul Ranch also found no evidence of faulting. b. Carbon-14 dating of charcoal recovered from a depth of 9 feet in the trench indicates an age of approximately 2,650 years, and the age of the lowermost sediments in the trench is estimated at approximately 3,000 years. Since the faulting in the trenches to the west of the City limits is believed to be approximately 2,500 years old, it is likely that comparable faulting, if present, would have been evidenced in the trench. c. The potential for fault-related ground rupture to occur within the area of the proposed building is considered low. The results of this investigation should be considered in the context of the evidence for faulting in the area near the site. Lettis and Hall (1994) in their analysis of the Los Osos fault zone identified “features” that suggest faulting in the vicinity of the project site. It should be Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-5 emphasized that these “features” are primarily not faults, but rather lineations in the topography, vegetation or the tone of ground coloration that may or may not be related to faulting. The Los Osos fault line has otherwise been determined to be not active in the detailed investigations to the west of the City limits. Based on these relationships and the trenching on adjacent parcels, an active strand of the Los Osos fault zone is probably not present beneath the proposed Costco building site. If such a strand is present, it is probably located beneath the northeasterly part of the project site close to Los Osos Valley Road. However, there is now no direct evidence to suggest the presence of such a fault in the area to the southeast of the golf course. b. Seismic Hazards 1) Earthquake Shaking San Luis Obispo County is located in Zone 4, the most restrictive, of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for purposes of the design of structures to resist earthquake shaking. The 1997 UBC design criteria would be appropriate for the proposed building, unless the structural engineer determines more specific data necessary. The site is located within the 2-kilometer zone of the Los Osos Fault, classified as Seismic Source Type B. The San Andreas along the easterly boundary of the county is the only “A” fault in the area. “B” faults include the Hosgri/San Simeon, the Rinconada, the Los Osos, and the several faults now considered as bounding the south flank of the San Luis Range (Petersen, M. and others, 1998). The classification of the Los Osos fault as Type “B” is conservative. Its slip rate as determined at the westerly, most active end of the fault does not meet the Type “B” threshold of 2 mm/year, and this classification is entirely dependent on the worst-case magnitude as determined by the total length of the fault. Since the total length of this fault zone includes the Edna fault, which available evidence indicates is inactive under state standards, the classification of the Los Osos fault as Type “B” is speculative. c. Soils Hazards 1) Expansive Soil Testing by Kleinfelder (2000) indicates that surface soils are moderately expansive and methods such as continuous foundations placed at least 30 inches below the lowest adjacent interior or exterior finished soil subgrade will mitigate this problem. 2) Soil Moisture Testing by Kleinfelder (2000) indicates that a significant post-construction moisture increase in supporting soils could cause heaving of the soils. Site drainage, compaction criteria, and moisture protection provisions outlined in the report will mitigate this problem. Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-6 2. Regulatory Setting a. Federal Policies and Regulations No federal policies or regulations relating to geologic hazards are applicable. b. State Policies and Regulations Regulations applicable to the consideration of geologic, seismic and soils hazards at the project site may include the Alquist-Priolo Study Zone Act and provisions of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). A Special Studies Zone (Alquist-Priolo Act as amended) has not been established at or in the near vicinity of the project site, and procedures and regulations as recommended by the State Geological Survey for investigations conducted in such zones do not specifically apply. However, the Los Osos fault zone has been interpreted as being present at or in the near vicinity of the project site, and investigations consistent with those normally conducted in Special Studies Zones have been conducted at the project site and on the DeVaul Ranch and Home Depot sites adjacent to the project site. The results of these investigations are discussed above. Provisions of the UBC related to the design of structures to resist earthquake shaking are of particular concern for projects in this area because of the potential presence of the Los Osos fault. The 1997 UBC design criteria would be appropriate to address this concern. c. Local Policies and Regulations The proposed project shall comply and be consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Seismic Safety Element. 3. Thresholds of Significance Thresholds for the onset of a significant impact on the environment as the result of a geologic, seismic or soils hazard are applied herein at the point where “a project would have the effect of attracting people to a location where the people would be exposed to environmental hazards...” (EIR Guidelines Section 15126, Discussion). For this EIR, a distinction is made between hazards that would only affect property and those that would significantly affect people (i.e., significant injury or loss of life). For example, while the slow creep of soils on a hillside may require periodic maintenance to avoid damage to property, this creep does not pose a significant hazard to people, and this hazard is not herein considered a significant impact on the environment under CEQA Guidelines. On the other hand, a rapidly moving landslide could pose a hazard to people (the public or employees in a structure), and the presence of hazards of this type is considered a potentially significant impact. Thresholds for the onset of a significant impact on the environment as a result of earthquake shaking are more difficult to define because, while this hazard involves the potential for significant impacts to people, the likelihood of occurrence of a damaging earthquake on some faults is so low that it may be considered “insignificant” under CEQA. The Los Osos fault is one of these marginal hazards in that, in its most active segment, the likely recurrence of a damaging earthquake on this fault is about once in 2,000 years. The current UBC and the applicable Seismic Safety Elements of the County and City treat such an earthquake as an “acceptable risk” as are floods that exceed a frequency of occurrence of once in 100 years. Therefore, the Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-7 threshold of significance for an earthquake on the Los Osos fault in this EIR follows this currently adopted policy. 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology a. Geologic Hazards 1) Fault Rupture While fault rupture at the site of the proposed Costco building cannot be totally precluded, the available evidence indicates that the potential is so low that it can be considered insignificant for purposes of CEQA. There is also no direct evidence for active faulting on the project site, and the potential for faulting beneath the two parcels fronting on Los Osos Valley Road is so low that it can be considered insignificant for purposes of CEQA. b. Seismic Hazards 1) Earthquake Shaking The proposed structure would be subject to the requirements of UBC Zone 4 for resistance to seismic shaking, and no additional mitigation measures are considered necessary. These requirements include the probabilistic effects of the Los Osos Fault. c. Soils Hazards 1) Expansive Soil The foundation soils at the site of the proposed structure are expansive, and measures to mitigate the potential for future differential movement related soil expansion have been recommended by the project soils engineer (Kleinfelder 2000). Stripped topsoil, less any debris, may be stockpiled and reused for landscape purposes but not incorporated into engineered fill. 2) Soil Moisture Native soil materials, exclusive of debris and less than 3 inches in maximum dimension, may be used as engineered fill if it is uniformly moisture conditioned and meets the requirements of the project soils engineer (Kleinfelder 2000). 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Kleinfelder in 2000 and amended March 2001 includes detailed structural recommendations for the proposed Costco building and fueling facility. GH-Impact 1 The project site is located on expansive soils and excavations have the potential to extend below groundwater. After mitigation this impact would be considered Class II, significant but mitigable. Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-8 GH/mm-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Kleinfelder (2000, 2001). GH-Impact 2 Parcels 1 and 3 have not been specifically evaluated for expansive soils; however the characteristics would be same as Parcel 2 and project activities would have the potential to extend below groundwater. After mitigation this impact would be considered Class II, significant but mitigable. GH/mm-2 Prior to submittal of plans for Parcels 1 and 3, the applicant for those parcels shall obtain a Geological Investigation Report from a Certified/Approved Engineering Geologist. a. Geologic Hazards 1) Fault Rupture Potential fault rupture hazards at the site of the proposed Costco building are considered insignificant, and no mitigation measures are required. b. Seismic Hazards 1) Earthquake Shaking The proposed structures on all parcels would be subject to the requirements of UBC Zone 4 for resistance to seismic shaking, including the probabilistic effects of the Los Osos fault, and no additional mitigation measures are recommended. c. Soils Hazards 1) Expansive Soil Measures to mitigate potential expansive soils problems have been recommended by the project soils engineer (Kleinfelder, 2000. p. 12-14). The soils engineer recommends stripping of the top 1-3 inches of soil as well as a search during site demolition and prior to site grading for unengineered fill soils, soil disturbed by previous activity, irrigation piping, or other abandoned underground structures that may exist. No additional measures are necessary. 2) Soil Moisture Measures to mitigate potential soil moisture problems have been recommended by the project soils engineer (Kleinfelder, 2000, 2001). In areas where excavations extend below groundwater, proper dewatering may be necessary to facilitate construction. Excavations below groundwater will require disking to aerate, chemical treatment, mixing with drier material, or other methods to reduce excessive soil moisture, prior to using the soil as engineered fill. No additional measures are necessary. Costco / Froom Ranch Geologic Hazards DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-9 6. Cumulative Impacts Potential impacts related to geologic, seismic and soils hazards are all site-specific, and no cumulative impacts related to these issues have been identified. 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-10 B. DRAINAGE, EROSION, AND SEDIMENTATION The project site (shown as Parcel 1 in Figure V-3) is located on relatively flat, former agricultural land, and the original drainage pattern on the property was relatively simple: runoff from the Irish Hills to the southwest was contained in a few small defined drainages that discharged onto the property, and then sheet flow occurred from most of the property to a ditch that runs towards the southeast along the southern or western side of Los Osos Valley Road. With the development of the Home Depot project and widening of portions of Los Osos Valley Road, the former ditch has been enlarged into a designed open channel that is intended to serve aesthetic and habitat features as well as providing flood control. Development over the years has created a more complex and changing pattern of runoff that has been characterized by regular flooding across Los Osos Valley Road in the vicinity of U.S. 101 and Calle Joaquin. Figure V-3 shows the surrounding area and major drainage basins. The following discussion describing the drainage patterns is based primarily on the Questa Engineering Corporation, draft San Luis Obispo Waterways Management Plan, Phase II (WMP). This unpublished plan is undergoing environmental review and is being prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County Zone 9 Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Questa Engineering Corporation, 2002). In addition, Questa Engineering conducted a separate evaluation of the cumulative hydrology to augment the Waterways Management Plan (WMP). The rainfall-runoff model developed as part of the WMP is summarized in Appendix C. The two major drainage courses in the area are Prefumo Creek and Froom Creek, both of which drain into San Luis Obispo Creek via culverts under Highway 101. 1. Environmental Setting a. Prefumo Creek Prefumo Creek drains a total watershed area of about 17 square miles, originating in the Irish Hills to the west of Los Osos Valley Road. As part of earlier development, the creek was diverted to discharge into Laguna Lake and to provide a more regular water supply to the lake. A triple box culvert at the downstream end of Laguna Lake (beneath Madonna Road) has its bottom elevation set to help to maintain a relatively constant low water level within the lake. This allows the lake to serve as a large detention facility to help reduce peak flows from the larger upper portion of the Prefumo Creek watershed. Downstream from the lake, Prefumo Creek is contained in an open trapezoidal channel. Along most of its length, this channel is earth lined, and supports vegetation consisting of willows and related riparian species. Eucalyptus groves are also located along portions of this channel. The lower end of the channel is concrete lined, as it passes through culverts going under Calle Joaquin, the offramp from US 101 southbound, and then finally US 101 itself, before discharging into San Luis Obispo Creek. The channel makes a fairly sharp “S” turn or dogleg between the Calle Joaquin and offramp culverts. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h D r a i n a g e , E r o s i o n , a n d S e d i m e n t a t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t WA T E R S H E D S U B B A S I N D E L I N E A T I O N FI G U R E V - 3 NO R T H No t t o S c a l e 1 C o s t c o P r o j e c t S i t e 2 D e V a u l R a n c h ( d e T o l o s a ) & D e V a u l R a n c h S o u t h 3 H o m e D e p o t ( f o r m e r l y E a g l e H a r d w a r e ) Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h D r a i n a g e , E r o s i o n , a n d S e d i m e n t a t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t No t e t h a t f l o w i s l i k e l y t o c r o s s L o s O s o s V a l l e y R o a d ( L O V R ) fr o m t h e F r o o m C r e e k t o P r e f u m o C r e e k w a t e r s h e d n e a r p o i n t 1 ( a n d d o w n s t r e a m a l o n g L O V R ) , an d c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y r e - c r o s s L O V R f r o m Pr e f u m o t o F r o o m C r e e k s a t p o i n t 2 . CO L O R B A N D T O P O G R A P H I C O F L O W E R P R E F U M O A N D F R O O M C R E E K S FI G U R E V - 4 Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-13 In addition to the discharge from Laguna Lake, the Prefumo Creek channel also carries runoff from the lower Prefumo basin. This area includes the residential neighborhood east of Madonna and Los Osos Valley Roads, the car dealerships and other commercial uses along the east (or northeast) side of Los Osos Valley Road, and the agricultural and commercial areas east of the channel extending to the Madonna Inn. Generally, the Prefumo Creek drainage improvements function adequately, but there are some problems in this system. During periods of high water in Laguna Lake, the local street drainage is sluggish and localized flooding occurs in the vicinity of Madonna Road and Oceanaire Drive (near the discharge point of Laguna Lake beneath Madonna Road). Farther downstream, the “S” turn in the Prefumo Creek culvert is prone to clogging by eucalyptus and other debris. The culverts where Prefumo Creek crosses under the southbound U.S. 101 offramp, and then under U.S. 101 itself, are also undersized. The combination of these effects leads to water overtopping the channel and/or poor drainage into the channel from the adjacent roads and commercial areas. High water floods into and across Los Osos Valley Road, and then is drained slowly by Prefumo Creek and Froom Creek to the south. b. Froom Creek Froom Creek also originates in the Irish Hills, but has a much smaller drainage area than Prefumo Creek. The Froom Creek watershed occupies about two square miles, and drains a relatively narrow, steep and natural canyon and then the flatter grazing and developed areas along the western or southern side of Los Osos Valley Road. During the early development of this grazing use, the lower portion of Froom Creek was channeled and diverted towards the west where it now flows in an open channel and in culverts as it crosses under Calle Joaquin (south) and U.S. 101 to San Luis Obispo Creek. A second open channel in this area carries runoff from other land adjacent to Calle Joaquin (south) near the Motel 6 South, to the Froom Creek channel and culvert. The existing culvert where Froom Creek crosses under U.S. 101 is not capable of handling high storm water flows, and this existing problem will be worsened as improvements are made to prevent the flooding of Froom Creek water into the Prefumo Creek system (refer to Section 6, Cumulative Impacts). The developing properties along the western side of Los Valley Road are all located on relatively flat, former grazing land. These projects are all within the Froom Tributary basin. The original “ditch” along Los Osos Valley Road, described above, has been replaced with underground pipes along the De Vaul Ranch projects, and a broader and deeper trapezoidal channel along Los Osos Valley Road on the frontage of the subject property, in front of the Home Depot, and then discharges into the original less formal improvements along the remainder of the Froom Ranch lands (currently designated as wetlands). The ditch along the southwest side of Los Osos Valley Road conveys storm water to two culverts that cross under the road leading to a storm drain system that discharges to Prefumo Creek Channel on the northeast side of the street. In past storms, these culverts under LOVR have become clogged with debris and sediment. During these events, water in the ditch backed up and discharged partly over LOVR and partly to the low lying land closer to the freeway and thence to Froom Creek. Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-14 The problems in the Froom Creek drainage system are not related to the main creek itself, but rather to the tributary area along Los Osos Valley Road. During periods of moderate to high rainfall, water can cross Los Osos Valley Road in both directions—from either the Froom Creek drainage to Prefumo Creek or the opposite—depending on conditions within each drainage at the time. c. San Luis Obispo Creek The flooding problems within this area are complicated further during higher flood conditions by San Luis Obispo Creek, which can overtop its banks between Marsh Street and Prado Road, spill across US 101, and add to drainage problems in the Prefumo drainage basin. This occurred most recently in 1995, when water left the San Luis Obispo Creek channel between Marsh Street and Madonna Road. Computer modeling, done as part of the Questa Engineering Corporation work referenced above, indicates that flows could split from the San Luis Obispo Creek channel in the vicinity of Elks Land and Prado Road in a storm with a 10-year recurrence interval (which produces a runoff volume that is about 60% that of a 100-year storm). d. Interaction between Froom Creek, Prefumo Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek Under existing conditions, the watershed boundary between the Prefumo Creek watershed and the portion of the Froom Creek watershed containing the project site, termed “Froom Tributary” in this report, becomes difficult to define because of the potential of flow crossing LOVR from Froom Tributary to Prefumo Creek. Under existing conditions, it is likely that the 1.12 sq km (0.43 sq mi) Froom Tributary contributes flow to both Prefumo and Froom Creeks during large storm events. To complicate matters further, Prefumo Creek backs up across LOVR during large storms. When this occurs, it is possible for flow normally in Prefumo Creek to spill across LOVR, or through culverts under LOVR, into Froom Creek. Combined with the flows in the other two channels leading to the Froom Creek culvert, this water from the Prefumo Creek system contributes to a large ponded area just upstream from U.S. Highway 101 during a large storm. Figure V-4 shows the topography of this area and the probable flow pathways. The Froom Creek and Prefumo Creek culverts accommodate some of the drainage from this area, but a large fraction of the flow entering the ponded area would likely spill across the crest of U.S. Highway 101. While the details may be difficult to quantify, it is clear that increases in flow rates to either Prefumo Creek or Froom Creek could influence flooding along both lower Prefumo and lower Froom creeks. The contribution of the Costco project to this increase would be very small. With the undersized culverts beneath U.S.101, however, the cumulative effect of the interactions between the Froom Creek and Prefumo creek systems contributes to flooding in the area. A final source of flooding within the Lower Prefumo and Froom Creek watersheds is overflow from San Luis Obispo Creek that spills across U.S. Highway 101 between Marsh Street and Prado Road. Flow was observed spilling across Highway 101 to the west in 1973 (George S. Nolte and Associates, 1977) and in 1995 between Marsh Street and Madonna Road. In addition, computer modeling performed by Questa Engineering for the WMP indicates that flow splits from San Luis Obispo Creek, across Highway 101 and into the Prefumo Creek watershed, are likely near Elks Lane and again near Prado Road, starting at about the 10-year recurrence Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-15 interval storm. Modeling also shows that during large storms, these split flow rates have the potential to be nearly as large as the natural flow rate within Prefumo Creek. 2. Design Plans The land to the northeast of Los Osos Valley Road developed within the City with an urban level of improvements including curbs, gutters, and underground storm pipes to convey drainage to the Prefumo Creek channel. The western or southern portion of the roadway, however, remained in the unincorporated area and had little or no improvements installed (aside from the ditch and two small culverts under the roadway discussed above). With the Home Depot project (formerly Eagle Hardware), a start was made to develop a more unified approach to handling runoff in this Froom Creek tributary. The major feature of this approach is the improved trapezoidal channel along Los Osos Valley Road, which is intended to accommodate the additional flows caused by the proposed project and adjacent development. A requirement for the successful functioning of this channel is the limitation of peak flows from the developing properties in this area to their pre-development values. This is a common drainage design requirement where downstream improvements have been designed and constructed. Projects, which were subject to this requirement, include the Home Depot, the De Vaul Ranch (De Tolosa Ranch) residential project, the De Vaul Ranch South project, and the Costco/Froom Ranch commercial center addressed in this EIR. The general approach used by these projects involves intercepting and detaining the higher flows from the steep areas in the adjacent Irish Hills, and allowing their on-site runoff to flow through traditional curbs, gutters, and subsurface storm drain pipes. (Since the De Vaul Ranch South project is not adjacent to the Irish Hills, it is providing detention of its runoff internally within a below ground pip gallery in its drainage system). Other design projects underway include the San Luis Obispo WMP, mentioned above, and a Project Study Report underway by Caltrans to design improvements to the US 101/Los Osos Valley Road Interchange. The former of these two efforts is part of a broad plan by the City to improve flood protection and water quality within San Luis Obispo Creek and its major tributaries. The latter project by Caltrans is in the preliminary stages of design and several alternatives are being considered for the US 101/Los Osos Valley Road Interchange. The design alternatives currently being evaluated either indicate that the SLO Creek culvert crossing would be replaced with a bridge or the culvert would be widened. 3. Water Quality The issue of surface water quality in the area is important because of the habitat value of San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries, and particularly for the use of San Luis Obispo Creek by southern steelhead trout (oncorhynchus mykiss). The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has identified several beneficial uses for water within San Luis Obispo Creek that are related to its habitat values including beneficial uses for wildlife habitat, both cold and warm water habitat, migratory species, and spawning for fish species (RWQCB 1994: Table 2-1). Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-16 Surface water leaving the project site in its current condition is typical of flows from agricultural and grazing lands. The vegetative cover of the property consists of dense grasses and there is little erosion and production of sediment from the property. There are few or no sources of pollution on the property, but the surrounding area is typical of suburban lands in producing constituents that are harmful to water quality. These include heavy metals, hydrocarbons, detergents, fertilizers, and pesticides that originate from vehicle use and commercial and residential land use activities. For the most part, these pollutants are associated with sediments that collect on roadways and are flushed into the creek system either in dry weather flows or by rainfall. Regulations since 1990 have increasingly emphasized the control of water pollution from non- point sources, which include stormwater systems and runoff from construction sites and industrial areas. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued a statewide General Permit to regulate runoff from construction sites involving grading and earth moving in areas over five acres. The SWRCB is acting to enforce requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, pursuant to regulations issued by the U.S. EPA for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This State Order (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ) requires that construction projects covered under the General Permit must use the “best available technology economically achievable (BAT),” and the “best conventional pollution control technology (BCT)”. These technologies must be used in designing controls to minimize the production of sediments and pollutants from construction sites. Each construction project subject to the permit is required to have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared, which identifies likely sources of sediment and pollution and incorporates BAT and BCT measures to minimize sediment and pollution in runoff water. The City of San Luis Obispo and many local governments throughout the state are also in the planning stages for implementing US EPA requirements governing stormwater quality as part of the NPDES Phase II stormwater regulations. When implemented, these regulations should result in improvements in runoff water quality from urban and suburban areas, achieved through programs of public education, better control of activities that contribute to runoff water pollution, and better management of drainage and stormwater conveyance systems. 4. Thresholds of Significance Criteria for evaluating the significance of hydrology and water quality impacts suggested by the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Appendix G) are generally oriented towards identifying substantial changes in drainage patterns or volumes, or violations of water quality standards. For the Costco/Froom Ranch project, the best interpretation of these guidelines relates to the potential to contribute towards downstream flooding problems. If the project would increase peak flows and thus contribute to the downstream flooding problems, then a significant impact would be identified. With respect to water quality, determining significance is more indirect because there are no specific discharge requirements or standards for stormwater runoff to which the project can be compared. At this time, the determination of significance is based on a review of the project plans and proposals to identify any unique features that might contribute to disproportionate Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-17 amounts of polluting materials in runoff. The SWRCB has not attempted to identify numerical limits to be achieved in runoff from construction sites. Instead, the General Order contains narrative restriction referencing BAT and BCT. Thus, the significance of water quality impacts will be judged in terms of conformance with these requirements. 5. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Hydrology The direct effect of development of the project will be to replace the existing vacant former grazing land with a commercial development consisting of parking lots, buildings, walkways, and other areas. For the most part, these areas are impervious surfaces and they will have the effect of increasing both the total volume of stormwater runoff and the peak flow of runoff. In the cumulative analysis performed by Questa Engineering (discussed below) the typical increases in peak flows for this type of development in the Froom Tributary are summarized as follows: Table V-1 Projected Peak Flow Increases in Froom Tributary Area, Without Mitigation Storm Recurrence Interval Existing Conditions Peak Flow (m3/s) Full Buildout, No Mitigation Peak Flow (m3/s) Percentage Increase 2 years 10 years 25 years 50 years 100 years 2.5 5.1 7.0 8.5 9.6 3.4 6.7 8.9 10.6 12.0 35.3% 30.7% 27.3% 25.8% 25.6% DES/Impact 1 Vacant grazing land will be replaced with impervious surfaces, which will increase the total volume of stormwater runoff and the peak flow of runoff and contribute to downstream flooding risks. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). The project designs include a detention basin with a three acre-foot capacity, which would intercept and detain runoff from a major portion of the hillsides to the southwest of the proposed Costco site. From the basin, runoff would be discharged at a reduced flow into an open channel along the rear southern corner of the property, and then into a subsurface pipe for conveyance to the open channel designed along Los Osos Valley Road. Runoff from parking areas and the remainder of the property would be collected in a system of curbs, gutters, and underground storm drains, and would also be conveyed to the open channel along Los Osos Valley Road. This design is a modification of the original detention design, which included a larger joint basin that would accommodate both the Eagle Hardware site (now Home Depot) and the Costco site. In the current proposals, the runoff from the two projects would be kept separate (until mixed in the channel along Los Osos Valley Road), and each project would be responsible for designing and maintaining its own detention facility. Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-18 The detention facility is generally of the same size and effective location as those already approved for the Home Depot and De Vaul Ranch (De Tolusa Ranch) projects. Although detailed hydrologic calculations in support of the detention basin design have not been reviewed, it is likely that the proposed size and location are feasible and can achieve the desired result of maintaining peak flows within the limits of the pre-development condition. The Visual Resources section of this EIR addresses vegetation of the drainage basin and construction of the facility as a bioswale, which will reduce peak flow rates entering the watershed. Thus, the only specific mitigation measure regarding drainage is a condition to ensure that the final design is reviewed and approved by the appropriate jurisdictional authority. DES/mm-1 Prior to approval of a building permit, drainage plans with supporting calculations must be submitted and approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department (and by the County in a cooperative review process). The designs must demonstrate that peak discharge from the site will be limited to that of the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm predevelopment rates. a. Water Quality 1) Construction Activities During construction, grading operations will remove vegetation, disturb soil layers, and create stockpiles of soil to be used in the project. These acts will expose large areas of soil to the erosive forces of rainfall and runoff as stormwater leaves the property. The adverse effects of this erosion and sediment transport include deposition of sediment within downstream drainage structures, which may increase the risk of localized flooding, and the introduction of sediment into sensitive habitats. The project will involve the use, fueling, and storage of heavy equipment on site during the construction period. Fuel and oil spills, and the inadvertent release of other materials used in the construction phase, could introduce pollutants into stormwater runoff and into downstream habitats. These impacts during the construction phase of the project are potentially significant. DES/Impact 2 Surface water quality has the potential to be impacted during project activities due to the exposure of large areas of soil to erosive forces, and due to the presence of fuel, oil, and other pollutants on site for construction purposes. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). During project construction, a number of techniques are available to reduce the potential for erosion, sedimentation, and introduction of pollutants into runoff water and downstream sensitive habitat. The best approach to minimizing the potential for erosion is to minimize the time during which bare soil is exposed to the elements. To achieve this goal, construction would be scheduled to occur during the dry season of the year, and the paving and landscaping operations would be completed as quickly as possible. In the event construction activities occur during the rainy season (October 15 to March 15) additional erosion and sedimentation control measures are necessary to ensure construction impacts are minimized. Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-19 DES/mm-2 Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the RWQCB or SWRCB for approval a Notice of Intent and SWPPP in accordance with the requirements of the State General Order related to construction projects. The SWPPP shall identify the selected stormwater management procedures, pollution control technologies; spill response procedures, and other means that will be used to minimize erosion and sediment production and the release of pollutants to surface water during construction. Compliance will be verified by the project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. A copy of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo for approval. The stormwater pollution prevention plan would typically include but not be limited to: 1. Installation of appropriate erosion control devices (i.e., hay bales, silt fences) around the perimeter of each construction zone and areas experiencing ground disturbance. 2. Protection of all storm drains and gutters leading to drainage and wetland areas by installation of erosion control measures. 3. All erosion control devices shall be checked and repaired (if needed) on a regular basis and after all significant storm events to ensure proper function. 4. All cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles shall be done outside of the vicinities of existing drainages and associated wetland habitat. 5. Planning for accidental spills or other releases and maintenance of proper equipment, 6. Worker training shall occur to ensure all construction personnel are familiar with the SWPPP and are properly trained to handle small spills. 7. Installation of filtration devices, designed to remove oil, grease, and other potential pollutants from stormwater runoff for all project site storm drains leading to the roadside drainage channel and San Luis Obispo Creek. 2) Project Operations After construction is completed, significant impacts on water quality from the project are not expected to occur, since its design is consistent with other commercial developments in the area. The use of an open channel to convey runoff along Los Osos Valley Road may have a small beneficial effect on water quality as the channel will accumulate sediment from the adjacent areas, and some water pollutants will be absorbed on sediment particles. Most fine particles, however, will be carried along with runoff, and these fine sediment particles carry most water pollutants with them. While the improvement may not be large, it should help to prevent the project from having significant water quality impacts. The Visual Resources section of this EIR recommends construction of the rdetention basin as a bioswale, which will reduce the amount of pollutants entering the watershed from the parking lot of the proposed Costco. Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-20 6. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to runoff from this project and development of other projects in the area were evaluated by Questa Engineering Corporation by modeling the changes in runoff volumes at the discharge points of Prefumo Creek and Froom Creek into the culverts under US 101. In this manner, the analysis considered the specific projects identified along Los Osos Valley Road, as well as the future buildout of the area consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations. Because of the existing pattern of drainage—the fact that there is a diversion of flood water between the Froom Creek and Prefumo Creek basins during high rainfall—the analysis by Questa Engineering is necessarily theoretical and based upon specific assumptions. These include the following: xIncreases in runoff in accordance with the conversion of vacant land to developed uses following the pattern of uses designated in the City General Plan. These are reflected in higher SCS Runoff Curve numbers used in the analysis of post- development conditions. xNo design of detention within the Lower Prefumo Creek basin. This would avoid adding to the Laguna Lake peak discharge. xMovement of most or all of the flood water from the Froom Tributary area (including the project area and adjacent developments) into the Prefumo Creek drainage over Los Osos Valley Road under the current conditions. xCompletion of improvements—extension of the trapezoidal channel along Los Osos Valley Road and on-site detention as proposed—that will prevent Froom Tributary water from overtopping Los Osos Valley Road and entering the Prefumo Creek drainage. With these assumptions, the results of the Questa Engineering analysis is summarized with the following points: 1. In the Froom Creek drainage, the increase in peak runoff from the Froom Tributary area (above), combined with other General Plan buildout uses would increase peak flows from 6 to 7%. For example, in a 25-year storm, the peak flow in Froom Creek at US 101 would increase from 28.5 to 30.5 m3/sec, and in a 100-year storm the increase would be from 39.7 to 42.3 m3/sec. These results assume no detention designs within projects. 2. With no mitigation, in the Prefumo Creek discharge at US 101, the projected cumulative increases would be on the order of 2-3%. In a 25-year storm, the increase would be from 51.2 to 52.4 m3/sec, and in a 100-year storm the increase would be from 70.8 to 72.5 m3/sec. 3. If the buildout condition improvements solve the Froom Tributary drainage problem along Los Osos Valley Road by keeping all of the runoff within the Froom Creek watershed, then there will be a significant improvement or reduction of flooding potential in the Prefumo Creek channel. At the same time, there may be an increase in peak flows in Froom Creek at US 101, since that culvert would have to carry Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-21 waters that formerly spilled into the Prefumo Creek Channel. This impact assumes that the ultimate drainage designs would not divert floodwaters from the Froom Creek to the Prefumo Creek drainages. These cumulative impacts can be partly mitigated by the use of on-site detention within appropriate projects as proposed. The net effect at the Froom Creek culvert under US 101 could be significant, however, because of the routing of all of the Froom Tributary water to this point. DES/Impact 3 Projects within the area could create a potentially significant cumulative impact due to increased flows in the Froom Creek channel at US 101. This impact would be considered significant (Class I). This contribution to the cumulative impact at the Froom Creek culvert under U.S. 101 would be an indirect effect resulting from correcting the drainage deficiencies that currently allow some of the Froom Creek tributary flows to divert to the Prefumo Creek system. The Costco project includes the required peak flow detention, and does not have any improvements that would alter flows across LOVR. The Costco project contribution to this cumulative impact is, therefore, insignificant. Regarding the potential cumulative increase in flows within the Froom Creek channel at US 101, additional analysis is required to characterize this impact and to define appropriate mitigation. The analysis should account for all increases in runoff from future buildout, and for any changes in downstream tailwater within San Luis Obispo Creek that may occur due to other improvements within that system. Appropriate tailwater elevations in SLO Creek at the outlet of the culvert, taken from the WMP on the NAVD 1988 vertical datum are as follows: For the 100 year flood event, 31.15 m (102 ft.); for the 50-year event, 31.04 m (101.84 ft.); for the 25-year event, 30.89 m (101.35 ft.); for the 10-year event, 30.62 m (100.45 ft.) (Questa Engineering Corp., 2002). The Froom Creek Channel should be capable of handling the full flow of both the Froom Creek Basin and the Froom Tributary basin at the City’s adopted design level (25-year flow event for this sized drainage area) or another appropriate design level as required by the California Department of Transportation. Responsibility for this analysis has not been established and as a result, this impact cannot be mitigated to insignificance. The new City/Zone 9 Drainage Design Manual (DDM, Questa, 2002) provides for imposition of a Drainage Impact Fee on new development projects that create adverse hydrological impacts. The Drainage Impact Fee can only be used to pay for drainage improvements made necessary by the hydrologic impacts of a project. DES/mm-3 The applicant shall participate in their “fair share” of any mitigation fee established by the City of San Luis Obispo to be used to pay for drainage improvements made necessary by cumulative project development. If the City of San Luis Obispo does not incorporate the analysis within this project or another activity underway by the City, or identify another agency with responsibility for the analysis, then this would remain as a significant, Class I impact. Possible alternatives include the Costco / Froom Ranch Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-22 following: rebuild Froom Creek/101 culvert; re-configure SLO Creek Channel; and divert Froom tributary to Prefumo Creek by including designs in the widening of LOVR. These alternatives are discussed in Section V.I, Alternatives of this EIR. DES/Impact 4 A less than significant increase in cumulative flows could occur in the Lower Prefumo creek area due to cumulative buildout without designing on-site detention in projects in this area. No mitigation of this cumulative effect is warranted, since an increase in runoff detention here would likely contribute to peak flows coming from Laguna Lake. 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-23 C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The purpose of this section is to review the botanical and wildlife resources of Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 5 (study area) to determine whether sensitive plant or animal species or natural communities are present. Impacts of the proposed and future developments have been evaluated and mitigation measures recommended where appropriate. This section incorporates the findings of several surveys and documents prepared for the study area and adjacent properties. The biological sections of these documents are hereby incorporated by reference and are listed below. xFinal Environmental Impact Report Madonna General Plan Amendment, prepared by Morro Group, Inc., 1989. xDeVaul Ranch Planned Development Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared by cea Environmental Consultants, 1998. xBotanical Survey of the Froom Ranch 50 Acre Project Site, prepared by V. L. Holland, Ph.D., 1994. xMadonna/Eagle Hardware Wetland Delineation Report (Waters of the U.S. Study), prepared by Morro Group, Inc., April 28, 1998. xMadonna/Eagle Hardware EIR, prepared by Morro Group, Inc. 1998. xCostco’s Congdon’s Tarplant Mitigation Plan, prepared by Morro Group, Inc. 2001 (see Appendix BD). xSupplemental Wetland Assessment For Costco San Luis Obispo Wholesale Warehouse Site. prepared by IBIS Associates, 2001, for Kleinfelder Inc. (see Appendix CE) 1. Existing Conditions The four parcels surveyed are located at the southeastern end of the Los Osos Valley, and consist of generally level, agriculturally disturbed field dominated by annual grass species (refer to Figure V-5). Existing vegetation on the parcels consists of annual grassland, seasonal wetlands, and ruderal areas, with no trees or large shrubs present. No natural drainages, rock outcrops, or other potentially sensitive features are present in the study area. The Irish Hills and an associated Sensitive Resource Area (SRA) are located directly to the southwest of the study area. The parcels are bordered by the DeVaul Ranch Planned Development to the northwest, the recently constructed Home Depot to the southeast, and by Los Osos Valley Road to the northeast. A man-made drainage channel parallels Los Osos Valley Road along the northeastern portions of Parcels 1 and 3. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-24 2. Methods As stated previously, numerous biological surveys and studies have been conducted on and immediately adjacent to the study area. The results of these studies were thoroughly reviewed, and additional field surveys were conducted as part of Morro Group’s analysis of biological impacts during preparation of the EIR. Biological evaluation efforts are described below. Prior to performing field surveys, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2002) and the California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI 2002) entries for the San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle were searched. The CDFG sensitive plant and animal lists (CDFG 2002) were concurrently reviewed. These databases/lists contain records of reported occurrences of sensitive resources including: (1) federal- and state-listed endangered or threatened species, (2) federal and state species of special concern, (3) rare and/or endangered plants as specified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS Lists 1A, 1B, and 2), and (4) sensitive vegetation communities. The California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (Tibor 2001) was also reviewed to provide information on rare plants that were expected to occur in the area. Vegetation/habitat types were classified based on CDFG’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (R. Holland 1986). Utilizing the results of the literature review and previous experience on and adjacent to the site, Morro Group conducted focused surveys for sensitive plant and animal species identified as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project. For each sensitive species, habitat requirements were determined and compared with the habitats present on the site. Onsite habitat quality and known geographic distribution of individual species were considered in evaluating the likelihood of sensitive plant and animal species’ occurrence within or in close proximity to the study area. Recent biological surveys were conducted by Morro Group on July 16, 2002. Previous biological surveys of the study area were performed on July 1998, (Morro Group, Inc. 1989) and on June 5, 2001 (refer to Appendix BD). One special-status plant species, Congdon’s tarplant, was observed on the property during the surveys. One special-status bird was identified as seasonally present in the study area, and suitable foraging habitat for several additional special- status bird species is present. A wetland assessment was performed on Parcel 2 of the study area by IBIS Associates on April 20, 2001. Their report is attached to this EIR as Appendix CE. The assessment followed standard methods and procedures as contained in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. The assessment did not identify wetland hydrology, wetland vegetation, or hydric soils in Parcel 2, and therefore concluded that no wetland habitat is present within the Costco Parcel. Biological assessments conducted by Morro Group, Inc. of the study area, and analysis of aerial photographs (February 2000, San Luis Obispo County) taken prior to existing road improvements also found no indication of wetland habitats in Parcels I 1 and 2 or along Los Osos Valley Road adjacent to the site. The southern portion of Parcel 3 contains 2.25 acres of seasonal wetlands as identified by the Corps for the Home Depot project. Proposed Iimpacts to wetland areas in Parcel 3 have been mitigated by the project applicant property owner off-site per Corps requirements. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-26 3. Natural Communities Biological surveys of the study area found three natural communities present: annual grassland, seasonal freshwater marsh, and ruderal/disturbed areas (refer to Figure V-5). Parcels 1 and 2 are dominated by annual grassland, with ruderal habitat present along the eastern edge of Parcel 1. The western portion of Parcel 3 was graded during Home Depot construction, but still contains small areas of ruderal habitat along its eastern edge. The southeastern portion of Parcel 3 contains an area of seasonal freshwater marsh. Parcel 5 consists of annual grassland and ruderal areas associated with the historic Froom Ranch buildings. Annual grassland and seasonal freshwater marsh habitats of the area have been impacted by a variety of agricultural practices, including cattle grazing. Ruderal areas are the result of grading, road construction, ranch operations, and utility installation activities. No trees or large shrubs are present in undeveloped portions of the study area. a. Annual Grassland The annual grasslands of the study area are dominated by annual, introduced species of common grasses, with a mixture of annual and perennial native forbs. This habitat type is typically found on seasonally dry hillsides and valleys containing deep, fine-grained soils. Annual grassland is the dominant vegetative community present on Parcels 1, 3 and 5, and covers approximately 30 acres. These parcels show evidence of extensive, long-term agricultural and grazing activity, which has altered species composition and diversity of the grassland areas. Dominant plant species present include soft chess brome (Bromus mollis), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus rubens), wild oats (Avena fatua), slender wild oats (Avena barbata), foxtail (Hordeum leporinum), wild rye (Lolium multiflorum), rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros), filaree (Erodium spp.), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), California buttercup (Ranunculus californicus), bur clover (Medicago hispida), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), prickly sow-thistle (Sonchus asper), common sow-thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), and prickly ox-tongue (Picris echioides). Annual grasslands can provide important habitat features for a variety of wildlife species. Raptors, such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaciensis), white-tailed kite (Elanus caeruleus), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius), often utilize open grassland areas for foraging purposes, while species such as western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) use grassland areas for nesting. Reptiles commonly found within annual grassland habitats include western fence lizard (Sceloporous occidentalis), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), and western rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis). Mammals potentially present in annual grassland habitats in the study area include deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani). In addition, various species of bat including Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii) and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) could nocturnally forage within these areas. b. Seasonal Freshwater Marsh Seasonal freshwater marsh wetland communities typically occur in nutrient-rich mineral soils that are saturated throughout much of the year. These communities are found in locations containing slow-moving or stagnant shallow water, and a high water table. Such sites commonly Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-27 occur around springs, seeps, and in depressional areas that accumulate runoff from surrounding areas. Standing water does not have to be present throughout the entire year, since the water table is so close to the soil surface that it can be tapped in the dry season by hydrophytic (water loving) plants. As documented in the waters of the U.S. study performed for the Eagle Hardware Project, (Morro Group Inc. 1989), the approximately 2.25-acre seasonal wetland area on Parcel 3 is dominated by aquatic and semi-aquatic herbaceous plants, and intergrades with the grassland and ruderal communities also present on the project site. The seasonal wetland areas remaining on Parcel 3 contain a mixture of annual and perennial plants, and include many obligate wetland species. Dominant species observed on the site include spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), field sedge (Carex praegracilis), beardless wild rye (Elymus triticoides), California barley (Hordeum californicum), marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle verticillata), slender rush (Juncus tenuis), brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus), toad rush (Juncus bufonis), curly and willow dock (Rumex crispus and R. salicifolius), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), lanceleaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and marsh clover (Trifolium wormskjoldii). The seasonal wetland area remnants on Parcel 3 provide low quality habitat values, and perform limited functions as a result of long-term agricultural disturbance and recent construction of the adjacent Home Depot. Wildlife uses in seasonal wetland areas will be similar to adjacent annual grassland and ruderal areas. c. Ruderal/Disturbed Habitat Ruderal habitat is found in areas that have been significantly disturbed by agriculture, construction, or other land clearing activities. Ruderal/disturbed habitat occurs on the eastern edge of Parcels 1 and 3, along the constructed drainage ditch and Los Osos Valley Road. Ruderal habitat covers approximately 0.9 acres of Parcel 1, and approximately 0.5 acres of Parcel 3. Characteristic uncultivated species present in disturbed habitats of the study area include summer mustard, wild radish (Raphanus sativa), Russian thistle (Salsola iberica), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), prickly wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis). Ruderal areas provide transitory habitat for many common wildlife species accustomed to human disturbance. 4. Special-status Species For the purposes of this document, the term “special status” refers to all plant and animal taxa meeting the criteria for rare, threatened, endangered, candidate, and other categories of special interest. Rare, threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species are defined as follows: xSpecies listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act, and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species); xCandidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act; xSpecies listed by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-28 Other special-status species are species that have “special-status” designations other than state or federal listing, proposed listing, or candidate status. Special-status designations indicate species rarity, population declines, or threats to populations that may warrant special consideration or protection. For purposes of this document, other special-status species include the following: xFederal species of concern (former federal category 2 candidates); xSpecies designated sensitive by the BLM; xAnimals designated by CDFG as species of special concern; xAnimal species fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]. xPlants listed under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq); and xPlants considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (Species included on Lists 1B and 2 in CNPS, 2001). a. Special-status Plants Based on information obtained by the review of existing literature and a search of the CNDDB, a total of 12 special-status plant species were identified as potentially occurring within the vicinity of the proposed Costco project. This includes 1 federal- and/or state-listed threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, or proposed endangered plant species, and 11 non-listed sensitive species (CNPS List 1B, 4, and state and federal species of concern). Table V-2 identifies the name and legal status of these species. Of these species, only Congdon’s tarplant was observed in the study area. Specific information for each potentially occurring species is presented below in Table V-2. 1) Club-haired mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus) Club-haired mariposa lily is a perennial herb of the lily family. It is generally found growing on serpentinite, clay or rocky substrates in chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grasslands. It is a California endemic which has a blooming period of May-June. Club-haired mariposa lily is considered a plant of limited distribution by the CNPS (List 4, 1-1-3 R-E-D). It is found along the California Central Coast from San Benito County to Los Angeles County. There are 7 occurrences noted in San Luis Obispo County, with most occurrences found in the Santa Lucia Mountains. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. 2) San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis) San Luis mariposa lily is a perennial, herbaceous member of the lily family that is endemic to San Luis Obispo County, ranging from Cuesta Pass, south to Arroyo Grande. The San Luis mariposa lily is known from chaparral, coastal scrub, grassland, and freshwater seep habitats of dry, serpentine soils. This species blooms from May to July. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) considers this species very rare (List 1B, 2-2-3 R-E-D, see Table 1 for legend). The Cal Flora Occurrence Database catalogs 48 historical occurrences of this species, with the majority located on west Cuesta Ridge, Reservoir Canyon, upper Stenner Creek, and upper Chorro Creek. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-29 Table V-2 Sensitive Plant Species Scientific Name Common Name Legal Status Federal/State/CNPS/R-E-D Calochortus clavatus var. clavatus club-haired mariposa lily --/--/4/1-1-3 Calochortus obispoensis San Luis mariposa lily --/--/1B/2-2-3 Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis Cambria morning-glory --/--/1B/3-2-3 *Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon’s tarplant --/--/1B/3-3-3 Chorizanthe breweri Brewer’s spineflower --/--/1B/3-1-3 Cirsium fontinale var. obispoensis Chorro Creek bog thistle FE/SE/1B/3-2-3 Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina San Luis Obispo dudleya --/--/1B/2-1-3 Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae Blochman’s dudleya --/--/1B/2-3-2 Layia jonesii Jones’s layia --/--/1B/3-2-3 Lomatium parvifolium small-leaved lomatium --/--/4/1-2-3 Perideridia gairdneri ssp. gairdneri Gairdner’s yampah --/--/4/1-2-3 Sanicula maritima adobe sanicle --/--/1B/3-3-3 Plant Codes State and Federal: FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened SE: State Endangered ST: State Threatened SR: State Rare CSC: California Special Concern species P: protected by CDFG * Observed on-site California Native Plant Society (CNPS): List 1B = rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 4 = plants of limited distribution CNPS Rare-Endangerment-Distribution: Rare: 1) rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction is low at this time; 2) distributed in a limited number of occurrences, occasionally more if each occurrence is small; 3) distributed in one to several highly restricted occurrences, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. Endangerment: 1) not endangered; 2) endangered in a portion of its range; 3) endangered throughout a portion of its range. Distribution: 1) more or less widespread outside California; 2) rare outside California; 3) endemic to California. 3) Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis) Cambria morning glory is an perennial herb in the Convolvulaceae family. It is a California and a San Luis Obispo County endemic which is known from chaparral and foothill woodland plant communities. This species blooms from April to May. Cambria morning glory is listed as rare by the CNPS (List 1B, 3-2-3 R-E-D code). The Cal Flora Occurrence Database catalogs 6 historical occurrences of this species with the majority located in the Chorro Valley. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. 4) Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) Congdon’s tarplant occurs primarily within valley and foothill annual grassland habitats containing alkaline soils (Tibor, 2001). This annual herb typically blooms from June through November. In San Luis Obispo County, this species has been documented as occurring in low valleys located just west of the City of San Luis Obispo (Hoover, 1970), and on disturbed, sparsely vegetated low-lying portions of the Froom Ranch (Morro Group, 1998, 2001). The Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-30 species is included on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B: plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere, and has an R-E-D (Rare-Endangerment- Distribution) code of 3-3-3. Althought Congdon’s tarplant has no state or federal status, the species is regulated under CEQA. Occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant were found in three locations within the study area (refer to Figure V-5). Survey dates and results are presented in Table V-3 below. Table V-3 Congdon’s Tarplant Survey Results Survey Date Occurrence #1 Number/Acreage Occurrence #2 Number/Acreage Occurrence #3 Number/Acreage 2002 150-175/0.36 0/0.0 25/0.46 2001 150-200/0.36 2/0.01 0/0 1998 30/0.06 8/0.01 0/0 Occurrence #1 is an approximately 450-foot long, 35-foot wide area in Parcel 2 that parallels the Home Depot property boundary (refer to Figure V-5). Occurrence #2 consisted of a small depressional area caused by water erosion located at the southwestern property boundary of Parcel 2. This population appears to have been extirpated due to hydrologic changes resulting from grading on the adjacent DeVaul property. Occurrence #3 is located along the south side of Los Osos Valley Road and on the banks of the roadside drainage ditch in Parcels 1 and 3. 5) Brewer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri) Brewer’s spineflower is a member of the buckwheat family, and is endemic to San Luis Obispo County. It is generally found growing on serpentinite, rock or gravely substrates within closed- cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, or coastal scrub plant communities. It is an annual herb with a blooming period from May through August. The Cal Flora Occurrence Database catalogs 20 historical occurrences of this species within San Luis Obispo County. The CNPS considers this plant rare in California (List 1B, 3-1-3- R-E-D). This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. 6) Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoensis) The Chorro Creek bog thistle, a San Luis Obispo County endemic, occurs primarily in association with serpentine seeps located in chaparral and cismontane woodland communities. This fairly tall (to 6.5 feet) perennial herb flowers primarily from February to July. The CNPS considers this species as extremely rare (List 1B, 3-2-3 R-E-D). It is listed as both state and federally endangered, and is regulated under CEQA, and by the USFWS and CDFG. Chorro Creek bog thistle is mapped by the CNDDB and Cal Flora as primarily occurring along Prefumo Creek, San Simeon Creek, upper Pennington Creek, and Chorro Creek. Fugro (1995) reports occurrences of this species from Laguna Lake and from Froom Creek. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-31 7) San Luis Obispo dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina) San Luis Obispo is a perennial herb in the Crassulaceae family. This dudleya flowers from May to June, and is a serpentine endemic to California that is typically found in chaparral and foothill woodland habitats. The CNPS considers this species to be rare (List 1B, 2-1-3 R-E-D). Cal Flora catalogs 10 historical occurrences of this species, with most from Cuesta Park (north San Luis Obispo City), and a single occurrence on Cerro San Luis in 1950. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. 8) Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. blochmaniae) Blochman’s dudleya is a perennial herb in the Crassulaceae family. It is a California endemic that is known from valley grassland, coastal sage scrub and rocky areas often with clay or serpentinite substrates. It blooms from April to June. Blochman’s dudleya is considered rare by the CNPS (List 1B, 2-3-3 R-E-D code). The Cal Flora Occurrence Database catalogs 7 historical occurrences of this species within the county, with the majority located in the Chorro Valley. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. 9) Jones’s layia (Layia jonesii) Jones’s layia is an annual herb that is found on serpentine or clay-based chaparral and valley grassland habitats. Within San Luis Obispo County, this species is known to range primarily from the Cayucos area south to San Luis Obispo. It is a California endemic, with flowering generally occurring in March to May. Jones’s layia is federally listed as Species of Concern, and CNPS considers this species extremely rare (List 1B, 3-2-3 R-E-D). The Cal Flora Occurrence Database catalogs 31 historical occurrences of this species within San Luis Obispo County. This species was not found on the subject property. 10) Small-leaved lomatium (Lomatium parvifolium) Small-leaved lomatium is a perennial herb of the carrot family which grows in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Luis Obispo Counties. It generally grows on serpentinite substrate within closed- cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal scrub or riparian woodland plant communities. It has a blooming period from January through June. The CNPS considers this plant to have a limited distribution (List 4, 1-2-3 R-E-D). The Cal Flora Occurrence Database catalogs 12 historical occurrences of this species within San Luis Obispo County. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. 11) Gairdner’s yampah (Perideridia gairdneri) Gairdner’s yampah is a perennial herb of the carrot family which grows in the coastal counties of California from Mendocino County to San Diego County. It is found generally growing in broadleaved upland forests, chaparral, coastal prairie, vernal pools, valley and foothill woodland plant communities. It has a blooming period from June through October. The CNPS considers this plant to have a limited distribution (List 4, 1-2-3 R-E-D). The Cal Flora Occurrence Database catalogs 2 historical occurrences of this species within San Luis Obispo County. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-32 12) Adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima) Adobe sanicle is a San Luis Obispo County endemic. This species is restricted to highly localized, seasonally wet areas located near the coast, and is generally found in association with grassland communities. Within these areas, adobe sanicle occurs primarily on serpentine- derived soils or soils with a high clay content (Tibor, 2001). It is documented as occurring on low hills and valleys located west of San Luis Obispo, and near the base of Cerro Romauldo (NDDB, Hoover, 1970). The typical flowering period for this perennial herb is March through May. The Cal Flora Occurrence Database catalogs 22 historical occurrences of this species within San Luis Obispo County. This species was not found on the subject property during field surveys. b. Special-status Wildlife Based on information obtained by the review of existing literature, a search of the CNDDB, and analysis of the habitat types present, a total of 6 special-status animal species were identified as potentially occurring within the study area. Table V-4 identifies the name and legal status of these species. One of these species was observed in the study area on a seasonal basis. Specific information for each potentially occurring species is presented below. Table V-4 Sensitive Animal Species Scientific Name Common Name Legal Status Federal/State/Other Circus cyaneus marsh hawk (=northern harrier) --/CSC/MBTA Athene cunicularia burrowing owl --/CSC/MBTA Falco mexicanus prairie falcon --/CSC/MBTA *Numenius americanus long-billed curlew FSC/CSC/MBTA Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike --/CSC/MBTA Eremophila alpestris California horned lark --/CSC/MBTA Wildlife Codes: FE: Federally Endangered FT: Federally Threatened FSC: Federal Special Concern Species SE: State Endangered ST: State Threatened CSC: California Species of Concern P: Protected by CDFG MBTA: Migratory Bird Treaty Act * observed on-site 1) Marsh hawk (also known as northern harrier) (Circus cyaneus) Marsh hawk are a common transient and winter visitor within much of San Luis Obispo County. This species nests on the ground near freshwater and salt marshes. Open areas, such as grasslands and coastal scrub, provide foraging habitat for this species. It is unlikely that this species nests within the study area, however, suitable foraging habitat occurs in the vicinity in association with annual grassland habitats. This species is a California Species of Special Concern (CSC) and thus is regulated under CEQA. This species was not observed nesting or foraging on the site during field surveys. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-33 2) Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) Burrowing owl are found in grasslands and sparsely vegetated woodland and scrub habitat throughout California. Burrowing owls often nest in abandoned ground squirrel burrows that overlook suitable forage areas. Typical prey items include insects, small mammals, birds, reptiles, and carrion. The project site contains suitable burrowing owl foraging habitat, but does not contain nesting habitat. The species may be present in surrounding, higher elevation areas. This species is a California Species of Special Concern (CSC) and thus is regulated under CEQA. This species was not observed nesting or foraging on the site during field surveys. 3) Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) Prairie falcon frequent open habitats, including grasslands. The species nests on cliffs or in rock crevices in areas facing open habitat. Prairie falcon nests are very sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season. Typical prey items include small mammals, and birds taken in the air. The project site is within the breeding range of this species; however no prairie falcons were observed. Because no steep rock faces are present on the project site, the site would be considered an unlikely nesting location. The area does provide suitable foraging habitat for the species. This species is a California Species of Special Concern (CSC) and thus is regulated under CEQA. This species was not observed nesting or foraging on the site during field surveys. 4) Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Long-billed curlew is a winter visitor and breeder which is uncommon to locally very common during the spring and fall. The species frequents tidal mudflats, estuaries, saltwater marshes, grasslands and agricultural fields with short grass. It is a common visitor to San Luis Obispo County where it can be seen in large flocks foraging in grasslands and fallow agricultural fields. This species is a Federal Species of Concern (FSC), and a California Species of Special Concern (CSC). Long-billed curlew has been observed foraging on the proposed project site during fall and winter months. 5) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Loggerhead shrike inhabit lowlands and foothills throughout most of California. This species is considered a common resident of most of San Luis Obispo County. Preferred habitats for loggerhead shrike include woodland, chaparral, coastal scrub, and grassland with perches such as fences, posts, and scattered trees. Suitable foraging habitat for this species is present in the project vicinity. This species is a California Species of Special Concern (CSC) and thus is regulated under CEQA. This species was not observed nesting or foraging on the site during field surveys. 6) California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris) California horned lark is a common resident, spring and fall transient, and locally abundant winter visitor from mid-October to early February. They can be found occupying desert scrub, grasslands, agricultural fields and sagebrush flats. They are widespread throughout California in suitable habitat, including in San Luis Obispo County. This species is a California Species of Special Concern (CSC) and thus is regulated under CEQA. This species was not observed nesting or foraging on the site during field surveys. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-34 5. Regulatory Setting a. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and its provisions ensure that federally permitted activities comply with the federal Clean Water Act and state water quality laws. Section 401 is implemented through a review process that is conducted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and is triggered by the Section 404 permitting process. The RWQCB certifies via the 401 process that a proposed project complies with applicable effluent limitations, water quality standards, and other conditions of California law. Evaluating the effects of the proposed project on both water quality and quantity (runoff) falls under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. b. United States Endangered Species Act of 1973 The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) provides legislation to protect federally listed plant and animal species. Impacts to listed species resulting from the implementation of a project would require the responsible agency or individual to formally consult with the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service to determine the extent of impact to a particular species. If the USFWS or NMFS determines that impacts to a species would likely occur, alternatives and measures to avoid or reduce impacts must be identified. Indirect effects to sensitive species associated with Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek may potentially occur due to erosion or sedimentation during construction of the proposed project. c. California Endangered Species Act The State of California Endangered Species Act (CESA) ensures legal protection for plants listed as rare or endangered, and species of wildlife formally listed as endangered or threatened. The state also lists “Species of Special Concern” based on limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. Under state law, the CDFG is empowered to review projects for their potential to impact state-listed species and Species of Special Concern, and their habitats. Impacts to state-listed species would be evaluated and identification of mitigation measures would likely be required. The proposed project will not directly affect any state listed species. However, indirect effects on state-listed species associated with Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek may potentially occur during construction of the project. d. Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code The CDFG is responsible for conserving, protecting, and managing California's fish, wildlife, and native plant resources. To meet this responsibility, the law requires any person, state or local government agency, or public utility proposing a project that may impact a river, stream, or lake to notify the CDFG before beginning the project. If the CDFG determines that the project may adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement is required. A Streambed Alteration Agreement lists the CDFG conditions of approval relative to the proposed project, and serves as an agreement between an applicant and the CDFG for a term of not more than five years for the performance of activities subject to this section. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-35 e. Other Sections of the Fish and Game Code Fully Protected and Protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or the CDFG. Information on these species can be found within section 3511 (birds), section 4700 (mammals), section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and section 5515 (fish) of the Fish and Game Code. Relative to the proposed project, provisions of this code affect nesting and migratory birds. f. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects all migratory birds, including their eggs, nests, and feathers. The MBTA was originally drafted to put an end to the commercial trade in bird feathers popular in the latter part of the 1800’s. In the scope of this document, the MBTA protects the burrowing owl, long-billed curlew, marsh hawk (or northern harrier), California horned lark, prairie falcon, and loggerhead shrike. The MBTA is enforced by the USFWS, and potential impacts to species protected under the MBTA are evaluated by the USFWS in consultation with the Corps during 404 review. g. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was enacted by the California Legislature in 1970 to provide a system of checks and balances for land use, development, and management decisions for projects approved by public agencies. CEQA applies to all California government agencies, and requires a lead agency to analyze the potential environmental effects of proposed projects under its jurisdiction. CEQA grants public agencies the authority to require feasible changes in proposed projects to lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts. CEQA also provides a regulatory basis for protection of sensitive species and habitats not addressed under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, and establishes a framework for impact assessment and mitigation requirement determination by the lead agency for a proposed project. Proposed impacts to Congdon’s tarplant must be addressed under CEQA guidelines. h. Local Policies and Regulations The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan contains policies requiring protection of special-status plant and animal species. These local jurisdictional policy requirements pertaining to biological resource issues will be satisfied through incorporation of the project mitigation measures presented in this document. Refer to Section IV for consistency with local plans and policies. 6. Thresholds of Significance Impacts to biological resources within the study area have been evaluated by determining the sensitivity, significance, or rarity of each resource that will be adversely affected by the proposed project, and thresholds of significance have been applied to determine if the impact constitutes a significant impact. The significance threshold may be different for each habitat or species and is based on the resource’s rarity or sensitivity and the level of impact that would result from the proposed project. Guidance for determining significance thresholds is based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and local/regional general plans and ordinances. Using these guidelines, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would: Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-36 xSubstantially affect a rare or endangered species xHave a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community xHave a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act xInterfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory species of wildlife or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors xConflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources xConflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan xReduce the long term viability of native plant, fish or wildlife populations xReduce species diversity or numbers of species xIntroduce invasive plant or animal species 7. Impact Assessment and Methodology This impact assessment focuses on identifying potential project-related impacts associated with implementation of the project, and is based on details presented within the project description (refer to Section III). Potential impacts are expected to occur where proposed construction or development activities would result in temporary or permanent modification of sensitive communities or habitats occupied by special-status species. Where potential project-related impacts to sensitive resources have been identified, measures for avoiding or minimizing adverse effects to these resources have been recommended. a. Vegetation Approximately 22 acres of annual grasslands will be permanently impacted as a result of proposed construction on Parcels 1 and 2. Several additional acres could be impacted by drainage channel construction on Parcel 5. Proposed construction will completely eliminate the existing populations of Congdon’s tarplant on Parcels 1, 2, and 3. Impacts to tarplant occurrences will be permanent, and will require mitigation under CEQA to reduce them to a level of insignificance. A Congdon’s Tarplant Mitigation Plan for the proposed project has been completed (refer to Appendix BD). b. Wildlife The proposed project has potential to result in indirect impacts to terrestrial wildlife species that utilize the project site as foraging habitat, and to aquatic species present downstream of the site. One of the sensitive species identified in Table 2 (long-billed curlew) has been observed on the proposed project site, and the remaining five species have potential to utilize the proposed site seasonally or year-round for foraging and breeding. Direct take of terrestrial or aquatic species is not expected: however, permanent loss of terrestrial wildlife habitat will result from construction of the proposed project. No direct impacts to wetlands or aquatic habitat will result from the proposed project. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-37 8. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures General construction activities associated with all phases of project implementation have potential to directly impact a special-status plant species, and indirectly impact terrestrial and aquatic resources present within and adjacent to the study area. The following mitigation measures are proposed for the project. BR/Impact-1 Approximately 200 Congdon’s tarplant will be removed by project construction within the study area. Construction on Parcels 1, 2, and 3 will eliminate the identified occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant present in the study area. Proposed impacts to tarplant habitat areas will be permanent, and will require mitigation to reduce them to a level of insignificance. A mitigation plan for the proposed impacts has been prepared, and should be implemented prior to start of construction in the study area. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II) BR/mm-1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall implement the Congdon’s Tarplant Mitigation Plan as presented in Appendix BD. Compliance will be verified by the project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. BR- Impact-2 Approximately 22 acres of annual grassland habitat will be removed by project implementation. Construction of the project will eliminate all annual grassland habitat present in Parcels 1 and 2. Proposed impacts to annual grassland habitat areas will be permanent, and are locally cumulatively significant. (Note that Home Depot grassland loss of 17.5 acres plus the 22 acres from Costco totals 39.5 acres of a locally cumulative impact). Mitigation for the loss of grassland habitat was accomplished under County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 2001-221, which approved and accepted an Open Space Agreement on 111.78 acres on the hillside above Parcels 1-4 (refer to Appendix DF). This open space dedication was required as a condition of Parcel Map approval for the Home Depot (Parcel 4) project that also includes Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 5 on the subject property. This equates to a greater than 3:1 replacement for loss of grassland that will be kept for open space uses. Although it is off-site, out-of-kind mitigation, the open space parcel is adjacent to the subject property and is predominantly grassland habitat. No further mitigation is required. To eliminate the stark boundary of development with open space, Parcel 5, located between the open space and planned development, is recommended to be converted to a conservation easement and landscaped with native vegetation as stated in the Visual Resources mitigation VR/mm-11. BR- Impact-3 Construction and operation of the project has potential to indirectly impact aquatic habitats located downstream from the site. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-38 If construction activities occur at any time during the normal rainy season (typically October- April), sediment could enter the adjacent drainage channel located along Los Osos Valley Road, and flow east into Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek. If sediment enters either of these creeks, degradation of associated aquatic habitat and potential impacts to waters of the U.S. could occur. Disturbance of any area that qualifies as waters of the U.S. as a result of project construction would be considered a significant adverse impact. Use, maintenance, or staging of construction equipment in areas near the adjacent drainage could also increase the risk of fuel spills or leaks into sensitive habitats. These potential impacts would be considered significant, but could be greatly minimized or avoided through implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The impervious surface of the proposed parking lot and fueling facility will cause an increase in pollutant quantity in stormwater runoff from the project site. These pollutants have the potential to adversely impact the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed by entering the detention facility and continuing on to San Luis Obispo Creek via a proposed underground culvert. Construction of the detention facility the proposed culvert along the southeastern property line as an open bioretention area with an underdrain in lieu of a closed culvert will reduce the impact of increased stormwater pollution and reduce potential fueling facility spill pollutants to insignificance. As stated by the EPA Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet, bioretention uses soils and plants to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. …runoff is conveyed as sheet flow to the treatment area, which consists of a grass buffer strip, sand bed, ponding area, organic layer or mulch layer, planting soil, and plants. Runoff passes first over or through a sand bed, which slows the runoff’s velocity, distributes it evenly along the length of the ponding area, which consists of a surface organic layer and/or ground cover and the underlying planting soil (EPA Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet). Below is an example of a bioretention area without inclusion of an underdrain. A bioswale/ is a low-gradient, open channel partially covered with vegetation that would reduce the project’s water quality impacts to San Luis Obispo Creek by reducing the peak rate and total volume of stormwater runoff and reducing the total amount of suspended solids and pollutants in stormwater runoff. A bioswale allows suspended solids to settle out by passing particulates and associated pollutants through above ground plant cover over an open channel. Pollutants are then incorporated into Source: www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biortn.pdf Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-39 the soil where they are immobilized or decomposed by plants and microbes. This system improves the quality of the runoff through sedimentation, filtration, absorption, and vegetative uptake and it creates an area with almost constant water flow that when planted with a variety of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, can uptake nutrients, heavy metals, and organics from the soil. The bioswale could be designed in the same approximate location as the proposed retention basin, with the potential to incorporate the Home Depot retention basin to create an aesthetically pleasing background to the developments. The bioswale retention area would directly reduce impacts to water quality, wastewater, and drainage while improving biological diversity onsite and creating a natural-appearing buffer between the Costco and adjacent commercial development and the Irish Hills open space area. The bioswale could be designed to accommodate additional flows in the event the Irish Hills area adjacent to the proposed project were to be developed in the future. In addition, oil-water separators would be installed at all drainage outlet locations from the project site. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). BR/mm-2: Prior to and during construction, the applicant shall implement erosion and spill control best management practices as presented in the Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation section of this EIR, and in the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Compliance will be verified by the project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. BR/mm-3a:At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans for construction of a bioswale bioretention area (as described by the EPA Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet-Bioretention [www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biortn.pdf],) in lieu of the proposed retention basin.closed culvert adjacent to the fueling facility and along the southeastern property line to the driveway access point from Froom Ranch Drive, in addition to installation of oil-water separators at all site drainage outlet locations. The bioretention area shall: 1. Be adequately vegetated with appropriate plant species and constructed with proper soils to ensure adequate operation. 2. Become part of the landscape plan and maintained as necessary including periodic removal of trash, weeds, and debris. 3. Shall be designed to include an underdrain within the sand bed to collect the infiltrated water and discharge to the open swale along LOVR in order to not allow infiltration into the groundwater basin. BR/mm-3b At the time of application for construction permits for Parcel 1,the front parcel applicant shall install a bioretention area along the southeastern property line as described in BR/mm-3a. BR- Impact-4 Construction and operation of the project has potential to indirectly impact foraging raptors and nesting birds. Costco / Froom Ranch Biological Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-40 BR/mm-4:At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall provide for raptor perches; within the vicinity of the bioswale(two in the secondary mitigation replacement area) and design at least two nesting boxes for owls on, or in the vicinity of the Costco building such as along the rear property line bordering the Irish Hills open space area. 9. Cumulative Impacts Construction of the proposed project would result in a loss of approximately 22 acres of annual grassland, and approximately 1.4 acres of ruderal/disturbed areas. These areas contain Congdon’s tarplant and provide potential foraging/nesting habitat for sensitive bird species. Removal of annual grassland habitats on the proposed project site will also reduce the amount of foraging and breeding habitat for other non-sensitive mammals, birds and reptiles. When the proposed removal of annual grassland habitat is added to recent losses of similar habitats in the vicinity of the study area, the combined loss constitutes a significant cumulative impact within the surrounding area. Costco / Froom Ranch Cultural Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-41 D. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES The following Cultural and Historic Resources section is derived from the Heritage Discoveries Cultural Resources Survey, 2002 (refer to Appendix E).Additional Cultural and Historical surveys have been conducted near the proposed site and for the adjacent Froom Ranch Property. These surveys are as follows: Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey of the Froom Ranch Property on Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo County, California. October, 1993. Prepared by Robert O. Gibson, Archaeologist, for Central Coast Engineering. xHistorical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex. March 14, 1998. Prepared by Betsy Bertrando of Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants, for Central Coast Engineering. xCultural Resources Survey for the Costco / Froom Ranch EIR, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. May 29, 2002. Prepared by Thor Conway of Heritage Discoveries Inc. The purpose of the archaeological surface survey was to determine whether any archaeological/cultural resources were present within a 33-acre area, and if so, to map their extent based on surface examination to determine the nature and significance on a preliminary level of any archaeological or cultural resources discovered. Because of the sensitive nature of the cultural resources, detailed cultural resources information is considered confidential. Confidential reports are on file with the City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department. Local evidence of paleontological remains has been found in the project vicinity and these cultural resources have the potential to exist on the project site (Refer to Section X, Letter 16). 1. Existing Conditions a. Pre-Historic Resources The project site is within the territory historically occupied by the Obispeno Chumash, the northernmost Chumashian speaking peoples of California (Gibson, 1990; Greenwood, 1978; Kroeber, 1953). Through archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic evidence, Chumash People have been identified in San Luis Obispo County for more than 9,000 years. Chumashian peoples have adapted to the changing environmental and social conditions and are now a large complex society. Aboriginal society began to disintegrate soon after Spanish contact in 1769 A.D., primarily due to the introduction of epidemic European diseases and the consequent high mortality rate. The project area is located within the historic La Laguna or Laguna Rancho. The Laguna Rancho was originally a part of the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa lands. After many Costco / Froom Ranch Cultural Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-42 grants, sales, and claims a portion of the property was acquired by the Froom family in 1904. A dairy has been on the property since the 1850s. Currently, no one lives on the ranch and the owner of the ranch has been using the property for storage. The L-shaped 33-acre area consists mainly of a lower flat agriculture field bounded on the east by Los Osos Valley Road. Grazed permanent pasture, weeds, and grasses vary from sparse to moderate cover over the surface of the site. Soil is a reddish brown to gray clayey silty soil with sub angular clasts of volcanic rock. The archaeological surface survey, completed by Gibson (1993), was conducted by one archaeologist zigzagging back and forth over the project area examining the surface for any signs of archaeological/cultural materials (including seashell fragments, stone tools and fragments, stone flakes, bone, burnt rock, etc.) or historic cultural materials (including square nails, purple glass, etc.). The survey also examined the areas around the old barns for any signs of prehistoric or historic cultural materials. No prehistoric cultural materials were noted anywhere on the 33-acre are. No springs, rock outcrops or concentrations of other useful natural resources were noted in the area surveyed. b. Historic Resources In the vicinity of the project is the Froom Ranch complex, which is a pending California historic site (CA-SLO-number pending). The Froom Ranch complex was addressed in the Madonna/Eagle Hardware and Garden EIR and will not be discussed here because no impacts to the historic ranch complex are expected to occur. A historic site evaluation did not yield any historic resources (Bertrando 1998). 2. Project Impacts a. Prehistoric Resources No prehistoric cultural materials were found during the surface survey. Based on the surface survey and records search, the project is not likely to have significant adverse impacts on pre- historic cultural resources. b. Historic Resources No historic cultural materials were found during the surface survey. No historic buildings are found on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. The historic Froom Ranch found is found south of the proposed Costco site and will not be affected by the proposed project. Possible impacts to the historic Froom Ranch complex were addressed in the Madonna/Eagle Hardware and Garden EIR, which was immediately adjacent to the historic ranch. Costco / Froom Ranch Cultural Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-43 3. Regulatory Setting a. Local Policies and Regulations The City of San Luis Obispo requires protection of archaeological resources to the greatest extent feasible, as contained in the City Land Use Element, Section 6.6 – Community Heritage Policies; applicable sections are as follows: A. The City shall provide for the protection of both known and potential archaeological resources. To avoid development on important archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of fee interest or development rights, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such measures are not feasible and development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources, adequate mitigation shall be required. F. Where substantial archaeological resources are discovered during construction or other activities, all activities shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Chumash culture can determine the significance of the resource and recommend mitigation measures. 4. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures No known cultural resource sites are located in the vicinity of the project. Unknown cultural resources have the potential to be disturbed during grading activities. CR-Impact 1 Project activities have the potential to unearth subsurface cultural, paleontological, or historical material. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). CR/mm-1 During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archaeologist/historian approved by the City. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the Environmental Coordinator. Salvage or mitigation excavations would be outlined in the mitigation plan as required. CR/mm-2 During initial vegetation removal, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be onsite to inspect the disturbed area for prehistoric and historic artifacts. A Local Native American Monitor shall be invited to participate in the on-site inspection. If artifacts are found, CR/mm-1 shall apply. CR/mm-3 During construction, if the project limits change to extend beyond the previously surveyed locations additional archaeological surveys shall be completed by a qualified archeologist. CR/mm-4 During initial vegetation removal, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be onsite to inspect the disturbed area for paleontological remains. The monitor shall have authority to divert grading and construction equipment Costco / Froom Ranch Cultural Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-44 away from exposed fossils temporarily in order to recover the fossil specimens. 5. Cumulative Impacts The project site is not considered a significant historical resource nor are any archaeological resources known to exist on-site. In the event archaeological resources are found during project construction, mitigation measures listed above shall apply and cumulative effects of surrounding construction on archeological resources shall be evaluated. 6. Significant Unavoidable Impacts The information from onsite surveys and literature reviews indicate that although no known cultural resources are present, cultural remains potentially exist on the property. The project, as mitigated, would prevent or reduce unavoidable impacts to unknown cultural remains. 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-45 E. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION TRANSPORTATION This section of the EIR documents the traffic related impacts associated with the development of commercial retail uses on a 31.56- acre site on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) in San Luis Obispo, California. The project will include a Costco store warehouse with a fueling facility and additional commercial retail uses on two adjacent parcels that front LOVR adjacent to the project (Froom parcels). The location of the project site is shown with respect to the local road network on Figure III-2 (refer to page III-3). Several studies have been conducted in the project area to address general circulation concerns as well as project related impacts to the local road network, traffic signals, public transit, and pedestrian facilities. A draft traffic study was prepared for the proposed project in 2000 that analyzed the potential impacts associated with the development of the Costco store warehouse (Kimley-Horn, 2000). This section updates the Kimley-Horn study and includes expanded analysis of the two front parcels located adjacent to the Costco/Home Depot sites and known cumulative development in the area. The proposed project will generate additional vehicle trips, and therefore, has the potential to impact traffic levels on the local street network. Project trip generation associated with the project will be most significant during the weekday PM and Saturday periods. This study evaluates weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour traffic conditions at the following intersections: 1. LOVR/Madonna Road; 2. LOVR/Garcia Drive; 3. LOVR/Auto Park Way; 4. LOVR/Calle Joaquin; 5. LOVR/Southbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp; 6. LOVR/ Northbound U.S. 101 Ramps; 7. LOVR/Higuera Street; 8. Higuera Street /Vachell Lane; and 9. LOVR/Home Depot/Costco Main Driveway Project related impacts were assessed by anticipating development in two phases, with the Costco development first, and the full build-out of the front parcels as a second phase. Operating conditions at the study intersections were evaluated for the following four (4) conditions: xExisting Plus Approved Projects (Background); xBackground Plus Costco Project (Project); xProject Plus Adjacent Froom Parcels (Total Project All Froom Parcels); xTotal Project Plus 10-Year Cumulative Buildout (10-Year Cumulative). This section provides the results of project analyses and also recommends mitigation to improve existing deficient conditions, impacts from approved projects, specific, project-related impacts, Froom Parcels development impacts and 10-year cumulative impacts. Traffic count information Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-46 from several sources, including the City of San Luis Obispo, Associated Transportation Engineers, Kimley-Horn and Associates, and Higgins Associates was compiled and reviewed to assess background and project related traffic volumes within the study area. Traffic count technical information is provided in Appendix G. 1. Environmental Setting a. Existing Conditions 1) Road Network The project is located on the southwest side of LOVR, west of U.S. 101. Key roadways providing access to the site are LOVR, Madonna Road and Higuera Street. The traffic analysis uses an east-west orientation for LOVR and a north-south orientation for Madonna Road, Calle Joaquin, Garcia Drive, Auto Park Way, U.S. 101, Higuera Street and the project access driveways. These roadways and other key roadways in the area are described below. U.S. 101 provides regional access to the north and south of San Luis Obispo. This four-lane facility provides a vital link within the City as well as to most of the cities and towns in San Luis Obispo County. Los Osos Valley Road is a variable lane parkway arterial between Madonna Road and Higuera Street extending northwest to the community of Los Osos. Two travel lanes are provided in front of the project site between Madonna Road and Auto Park Way. Three lanes, one eastbound and two westbound, are provided between Auto Park Way and Calle Joaquin and four travel lanes are provided between Calle Joaquin and the U.S. 101 interchange. Between the LOVR U.S. 101 south interchange and Higuera Street, one travel lane is provided in each direction. Madonna Road is a primary arterial with four travel lanes near the intersection with LOVR and six lanes near Madonna Plaza and U.S. 101. Signalized intersections control traffic at the major cross street intersections. Garcia Drive provides local access to a residential neighborhood and Pacific Beach School. Auto Park Way provides access to several commercially developed parcels located on the north side of LOVR. Calle Joaquin provides access to commercial development including the McBride development adjacent to U.S. 101, north of LOVR. South Higuera Street is a north-south arterial that extends from U.S. 101 south of LOVR to the downtown area of San Luis Obispo. Higuera Street is four-lanes wide north of LOVR with turn lanes provided at intersections. Vachell Lane is a two-lane County road that extends between Higuera Street and Buckley Road. Development along this roadway is primarily commercial service and industrial. Vachell Lane Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-47 intersects Higuera Street at an acute angel creating a poor turning radius for right turn movements from northbound Higuera Street to southbound Vachell Lane, particularly for trucks. Descriptions of existing road conditions as well as existing weekday P.M peak hour (Plate 1a) and Saturday peak hour volumes (Plate 1b) at the nine study intersections within the project vicinity are provided in Appendix G. The Background condition discussed in this section includes the existing traffic condition with inclusion of approved known development. 2) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Sidewalks are currently provided on LOVR in the vicinity of the intersection with Madonna Road, on the northeast side of LOVR across the frontage of the existing commercial development located between Auto Park Way and Calle Joaquin and on LOVR across the frontage of the residential development located west of Higuera Street. Sidewalks are also provided on Auto Park Way, Calle Joaquin north of LOVR, Higuera Street north of LOVR and for a short distance south of LOVR and on the east side of Vachell Lane along the frontage of existing developed parcels. The highest pedestrian crossing activity in the study area occurs at the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection. Class II Bikeways (striped bike lanes located adjacent to the outside vehicle lane) are currently provided on LOVR, Madonna Road north of LOVR and on Higuera Street north of LOVR. 3) Transit Service San Luis Obispo Transit provides local bus service within San Luis Obispo city limits and to Cal Poly. Service is provided Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m – 6:00 p.m., except for the following holidays; New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Routes have limited operation on Saturdays from 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Service is not available on Sundays. Routes 2, 4, 5 and 6, provide the nearest transit service to the project site. The project site is served on weekdays by Route 4 and on weekends, Route 5 provides service between the downtown area, Cal Poly and Auto Park Way via Madonna Road. On weekdays, service is provided on 33 minute headways and on weekends, service is provided on 68 minute headways. Route 2 provides service from southbound Higuera Street to westbound LOVR to northbound U.S. 101 and Route 6 provides service from southbound U.S. 101 to eastbound LOVR to northbound Higuera Street. b. Levels of Service Evaluation Freeway segment levels of service were calculated using technical procedures documented in the 2000 HCM using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program. Existing U.S. 101 segment levels of service north and south of LOVR are shown on Exhibit A in Appendix G. U.S. 101 currently operates at levels of service within acceptable operating limits for the freeway. Intersections were evaluated using technical procedures documented in the 2000 HCM, and are based upon the average vehicular control delay at the intersection. Control delay at intersections Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-48 reflects not only the stopped time, but also the time to slow down, accelerate and travel at reduced speeds in queues. The HCS program includes technical procedures that show the impact on the major street as the result of an adjacent signalized intersection to be considered in the level of service calculations. The average delay is correlated to a level of service rating, as shown in the following table for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Intersection operations are evaluated based on their “Level of Service” (LOS) rating, shown on an "A" to "F" scale with "A" representing excellent or free flow operations and "F" representing forced flow and severely congested conditions, as shown in Table V-5 below. Table V-5 Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle Control Delay Per Vehicle (seconds)Level of Service Signalized Unsignalized A-Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in single cycle 0-10 0-10 B-Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in single cycle >10-20 <10-15 C-Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches >20-35 <15-25 D-Congestion on critical approaches, intersection functional; vehicles wait through more than one cycle during short peaks; no long-standing lines >35-55 <25-35 E-Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements >55-80 <35-50 F-Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations >80 <50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board 2000. For signalized intersections, average control delay per vehicle is utilized to define intersection level of service. Delay is dependent on a number of factors including the signal cycle length, the roadway capacity (number of travel lanes) on each intersection approach and the traffic demand. For two-way stop controlled intersections, wait time of yielding vehicles is analyzed. The level of service for vehicle movements on these controlled approaches is based on the distribution of gaps in the major street traffic stream as well as driver judgment in selecting gaps. For this study, LOS F operation of the overall intersection operations that exceed Level of Service D is the threshold warranting improvements at unsignalized intersections. Table V-6, below shows the Levels of Service for all development scenarios analyzed in the following sections. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h T r a f f i c / C i r c u l a t i o n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 4 9 Ta b l e V - 6 De l a y a n d L e v e l o f S e r v i c e F o r A l l P r o j e c t C o n d i t i o n s Ba c k g r o u n d C o n d i t i o n (A p p r o v e d P r o j e c t s ) Pr o j e c t C o n d i t i o n (B a c k g r o u n d p l u s C o s t c o ) To t a l P r oj e c t Fr o o m Pa r c e l s C o n d i t i o n (B a c k g r o u n d p l u s C o s t c o pl u s f r o n t t w o Fr o o m pa r c e l s ) Te n - Y e a r C u m u l a t i v e Co n d i t i o n (A p p r o v e d p l u s C o s t c o pl u s f r o n t p a r c e l s p l u s 1 0 - ye a r d e v e l o p m e n t ) *p r e v i o u s m i t i g a t i o n i n c l u d e d PM S A T P M S A T P M S A T P M S A T In t e r s e c t i o n De l a y L O S D e l a y L O S De l a y LO S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S D e l a y L O S LO V R / M a d o n n a R o a d 3 5 . 9 D 2 6 . 8 C 4 1 . 4 D 3 0 . 3 C 4 6 . 6 D 3 4 . 7 C 5 6 . 3 E 4 8 . 6 D OV E R A L L 0 . 5 A 0 . 5 A 0 . 8 A 0 . 8 A 1 . 2 A 1 . 4 A 3 . 4 A 4 . 0 A LO V R / G a r c i a Dr i v e So u t h Ap p r o a c h 35 . 4 D 3 1 . 2 D 6 6 . 7 F 5 6 . 2 F 1 0 2 . 5 F 9 6 . 6 F 2 9 7 . 6 F 2 7 4 . 7 F OV E R A L L 2 . 9 A 1 . 1 A 5 . 1 B 1 . 8 A 8 . 4 B 2 . 7 A 1 1 . 8 B 1 1 . 6 B LO V R / A u t o Pa r k W a y So u t h Ap p r o a c h 46 . 6 E 2 4 . 4 C 9 3 . 8 F 5 1 . 4 F 1 7 1 . 8 F 8 6 . 8 F N / a N / a N / a N / a OV E R A L L 1 . 9 A 1 . 2 A 2 . 4 A 2 . 0 A 3 . 3 A 2 . 9 A 2 2 . 0 C 9 4 . 8 F LO V R / C a l l e Jo a q u i n So u t h Ap p r o a c h 32 . 2 D 1 4 . 5 B 4 7 . 6 E 4 9 . 7 E 7 7 . 4 F 8 4 . 8 F N/ a N / a N / a N / a LO V R / U . S . 1 0 1 S o u t h O f f - ra m p 45 . 9 D 2 5 . 0 C 8 0 . 1 F 6 4 . 0 E 1 2 2 . 3 F 1 2 2 . 1 F 3 4 . 0 C 1 5 3 . 8 F LO V R / U . S . 1 0 1 N o r t h Ra m p s 39 . 2 D 1 8 . 8 B 5 8 . 4 E 3 2 . 1 C 8 5 . 3 F 5 0 . 7 D 1 6 . 8 B 2 2 . 2 C LO V R H i g u e r a S t r e e t 1 5 . 1 B 1 0 . 1 B 1 6 . 8 B 1 1 . 1 B 1 9 . 1 B 1 2 . 0 B 2 6 . 0 C 1 3 . 5 B OV E R A L L > 5 5 . 5 F 9 . 8 B > 5 3 . 9 F 1 2 . 2 C 5 0 5 . 8 F 2 6 . 0 D 0 . 7 A 0 . 2 A Hi g u e r a St r e e t / V a c h e l l La n e We s t Ap p r o a c h ~ F 8 8 . 6 F ~ F 1 3 4 . 3 F ~ F 4 4 9 . 6 F 1 8 . 8 C 1 5 . 5 C LO V R / M a i n P r o j e c t Dr i v e w a y 7. 4 A 1 0 . 6 B 1 3 . 6 B 2 4 . 3 C 2 5 . 6 C 6 8 . 6 E 3 1 . 8 C 4 8 . 5 D So u r c e : H i g g i n s A s s o c i a t e s ~ D e l a y E x c e e d s 1 0 0 0 s e c o n d s Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-50 c. Background Condition (Existing Plus Approved Projects) Several new City and County development projects in the vicinity of the proposed project are approved and are either under construction or planned for construction in the near future. These projects will add new trips to the road network. This condition evaluates the impact to traffic operations on the local road network resulting from projects that have been approved for development. Traffic from the approved projects is estimated and then added to existing traffic volumes to establish total traffic with the approved projects developed, or the Background Condition. Although not all of the approved projects are currently developed, this Background Condition is used to analyze the actual impacts the proposed project will have on the local road network with incorporation of known development. 1) Programmed Road Improvements LOVR is being has been widened in conjunction with the development of the Home Depot store and the DeVaul development, resulting in six travel lanes on LOVR across the frontage of the project site and four travel lanes east of the project site to U.S. 101. The LOVR/Home Depot Driveway intersection will be is signalized. Improvements to of the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection is also planned that will add include a second eastbound through lane, a westbound right turn lane and change in the phasing of the northbound and southbound Madonna Road approaches to protected left turn phasing from the existing split phasing. These improvements have been incorporated into the level of service calculations for the Background Condition. 2) Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment Trip generation rates from the City of San Luis Obispo and the Institute of Transportation Engineers were utilized to estimate the trips that will be generated by the approved projects with the exception of the trip generation rates for the City Sports Field Complex, which were obtained from a traffic study for a similar facility in Gilroy, California (Fehr and Peers, 1999). The approved projects will generate an estimated 29,364 weekday daily trips with 2,992 trips generated during the weekday PM peak hour. On Saturday, the approved projects will generate 34,873 daily trips with 3,529 trips generated during the peak hour. Table V-7 identifies estimated traffic volumes for all approved projects, and the project locations are shown on Exhibit B in Appendix G. The trip assignments for approved projects were added to the existing traffic volumes to achieve Existing Plus Approved Projects (Background Condition) traffic volumes. Pass-by trip calculations and trip assignment percentages are shown on Exhibit D, in Appendix G. Background Condition weekday PM peak hour volumes and Saturday peak hour volumes at the study intersections are shown on Plates V-2a and V-2b. 3) Levels of Service (Background Condition) U.S. 101 levels of service remain within acceptable operating limits of the freeway for the Background Condition and are shown on Exhibit A (refer to Appendix G). Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-51 Intersection levels of service for the Background Condition were calculated using the Synchro software program with incorporation of programmed road improvements and the results are shown on Table V-6 and calculations are shown in Appendix G. Table V-7 Background Condition Trip Generation Number of Trips AM PM (Weekday)SAT Project*Land Use Peak hour Daily Peak hour Daily 2. Froom Ranch Home Impr. Superstore 192 373 4,557 702 5,937 5-6. DeVaul Ranch Sin. Fam./Dplx./Apt. 263 340 3378 293 3162 10. Wayrick Office Commercial/Office 75 72 486 20 105 10a. Trader Joes-G Grocery 65 231 2,230 245 3,552 10a. Trader Joes-R Restaurant 14 16 196 30 238 11. T.K Infill Service Commercial 62 227 2,514 319 3,435 12. Tract 1750 Residential 41 55 517 51 545 13. Goldenrod Residential 34 45 431 42 454 14. Fuller Rd. Subdivision Residential 20 27 258 25 272 15. Quaglino Mixed 1 Residential-Apts. 8 10 106 7 80 15. Quaglino Mixed 2 Commercial 52 189 2,095 266 2,863 18. Autozone Retail Auto Parts 11 30 310 42 433 19. Stickler Project Retail Commercial 39 142 1,572 199 2,147 21. Rockview/Broad St. Residential 11 15 144 14 151 23. City Sports Field Complex Sports Fields 20 160 400 232 580 24. Cannon 1 Office 136 155 1,145 43 249 24. Cannon 2 Gas/market/carwash 128 158 1,834 222 2,568 25. 4101 Broad St. Service Commercial 139 541 5,854 750 7,828 26. Aerovista Drive Industrial 30 32 229 5 43 29. Aerovista Dr./Broad St. Commercial/Industrial 161 172 1,220 25 231 *-# Correlates with Exhibit B, Appendix G TOTAL 1,527 2,992 29,473 3,529 34,873 Source: City of San Luis Obispo/Higgins Associates The traffic associated with approved development will increase vehicle queues at the U.S. 101/LOVR interchange. The capacity provided for westbound traffic on LOVR approaching the southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp intersection is not sufficient under the existing design and signal timing to serve westbound vehicle demand during the weekday PM peak hour. The queue will extend through and disrupt operations at the northbound LOVR/U.S. 101 ramp intersection. Signal coordination will improve operations at the LOVR/South U.S. 101 intersection, shown in the level of service results in Table V-8, below. However, the vehicle demand for westbound LOVR traffic at the southbound ramps intersection will exceed the capacity provided on LOVR. Since westbound LOVR traffic will be metered by the LOVR/North U.S. 101 ramp intersection, the average queue extending on westbound LOVR from the intersection at the southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp will be about 890 feet, or just to the intersection at the northbound U.S. 101 ramps. #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 18 5 6 53 83 1271 113 164 896 62 77 12 1 92 9 10 0 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 95 9 55 8 0 809 0 22 40 17 3 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 1032 241 762 236 44 4 18 3 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 17 1 13 26 7 1212 264 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 709 449 20 22 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 67 8 15 0 25 8 14 12 54 10 3 42 93 205 75 63 53 923 1273 1329 1202 159 457 15 17 37 592 946 1000 1066 40 49 10 7 11 1 US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr AutoParkWay PLATE V-2a EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 86 6 28 26 853 247 91 790 126 11 9 21 2 87 6 84 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 74 0 21 7 797 15 16 16 3 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 601 113 617 187 46 2 18 1 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 23 5 16 19 6 895 168 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 576 481 35 32 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 30 4 11 1 21 4 9 19 33 60 43 68 217 47 66 75 607 925 1067 1090 110 343 3 25 48 577 897 977 989 33 38 10 8 10 9 MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd AutoParkWay PLATE V-2b EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS SATURDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-54 Table V-8 Background LOVR Ramp Intersection Level of Service With Coordination PM Peak Hour W/O Coord. W/Coord. Intersection Control Type Delay LOS Delay LOS LOVR/ U.S. 101 South Off-ramp Signal 45.9 D 34.6 C LOVR/ U.S. 101 North Ramps Signal 39.2 D 37.7 D Saturday Peak Hour W/O Coord. W/Coord. Intersection Control Type Delay LOS Delay LOS LOVR/ U.S. 101 South Off-ramp Signal 25.0 C 24.4 C LOVR/ U.S. 101 North Ramps Signal 18.8 B 20.9 C Source: Higgins Associates 2. Regulatory Setting The Circulation Element and Land Use Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan specify planning standards for traffic and circulation issues. The proposed commercial development will be required to meet those standards as provided in Section IV of this EIR. Generally, the proposed project will be required to meet the required number of parking spaces and access improvements specified by the City of San Luis Obispo. 3. Thresholds of Significance In June 2000, the City Public Works Department established “Traffic Impact Study Preparation Guidelines”. As part of those guidelines, the following thresholds were established for determining impact significance: a. Intersection and Roadway Impacts Level of service “D” is the peak hour design objective for all intersections movements outside of the Downtown area as defined in the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan. An impact would occur at an intersection under the following conditions: 1. The addition of project traffic to a signalized intersection exceeds the thresholds provided in Table V-9. TABLE V-9 Signalized Intersection Thresholds of Significance Threshold Criteria Guidelines Based on Projected Trips Generated from the Project Pre-project Level of Service Per Lane Peak Hour Trips Added to Critical Movements Peak Hour Trip Generation Peak Hour Trips Entering a Critical Intersection C >45 150-540 90-180 D >15 50-180 30-60 E >10 30-120 20-40 F >5 15-60 10-20 Source: Higgins Associates Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-55 2. The project’s access to a major street requires an access that would increase an unsafe situation, require a new traffic signal, and/or major revisions to an existing traffic signal. 3. The project adds traffic to a street with design features (e.g., narrow width, roadside ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, and inadequate pavement structure) that may cause potential safety problems with the addition of Project traffic. 4. The addition of project-plus-cumulative traffic to a signalized intersection increases the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio by the thresholds shown above in Table V-9. 5. If the thresholds provided in Table V-9 are exceeded, the developer may be required to construct improvements or implement other methods to reduce the level of impact to insignificance. The Thresholds of Significance identified in Table V-9 assume full contribution towards the Traffic mitigation Fee Fund. 6. The addition of project, or project plus cumulative, traffic to an unsignalized intersection increases the level of service to an unacceptable level. The Highway Capacity Manual shall be used to determine the level of service at unsignalized intersections. Caltrans seeks to maintain operations at the cusp of the LOS C/D range on State highway facilities. However, Caltrans recognizes that it may not always be feasible to maintain LOS C/D operations, particularly in urban areas. Caltrans has indicated that LOS D operation is an acceptable level of service threshold for the U.S. 101/LOVR interchange. LOS D was used in this study as the maximum acceptable operating condition on U.S. 101 and at the U.S. 101/LOVR interchange, which includes the LOVR intersections with the southbound and northbound U.S. 101 ramps. b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts When a project adds traffic to a roadway or intersection that lacks pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic signals, and bike lanes, the project’s impact to pedestrians and bicycles are considered significant. Projects that generate pedestrian and bicycle traffic are considered to create significant impacts if adequate and safe facilities are not provided by the project. c. Transit Impacts An impact to transit is significant if a project causes substantial congestion and increases vehicle delay on roadways that would require a change in the bus headways to maintain adequate service. Impacts to transit service are considered significant if a project generates potential transit riders and does not provide adequate facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists to access transit routes and stops to the extent feasible. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-56 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology a. General Methodology Traffic impacts were assessed by conducting traffic studies at the project site and reviewing past traffic studies of similar projects as well as previous traffic studies in the affected area. Level of service calculations were performed by Higgins Associates based on technical procedures documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The Synchro software program and the Highway Capacity Software Program were utilized to calculate levels of service estimates for the signalized and unsignalized intersections. The Highway Capacity Software program was also used to calculate levels of service for U.S. 101 segments north and south of LOVR. b. Project Combinations for Evaluation of Impacts The following section is divided into three development scenarios with required impact and mitigation measures correlated with each particular scenario. All development scenarios include traffic impacts of the approved projects shown on Table V-7, or a Background setting. The first scenario is the Background Plus Costco Project (Project), which analyzes the impact of development of the Costco store warehouse only. Second, development of the front two parcels is analyzed as the Project Plus Adjacent Froom Parcels (Total Project All Froom Parcels). Finally, the 10-year cumulative estimate is analyzed by combining the Total Project Approved Projects, Costco, and Froom Parcels with anticipated development in the area that will occur in the next ten years. This condition is called Total Project Plus 10-Year Cumulative Buildout (10- Year Cumulative). c. Impact Analysis This analysis evaluates the impact of the project to traffic operations on the local road network. Project traffic is added to Background Condition traffic volumes to establish total traffic with the project developed. Approved projects, although not yet impacting traffic volumes, are included as existing conditions in this analysis to give an accurate assessment of the project’s impact on the local road network. The proposed project consists of the development of a Costco store warehouse with service station and other commercial retail uses on two adjacent parcels. For this study, the two adjacent parcels (Froom Parcels) were assumed with the following uses: Commercial Retail (Strip Commercial) – 131,000 square feet* High Turnover Sitdown Restaurant – 6,000 square feet* Fast Food Restaurant – 3,000 square feet* *Additional analysis may be necessary if land uses proposed on the front two parcels significantly exceed size and traffic generation assumptions. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-57 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures-Costco Only In this section, Pproject impacts are analyzed in two stages separately with only the Costco store warehouse analyzed as the Project in the first stage and the Costco plus front two Froom parcels analyzed as the second stage by combining the front parcel development with approved projects and the Costco project. a. Intersection and Roadway Impacts (Costco only) 1) Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment The trip generation rates and trip generation estimate for the project are shown on Table V-10 below. To establish an estimate of the vehicle trip generation for this project, trip generation rates documented in a traffic study for a Costco project with a service station in Ada County, Idaho were utilized. Use of the trip generation rates published in the Ada County study result in slightly higher trip generation estimates than would be achieved using trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for independent discount store and service station uses. Use of the published Costco rates is recommended for this analysis because these rates reflect actual trip generation conditions at existing Costco store warehouses with service stations. The Costco project will generate an estimated 9,402 trips per weekday and 11,226 trips on Saturday. On weekdays, the Costco project will generate an estimated 870 trips during the PM peak hour. On Saturday, the project will generate 1,349 trips during the peak hour, which usually occurs near the noon hour. The trip generation rates and trip generation estimate for the project are shown on Exhibit C (refer to Appendix G). Table V-10 Costco Project Trip Generation Condition Number of Trips Weekday PM Peak Hour 870 Daily 9,402 Saturday Peak Hour 1,349 Daily 11,226 Source: Higgins Associates Not all trips generated by the proposed project will be new trips added to the road network. Some trips will be captured from existing traffic flows on LOVR, estimated from the City’s traffic impact guidelines regarding pass-by trip rates (refer to Exhibit C, Appendix G). The City does not publish pass-by capture rates for the Saturday peak hour. For the Saturday peak hour, the capture rate was reduced from 30% (weekday PM peak hour) to 20%. A lower capture rate was utilized for Saturday because the store warehouse’s significance as a primary trip attractor is expected to increase on weekends. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-58 It is anticipated that the Costco store warehouse will attract patrons from throughout San Luis Obispo County. To establish a trip distribution pattern for the proposed project, trip distribution patterns documented in traffic study prepared for the Home Depot (Eagle Hardware) project and the initial Costco traffic study prepared by Kimley-Horn were reviewed. In addition, the city- wide traffic forecasting model was utilized to analyze the distribution of traffic generated in the Traffic Analysis Zone containing the Costco store warehouse. The following trip distribution pattern was utilized to assign project trips to the local road network: Distribution Pattern Weekday Weekend To/From the North via Madonna Road 15% 13% To/From the West via LOVR 15% 13% To/From the North via U.S. 101 25% 27% To/From the South via U.S. 101 15% 20% To/From the North via Higuera Street 25% 22% To/From the East Vachell Lane/Buckley Road 2% 2% To/From the North via Auto Park Way 1% 1% To/From the North via Garcia Drive 1% 1% To/From the South via Madonna Road 1% 1% For the weekday PM peak hour, 15% of the project traffic was assigned to U.S. 101 to the south of LOVR. For the weekend analysis, this percentage was increased to 20% to reflect an increased regional significance in the trip distribution pattern of the Costco store warehouse on weekends. The assignment of peak hour trips generated by the Costco project to the study intersections is shown on Plates V-3a and V-3b. The Costco trip assignments combined with the Background Condition traffic volumes to show the actual traffic volumes that will occur are shown on Plates V-4a and V-4b. The turning volumes shown on Plates V-4a and V-4b for the LOVR/Main Project Driveway are the total volumes generated by the Costco and Home Depot stores. The project will be accessed via four driveways to LOVR. All turning movements between LOVR and the Main Driveway will be allowed at the LOVR/Main Driveway intersection and only right turns in and right turns out will be allowed at the other project driveway intersections with LOVR. Therefore, inbound traffic from eastbound LOVR and outbound traffic to eastbound LOVR will have several driveway alternatives for accessing LOVR. Plate V-5 shows the LOVR corridor volumes at the driveways that will serve the project site, with the volumes for the easterly two driveways consolidated into one driveway. Level of service calculations for the LOVR/Main Project Driveway are based on the volumes shown on Plate V-5. 2) U.S. 101 Segment Levels of service With Costco project traffic volumes added to Background traffic volumes, the freeway segment levels of service on U.S. 101 north and south of LOVR remain unchanged from Background Conditions (refer to Appendix G, Exhibit A). The Costco store warehouse will not significantly impact U.S. 101 segments north and south of LOVR. #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 74 0 0 -76 262 6 -63 172 19 1 26 1 79 6 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 80 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 80 0 85 79 44 0 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 74 0 0 124 0 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 164 47 0 0 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 0 0 44 0 3 3 0 0 0 47 3 0 0 46 96 198 198 3 0030 44 91 211 211 0 0 0 3 US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr AutoParkWay PLATE V-3A COSTCO STORE PM PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 11 5 0 0 -70 417 11 -65 244 25 8 43 0 12 2 11 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 12 6 0 133 0 0 0 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 126 0 133 150 10 5 0 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 14 2 0 0 231 0 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 283 111 0 0 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 0 0 69 0 5 5 0 0 0 72 5 0 0 72 149 373 373 5 0050 69 143 394 394 0 0 0 5 MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd AutoParkWay PLATE V-3b COSTCO STORE SATURDAY PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 19 3 0 53 83 1195 375 170 833 234 26 8 38 2 10 0 8 10 6 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 10 3 9 55 8 0 894 0 22 40 17 3 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 1112 241 847 315 48 8 18 3 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 24 5 13 26 7 1336 264 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 873 496 20 22 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 67 8 15 0 30 2 14 15 57 10 3 42 93 252 78 63 53 969 1369 1527 1400 162 457 15 20 37 636 1037 1211 1277 40 49 10 7 11 4 US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr AutoParkWay PLATE V-4a EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS COSTCO STORE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 98 1 28 26 783 664 102 725 370 37 7 64 2 99 8 95 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 86 6 21 7 930 15 16 16 3 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 727 113 750 337 56 7 18 1 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 37 7 16 19 6 1126 168 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 859 592 35 32 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 30 4 11 1 28 3 9 24 38 60 43 68 289 52 66 75 679 1074 1440 1463 115 343 3 30 48 646 1040 1371 1383 33 38 10 8 11 4 MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd AutoParkWay PLATE V-4b EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS COSTCO STORE SATURDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates EXISTING + APPROVED + COSTCO PROJECT PM 1463 1195 1570 1570 375 1009 925 1093 1139 59 140 23 12 57 26 8 19 1 57 76 EXISTING + APPROVED + COSTCO PROJECT SATURDAY 1160 783 1447 1447 664 1003 877 1161 1239 93 222 37 19 96 37 7 32 1 96 12 8 EXISTING + APPROVED + TOTAL PROJECT PM 1575 1131 1753 1753 622 1077 938 1209 1283 97 232 39 19 93 44 4 31 0 93 12 4 EXISTING + APPROVED + TOTAL PROJECT SATURDAY 1264 705 1693 1693 988 1080 881 1295 1408 142 341 57 28 14 1 55 9 47 1 14 1 18 8 10-YEAR CUMULATIVE PM 20 0 10 30 6 304 1742 1098 2024 2024 622 163 1182 880 1457 1531 97 232 39 19 93 44 4 10 31 0 93 12 4 10-YEAR CUMULATIVE SATURDAY 22 1 10 45 0 496 1447 667 2151 2151 988 231 1298 868 1732 1845 142 341 57 28 14 1 55 9 10 47 1 14 1 18 8 We s t D v w y We s t D v w y We s t D v w y We s t D v w y We s t D v w y We s t D v w y Ma i n D v w y Ma i n D v w y Ea s t D v w y 1 E a s t D v w y 1 Ea s t D v w y 1 E a s t D v w y 1 E a s t D v w y 1 Ma i n D v w y Ea s t D v w y 1 Ma i n D v w y Ma i n D v w y Ma i n D v w y Ea s t D v w y 2 Ea s t D v w y 2 E a s t D v w y 2 E a s t D v w y 2 Ea s t D v w y 2 Ea s t D v w y 2 PLATE V-5 PROJECT DRIVEWAY VOLUMES Source: Higgins Associates Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-64 3) Intersection Levels of Service Intersection levels of service are shown for the Costco only project on Table V-6. Impact and Mitigation Discussion The Costco project will exacerbate deficient traffic operations at the following intersections: xLOVR/Garcia Drive (Southbound approach: PM LOS F; Saturday LOS F) xLOVR/Auto Park Way (Southbound approach: PM LOS F; Saturday LOS F) xHiguera/Vachell Lane (PM: LOS F; Saturday: LOS F) Impact of the Costco only project to the LOVR intersections with Garcia Drive and Auto Park Way is not considered significant based on the Threshold of Significance criteria utilized in this study because the overall intersections still operate at acceptable levels. The Higuera Street/Vachell Lane intersection operation at an overall LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour is an existing deficient condition. As explained in Appendix G, traffic operations at the Vachell/Higuera intersection should be monitored by the City to determine if mitigation measures are warranted to address any traffic safety issues that arise as a result of the increased delay at this intersection. The Garcia Drive approach to LOVR operates at LOS F while the overall intersection operates at an acceptable LOS A during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hour under Background Plus Costco Only Project conditions. The Costco only project does not significantly impact this intersection. Providing a frontage road connection between Garcia Drive and the LOVR/Main Costco/Home Depot Driveway would allow the LOVR/Garcia Drive intersection to be reconfigured to allow right turn movements only between LOVR and Garcia Drive or allow right turn movements plus the left turn movement from eastbound LOVR to Garcia Drive. This would improve traffic safety at the LOVR/Garcia Drive intersection. The unsignalized intersection at Auto Park Way operates at an overall LOS A, but the minor street approaches at this intersection operate at LOS F during the weekday and Saturday peak hours with the Costco only project. It is recommended that traffic operations, including accident history, traffic volumes and vehicle delays, at the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection be monitored after the project is complete for possible installation of a traffic signal. TR-Impact 1 The minor street approach of Auto Park Way to LOVR will operate at LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour and the Saturday peak hour. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-1 A minimum of Ttwelve months after the Costco project is open for business, the City shall monitor traffic operations including accident history, traffic volumes and vehicle delays to determine if the Auto Park Way intersection warrants installation of a signal to improve the minor street approach to an acceptable level of service. The applicant shall provide for improvements through payment of TIF credit established by the City. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-65 Impact and Mitigation Discussion The project will create deficient levels of service at the following intersections (Interchange): xLOVR/Southbound U.S. 101 ramps/Calle Joaquin-South (PM LOS F; Saturday LOS E) xLOVR/Northbound U.S. 101 Ramps: (PM LOS E) The Costco only project will also create deficient operations on the southbound approach of Calle Joaquin-North to LOVR during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. TR-Impact 2 The project will cause the level of service at the LOVR/Southbound U.S. 101 ramps/Calle Joaquin-South and LOVR/Northbound U.S. 101 ramp intersection to deteriorate from acceptable levels to unacceptable levels. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). Traffic from the Costco only project will have a significant adverse impact on the operation of the LOVR-U.S. 101 interchange. Coordination of the signals at the interchange ramps would improve traffic operations at the northbound ramps intersection to LOS D during the weekday PM peak hour, but the southbound ramps intersection would remain at LOS E. Signal coordination will improve the traffic flow on LOVR but the 101/LOVR off-ramps will experience extended queuing resulting in backing of automobiles onto the travel lanes of U.S. 101, creating conflicts between the exiting traffic and highway through traffic, resulting in LOS F. Extension of the 101/LOVR northbound and southbound off-ramps would accommodate project-generated traffic and eliminate backing up of traffic queues onto U.S. 101. The capacity provided by the current two-lane design of the LOVR grade separation over U.S. 101 and the existing configuration of interchange ramps will not serve the additional traffic generated by the Costco project. A Project Study Report (PSR) study is currently underway to evaluate various design alternatives for this interchange. Construction of the full interchange re- construction project would mitigate project impacts but is not expected for at least 10 years. Interim measures, consistent with the projected final interchange design can be implemented by the applicant to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Costco project. A toolbox of mitigation strategies was analyzed and provided to Caltrans for review to determine the preferred combination of measures that would effectively mitigate Costco project impacts and be consistent with future design alternatives for the interchange. Appendix G contains the toolbox of studied mitigation strategies as well as the Caltrans response letter regarding recommended mitigation. Vehicle queue estimates for studied mitigation alternatives are also included in Appendix G, Exhibit 4. A second interchange project (Prado Road/U.S. 101) is in preliminary planning stages and impact of this interchange was applied to the project area. Construction of the Prado Road interchange would divert traffic from the LOVR interchange. With the Prado interchange constructed, the levels of service at the LOVR interchange with Costco only would be at acceptable levels. Average vehicle queues on the southbound and northbound off-ramps would be within the storage areas currently provided on these ramps. However, the vehicle queue on Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-66 the westbound LOVR approach to the southbound ramps is estimated to average 1158 feet and with the westbound through volume exceeding the capacity of the westbound through movement, this queue could be longer in length. The westbound LOVR vehicle queue extending from the southbound ramps would extend through the intersection with the northbound ramps and additional mitigation measures would still be necessary to reduce this queue. Implementation of this intersection is not anticipated for several years, therefore, the following combination of mitigation is proposed to mitigate the impacts of the Costco project. Table V-11 Mitigation Combination for LOVR/U.S. 101/Calle Joaquin Intersection Mitigation Capacity/Circulation Benefit Right-of-Way Requirement Issues 1 Coordinate existing Caltrans & City Signals Marginal-Additional LOVR green time No Signal timing implemented by Caltrans may be skewed to ramp approaches to protect U.S. 101 mainline from ramp queues. Coordination of signals would require agreement between City and Caltrans 2 Relocate Calle Joaquin South to align with Calle Joaquin North and signalize Moderate-Additional LOVR green time, separates SB ramp movements Madonna open space, Flagg property. Secondary wetland impacts, ACE permit required, State/City signal coordination necessary. 3 Lengthen SB U.S. 101 and NB U.S. 101 off-ramp Low-Safety improvement to ensure vehicle queues on ramps do not extend into U.S. 101 travel lanes Unknown Required for realignment of Calle Joaquin South to Calle Joaquin North as this improvement would result in increased vehicle queues on the interchange ramps The level of service calculations for the design alternatives assume coordination of the interchange intersection signal operations. In addition, the minimum green times provided on the off-ramp approaches to LOVR were increased where necessary and where possible to provide the off-ramp approaches with sufficient capacity to meet the vehicle demand on these approaches. The realignment of Calle Joaquin-South to align with Calle Joaquin-North will mitigate intersection level of service impacts resulting from the Costco only project. However, the interchange will still be subjected to relatively large vehicle queues and lengthening of both the northbound and southbound off-ramps would be necessary. TR/mm-2a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco,construction contracts and necessary permits shall be secured in order to complete improvements of the LOVR/U.S. 101/Calle Joaquin intersection. The applicant shall apply for an Encroachment Permit for all work done in the State Highway City Right of Way and the improvements shall be completed to Caltrans City standards, shown by a letter of acknowledgement from the Caltrans Department of Permits Office. The necessary improvements are as follows: 1.Coordinate Existing Caltrans and City Signals, 2. Realign Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin-North, and subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. 3.Lengthen Southbound U.S. 101 and Northbound U.S. 101 off-ramps. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-67 TR/mm-2b Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit for all work done in the State Highway right-of-way and the improvements shall be completed to Caltrans standard, shown by a letter of acknowledgement from the Caltrans Department of Permits office. The necessary improvements are as follows: 1. Coordinate existing Caltrans and City signals 2. As ultimately determined by Caltrans, lengthen Southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp subject to approval of Caltrans. Table V-12 LOVR Interchange Levels of Service with Mitigation LOVR/SB Ramps LOVR/NB RampsCondition/Improvement Delay LOS Delay LOS BACKGROUND (without Prado Interchange)-PM 45.9 D 39.2 D BACKGROUND (without Prado Interchange)-SAT 25.0 C 18.8 B BACKGROUND (With Prado Interchange)-PM 31.9 C 25.4 C BACKGROUND PLUS COSTCO PROJECT-PM Existing Geometrics 80.1 F 58.4 E Signal Coordination, Relocate Calle J.-South to Calle J.-North and Extend NB and SB off-ramps. 34.3 C 51.4 D BACKGROUND PLUS COSTCO PROJECT-SAT Existing Geometrics 64.0 E 32.1 C Signal Coordination, Relocate Calle J.-South to Calle J.-North and Extend NB and SB off-ramps. 35.5 D 28.3 C Source: Higgins Associates The infrastructure improvements included above on Table V-12 may have secondary environmental impacts to wetlands, riparian corridor, nesting and foraging raptors, and cultural resources. Mitigation measures designed to reduce these secondary impacts to less than significant levels are shown below. Infrastructure Improvement Secondary Mitigation Regulatory requirements will be triggered as a result of proposed impacts to wetland areas that will be caused by transportation infrastructure improvement implementation. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will require consultation and coordination with state (California Department of Fish and Game-CDFG) and federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-USACE) agencies during the early phases of the project. Through consultation and coordination with these agencies, specific regulatory requirements commensurate with proposed impacts can be determined. Potential permits required by these agencies could range from a Nationwide Permit to a Section 404(b)(1) Permit (issued by USACE) for impacts to wetlands. Under the federal Clean Water Act, the USACE may claim jurisdiction over wetlands and navigable waters determined to be “Waters of the U.S.” Dredge or fill activities in waters under USACE jurisdiction are regulated under the Clean Water Act. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-68 The delineated areas in the area of the proposed infrastructure improvements meet the USACE criteria for jurisdictional wetlands, and therefore activities within the delineated area would either require a project specific permit or would be covered by an existing nationwide permit. The permit type determination will be made by the USACE. Mitigation in the form of in-kind, off-site creation of wetlands should be located as near to the impact site as is feasible. Approximately 48,276 square feet or 1.11 acres of wetland area would be disturbed by implementation of the Calle Joaquin realignment. Wetlands discussion from the 1989 Madonna General Plan Amendment EIR, and a map showing habitat areas and historic wetlands within the vicinity of the improvement area is included in Appendix G- Exhibit E. The advantage of in-kind, off-site mitigation is that it would, through duplication of the physical nature of the wetland area to be negatively impacted, tend to benefit those plant and wildlife species that would be adversely impacted at the project site and would also tend to maintain their population levels. This form of mitigation does not necessarily assure retention of the local plant and wildlife populations affected by the project. TR-SEC Impact 1 Infrastructure improvements at the LOVR/Calle Joaquin/U.S. 101 intersection will permanently remove wetlands and sensitive riparian habitat. TR-SEC/mm-1 As part of the design project submittal, the applicant shall compensate for the loss of wetland and riparian habitat in a form acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo and all applicable agencies. The submittal shall be consistent with mitigation proposed for the resource sections of this EIR and shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. Perform a wetland delineation at the project site and establish an off-site in-kind wetland compensatory mitigation area within the Froom Creek corridor including native vegetation and raptor perches, consistent with ACOE regulations. 2. Develop a revegetation plan including monitoring requirements pursuant standards established by ACOE and CDFG. 3. Begin revegetation of the off-site mitigation area prior to removal of vegetation at the project site. 4. Provide fencing around wetland and riparian areas to prohibit cows cattle from removing vegetation utilized by sensitive species. 5. Prior to constructing compensatory mitigation, a presence/absence survey shall be completed within the Froom Creek corridor for burrowing owls and other listed species (California red legged frog, southwestern pond turtle, coast horned lizard, two striped garter snake, silvery legless lizard, etc.). If sensitive species are present, mitigation shall not proceed until breeding or nesting season is completed. All surveys shall be consistent with regulatory guidelines. TR-SEC Impact 2 Infrastructure improvements at the LOVR/Calle Joaquin/U.S. 101 intersection have the potential to unearth sensitive surface and subsurface cultural and/or historic materials. TR-SEC/mm-2 Prior to vegetation removal, a Phase I archaeological survey shall be conducted by a qualified/approved archaeologist and construction activities shall be consistent with cultural resources mitigation included in this EIR. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-69 b. Pedestrian Impacts (Costco only) Pedestrian walkways will be provided on site that will link the various uses planned for the site and the parking area. The pathways will extend from the store warehouse to LOVR. In addition, access will be provided to the bus turnout that will be provided southeast of the main driveway. Sidewalks will be provided across the project frontage and the intersection of LOVR and the main driveway will be signalized. The project will generate new pedestrian trips from nearby residences. Sidewalks are provided across the developed parcels on the northeast side of LOVR to the southeast and northwest of the project site. A sidewalk is not currently provided across the “Gap” property located immediately across from the project site. Therefore, a continuous sidewalk is not provided on the northeast side of LOVR that would link the project site with the residential neighborhood located west north of the project site and northeast of LOVR. This is considered a significant pedestrian impact. TR-Impact 3 The project will generate new pedestrian trips from the residential area located east north of the project site and northeast of LOVR. A continuous sidewalk is not currently provided on the northeast side of LOVR to serve these trips. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-3 Prior to start of business operations (or occupancy permit) for Costco,the applicant shall obtain and dedicate sufficient right of way dedication on the northeast side of LOVR to the City and construct improvements of a sidewalk to City Standards.The sidewalk shall extend from the residential subdivision northwesterly of the project (Garcia frontage road), and shall include a connection with the signalized crosswalk that exists across LOVR at Froom Ranch Way. on the north side of LOVR that connects the existing sidewalks located on north side of LOVR east and west of the project site with the crosswalk that will be provided across LOVR at the main project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with future other projects that would benefit from the sidewalk extension. c. Bicycle Impacts (Costco only) The project will generate new bicycle trips to the project site. Class II Bikeways are currently provided on LOVR, Madonna Road north of LOVR and on Higuera Street north of LOVR. Improvements to LOVR that are currently under construction include bikelanes on both sides of LOVR. The Air Quality section of this EIR provides mitigation for bicycle parking facilities. No further mitigation is required d. Transit Service Impacts (Costco only) Transit service is currently provided to the site. In addition, transit pull-outs are included in the LOVR improvements that are being constructed. Transit impacts are not significant and no mitigation measures are required. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-70 e. Project Access Impacts (Costco only) The conceptual site plan for the project, including development of the Froom Parcels, shows four access driveways serving the project site. The northwesterly most driveway is located immediately adjacent to the northwesterly property boundary, with about 700 feet of distance to the main project driveway. The third driveway is located about 300 feet east of the main project driveway and the fourth driveway is located about 400 feet east of the third driveway. TR-Impact 4 The project will be served by four driveways to Los Osos Valley Road. The northwesterly most driveway is located too close to DeVaul Ranch Drive to provide safe ingress and egress at this location. The proposed driveway spacings exceed recommended minimum driveway spacings for arterial streets. However, the northwesterly driveway is located next to the DeVaul Ranch Drive, a planned residential street that will serve the DeVaul Ranch. It is recommended that the northwesterly driveway be relocated to the southeast to increase the distance between the driveway and DeVaul Ranch Drive. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for Costco,the applicant shall develop project plans shall to show the northwesterly most driveway along LOVR to be relocated located aligned across from Garcia Drive and construct a raised median “worm” island at the intersection of Garcia Drive at LOVR to restrict left turn egress from both Garcia and the northwesterly project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with the front parcels and future other projects that would benefit from the access improvements. Relocating of the Garcia Drive access to LOVR to the location of the main driveway for the Home Depot project would allow right turn movements only between LOVR and Garcia Drive or allow right turn movements plus the left turn movement from eastbound LOVR to Garcia Drive. This can be accomplished by extending the LOVR frontage road located on the north side of LOVR from this current terminus east of Garcia Drive to the location of the Home Depot driveway and constructing a new intersection leg on the northeast side of LOVR. TR-Impact 5 The left turn storage area provided on westbound LOVR at the project driveway will not provide adequate storage for the estimated left turn volume under Costco only project conditions. Design plans for LOVR indicate that the dual left turn lane on westbound LOVR at the main project driveway will be constructed to a length of approximately 150 feet (total storage =300 feet). This length will not be adequate to provide the storage area necessary for the left turn movement from westbound LOVR to the project main driveway. A storage length of 250 feet (plus deceleration length) is recommended for a total storage of 500 feet under Existing Plus Costco only conditions. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-71 With full planned build-out of the project site, two left turn lanes 300 feet in length, plus a continuation of a single lane 300 feet is recommended to serve project traffic turning left into the main project driveway. The 300 foot additional single lane will provide vehicle deceleration and additional storage area to serve seasonal traffic demand. In addition, it is recommended that a left turn lane be provided on westbound LOVR at the northwesterly most driveway serving the project site. Ultimately, the City should plan on creating an additional left turn access to the project site via the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection, which will be improved with a westbound LOVR left turn lane when the parcel located to the south of the Home Depot site is ultimately developed. An inter-parcel connection between the Costco/Home Depot site and the parcel located south of the Home Depot site will provide access between the project site and the LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-5a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the Costco component of the project,the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to LOVR to accommodate either: a)Extend the dual left turn storage lengths on LOVR at the Project main driveway. The inside lane will have a minimum length of 250 feet with a total overall storage capacity of the dual lanes a minimum of 500 feet in length. Appropriate deceleration lanes and reverse tapers for the revised turn lanes shall be designed and installed pursuant to State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, or; A new left turn lane and appropriate deceleration/reverse tapers shall be constructed on LOVR at the Project northwesternmost driveway. The left turn storage length shall be a minimum of 150 feet in length. The Project driveway/Garcia Drive intersection shall be modified so as to be restricted to right turn in-and-out only, with left turns allowed from LOVR to Garcia Drive and from LOVR to the northwesterly project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with the front two parcel applicants that would benefit from the access improvements. TR/mm-5b Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to accommodate: The LOVR frontage road on the northeast side of LOVR shall be extended from Garcia Drive to the Project main driveway traffic signal to allow left turn access out of that neighborhood. The traffic signal shall be modified to provide appropriate indications for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing this new approach.Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with future other projects, including the front two parcels, that would benefit from the extension. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-72 A volume of 268 vehicles is forecast for the left turn movement from the northbound approach of the main project driveway to westbound LOVR during the weekday PM peak hour and 377 vehicles during the Saturday peak hour. Caltrans recommends that dual left turn lanes be considered when the left turn volume exceeds 300 vehicles. It is recommended that the northbound main project driveway approach to LOVR be configured to provide two left turn lanes and one right turn lane in conjunction with the development of the Costco project. This improvement will improve the efficiency of the left turn movement from the project driveway to LOVR. With dual left turn lanes provided on the northbound project driveway approach to LOVR, the LOVR/Project Driveway intersection will operate at LOS B during the weekday PM peak hour and LOS C during the Saturday peak hour. The center left turn lane is recommended to be a shared left/through lane to connect with the Garcia Drive extension required in TR/mm- 5b. TR-Impact 6 The left turn storage area provided on the northbound main project driveway approach to LOVR will not provide adequate storage for the estimated left turn volume under Costco only project condition. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-6 Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the Costco component of the project, the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to the main project driveway (Froom Ranch Way) to accommodate either: a)In conjunction with TR/mm-5a; modify the existing driveway approach to accommodate two northbound left turn lanes and a right turn lane, or; b)In conjunction with TR/mm-5b; modify the existing driveway approach and traffic signal to accommodate one northbound left turn lane, an additional shared left-through lane and a right turn lane. The Costco project would have a cumulative impact at the LOVR interchange location due to cumulative increases in traffic volumes as shown in Table V-7. A fair share contribution for the ultimate interchange improvements satisfies the mitigation responsibility of the project’s cumulative impact by participating in costs of mitigating future conditions to insignificant levels. TR-Impact 7 The Costco project will have a cumulative impact at the LOVR interchange due to cumulative increases in traffic volumes from nearby projects. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-7 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a “fair share,” based on current, order of magnitude cost estimates being studied in the LOVR PSR towards the reconstruction of the LOVR interchange, taking into account improvements implemented as part of TR/mm-2a and TR/mm-2b. Payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) will satisfy this requirement if the TIF program has been updated to include revised cost Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-73 estimates for the LOVR interchange. If at the time of issuance of permits, the TIF program has not been modified to reflect these costs, the applicant will be responsible for paying current TIF fees plus a mitigation fee associated with the estimated cost differential between the LOVR interchange cost and the assumed TIF component for the project. 6. Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures- Total Project All Froom Parcels (Approved plus Costco plus Froom Parcels) a. Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment Development on the Froom Ranch parcels will generate an estimated 11,176 trips per weekday and 11,562 trips on Saturday. On weekdays, the Froom development will generate an estimated 382 trips during the AM peak hour and 906 trips during the PM peak hour. On Saturday, the Froom development will generate 1,135 trips during the peak hour. The weekday PM peak hour capture rates were utilized for the Saturday analysis of the pass-by trip capture for the Froom parcels. The trips generated by the Froom development were assigned to the road network using the trip distribution pattern previously described for the Costco project. The assignment of peak hour trips generated by the Froom parcels to the study intersections is shown on Plates V-6a and V- 6b. The Froom development trip assignments were combined with the Costco Project Condition traffic volumes to achieve Total Project All Froom Parcels Condition traffic volumes. The results are shown on Plates V-7a and V-7b. Project driveway volumes are shown on Plate V-5. b. U.S. 101 Segment Levels of Service Freeway segment levels of service remain unchanged from Costco Project Condition with the exception of northbound segment north of LOVR during the weekday PM peak hour, which decreases from “LOS B” to LOS “C” (refer to Appendix G, Exhibit 1). The project will not significantly impact U.S. 101 segments north and south of LOVR. c. Intersection Levels of Service Development of the Froom parcels in conjunction with the Costco store warehouse will not create additional impacts beyond the intersection-related impacts described for the Costco only project. Intersection levels of service with total project development are shown in Table V-6. Deficient traffic operations will occur at the following intersections: xLOVR/Auto Park Way (Southbound approach: PM: LOS F; Saturday: LOS F); xLOVR/ Calle Joaquin-North (Southbound approach: PM: LOS F; Saturday: LOS F); xLOVR/ U.S. 101 South ramps/Calle Joaquin-South (PM: LOS F; Saturday: LOS F); xLOVR/ U.S. 101 ramps North (PM: LOS F); xHiguera/Vachell Lane (PM: LOS F); and xLOVR/Main Project Driveway (Saturday: LOS E). Based on the intersection impact criteria described in Thresholds of Significance section, the combined Costco and Froom parcels will have a significant impact at the following intersections: Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-74 xLOVR/Southbound U.S. 101 Off-Ramp/Calle Joaquin xLOVR/Northbound U.S. 101 Ramps The intersection of LOVR and the project driveway is projected to operate at LOS C during the weekday PM peak hour and LOS E during the Saturday peak hour with only one left turn lane provided for the left turn movement from the project driveway to westbound LOVR. With a second left turn lane provided for the northbound to westbound movement, the weekday PM peak hour level of service would improve to “B” and the Saturday peak hour level of service would improve to “D.” As these improvements are not necessarily consistent with the overall interchange improvement designs, subsequent environmental review will be necessary to assess traffic impacts of the front two parcels. The LOVR/Southbound U.S. 101 ramps/Calle Joaquin-south and the LOVR/Northbound U.S. 101 ramps intersections are projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour with the total project developed. The LOVR/Southbound U.S. 101 ramps/Calle Joaquin-south intersection will operate at LOS F and the LOVR/Northbound U.S. 101 ramps intersection will operate at LOS D during the Saturday peak hours with total project the Froom Parcels developed. TR-Impact 78 The LOVR/Calle Joaquin/U.S. 101 intersection will not operate at an acceptable level of service with the Total Project Froom Parcels (Costco and front two parcels) developed. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-78 Prior issuance of occupancy permits for the front parcels, subsequent environmental review will be required in order to assess the actual level of service at the LOVR/Calle Joaquin/U.S. 101 intersection with implementation of the Costco project and infrastructure improvements required for that project. In the event it is determined that no further infrastructure improvements are required, the applicants for the front parcels shall be responsible for a “fair share” as determined by the City for costs of improvements implemented by Costco. #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 59 0 0 -64 247 6 -46 152 17 6 23 8 61 6 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 65 0 0 67 0 0 0 0 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 65 0 60 61 58 0 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 58 0 0 123 0 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 128 61 0 0 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 0 0 43 0 2 3 0 0 0 46 3 0 0 61 110 181 181 3 0030 59 104 189 189 0 0 0 2 MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr AutoParkWay US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd PLATE V-6a FROOM PARCELS PM PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 63 0 0 -78 324 8 -71 198 18 2 30 0 60 7 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 71 0 67 0 0 0 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 71 0 67 75 91 0 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 81 0 0 162 0 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 142 84 0 0 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 0 0 52 0 3 3 0 0 0 49 3 0 0 63 115 243 243 3 0030 68 124 226 226 0 0 0 4 US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd AutoParkWay MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr PLATE V-6b FROOM PARCELS SATURDAY PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 19 8 9 53 83 1131 622 176 787 386 44 4 62 0 10 6 9 11 2 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 11 0 4 55 8 0 961 0 22 40 17 3 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 1177 241 907 376 54 6 18 3 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 30 3 13 26 7 1459 264 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 1001 557 20 22 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 67 8 15 0 34 5 14 17 60 10 3 42 93 298 81 63 53 1030 1479 1708 1581 165 457 15 23 37 695 1141 1400 1466 40 49 10 7 11 6 MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr AutoParkWay US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd PLATE V-7a EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS TOTAL PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 10 4 4 28 26 705 988 110 654 568 55 9 94 2 10 5 8 10 2 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 93 7 21 7 997 15 16 16 3 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 798 113 817 412 65 8 18 1 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 45 8 16 19 6 1288 168 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 1001 676 35 32 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 30 4 11 1 33 5 9 27 41 60 43 68 338 55 66 75 742 1189 1683 1706 118 343 3 33 48 714 1164 1597 1609 33 38 10 8 11 8 US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd AutoParkWay MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr PLATE V-7b EXISTING PLUS APPROVED PROJECTS PLUS TOTAL PROJECT SATURDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-79 TR-Impact 89 The left turn storage area provided on westbound LOVR at the main project driveway will not provide adequate storage for the estimated left turn volume at full project with all the Froom Parcels developed. buildout. As previously discussed, a left-turn lane is recommended on westbound LOVR at the westerly driveway. It is recommended that this westerly driveway be located at the LOVR/Garcia Drive intersection. At this location, it is recommended that left-turn channelization be constructed that would allow left turn movements from westbound LOVR to the westerly project driveway and from eastbound LOVR to Garcia Drive. To maintain left turn access from Garcia Drive to eastbound LOVR, it is recommended that a connection between Garcia Drive and the new LOVR intersection at the Home Depot/Costco Main Driveway intersection be constructed. This can be accomplished by extending the LOVR frontage road located on the north side of LOVR from its current terminus east of Garcia Drive to the location of the project driveway intersection. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-89 Prior to issuance of occupancy development permits for the front parcels, the applicants for the front parcels shall undertake all necessary modifications to LOVR to accommodate either:conduct a traffic study subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works to determine the most appropriate improvement measures for increasing left turn capacity for the project site, which may include extending the dual left turn storage lengths at Froom Ranch Way. a)Extend the dual left turn storage lengths at the Project Main Driveway (Froom Ranch Way). The inside lane will have a minimum length of 300 feet with a total overall storage capacity of the dual lanes a minimum of 600 feet in length. Appropriate deceleration lanes and reverse tapers for the revised turn lanes shall be designed and installed pursuant to State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, OR; b)A new left turn lane and appropriate deceleration/reverse tapers shall be constructed on LOVR at the project’s westernmost driveway. The left turn storage length shall be a minimum of 150 feet in length. The driveway/Garcia Drive intersection shall be modified so as to be restricted to right turn in-and-out only. The LOVR frontage road on the north side of LOVR shall be extended from Garcia Drive to the traffic signal located at the Project main driveway to allow left turn access out of the Oceanaire neighborhood. The traffic signal at this location shall be modified to provide appropriate indications for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing this new approach. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-80 7. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Background plus Costco plus Froom Parcels plus 10-Year Cumulative Development) The 10-Year Cumulative Condition analysis evaluates the impact of cumulative development anticipated within the next 10-year time period. Traffic from the anticipated new development was estimated and added to the Project Condition and Froom Parcels traffic volumes to establish 10-year cumulative traffic volumes. a. Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment City of San Luis Obispo staff provided the list of projects that are pending approval for development. The 10-year cumulative projects are listed in Table V-13. The list of 10-year cumulative projects includes the Dalidio commercial development located north of the project site and two proposed hotels located on Calle Joaquin south of LOVR. Also, included in the list of projects is development on the “Gap” property on the north side of LOVR, across from the project site. Table V-13 also shows the trip generation estimate for the 10-year cumulative projects. City of San Luis Obispo trip generation rates supplemented by trip generation rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers were utilized to estimate the trips that will be generated by the cumulative projects. The cumulative development projects will generate an estimated 51,448 weekday daily trips with 2,170 trips generated during the AM peak hour and 4,767 trips generated during the PM peak hour. On Saturday, the cumulative projects will generate 55,143 daily trips with 5,901 trips generated during the peak hour. The existing traffic volumes were adjusted to account for the construction of the Prado Road interchange, which was included in the 10-year Cumulative Condition road network. The city- wide traffic forecasting model was use to determine the potential diversion of traffic to the Prado Road interchange from the LOVR interchange. Based on forecast volumes derived from the city-wide traffic forecasting model, the Prado Road interchange will divert about 20% to 40% of the turning traffic at the U.S. 101/LOVR interchange. The 10-year Cumulative Condition weekday PM peak hour volumes and Saturday peak hour volumes at the study intersections are shown on Plates V-8a and V-8b. Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-81 Table V-13 10-Year Cumulative Condition Trip Generation Number of Trips Weekday SAT Project Land Use Peak Hour Daily Peak Hour Daily 1. Marriott Hotel Hotel 111 1,392 136 1,638 7. Vineyard Christian Church Church 86 1.184 423 1,261 8. Dalidio Development Commercial Retail 2,244 25,752 3,226 32,765 8. Dalidio Development Hotel 92 1,160 113 1,365 8. Dalidio Development Business Park 164 1,626 46 326 9. Strasbaugh Industrial 67 478 10 91 9. Strasbaugh Health Club 205 1,908 287 2,671 20. Stoneridge II Residential 10 96 9 101 28. Aerovista/Broad Commercial/Industrial 88 627 13 119 30. Morbido Tract 2368 Industrial/Service Commercial 466 3.311 67 627 31. County GPA Residential 10 96 9 101 32. Dioptics Light Industrial 98 697 14 132 34. Calle Joaquin Hotel Hotel 66 830 81 977 35. Gap Property Commercial Retail 972 11,159 1,398 14,198 36. McBride Annexation Auto Sales 165 2.209 175 78 37. COG Development Residential 33 316 31 33 TOTAL 4,767 51,448 5,901 55,143 Source: Higgins Associates b. Planned Road Improvements The 10-year Cumulative Condition road network includes the construction of a full grade- separated interchange at the intersection of U.S. 101 and Prado Road. In conjunction with the development of the Dalidio project, the completion of Dalidio Drive between Madonna Road and U.S. 101 at the Prado Road interchange was included in the 10-year Cumulative Condition road network. #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 20 0 10 30 6 20 3 1 58 304 122 1098 622 293 163 729 386 44 4 10 62 0 11 1 6 13 7 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 12 6 3 55 8 0 1033 0 22 40 17 3 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 1375 202 999 541 61 5 16 3 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 40 2 66 21 5 1621 369 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 1243 600 38 89 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 76 2 15 9 34 7 14 21 64 0 10 3 75 15 9 329 86 64 96 1157 1641 1976 1817 169 0 526 15 27 60 787 1239 1641 1685 40 0 49 11 5 12 0 0 0 0 MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr AutoParkWay US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd PLATE V-8a 10-YEAR CUMULATIVE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates Higgins Associates #9 Los Osos Valley Rd/Project Dvwy #8 Higuera St/Vachell Ln 22 1 10 45 0 12 0 7 31 496 29 667 988 141 231 641 568 55 9 10 94 2 11 8 6 12 6 #7 Los Osos Valley Rd/Higuera St 11 3 1 21 7 1149 15 16 16 3 #6 Los Osos Valley Rd/NB 101 Ramps 1041 64 987 671 86 2 16 3 #5 Los Osos Valley Rd/SB Ramps/Calle Joaquin 64 1 20 6 17 2 1562 341 Note: Drawing is not to scale. 1328 810 62 15 8 #1 Los Osos Valley Rd/Madonna Rd #2 Los Osos Valley Rd/Garcia Dr #3 Los Osos Valley Rd/Auto Park Wy #4 Los Osos Valley Rd/Calle Joaquin 40 0 12 2 38 9 9 34 47 0 61 72 12 5 383 61 67 135 868 1366 2135 2130 124 0 445 3 38 77 864 1375 2029 2013 33 0 38 12 0 11 8 0 0 0 US 1 0 1 Ca l l e J o a q u i n Ca l l e J o a q u i n LosOsosValleyRd AutoparkWay MadonnaRd Hi g u e r a S t V a c h e ll L n GarciaDr PLATE V-8b 10-YEAR CUMULATIVE SATURDAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Project Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Source: Higgins Associates Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-84 c. U.S. 101 Segment Levels of Service (10-Year Cumulative Condition) Cumulative condition traffic volumes on U.S. 101 north and south of LOVR are summarized on Exhibit 1 (refer to Appendix G). In addition to adding trips generated by the cumulative projects to U.S. 101, existing U.S. 101 volumes were grown at a rate of 1% per year for 10 years to account for through traffic growth on U.S. 101. Under 10-year cumulative conditions, the freeway segment levels of service on U.S. 101 north and south of LOVR remain within acceptable operating ranges except southbound segment south of LOVR, which operates at LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. Widening of U.S. 101 to provide three southbound through lanes south of LOVR is required under 10-year cumulative conditions to achieve acceptable traffic operations. d. Intersection and Roadway Levels of Service Impact and Mitigation Discussion Intersection levels of service for the 10-year Cumulative Condition are shown in Table V-6, with inclusion of mitigation proposed for the previous development scenarios. Previously recommended mitigation measures that were included in the level of service calculations in Table V-6 are as follows: LOVR/Garcia Drive: prohibit left turns from Garcia Drive to eastbound LOVR and provide a connection between Garcia Drive to the LOVR/Main Project Driveway intersection. LOVR/Auto Park Way: signalization. LOVR/Calle Joaquin North: signalization; relocate Calle Joaquin South to Calle Joaquin North. LOVR/Southbound and Northbound U.S. 101 ramps: Coordination of Caltrans and City signals and extension of off-ramps. Higuera/Vachell: prohibit left turns from Higuera to Vachell and from Vachell to Higuera; extend Buckley Road to Higuera Street. TR-Impact 910 Addition of project-generated traffic would contribute to several study area intersections operating at LOS E or F under 10-year Cumulative Conditions. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). As shown in Table V-6, under 10-year Cumulative Conditions, deficient traffic operations will occur at the following intersections: xLOVR/Madonna Road (PM: LOS E); xLOVR/Calle Joaquin (Overall: Saturday: LOS F; South Approach: PM and Saturday LOS F); Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-85 xLOVR/Southbound U.S. ramps (Saturday: LOS F). The reconstruction of the U.S. 101/LOVR interchange would mitigate the deficient operations at that location. TR/mm-910 Prior to issuance of occupancy building permits for the front two parcels, the Costco applicant and applicants for the front parcels shall contribute “fair share” contributions, based on current, order of magnitude cost estimates being studied in the LOVR PSR towards the construction of the LOVR Interchange reconstruction. Payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) will satisfy this fair share contribution requirement if the TIF program has been updated to include revised cost estimates for reconstructing the LOVR interchange. If at the time of building permit issuance, the TIF program has not been modified to reflect these different costs, the front parcel applicants will be responsible for paying current TIF Fees plus a mitigation fee associated with the estimated cost differential between the LOVR interchange and the assumed TIF component of the project. Additional mitigation measures recommended to correct 10-year Cumulative Condition deficient conditions would be covered under the congestion relief component of the current City TIF program and are as follows: LOVR/Madonna Road: add a second left turn lane on the southbound intersection approach. This improvement will require widening the eastside of Madonna Road north and south of LOVR. As an alternative, the second left turn lane can be provided by converting the southbound Madonna Road through lane to a shared left/through lane and modifying the traffic signal at the intersection to provide split phasing on the northbound and southbound Madonna Road approaches. The alternative would not require widening of Madonna Road. With the alternative design, the intersection would operate at LOS D with 54.0 seconds of delay per vehicle during the weekday PM peak hour and LOS D with 37.2 seconds of delay per vehicle during the Saturday peak hour. At the LOVR/Main Project Driveway intersection, the following improvements should be included in the intersection design when the Gap property on the north side of LOVR develops: xOne exclusive right turn on the westbound LOVR approach to the driveway; xTwo left turn lanes, one through lane and one right turn lane on the southbound intersection approach. This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-10 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, Costco and the applicants for the front parcels shall contribute a fair share contribution, as determined by the City, to either; Costco / Froom Ranch Traffic/Circulation Transportation DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-86 a.Construct a second exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Madonna Road approach to LOVR by widening the east side of Madonna Road on both the north and south legs of the intersection, or, b.Convert the southbound Madonna Road through lane to a shared left/through lane on the approach to LOVR and convert the northbound approach lanes to provide a shared left/through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. The signal phasing for the northbound and southbound Madonna Road approaches should be modified to provide split phasing on these approaches. With these improvements, the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection will operate at LOS D during the weekday PM (41.7 seconds of delay per vehicle) and Saturday (331.9 seconds of delay per vehicle) peak hours under 10-year cumulative conditions. TR/mm-11 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, Costco and the applicants for the front parcels shall pay a fair share to, at the time of the development of the “Gap” property located on the north side of LOVR at the main project driveway, provide an eastbound left turn lane on LOVR, a westbound right turn lane on LOVR and two southbound left turn lanes, one southbound through lane and one southbound right turn lane on the new north intersection leg. With the additional lanes described above at the LOVR/Project Main Driveway intersection, the intersection will operate at LOS D (48.8 seconds of delay per vehicle) during the weekday PM peak hour and LOS C (27.7 seconds of delay per vehicle) during the Saturday peak hour. 8. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Plate V-9 is a schematic drawing to show mitigation proposed in the EIR and an estimation of how these measures would look based on existing conditions on LOVR in the vicinity of the project site. Actual road alignments and improvements would be established by coordination between the City, the project applicant, and adjacent property owners. Table V-15 below provides a summary of impacts, mitigation measures, the development scenario associated with the impact and mitigation, developer responsibility, and timing of implementation. Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan also summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n R FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t TR A F F I C M I T I G A T I O N S C H E M A T I C – L O S O S O S V A L L E Y R O A D PL A T E 9 Not e : R e a l i g n m e n t d e s i g n s a r e s c h e m a t i c o n l y . A c t u a l a l i g n m e n t s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d b y C i t y E n g i n e e r wi t h a p p l i c a n t a n d a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o w n e r s . Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h T r a f f i c / C i r c u l a t i o n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 8 8 Ta b l e V - 1 4 Su m m a r y o f I m p a c t s , M i t i g a t i o n , a n d I m p l e m e n t a t i o n R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Im p a c t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e De v e l o p e r Re s p o n s i b i l i t y Ti m i n g CO S T C O O N L Y ( B a c k g r o u n d p l u s C o s t c o ) TR - I m p a c t 1 -T h e m i n o r s t r e e t a p p r oa c h o f A u t o P a r k Wa y t o L O V R w i l l o p e r a t e a t L O S F d u r i n g t h e we e k d a y P M a n d S a t u r d a y P e a k h o u r . TR / m m - 1 D e t e r m i n e i f i n t e r s e c t i o n w a r r a n t s i n s t a l l a t i o n of a s i g n a l t o i m p r o v e t h e m i no r s t r e e t a p p r o a c h t o a n ac c e p t a b l e l e v e l o f s e r v i c e . Co s t c o : P a y m e n t o f TI F f e e s w o u l d sa t i s f y r e q u i r e m e n t At l e a s t 1 2 m o n t h s af t e r C o s t c o i s op e n f o r b u s i n e s s TR - I m p a c t 2 - L e v e l o f S e r v i c e a t L O V R / S o u t h b o u n d U. S . 1 0 1 r a m p s / C a l l e J o a q u i n - S o u t h a n d LO V R / N o r t h b o u n d U . S . 1 0 1 r a m p i n t e r s e c t i o n w i l l de t e r i o r a t e f r o m a c c e p t a b l e t o u n a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l s . TR / m m - 2 a P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t fo r C o s t c o , co n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t s a n d n e c e s s a r y p e r m i t s sh a l l b e s e c u r e d i n o r d e r t o c o m p l e t e i m p r o v e m e n t s o f t h e LO V R / U . S . 1 0 1 / Ca l l e J o a q u i n i n t e r s e c t i o n . T h e a p p l i c a n t sh a l l a p p l y f o r a n E n c r o a c h m e n t P e r m i t f o r a l l w o r k d o n e in t h e S t a t e H i g h w a y Ci t y R i g h t o f W a y a n d t h e im p r o v e m e n t s s h a l l b e c o m p l e t e d t o C a l t r a n s Ci t y st a n d a r d s , s h o w n b y a l e t t e r o f a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t f r o m t h e Ca l t r a n s D e p a r t m e n t o f P e r m i t s O f f i c e . T h e n e c e s s a r y im p r o v e m e n t s a r e a s f o l l o w s : 1. Co o r d i n a t e E x i s t i n g C a l t r a n s a n d C i t y S i g n a l s , 2. R e a l i g n C a l l e J o a q u i n - So u t h t o C a l l e J o a q u i n - No r t h , a n d su b j e c t t o a p p r o v a l b y th e D i r e c t o r o f P u b l i c Wo r k s . 1. 3 . Le n g t h e n S o u t h b o u n d U . S . 1 0 1 a n d N o r t h b o u n d U. S . 1 0 1 o f f -ram p s . TR / m m - 2 b Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t fo r C o s t c o , t h e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l a p p l y f o r a n e n c r o a c h m e n t pe r m i t f o r a l l w o r k d o n e i n th e S t a t e H i g h w a y r i g h t - o f - w a y an d t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s s h a l l be c o m p l e t e d t o C a l t r a n s st a n d a r d , s h o w n b y a l e t t e r o f a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t f r o m t h e Ca l t r a n s D e p a r t m e n t o f P e r m i t s o f f i c e . T h e n e c e s s a r y im p r o v e m e n t s a r e a s f o l l o w s : 1. C o o r d i n a t e e x i s t i n g C a l t r a n s a n d C i t y s i g n a l s 2. A s u l t i m a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d b y C a l t r a n s , l e n g t h e n So u t h b o u n d U . S . 1 0 1 o f f - r a m p s u b j e c t t o a p p r o v a l o f Ca l t r a n s . Co s t c o : Con s t r u c t i o n o f in t e r c h a n g e im p r o v e m e n t s . Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e of o c c u p a n c y pe r m i t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h T r a f f i c / C i r c u l a t i o n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 8 9 Im p a c t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e De v e l o p e r Re s p o n s i b i l i t y Ti m i n g TR - I m p a c t 3 - T h e p r o j e c t w i l l g e n e r a t e n e w pe d e s t r i a n t r i p s f r o m t h e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a l o c a t e d e a s t of t h e p r o j e c t s i t e a n d n o r t h o f L O V R . A c o n t i n u o u s si d e w a l k i s n o t c u r r e n t l y p r o v i d e d t o s e r v e t h e s e t r i p s . TR / m m - 3 : O b t a i n r i g h t o f w a y d e d i c a t i o n a n d c o n s t r u c t si d e w a l k i m p r o v e m e n t s o n t h e n o r t h s i d e o f L O V R t h a t co n n e c t s e x i s t i n g s i d e w a l k l o c a t e d e a s t a n d w e s t o f ad j a c e n t t o G a r c i a D r i v e t o t h e p r o j e c t s i t e . Co s t c o : Co n s t r u c t i o n o f im p r o v e m e n t s , wi t h re i m b u r s e m e n t ag r e e m e n t s e t w i t h th e C i t y Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e of o c c u p a n c y pe r m i t TR - I m p a c t 4 - T h e w e s t e r l y m o s t p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y i s lo c a t e d t o o c l o s e t o D e V a u l R a n c h D r i v e t o p r o v i d e sa f e i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s a t t h i s l o c a t i o n . TR / m m - 4 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s fo r C o s t c o , th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l d e v e l o p pr o j e c t p l a n s s h a l l to s h o w t h e no r t h we s t e r l y m o s t d r i v e w a y a l o n g L O V R to be r e l o c a t e d l o c a t e d al i g n e d a c r o s s f r o m G a r c i a D r i v e an d co n s t r u c t a r a i s e d m e d i a n “ w o r m ” i s l a n d a t t h e in t e r s e c t i o n o f G a r c i a D r i v e a t L O V R t o r e s t r i c t l e f t t u r n eg r e s s f r o m b o t h G a r c i a a n d t h e n o r t h w e s t e r l y p r o j e c t dr i v e w a y . U p o n p r o j e c t a p p r o v al , t h e C i t y w i l l d e t e r m i n e th e p r o j e c t ’ s f a i r s h a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d e s t a b l i s h a re i m b u r s e m e n t a g r e e m e n t w i t h f u t u r e o t h e r p r o j e c t s t h a t wo u l d b e n e f i t f r o m t h e a c c e s s i m p r o v e m e n t s . Co s t c o : Co n s t r u c t i o n o f im p r o v e m e n t s , wi t h re i m b u r s e m e n t ag r e e m e n t s e t w i t h th e C i t y Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e of b u i l d i n g pe r m i t s TR - I m p a c t 5 - T h e l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e a r e a p r o v i d e d o n we s t b o u n d L O V R a t t h e p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y w i l l n o t pr o v i d e a d e q u a t e s t o r a g e f o r t h e e s t i m a t e d l e f t t u r n vo l u m e u n d e r C o s t c o o n l y p r o j e c t c o n d i t i o n s . TR / m m - 5 a Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t fo r t h e C o s t c o c o m p o n e n t o f t h e p r o j e c t , th e a p p l i c a n t sh a l l u n d e r t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o L O V R t o ac c o m m o d a t e e i t h e r : a) Ex t e n d t h e d u a l l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e l e n g t h s o n L O V R a t th e P r o j e c t m a i n d r i v e w a y . T h e i n s i d e l a n e w i l l h a v e a m i n i m u m l e n g t h o f 2 5 0 f e e t w i t h a t o t a l o v e r a l l st o r a g e c a p a c i t y o f t h e d u a l l a n e s a m i n i m u m o f 5 0 0 fe e t i n l e n g t h . A p p r o p r i a t e d e c e l e r a t i o n l a n e s a n d re v e r s e t a p e r s f o r t h e r e v i s e d t u r n l a n e s s h a l l b e de s i g n e d a n d i n s t a l l e d p u r s u a n t t o S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a De p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( C a l t r a n s ) H i g h w a y De s i g n M a n u a l , o r ; A n e w l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e de c e l e r a t i o n / r e v e r s e t a p e r s s h a l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d o n LO V R a t t h e P r o j e c t no r t h we s t e r n m o s t d r i v e w a y . Th e l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e l e n g t h sh a l l b e a m i n i m u m o f 1 5 0 fe e t i n l e n gth . T h e P r o jec t d r i v e w a y/G a r c i a D r i v e Co s t c o : Co n s t r u c t i o n o f im p r o v e m e n t s , wi t h re i m b u r s e m e n t ag r e e m e n t s e t w i t h th e C i t y Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e of o c c u p a n c y pe r m i t Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h T r a f f i c / C i r c u l a t i o n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 9 0 Im p a c t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e De v e l o p e r Re s p o n s i b i l i t y Ti m i n g in t e r s e c t i o n s h a l l b e m o d i f i e d s o a s t o b e r e s t r i c t e d t o ri g h t t u r n i n - a n d - o u t o n l y , w i t h l e f t t u r n s a l l o w e d f r o m LO V R t o G a r c i a D r i v e a n d fr o m L O V R t o t h e no r t h we s t e r l y p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y . Up o n p r o j e c t ap p r o v a l , t h e C i t y w i l l d e t e rm i n e t h e p r o j e c t ’ s f a i r sh a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d e s t a b l i s h a r e i m b u r s e m e n t ag r e e m e n t w i t h t h e f r o n t t w o p a r c e l a p p l i c a n t s t h a t wo u l d b e n e f i t f r o m t h e a c c e s s i m p r o v e m e n t s . TR / m m - 5 b Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t fo r C o s t c o , th e a p p l i c a n t s h a l l u n d e r t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y mo d i f i c a t i o n s t o a c c o m m o d a t e : Th e L O V R f r o n t a g e r o a d o n t h e n o r t h ea s t s i d e o f L O V R sh a l l b e e x t e n d e d f r o m G a r c i a D r i v e t o t h e P r o j e c t m a i n dr i v e w a y t r a f f i c s i g n a l t o a l l o w l e f t t u r n a c c e s s o u t o f t h a t ne i g h b o r h o o d . T h e t r a f f i c s i g n a l s h a l l b e m o d i f i e d t o pr o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t i o n s f o r v e h i c l e s a n d p e d e s t r i a n s ut i l i z i n g t h i s n e w a p p r o a c h . Up o n p r o j e c t a p p r o v a l , t h e Ci t y w i l l d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o j e c t ’ s f a i r s h a r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y an d e s t a b l i s h a r e i m b u r s e m e n t ag r e e m e n t w i t h f u t u r e o t h e r pr o j e c t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e f r o n t t w o p a r c e l s , t h a t w o u l d b e n e f i t fr o m t h e s i d e w a l k e x t e n s i o n . TR - I m p a c t 6 - T h e l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e a r e a p r o v i d e d o n th e n o r t h b o u n d p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y a p p r o a c h t o L O V R wi l l n o t p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e s t o r a g e f o r t h e e s t i m a t e d l e f t tu r n v o l u m e . TR / m m - 6 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y p e r m i t fo r t h e C o s t c o c o m p o n e n t o f t h e p r o j e c t , t h e a p p l i c a n t sh a l l u n d e r t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o t h e m a i n pr o j e c t d r i v e w a y ( F r o o m R a n c h W a y ) t o a c c o m m o d a t e ei t h e r : a) In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T R / m m -5a ; m o d i f y t h e ex i s t i n g d r i v e w a y a p p r o a c h t o a c c o m m o d a t e t w o no r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e s a n d a r i g h t t u r n l a n e , o r ; b) In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h T R / m m -5b ; m o d i f y in g t h e ex i s t i n g d r i v e w a y a p p r o a c h a n d t r a f f i c s i g n a l t o ac c o m m o d a t e o n e n o r t h b o u n d l e f t t u r n l a n e , a n a d d i t i o n a l sh a r e d l e f t - t h r o u g h l a n e a n d a r i g h t t u r n l a n e . Co s t c o : 1 0 0 % P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e of o c c u p a n c y pe r m i t TR - I m p a c t 7 Th e C o s t c o p r o j e c t w i l l h a v e a cu m u l a t i v e i m p a c t a t t h e L O V R i n t e r c h a n g e . TR / m m - 7 P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s , th e a pp li c a n t s h a l l c o n t r i b u t e a “ fai r s h a r e , ” b a s e d o n Co s t c o : F a i r s h a r e co n t r i b u t i o n a s Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e of b u i l d i n g Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h T r a f f i c / C i r c u l a t i o n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 9 1 Im p a c t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e De v e l o p e r Re s p o n s i b i l i t y Ti m i n g cu r r e n t , o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e c o s t e s t i m a t e s b e i n g s t u d i e d i n th e L O V R P S R t o w a r d s t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e L O V R in t e r c h a n g e , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t i m p r o v e m e n t s im p l e m e n t e d a s p a r t o f T R / m m - 2 a a n d T R / m m - 2 b . Pa y m e n t o f t h e C i t y ’ s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t F e e ( T I F ) w i l l sa t i s f y t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i f t h e T I F p r o g r a m h a s b e e n up d a t e d t o i n c l u d e r e v i s e d co s t e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e L O V R in t e r c h a n g e . I f a t t h e t i m e of i s s u a n c e o f p e r m i t s , t h e T I F pr o g r a m h a s n o t b e e n m o d i f i e d t o r e f l e c t t h e s e c o s t s , t h e ap p l i c a n t w i l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g c u r r e n t T I F f e e s pl u s a m i t i g a t i o n f e e a s s o c i a t ed w i t h t h e e s t i m a t e d c o s t di f f e r e n t i a l b e t w e e n t h e L O V R i n t e r c h a n g e c o s t a n d t h e as s u m e d T I F c o m p o n e n t f o r t h e p r o j e c t . de t e r m i n e d b y t h e Ci t y . pe r m i t s TO T A L P R O J E C T ( B a c k g r o u n d p l u s C o s t c o p l u s F r o o m P a r c e l s ) TR - I m p a c t 7 8- T h e L O V R / C a l l e J o a q u i n / U . S . 1 0 1 in t e r s e c t i o n w i l l n o t o p e r a t e a t a n a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l o f se r v i c e w i t h t h e C o s t c o pr o j e c t a n d f r o n t p a r c e l s de v e l o p e d . TR / m m - 7 8 S u b s e q u e n t e n v i r o n m en t a l r e v i e w w i l l b e re q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o a s s e s s t h e ac t u a l l e v e l o f s e r v i c e a t t h e LO V R / C a l l e J o a q u i n / U . S . 1 0 1 i n t e r s e c t i o n w i t h im p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e C o s t c o p r o j e c t a n d i n f r a s t r u c t u r e im p r o v e m e n t s r e q u i r e d f o r t h a t p r o j e c t . I n t h e e v e n t i t i s de t e r m i n e d t h a t n o f u r t h e r i n f r a s t r u c t u r e i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e re q u i r e d , t h e a p p l i c a n t s f o r th e f r o n t p a r c e l s s h a l l b e re s p o n s i b l e f o r a “ f a i r s h a r e ” a s d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e C i t y f o r co s t s o f i m p r o v e m e n t s i m p l e m e n t e d b y C o s t c o a n d f u t u r e in t e r c h a n g e i m p r o v e m e n t s . Fr o o m P a r c e l s Ap p l i c a n t s : Su b s e q u e n t en v i r o n m e n t a l re v i e w Pr i o r t o o c c u p a n c y pe r m i t s f o r f r o n t pa r c e l s TR - I m p a c t 8 9- T h e l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e a r e a p r o v i d e d o n we s t b o u n d L O V R a t t h e p r o j e c t d r i v e w a y w i l l n o t pr o v i d e a d e q u a t e s t o r a g e f o r t h e e s t i m a t e d l e f t t u r n vo l u m e a t f u l l p r o j e c t b u i l d o u t . TR / m m - 8 9 Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y de v e l o p m e n t p e r m i t s f o r t h e f r o n t p a r c e l s , th e a p p l i c a n t s fo r t h e f r o n t p a r c e l s s h a l l u n d e r t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y mo d i f i c a t i o n s t o L O V R t o a c c o m m o d a t e e i t h e r : co n d u c t a tr a f f i c s t u d y s u b j e c t t o t h e a p pr o v a l o f t h e D i r e c t o r o f Pu b l i c W o r k s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e im p r o v e m e n t m e a s u r e s f o r i n c r ea s i n g l e f t t u r n c a p a c i t y f o r th e p r o j e c t s i t e , w h i c h m a y i n c l u d e e x t e n d i n g t h e d u a l l e f t tu r n l e n g t h s a t F r o o m R a n c h W a y . a) Ex t e n d t h e d u a l l e f t t u r n s t o r a g e l e n g t h s a t t h e P r o j e c t Ma i n D r i v e w a y ( F r o o m R a n c h W a y ) . T h e i n s i d e l a n e wi l l h a v e a m i n i mu m l e n g t h o f 3 0 0 f e e t w i t h a t o t a l ov e r a l l s t o r a ge c a pac i t y o f t h e d u a l l a n e s a m i n i m u m Fr o o m P a r c e l s Ap p l i c a n t s : 1 0 0 % as d e t e r m i n e d b y th e C i t y . Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e of o c c u p a n c y pe r m i t s Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h T r a f f i c / C i r c u l a t i o n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 9 2 Im p a c t Mi t i g a t i o n Me a s u r e De v e l o p e r Re s p o n s i b i l i t y Ti m i n g of 6 0 0 f e e t i n l e n g t h . A p p r o p r i a t e d e c e l e r a t i o n l a n e s an d r e v e r s e t a p e r s f o r t h e r e v i s e d t u r n l a n e s s h a l l b e de s i g n e d a n d i n s t a l l e d p u r s u a n t t o S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a De pa r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( C a l t r a n s ) H i g h w a y De s i g n M a n u a l , O R ; b) A n e w l e f t t u r n l a n e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e de c e l e r a t i o n / r e v e r s e t a p e r s s h a l l b e c o n s t r u c t e d o n LO V R a t t h e p r o j e c t ’ s w e s t e r n m o s t d r i v e w a y . T h e le f t t u r n s t o r a g e l e n g t h s h a l l b e a m i n i m u m o f 1 5 0 f ee t in l e n g t h . T h e d r i v e w a y / G a r c i a D r i v e i n t e r s e c t i o n sh a l l b e m o d i f i e d s o a s t o b e r e s t r i c t e d t o r i g h t t u r n i n - an d -ou t o n l y . T h e L O V R f r o n t a g e r o a d o n t h e n o r t h si d e o f L O V R s h a l l b e e x t e n d e d f r o m G a r c i a D r i v e t o th e t r a f f i c s i g n a l l o c a t e d a t t h e P r o j e c t m a i n d r i v e w a y to a l l o w l e f t t u r n a c c e s s o u t o f t h e O c e a n a i r e ne i g h b o r h o o d . T h e t r a f f i c s i g n al a t t h i s l o c a t i o n s h a l l be m o d i f i e d t o p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t i o n s f o r ve h i c l e s a n d p e d e s t r i a n s u t i l i z i n g t h i s n e w a p p r o a c h . TE N - Y E A R C U M U L A T I V E ( B a c k g r o u n d p l u s C o s t c o p l u s F r o o m P a r c e l s p l u s 1 0 - y e a r C u m u l a t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t ) TR - I m p a c t 9 10 - A d d i t i o n o f p r o j e c t - g e n e r a t e d t r a f f i c wo u l d c o n t r i b u t e t o s e v e r a l s t u d y a r e a i n t e r s e c t i o n s op e r a t i n g a t L O S E o r F . TR / m m - 9 10 P r i o r t o i s s u a n c e o f o c c u p a n c y bu i l d i n g pe r m i t s fo r t h e f r o n t t w o p a r c e l s , t h e C o s t c o a p p l i c a n t a n d ap p l i c a n t s f o r t h e f r o n t p a r c e l s s h a l l c o n t r i b u t e “ f a i r s h a r e ” co n t r i b u t i o n s , b a s e d o n c u r r e n t , o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e c o s t es t i m a t e s b e i n g s t u d i e d i n t h e L O V R P S R t o w a r d s t h e co n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e L O V R I n t e r c h a n g e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n . Pa y m e n t o f t h e C i t y ’ s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p a c t F e e ( T I F ) w i l l sa t i s f y t h i s f a i r s h a r e c o n t r i b u t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t i f t h e T I F pr o g r a m h a s b e e n u p d a t e d t o i n cl u d e r e v i s e d c o s t e s t i m a t e s fo r r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e L O V R i n t e r c h a n g e . I f a t t h e t i m e o f bu i l d i n g p e r m i t i s s u a n c e , t h e T I F p r o g r a m h a s n o t b e e n mo d i f i e d t o r e f l e c t t h e s e d i f f e r en t c o s t s , t h e f r o n t p a r c e l ap p l i c a n t s w i l l b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p a y i n g c u r r e n t T I F F e e s pl u s a m i t i g a t i o n f e e a s s o c i a t ed w i t h t h e e s t i m a t e d c o s t di f f e r e n t i a l b e t w e e n t h e LO V R i n t e r c h a n g e a n d t h e as s u m e d T I F c o m p o n e n t o f t h e p r o j e c t . Fr o o m P a r c e l s Ap p l i c a n t s : F a i r Sh a r e C o n t r i b u t i o n Pr i o r t o i s s u a n c e of r e s p e c t i v e oc c u p a n c y pe r m i t s . Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-93 F. AIR QUALITY This section has been prepared based on the information provided by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and modeling of vehicle emissions using the computer program URBEMIS 2001 for Windows provided by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Emission calculations are found in Appendix H. 1. Environmental Setting a. Local and Regional Meteorology The climate of San Luis Obispo County can be generally characterized as Mediterranean, with warm, dry summers and cooler, relatively damp winters. Along the coast, mild temperatures are the rule throughout the year due to the moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean. This effect is diminished inland in proportion to distance from the ocean or by major intervening terrain features, such as the coastal mountain ranges. As a result, a considerably wider range of temperature conditions characterizes inland areas. Maximum summertime temperatures average about 70 degrees Fahrenheit near the coast, while inland valleys are often in the high 90’s. Average minimum winter temperatures range from the low 30’s along the coast to the low 20’s inland. Regional meteorology is largely dominated by a persistent high pressure area which commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean. Seasonal variations in the strength and position of this pressure cell cause seasonal changes in the weather patterns of the area. The Pacific “high” remains generally fixed several hundred miles offshore from May through September, enhancing onshore winds and opposing offshore winds. During spring and early summer, as the onshore breezes pass over the cool water of the ocean, fog and low clouds often form in the marine air layer along the coast. Surface heating in the interior valleys dissipates the marine layer as it moves inland. From November through April the Pacific High tends to migrate southward, allowing northern storms to move across the County. About 90% of the total annual rainfall is received during this period. Winter conditions are usually mild, with intermittent periods of precipitation followed by mostly clear days. Rainfall amounts can vary considerably among different regions in the County. In the Coastal Plain, annual rainfall averages 16 to 28 inches, while the Upper Salinas River Valley generally receives about 12 to 20 inches of rain. The Carrizo Plain is the driest area of the County with less than 12 inches of rain in a typical year. Airflow around the County plays an important role in the movement and dispersion of pollutants. The speed and direction of local winds are controlled by the location and strength of the Pacific High pressure system and other global patterns, by topographical factors, and by circulation patterns resulting from temperature differences between the land and sea. In spring and summer months, when the Pacific High attains its greatest strength, onshore winds from the northwest generally prevail during the day. At night, as the sea breeze dies, weak drainage winds flow down the coastal mountains and valleys to form a light, easterly land breeze. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-94 In the fall, onshore surface winds decline and the marine layer grows shallow, allowing an occasional reversal to a weak offshore flow. This, along with the diurnal alteration of land-sea breeze circulation, can sometimes produce a “sloshing” effect. Under these conditions, pollutants may accumulate over the ocean for a period of one or more days and are subsequently carried back onshore with the return of the sea breeze. Strong inversions can form at this time, “trapping” pollutants near the surface. This effect is intensified when the Pacific Highs weakens or moved inland to the east. This may produce a “Santa Ana” condition in which air, often pollutant-laden, is transported into the County from the east and southeast. This can occur over a period of several days until the high pressure system returns to its normal location, breaking the pattern. The breakup of this condition may result in relatively stagnant conditions and a buildup of pollutants offshore. The onset of the typical daytime seabreeze can bring these pollutants back onshore, where they combine with local emissions to cause high pollutant concentrations. Not all occurrences of the “post Santa Ana” condition lead to high ambient pollutant levels, but it does play an important role in the air pollution meteorology of the County. b. Atmospheric Stability and Dispersion Air pollutant concentrations are primarily determined by the amount of pollutant emissions in an area and the degree to which these pollutants are dispersed in the atmosphere. The stability of the atmosphere is one of the key factors affecting pollutant dispersion. Atmospheric stability regulates the amount of vertical and horizontal air exchange, or mixing, that can occur within a given air basin. Restricted mixing and low wind speeds are generally associated with a high degree of stability in the atmosphere. These conditions are characteristic of temperature inversions. In the atmosphere, air temperatures normally decrease as altitude increases. At varying distances above the earth’s surface, however, a reversal of this gradient can occur. This condition, termed an inversion, is simply a warm layer of air above a layer of cooler air and it has the effect of limiting the vertical dispersion on pollutants. The height of the inversion determines the size of the mixing volume trapped below. Inversion strength or intensity is measured by the thickness of the layer and the difference in temperature between the base and the top of the inversion. The strength of the inversion determines how easily it can be broken by winds or solar heating. Several types of inversions are common to this area. Weak, surface inversions are caused by radiational cooling of air in contact with the cold surface of the earth at night. In valleys and low lying areas, this condition is intensified by the addition of cold air flowing downslope from the hills and pooling on the valley floor. Surface inversions are a common occurrence throughout the County during the winter, particularly on cold mornings when the inversion is strongest. As the morning sun warms the earth and the air near the ground, the inversion lifts, gradually dissipating as the day progresses. During the late spring and early summer months, cool air over the ocean can intrude under the relatively warmer air over land, causing a marine inversion. These inversions can restrict dispersion along the coast, but they are typically shallow and will dissipate with surface heating. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-95 In contrast, in the summertime the presence of the Pacific high pressure cell can cause the air mass aloft to sink. As the air descends, compressional heating warms it to a temperature higher than the air below. This highly stable atmospheric condition, termed a subsidence inversion, is common to all of coastal California and can act as a nearly impenetrable lid to the vertical mixing of pollutants. The base of the inversion typically ranges from 1,000 to 2,500 feet above sea level. However, levels as low as 250 feet, amount the lowest anywhere in the state, have been recorded on the coastal plateau in San Luis Obispo County. The strength of these inversions makes them difficult to disrupt. Consequently, they can persist for one or more days, causing air stagnation and the buildup of pollutants. Highest or worst-case ozone levels are often associated with the presence of this type of inversion. c. Existing Air Quality The air quality in a given location is described by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere, expressed in units of parts per million (ppm), parts per hundred million (pphm), or micrograms of pollutant per cubic meter of air (µg/m). The significance of a given pollutant level can be evaluated by comparing its atmospheric concentration to state and national air quality standards, which are presented in Table V-15. These standards represent allowable atmospheric contaminant levels at which the public health and welfare are protected, and include a margin of safety. The primary factors affecting air quality in a given area are the quantity, type and location of pollutant emissions, the topographic and geographic features of the region, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. An emission rate represents the amount of pollutant released into the atmosphere by a given source over a specified time period; it is generally expressed in units such as pounds per hour (lb/hr) and tons per year (ton/yr). Local and regional meteorological conditions govern the transport and diffusion of emissions in the atmosphere. Wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, temperature, and the presence or absence of inversions are some of the key parameters which affect pollutant dispersion. Ambient air monitoring has been conducted at a variety of stations in the County. Table V-16 presents the highest pollutant concentrations measured over the most recent 10-year period available for all of the monitoring stations in San Luis Obispo County. Monitoring stations are located in San Luis Obispo, Nipomo, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, and Atascadero. The California Clean Air Act, adopted in 1988, requires that all APCDs and Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) adopt and enforce regulations to achieve and maintain the state ambient air quality standards for the area under its jurisdiction. Pursuant to the requirements of the law, San Luis Obispo County has adopted (May 1998) a Clean Air Plan (CAP, formally known as the Air Quality Attainment and Maintenance Plan) to demonstrate attainment of the state standards by the earliest practicable date. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the APCD, the County, and other local agencies on how to attain and maintain the state standard for ozone. The CAP presents a detailed description of the sources and pollutants which impact the County, future air quality impacts to be expected under current growth trends, and an appropriate control strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-96 The District has been designated a nonattainment area for the state ozone and PM10 standards and is required to reduce these emissions (or their precursors) by at least 5% per year until the standards are achieved. State law requires that emissions of nonattainment pollutants countywide be decreased by at least 40% from the 1987 levels in order to meet clean air standards. The local concentrations of inert, or non-reactive, pollutants (CO, O3, PM10) are primarily influenced by nearby sources of emissions, and thus, vary considerably between monitoring stations; the SO2 levels on the Nipomo Mesa are a good example of this. On a regional basis, ozone is the pollutant of greatest concern in the County, particularly within the coastal plateau. Ozone is a secondary pollutant, formed in the atmosphere by complex photochemical reactions involving precursor pollutants and sunlight. The amount of ozone formed is dependant upon both the ambient concentration of chemical precursors and the intensity and duration of sunlight. Consequently, ambient ozone concentration tends to vary seasonally with the weather. Reactive organic gases (ROG), also called reactive hydrocarbons (RHC), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are the primary precursors to ozone formation. NOX emissions result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels; ROG emissions are also generated by fossil fuel combustion and through the evaporation of petroleum products. d. Existing Emissions The most recent emission inventory for San Luis Obispo County is shown in Table V-17. Emissions of ROG and NOX are fairly equally divided between mobile and stationary sources, with the Duke Morro Bay power plant being the largest, single stationary source of NOX emissions in the County. The majority of NOX emissions are produced by automobiles and electrical generation. Industrial sources, in particular the Unocal complex on the Nipomo Mesa, generate nearly all of the SO2 emissions in the County. e.Benzene Benzene is a widely used chemical formed from both natural processes and human activities. Benzene can pass into the air from water and soil and can pass through the soil into undergound water. Breathing benzene can cause drowsiness, dizziness, and unconsciousness. Long-term benzene exposure causes effects on the bone marrow and can cause anemia and leukemia. Benzene is used to make other chemicals used to make plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers and is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Natural sources of benzene include volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke. 2. Regulatory Setting a. Federal Policies and Regulations Air quality protection at the national level is provided through the federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). These amendments represent the fifth major effort by the U.S. Congress to improve air quality. The 1990 CAAA is generally less stringent than the California Clean Air Act. However, unlike the California law, the CAAA sets statutory deadlines for attaining federal standards. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-97 b. State Policies and Regulations The California Clean Air Act, adopted in 1988, requires that all APCDs adopt and enforce regulations to achieve and maintain the state ambient air quality standards for the area under its jurisdiction. Pursuant to the requirements of the law, San Luis Obispo County APCD adopted a Clean Air Plan (CAP) for their jurisdiction. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the APCD, the County, and other local agencies on how to attain and maintain the state standard for ozone. The CAP presents a detailed description of the sources and pollutants which impact the jurisdiction, future air quality impacts to be expected under current growth trends, and an appropriate control strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality. 3. Thresholds of Significance California and the federal EPA have adopted air quality standards for pollutants of primary public health concern. Pollutants for which National standards have been set include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, fine particulate matter and lead, a specific particulate pollutant. California standards tend to be more restrictive and health-protective than National standards. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment for all federal air quality standards. The County is also in attainment for state air quality standards with the exception of ozone and PM10 emissions. Thresholds of significance for determining air quality impacts are established by the APCD. These thresholds are discussed or are shown in the following impact analysis sections and comparisons to actual impacts are given where applicable (refer to Table V-20 and Table V-21). Table V-18 represents the APCD Thresholds of Significance for Operational Emissions Impacts. Table V-19 represents the Level of Construction Activity Requiring Mitigation. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-98 TABLE V-15 Ambient Air Quality Standards CALIFORNIA STANDARDS1 NATIONAL STANDARDS2 POLLUTANT AVERAGING TIME CONCENTRATION3 PRIMARY3,4 Secondary3,5 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) 0.12 ppm (235 µg/m3)6OZONE (O3)8 Hour ----- 0.08 ppm (157 µg/m3) Same as Primary Standard 24 Hour 65 µg/m3FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)Annual arithmetic mean No California Standards 15 µg/m3 Annual geometric mean 30 µg/m3 ----- 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10) Annual arithmetic mean ----- 50 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) ----- Annual arithmetic mean ----- 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2)1 Hour 0.25 ppm (470 µg/m3) ----- Same as Primary Standard 30 day average 1.5 µg/m3 ----- ----- LEAD Calendar quarter ----- 1.5 µg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Annual arithmetic mean ----- 0.030 ppm (80 µg/m3) ----- 24 Hour 0.04 PPM (105 µg/m3) 0.14 PPM (365 µg/m3) ----- 3 Hour ----- ----- 0.5 ppm (1300 µg/m3) SULFUR DIOXIDE (SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 PPM (655 µg/m3) ----- ----- VISIBILITY REDUCING PARTICLES 8 Hour (10 am to 6 pm, PST) In sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer – visibility of ten miles or more due to particles when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. SULFATES 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 HUDROGEN SULFIDE 1 Hour 0.03 PPM (42 µg/m3) No National Standards NOTES: 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. 2. National standards, other than ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM2.5 the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national Policies. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar). Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 5. National Secondary Standards: The levels of quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 6. New national 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter standards were promulgated by U.S. EPA on July 18, 1997. The national 1-hour ozone standard continues to apply in areas that violated the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-99 TABLE V-16 San Luis Obispo APCD Maximum Pollutant Concentrations Measured In San Luis Obispo County from 1990-1997 Pollutant/ Monitoring Station Averaging Time Units of Measure 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 1999 Ozone (O3) San Luis Obispo 1-hour ppm 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 Nipomo 1-hour ppm 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.07 ** ** 0.09 Grover Beach 1-hour ppm 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.09 Morro Bay 1-hour ppm 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.10 Paso Robles 1-hour ppm 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.13 0.10 Atascadero 1-hour ppm 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 Carbon Monoxide (CO) San Luis Obispo 1-hour ppm 8.0 9.0 6.0 5.7 5.0 7.4 4.0 5.0 8-hour ppm 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.3 3.1 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) San Luis Obispo 1-hour ppm 0.06 0.1 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 annual ppm 0.013 0.010 0.0140.013 0.013 0.014 0.0120.013 Nipomo 1-hour ppm 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.04* ** 0.04 0.07 annual ppm 0.010 0.010 0.0100.008 0.008 ** 0.008 0.007 Grover Beach 1-hour ppm 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 annual ppm 0.007 0.010 0.0100.007 0.007 0.008 0.0070.008 SLO-Lewis Lane 1-hour ppm 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.02* ** ** ** ** annual ppm 0.006 0.010 0.0000.003 ** ** ** ** Atascadero 1-hour ppm 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 annual ppm 0.015 0.010 0.0100.012 0.012 0.012 0.1110.0113 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Nipomo 1-hour ppm 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.024 0.031 ** ** ** 24-hour ppm 0.010 0.010 0.01 0.004 0.005 ** ** ** annual ppm 0.000 0.000 0.0000.001 0.001* ** ** ** Grover Beach 1-hour ppm 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.04 24-hour ppm 0.004 0.010 0.0200.004 0.005 0.006 0.0040.005 annual ppm 0.000 0.000 0.0000.000 0.000 0.001 0.0010.001 Morro Bay 1-hour ppm 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.038 ** ** ** ** 24-hour ppm 0.000 0.000 0.0000.005 ** ** ** ** annual ppm 0.000 0.000 0.0000.000 ** ** ** ** Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-100 Pollutant/ Monitoring Station Averaging Time Units of Measure 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 1999 SLO-Lewis Lane 1-hour ppm 0.020 0.020 0.0200.010 ** ** ** ** 24-hour ppm 0.004 0.010 0.0000.000* ** ** ** ** annual ppm 0.000 0.000 0.0000.000* ** ** ** ** Nipomo Mesa 1-hour ppm 0.170 0.140 ** ** ** ** ** ** 24-hour ppm 0.017 0.020 ** ** ** ** ** ** annual ppm 0.003 0.000 ** ** ** ** ** ** PM-10 San Luis Obispo 24-hour µg/m3 36* 57 37 51 39 55 32 44 annual µg/m3 18.8* 19.1 19.1 17.6 15.2 17.2 16.0 17.6 Atascadero 24-hour µg/m3 44* 78* 44 52 44 70 47 43 annual µg/m3 22.3* 20.7* 21.1 20.8 16.1 18.7 16.3 19.4 Nipomo 24-hour µg/m3 46 59* 52 62 48 ** ** 72 annual µg/m3 22.9 19.2* 20.8 17.0 18.1* ** ** 22.3 Morro Bay 24-hour µg/m3 38 64 48* 40 42 57 33 39 annual µg/m3 17.8 18.6 18.3*17.5 15.8 18.2 14.6 15.6 Paso Robles 24-hour µg/m3 53* 54* 30* 56 46 75 55 58 annual µg/m3 22.8* 16.3* 19.5*18.7 17.4 19.0 17.4 22.7 Notes: -- Indicates data not available * Data are valid but incomplete and may not be representative ** Monitoring Terminated; ++ Annual arithmetic mean for SO2 and NO2, Annual geometric mean for TSP and PM10 Source: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, Clean Air Plan, May 1998 Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-101 TABLE V-17 San Luis Obispo APCD 1991 Reference Year Annual Emissions Inventory Summary (tons per year) SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOx SO2 PM-10 STATIONARY SOURCES Fuel Combustion Electric Utilities 27.5 11.9 605.8 3443.4 159.3 62.3 Cogeneration 2.7 0.3 16.2 23.4 0.0 0.0 Oil and Gas Production 47.8 16.3 100.6 218.4 2.7 5.5 Petroleum Refining 14.3 10.5 74.0 287.3 760.7 17.4 Manufacturing and Industrial 15.7 3.7 90.7 152.9 3.9 1.7 Food and Agriculture Processing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Services and Commercial 46.4 18.6 38.4 213.2 3.2 8.6 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fuel Combustion Subtotal 154.4 61.3 925.7 4338.6 929.8 95.5 Waste Disposal Sewage Treatment 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Landfills 4585.3 60.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Soil Remediation 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incinerators/Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Waste Disposal Subtotal 4,587.3 61.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cleaning And Surface Coating Laundering and Dry Cleaning 7.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Degreasing 179.3 160.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coatings and Related Process Solvents 469.2 445.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Printing 24.5 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 148.7 133.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cleaning/Surface Coating Subtotal 829.0 764.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Petroleum Production And Marketing Oil and Gas Production 246.7 145.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Petroleum Refining 335.7 277.9 7.7 37.5 3668.9 25.7 Petroleum Marketing 552.2 519.6 1.0 6.5 1.9 99.5 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Petroleum Prod. and Mark. Subtotal 1134.6 942.6 8.7 44.0 3670.8 125.2 Industrial Processes Chemical 13.2 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Food and Agriculture 30.9 30.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 Mineral Processes 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.8 2.1 42.9 Metal Processes/Wood & Paper/Glass & Related/Electronics/Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial Processes Subtotal 44.1 43.3 0.8 5.8 2.1 64.8 TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 6,749.4 1,874.0 935.2 4,388.4 4,602.7 285.5 AREA-WIDE SOURCES Solvent Evaporation Consumer Products 698.8 632.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-102 SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOx SO2 PM-10 Architectural Coatings/Related Proc. Solv. 414 375.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pesticides/Fertilizers 471.7 467.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Asphalt Paving 83.5 83.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Refrigerants 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other 17.5 17.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Solvent Evaporation Subtotal 1685.5 1576.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Miscellaneous Processes Residential Fuel Combustion 512.3 212.8 3,504.2 225.3 10.0 496.7 Farming Operations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 652.2 Construction and Demolition 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,165.1 Paved Road Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,297.2 Unpaved Road Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,158.4 Fugitive Wind Blown Dust 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 628.7 Fires 3.3 2.3 35.1 0.7 0.0 3.5 Waste Burning and Disposal 1,557.1 670.4 8,049.2 5.6 0.9 1,068.2 Utility Equipment 175.2 168.0 1,424.8 6.3 0.3 3.2 Other 12.4 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.9 Miscellaneous Processes Subtotal 2,260.3 1,062.2 13,013.3 237.9 11.2 8,499.1 TOTAL AREA-WIDE SOURCES 3,945.8 2,638.4 13,013.3 237.9 11.2 8,499.1 MOBILE SOURCES On-Road Motor Vehicles Light-Duty Vehicle Passenger 3,938.40 3,511.80 35,913.20 3,166.30 57.80 51.10 Light-Duty Trucks 2,404.60 2,122.70 22,194.50 2,384.00 33.00 27.20 Medium Duty Trucks 213.00 184.00 1,668.30 265.80 3.20 1.70 Light Heavy-Duty Gas Trucks 92.60 85.90 1,627.50 322.70 7.90 11.70 Medium Heavy-Duty Gas Trucks 65.20 61.80 1,080.00 127.80 1.90 3.70 Light Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks 17.30 16.80 81.20 133.40 9.20 15.90 Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks 48.70 46.90 197.40 350.10 15.20 49.20 Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks 161.80 157.20 665.10 1,519.20 43.30 161.30 Motorcycle 53.00 49.70 167.60 20.10 0.30 0.90 Heavy-Duty Diesel Urban Buses 0.80 0.80 1.00 9.40 0.30 0.20 On-Road Motor Vehicles Subtotal 6,995.4 6,237.6 63,595.8 8,298.8 172.1 322.9 Other Mobile Sources Aircraft 153.40 133.80 1,450.00 24.00 3.30 0.00 Trains 26.60 25.80 85.20 786.20 31.30 18.60 Ships and Commercial Boats 28.20 27.30 79.30 343.30 46.80 26.80 Recreational Boats 472.70 453.90 1,565.90 41.70 1.00 18.70 Off-Road Recreational Vehicles 99.10 95.20 577.30 14.10 0.70 1.30 Commercial/Industrial Mobile Equipment 90.00 87.10 1,169.90 743.20 10.90 46.70 Farm Equipment 277.50 268.20 4,058.10 1,668.40 14.60 121.60 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Mobile Sources Subtotal 1,147.5 1,091.3 8,985.7 3,620.9 108.6 233.7 TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 8,142.9 7,328.9 72,581.5 11,919.7 280.7 556.6 TOTAL ALL SOURCES 18,838.1 11,841.3 86,530.0 16,546.0 4,894.6 9,341.2 Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-103 SOURCES TOG ROG CO NOx SO2 PM-10 Source: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, Clean Air Plan, May 1998 TABLE V-18 APCD Thresholds of Significance For Operational Emissions Impacts Pollutant Threshold Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 ROG, NOX, SO2, PM10 <10 lbs/day 10 lbs/day 25 lbs/day 25 tons/yr CO <50 lbs/day 50 lbs/day 550 lbs/day 25 tons/yr Level of Significance Insignificant Significant Significant Significant Environmental Document ND MND MND or EIR EIR Source: County of San Luis Obispo APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1997 TABLE V-19 Level of Construction Activity Requiring Mitigation Emissions Amount of Material Moved Pollutant of Concern Tons/Qtr Lbs/day Cu. Yds/Qtr Cu. Yds/Day ROG 2.5 185 400,000 15,000 6.0 970,000 NOX 2.5 185 50,000 2,000 6.0 125,000 PM10 Any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres of continuously worked area will exceed the 2.5 ton PM10 quarterly threshold. (All calculations assume working conditions of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, for a total of 65 days per quarter.) Source: County of San Luis Obispo APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1997 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology Emission estimates for the proposed project have been determined through use of the following: xConsultation with the County of San Luis Obispo APCD; xUse of the County of San Luis Obispo APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, August 1997; xUse of the County of San Luis Obispo APCD Clean Air Plan, May 1998 and December 2001; xUse of the California Air Resources Board CAPCOA Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment, November 1997; xUse of the URBEMIS 2001 software program designed to estimate air emissions from land development projects; and, xIncorporation of the Traffic and Circulation Study prepared for the proposed project. Subsequent to the determination of emission estimates for the proposed project, the emissions are analyzed in accordance to the thresholds of significance put in place by the County of San Luis Obispo APCD. This analysis provides the basis for the determination of the level of significance in association to APCD tiered thresholds. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-104 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Short-term Project-specific Emissions 1) Asbestos Serpentine is a very common rock type in the state and has been identified by the APCD as having the potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos. Construction of the project may result in an exposure of naturally occurring asbestos through the removal of serpentine rock. AQ/Impact-1 Grading activities may expose naturally occurring asbestos After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). AQ/mm-1 Prior to construction, a geologic analysis shall be conducted to determine presence of serpentine rock. AQ/mm-2 Prior to construction, if naturally occurring asbestos is found at the site, the applicant shall prepare an Asbestos Health and Safety Program and an Asbestos Dust Control Plan which shall be approved by the ACPD prior to commencement of construction activities. 2) Construction Use of heavy equipment and earth-moving operations during project construction can generate fugitive dust and combustion emissions that may have substantial temporary impacts on local air quality. Fugitive dust emissions result from land clearing, demolition, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and equipment traffic over temporary roads at the construction site. Combustion emissions, primarily NOx, are most significant when using large, diesel-fueled scrapers, loaders, dozers, haul trucks, compressors, generators and other heavy equipment. Emissions can vary substantially from day to day depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Screening emission rates for construction operations provided by the APCD were used to determine construction emissions. Total emissions generated by construction activities are shown in Table V-20 and calculations for these emissions are included in Appendix H. Not all construction activities will occur at the same time; therefore, this estimate should take account for a “worse- case” scenario. The bold numbers represent emission estimates that exceed the APCD threshold for construction activities. Table V-20 Short-Term Construction Emissions Emission Estimates (lbs/day) Emission Estimates (tons/qtr) Short-Term Emissions ROG NOX CO PM10 ROG NOX CO PM10 Parcel 1 98.77 756.80 197.60 45.86 0.39 3.0 0.78 0.18 Parcel 2 98.77 756.80 197.60 45.86 0.12 0.94 0.06 0.24 Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-105 Total 98.77 756.80 197.60 45.86 0.51 3.94 1.03 0.24 APCD Thresholds 185 185 n/a n/a 2.5 6.0 2.5 6.0 n/a 2.5 A total of 83,200 cubic yards of cut and fill is estimated to result from construction activities (63,400 cubic yards for Parcel 1 and 19,800 cubic yards for Parcel 2, the Costco parcel), which will be balanced on-site. There will be a maximum of 8,000 cubic yards of material moved per day for grading activities required for the front parcels. In addition, grading activities will take place for approximately 11 days (8 days for Parcel 1 and 2.5 days for Parcel 2) for 10 hours per day. As grading for Parcel 2 is included in the applicant’s estimation of cut and fill ratios, the impacts of this grading is included in the project analysis. The critical pollutant in the evaluation of the significance of construction emission is oxides of nitrogen because of the high output of this pollutant by heavy diesel equipment normally used in grading operations and their role as ozone precursors. The total output of NOX emissions to construct the project is estimated above at 756.80 pounds per day (3.94 tons per quarter), while the total output of ROG emissions is estimated above at 98.77 pounds per day (0.51 tons per quarter). Based on this estimate and the threshold of significance for ozone precursors (reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen), construction of the project will result in combustion related emissions that exceed the pounds per day and tons per quarter APCD’s mitigation threshold for NOX. Therefore, the APCD’s recommended CBACT equipment should be incorporated into the project (oxidation catalysts, CARB certified diesel, all equipment properly tuned). The project will grade an area greater than 4.0 acres. Any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres of continuously worked area will exceed the 2.5 ton PM10 quarterly threshold. Therefore, all standard APCD dust control mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction phase of the proposed project to reduce the potential to generate nuisance problems and maintain PM10 emissions below the APCD’s mitigation threshold. AQ/Impact-2 NOX emissions resulting from construction activities exceed the APCD pounds per day and tons per quarter construction thresholds. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant unavoidable impact (Class I). AQ/mm-3 During construction, the applicant shall implement the following Best Available Control Technology for diesel-fueled construction equipment, where feasible: a. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer’s specifications. b. All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generators, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-106 c. Use 1996 or newer heavy duty off road vehicles to the extent feasible. d. Use of Caterpillar pre-chamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX). e. Electrify equipment where possible. f.Maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer’s specifications, except as otherwise required above. g.Use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas(LNG), biodiesel, or propane for on-site mobile equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment. AQ/mm-4 Prior to construction, Install one (1) catalytic soot filters on the pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Where If a catalytic soot filters are is determined to be unsuitable, the owner shall install and use an diesel oxidation catalyst. a. Suitability is to be determined by an authorized representative of the filter manufacturer, or an independent California Licensed Mechanical Engineer who will submit, for APCD approval, a Suitability Report identifying and explaining the particular constraints to using the preferred catalytic soot filter. b. Installations must be conducted according to manufacturer’s specifications. c. Proof that the catalytic soot filters have been installed must be provided to the APCD. d. The APCD shall be notified prior to operation of the equipment with the filters installed. e. Acceptable proof may be in the form of visual inspection by APCD staff or submittal of filter serial numbers and photos of the equipment with the installed filters. f.Equipment to be operated during construction should be identified as early as possible in order to place the order for the appropriate filter and avoid any project delays. AQ/mm-5 Prior to construction, If it is determined that portable engines and portable equipment will be utilized, the contractor shall contact the County of San Luis Obispo APCD and obtain a permit to operate portable engines prior to commencement of construction.or Pportable equipment shall be registered in the statewide portable equipment registration program. Contact David Dixon, APCD Engineering Division Supervisor, 781-5912. AQ/Impact-3 PM10 emissions resulting from construction activities will impact air quality. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). AQ/mm-6 Prior to construction, A Dust Control Plan shall be prepared and approved by the APCD prior to commencement of construction activities. The Dust Control Plan shall include the following: a. Important elements of this plan would be detailed dust mitigation measures and provisions for monitoring for dust and construction debris during construction. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-107 b. The contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering or other measures as necessary to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties should include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. c. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD and adjacent residents of Garcia Drive and the DeVaul residential development prior to construction commencement. d. Compliant handling procedures shall be identified. e.A daily dust observation log shall be filled out as necessary. AQ/mm-7 During construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during earth moving activities: a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. d. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. f. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. h. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of free board (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. This measure has the potential to reduce PM10 emissions by 7-14%. i. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. This measure has the potential to reduce PM10 emissions by 40-70%. j. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used when feasible. This measure has the potential to reduce PM10 emissions by 25- 60%. k.Permanent dust control measures shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. AQ/mm-8 Prior to construction, the following mitigation measures are required in order to remain in compliance with the APCD: a. The applicant must obtain a compliance review with the APCD prior to the initiation of any construction activities. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-108 b.A list of all heavy-duty construction equipment operating at the site must be provided to the APCD. The list shall include the make, model, engine size, and year of each piece of equipment. This compliance review will identify all equipment and operations requiring permits and will assist in the identification of suitable equipment for the catalyzed diesel particulate filter. c.The applicant must apply for an Authority to Construct from the APCD where necessary. AQ/mm-9 During construction, Monthly compliance checks throughout the construction phase is required to verify that all equipment and operations continue to comply with the APCD requirements. b. Long-term Project-specific Emissions 1) Operational Emissions Long-term operational emissions result from the combination of vehicle emissions and area source emissions. The two components of operational emissions were determined through the use of the URBEMIS 2001 software program (refer to Appendix H for URBEMIS Emission Estimates). Trip rates were determined from the Higgins and Associates Traffic and Circulation Study and the Addendum to the Traffic and Circulation Study prepared for the project, where applicable. URBEMIS 2001 trip rate defaults were used for the components of the project that were not included in the traffic report. Long-term construction emission estimates are shown in Table V-21 and the URBEMIS data sheets are included in Appendix H. The bold numbers represent emission estimates that exceed the APCD thresholds for operation emissions. Table V-21 Long-Term Operational Emissions Emission Estimates (lbs/day) Emission Estimates (tons/yr) Long-Term Operational Emissions ROG NOX CO PM10 ROG NOX CO PM10 Vehicle Emissions 110.13 127.00 1,397.31 5.38 21.30 26.43 260.39 0.98 Area Source Emissions 0.30 1.37 1.92 0.01 0.04 0.25 0.22 0.00 Total 110.43 128.37 1,399.23 5.39 21.34 26.68 260.61 0.98 APCD Tier I Thresholds 10 10 50 10 APCD Tier II Thresholds 25 25 550 25 APCD Tier III Thresholds 25 25 25 25 The inclusion of vehicle and area source emissions results in a long-term operational emission exceedance of the APCD’s pounds per day Tier II Threshold for ROG and CO and tons per year Tier III Threshold for ROG, NOX, and CO emissions. PM10 long-term operational emissions are within exceed the APCD’s Tier I Threshold, but are within the Tier II Thresholds. Therefore, long-term operational emissions resulting from ROG, NOX, and CO emissions need to be mitigated to the extent feasible. AQ/Impact-4 ROG, NOX, and CO long-term operation emissions exceed the APCD’s Tier II Threshold. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-109 After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant unavoidable impact (Class I). AQ/Impact-5 PM10 long-term operation emissions exceed the APCD’s Tier I Threshold. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). AQ/mm-10 During and Post construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce area source emissions, where applicable. a. Increase walls and attic insulation beyond by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. b. Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. c. Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. d. Use built-in energy efficient appliances, were applicable. e. Orient buildings toward streets with convenient pedestrian and transit access. f. Use double-paned windows. g. Use sodium low-energy parking lot and streetlights. (e.g. sodium) h. Use energy efficient interior lighting. i.Incorporate energy efficient skylights into roof plan (i.e. should meet the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating). j. Install High efficiency or gas space heating. k.Install door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and windows are not available. AQ/mm-11 During and Post construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce vehicle emissions, where applicable. a. Implementation of one or more of the following options, for an amount to be negotiated with the APCD: x A Flash Pass program for employees using public transit, xInstall or contribute to funding alternative fueling infrastructure (i.e. fueling stations for CNG, LPG, biodiesel, conductive and inductive electric vehicle charging, etc.) xFund a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and heavy- duty vehicles. xReplace/repower heavy-duty diesel school vehicles (i.e. bus, passenger, or maintenance vehicles). xPurchase particulate filters or oxidation catalysts for local school buses, transit fleets. xProvide assistance in the implementation of projects that are identified in City or County Bicycle Master Plans. xUse alternatively-fueled delivery vehicles. b.Location of an Electronic Vehicle charging station in the parking lot. c. Transit stop enhancements (shelters, phones, etc.) within the project impact area. d. Subject to the approval of a trip reduction plan submitted to the Public Works DirectorAPCD, implement a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program for employees. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-110 e. Provide on-site long-and short-term bicycle parking consistent with provisions of Section 16.060, Table 6.5 of the City Municipal Code, with location and design criteria as established by the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, and with installation and design guidance provided by the City’s Community Design Guidelines. One bicycle parking space for every 10 employees is considered appropriate. f.Provide preferential carpool parking for employees and reserve at least 25 spaces for regional commute motorists. The City and APCD should pursue a shared use agreement with the project applicant to utilize over-supplied, weekday parking areas for potential of a park-and-ride lot. Based on trip generation estimates for the commercial components of the project, much of the parking facility would go unused during non-peak times of the weekdays and could be used by daily commuters as a park-and-ride location. A target number of 25 spaces should be utilized for this purpose. The parking area should be indicated with signage and registered with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as an official Park and Ride lot. g. Provide shower stalls and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, at the rates shown in the table below. Employees Lockers Stalls 50-199 1 per 20 2 200+ 1 per 20 4 h. Establish an Employee Trip Reduction Program (ETRP) to reduce employee commute trips (i.e. carpooling incentives, van pools, and transit subsidies), coordinated with adjacent commercial development that attempts to achieve an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) for project employees of 1.60 or larger. Contact the Transportation Choices Coalition partners for free consulting services on how to start and maintain a Trip Reduction Program. Contact SLO Regional Rideshare at 541-2277. i. Employ and implement a transportation/rideshare coordinator. j. Implement a lunch-time shuttle to reduce single occupant vehicle trips. k. Provide on-site eating, refrigeration, vending for employees. l.Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing and improve the pedestrian environment. 2) Fueling Station The applicant is proposing to include a three-island vehicle fueling facility with the option for future expansion to include a fourth island. Each island is designed with two double-sided gasoline dispensers, for a total of twelve fueling pumps, or sixteen fueling positions if the service station expands to include a fourth island. Scenario 6B of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Guidelines was used to estimate benzene emissions that will result from the proposed gasoline station. Benzene is the main emission resulting from fueling stations. Benzene emissions result from the following four processes: Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-111 xLoading – Loading emissions occur when a cargo tank truck unloads gasoline to the storage tanks at the gasoline station. Storage tank vapors are emitted from the vent pipe during the initial fuel transfer period. These emissions are significantly reduced when the vent pipe includes a pressure/vacuum valve. xBreathing – Gasoline vapors are emitted from the storage tank vent pipe due to temperature and pressure changes within the storage tank vapor space. xRefueling – During the refueling process, gasoline vapors are emitted at the vehicle/nozzle interface. xSpillage - Spillage emissions occur from the spills during vehicle fueling. At this time, the throughput level of the proposed fueling station is unknown. Therefore, the throughput level of one million gallons was used to estimate benzene emissions that will result from the fueling station. Total benzene emissions that would be generated by the fueling station are shown in Table V-22 and calculations for these emissions are included in Appendix H. TABLE V-22 Fueling Station Emission Estimates Emission Rate Benzene per Second Loading Mass Emissions Rate 0.0000363 grams Breathing Mass Emissions Rate 0.0000108 grams Refueling Mass Emissions Rate 0.0000320 grams Spillage Mass Emissions Rate 0.0000060 grams Source: CAPCOA Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program AQ/Impact-65 Benzene emissions resulting from the fueling station will impact air quality. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: AQ/mm-12 Prior to construction, the gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) will require a permit from the APCD. AQ/mm-13 Prior to construction, a Health Risk Assessment may be required by the APCD. 6. Cumulative Impacts The City provided a list of projects that have already been approved and a list of proposed projects for the next ten years (refer to Section IV of this EIR for cumulative projects discussion). Cumulative long-term construction emission estimates are shown in Table V-23 and the URBEMIS data sheets are included in Appendix H. The bold numbers represent emission estimates that exceed the APCD thresholds for operation emissions. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-112 TABLE V-23 Cumulative Long-Term Operational Emissions Emission Estimates (lbs/day) Emission Estimates (tons/yr) Long-Term Operational Emissions ROG NOX CO PM10 ROG NOX CO PM10 Proposed Project Vehicle Emissions 212.15 244.72 2693.51 10.30 41.02 50.92 501.86 1.89 Area Source Emissions 0.69 2.75 4.52 0.02 0.08 0.50 0.51 0.00 Sub-Total 212.84 247.47 2698.03 10.40 41.10 51.42 502.37 1.89 Cumulative-Approved Projects Vehicle Emissions 314.92 366.94 3977.43 15.32 59.88 76.41 737.13 2.80 Area Source Emissions 30.42 10.61 16.86 0.05 5.39 1.93 1.92 0.01 Sub-Total 345.34 377.55 3994.29 15.37 65.27 78.34 739.05 2.81 Cumulative – 10 Year Projects Vehicle Emissions 582.22 672.33 7248.04 27.62 111.03 139.87 1350.82 5.04 Area Source Emissions 2.49 12.16 9.26 0.04 0.40 2.22 1.28 0.01 Sub-Total 589.71 684.49 7257.30 27.66 111.43 142.09 1352.10 5.05 Total 1142.89 1309.51 13949.62 53.43 217.80 271.85 2593.52 9.75 APCD Tier I Thresholds 10 10 50 10 APCD Tier II Thresholds 25 25 550 25 APCD Tier III Thresholds 25 25 25 25 The inclusion of vehicle and area source emissions for the proposed project and all cumulative projects results in a long-term operational emission exceedance of the APCD’s pounds per day Tier II Threshold for ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 emissions and an exceedance of the APCD’s tons per year Tier III Threshold for ROG, NOX, and CO emissions. Therefore, long-term operational emissions resulting from ROG, NOX, CO, and PM10 emissions need to be mitigated to the extent feasible. AQ/Impact-76 PM10 emissions resulting from cumulative projects exceed the APCD’s pounds per day threshold. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). AQ/Impact-87 ROG, NOX, and CO emissions resulting from cumulative projects exceed the APCD’s pounds per day and tons per year threshold. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant unavoidable impact (Class I). Mitigation measures AQ/mm-3 through AQ/mm-11 shall be implemented to mitigate cumulative air quality impacts. AQ/mm-12 Prior to permit approval for Parcels 1 and 3, the applicant for those parcels would be subject to subsequent environmental review and approval from the APCD. Costco / Froom Ranch Air Quality DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-113 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. Costco / Froom Ranch Noise DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-114 G. NOISE 1. Environmental Setting From the City’s Noise Element, Technical Reference Document, Appendix A, existing traffic on LOVR (Highway 101 to Madonna Rd., Segment 221) at the time this document was prepared was 18,000 trips/day, ADT. The traffic analysis prepared for this EIR indicates a week-day, peak-hour traffic volume of 1,893 trips per hour and a Saturday, peak-hour traffic volume of 1,420 trips per day on the segment of LOVR between Madonna Road and Garcia Drive. Based on these relationships, traffic on this section of LOVR has increased by approximately 5% and the existing noise level (Ldn) at the fronts of the residences of Tract 234 facing the frontage road off Garcia Drive at 100 feet from the centerline of LOVR would adjust upward by 0.2 dBA from the level used in the Eagle Hardware EIR to 61.8. 2. Regulatory Setting Noise standards are established by the City’s Noise Elements for sensitive receptors which, in the vicinity of the proposed project, are limited to the existing residences along the frontage road off of Garcia Drive, and planned residential uses on the De Vaul property to the northwest of the project site. Noise is a complex physical phenomenon that varies with time, and the terminology that has developed to numerically describe this variable is discussed in Appendix I. The Noise Element establishes separate standards for “transportation noise” which is that generated by automobiles, trucks, trains and airplanes, and “stationary noise” which is that generated by industrial and commercial facilities including loading and unloading of merchandise. The applicable standards for evaluating noise impacts from transportation noise are 60 dBA (Ldn) in outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA (Ldn) in interior spaces. The Noise Ordinance indicates that “Outdoor activity areas”, would include patios, backyard recreation areas, etc., but not the front yards of residences which extend to the edge of the roadway in most circumstances. The standards for stationary noise levels (measured at the nearest lot line of the sensitive receptor) from the Noise Elements of both the County and the City are as follows: TABLE V-24 City of San Luis Obispo Stationary Noise Standards Level Daytime (7 am-10 pm) Nighttime (10 pm-7 am) Hourly average level (Leq) dB 50 45 Maximum level (Max) dB 70 65 Implementation of the project as proposed would result in a substantial violation of the City’s noise standards for stationary noise. The need for noise level reductions in the range of 15-25 dBA is most likely beyond that which can be feasibly attained with high walls, particularly with the reverberation (i.e. tunnel effect) that would occur between the walls and the Costco building itself. Costco / Froom Ranch Noise DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-115 Implementation of the project or the cumulative project would not result in an exceedance of the noise standards as established by the Noise Elements of the County or the City as interpreted in this EIR. However, the City of San Luis Obispo has indicated that the front yards or residences off Garcia Drive may be considered “outdoor activity areas” for the purposes of regulatory standards, and that the 60 dBA (Ldn) limit on noise levels may apply. With this interpretation, the existing level of 61.6 dBA, the existing -plus-project level of 62 dBA, and the cumulative level of 63 dBA would all exceed this standard. Potential mitigation measures are discussed below. 3. Thresholds of Significance The threshold for the onset of a significant noise impact, as applied in this document, is the exceedances of a standard as established in the City’s Noise Element as a result of the proposed project. Where the established standard is already exceeded, a significant increase in a noise level is taken as one decibel. 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that significant noise impacts occur when the project 1) exposes people to noise levels in excess of standards established in local noise ordinances or general plan noise elements, or 2) causes a substantial permanent or temporary increase in noise above levels existing without the project. Therefore, noise impacts of the project are considered significant if noise resulting from construction or operation occur beyond the specified level and/or timeframe set by the City of San Luis Obispo. 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Traffic Noise The traffic analysis prepared for this EIR indicates that week-day, peak-hour traffic volume will increase by 458 trips per hour on the segment of LOVR between Madonna Rd. and Garcia, and by 673 trips per hour during the Saturday peak-hour. These increases in traffic would result in increases in noise levels of 0.9 dBA during the week-day peak-hour and 1.7 dBA during the Saturday peak-hour. Concurrent with implementation of this project, the widening of LOVR along the southwesterly side of the alignment will result in a southwesterly shift of the road centerline by 18 feet (1 travel lane and half the center turn lane), which will reduce the noise levels at the fronts of the homes off Garcia Drive by 1.1 dBA. Therefore, the net change in noise levels at the fronts of the residences of Tract 234 facing the frontage road off Garcia Drive as a result of project traffic and changes in the configuration of LOVR will be a decrease of 0.2 dBA to 61.6 dBA during the week-day peak-hour and an increase of approximately 0.6 dBA to 61.2 dBA during the Saturday peak-hour. At these locations, outdoor activity areas, if they exist, are presumed to be at the rear of the residences. Noise reductions resulting from the residences themselves are typically 8-10 dB Costco / Froom Ranch Noise DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-116 behind the structures, down to about 5 dB near the lot boundaries where the blocking effect of the structures is only partially effective. Thus, the future noise levels in the outdoor activity areas of these residences with project-generated traffic would be well below the applicable standard of 60 dBA. Noise reductions from outside to inside are typically 22-25 dBA for older construction (i.e., pre- energy conserving construction requirements) and about 30 dBA for more recent construction requirements. With the exterior noise level at the fronts of the residences with project traffic being approximately 62 dBA, the interior levels in the rooms of the residences fronting on LOVR would be approximately 40 dBA, decreasing to about 30 dBA at the rear of the residence depending on the effectiveness of interior separating walls. All of these noise levels are well below the standard of 45 dBA (Ldn). Based on the standards of the Noise Element of 60 dBA in outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA in interior spaces, the increased noise from increased traffic on LOVR would not result in a significant adverse impact on the residences along the frontage road off Garcia Drive. b. Stationary Noise 1) Costco Parcel Noise from stationary sources (loading/unloading and heavy trucks on the site) is estimated from measurements of similar activities of one heavy truck at the rear of the Von’s market in Los Osos as follows: TABLE V-25 Measured Noise Levels Activity Distance (ft) Leq (dBA) Max (dBA) Truck movements 25 53 90 Loading/unloading 50 55 70 For the proposed Costco project, the applicant indicates an average of 18 truck deliveries on a typical weekday, occurring between the hours of 4 am and 12 pm, with most of the deliveries occurring before 10 am. The capacity of the loading area is four trucks. Based on this information, the reasonable worst-case maximum hourly truck volume is assumed to be four, occurring per hour between 4 am and 7 am (i.e., “nighttime” for purposes of determining noise impacts). The route proposed to be used by these trucks would be to enter on Froom Drive, travel northwesterly along the northeasterly boundary of the Costco parcel, then along the northwesterly Costco boundary approximately 25 feet from the DeVaul residential development, then along the southwesterly side of the Costco building to the loading/unloading bays (refer to Figure V-6). The worst-case hourly average noise level at the DeVaul property line resulting from 4 trucks per hour traveling approximately 25 feet away would be 59 dBA, and the maximum level would remain at 90 dBA. These levels would exceed the nighttime standards noted above by 14 dBA for the average level and 25 dBA for the maximum level. Costco / Froom Ranch Noise DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-117 PROPOSED AND RECOMENDED TRUCK ROUTES FIGURE V-6 Proposed Truck Route EIR Recommended Truck Route So u r c e : M u l v a n n y G 2 / M o r r o G r o u p , I n c . Costco / Froom Ranch Noise DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-118 Impacts to the adjacent DeVaul residential development could also occur due to noise from rooftop equipment. N-Impact 1 Truck deliveries conducted using the proposed route adjacent to the DeVaul residential development will exceed the City’s nighttime noise standards. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, (significant but mitigable). N/mm-1 Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall alter the truck delivery route for deliveries prior to 7:00 am (nighttime for noise purposes) to deliver merchandise to and from Costco through the parking lot and along the southeasterly side of the building. N-Impact-2 Rooftop equipment could cause disturbance to the DeVaul residents located adjacent to the proposed project. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, (significant but mitigable). N/mm-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, project plans shall show noise baffles installed surrounding the rooftop equipment. 2) Parcels 1 and 3 Future development of parcel 1 may result in noise impacts to the DeVaul residential development from vehicles delivering merchandise or materials. The actual occurrence of such an impact or impacts would depend on the design of that project, the vehicle traffic generated, and hours of delivery. The presence or absence of an impact cannot be forecasted at this time. 6. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative increase in traffic on LOVR, as determined in the Traffic Section of this EIR, is 2,703 trips per hour for the project plus approved projects during the week-day peak-hour, and 2,521 trips per hour for the project plus approved projects during the Saturday peak-hour. Using the same procedure as used above to analyze the effects of project-generated noise, the noise levels at the fronts of the homes off Garcia Drive would be 64.6 during the week-day peak-hour and 63.9 dBA during the Saturday peak-hour. The traffic resulting from the 10-year cumulative project is projected to be only slightly more than for the approved projects, and noise levels for this scenario would be essentially the same (±0.1 dB) as above. N-Impact 23 Noise levels at the front of the homes off Garcia Drive will exceed 60 dBA in the front yards of residences off Garcia Drive. After mitigation, this impact would be This impact is considered Class III, (insignificant). Cumulative project traffic causes the exterior noise level at the fronts of the residences to be approximately 64-65 dBA. The interior levels in the rooms of the residences fronting on LOVR would be approximately 42-43 dBA, decreasing to about 33 dBA at the rear of the residence Costco / Froom Ranch Noise DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-119 depending on the effectiveness of interior separating walls. All interior noise levels are below the standard of 45 dBA (Ldn). The City’s General Plan was adopted with overriding considerations with respect to noise impacts to the outside areas of residences on LOVR. A noise wall is the normal mitigation, however, the aesthetic impacts of a noise wall would exceed the advantages in reducing traffic noise and no mitigation is proposed. N/mm-3 Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall pay their fair share of wall construction costs to mitigate the noise levels exceeding 60 dBA in the front yards of residences off Garcia Drive. The wall shall be a 6-foot landscaped concrete block wall along the northerly side of LOVR in the area now occupied by palm trees. Palm tree removal shall be avoided, if feasible. The wall shall be varied in texture and height and shall be heavily landscaped, both along the Garcia Drive side and the LOVR side for aesthetic reasons. 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. Costco / Froom Ranch Hazardous Materials DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-120 H. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Existing Conditions a. Site Conditions The applicant is proposing to construct a vehicle fueling service facility in the southern corner of the proposed project site, between the proposed Costco building and the existing Home Depot building (See Figure III-15). It would occupy an area of approximately 37,800 square feet (180 feet x 210 feet), and would include three 10,00020,000-gallon capacity underground storage tanks (USTs) to store gasoline. This portion of the project site is adjacent to the break in slope between the Los Osos Valley floor and Irish Hills. It is currently vacant open land historically used for cattle grazing. In the general area, groundwater occurs in unconsolidated alluvial sediments and, to a lesser extent, within fractures in the underlying consolidated rocks of the Franciscan formation. The underlying consolidated rocks are not usually water bearing, but fractures in the metavolcanic rocks can transmit significant quantities of groundwater. These fractures are found within a zone of deformation along the base of the Irish Hills associated with the Los Osos fault zone, (Cleath & Associates 1997:2). On the project site, the subsurface soils consist primarily of sandy clay and clay. Groundwater occurs in a clayey sand layer at a depth of approximately 16 feet below the existing grade (Kleinfelder Inc., 2000). The clay and clayey sand beneath the project site may hinder the vertical migration of any released fuel. Over time; however, any released fuel would be expected to reach the shallow groundwater. Two nearby gasoline service stations (Texaco and Arco) near the intersection of Highway 101 and LOVR both experienced gasoline releases that reached shallow groundwater. b. Nearby Sensitive Uses Uses around the proposed fuel station that could be affected by a release or major accident at the site include the Home Depot, located approximately 180 feet to the east, and residences in the De Vaul Ranch subdivision approximately 600 feet to the northwest. The Costco store warehouse proposed in this project would be approximately 160 feet to the northwest. The City of San Luis Obispo has several water production wells in the area on the opposite side of LOVR from the project site. Groundwater has provided a regular portion of the City’s water supply, usually ranging from 5% to 15% depending on the availability of water from the City’s surface water reservoirs (mainly Santa Margarita Lake). Fire Station Well # 4 (approximately 2,000 feet north of the proposed fuel station) and Pacific Beach Well #1 (approximately 1,500 feet northeast) are the wells that are used primarily for water production in this area. Costco / Froom Ranch Hazardous Materials DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-121 2. Regulatory Setting a. Federal Policies and Regulations No federal permits relating to hazardous materials would be required for this project. b. State Policies and Regulations California Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations (CCR Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16) set forth requirements for design, construction, testing, and monitoring of UST systems. Over the past 12 years, new engineering standards for UST installation and operation have been developed to reduce the degree of impact from gasoline product releases to the environment (i.e., secondary containment and control systems). The UST regulations are intended to protect the waters of the state from discharges of hazardous substances (i.e., gasoline). These regulations establish construction requirements for new UST facilities; establish monitoring requirements, establish uniform requirements for unauthorized release reporting, and for repair, upgrade and closure. c. Local Policies and Regulations The Federal and State Clean Air Acts are enforced locally by the County Air Pollution Control District. The APCD regulates potential discharges of criteria air pollutants (including organic compounds that contribute to ozone formation) and toxic air contaminants. The Uniform Fire Code addresses the standards for using and containing flammable/combustible/hazardous materials. Article 52 of the Fire Code lists the requirements for dispensing gasoline into automobiles and Article 79 list the containment requirements. The Uniform Building Code (UCB) lists the standards for grading, excavation, electrical, pumping, and other building related issues. A combined permit application for Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate the USTs is required by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Health Department, Environmental Health Division and County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The permit application must meet the requirements of local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Local regulatory agencies include the San Luis Obispo Certified Unified Program Agency (County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Division, City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, Department of Agriculture/Measurement Standards, and Utilities Department), APCD,and City Public Works Department. State and federal regulatory agencies include the California Accidental Release Program (Risk Management Plan), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. EPA. The City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department is the lead-overseeing agency for fuel service facilities within the City, with the assistance of the APCD. The City and APCD inspectors will verify that the installation and operation of the USTs are in compliance with the following codes, regulations, and requirements: xUniform Fire and Building Code (Revised California Fire Code 2001); xTitle 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 16 (June, 2001); xStatutes of Chapter 6.7 Health and Safety Code for Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances as amended and effective August 6, 2001; Costco / Froom Ranch Hazardous Materials DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-122 xCalifornia Air Resources Board Regulations (Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Certification and Test Procedures); and, xAPCD High Through Put Facility Health Risk Assessment 3. Thresholds of Significance Fuel service stations have inherent hazards in their daily operations and require the use of flammable/combustible liquids. Fire or explosion can occur during fuel delivery, spill/overfill or accident (i.e., vehicle, cigarette, electrical, etc.). These hazards pose a potentially significant impact to public health and safety. Any major or long-term release of gasoline would also be considered a significant impact, since it could potentially affect surface and groundwater quality. The seriousness of such a release is the reason for the regulatory processes, permits, and inspections described above. 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated based on assessment of construction impacts relating to hazardous materials, as well as an assessment of site activities based on intended use of the parcel. The proposed construction activities were reviewed to determine whether the fueling facility proposes a significant risk to surface and groundwater resources or public safety and, if so, what actions could be taken to minimize the potential for fire, explosion, or accidental release of gasoline. Intended site use was analyzed based on the applicant’s description of anticipated use. 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures The proposed fueling station will operate three dispenser islands with the option for future expansion of a fourth dispenser island. Each island will contain two-double-sided gasoline dispensers, for a total of 12 fueling pumps. The station will contain three 10,00020,000- gallon capacity USTs situated side by side. Other hazardous materials to be used on the project site will be limited to containers (1- to 5- gallon size) of degreasers and cleaning chemicals for building maintenance. In general, the containers will be stored in a storage room inside the main Costco building. Products for sale will include small quantities of motor oil, degreasers, and cleaning chemicals. These products will be stored either on pallets in the delivery area or stocked on shelves within the main Costco building. Potential impacts could result from a spill or overfilling, leaking or rupture of an UST system (dispenser, piping, and tanks), and spillage from an accidental event (i.e., delivery truck or vehicle collision, etc.). Gasoline products are potential fire and explosion hazards and the uses on and adjacent to the site would be exposed to these potential hazards. The severity of the impact would depend on the size of the fire or explosion; the public directly exposed to the incident, and response time and effectiveness to control or contain the fire. Costco / Froom Ranch Hazardous Materials DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-123 Potential impacts to the environment may also result from surface spills and underground releases. If a major spill or release were not contained and controlled, it would flow to the underground stormwater system, which discharges to an open trapezoidal channel along LOVR. If unconfined, the spilled fuel would eventually reach Froom Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek. The project design includes a detention pond for surface runoff originating from the slopes to the southwest in the Irish Hills. The pond would be located approximately 300 feet west of the fueling station, and would discharge to an open channel along the southern corner of the property, and thence into an underground pipe as part of the project’s storm drain system. The proposed elevation and grade of the fuel station are such that its surface flows would not enter the detention pond or open channel; they would, instead, drain to inlet structures and into the underground storm drain system. Potential impacts to groundwater could occur if a leak or major spill went undetected and was able to migrate through the soil to reach the water table. Gasoline contains regulated chemicals such as benzene, toluene, ethlybenzene, xlyenes, (BTEX) and fuel additives such as methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and other oxygenates. Historically, benzene has been the target compound for groundwater regulatory action because of its toxicity (known carcinogen). In recent years, more attention has been focused on MTBE due to its ability to move more quickly through soils and its higher solubility in water. Its taste and odor characteristics can impair water at very low concentrations and it is a potential carcinogen. Pursuant to State law, all MTBE is to be phased out at the end of 2003, which would be prior to construction of the project. In summary, there are two potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed fueling station: HM-Impact 1 The project will cause an increased potential of fire and/or explosion due to the handling and storage of large volumes of gasoline. HM-Impact 2 The project will cause an increased potential for surface and groundwater contamination through uncontrolled spills or underground leaks of fuel. After mitigation, these impacts would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). HM/mm-1 The applicant shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo permit conditions and state UST regulations (Title 23, Chapter 16) and State Fire Code for the installation and operation of the UST system. Implementation of these requirements includes the following components: 1. Qualified licensed contractor 2. Secondary Containment for all tank penetrations 3. Double wall vent and vapor lines, with crash protection post for vent risers 4. Watertight tank sump lids and watertight traffic grade manways 5. Overfill prevention equipment 6. Traffic-rated drainways between the dispenser islands leading to an oil / water separator Costco / Froom Ranch Hazardous Materials DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-124 7. UST leak detection system (automated) with positive shutdown 8. Testing and monitoring including manual inspection of the UST system 9. Periodic inspections of UST system by the fire department 10. Ability to cleanup overfills and accidental surface spill immediately 11. Prompt reporting of the discovery of a leaking or ruptured UST system or major surface spill 12. Record keeping including statistical inventory reconciliation (SIR) 13. Emergency planning 14. Employee training 15. Pay telephone installed in close proximity to the fueling facility for emergencies. A licensed tank tester will conduct the tank and lines tightness tests using an approved test method before the UST system is put into service. A response plan will be developed and submitted to the fire department for approval. The plan will consider fire response, adsorbents for surface leaks, methods and schedule for removal of fuel from leaking primary containers, and reporting of a release to the underlying soils or drainage channels. The Costco service station will contain a fire alarm and detection system, portable extinguishers, emergency lighting, etc. In the event that a tank or equipment leak is detected, repairs or system fixes will be conducted promptly and documented. Pursuant to Title 23, Article 5, Section 2652 (e), the applicant will conduct all necessary initial abatement and site characterization and will take additional corrective action as required to adequately protect human health, safety, and the environment. These measures are part of the existing regulatory structure and requirements for the project. Thus, mitigation of potential impacts from the presence of gasoline and other hazardous materials will be accomplished through compliance with applicable regulations. The Costco vehicle fueling service facility will be required to comply with the new UST engineering standards and 2001 California Fire Code. The County and City of San Luis Obispo will verify compliance through permitting and inspection of the UST facility. Compliance with the UST regulations and Fire Code will provide mitigation measures that will reduce the project impacts to less than significant levels. 6. Cumulative Impacts Three fueling facilities exist on LOVR, both north and south of the project site and no fueling facilities other than the proposed project are anticipated in the project’s vicinity. Compliance with hazardous materials regulations and implementation of mitigation measures will reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. No cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials are anticipated and no mitigation is necessary. 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. Costco / Froom Ranch Hazardous Materials DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-125 Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-126 I. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The utility and public service issues addressed in this section of the EIR are focused on the Costco parcel (Parcel 2) and the proposed uses on the front parcels (Parcels 1 and 3) within the City of San Luis Obispo. Existing utilities and public services that will be used during construction and operation of the proposed project include water supply, wastewater, trash collection, fire protection, police and emergency services, and energy services. 1. Environmental Setting a. Water Supply The proposed project will use existing City infrastructure for water supply requirements. The location of the tie-in to the public water system is located on Froom Ranch Way adjacent to the project site. The City receives water from the Salinas Reservoir, Whale Rock Reservoir and three groundwater wells with a combined safe annual yield of 7,520 acre feet for 2002. The City’s estimated present water demand for 2002 is 7,216 acre-feet per year (afy), based on a demand of 145 gallons per person per day (0.162 acre-foot/person/year) for approximately 44,426 people (City of SLO 2002). 1) Salinas Reservoir The Salinas Dam was built in 1941 by the War Department to supply water to Camp San Luis Obispo and, secondarily, to meet the water needs of the City. The Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) captures water from a 112 square mile watershed and can currently store up to 23,843 acre-feet. In 1947, the Salinas Dam and delivery system was transferred from the regular Army to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since 1965, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has operated this water supply for the City under a lease from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water from the reservoir is pumped through the Cuesta Tunnel (a one mile long tunnel through the mountains of the Cuesta Ridge) and then flows by gravity to the City’s Water Treatment Plant on Stenner Creek Road. The City has water rights to store up to 45,000 acre feet. The original design of the dam included a gate in the spillway to achieve this storage capacity. The City is still considering the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, which proposes to install a new operable gate in the spillway, as one of the potential water supply projects to meet future water needs of the community. 2) Whale Rock Reservoir The Whale Rock Reservoir is a 40,662 acre foot reservoir created by the construction of an earthen dam on Old Creek near the town of Cayucos. The dam was designed and constructed by the State Department of Water Resources in 1961 to provide water to the City of San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly State University and California Men’s Colony. Water from the reservoir is also utilized by the three water purveyors in the town of Cayucos as well as the cemetery located in Cayucos. The Whale Rock Dam captures water from a 20.6 square mile watershed and water is delivered through 17.6 miles of 30-inch pipeline and two pumping stations. Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-127 3) Ground Water Three wells currently supply approximately 250 acre feet of water for domestic use. The groundwater basin is relatively small and recharges very quickly following normal rainfall periods, but it also lowers relatively quickly following the end of the rainy season. The San Luis-Edna Valley Groundwater Basin is an elongate trough of relatively recent (Pleistocene and Holocene age) sediments approximately 13 miles long and 1 to 2 miles wide. It is recharged primarily by streams flowing in from the northeast, and it is naturally drained by streams flowing out of the basin, primarily San Luis Obispo and Pismo Creeks. The largest source of inflow is San Luis Obispo Creek. The quality of groundwater from the local basin is generally suitable for domestic use, although iron and manganese are locally high and may require treatment (Cleath, 1998). There have also been high nitrates and detectable levels of tetrachloroethylene in some wells north of LOVR. Excessive concentrations of these constituents have not been detected in the Pacific Beach wells across from the project site (Cleath, 1998). Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) has not been detected in the four municipal wells as of 2000 (Pers. Comm. D. Gilmore, 2002). The City has adequate water supplies to allocate to his project. The proposed project will use existing City infrastructure for water supply, and is not anticipated to have significant impacts to this resource. b. Wastewater Wastewater facilities are proposed to connect into the wastewater line that extends from LOVR on Froom Ranch Way and the applicant will pay a fair share of City infrastructure improvements. The City provides wastewater treatment in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. The City is responsible for collecting, treating, and disposing of wastewater from approximately 13,500 residential, commercial, industrial, and public customers within the incorporated area of the City of San Luis Obispo (City of SLO, 2001). The City’s existing wastewater collection system consists of approximately 150 miles of sewer pipes, ranging from six to 30 inches in diameter. Eight pumping stations move the wastewater from areas where the slope of sewer pipes is not sufficient to allow gravity flow. Collected wastewater is treated at the City’s Water Reclamation Facility on Prado Road near Highway 101. The plant removes floating and large, gritty material, reduces the amount of nutrients and bacteria, separates sludge from the waste stream, and discharges the treated effluent into San Luis Obispo Creek near LOVR. Sludge is separated from the wastewater, dried in open ponds at the treatment plant, and hauled away for disposal. The treatment plant uses tanks, pumps, and other mechanical equipment as well as microorganisms to treat the water. The City has reached 80% design capacity of its wastewater treatment facility and has begun planning and design of a capacity upgrade per State requirements. The project is not expected to exceed existing wastewater collection or treatment capacity. The project is not anticipated to Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-128 result in or require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and payment of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fee will ensure the construction of any needed capacity expansion at the treatment plant. Payment of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees include consideration of needed system improvements. c. Trash Collection Trash collection services are anticipated to be conducted by San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The applicant will pay for these services and the project is not anticipated to significantly impact landfill capacity. Costco uses a bailer for cardboard recycling and also uses a compactor for recycling plastic shrink wrap and any other plastics. d. Fire Protection The project is located adjacent to the Irish Hills, a designated open space area. Fire danger is present on the Irish Hills, depending on the time of year. California’s Mediterranean climate with its ample winter and spring rainfall and hot dry summers create optimum conditions for summer wildfires. Ample vegetative matter in the form of grasses, shrubs, and trees is supported by the annual rainfall, and the hot dry summers turn much of that vegetation into readily combustible material with greatest potential for wildfires in the late summer and fall. Fire hazards can be especially critical in communities that are built in and adjacent to highly combustible hillside vegetation (Irish Hills). Under the proper weather conditions, any ignition source can start a wildfire. Ignition sources most likely for the proposed project include sparks, from a variety of sources (e.g., metal to metal contact, rock striking hard metal surfaces such as wheels or tracks of vehicles), sources of elevated heat such as exhaust pipes, catalytic converters, electrical generators, compressors; matches and cigarettes; and improper fueling of hot engines on generators and construction vehicles. The closest fire station is located at 1395 Madonna Road, across LOVR and just north of the project site. The response time for fire emergencies to the project site is within three minutes. e. Police Protection and Emergency Services The project is within the City of San Luis Obispo law enforcement jurisdiction. The San Luis Obispo police department has jurisdiction over law enforcement activities within San Luis Obispo city limits and the project site is within a three minute response time for police protection and emergency services. Public and emergency services concerns are primarily related to traffic safety and access on roadways affected by construction activities. These issues are addressed in the Traffic section of this EIR. f. Energy Services The proposed project is located entirely within the City of San Luis Obispo. The project is located on an undeveloped parcel, historically in agricultural use. No City-owned utility lines exist underneath the parcel that would be threatened during grading activities. Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-129 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would provide electrical services for the proposed project and Southern California Gas Company would provide gas services. Existing infrastructure is considered adequate and no deficiencies in service capabilities were identified. 2. Regulatory Setting a. Federal Policies and Regulations No federal permits relating to public services or utilities would be required for this project. b. State Policies and Regulations 1) Wastewater Standards for quality of the treated effluent are established by federal and state water-quality laws. The State Water Quality Control Board set the specific requirements for the San Luis Obispo Water Reclamation Facility in April 1986. Standards for quality of the treated effluent are set to protect present and potential beneficial uses of the water which receives the effluent, including recreation, agriculture, and wildlife. The standards include maximum allowed changes in acidity/alkalinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen in San Luis Obispo Creek as well as maximum allowed quantities of solids, nutrients, oil and grease, coliform bacteria, and chlorine in the effluent released from the treatment plant. These regulations do not apply directly to the project, but to the treatment facility that receives and handles all of the City’s effluent. 1) Fire Hazards Government Code Section 51178 specifies that the Director of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) shall identify areas in the state as very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Fire hazard severity zones are based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors. CDF fire hazard areas were reviewed via online information. The Irish Hills, adjacent to the project site are considered a “Wildland Area that May Contain Substantial Forest Fire Risks and Hazards”. 2) Energy Services California state law regulates the location of underground utilities to prevent adverse impacts during construction activities. California Government Code Section 4216 requires identification of underground utility lines prior to construction activities and provides sanctions for not complying with the law. Among the requirements mandated by law include participation in a regional notification center (e.g., Underground Service Alert – U.S.A.; “Call Before You Dig” programs) that provides utility location marking and information to parties engaging in construction activities involving excavation. c. Local Policies and Regulations 1) Water Supply The City regulates the use of water for residential and non-residential purposes by considering the availability of water in the approval of such projects and has measures in place to reduce long-term impacts to water supply. Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-130 2) Energy Services The City of San Luis Obispo has detailed engineering standards, which specify appropriate utility locations for projects within City jurisdiction. Additionally, the City will require an encroachment permit, or building permit, wherein the applicant will be required to submit plans that detail proposed construction of all public utilities. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan includes provisions for new development to encourage energy saving habits. City of San Luis Obispo Energy Conservation Element 1.3.44: Project Approval “Approval of major new commercial and residential projects will be conditioned on inclusion of programs such as informing residents/employees of car-pool and bus information, “free” bus passes for the first month of occupancy, and similar measures designed to foster energy saving habits at the time such habits are most susceptible to change.” 3) Wastewater The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan includes provisions for water recycling. The City of San Luis Obispo Energy Conservation Element 2.1.9: Recycling states that, “Recycling of wastewater for beneficial use should be required wherever feasible.” The irrigation system for this project will be converted to reclaimed water once the distribution system is constructed. 3. Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this evaluation, significant water supply and wastewater impacts would occur if project demands exceeded existing water supplies or wastewater facility capacity. Temporary disruption of any emergency services or disruption or overuse of other existing utilities would be considered a potentially significant impact. 4. Impact Assessment and Methodology The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated based on assessment of construction impacts on existing utilities and service systems, as well as an assessment of site activities based on intended use of the parcel. The proposed construction activities were reviewed to determine whether excavation in the project area could affect existing utilities and, if so, what actions could be taken to minimize the potential for disruption of service, damage, or overuse of utility systems. Intended site use was analyzed based on the applicant’s description of anticipated use. Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-131 5. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. Water Supply The City of San Luis Obispo allocates water at the time of building permit issuance on a first come, first served basis. At the time of building permit issuance, the City determines a project’s water demand and the availability of water for allocation to the project. City staff projects existing water supply is sufficient for three to four years accounting for adjustment of the adopted growth rate. To accommodate future demand, the City is planning a reuse project that will supplement the current water supply by 130 acre feet a year, with a future potential for over 1,200 acre feet per year. TABLE V-26 City of San Luis Obispo - Water Supply Safe Annual Yield Water Supply Source Safe Annual Yield for 2002 (acre-feet) Whale Rock and Salinas Reservoirs 7,020 Groundwater 500 Total Safe Annual Yield 7,520 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Element, June 2000 The City of San Luis Obispo water demand is based on a present water demand factor of 145 gallons/person/day and a current population of 44,426. The following table shows the estimated water demand for the City. Table V-27 City of San Luis Obispo 2002 Water Demand Current Population Demand (acre-feet/year) 44,426 people 7,216 Current Safe Annual Yield 7,520 Available Water Supply 304 The project site does not currently use City water supplies. The following table estimates the proposed project’s water demand. TABLE V-28 Costco Project Estimated Demand Land Use Square Footage Use Factor Demand (acre-feet/year) Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-132 Large Scale Retail (Costco) 140,115 0.068/1000 s.f. 9.5 Front Parcels (General Retail) 140,000* 0.11/1000 s.f. 15.4 Total Project Demand 24.9 *Note: Front parcel development square footage is the estimated total for several mixed-use buildings. Source: City of Santa Barbara Water Demand Factor and Conservation Study, August 1989 Although the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact City of San Luis Obispo water supply, every effort to conserve water shall be made to minimize cumulative impacts to City water supplies. PS-Impact-1 The proposed project will create an additional long-term usage of existing City water supplies and as stated in the City’s Conservation element, recycling of wastewater for beneficial use should be required wherever feasible. PS/mm-1 During project design,construction, the applicant shall install purple piping for irrigation of all landscaped areas in preparation for use of the City’s planned water re-use program the applicant shall design all irrigation on and off site for use of recycled wastewater. All water utility services shall be designed for compatibility with on site use of recycled water for irrigation. b. Wastewater The City of San Luis Obispo is required by the State of California to provide adequate wastewater treatment capacity and will distribute the costs to users as the facility is upgraded. Although the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact the City of San Luis Obispo’s wastewater treatment facility, mitigation measures are necessary to ensure the project follows provisions of the Energy Element which state that wastewater should be recycled when feasible. The landscaping irrigation system will be designed to use recycled wastewater. TABLE V-29 Projected Wastewater Generation Land Use Wastewater Generation (acre feet/year) Large Scale Retail (Costco) 8.5 Front Parcels (General Retail) 13.9 Total Wastewater Generation 22.4 Wastewater calculations are based on an assumption that 90% of water becomes wastewater Although the proposed project is not anticipated to significantly impact City of San Luis Obispo wastewater capacity, every effort to conserve water shall be made to minimize cumulative impacts to the City’s wastewater capacity. Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-133 c. Fire Protection Fire protection for the project area is provided by the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department. The California Department of Forestry (CDF) provides service for the Irish Hills, adjacent to the project site. Construction activities could temporarily increase the likelihood for fires to occur within the project area. Fires could be generated from construction equipment or carelessness. Construction crews would be using a range of gasoline- and diesel-powered equipment for construction of the project. This type of equipment produces sparks and has the potential to pose threats of fire. In a typical weather year, the threat of fire increases in the beginning of the summer season and peaks toward the end of summer in August and September. The proposed project construction is anticipated to extend into portions of high fire potential season. The Irish Hills area, adjacent to the project site is considered by CDF to have a substantial fire risk. PS-Impact-2 Construction activities have the potential to directly or indirectly ignite a fire. Contractors are generally responsible for preventing fires that are set directly and indirectly from construction activities. Fire prevention and suppression provisions would be included in construction contracts. The provisions would include equipment and training required for contractors, as well as procedures for attacking fires if they occur during construction activities. The provisions would also include methods and requirements designed to prevent fires. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). PS/mm-2 During construction, the project shall comply with standard regulatory conditions as required by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. d. Police and Emergency Services Potential impacts to police and emergency services are directly related to changes to the surface integrity (pavement surface) of affected roadways and temporary road closures during construction that may affect the capability of service providers to access an area. The proposed project is not located on a through roadway and will not result in road closures during construction. The site is accessible via Froom Ranch Way, located between the proposed project and Home Depot off of Los Osos Valley Road. e. Energy Resources The proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on energy resources as existing electric and gas services are considered adequate to supply the project area. Grading activities within the project site will not result in damage to existing utility systems, as no utilities exist underneath the proposed project. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan requires major new commercial projects to encourage energy saving habits. Costco / Froom Ranch Public Services and Utilities DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-134 PS-Impact-3 The proposed project will increase traffic congestion in the area, which will secondarily impact City infrastructure, neighboring residents, and surrounding open-space areas. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). PS/mm-3 Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide employees with City bus information and implement incentives for car-pooling and use of public transportation. Bus Route and bicycle transportation information shall be posted outside the store in a convenient location so as to encourage customer’s use of alternate transportation. A store discount or other incentive acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo shall be provided for at least the first month of business to customers who utilize non-vehicular or public transportation. 6. Cumulative Impacts Several projects are proposed in the vicinity of the project but are not planned to occur simultaneously and in the same immediate vicinity as the proposed project. However, in the event that closely related projects begin construction, the applicant would be required to consult with the City of San Luis Obispo to schedule project construction to have the least impact on public services and utilities. The proposed project is designed to avoid or minimize any public utilities impacts and is not expected to result in any cumulative impacts. The overall, long-term cumulative impact of the project with respect to other cumulative projects to public services and utilities is, therefore, considered to be less than significant. 7. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-135 J. VISUAL RESOURCES This section analyzes visual impacts that may result from the implementation of the proposed Costco commercial development project. The purpose of this analysis is to determine if a change in the visual environment will occur, whether that change will be viewed as a positive or negative one, and the degree of any change relative to the setting. If the project has the potential to cause visual impacts, this study will specifically define those impacts. The identification of specific impacts is a critical step in determining if mitigation measures are necessary, and if so, which measures would be the most effective. 1. Existing Conditions The existing visual condition is analyzed and a baseline scenic character established. Project components are reviewed, including all proposed features, construction techniques, and project scheduling. Secondary visual affects are considered which may result from implementation of the project. Possible cumulative affects are assessed for the viewing corridor and community. The proposed project is compared to viewers’ expected sensitivity and expectations, and is reviewed for consistency with applicable planning policies. Levels of impact are determined according to CEQA definitions and guidelines. 2. Methods In order to ensure a thorough analysis of the project’s potential affects, visual resources were inventoried and potentially sensitive viewer groups were identified. Locations and heights of proposed project structures were identified by surveyed placement of reference pylons and markers, and by comparison with the known dimensions of existing on-site elements. Surveyed locations and heights were provided by the project applicant. Proposed project feature locations were then viewed from all potential viewer-group areas. Resulting from this initial review, representative viewpoints were determined for further analysis, based on dominance of the site within the view, duration of views, expected sensitivity of the viewer group, and community interests as defined in local planning policy. Of those representative viewpoints, Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) were selected which would best illustrate the visual changes proposed by the project as experienced by the community of San Luis Obispo and by travelers though the region. Photographs were taken from the Key Viewing Areas (KVAs), and photo-simulations were prepared illustrating the likely appearance of the project as proposed (Refer to Figures V-8 through V-10). The emphasis of the photo-simulations was on structure massing, scale, and visibility relative to the surroundings. Scale building elevations provided by the project applicant were used as a guide to portray the basic architectural characteristics of the structures. These simulations were then analyzed and used to quantify potential project visibility, assess related impacts, and develop mitigation measures if necessary. The project site was then field- reviewed again to assist in determining possible mitigation measures. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-136 KEY VIEWING AREA LOCATION MAP FIGURE V-7 Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-137 For the purposes of this analysis, photo-simulations of the development were depicted as being approximately five years after initial construction. This time frame is considered as an early mid-point in the visual development of the project. After a five year period, much of the associated landscaping will be established, although trees and some shrubs would have not yet have reached their full scale potential. Any site grading may still be noticeable but will have started to weather. 3. Project Characteristics The predominant visual characteristics associated with the proposed project are as follows: a. Structures The project currently proposes two built structures, the primary Costco building and a gas station. The Costco building would be approximately 140,000 square feet in size. The gas station, proposed for the rear portion of the site between the existing Home Depot and the main Costco building, would basically be a canopy structure with gas pumps and a small cashier's building. The architecture of the proposed structures is planned as Spanish style, with red tile hipped roofs, plaster and block wall segments and wrought iron detailing. The structure will also include arched columns, wooden trellises and modest facade articulation. The building structure is approximately 325 feet across the front, which parallels Los Osos Valley Road, and about 440 feet on the sides. The majority of the building will be approximately 31 feet tall, with the raised corner element roof elevations at 45 feet. An approximately 5 to 10 foot high tiered retaining wall is proposed along a portion of the northwest and southwest perimeter of the site. An engineered rdetention basin will be constructed behind the building, at the base of the hill. This drainage structure will include an approximately 20 foot tall berm along its eastern perimeter. An entry road to the proposed development will be from the proposed "Froom Drive" off Los Osos Valley Road and shared with the adjacent Home Depot. b. Parking lot The project plans include approximately 700 parking spaces of paved parking lot, basically to the east of the proposed structures and continuous between the main Costco building and the existing Home Depot. The parking will be primarily asphalt, with some pedestrian areas of specialty paving. The parking lot will include planted areas and trees. A substantial visual factor associated with the parking lot will be the potentially hundreds of vehicles associated with it. Light poles will also be a visible feature as part of the proposed parking lot. c. Landscaping Landscaping will be included throughout the project, around the perimeter of the buildings, as parking lot trees to enhance pedestrian areas and to delineate access ways and building entrances. A continuous row of screen planting is proposed along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the building and along the retaining wall at the property line near the proposed Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-138 DeVaul Ranch residential development. The proposed conceptual landscape plan includes a variety of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs and groundcover. 4. Existing Visual Character a. Project Setting The proposed development is located in the City of San Luis Obispo, just within the southwesterly edge of the San Luis Obispo city limits, at the base of the Irish Hills. The overall landform of the city and its surroundings is generally defined by the convergence of the Chorro and the Los Osos Valleys. A series of low, visually distinct mountain peaks separate the two valleys and provide a scenic focal point for much of the city. The Cuesta Ridge generally borders the Chorro Valley to the north and east, and the Irish Hills border the Los Osos Valley to the southwest. The Cuesta Ridge and Irish Hills are the visual limits of this region and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the city. The visual boundaries to the south and southeast are distant and are defined by low hills rising up from broad valleys. City and county development occurs predominantly at the lesser elevations and on the low hills. The landform of the project site is mostly level. The topography just beyond the western edge of the property varies from the flat pasture area to an approximately 20 percent slope as the valley transitions into the hills and creek drainages. The portion of the project site proposed for development ranges in elevation from approximately 125 to 150 feet above mean sea level. The vegetative landcover of the proposed project site is mostly comprised of naturalized and native grasses and low-growing ruderal vegetation with no trees or shrubs. To the west of the proposed project are the slopes of the Irish Hills. These hills are natural open space with no visible development other than several utility transmission towers on the hillside. Chaparral and oak woodland covers the majority of the hillside and drainages west of the built portion of the project area. The project site is bordered on the east by Los Osos Valley Road, defined as a Parkway Arterial roadway and is designated a Scenic Roadway by the City of San Luis Obispo. Currently under construction, Los Osos Valley Road when completed will be a four-lane divided roadway with a landscaped median strip and a separated walkway along its southern edge. The project site is adjacent to a newly constructed Home Depot large retail store to the south and to the approximately 35 acre DeVaul Ranch multi- and single family residential subdivision, currently under construction to the north. Northeast of the site, across Los Osos Valley Road are an established single-family residential development, a fire station, and two-story apartment buildings. This housing tract and apartment buildings are served by a frontage road that parallels Los Osos Valley Road. Adjacent to the single family homes along Los Osos Valley Road to the south is a public high school. Further to the south along Los Osos Valley Road is a commercial area with automobile dealerships, a small retail shopping center, restaurants, and a gas station. Just beyond this development, at a distance Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-139 of approximately one-half mile from the project site, Los Osos Valley Road crosses over State Highway 101. To the north, along Madonna Road, at a distance of a little less than one-half mile are several two-story residential apartment complexes and an office building. At the northwest corner of the intersection of Los Osos Valley and Madonna Roads is the Laguna Village retail shopping center. The shopping center has a variety of tenants including a major grocery store, restaurants and miscellaneous retail businesses. b. Existing Visual Quality The City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element identifies Los Osos Valley Road as a Scenic Roadway. This scenic designation is based on the visual quality of the landscape through which the roads travel. The high visual quality of the Los Osos Valley Road corridor is generally defined by two primary factors; the unobstructed views of the adjacent hillsides and the rural character of the valley floor. This high visual quality rating is moderated in areas where views to the hillsides are reduced or where the visual integrity of the rural open space has been compromised. This section of Los Osos Valley Road is also defined in the County of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element as an entrance corridor "gateway" to the community of San Luis Obispo. The Circulation Element states that entrance corridors "provide scenic landmarks, historical structures, and rural countryside that denote a special place, culminating with entry into the city". The existing visual quality of the project setting is moderately high. Views of the project site from the primary viewing corridor, Los Osos Valley Road, are oriented primarily toward open space and the scenic backdrop of the Irish Hills. The rural character of that open space however is diminished somewhat by the presence of the adjacent development, including the new Home Depot as well as the auto dealerships and commercial area to the southeast. After construction, tThe DeVaul Ranch subdivision to the north will has further altered the previously open-space character of the area. In spite of the increasing development and changing foreground appearance, the Irish Hills continue to provide a visually dominant scenic backdrop as seen from Los Osos Valley Road. 5. Regulatory Setting The proposed Costco development is located within the jurisdiction of the City of San Luis Obispo. Sensitivity regarding aesthetic issues is reflected in applicable planning policies and guidelines. The regulatory setting pertaining to visual resources includes review of the proposed development’s consistency with the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use, Open Space, and Circulation Elements, zoning ordinances and applicable design guidelines. The City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element defines the project site as within the Irish Hills "Optional Use and Special Design" area. Section 8.10.1 D states that development plans should include "Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos Valley Road". Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-140 The City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Element, Resources to be Protected, Hills and Mountains section states as a community goal to "Protect hill and mountain properties from potentially hazardous or visually degrading development conditions". This section also states that the City should "Utilize design, construction, and maintenance techniques that…maintain the character and visual quality of the adjacent hill or mountain resource….". The Scenic Resources section also establishes a goal to "Protect important view corridors, viewsheds, and gateways within the City and its Planning Area". The City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element identifies the segment of Los Osos Valley Road adjacent to the project as a Scenic Roadway of "Moderate Scenic Value". The project site is also visible from a portion of Los Osos Valley Road south of the project site, which is classified as having "High Scenic Value". Following are a few of the provisions addressing the scenic importance of these local roads: Policy 14.1 - Views of important scenic resources from major streets should be preserved and improved to the maximum extent possible. Policy 14.3 - a. Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of the views. b. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views. c. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be considered a significant impact. Policy 14.4 C - The placement of landscaping and street trees should not block views from Scenic Routes. Clustering of street trees along scenic roadways should be considered as an alternative to uniform spacing. The City of San Luis Obispo Conservation Element, Chapter 8, Aesthetic Conservation, specifically addresses "Large Parking Lots", stating that, "the sprawling parking areas around shopping centers and discount stores are another form of visual pollution. Landscaping to relieve the bleak appearance of these lots is sometimes inadequate even though the City's zoning ordinance requires that unimproved portions of lots be landscaped or maintained in an orderly state." The City of San Luis Obispo Resolution no. 9250,Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects will be used by the Architectural Review Commission as part of the review of this project. As part of that review, the following specific guidelines may require particular attention as they relate to this project and to visual impact levels per CEQA thresholds: Site Planning B-3 - When the site is located on a street or road identified as scenic in the Circulation or Open Space Element, the building layout should also provide views through the property to the background hills and/ or other natural features highlighted in the Circulation or Open Space Element. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-141 Parking Areas C-1 - Location and design of parking. Parking should not be the dominant visual element of a site. Large, expansive paved areas between the building and street are to be avoided in favor of smaller multiple lots separated by landscaping or buildings, or located to the sides and rear of buildings. No more than 50 percent of the parking required for a building may be located between the building and the street. Building Design E - Building design shall be site specific, and incorporate design themes and features reflecting San Luis Obispo's character and history…The lack of human scale and absence of architectural character or local connection serve to emphasize a disconnection between the chain store and the community. Building Design E-3e - Colors. Large areas of bright, intense colors should generally be avoided. While more subdued colors usually work best for large façade areas, brighter accent colors may be appropriate for trim, windows, doors, and other key architectural elements. Building Design E-5 - Rooflines. The height of mechanical equipment shall not exceed that of the parapets or other roof features intended to screen the equipment. Enclosures, blinds or other architectural treatment may be necessary to screen roof equipment visible from residences or public places. Outdoor Lighting H - …All light fixtures should be directed downward and shielded so that the light source itself is not visible. The County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element Combining Designations specifically identifies the Irish Hills, which are immediately adjacent to this project, as a Scenic Resource Area (SRA). The designation covers the area down to the 200 foot elevation, and is described as being “highly visible” from Los Osos Valley Road. It is important to note that this project is not within the County jurisdiction nor the SRA, however there is still an important visual relationship between the project site and the SRA regarding community sensitivity and scenic character. 6. Thresholds of Significance The determination of Significance for this project is based on applicable policies, regulations, goals, and guidelines defined by CEQA, and the City of San Luis Obispo. a. CEQA Thresholds Section 15064.7 of CEQA states that each public agency is encouraged to develop thresholds that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. The section further states that “A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant”. According to Section 15382 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an effect on the environment is considered to be significant Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-142 if it is a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area being studied, “including…objects of aesthetic significance.” Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines defines a project as having a significant visual effect on the environment if it would “have a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect.” b. Analysis Thresholds In addition to comparing the project to relevant policies and standards, this visual impact assessment determined which specific criteria contribute most to the existing quality of each view, and if change would occur to that criteria as a result of the project. If a change in visual criteria was identified, this change was analyzed for its potential affect on the existing scenic character. This analysis was combined with the potential number of viewers, their sensitivities, the visual dominance of the project, the duration of views to the project, and the length of time that the project would be visible, in order to determine the overall level of impacts. For the purpose of this study, any adverse visual impacts were considered to be significant if they would result in an inconsistency with public policies, plans, goals, or regulations concerning visual resources. In addition, short term visual impacts (those impacts lasting less than five years) were considered to be significant if they would substantially lower the visual quality rating, and had a viewer group with a high sensitivity to visual change. Long term visual impacts (those lasting five years or more) were considered to be significant if they would substantially reduce the visual quality rating, and had a viewer group with a sensitivity to visual changes anticipated to be either moderate or high. c. Project Visibility and Viewer Sensitivity Determining the extent of the site's visibility is a critical step in analyzing its potential visual impacts. Field studies were conducted to identify locations from where the proposed project could be reasonably seen. Because of the site's location and proximity to regional transportation corridors, local roads, commercial areas and residential development, combined with the project's location along an important gateway, the project will have a high degree of visibility in the community. The generally flat topography of the property and its surroundings, the relatively close distance from the site to Los Osos Valley Road, the proposed size of the project, and the absence of intervening vegetation will further contribute to visibility of the project. The visual sensitivity level addresses the public’s expectations, the number of people viewing the area, and their reaction to development within the context of the area’s existing visual quality. In determining the viewer sensitivity level for purposes of assessing visual impacts, the duration and dominance of views are also considered. If there is an anticipated sensitivity about the established visual character of a landscape and a project proposal that would contrast that character, then anticipated viewer reaction can be evaluated. 1) Views from adjacent roads These viewpoints comprise the largest number of potential viewers of the project location. Viewers from public roads would experience the project from vantage points primarily along Los Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-143 Osos Valley Road, and to a lesser extent Madonna Road, Garcia Drive, Autopark Way, Calle Joaquin, and a short glimpse from Highway 101. Travelers along Los Osos Valley Road are the primary viewer group, with an average of more than 18,000 trips per day passing directly in front of the site. The approximate viewing duration for this group is just under one minute. Views to the site are equally available from both the north and southbound directions of travel, although upon completion of the adjacent DeVaul Ranch development, duration of views to the Costco site will be somewhat shortened in the southbound direction because of foreground landscaping and structures. Viewers on-foot or riding bicycles along Los Osos Valley Road are substantially fewer in number than those in motor vehicles. This group however has longer duration views of the proposed project location and the surrounding area. These viewers are expected to increase in number with the construction of the adjacent DeVaul Ranch residential development. The project will also have a limited degree of visibility from the Highway 101 overcrossing (approximately one-half mile from the project) and from an approximately quarter-mile section of Highway 101 south of Madonna Road (approximately three-quarters of a mile from the project). These distant views of the project site are of short duration, and are each filtered to some extent by intervening vegetation and/ or existing development. Photographs of these views are shown in Figure V-11. The awareness of the visual changes associated with this project as experienced by viewers along nearby roadways varies with the activity and the viewer's subjective judgement. In general the motorist experience is a "broad-brush" view of the area. This is especially true for the driver of the vehicle. Of this viewer group in vehicles, the viewer who lives or works in the vicinity of the project is generally more aware of visual resources from the roadway due to their personal interest and sense of “ownership” of the visual quality of the area. Motorists living in the general Laguna Lake area may be included in this group.as well asThe commuter passing by the project mid-way to work or school may be less aware of the visual environment because of the repetitive nature of their activity. Cuesta College and Cal Poly students, along with workers who commute to or from San Luis Obispo and its neighboring communities are included in this group. Tourists and site-seers generally have a very high awareness of the visual resources surrounding them but a low recognition of resource change. As the population of the state and visitation to the Central Coast area increases, this viewer group is expected to grow. Pedestrians’ awareness of visual resources may be very high because of their time available for viewing and noticing detailed visual features. The population of San Luis Obispo County generally includes a large bicycling community, and Los Osos Valley Road is a well-traveled bike route. The viewing sensitivity of these bicyclists through the project area will vary with their speed of travel and prevailing road conditions but will likely be higher than that of motorists. 2) Views from adjacent residences The DeVaul Ranch residential development will construct approximately eighteen residences immediately adjacent to the Costco site. The closest of these homes will be approximately 100 feet from the Costco structure. Viewers at these residences will have potentially unlimited visibility of the project site within their foreground setting. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-144 The proposed rdetention basin at the rear of the Costco building will be visible from possibly six residences at the western end of the DeVaul Ranch development as well as from the location of the proposed gas station. Visibility will include the approximately 20 foot tall dike between the basin and the Costco building. Homes across Los Osos Valley Road to the east will have some views of the proposed Costco development once constructed. These views will be limited however due to the viewing distance and intervening landscaping. In general the adjacent resident's views of the project will be static, which establishes visual familiarity. Combined with their heightened personal interest, this exposure is expected to increase sensitivity to visual conditions. 3) Views from adjacent businesses The adjacent Home Depot store will likely generate a great number of potential viewers to within view of the proposed project. Although this viewer group will vary greatly, it is anticipated that these viewers' expectations will be geared toward the aesthetic of typical large-scale retail development, and as a result their relative sensitivity will be reduced. 4) Future visibility It is important to note that two undeveloped parcels totaling approximately 6.8 acres will exist between the proposed Costco and Home Depot project sites and Los Osos Valley Road. There are currently no formal development plans for these two front parcels, and of course the owner of the properties would have the discretionary option to retain or sell them. Development of these parcels could substantially block views of the project along the Los Osos Valley Road frontage. Development of these parcels may also have the potential of adversely affecting quality views of the Irish Hills. Specific proposals for these parcels would be subject to appropriate review at the time of development application, and prior to that time, their future effect on this Costco project cannot be fully determined. However because of the potential affect that development of those two front parcels may have on the public's perception of this project as well as the visual characteristics of the corridor, a preliminarily analysis was conducted to identify potential future conflicts with visual resources. This viewshed analysis is included at the end of this section, V- 12 through V-1416 Preliminary Viewshed Analysis of Front Two Parcels. d. Key Viewing Areas Based on the above visibility evaluation, Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) were identified for further analysis that would most effectively represent the project and its potential impacts, if any, on the visual environment. Certain areas were assessed as having potential viewer groups, but views were so limited or distant that they were determined to have no visual impacts and not studied further. Two areas of this type are: a short portion of Highway 101 just north of the Los Osos Valley Road overcrossing (refer to Figure V-11), and a few buildings located on the distant hills to the southeast of the project. Photographs were taken from KVAs to establish the baseline visibility of the project site and to establish a record of the existing visual conditions. Baseline photographs from the KVAs were further developed into photo-simulations depicting the proposed project, as it may likely appear Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-145 some time after construction. The KVA locations are listed below in Table V-30. They are also located on Figure V-7 for reference. TABLE V-30 Key Viewing Areas KVA Location Figure No. 1 From Los Osos Valley Road south of the project site. 1 2 From Los Osos Valley Road perpendicular to the project site. 2 3 From Los Osos Valley Road north of the project site. 3 As mentioned previously, views from the Los Osos Valley Road corridor were determined to be the most critical in terms of numbers of viewers and amount of visual exposure. The three KVAs are representative of the extent of visibility and the likely appearance of the proposed Costco development as the community will experience it from Los Osos Valley Road. KVA - 1 - From Los Osos Valley Road south of the project site. This view represents what the typical viewer will see approaching the site from the south. This view is important as part of the entry experience to the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the coastal communities of Los Osos and Baywood Park to the north. Although the motorist's attention is generally directed forward, the visually dominant Irish Hills may extend the viewer's cone-of-vision toward the south and to the project site. The existing Home Depot is also within this view, as will be the future DeVaul Ranch homes. Refer to Figure V-8 for a photo-simulation of the project from KVA-1. KVA - 2 - From Los Osos Valley Road perpendicular to the project site. This viewpoint is important in representing the closest, most direct view of the proposed Costco structure. Although technically outside of the vehicle driver's primary view direction, passengers as well as pedestrians and bicyclists will have easy visual access to the project from this key location on Los Osos Valley Road. This viewpoint also lends the most direct view of the proposed Costco gas station at the rear of the project site. Figure V-9 shows the project as seen from KVA-2. KVA - 3 - From Los Osos Valley Road north of the project site. People travelling south on Los Osos Valley Road will have this view of the project as they move south past the proposed DeVaul Ranch residential development. Views to the project from this direction will be somewhat shorter in duration than from the northbound lanes, but given the high number of roadway users along Los Osos Valley Road, this view will still represent the project and any associated visual change to many community residents. Refer to Figure V-10 for a photo- simulation of the project from KVA-3. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-146 7. Project-specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. The Project As Seen From Adjacent Roads As seen from Los Osos Valley Road, the project will be clearly visible at the base of the Irish Hills to the south. Due to the distance from the Los Osos Valley Road, the proposed structure will block an insignificant portion of the scenic Irish Hills backdrop, approximately fifteen percent vertically. Review of the preliminary architectural elevations indicates that the proposed architectural design is approaching compliance with the City of San Luis Obispo Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects criteria. In addition to project compliance with this document, continuing review by the Architectural Review Commission is expected to further ensure adequate project consistency with City aesthetic standards. The parking lot and associated vehicles will be highly visible as seen from Los Osos Valley Road in spite of the proposed landscape plan. The species of plants proposed as "Parking Lot Screening" along the eastern end of the project will not reach an effective screening height at maturity, and the inherent gaps in the planting required for traffic aisles will allow visibility to the interior of the parking lot. In addition, the predominant tree proposed along the eastern perimeter of the parking lot is a deciduous variety, reducing the effectiveness of the screening function during the winter months. The number and type of trees and shrubs within the interior of the project appear adequate to filter views of a portion of the building. The orientation of the building with the long axis perpendicular to Los Osos Valley Road will reduce the perceived visual mass of the structure. The proposal of Spanish-style architecture carries with it the potential for near-white exterior walls and high-chroma red roofing material. If allowed, these characteristics would increase visibility of the project through added contrast and reflectivity. Visibility of the proposed gas station will be reduced because of its proposed location at the rear of the project site between the Costco and existing Home Depot. From Los Osos Valley Road, the gas station will be recognizable by the roof form and color of its canopy structure, and the possible concentration of vehicles using the facility. The gas station will occupy an otherwise open view corridor between the two large-scale retail buildings and will contribute to the developed character as seen from Los Osos Valley Road. Landscaping is proposed along the eastern side of the gas station facility as a visual screen. Review of the preliminary landscape plan indicates that the plant species selected for this screen will not reach sufficient height to screen the average motor vehicle. The species of trees proposed as screening are deciduous which reduces their effectiveness. The project as seen from Los Osos Valley Road at the 101 freeway overcrossing, the proposed project will occupy only a small area of the visible landscape, and will generally blend with the new commercial and residential development adjacent to it (see Figure V-11). The average viewer is not expected to readily notice the change in scenery from this moderately distant location. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-147 VR/Impact 1 A reduction in visual quality as seen from Los Osos Valley Road, and inconsistency with Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Project, BC-1 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Vi s u a l R e s o u r c e s R DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t KE Y V I E W I N G A R E A 1 FI G U R E V - 8 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Vi s u a l R e s o u r c e s R DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t KE Y V I E W I N G A R E A 2 FI G U R E V - 9 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Vi s u a l R e s o u r c e s R DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t KE Y V I E W I N G A R E A 3 FI G U R E V - 1 0 Costco/Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report DISTANT VIEWING LOCATIONS FIGURE V-11NORTH Not to Scale Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-152 will occur due to visibility and visual dominance of the proposed parking lot and related vehicles. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm – 1 Prior to issuance of permits for front parcels, the City shall consider rezoning the property with an “S” overlay. This Special Consideration zone will ensure the incorporation of the following design features that will reduce visual impacts: The front parcel grading plan shall include a continuous earthen berm along the entire perimeter of front parcels facing Los Osos Valley Road and along the northern edge of the main driveway to the point where the driveway opens to the Costco parking lot. The berm shall be a minimum of five feet tall with maximum side slopes of 2:1 (H:V). The berm shall be designed to appear as a naturally occurring landform and shall include subtle horizontal and vertical undulation. Breaks may occur in the berm to accommodate pedestrian flow to public roadways, however the breaks shall be designed to minimize visual access to the parking lot from Los Osos Valley Road. VR/mm – 2 Prior to issuance of permits for front parcels, the front parcel applicants shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval, incorporating the following design guidelines. The landscape plan shall include a continuous planting screen on and adjacent to the berm along the front two parcels facing Los Osos Valley Road and along the northern edge of the main driveway to the point where the driveway opens to the Costco parking lot. The planting shall complement the naturally appearing form of the berm and not look like a formal, manicured landscape. The design shall avoid a linear planting along the "ridge" of the berm. VR/Impact 2 A reduction in visual quality as seen from Los Osos Valley Road will occur due to visibility of the gas station in the visual gap between the large Costco and Home Depot structures, and the resulting increase in viewer-perception of the amount of overall development along the viewing corridor. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm – 3 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval. The landscape plan shall include a continuous planting along the eastern side of the gas station facility which at maturity will completely screen the canopy and vehicles of the gas station as seen from Los Osos Valley Road. The planting shall include shrubs, which reach a minimum height of six feet and a solid row of evergreen trees with a minimum height at maturity of twenty-five feet. The landscape screening shall be designed and constructed such that it will screen any future expansion of the gas station and that it will not be impacted by future development. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-153 VR/Impact 3 A reduction in visual quality as seen from Los Osos Valley Road may occur due to the high reflective value and high contrast often associated with "plaster" walls and red-tile roofs of typical Spanish-style architecture, resulting in an inconsistency with the Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects, section DE-3.e. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm – 4 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a proposed material and color plan. The plan shall demonstrate that the main exterior wall surfaces include color shades and chroma that support the architectural theme of the structure and at the same time have low reflective qualities or brightness, generally considered to be less than a value of six (6) on the Munsell color chart. VR/Impact 4 A reduction in visual quality as seen from Los Osos Valley Road may occur due to visibility the building’s “big-box” outward appearance, resulting in an inconsistency with the Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects, Section DE. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm – 5 Prior to application for construction permits issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall install public art along the southeastern aspect of the building (facing the gas station). The artwork shall be designed to enhance the scenic value of the surrounding open space by incorporating the Irish Hills into the theme of the artwork. The artwork could be in the any form of a tiled mosaic mural or other large scale design appropriate to breaking up the appearance of the large wall. Installation of the public art shall be subject to the requirements of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines Section 6.4, Public Art. VR/Impact 5 A reduction in visual quality as seen from Los Osos Valley Road may occur due to visibility of utility lines over the subject property. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm – 6 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans to underground all utilities proposed for the project. b. The Project As Seen From Adjacent Residences The project has the potential to adversely affect the approximately sixteen residences of the DeVaul East development, which will be located immediately adjacent to the northern perimeter of the Costco project. The Costco building along its northern façade is proposed to be 31 feet in height. The pad elevations of the homes adjacent to the Costco development will range from Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-154 approximately 5 to 9 feet higher than the finished floor elevation of the proposed Costco building. This elevation difference will help reduce the perceived scale differential between the two developments. Some of the residences of the DeVaul East project will be two-story, which will help create a more visually compatible size relationship as seen from Los Osos Valley Road. Views from the second floor of these residences will however have a greater potential for visibility of the Costco development, and in particular the roof of the Costco building and its rooftop mechanical equipment. Review of the preliminary landscape plan indicates that the proposed screen planting between the Costco building and the DeVaul East project will eventually screen a substantial portion of the Costco development as seen from the residences. Due to the inherent time lag involved with plant growth as well as naturally-occurring gaps between and through branching patterns, some visibility of the project will exist. Views of the engineered, angular grading of the proposed rdetention basin, along with the expected fencing and other equipment will reduce the quality of hill and open space views for the approximately six residences at the western end of the DeVaul development, and for patrons of the proposed Costco gas station as well. As seen from the other residences in the area, such as those across Los Osos Valley Road to the east, the project will be visible but will have minimal adverse affect do to the viewing distance, intervening landscaping and development, and visual consistency with the increasing development along Los Osos Valley Road. VR/Impact 6 A reduction in visual quality as seen from the residences of the DeVaul Ranch East development due to visibility of rooftop mechanical equipment resulting in an inconsistency with the Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects, section E-5. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm – 7 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit accurate cross-sections and sight-line indicators demonstrating that all proposed rooftop mechanical equipment is not visible from the second floor of the residences immediately adjacent to the project. The design employed to conceal the rooftop equipment shall not increase the perceived scale or mass of the building as seen from the adjacent residences of from Los Osos Valley Road. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/Impact 7 A reduction in visual quality as seen from residences of the DeVaul Ranch East development and users of the proposed Costco gas station due to visibility of the engineered, angular earthwork and related elements associated with the rdetention basin. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-155 VR/mm – 8 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval. The landscape plan shall include a natural-appearing planting along the north, south and east perimeter of the rdetention basin which at maturity will completely screen the engineered landform and any required pumps, gates or other equipment associated with the basin from the view of the DeVaul Ranch and the vicinity of the proposed gas station. The basin shall be constructed as a vegetated bioswale designed to filter runoff from the project site before entering the watershed and to visually screen the rdetention basin, consistent with mitigation measure BR/mm-3. If fencing is required, uncoated galvanized chain link shall not be used. No barbed or razor fencing shall be used. c. The Project As Seen From State Highway 101 The project will be visible from Highway 101, primarily from the southbound direction of travel. The viewing distance will be approximately three-quarters of a mile away (refer to Figure V.J-5). The duration of visibility will be approximately fifteen seconds and will be largely obscured by existing windrows and creekside vegetation in the mid-ground. Available views of the Irish Hills will not be compromised by the limited visibility of the Costco structure. As seen from Highway 101, the view of the project will occupy a small portion of the overall landscape and will likely go unnoticed by most highway travelers. As a result, construction of the project is anticipated to result in no visual impacts as seen from the Highway 101 corridor. d. Lighting According to the proposed lighting plan, this project is expected to include lights on poles throughout the parking area as well as lighting affixed to the building’s exterior. With the proposed size of the parking lot, the potential exists for adverse impacts from the brightness and glare of the lights. Review of the preliminary lighting plan indicates that the lighting fixtures proposed for attachment to the Costco building are not designed to shield visibility of the light source. Seasonal fog, typical of the region and in particular the Los Osos Valley, may emphasize the lighting by creating a reflective glow above the project. In addition, because of the close proximity of the hill behind the development, reflective glare from the project onto the hillside may be an adverse factor. Light impacts will be most visible from dusk until approximately 8:30 PM Monday through Friday, and until 6:00 PM Saturday and Sunday, the expected time that the store warehouse will be open for business. If the gas station remains open after that time, lighting impacts will be extended correspondingly. The residents of the DeVaul East property will be affected by these potential lighting impacts, since at night the effects of the lights may potentially be seen from their windows, at a viewing distance of approximately 100 feet. Landscape screening is not expected to completely eliminate visibility of the lighting. VR/Impact 8 Direct visibility of the source of the architectural lighting attached to the north side of the Costco building will reduce visual quality at night for nearby residents of DeVaul East and result in inconsistency with the Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects, Section H. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-156 After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm – 9 At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan demonstrating that direct views of the light sources along the north side of the Costco are shielded from the adjacent residences. VR/Impact 9 Visibility of ambient light caused by the cumulative number and amount of lighting associated with the parking lot, gas station and structures will reduce visual quality at night for the viewers on Los Osos Valley Road and the nearby community. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm–10 At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting operation schedule for review and approval. The schedule shall describe the number, location and amount of lights, and the proposed hours of operation for the entire property, including the gas station. The lighting schedule shall propose the minimum number of lights, level of illuminance, and hours of operation allowed by City codes and ordinances. The approved lighting schedule shall become a required condition of the lease between the property owner and the tenant. e. Urban Edges The proposed site plan does not include measures to reduce the visual impact of a stark appearing edge between the development and adjacent Irish Hills open space area. To be found consistent with the City’s Land Use Element a transition between the open space and the Costco development is required. VR/Impact 10 A reduction in visual quality as seen from the Irish Hills open space area due to the direct visibility of the Costco building and associated development. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). VR/mm-11 At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall request that the City request that the property owner place Parcel 5 into a conservation easement, so the applicant can vegetate the parcel with native tree plantings designed to create a buffer between the development and the open space area. 8. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of this project have been considered according to the affect that this single project will have as experienced in conjunction with existing and other proposed development in the area. Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-157 This section of the Los Osos Valley is undergoing one of the most dramatic alterations of visual character within the City of San Luis Obispo and perhaps the County. Within the last three years, the visual setting has been transformed from a mostly agricultural open area with two historic ranch houses to a transitional landscape dominated in the fore- and mid-ground by construction activities and large-scale development. The recently widened Los Osos Valley Road "parkway" is indicative of the changing character from rural to commercial. In spite of adherence to strict architectural review standards, the existence of the Home Depot to the south and the DeVaul residential development to the north redefine the aesthetic baseline of this section of the Los Osos Valley Road corridor. The strong visual identity of the Irish Hills is still expected to dominate views to the south, but the fore-and mid-ground setting is no longer mostly rural nor has high quality open space characteristics. As the visual characteristics of the corridor change, so do the aesthetic expectations of the viewers and the community. Although a rural landscape was the dominant visual theme a few years ago, most viewers now will relate the appearance of future development to a more commercial baseline. In addition, the type of development occurring is consistent with the land use plan for the area, and is considered compatible with City and County long-range planning goals. It is expected that as other residential and commercial development increases in the area, viewer expectations regarding rural character will likely diminish. When the cumulative impacts of this project are analyzed along with nearby development, this project will be generally viewed as an expansion of the existing commercial area to the south. The proposed project will also relate somewhat to the urban development and auto dealerships across Los Osos Valley Road to the southeast. In spite of changing viewer expectations, this Costco project has the potential to adversely affect the visual quality of the Los Osos Valley Road corridor. Development of this property, even if visually consistent with adjacent development to the south, may have an adverse cumulative affect on the perception of the area as being somewhat rural. This project will fill the gap between the other developments and will result in continuous building along the base of the Irish Hills from Madonna Road to across from the auto center. For many viewers familiar with the area, the visibility of this development will be representative of the increasing urbanization of the region in general. Although not part of this project, it should be noted that the future development of the parcels between Costco and the existing Home Depot and Los Osos Valley Road may ultimately have the greatest influence on the aesthetic character of the corridor. VR/Impact 11 Cumulatively, the visibility of this project, seen in conjunction with other residential and commercial developments will diminish the remaining rural character of this defined community gateway and will result in long-term visual impacts as seen from Los Osos Valley Road and the nearby community. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-158 Implement mitigation measures VR/mm-1 through VR/mm-10. 9. Mitigation and Monitoring Summary Chapter VIII, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan summarizes the mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for this resource. 10. Preliminary Viewshed Analysis of Front Two Parcels While analyzing the potential visual affects of the Costco project, it was recognized that the long-term visibility of the Costco, the Home Depot and to a lesser extent the DeVaul Ranch development will depend greatly on the type of development allowed on the two front parcels adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road. Not only will the "front" developments affect the basic ability to see the Costco at all, these future developments have the potential to block substantial portions of the Irish Hills. The siting, massing and architectural style of structures proposed for these parcels will most likely have a greater affect on the definition of the area than the Costco and Home Depot will. The potential visual changes could range from the development of a street-front oriented "village" design along Los Osos Valley Road which emphasizes architecture and built elements, to an open-vista concept which relies on unhindered views of the hills and wide, vegetated setbacks from Los Osos Valley Road to create a sense of open-space and a less- developed rural ambiance. This study interprets the goals of both the County and City as placing views of the Irish Hills at a top priority for future development along Los Osos Valley Road. This analysis also assumes that in general the rural character of the region is a valued aesthetic quality, which should be preserved where possible. Based on those community goals, a preliminary assessment was conducted to identify specific visual resources as seen from Los Osos Valley Road, and to begin to understand how future development might affect those resources. Methodology In order to establish a baseline visibility and viewshed inventory, a 20-foot tall reference flag was placed at six separate locations along the front parcels. The flag was positioned approximately 120 feet from the edge of the future southbound Los Osos Valley Road (refer to Exhibits A and B Figures V-12 and V-13). The 120-foot distance represents a starting point, which could approximate the location of the front edge of a proposed structure. The 20-foot height of the flag was strictly for visual reference and not a proposed structure height. At each location, the flag was viewed from nine different potential viewing locations along Los Osos Valley Road, both north and southbound. Each view was photo-documented. The flag height was observed for its position relative to the hills behind it and the visual background was then assessed for its value as a scenic resource. Next the flag was used as a visual aid in estimating how the massing of a built structure might affect the viewshed at that location. Findings At most points along Los Osos Valley Road between Autopark Way and Madonna Road, the landform of the Irish Hills generally appears to taper down to the north and south and rises to its highest point in the area directly south of Los Osos Valley Road, in a viewing direction generally Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-159 perpendicular to the roadway. Appendix Exhibit B Figure V-13 graphically illustrates this viewing condition. A common view of the front parcels will be at an angle from the forward direction of a moving vehicle along Los Osos Valley Road. From this oblique viewing angle, the background view directly behind each flag location was of the lower or more distant hills to the north and south of the primary Irish Hills backdrop. However views perpendicular to Los Osos Valley Road of the same flag placements revealed that substantial view blockage would likely occur with the construction of buildings or vegetation at those locations. This preliminary assessment indicates that structures placed in the vicinity of the reference flags will have a more adverse affect on views directly to the west than they will on angled views to the northwest or southwest. As a result, by concentrating creative design efforts toward minimizing view blockage as seen from Los Osos Valley Road directly to the west, serious adverse visual impacts may be avoided. Initial recommendations to maintain these direct views of the Irish Hills include: xConstruct buildings as far from Los Osos Valley Road as possible. Potentially a minimum distance of 200 feet. xLimit the height of buildings based on their proximity to Los Osos Valley Road. xDo not plant tall landscape screening or a continuous row of street trees along Los Osos Valley Road. xIf placing buildings at the western portion of the parcels results in more parking toward Los Osos Valley Road, screen the visibility of the parking lot by providing generous setbacks from Los Osos Valley Road, natural appearing berms and low to medium-size planting. Whether the Irish Hills continue to be the dominant visual feature as seen from Los Osos Valley Road or not depends on how well this and future development are designed to be subordinate to the hillside backdrop setting. If ready visual access to the Irish Hills and a sense of the agricultural history of this gateway are to be maintained, then two main criteria must be adhered to: xVisual character - This and future projects must minimize visibility of "built" components. This goal can be accomplished through site design and wide setbacks, building form, material and color, and screening engineered and architectural features with natural elements such as native-looking landscaping and berms. xVisual Access - Structures and landscaping must be located such that quality views of the Irish Hills are not blocked. Visibility of the hills is mostly dependant on how close development is to Los Osos Valley Road and its size. It will be important to recognize that by requiring landscape screening as mitigation for development allowed too close to Los Osos Valley Road may be in conflict with the goals of maintaining hillside views. Exhibit C Figure V-14 shows a preliminary site design concept illustrating some of the recommendations and criteria listed above which would minimize view blockage to the Irish Hills and protect visual resources. Figure V-15 shows potential locations and corresponding Costco / Froom Ranch Visual Resources DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report V-160 heights that buildings could be placed on the front parcels without blocking views of the Irish Hills. Figure V-16 illustrates the concept behind the berm proposed in VR/mm-1 and how the berm would shield views of the parking lots and portions of the proposed buildings, but would not impact views of the Irish Hills. This preliminary review of potential visual conditions is not a substitute for an independent, detailed analysis of impacts. This study recommends a thorough analysis of specific impacts be conducted at such time that a specific site development is proposed. A primary focus of the analysis should be a sight-line study of how the specific location and height of the proposed structures will affect views of the Irish Hills directly to the west. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Vi s u a l R e s o u r c e s DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 1 6 1 VI E W S H E D A N A L Y S I S – L O C A T I O N M A P FI G U R E V - 1 2 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Vi s u a l R e s o u r c e s DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t VI E W S H E D A N A L Y S I S – V I S U A L B A C K D R O P FI G U R E V - 1 3 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Vi s u a l R e s o u r c e s DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 1 6 3 VI E W S H E D A N A L Y S I S – C O N C E P T U A L S I T E D E S I G N FI G U R E V - 1 4 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Vi s u a l R e s o u r c e s DR A F T F I N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t V- 1 6 4 FR O N T P A R C E L B U I L D I N G H E I G H T A N A L Y S I S FI G U R E V - 1 5 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Vi s u a l R e s o u r c e s FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t FR O N T P A R C E L B E R M H E I G H T A N A L Y S I S FI G U R E V - 1 6 Costco / Froom Ranch Alternatives DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VI-1 VI. ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 provides direction for the discussion of alternatives to the proposed project. This section requires: • description of “...a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” [15126.6(a)] • a setting forth of alternatives that “...shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.” [15126.6(f)] • discussion of the "No Project" alternative, and “...If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” [15126.6(e)(2)] • discussion and analysis of alternative locations “…that would substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR.” [15126.6(f)(2)(A)] Given the CEQA mandates listed above, this section (1) describes the range of reasonable alternatives to the project, including alternative locations; (2) examines and evaluates resource issue areas where significant adverse environmental effects have been identified, and compares the impacts of the alternatives to those of the proposed project, and (3) identifies the environmentally superior project. B. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The applicant’s objective is to construct a Costco Wholesale store warehouse including tire sales, tire installation and a fueling facility on a parcel zoned General Retail within the City of San Luis Obispo. The alternatives discussed below avoid or substantially lessen project impacts, or are required under CEQA Guidelines. 1. No Project Alternative 2. Different Locations Alternative a. Froom Ranch East b. Dalidio Property c. Froom Ranch North Costco / Froom Ranch Alternatives DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VI-2 3. Different Characteristics Alternative (Proposed Project with Alternative Mitigation) a. On-site Relocation b. Multiple Store Fronts c. Watershed Improvements 4. Different Front Parcel Use Alternative a. Residential b. Small pedestrian-friendly shops 5. Environmentally Superior Alternative (Proposed Project with Incorporation of EIR Mitigation Measures) Table VI-1 summarizes the evaluation of each of the above alternatives and was used as a tool to determine which alternatives could avoid or lessen potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project. In addition, the matrix also identifies where new or substantially increased potentially significant impacts may be identified for an alternative. Several components of these alternatives can be adapted to work with the proposed project. With the exception of the alternatives involving moving the Costco to a different site, a combination of alternatives can be incorporated into the proposed project as deemed necessary to reduce the potential impacts and to create the best development possible within this sensitive visual corridor into the City of San Luis Obispo. TABLE VI-1 Impact Comparison of Project Alternatives Issue Project Alt 1 Alt 2a Alt 2b Alt 2c Alt 3a Alt 3b Alt 3c Alt 4a Alt 4b Alt 5 Geology = + - = = = = = = = = Drainage/WQ = + - + = = = + = = + Biology = + - + - = = + = = = Cultural = + = = = = = = = = = Traffic = + + + - = = = + + + Air = + = = = = = = + + + Noise = + + + - + = = + = + Hazards = + = = = = = = = = = Public Serv. = + = = = - = = = = = Visual = + = + + + + = + + + Overall =+10 -1 +5 -2 +1 +1 +2 +4 +3 +5 1. No Project Alternative Under this alternative, the project would not go forward and the goals and objectives of the project would not be met. The Costco building and fueling station would not be constructed and no development would occur on the parcel. The land use designations and zoning would remain the same and it is possible that the property would not be annexed to the City until such time as a Costco / Froom Ranch Alternatives DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VI-3 new project would be proposed (delaying annexation). The No Project Alternative is clearly the environmentally superior alternative. However, as noted in CEQA Section [15126.6(e)(2)], if the No Project Alternative is determined to be the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Numerous potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed action would be avoided if the project did not go forward; however, since these impacts can be mitigated to insignificance, the proposed project with mitigation is considered the environmentally superior alternative other than no project. 2. Different Project Locations Alternative a. Froom Ranch East The Froom East property comprises approximately 120 acres. This parcel is located to the east of the existing Froom Ranch complex. This property was evaluated for commercial service and auto park uses in 1989 and an EIR was prepared on an 80-acre portion of the 374-acre parcel (this includes all of that property owner’s holdings, including the proposed project site and the Home Depot parcel). This information is incorporated by reference and pertinent information is summarized below. A potential location for the development is conceptually shown on Figure VI-1 for purposes of evaluating the potential impacts of this alternative. There are a variety of configurations that could occur, such as locating the Costco building closer to Los Osos Valley Road and parcels 1 and 3 adjacent to the store warehouse instead of fronting it. Development of this property would generally have greater physical impacts than associated with the proposed project, as described in the paragraphs below. 1) Drainage, Geologic, Soils and Seismic Hazards According to the findings in the 1989 EIR for the Madonna General Plan Amendment, this alternative site for the proposed Costco parcel would be located in an area of shallow groundwater, which would require special foundations for the building and filling the wetlands. The increase in impervious surfaces over the recent years has increased the wetland characteristics of this area. A preliminary drainage evaluation was included in the 1989 EIR. The document suggested that drainage from impervious surfaces may be insignificant because of the wetland conditions and there is essentially no infiltration during the wet season. Also, because the alternative site is at the extreme lower end of the flood-flow system from Froom Creek and Prefumo Creek, the runoff from the higher elevations would have been concentrated and discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek long before any major peaking of discharge from higher elevations. However the EIR states that these observations are qualitative, and a more rigorous analysis of increased runoff would be required prior to development on the property. The applicant may be required to conduct additional seismic tests on the site to determine if there were any faults within the building envelopes of these parcels. The presence of shallow Costco / Froom Ranch Alternatives DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VI-4 groundwater beneath this potential site also raises concerns regarding potential liquefaction during a strong earthquake. Generally, this alternative site would result in potentially greater geologic, drainage, soils and seismic concerns than the proposed project site because of the presence of shallow groundwater and extensive wetlands. 2) Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Water supply and wastewater disposal issues would be subject to County requirements for implementation of an on-site well and wastewater disposal facilities as this site is outside of the City of San Luis Obispo Urban Reserve Line and would not connect with existing City infrastructure. 3) Biological Resources The alternative relocation to the Froom East parcel would impact wetlands. Approximately 40 acres of freshwater marsh and approximately 10 acres of transitional wetland areas and riparian communities are within this alternative site. The project would remove approximately 30 acres of this habitat. In addition, the existing Froom Creek could require realignment, thus disturbing this riparian corridor. Impacts to sensitive plant species and threatened wildlife species would occur, including habitat for the burrowing owl. The 1989 EIR for the Madonna General Plan Amendment provides a summary of the biological conditions of this alternative site. This proposed alternative would have far more significant impacts to the biological resources that the proposed project. For this reason, this alternative is not recommended. 4) Traffic and Air Quality Issues Traffic and air quality impacts and proposed mitigation measures would be similar to the proposed project; however, this location allows for direct access to U.S. 101 corridor and reduces traffic continuing west on Los Osos Valley Road. Entrances to the project site may require adjustment to fit with the existing street system. Road improvements would remain essentially the same, with the addition of traffic signals or other related improvements to the Calle Joaquin intersection. Interior traffic flow would be altered due to the change in project layout, and it is likely that the number of entrances to the project would be reduced to two entrances, with one aligned with Calle Joaquin and the second entrance only accessible by eastbound traffic. 5) Noise This alternative reduces noise impacts to residential areas in close proximity to the proposed project. The need for noise barriers would be significantly reduced since adjacent land uses are commercial as opposed to residential. Costco / Froom Ranch Alternatives DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VI-5 6) Cultural Resources The Froom East property contains known archaeological sites but these are located to the north of the alternative location outside of the proposed development envelope. The wetlands area does not contain any known archaeological evidence; however it is possible that subsurface materials may be present. No historic structures are present at this alternative site. No impacts to cultural resources would be anticipated. 7) Visual Resources The Froom East alternative site would have similar visual considerations as the proposed project site. This alternative would locate the proposed Costco building adjacent to existing commercial uses and the building would be totally visible from U.S. 101. The views from LOVR would be the same as the proposed project. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce the large appearance of the building from travelers on U.S. 101 and Los Osos Valley Road, but the use would not be out of scale when viewing the project in conjunction with the existing large commercial uses along the freeway and the proposed Dalidio commercial area. b. Dalidio Property The Dalidio project area is already slated for big box stores and project applications for development are currently underway. Stores are already mapped for the larger parcels and there is not sufficient room for the proposed Costco facility and gas station to relocate onto this development. If a current applicant pulls out of this proposal, it would be feasible for the Costco to relocate, pending further environmental review at the development plan stage. This alternative would eliminate all impacts at the proposed Costco site by including the project within this larger commercial complex. c. Froom Ranch North This parcel is located opposite Los Osos Valley Road from the Home Depot development. This parcel is too small to meet the objectives of the applicant because it is bisected by Prefumo Creek. The frontage of the property on Los Osos Valley Road is not wide enough to accommodate the proposed project, even with reduced design. It may be possible to relocate the development onto this parcel if the building was broken up into several smaller buildings and the numbers of parking spaces were reduced. This location is bisected from the Dalidio property by Prefumo Creek, which means it does not have access to the remainder of the Dalidio Specific Plan area and its proposed commercial retail uses. The site is within in the Agriculture land use designation and would require annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo prior to development. Costco / Froom Ranch Alternatives DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VI-6 FROOM EAST ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FIGURE VI-1 So u r c e : M a d o n n a G e n e r a l P l a n A m e n d m e n t E I R , 1 9 8 9 NORTH Costco P. 1 P.2 Costco / Froom Ranch Alternatives DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VI-7 Although there may be a reduction in visual resources impacts to the Irish Hills by locating a reduced project on this alternative site, it was not considered because it did not meet the needs of the applicant. Traffic circulation patterns, noise impacts to adjacent residences, and impacts to prime agricultural land were also considered to be more significant than the proposed action. 3. Different Project Characteristics Alternative a. Relocation The position of the Costco building could be relocated to the front of the parcel to break up the visual monotony of the parking lot. This would replace the monolithic affect of a large single building surrounded by cars, but could potentially restrict views of the Irish Hills. Placement of the building nearer to the parcel located on LOVR would also encourage pedestrian usage between the developments thereby reducing the need for car trips between stores on the front two parcels and the Costco. Although this alternative appears feasible from an aesthetic standpoint, it is not recommended because of economical (storefront and layout) and safety reasons. The Costco entrance would have to be located to the side of the building in order to be reasonably close to customer parking. Having parking to the rear of the store poses safety concerns as it would be more difficult to monitor by both police and fire service personnel. Vandalism, car theft, accidents and lack of personal safety of customers would increase. b. Multiple Store Fronts There is public concern over the potential of large, vacant buildings in the City. If the building were designed with multiple store-fronts, the opportunity for the building to be subdivided and other stores to easily move in would be increased. The 140,000 square foot building pad could be redesigned with multiple store-fronts, to create the effect of several uses under one building. These store-fronts would be unused by Costco but if included in the building design the facades would allow the potential for future mixed uses of the building. To most efficiently accommodate the potential for multiple stores, the loading bay could be located centrally, to the rear of the building, accessible to all “stores” within the building. Although potentially feasible, the 140,000 square-foot size limitation on the warehouse is at the low end of operational effectiveness for Costco Wholesale. Requiring devotion of additional portions of the limited floor area for vacant store fronts would severely inhibit the ability of the project to meet its operational objectives. c. San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed Improvements Although the project will not create significant impacts to drainage in the area, flooding occurs at Highway 101 near LOVR during storms as small as the 10-year event. This flooding extends up Prefumo Creek to Calle Joaquin. The proposed project, when combined with cumulative planned development in the area, will increase flooding risks in an already high flood hazard zone. Costco / Froom Ranch Alternatives DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VI-8 The additional runoff, caused by the increase in impervious surfaces would be reduced with implementation of a bypass channel and culvert improvements proposed in the (Draft) Waterways Management Plan (WMP) for the SLO Creek Watershed by Questa Engineering, 2002. The WMP proposes installation of a bypass channel in Prefumo Creek, extending downstream approximately 400 meters to SLO creek below LOVR. This bypass channel would increase local capacity and reduce backwater flooding on Prefumo Creek and Highway 101. Replacement of two box culverts located where Prefumo Creek crosses under Highway 101 would provide 100-year flood capacity in the area. These improvements could be applied during the planned LOVR/101 interchange project. 4. Different Front Parcel Use Alternative a. Residential To help correct the imbalance that currently exists within the City of San Luis Obispo between affordable housing and commercial development, the front two parcels could extend the residential character of LOVR by creation of a multi-family residential community. By designing the front parcels in this way, the stark border between residential uses and commercial uses will be eliminated by extending the residential corridor along LOVR. b. Small pedestrian-friendly shops Tentative site plans for parcels 1 and 3 include placement of two to three large fast-food restaurants typical of other Costco developments. These front two parcels could alternatively be designed with several small shops connected via a pedestrian walkway and associated improvements such as patio seating and shade trees. Mixed uses could include small restaurants and specialty shops that would attract a variety of users. An open-air market atmosphere would encourage non-vehicular traffic and create a neighborhood-like extension of the existing residential community instead of a stark contrast of residential development against large commercial uses. As LOVR is currently a visually pleasing gateway to the City, diverse uses that encourage pedestrian traffic would preserve this corridor to some extent. 5. Proposed Project With Incorporation of EIR Mitigation Measures The proposed project with incorporation of mitigation measures included in this EIR will have the least potential environmental impacts out of the possible alternative locations discussed above. Significant, unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project include operational and construction-related air quality impacts, noise impacts, traffic safety impacts, and impacts to cumulative drainage in the area. Mitigation proposed in this EIR, although not able to reduce impacts to insignificance, will reduce the project’s impact to the greatest extent feasible. Incorporation of alternative project characteristics mitigation such as creating a bioswale for the drainage basin bioretention area in lieu of a closed culvert and placement of small pedestrian- friendly shops on the front parcels would create a more biologically and aesthetically pleasing development and further reduce the unavoidable impacts of the project. Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Analysis DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VII-1 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The growth inducing impact of a proposed project includes a discussion of the ways in which a project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. A. EXISTING CONDITIONS CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126 (g)) state that for the preparation of EIRs, growth-inducing effects are defined as “...ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” The Guidelines expand upon this description by stating: “Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant might, for example, allow more construction in service areas)”. Appendix G, Item K of CEQA lists as a significant effect the issue of whether or not a project will “induce substantial growth or concentration of population”. The proposed project can be considered “growth-inducing” because it will foster economic and employment opportunities for the City of San Luis Obispo. Growth inducement is not a significant impact unless it causes significant physical impacts or unless the growth is beyond the capacity of the community to accommodate it. The development of a commercial retail use would benefit the City because it would provide an increase in the economic base for the City and would provide both temporary and permanent employment opportunities. B. PROJECT IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project would result in the potential for the following types of growth inducing impacts: 1) economic growth due to an increase in property value and revenue generated from an increase in sales tax; 2) employment opportunities due to temporary and permanent jobs and employee/payroll benefits; 3) employment growth to supporting industries such as trucking, janitorial, advertising and other similar industries; 4) competition among existing electronic stores, grocery stores, specialty stores and businesses located within the City; 5) an increased need for additional public services such as transit, police/fire and sewer; and 6) jobs/housing balance. 1. Economic Growth Normally, economic issues are not discussed in an EIR unless there is a nexus with a physical impact on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines section 15131). CEQA states that economic or social information may be included in an EIR or may be presented in whatever form the agency desires. It also goes on to state in subsection (a) that “...economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Analysis DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VII-2 The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes”. CEQA defines “significant effect on the environment” as a “substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment” (State CEQA Guidelines section 21068). A market feasibility study was not conducted for the proposed project. Therefore, the feasibility of the project and a cost-benefit analysis is not known. However, it is certain that a commercial project of this magnitude will bring an increase in revenue resulting in growth inducing impacts to the area. The effects will indirectly provide change in the social and economic environment of the area and these changes may be considered beneficial or adverse depending upon one’s social perspective and desires for the growth of the area. 2. Employment Opportunities According to the applicant, the Costco facility is expected to employ approximately 300 people. Additionally, there will be short-term employment opportunities during the construction of the proposed project. Given the ample supply of construction workers in the local work force (both employed and unemployed), it is likely that a majority of these workers would come from the local area. Long-term employment opportunities may include part-time work, retail sales and managerial in low and moderate income ranges, with managers in the higher income ranges. Although there is a local employment base with the training to work at this facility, the development could encourage a small number of persons relocating to the area, resulting in a minor demand for housing, additional commuting and secondary impacts to energy consumption, air pollution and an increase in traffic levels of service. 3. Employment Growth to Supporting Industries The proposed project is growth inducing because it will foster economic growth and employment not only for the project itself but also for complimentary industries. Commercial developments require products and supplies from existing industries to facilitate growth and success. These industries may include: trucking, janitorial and advertising services and service industries that serve the secondary increase in employment base (food, sundries, etc.). The increase in supporting industries would not be considered significant both for primary service industries to the hardware complex and the secondary service industries to the employees. 4. Competition of Similar Industries The proposed project will provide a service currently provided for by existing supermarkets and retail businesses located in the downtown area in San Luis Obispo and neighboring towns. The development of a large-scale wholesale store warehouse will increase competition among existing stores and with the new Costco facility. Currently, there are no large-scale wholesale stores within the immediate market area of the proposed Costco Wholesale store warehouse. Costco will draw a percentage of customers away from the existing smaller stores, and may cause some small stores to change their marketing or go out of business. However, the large size of the commercial retail store may attract regional customers that would normally not come into Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Analysis DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VII-3 San Luis Obispo for supplies at an existing local store. This may increase business for other commercial retail shops in the area that normally would not receive regional customers. The smaller stores may be forced to re-market existing goods and services in order to compete with the larger store and gain a share of the new customer market. Short-term impacts, in the form of lost revenues to local business, would occur until the market adjusted to the new store. This is an unavoidable growth inducing impact that occurs when any large business moves into a small business market area. If existing businesses were to be economically impacted, such that businesses were to close, there could be a short-term blight impacts caused by vacant buildings. Without adequate market information, the potential for the physical impact of blight is problematic (unknown). 5. Additional Public Services The proposed project would increase the number of people in the area, which has the potential to increase the demand for additional public services. Public facilities that would be impacted include the following: infrastructure, police/fire services, solid waste, water supplies, stormwater and sewer. However, since it is likely that the employment base will come from the local market area and there will be a minimal number of imported workers, impacts to public services is considered insignificant. 6. Jobs/Housing Balance The achievement of a balance of jobs and housing opportunities within an area is intended to reduce traffic and air quality problems and is a specific goal (LU 1.4) of the City’s General Plan Digest (refer to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Digest, page LU-12, which is incorporated herein by reference). At present, the countywide jobs/housing ratio is approximately 1 employee per dwelling unit. The ratio is much higher in the City of San Luis Obispo, which is approximately 1.74 employees per dwelling unit according to 1990 Census data. Using this factor, the proposed Costco would require approximately 172 dwelling units (assumes 300 employees per day), assuming that all employees would come from out of the area. This is not likely the case since the jobs that will be provided are low to moderate-income jobs, which could be filled by local unemployed, second wage earners, and students. The number of actual housing units that would be needed is unknown, but likely can be filled within commuting distance. The City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element EIR adopted overriding considerations for the jobs/housing imbalance of the number of workers increasing more than the number of available residences within the City. The County of San Luis Obispo Area Plan EIR also considered the increase in employment and jobs/ housing balance from this development in the alternatives for the 72-acre area of the Froom Ranch. However, for overall area planning, the EIR indicates that there would be “an increased imbalance between jobs and housing, with very few of the new jobs and housing opportunities located in the same parts of the planning area. With this in mind, it is likely that housing would be provided within commuting distance but outside the immediate vicinity of the project (such as south county or Estero Bay area). Impacts would therefore result from increased commuter Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Analysis DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VII-4 traffic and resultant air quality. This EIR has addressed the impacts of increased traffic and air quality, and has included mitigation measures for these secondary impacts. 7. Precedent-Setting Effects Precedent setting concerns are associated with the ability of a project to set an example of what can be achieved on parcels with similar land use designations and parcels of land situated in similar locations within the County and with similar constraints. Parcels of land potentially susceptible to precedent-setting effects of the proposed project include Parcels 1 and 3. These lands are designated Commercial-Retail and have been evaluated in the County San Luis Obispo Area Plan EIR. The reader is requested to reference these documents with respect to precedent setting issues. It is unlikely that the proposed action will set any precedents that have not otherwise been evaluated in these referenced planning documents. Precedence was set by the Home Depot project, which was the first, large single commercial facility to date in San Luis Obispo County the City. It should be noted that the Dalidio project has also considered large commercial uses within its designation and these types of uses are being considered by the City in evaluation of the Dalidio Property Annexation EIR. Also, it should be noted that the City does have commercial centers that exceed the square footage of this proposed development. Whether or not this is considered a significant impact in terms of designating new land use trends is dependent on individual determination. C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPER USE OF ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126 (e)) state that for the preparation of EIRs, a discussion be included which describes the “cumulative and long-term effects of the project that adversely affect the state of the environment. Special attention should be given to impacts which narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long-term risks to health and safety”. Development of the proposed project will result in a variety of short- and long-term impacts. During the construction phase, surrounding and adjacent land uses would be temporarily impacted by dust, construction equipment emissions, and noise. Short-term erosion may occur until establishment of the mitigation revegetation and landscaping. These impacts are temporary and can be mitigated. The long-term effect of the proposed development would be to introduce a large structure (Costco store warehouse and fueling facility) and other related infrastructure to an undeveloped project site. The parcel is zoned Commercial Retail and the proposed use is consistent with this land use category. Long-term but generally mitigable impacts due to the construction of the proposed project include the following: permanent alteration of the project site due to extensive grading, increased erosion and sedimentation, increased use of ground and surface water resources, loss of agricultural land, loss of visual and open space resources, increased traffic volumes, increased noise levels, and increased demand on public services. The trade-off for these long-term impacts is that the proposed project would provide the commercial services of a large discount store in an area where a similar service is not available. The proposed project Costco / Froom Ranch Environmental Analysis DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VII-5 would mitigate for long-term impacts with incorporation of mitigation measures and payment of City-required development and infrastructure improvement fees. Long-term impacts due to the construction of the proposed project include degradation of local and regional air quality and increased flows in the Froom Creek channel. These have been identified as significant and unavoidable. The development of the proposed project will intensify commercial use in the area by filling a current open space that is zoned Commercial Retail. The commercial retail development would eventually happen as foreseen in the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan and is consistent with current County and City land use designations. D. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126 (f)) state that for the preparation of EIRs, a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action, such as uses of non-renewable resources during the construction and operational phases of the project, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and the irreversible damage that would occur from development of the project site be provided. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the following irreversible significant environmental changes: 1) consumption of nonrenewable resources; 2) loss of visual resources; and 3) loss of biological resources. 1. Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources As with any development, resources will be used to construct the project and maintain daily operations. Consumption of energy resources and increased vehicle travel by employees and customers will use resources for heating, cooling, lighting, operation of appliances and vehicle transportation. Use of non-renewable materials such as metals and petroleum derived products would effect the environment. 2. Loss of Visual Resources The proposed project would result in the location of a large structure (i.e., wholesale store warehouse) and 700-space parking lot, resulting in disruption of the public’s views of the Irish Hills. The Visual Resources section of the EIR, describes mitigation measures to lessen the visual impacts of the development. 3. Loss of Biological Resources Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of identified occurrences of Congdon’s Tarplant in the project area and convert grassland habitat used by a variety of plant and wildlife species. The habitat present on parcels 1 and 3 would remain undisturbed for the short-term and impacts would be evaluated with any development plan request for parcels 1 and 3. Mitigation measures have been recommended in Section V.C, Biological Resources, to reduce loss of biological resources. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-1 VIII. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN A. INTRODUCTION The following mitigation measures have been recommended in this Environmental Impact Report. Included with each mitigation measure is a table itemizing the Administrative Action needed to ensure that the mitigation is included in the plans and construction of the project, the Timing of the Action, the Party Responsible for Verification of the completed Actions, and the Monitoring/Reporting schedule. Administrative action is tied to either Costco Wholesale (Applicant) or the property owner/developer of the front two parcels. Those mitigation measures tied to the front parcels do not affect the development of the Costco warehouse. Mitigation measures that apply to both developments are repeated under separate headings for clarity of responsibility. B. GENERAL MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Geologic Hazards a.Costco GH/mm-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Kleinfelder (2000, 2001). Administrative Action: Costco shall comply with Kleinfelder report. Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: As required by the City of San Luis Obispo prior to issuance of permits. b.Front Parcels GH/mm-2 Prior to submittal of plans for Parcels 1 and 3, the applicants for those parcels shall obtain a Geological Investigation Report from a Certified/Approved Engineering Geologist. Administrative Action: Applicant for front parcels shall obtain a Geological Investigation Report Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits for front parcels Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: As required by the City of San Luis Obispo prior to issuance of permits. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-2 2. Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation a.Costco DES/mm-1 Prior to approval of a building permit, drainage plans with supporting calculations must be submitted and approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department (and by the County in a cooperative review process). The designs must demonstrate that peak discharge from the site will be limited to that of the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm predevelopment rates. Administrative Action: Costco shall provide detailed drainage plans Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo and County of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: As required by the City of San Luis Obispo prior to issuance of permits. DES/mm-2 Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the RWQCB or SWRCB for approval a Notice of Intent and SWPPP in accordance with the requirements of the State General Order related to construction projects. The SWPPP shall identify the selected pollution control technologies, spill response procedures, and other means that will be used to minimize erosion and sediment production and the release of pollutants to surface water during construction. Compliance will be verified by the project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. A copy of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo for approval. Administrative Action: Costco shall prepare a SWPPP Timing: Prior to issuance of permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo in consultation with RWQCB or SWRCB Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification and approval of SWPPP by City of San Luis Obispo. DES/mm-3 The applicant shall participate in their “fair share” of any mitigation fee established by the City of San Luis Obispo to be used to pay for drainage improvements made necessary by cumulative project development. Administrative Action: Costco shall pay a “fair share” of any mitigation fee established by the City of San Luis Obispo. Timing: Prior to issuance of permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of fees paid to the City of San Luis Obispo. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-3 b.Front Parcels DES/mm-1 Prior to approval of a building permit, drainage plans with supporting calculations must be submitted and approved by the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department (and by the County in a cooperative review process). The designs must demonstrate that peak discharge from the site will be limited to that of the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm predevelopment rates. Administrative Action: Front parcel applicants shall provide detailed drainage plans Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo and County of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: As required by the City of San Luis Obispo prior to issuance of permits. DES/mm-2 Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the RWQCB or SWRCB for approval a Notice of Intent and SWPPP in accordance with the requirements of the State General Order related to construction projects. The SWPPP shall identify the selected pollution control technologies, spill response procedures, and other means that will be used to minimize erosion and sediment production and the release of pollutants to surface water during construction. Compliance will be verified by the project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. A copy of the SWPPP shall be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo for approval. Administrative Action: Front parcel applicants shall prepare a SWPPP Timing: Prior to issuance of permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo in consultation with RWQCB or SWRCB Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification and approval of SWPPP by City of San Luis Obispo. DES/mm-3 The applicant shall participate in their “fair share” of any mitigation fee established by the City of San Luis Obispo to be used to pay for drainage improvements made necessary by cumulative project development. Administrative Action: Front parcel applicants shall pay a “fair share” of any mitigation fee established by the City of San Luis Obispo. Timing: Prior to issuance of permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of fees paid to the City of San Luis Obispo. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-4 3. Biological Resources a.Costco BR/mm-1: Prior to construction, the applicant shall implement the Congdon’s Tarplant Mitigation Plan as presented in Appendix BD. Compliance will be verified by the project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. Administrative Action: Costco shall implement the Congdon’s Tarplant Mitigation Plan Timing: Prior to construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. BR/mm-2: Prior to and during construction, the applicant shall implement erosion and spill control best management practices as presented in the Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation section of this EIR, and in the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Compliance will be verified by the project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. Administrative Action: Costco shall implement SWPPP and erosion and spill control best management practices. Timing: Prior to and during construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. BR/mm-3a:At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans for construction of a bioswale bioretention area (as described by the EPA Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet-Bioretention- [www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biortn.pdf],) in lieu of the proposed retention basin.closed culvert adjacent to the fueling facility and along the southeastern property line to the driveway access point from Froom Ranch Drive, in addition to installation of oil-water separators at all site drainage outlet locations. The bioretention area shall: 1. Be adequately vegetated with appropriate plant species and constructed with proper soils to ensure adequate operation. 2. Become part of the landscape plan and maintained as necessary including periodic removal of trash, weeds, and debris. 3. Shall be designed to include an underdrain within the sand bed to collect the infiltrated water and discharge to the open swale along LOVR in order to not allow infiltration into the groundwater basin. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-5 Administrative Action: Costco shall submit plans for construction of a bioswale in lieu of the proposed rdetention basin. bioretention area along the southeastern property line Timing: At the time of application for construction permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Approval of bioswale retention plans BR/mm-4:At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall provide for raptor perches; within the vicinity of the bioswale(three in the secondary mitigation replacement area) and design and install at least two nesting boxes for owls on, or in the vicinity of the Costco building such as along the rear property line bordering the Irish Hills open space area. Administrative Action: Costco shall provide raptor perches Timing: At the time of application for construction permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Approval of bioswale plans b. Front Parcels BR/mm-2: Prior to and during construction, the applicant shall implement erosion and spill control best management practices as presented in the Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation section of this EIR, and in the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Compliance will be verified by the project Environmental Monitor through submission of compliance reports. Administrative Action: Front parcel applicants shall implement SWPPP and erosion and spill control best management practices. Timing: Prior to and during construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. BR/mm-3b At the time of application for construction permits for Parcel 1,the front parcel applicant shall install a bioretention area along the southeastern property line as described in BR/mm-3a. Administrative Action: Front Parcle applicant shall submit plans for construction of a bioswale in lieu of the proposed retention basin. bioretention area along the southeastern property line Timing: At the time of application for construction permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Approval of bioswale retention plans Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-6 4. Cultural Resources a.Costco CR/mm-1 During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archaeologist/historian approved by the City. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the Environmental Coordinator. Salvage or mitigation excavations would be outlined in the mitigation plan as required. Administrative Action: Costco shall cease activities if subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered. Timing: During construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo qualified monitor Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. CR/mm-2 During initial vegetation removal, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be onsite to inspect the disturbed area for prehistoric and historic artifacts. A Local Native American Monitor (LNAM) shall be invited to participate in the on-site inspection. If artifacts are found, CR/mm-1 shall apply. Administrative Action: Qualified monitor shall be onsite and LNAM shall be invited. Timing: During initial vegetation removal Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo qualified monitor Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. CR/mm-3 During construction, if the project limits change to extend beyond the previously surveyed locations additional archaeological surveys shall be completed by a qualified archeologist. Administrative Action: A qualified archeologist shall complete additional archaeological surveys. Timing: If project limits change to extend beyond the previously surveyed locations Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. CR/mm-4 During initial vegetation removal, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be onsite to inspect the disturbed area for paleontological remains. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert grading and construction equipment away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-7 Administrative Action: The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor. Timing: During initial vegetation removal. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. b.Front Parcels CR/mm-1 During construction, in the event that subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered on the property, all activities shall cease in the affected area until the area is surveyed by an archaeologist/historian approved by the City. Under the direction of the archaeologist/historian, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the Environmental Coordinator. Salvage or mitigation excavations would be outlined in the mitigation plan as required. Administrative Action: Front parcel applicants shall cease activities if subsurface cultural or historic material is discovered. Timing: During construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo qualified monitor Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. CR/mm-2 During initial vegetation removal, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be onsite to inspect the disturbed area for prehistoric and historic artifacts. A Local Native American Monitor (LNAM) shall be invited to participate in the on-site inspection. If artifacts are found, CR/mm-1 shall apply. Administrative Action: Qualified monitor shall be onsite and LNAM shall be invited. Timing: During initial vegetation removal Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo qualified monitor Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. CR/mm-3 During construction, if the project limits change to extend beyond the previously surveyed locations additional archaeological surveys shall be completed by a qualified archeologist. Administrative Action: A qualified archeologist shall complete additional archaeological surveys. Timing: If project limits change to extend beyond the previously surveyed locations Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-8 Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. CR/mm-4 During initial vegetation removal, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be onsite to inspect the disturbed area for paleontological remains. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert grading and construction equipment away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. Administrative Action: The front parcel applicants shall retain a qualified paleontological monitor. Timing: During initial vegetation removal. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. 5. Traffic Safety a.Costco TR/mm-1 A minimum of Ttwelve months after the Costco project is open for business, the City shall monitor traffic operations including accident history, traffic volumes and vehicle delays to determine if the Auto Park Way intersection warrants installation of a signal to improve the minor street approach to an acceptable level of service. The applicant shall provide for improvements through payment of TIF credit established by the City. Administrative Action: The City shall monitor traffic operations at Auto Park Way Timing:A minimum of Ttwelve months after the Costco project is open for business Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Costco shall provide for improvements if needed through payment of TIF credit. TR/mm-2a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco,construction contracts and necessary permits shall be secured in order to complete improvements of the LOVR/U.S. 101/Calle Joaquin intersection. The applicant shall apply for an Encroachment Permit for all work done in the State Highway City right-of- way and the improvements shall be completed to Caltrans City standards, shown by a letter of acknowledgement from the Caltrans Department of Permits Office. The necessary improvements are as follows: 1.Coordinate Existing Caltrans and City Signals, 2. Realign Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin-North, and subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. 3.Lengthen Southbound U.S. 101 and Northbound U.S. 101 off-ramps. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-9 TR/mm-2b Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit for all work done in the State Highway right-of-way and the improvements shall be completed to Caltrans standard, shown by a letter of acknowledgement from the Caltrans Department of Permits office. The necessary improvements are as follows: 1. Coordinate existing Caltrans and City signals 2. As ultimately determined by Caltrans, lengthen Southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp subject to approval of Caltrans. Administrative Action: The applicant shall secure construction contracts and necessary permits to complete infrastructure improvements to the LOVR/U.S. 101/Calle Joaquin Intersection. Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of construction contracts and necessary permits TR/mm-3 Prior to start of business operations (or occupancy permit) for Costco,the applicant shall obtain and dedicate sufficient right of way dedication on the northeast side of LOVR to the City and construct improvements of a sidewalk to City Standards.The sidewalk shall extend from the residential subdivision northwesterly of the project (Garcia frontage road), and shall include a connection with the signalized crosswalk that exists across LOVR at Froom Ranch Way. on the northeast side of LOVR that connects the existing sidewalks located on north side of LOVR southeast and northwest of the project site with the crosswalk that will be provided across LOVR at the main project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with the front parcels and future other projects that would benefit from the sidewalk extension. Administrative Action: The applicant shall obtain right of way dedication and construct sidewalk improvements Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Right of way dedication and installation of sidewalk improvements. TR/mm-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for Costco,the applicant shall develop project plans shall to show the northwesterly most driveway along LOVR to be relocated located aligned across from Garcia Drive and construct a raised median “worm” island at the intersection of Garcia Drive at LOVR to restrict left turn egress from both Garcia and the northwesterly project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-10 responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with the front parcels and future other projects that would benefit from the access improvements. Administrative Action: The applicant relocate the westerly most driveway to be aligned across from Garcia Drive Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of revised project plans TR/mm-5a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the Costco component of the project,the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to LOVR to accommodate either: b)Extend the dual left turn storage lengths on LOVR at the Project main driveway. The inside lane will have a minimum length of 250 feet with a total overall storage capacity of the dual lanes a minimum of 500 feet in length. Appropriate deceleration lanes and reverse tapers for the revised turn lanes shall be designed and installed pursuant to State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, or; A new left turn lane and appropriate deceleration/reverse tapers shall be constructed on LOVR at the Project northwesternmost driveway. The left turn storage length shall be a minimum of 150 feet in length. The Project driveway/Garcia Drive intersection shall be modified so as to be restricted to right turn in-and-out only, with left turns allowed from LOVR to Garcia Drive and from LOVR to the northwesterly project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with the front two parcel applicants that would benefit from the access improvements. TR/mm-5b Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to accommodate: The LOVR frontage road on the northeast side of LOVR shall be extended from Garcia Drive to the Project main driveway traffic signal to allow left turn access out of that neighborhood. The traffic signal shall be modified to provide appropriate indications for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing this new approach.Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with future other projects, including the front two parcels, that would benefit from the extension. Administrative Action: The applicant shall modify LOVR to accommodate westbound turn movements into the project driveway Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-11 Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Implementation of LOVR improvements TR/mm-6 Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the Costco component of the project, the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to the main project driveway (Froom Ranch Way) to accommodate either: a)In conjunction with TR/mm-5a; modify the existing driveway approach to accommodate two northbound left turn lanes and a right turn lane, or; a) b)In conjunction with TR/mm-5b; modifying the existing driveway approach and traffic signal to accommodate one northbound left turn lane, an additional shared left-through lane and a right turn lane. Administrative Action: The applicant shall modify the Project Driveway to accommodate required turn lanes Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Implementation of driveway approach modifications. TR/mm-7 Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall contribute a “fair share,” based on current, order of magnitude cost estimates being studied in the LOVR PSR towares the reconstruction of the LOVR interchange, taking into account improvements implemented as part of TR/mm-2a and TR/mm-2b. Payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) will satisfy this requirement if the TIF program has been updated to include revised cost estimates for the LOVR interchange. If at the time of issuance of permits, the TIF program has not been modified to reflect these costs, the applicant will be responsible for paying current TIF fees plus a mitigation fee associated with the estimated cost differential between the LOVR interchange cost and the assumed TIF component for the project. Administrative Action: Payment of TIF fees plus mitigation fee (if program has not been modified). Timing: Prior to issuance of building permit Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Receipt of TIF fees by the City. b.Front Parcels TR/mm-78 Prior issuance of building permits for the front parcels, subsequent environmental review will be required in order to assess the actual level of service at the LOVR/Calle Joaquin/U.S. 101 intersection with implementation of the Costco project and infrastructure improvements required for that Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-12 project. In the event it is determined that no further infrastructure improvements are required, the applicants for the front parcels shall be responsible for a “fair share” as determined by the City for costs of improvements implemented by Costco and future interchange improvements. Administrative Action: The applicant for the front parcels shall conduct subsequent environmental review to assess the condition of the U.S. 101/LOVR/Calle Joaquin interchange. Timing: Prior to issuance of permits for the front parcels Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of planned improvements or payment of “fair share” of Costco implemented improvements. TR/mm-89 Prior to issuance of occupancy development permits for the front parcels, the applicant for the front parcels shall undertake all necessary modifications to LOVR to accommodate either: conduct a traffic study subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works to determine the most appropriate improvement measures for increasing left turn capacity for the project site, which may include extending the dual left turn storage lengths at the Project Main Driveway (Froom Ranch Way). a)Extend the dual left turn storage lengths at the Project Main Driveway (Froom Ranch Way). The inside lane will have a minimum length of 300 feet with a total overall storage capacity of the dual lanes a minimum of 600 feet in length. Appropriate deceleration lanes and reverse tapers for the revised turn lanes shall be designed and installed pursuant to State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, OR; b)A new left turn lane and appropriate deceleration/reverse tapers shall be constructed on LOVR at the project’s westernmost driveway. The left turn storage length shall be a minimum of 150 feet in length. The driveway/Garcia Drive intersection shall be modified so as to be restricted to right turn in-and-out only. The LOVR frontage road on the north side of LOVR shall be extended from Garcia Drive to the traffic signal located at the Project main driveway to allow left turn access out of the Oceanaire neighborhood. The traffic signal at this location shall be modified to provide appropriate indications for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing this new approach. Administrative Action: The applicant for the front parcels shall conduct traffic study and construct necessary LOVR improvements Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the front parcels Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of improvements completed Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-13 TR/mm-910 Prior to issuance of occupancy building permits for the front two parcels, the Costco applicant and applicants for the front two parcels shall contribute “fair share” contributions, based on current, order of magnitude cost estimates being studied in the LOVR PSR towards the construction of the LOVR Interchange reconstruction. Payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) will satisfy this requirement if the TIF program has been updated to include revised cost estimates for the LOVR interchange. If at the time of issuance of permits, the TIF program has not been modified to reflect these costs, the applicant will be responsible for paying current TIF fees plus a mitigation fee associated with the estimated cost differential between the LOVR interchange cost and the assumed TIF component for the project. Administrative Action: The front two parcel applicants shall pay fair share towards construction of the LOVR Interchange reconstruction Timing: Prior to issuance of respective occupancy permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of fair share fees paid by Costco and front two parcel applicants 6. Air Quality a.Costco AQ/mm-1 Prior to construction, a geologic analysis shall be conducted to determine presence of serpentine rock. Administrative Action: A geologic analysis shall be conducted to determine presence of serpentine rock. Timing: Prior to construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of geologic analysis by the City of San Luis Obispo. AQ/mm-2 Prior to construction, if naturally occurring asbestos is found at the site, the applicant shall prepare an Asbestos Health and Safety Program and an Asbestos Dust Control Plan which shall be approved by the ACPD prior to commencement of construction activities. Administrative Action: Applicant shall prepare an Asbestos Health and Safety Program and an Asbestos Dust Control Plan Timing: Prior to construction if naturally occurring asbestos is found at the site Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Submittal of Asbestos Health and Safety Program and an Asbestos Dust Control Plan to the APCD Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-14 AQ/mm-3 During construction, the applicant shall implement the following Best Available Control Technology for diesel-fueled construction equipment, where feasible: a. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer’s specifications. b. All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generators, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel. c. Use 1996 or newer heavy duty off road vehicles to the extent feasible. d.Use of Caterpillar pre-chamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX). e. Electrify equipment where possible. f.Maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer’s specifications, except as otherwise required above. g. Use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas( LNG), biodiesel, or propane for on-site mobile equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment. Administrative Action: Applicant shall implement best available control technology for diesel-fueled construction equipment Timing: During Construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. AQ/mm-4 Prior to construction, Install one (1) catalytic soot filters on the pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Where If a catalytic soot filters are is determined to be unsuitable, the owner shall install and use an diesel oxidation catalyst. a. Suitability is to be determined by an authorized representative of the filter manufacturer, or an independent California Licensed Mechanical Engineer who will submit, for APCD approval, a Suitability Report identifying and explaining the particular constraints to using the preferred catalytic soot filter. b. Installations must be conducted according to manufacturer’s specifications. c. Proof that the catalytic soot filters have been installed must be provided to the APCD. d. The APCD shall be notified prior to operation of the equipment with the filters installed. e. Acceptable proof may be in the form of visual inspection by APCD staff or submittal of filter serial numbers and photos of the equipment with the installed filters. f. Equipment to be operated during construction should be identified as early as possible in order to place the order for the appropriate filter and avoid any project delays. Administrative Action: Install one catalytic soot converters or one diesel oxidation catalyst. Timing: Prior to construction Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of installation by the APCD Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-15 AQ/mm-5 Prior to construction, if it is determined that portable engines and portable equipment will be utilized, the contractor shall contact the County of San Luis Obispo APCD and obtain a permit to operate portable engines prior to commencement of construction.or Pportable equipment shall be registered in the statewide portable equipment registration program. Contact David Dixon, APCD Engineering Division Supervisor, 781-5912. Administrative Action: Applicant shall contact the County of San Luis Obispo APCD or register the equipment in the statewide portable equipment registration program. Timing: Prior to construction if portable engines and portable equipment will be utilized. Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: APCD permit issuance or registration in the statewide portable equipment program. AQ/mm-6 Prior to construction, A Dust Control Plan shall be prepared and approved by the APCD prior to commencement of construction activities. The Dust Control Plan shall include the following: a. Important elements of this plan would be detailed dust mitigation measures and provisions for monitoring for dust and construction debris during construction. b. The contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering or other measures as necessary to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties should include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. c. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD and adjacent residents of Garcia Drive and the DeVaul residential development prior to construction commencement. d. Compliant handling procedures shall be identified. e.A daily dust observation log shall be filled out as necessary. Administrative Action: Applicant shall prepare a Dust Control Plan Timing: Prior to construction Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: APCD approval of Dust Control Plan/provision of Dust control contact information to adjacent residents. AQ/mm-7 During construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce PM10 emissions during earth moving activities: a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-16 d. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. e. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. f. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. g. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. h. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of free board (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. This measure has the potential to reduce PM10 emissions by 7-14%. i. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. This measure has the potential to reduce PM10 emissions by 40-70%. j. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used when feasible. This measure has the potential to reduce PM10 emissions by 25-60%. k.Permanent dust control measures shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. Administrative Action: Applicant shall implement measures to reduce PM-10 emissions. Timing: During construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. AQ/mm-8 Prior to construction, the following mitigation measures are required in order to remain in compliance with the APCD: a. The applicant must obtain a compliance review with the APCD prior to the initiation of any construction activities. b.A list of all heavy-duty construction equipment operating at the site must be provided to the APCD. The list shall include the make, model, engine size, and year of each piece of equipment. This compliance review will identify all equipment and operations requiring permits and will assist in the identification of suitable equipment for the catalyzed diesel particulate filter. c.The applicant must apply for an Authority to Construct from the APCD where necessary. Administrative Action: Applicant shall follow measures to comply with the APCD via compliance review, listing of all heavy-duty construction equipment, and application of an Authority to Construct where necessary. Timing: Prior to construction Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-17 Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Permit issuance from the APCD Compliance Review AQ/mm-9 During construction, Monthly compliance checks throughout the construction phase is required to verify that all equipment and operations continue to comply with the APCD requirements. Administrative Action: Monthly compliance checks throughout construction Timing: During construction Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Monthly compliance checks by the APCD AQ/mm-10 During and Post construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce area source emissions, where applicable. a. Increase walls and attic insulation beyond by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. b. Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. c. Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. d. Use built-in energy efficient appliances, were applicable. e. Orient buildings toward streets with convenient pedestrian and transit access. f. Use double-paned windows. g. Use sodium low-energy parking lot and streetlights. (e.g. sodium) h. Use energy efficient interior lighting. i.Incorporate energy efficient skylights into roof plan (i.e. should meet the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating). j. Install High efficiency or gas space heating. k.Install door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and windows are not available. Administrative Action: Applicant shall implement measures where applicable to reduce area source emissions Timing: During and post construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. AQ/mm-11 During and Post construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce vehicle emissions, where applicable. a. Implementation of one or more of the following options, for an amount to be negotiated with the APCD: x A Flash Pass program for employees using public transit, xInstall or contribute to funding alternative fueling infrastructure (i.e. fueling stations for CNG, LPG, biodiesel, conductive and inductive electric vehicle charging, etc.) xFund a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and heavy-duty vehicles. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-18 xReplace/repower heavy-duty diesel school vehicles (i.e. bus, passenger, or maintenance vehicles). xPurchase particulate filters or oxidation catalysts for local school buses, transit fleets. xProvide assistance in the implementation of projects that are identified in City or County Bicycle Master Plans. xUse alternatively-fueled delivery vehicles. b.Location of an Electronic Vehicle charging station in the parking lot. c.Transit stop enhancements (shelters, phones, etc.) within the project impact area. d. Subject to the approval of a trip reduction plan submitted to the Public Works DirectorAPCD, implement a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program for employees. e. Provide on-site long-and short-term bicycle parking consistent with provisions of Section 16.060, Table 6.5 of the City Municipal Code, with location and design criteria as established by the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, and with installation and design guidance provided by the City’s Community Design Guidelines. One bicycle parking space for every 10 employees is considered appropriate. f.Provide preferential carpool parking for employees and reserve at least 25 spaces for regional commute motorists. The City and APCD should pursue a shared use agreement with the project applicant to utilize over-supplied, weekday parking areas for potential of a park-and-ride lot. Based on trip generation estimates for the commercial components of the project, much of the parking facility would go unused during non-peak times of the weekdays and could be used by daily commuters as a park-and-ride location. A target number of 25 spaces should be utilized for this purpose. The parking area should be indicated with signage and registered with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as an official Park and Ride lot. g. Provide shower stalls and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, at the rates shown in the table below. Employees Lockers Stalls 50-199 1 per 20 2 200+ 1 per 20 4 h. Establish an Employee Trip Reduction Program (ETRP) to reduce employee commute trips (i.e. carpooling incentives, van pools, and transit subsidies), coordinated with adjacent commercial development that attempts to achieve an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) for project employees of 1.60 or larger. Contact the Transportation Choices Coalition partners for free consulting services on how to start and maintain a Trip Reduction Program. Contact SLO Regional Rideshare at 541-2277. i. Employ and implement a transportation/rideshare coordinator. j. Implement a lunch-time shuttle to reduce single occupant vehicle trips. k. Provide on-site eating, refrigeration, vending for employees. l.Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing and improve the pedestrian environment. Administrative Action: Applicant shall implement measures to reduce vehicle emissions, where applicable. Timing: Post construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of measure implementation by the City of San Luis Obispo Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-19 AQ/mm-1213 Prior to construction, the gasoline dispensing facility (GDF) will require a permit from the APCD. Administrative Action: Applicant shall obtain a permit for the gasoline dispensing facility Timing: Prior to construction Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Permit issuance by the APCD AQ/mm-1314 Prior to construction, a Health Risk Assessment may be required by the APCD. Administrative Action: The applicant shall obtain a Health Risk Assessment if required Timing: Prior to construction Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Completion of Health Risk Assessment by the APCD b.Front Parcels *Several of the mitigation measures for the Costco development would apply to the Front Parcel development as well. AQ/mm-12 Prior to permit approval for Parcels 1 and 3, the applicant for those parcels would be subject to subsequent environmental review and approval from the APCD. Administrative Action: Front parcel development would require subsequent environmental review. Timing: Prior to permit approval for Parcels 1 and 3. Party Responsibility for Verification: APCD Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Permit issuance by the APCD 7. Noise a.Costco N/mm-1 Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall alter the truck delivery route for deliveries prior to 7:00 am (nighttime for noise purposes) to deliver merchandise to and from Costco through the parking lot and along the southeasterly side of the building. Administrative Action: The applicant shall alter the truck delivery route for deliveries prior to 7:00 am. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-20 Timing: Prior to issuance of permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of revised truck route by the City of San Luis Obispo N/mm-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, project plans shall show noise baffles installed surrounding the rooftop equipment. Administrative Action: The applicant shall show noise baffles installed surrounding the rooftop equipment Timing: Prior to issuance of building permits Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of project plans b.Front Parcels No noise mitigation required. 8. Hazardous Materials a.Costco HM/mm-1 The applicant shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo permit conditions and state UST regulations (Title 23, Chapter 16) and State Fire Code for the installation and operation of the UST system. Implementation of these requirements includes the following components: 1. Qualified licensed contractor 2. Secondary Containment for all tank penetrations 3. Double wall vent and vapor lines, with crash protection post for vent risers 4. Watertight tank sump lids and watertight traffic grade manways 5. Overfill prevention equipment 6. Traffic-rated drainways between the dispenser islands leading to an oil / water separator 7. UST leak detection system (automated) with positive shutdown 8. Testing and monitoring including manual inspection of the UST system 9. Periodic inspections of UST system by the fire department 10. Ability to cleanup overfills and accidental surface spill immediately 11. Prompt reporting of the discovery of a leaking or ruptured UST system or major surface spill 12. Record keeping including statistical inventory reconciliation (SIR) 13. Emergency planning 14. Employee training 15. Pay telephone installed in close proximity to the fueling facility for emergencies. Administrative Action: The applicant shall comply with the City of San Luis Obispo permit conditions and state UST and Fire Code regulations. Timing: During installation and operation of the UST system Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-21 Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. 9. Public Services/ Utilities a.Costco PS/mm-1 During construction project design,the applicant shall install purple piping for irrigation of all landscaped areas in preparation for use of the City’s planned water re-use program design all irrigation on and off site for use of recycled wastewater. All water utility services shall be designed for compatibility with on site use of recycled water for irrigation. Administrative Action: The applicant shall install purple piping for an irrigation system able to utilize design all irrigation on and off site for use of recycled wastewater. Timing: Prior to authorization to proceed During project design. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: City shall verify irrigation system design will accommodate recycled wastewater when available. PS/mm-2 During construction, the project shall comply with standard regulatory conditions as required by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Administrative Action: The applicant shall comply with San Luis Obispo Fire Department regulatory conditions. Timing: During construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. PS/mm-3 Prior to opening, the applicant shall provide employees with City bus information and implement incentives for car-pooling and use of public transportation. Bus Route and bicycle transportation information shall be posted outside the store warehouse in a convenient location so as to encourage customer’s use of alternate transportation. A store discount or other incentive acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo shall be provided for at least the first month of business to customers who utilize non-vehicular or public transportation. Administrative Action: The applicant shall provide employees bus information and create incentives for car-pooling and use of public transportation. Bus route and bicycle transportation information shall be posted. A discount or other incentive for Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-22 using alternate transportation shall be provided to customers for the first month of opening. Timing: Prior to opening Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of transportation information availability. b. Front Parcels PS/mm-1 During construction project design,the applicant shall install purple piping for irrigation of all landscaped areas in preparation for use of the City’s planned water re-use program design all irrigation on and off site for use of recycled wastewater. All water utility services shall be designed for compatibility with on site use of recycled water for irrigation. Administrative Action: The front parcel applicants shall install purple piping for an irrigation system able to utilize design all irrigation on and off site for use of recycled wastewater. Timing: Prior to authorization to proceed During project design. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: City shall verify irrigation system design will accommodate recycled wastewater when available. PS/mm-2 During construction, the project shall comply with standard regulatory conditions as required by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Administrative Action: The front parcel applicants shall comply with San Luis Obispo Fire Department regulatory conditions. Timing: During construction Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Daily monitoring reports as directed by the City of San Luis Obispo. PS/mm-3 Prior to opening, the applicant shall provide employees with City bus information and implement incentives for car-pooling and use of public transportation. Bus Route and bicycle transportation information shall be posted outside developed areas in a convenient location so as to encourage customer’s use of alternate transportation. A store discount or other incentive acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo shall be provided for at least the first month of business to customers who utilize non-vehicular or public transportation. Administrative Action: The front parcel applicants shall provide employees bus information and create incentives for car-pooling and use of public transportation. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-23 Bus route and bicycle transportation information shall be posted. A discount or other incentive for using alternate transportation shall be provided to customers for the first month of opening. Timing: Prior to opening/During first month of opening Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Verification of transportation information availability and alternate transportation incentive program. 10. Visual Resources a. Costco VR/mm – 3 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval. The landscape plan shall include a continuous planting along the eastern side of the gas station facility which at maturity will completely screen the canopy and vehicles of the gas station as seen from Los Osos Valley Road. The planting shall include shrubs, which reach a minimum height of six feet and a solid row of evergreen trees with a minimum height at maturity of twenty-five feet. The landscape screening shall be designed and constructed such that it will screen any future expansion of the gas station and that it will not be impacted by future development. Administrative Action: The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan including planting to visually screen the gas station facility. Timing: Prior to application for construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of revised landscape plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. VR/mm – 4 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a proposed material and color plan. The plan shall demonstrate that the main exterior wall surfaces include color shades and chroma that support the architectural theme of the structure and at the same time have low reflective qualities or brightness, generally considered to be less than a value of six (6) on the Munsell color chart. Administrative Action: The applicant shall submit a proposed materials and color plan that supports the structural theme while having a low reflective quality. Timing: Prior to application for construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of the material and color plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-24 VR/mm – 5 Prior to application for construction permits issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall install public art along the southeastern aspect of the building (facing the gas station). The artwork shall be designed to enhance the scenic value of the surrounding open space by incorporating the Irish Hills into the theme of the artwork. The artwork could be in the any form of a tiled mosaic mural or other large scale design appropriate to breaking up the appearance of the large wall. Installation of the public art shall be subject to the requirements of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines Section 6.4, Public Art. Administrative Action: The applicant shall install public art subject to the requirements of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.4, Public Art. Timing: Prior to application of construction permits issuance of occupancy permit. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of public art proposal by the City of San Luis Obispo. VR/mm – 6 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans to underground all utilities proposed for the project. Administrative Action: The applicant shall submit plans to underground all utilities. Timing: Prior to application of construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of underground utilities plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. VR/mm –7 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit accurate cross-sections and sight-line indicators demonstrating that all proposed rooftop mechanical equipment is not visible from the second floor of the residences immediately adjacent to the project. The design employed to conceal the rooftop equipment shall not increase the perceived scale or mass of the building as seen from the adjacent residences of from Los Osos Valley Road. Administrative Action: The applicant shall submit accurate cross-sections and sight- line indicators of rooftop mechanical equipment. Timing: Prior to application of construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of cross-section and sight-line indicators by the City of San Luis Obispo. VR/mm – 8 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval. The landscape plan shall Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-25 include a natural-appearing planting along the north, south and east perimeter of the rdetention basin which at maturity will completely screen the engineered landform and any required pumps, gates or other equipment associated with the basin from the view of the DeVaul Ranch and the vicinity of the proposed gas station. The basin shall be constructed as a vegetated bioswale designed to filter runoff from the project site before entering the watershed and to visually screen the rdetention basin, consistent with mitigation measure BR/mm-3. If fencing is required, uncoated galvanized chain link shall not be used. No barbed or razor fencing shall be used. Administrative Action: The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan including natural-appearing planting and bioswale vegetation within the basin to shield the rdetention basin from public view. Timing: Prior to application of construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of the revised landscape plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. VR/mm –9 At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan demonstrating that direct views of the light sources along the north side of the Costco are shielded from the adjacent residences. Administrative Action: The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that shows direct views are shielded from adjacent residences. Timing: At the time of application for construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of a revised lighting plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. VR/mm–10 At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a lighting operation schedule for review and approval. The schedule shall describe the number, location and amount of lights, and the proposed hours of operation for the entire property, including the gas station. The lighting schedule shall propose the minimum number of lights, level of illuminance, and hours of operation allowed by City codes and ordinances. The approved lighting schedule shall become a required condition of the lease between the property owner and the tenant. Administrative Action: The applicant shall submit a lighting operation schedule. Timing: At the time of application for construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of the lighting operation schedule by the City of San Luis Obispo. Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-26 VR/mm-11 At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall request that the City shall condition the property owner to place Parcel 5 into a conservation easement, so and require the applicant can to vegetate the parcel with native tree plantings designed to create a buffer between the development and the open space area. Administrative Action: The applicant shall request Parcel 5 be placed into a conservation easement and the applicant shall vegetate the area with native tree plantings.The City shall condiiton the property owner to place Parcel 5 in a conservation easement and the applicant shall vegetate the parcel. Timing: At the time of application for construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance Establishment of the conservation easement and acceptance of the planting plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. b.Front Parcels VR/mm – 1 Prior to issuance of permits for front parcels, the City shall consider rezoning the property with an “S” overlay. This Special Consideration zone will ensure the incorporation of the following design features that will reduce visual impacts: The front parcel grading plan shall include a continuous earthen berm along the entire perimeter of front parcels facing Los Osos Valley Road and along the northern edge of the main driveway to the point where the driveway opens to the Costco parking lot. The berm shall be a minimum of five feet tall with maximum side slopes of 2:1 (H:V). The berm shall be designed to appear as a naturally occurring landform and shall include subtle horizontal and vertical undulation. Breaks may occur in the berm to accommodate pedestrian flow to public roadways, however the breaks shall be designed to minimize visual access to the parking lot from Los Osos Valley Road. Administrative Action: The front parcel applicants shall submit a revised grading plan including visually screening earthen berm for review and approval. Timing: Prior to application for construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of revised grading plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. VR/mm – 2 Prior to issuance of permits for front parcels, the front parcel applicants shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval, incorporating the following design guidelines. The landscape plan shall include a continuous planting screen on and adjacent to the berm along the front two parcels facing Los Osos Valley Road and along the northern edge of the main driveway to the point where the driveway opens to the Costco parking lot. The planting shall complement the naturally appearing form of the berm and not look like a formal, Costco / Froom Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Plan DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report VIII-27 manicured landscape. The design shall avoid a linear planting along the "ridge" of the berm. Administrative Action: The front parcel applicants shall submit a revised landscape plan including a continuous planting screen on and adjacent to the earthen berm. Timing: Prior to application for construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of revised landscape plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. VR/mm – 6 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans to underground all utilities proposed for the project. Administrative Action: The front parcel applicants shall submit plans to underground all utilities. Timing: Prior to application of construction permits. Party Responsibility for Verification: City of San Luis Obispo Monitoring/Reporting Schedule: Acceptance of underground utilities plan by the City of San Luis Obispo. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-1 IX. REFERENCES AND PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED A. REFERENCES 1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards Asquith, D.O., 1997, Review of Potentially Problematic Faults in San Luis Obispo County: Prepared for Fugro West, Inc. and the County of San Luis Obispo, January 28, 1997. Earth Systems, 1997a, Soils Engineering Report, Eagle Garden and Hardware: prepared for Sconzo Hallstrom by Earth Systems Consultants, Northern California, October 17, 1997. Earth Systems, 1997b, Fault Study, Eagle Hardware and Garden: prepared for Sconzo Hallstrom by Earth Systems Consultants, Northern California, October 29, 1997. Earth Systems, 1997c, Report of Percolation Test Results, Eagle Hardware and Garden: prepared for Sconzo Hallstrom by Earth Systems Consultants, Northern California, December 4, 1997. Earth Systems, 1997d, Fault Study, Geologic and Soils Study, De Vaul Ranch: prepared for Irish Hills Investors by Earth Systems Consultants, Northern California, October 7, 1997. Earth Systems, 1998a, Opinion on Site Subsidence and Liquefaction, Eagle Hardware Site: prepared for Sconzo Hallstrom by Earth Systems Consultants, Northern California, October 29, 1997. Earth Systems, 1998b, Report of Percolation Test Results: prepared for Sconzo Hallstrom by Earth Systems Consultants, Northern California, May 1, 1998. Kleinfelder, 2000, Geotechnical Investigation Report, Costco Wholesale and Gasoline Fueling Facility: prepared for COSTCO Wholesale by Kleinfelder, Inc., Fresno, CA. October 17, 2000. Kleinfelder, 2001, Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Report, Costco Wholesale and Gasoline Fueling Facility: prepared for COSTCO Wholesale by Kleinfelder, Inc., Fresno, CA. March 16, 2001. Lettis, W.R., and N.T. Hall, 1994. Los Osos Fault Zone, San Luis Obispo, California: in Seismotectonics of the Central California Coat Ranges: Geol. Soc. Of Amer. Special Paper 292. pp. 73-102. Petersen, M. and others, 1998, New Geologic Maps Lend Support to Better Building Design in California Earthquake Country: California Geology, March/April, 1989. pp.3-9. Treiman, J.A., 1989, Los Osos Fault Zone, San Luis Obispo County: California Division of Mines and Geology Faoult Evaluation Report, FER-200, January 23, 1989. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-2 2. Drainage, Erosion, and Sedimentation Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Study, City of San Luis Obispo, California. 1978 Questa Engineering Corporation. San Luis Obispo Creek Waterways Management Plan. 2002 (in preparation). Questa Engineering Corporation. San Luis Obispo Drainage Design Manual. 2002 (in preparation). George S. Nolte and Associates. Flood Control and Drainage Master Plan for the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed. 1977. Soil Conservation Service. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, TR55. Washington, D.C. 1975. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. Flood Plain Information, San Luis Obispo Creek and Tributaries. 1974. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the Western United States. 1973. 3. Biological Resources Audubon Society ,1985, The Birds of San Luis Obispo County. Morro Coast Chapter, Audubon Society, Morro Bay, California. Baicich, P.J. and C.J.O. Harrison. 1997. A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds. Second Edition. Academic Press: San Diego, Ca. 347 pp. CNPS. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 6th ed. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, Ca. x+388pp. California Department of Fish and Game, 2002, State and Federal endangered and threatened animals of California and listing dates. Sacramento, Ca. California Natural Diversity Data Base, 2002, Data Base Search for the San Luis Obispo U.S.G.S 7.5-minute Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Ca. City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, 1998, Draft DeVaul Ranch Planned Development Environmental Impact Report, SCH 97031023, prepared by c.ce Consultants, May 13, 1988. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-3 Emery, Dara E. 1995. Seed Propagation of Native Plants. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. Santa Barbara, Ca. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Storm Water Technology Fact Sheet – Bioretention. Office of Water. Washington DC. Hickman, J. Ed, 1993, The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, Ca. Holland, Robert F, 1986, Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, Ca. Holland, V.L. 1994. Botanical Survey of the Froom Ranch 50 Acre Project Site. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Hoover, Robert F, 1970, The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. University of California Press. Berkeley, Ca. Howald, Ann M. 1990. Mitigation Plan Annotated Outline for Endangered Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Game Endangered Plant Program. Sacramento, Ca. Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1985, A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. USDA Forest Service, Region 5. Morro Group, Inc., 1989, Final Environmental Impact Report, Madonna General Plan Amendment, SCH 86061811, prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo, May 1989. Morro Group, Inc. 2001. Costco Parcel Congdon’s Tarplant Mitigation Plan. prepared for Kleinfelder, Inc. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Murie, Olaus J., 1982,Peterson Field Guides - Animal Tracks. New York, New York. SCS, 1984, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part: prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, September, 1984. Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition, revised. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Ma. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1988. California’s Wildlife. Volumes I (amphibians and reptiles), II (birds), and III (mammals). California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. November, 1990. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-4 4. Cultural Resources Angel, Myron. 1883. History Of San Luis Obispo County, California. Thompson and West, Oakland, CA. Reprinted 1966 by Howell-North Books. Berkely, Ca. Bertrando, Betsy. 1997. History of the DeVaul Ranch. Report for Robert Gibson, Paso Robles, Ca. Bertrando, Betsy. 1998. Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex, San Luis Obispo County, Ca. Central Coast Engineering, San Luis Obispo. Bertrando, Betsy. 1999.Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation for the San Luis Marketplace Annexation. The Dalidio Property, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Bertrando, Ethan. 1994.Cultural Resources Monitoring of the Nipomo Street Bridge Replacement, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report for City of San Luis Obispo Engineering Department. Bouey, P. & Basgall, M. 1991. Archaeological patterns Along the South Coast, Point Piedras Blancas, San Luis Obispo County, California. Archaeological Test Evaluations of Sites CA-SLO-264, SLO-267, SLO-268, SLO-1226, and SLO-1227. Report submitted to Caltrans, San Luis Obispo, Ca. City of San Luis Obispo. 1995. The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, San Luis Obispo, Ca. City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. City of San Luis Obispo Archeo0logical Resource Preservation Guidelines. City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, San Luis Obispo, Ca. Conway, Thor. 1995. An Archaeological Investigation of Historic San Luis Obispo, CA. (The Kozak Parking Lot Project). City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Conway, Thor. 1996. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of 770 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Conway, Thor. 1997. Phase 2 Archaeological Testing of a Mission Era Midden at 770 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Conway, Thor. 2000. Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the South Higuera Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project, San Luis Obispo County, Ca. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-5 Conway, Thor. 2001a. Phase 1 Archaeological Su8rface Survey of the Historic Foreman/DeVaul Ranch, Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, Ca. Report for WesPac Investments. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Conway, Thor. 2001b. Phase 2 Archaeological Sub-Surface Testing at the Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center, 1043 and 1045 Foothill Blvd., San Luis Obispo, CA. Tenet Health Systems, Ca. Conway, Thor. 2002.Cultural Resources Survey for the Costco/Froom Ranch EIR, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for Morro Group, Inc. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Cooper, De Guy. 1875. Resources of San Luis Obispo, County, CA. Bacon and Company. San Francisco, CA. Reprinted in A Vast Pastoral Domain. The Library Associates, Cal Plly State University, San Luis Obispo, Ca. Dart, Louisiana Clayton. 1987. Vignettes of History in San Luis Obispo, County. Privately Published. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Dills, Charles. 1968. Site Record From for Ca-SLO 400. Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara, Ca. Dills, Charles. 1989. Site Record Form for CA-SLO-1002H. Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara, Ca. Engelhardt, Zephyrin. 1933. Mission San Luis Obispo in the Valley of the Bears. Franciscan Fathers of California. Santa Barbara, Ca. Fitzgerald, R.T. 1998. Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-SLO-1797, The Cross Creek Site, San Luis Obispo County, California Coastal Branch, Phase II Project. Garcia and Associates. Report submitted to California Department of Water Resources, California State Water Project Coastal Branch, Phase II. Fitzgerald, R.T. and Jones, T.L. 1999. The Milling Stone Horizon revisited: New Perspectives from Northern and Central California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol. 21, NO. 1: 67-93. Gibson, Robert. 1978. Archaeological Element of Environmental impact Report for Mustang Village Phase 2. Report to the City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. Gibson, Robert. 1979.Preliminary Inventory and Assessment of Indian Cultural Resources at Lodge Hill, Cambria, San Luis Obispo County, California. Cambria Water District Project. Gibson, Robert. 1983. Ethnography of the Salinan People. Master’s Thesis. California State University, Harvard. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-6 Gibson, Robert. 1986. Results of Archaeological Monitoring and Limited Subsurface Testing for SLO-44 Mustang II Project, San Luis Obispo, County, CA. Report prepared for Mustang Village and the City of San Luis Obispo. Gibson, Robert. 1987. Results of Archaeological Surface Survey for the Los Osos Valley Road Business Park, San Luis Obispo County, Ca. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Gibson, Robert. 1988. Results of Archaeological Surface Survey for the KSBY TV/ Periera Estate Project, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Gibson, Robert. 1993. Results of Phase 1 Archaeological Surface Survey of the Froom Ranch Property, Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, County, Ca. Central Coast Engineering. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Gibson, Robert, 1997.Results of Phase 1 Archaeological Surface Survey of the DeVaul Ranch Property, Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo County, Ca. Planning Consultants, Fair Oaks, Ca. Gibson, Robert. 2000. Results of Phase 1 Archaeological Surface Survey and Records Search for the McBride Parcels, San Luis Obispo Auto Park Project along Highway 101, City of San Luis Obispo, Ca. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara, Ca. Gibson, Robert. 2001. Results of Phase 1 Archaeological Surface Survey for the Davis Parcel 2 on Jesperson Road, San Luis Obispo County, Ca. Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara, Ca. Grant, Campbell. 1978. Chumash: Introduction. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. R.F. Heizer (ed). Pages 505-508. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C. Greenwood, Roberta. 1972. 9,000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo, County, Ca. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, Occasional Paper #7. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Jones, T. & Waugh, G. 1995. Central California Coast Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology 3. Institute of Archaeology, UCLA. Jones, T., Davis, K., Farris, G., Grantham, S., Fung, T., & Rivers, B. 1994. Toward a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investication sfor the Highway 41 Widening Project, San Luis Obispo County, Ca. Caltrans. San Luis Obispo, Ca.. King, Chester. 1984. Ethnohistoric Background. Appendix I in Archaeological Investigations on the San Antonio Terrace, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Ca. Chambers Consultants & Planners. Published by Coyote Press, Salinas, Ca. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-7 Koher, Paul. 1972. Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa-A Historical Sketch. Blake Printing. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Krieger, Daniel. 1988. San Luis Obispo County-Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom. Windsor Publications. Chatsworth, Ca. Lee, Georgia. 1974. Site Record Form for CA-SLO-1406. Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Maki, Mary. 2000.Phase I Archaeological Survey & Impact Assessment of 23.5+ acres with and Extended Phase I Sub-surface Testing Program at CA-SLO-1427 for the Damon Garcia Sports Co0mplex Project, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, Ca. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Morro Group, Inc. 1998. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report-Madonna/Eagle Hardware and Garden. Submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo. Nettles, W. 2000. Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Prado Road/Highway 101 Interchange, San Luis Obispo County, Ca. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Osland, K. 1981a. Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Los Osos Valley Road Extension project Near San Luis Obispo. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Osland, K. 1981b. Proposed Project-An Extension of Los Osos Road from its Intersection with Highway 101 to an Existing Portion of Los Osos Road. Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Parker, John. 1996. Cultural Resource Investigation of the Periera-Garcia Property. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Parker, John. 2000.Cultural Resource Re-Evaluation of the Vineyard Community Currch Project, Calle Joaquin, San Luis Obispo. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Singer, C. 1993. It Came From Beneath The Streets. Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Singer, C. & Atwood, J. 1988. Cultural Resources Survey & Impact Assessment for the Dalidio, Madonna & McBride Properties near the City of San Luis Obispo, =San Luis Obispo County, Ca.Report on file, Central Coast Information Center. Santa Barbara, Ca. Singer, C., Atwood, J., & Frierman, J. An Archaeological Report on the Expansion of the City of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment System. City of San Luis Obispo, Wastewater Division. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-8 Singer, C., Atwood, J., Frierman, J., & Kirkish, A. 1990. Along the Banks of San Luis Creek: Refuse Management in the Late 19th Century San Luis Obispo, Ca. City of San Luis Obispo, Engineering Department. Sullivan, Joan. 1993(?). Touring the Froom Ranch. The Bay News. Los Osos, Ca. Tognazzini, Wilmar. 1995. 100 Years Ago, 1986—Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune & Breeze. Privately Published. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Tognazzini, Wilmar. 1997. 100 Years Ago, 1998—Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune & Breeze. Privately Published. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Tognazzini, Wilmar. 2000. 100 Years Ago, 1901—Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune & Breeze. Privately Published. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Wagner, Henry. 1929. Spanish Voyages to the Northwest California Coast in the Sixteenth Century.California Historical Society. San Francisco, Ca. 5. Traffic Safety Associated Transportation Engineers. February 12, 2002. Dioptics Medical Product Project Development Plan Do10017D Traffic and Circulation Study. City of San Luis Obispo. April 2000.Dalidio Property Annexation, Revised EIR. Fehr and Peers Associates. 1999. Transportation Impact Analysis, Gilroy Sports Park. Fehr & Peers Associates, Gilroy, Ca. Higgins Associates. July 9, 2001. Marriott-San Luis Obispo Traffic Analysis Report. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997.Trip Generation,6th Edition. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. December 20, 2002. Draft Traffic Impact Study, Costco Wholesale San Luis Obispo. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. December 20, 2000. Morro Group, Inc. October 1998. Final Supplemental EIR, Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2000.Highway Capacity Manual. 6. Hazardous Materials Cleath & Associates. August 1997. Water Resource Development Study for the Devaul Ranch Planned Development. Cleath & Associates, San Luis Obispo, Ca. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-9 Kleinfelder, Inc. October 17, 2000. Geotechnical Investigation Report, Costco Wholesale Store and Gasoline Fuel Facility, 12395 Los Osos Valley Rd. San Luis Obispo, Ca. Project No. 00-008A, Kleinfelder Inc, Fresno, CA. 7. Public Services-Utilities California Government Code Section 4216. State of California. California Government Code Section 51178. State of California. City of San Luis Obispo. 2000. General Plan, Water/Wastewater Element. City of San Luis Obispo. City of San Luis Obispo. 2001. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 13, Public Services. City of San Luis Obispo. City of San Luis Obispo. 2002. Personal Communication, Dan Gilmore, Utilities Engineer. July- August. 8. Air Quality San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, 1998. Clean Air Plan. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, 1996. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, A Guide for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review. 9. Noise City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. Noise Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 2001. Municipal Code. County of San Luis Obispo. 1996. Noise Element. 10. Visual Resources City of San Luis Obispo. November 2001. Ordinance No. 1405 (2001 Series). City of San Luis Obispo. Dec.2001. Resolution No. 9250 (2001 Series). City of San Luis Obispo. 1994. San Luis Obispo City General Plan: Circulation Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1973. San Luis Obispo City General Plan: Conservation Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1999. San Luis Obispo City General Plan: Land Use Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1994. San Luis Obispo City General Plan: Open Space Element. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-10 City of San Luis Obispo. 1994. San Luis Obispo City General Plan: Scenic Highway Element. County of San Luis Obispo. 1997. San Luis Obispo County General Plan: Land Use Element. County of San Luis Obispo. 1997. San Luis Obispo County General Plan: Agriculture and Open Space Element. County of San Luis Obispo. 1994. San Luis Obispo County General Plan: Circulation Element. Smardon, Palmer, Felleman. 1986. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. Wiley and Sons Publications. United States Bureau of Land Management. 1986. BLM Handbook: Visual Resource Management: Application of Visual Resource Management Principles to Project Planning and Design. United States Federal Highway Administration. Contract DOT-FH-11-9694. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. American Society of Landscape Architects. 11. Consistency with Plans and Policies City of San Luis Obispo. 2000. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Safety Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1994. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Housing Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1994. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Circulation Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1994. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Parks and Recreation Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Noise Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Water and Wastewater Management Element. City of San Luis Obispo. 1997. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use Element. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-11 B. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONTACTED 1. Geologic and Seismic Hazards No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. 2. Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. 3. Biological Resources No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. 4. Cultural Resources No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. 5. Traffic Safety Steve McMasters, County of San Luis Obispo. 2/20/02. Jim Hansen, City of San Luis Obispo. 2/202/02. Tim Bochum – City of San Luis Obispo. Terry Sanville – City of San Luis Obispo. Richard Marshall – County of San Luis Obispo. Roger Barnes – Caltrans. Abe Delgado – Caltrans. 6. Air Quality No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. 7. Noise No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. 8. Hazardous Materials No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. 9. Public Services- Utilities Gilmore, Dan. City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department. 8/27/02. 10. Visual Resources No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. 11. Consistency with Plans and Policies No persons or agencies contacted, refer to Section A, References. Costco / Froom Ranch References DRAFT FINAL Environmental Impact Report IX-12 C. EIR PREPARERS This EIR has been prepared by the Morro Group, Inc., in association with the City of San Luis Obispo other independent consultants. Project manager for the EIR was Mary B. Reents, President, Morro Group, Inc. The following table is a list of individuals responsible for preparation of the EIR. TABLE IX-1 List of EIR Preparers Preparer Education Years of Experience Project Description Mary B. Reents, Morro Group, Inc. B.A., Environmental Psychology 32 Geologic and Seismic Hazards Don Asquith, Morro Group, Inc. Ph. D., Geology 29 Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation John Larson, URS Wes Lauer, Questa Engineering 12 10 Biological Resources Bob Sloan, Morro Group, Inc. B.S., Soil Science 12 Cultural Resources Thor Conway, Heritage Discoveries Ph. D. Candidate B.S., Anthropology 27 Visual Resources Bob Carr, Visual Resources Consultant B.S., Landscape Architecture 14 Traffic Safety Dan Takacs, Keith Higgins and Associates Masters, Civil Engineering 25 Hazards Erich Weaver, URS Utilities/ Public Services Lisa Monreal, Morro Group, Inc. B.A., Environmental Policy 2 Air Quality Crystahl Handel, Morro Group, Inc. B.S. Natural Resource Management 4 Noise Don Asquith, Morro Group, Inc. P.h.D. Geology 29 Alternatives Mary B. Reents, Morro Group, Inc. B.A., Environmental Psychology 32 Consistency with Plans and Policies Lauren Lajoie, Morro Group, Inc. Masters, City and Regional Planning B.S. Social Sciences 11 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-1 X.RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR A.LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED The following agencies and members of the public have prepared comments on the EIR: Local, State, and Federal Agencies Address 1. City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Environmental Review Meeting 23 April 2003 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 2. City of San Luis Obispo Fire Prevention Bureau Letter of 21 April 2003 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact: Kerry Boyle 3. City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Letter of 28 April 2003 879 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact: Dan Gilmore 4. City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Letter of 1 May 2003 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3208 Contact: Michael McCluskey, Tim Bochum 5. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Development Letter of 18 April 2003 County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Contact: John McKenzie 6. Caltrans, District 5 Letter of 29 April 2003 50 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5415 Contact: James Kilmer 7. Air Pollution Control District Letter of 7 May 2003 3433 Roberto Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact: Heather Tomley Applicant/Agent 8. Mulvanny G2 Architecture Letter of 7 May 2003 1110 112th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Contact: Jeffrey S. Wilson 9. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Letter of 16 April 2003 5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 260 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Contact: Jim West Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-2 General Public and Private Organizations 10. Franciscan Developments Letter of 24 February 2003 1880 Santa Barbara Street, Suite F San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact: Hamish Marshall 11. M. Vigil Chumash Cultural Resources Letter of 19 April 2003 1030 Richie Road Grover Beach, CA 93433 Contact: Mark Vigil 12 Donald E. Vermeer Letter of 17 April 2003 1310 Rubio Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 13 Kent M. Taylor Letter of 2 May 2003 1295 Descanso Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 14 Dan and Kristen Reynolds Email of 28 April 2003 and 7 May 2003 Danren95@yahoo.com 3974 Sunrose Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 15. Michael Sullivan Letter of 5 May 2003 1127 Seaward Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 16. Daniel Sinton, Deep Time Letter of 6 May 2003 (805) 748-4433 17. ECOSLO Letter of 6 May 2003 P.O. Box 1014 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Contact: Pamela Heatherington 18. Avila Valley Advisory Council Letter of 21 April 2003 P.O. Box 65 Avila Beach, CA 93424 B.RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Revised text in the FEIR is denoted by strikeout of replaced text and new text is denoted in italics. 1.CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, 4/23/03 Note: Planning Commission Public Hearing comments are paraphrased below and the response is included directly after as written comments were not submitted. a. Commissioner Cooper 1.a.1:Comment The EIR contains a lack of detail on the development of Parcels 1 and 3 and the visual simulations do not show what the developments will look like. Response Parcels 1 and 3 were analyzed on a preliminary basis due to the lack of an active development plan on these front properties. Each parcel will be subject to supplemental environmental review at such time as design proposals are submitted to the City. The front parcel development would also be subject to review by the City Architectural Review Commission and recommendations contained in the EIR regarding the front two parcels would be incorporated into the design. The FEIR was amended to include figures showing the viewshed from Los Osos Valley Road with incorporation of potential front parcel development options and the recommended berm (Section V.J.10, Figures V-15 and V-16). Figures are shown below: Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Re s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t s FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t X- 3 BU I L D I N G H E I G H T A N A L Y S I S FI G U R E V - 1 5 Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Re s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t s FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t X- 4 BE R M H E I G H T A N A L Y S I S FI G U R E V - 1 6 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-5 1.a.2 Comment Concern regarding the specificity of public art options. Response Visual Resources Mitigation Measure 5 has been revised in the FEIR as follows: VR/mm – 5 Prior to application for construction permits issuance of occupancy permit, the applicant shall install public art along the southeastern aspect of the building (facing the gas station). The artwork shall be designed to enhance the scenic value of the surrounding open space by incorporating the Irish Hills into the theme of the artwork. The artwork could be in the any form of a tiled mosaic mural or other large scale design appropriate to breaking up the appearance of the large wall. Installation of the public art shall be subject to the requirements of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines Section 6.4, Public Art. 1.a.3 Comment Why is architectural lighting included on the north face of the building? Response Comment noted. Low-level lighting is for safety and security reasons. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.a.4 Comment The Photo Simulations do not show proposed retaining walls along the rear property line. Response Comment noted. The retaining walls would not show up on the simulation with the proposed development constructed. Refer to Response 8.20. 1.a.5 Comment Justification for Table V1-1 analysis of Alternatives 2b and 2c. Response Alternative 2b, Location of the project within the Dalidio Development, has (+) marks for Drainage, Biology, Traffic, Noise, and Visual Resources because this alternative assumes incorporation of Costco into a larger development plan, replacing a current applicant of the Dalidio proposal. The gas station component could not be accommodated in this alternative. Although not yet approved or developed, incorporation of the Costco would be within the proposed building envelope of this development, therefore, not impacting additional open space. Alternative 2c, Location of the project at Froom Ranch North, would have greater impacts to Biology due to the proximity of Prefumo Creek, greater Traffic impacts due the need for creation of infrastructure to accommodate development on this parcel, and greater Noise impacts due to the close proximity to adjacent residential development on two sides. This would also require annexation to the City and conversion from Agriculture land uses (already completed for the proposed parcel). No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.a.6 Comment Maintenance for unimproved portions of Parcels 1 and 3. Response Comment noted. Parcels 1 and 3 are not owned by the applicant (Costco) and the applicant would be required to remove all construction debris on the project parcel (Parcel 2). Weed maintenance for Parcels 1 and 3 would be required of the property owner as stated in City Municipal Code 8.08- Hazardous weeds and debris, in order to ensure fire safety of surrounding development. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.a.7 Comment Confidentiality of detailed cultural reconnaissance. Response Detailed cultural reconnaissance information is confidential to protect the integrity of the resource. This information is on file with the City Community Development Department. 1.a.8 Comment Xeriscape landscaping to conserve water. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-6 Response Comment noted. Xeriscape means some water applied in well-controlled amounts and locations in the landscape. As stated in Section III-15, Landscaping, the applicant has proposed drought-tolerant plant species. Final landscape design would be approved by the ARC and could include xeriscape landscaping. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.a.9 Comment The 10-foot high retaining wall is not shown on the simulation as articulated and is potentially inconsistent with protection of scenic resources Response As shown on Figure III-6a, the tallest retaining wall is 6 feet and it is a stepped wall located adjacent to the DeVaul residential development. A 2-foot tall retaining wall is proposed behind the Costco building and would not be visible to the public. Refer to Response 8.20. 1.a.10 Comment Pedestrian access to LOVR, Home Depot, DeVaul Ranch, and Garcia Drive. Response Refer to Page III-15, Pedestrian Accessibility. Figure III-9 shows pedestrian access to LOVR and Home Depot via a pedestrian pathway through the site to Froom Ranch Way. Also shown on Figure III-9 is a proposed access easement at the northern property corner to allow pedestrian access from DeVaul Ranch. A crosswalk across LOVR is currently provided at the Froom Ranch Way/LOVR intersection as well as the LOVR/Madonna Road intersection and traffic safety mitigation TR/mm-3 requires installation of a sidewalk to provide access to the Froom Ranch Way intersection from the Garcia Drive neighborhood. Refer to Response 4.9. 1.a.11 Comment Building Design and Siting consistency. Response Consistency with LU 1.7.5 is included in the original Costco proposal application that sited the building at the furthest distance from LOVR and provided screening vegetation. Mitigation proposed ensures consistency with other sections. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.a.12 Comment LU 2.1.4, Neighborhood Connections in Section IV does not discuss a pedestrian connection to LOVR and Home Depot. Response The FEIR has been revised to include reference in Section IV, LU 2.1.4 to the following: A pedestrian link from the DeVaul residential development to the project site is provided at the southwest edge of Parcel 1.Pedestrian access is also provided to LOVR and Home Depot from the project site. 1.a.13 Comment Alternative 3a does not address visual impacts of relocation. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: This (relocation) would replace the monolithic affect of a large single building surrounded by cars, but could potentially restrict views of the Irish Hills. b. Commissioner Aiken 1.b.1 Comment Clarity of building site directional orientation. Response The FEIR has been revised to make all directional references consistent and the following paragraph added to the Summary section: The orientation of the project site does not include a true north property line. Therefore, the following directional references are used throughout the EIR: Northeast-property line adjacent to LOVR; Northwest-property line adjacent to the DeVaul residential development; Southwest-property line adjacent to the Irish Hills; and Southeast- property line adjacent to Home Depot. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-7 1.b.2 Comment Effectiveness of shade trees to reduce summer cooling needs. Response The planting of shade trees is one of several measures established by the APCD to reduce air quality impacts of development and is not meant to solve the problem but alleviate it to some degree. Refer to letter from APCD, Comment Letter 7, and associated responses. 1.b.3 Comment AQ/mm-10.g. suggests use of sodium lighting for the parking lot, which emits an unpleasant yellowish color. Response The FEIR has been revised to use “low-energy” lights. Refer to Response 7.5. 1.b.4 Comment Abbreviations in document are unclear. Response The following paragraphs have been added to the Summary section of the FEIR: ABBREVIATIONS The document includes the following abbreviations and phrases that require further explanation or definition: TR/Impact 1, TR/mm 1, or TR-SEC/Impact 1, TR-SEC/mm-1 Format for discussion of environmental resource impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project. TR refers to the environmental resource being affected, in this case Traffic and Circulation Resources. Impact 1 is the specific resource impact number, while mm 1 refers to the mitigation measure associated with the impact. SEC stands for secondary impacts caused by proposed mitigation measures and further mitigation required to reduce the secondary impacts to less than significant levels. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The tables in the following pages provide a summary of the potential impacts of the proposed project. The mitigation measures associated with each impact to be applied by the applicant to reduce the environmental impacts to a level of insignificance are also summarized. In accordance with CEQA, the Summary Tables identify the following types of potential impacts associated with the proposed development. Class I Impacts – Significant environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or avoided. The decision maker must adopt a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 if the project is approved. Class II Impacts – Significant environmental impacts that can be feasibly mitigated or avoided. The decision maker must issue “Findings” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 if the project is approved. Class III Impacts – Environmental impacts which are adverse but not significant for which the decision make does not have to adopt “Findings” under CEQA. 1.b.5 Comment Strike cows, replace with cattle. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Provide fencing around wetland and riparian areas to prohibit cows cattle from removing vegetation utilized by sensitive species. 1.b.6 Comment Discussion of traffic mitigation is difficult to follow. Response A diagram has been added in the Traffic section of the document to clarify potential infrastructure improvement recommendations and mitigation measures have been revised as shown in Response 4.6 through Response 4.18. This diagram, Plate 9 is included in the FEIR and shown below. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Re s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t s FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t X- 8 TR A F F I C M I T I G A T I O N S C H E M A T I C – L O S OS O S V A L L E Y R O A D Not e : R e a l i g n m e n t d e s i g n s a r e s c h e m a t i c o n l y . A c t u a l a l i g n m e n t s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d b y C i t y En gin e e r Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-9 1.b.7 Comment Containment of construction debris is not discussed. Response Due to the windy nature of the project site and issues regarding containment of construction debris from adjacent developments, AQ/mm-6 has been revised as follows: AQ/mm-6 Prior to construction, A Dust Control Plan shall be prepared and approved by the APCD prior to commencement of construction activities. The Dust Control Plan shall include the following: a. Important elements of this plan would be detailed dust mitigation measures and provisions for monitoring for dust and construction debris during construction. 1.b.8 Comment What does UST stand for? Response UST stands for Underground Storage Tank, as described on Page V.H-1.a. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.b.9 Comment Location of food court has the potential to be cold in winter months due to wind direction. Response The outdoor seating for the food court is located at its proposed location in order to accommodate all design features of the project. The tire sales and installation facility is proposed on the southeast-facing side of the building. Locating the seating area next to this facility was considered less desirable than the potential for wind in the winter months. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.b.10 Comment Color scheme should not be as reflective and contrasting as adjacent commercial development. Response Mitigation proposed under VR/mm-4 addresses the potential reduction in visual quality and suggests appropriate mitigation to ensure the building has a low reflective value. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.b.11 Comment Request for cross section of view from DeVaul to Costco building. Response Visual Resource mitigation VR/mm-7 requests that the applicant submit cross sections showing the location of rooftop equipment and designs to visually screen the equipment from the second floor of the DeVaul residences. The Costco development is located at a lower elevation than the DeVaul development and the rooftop only would be visible from second floor windows. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.b.12 Comment Grading estimates appear to be off in the Project Description, page III-13. Response Section III.6, Grading, has been revised in the FEIR as follows: 6. Grading Grading for the project will occur in a single phase for all three parcels, as shown in Figure III-6b, Grading and Drainage Plan. The proposed development, and all components of this development, will result in an estimated 45,000 42,000 cubic yards of earthwork. The applicant is proposing to remove 30,000 approximately 40,000 cubic yards of earth to level the site Parcel 2 and construct the proposed detention basin. Of the soil that is proposed for grading on Parcel 2, 15,000 approximately 24,000 cubic yards of earth will be re-compacted and used as fill material. The remaining 15,000 16,000 cubic yards of earth will be removed from the site and disposed of at an offsite location as yet to be determined placed on Parcel 1. Grading on parcels 2 and 3 1 will be minimal (rough grading involving approximately 2,000 cubic yards of cut and import of 16,000 cubic yards from Parcel 2) and limited to leveling the site and installing the drainage swale across the frontage (refer to Figure III-6). Finish grading will occur after plans have been approved for the front two parcels. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-10 1.b.13 Comment Landscaping figure references are incorrect. Response Section III.15-Landscaping, has been revised in the FEIR as follows: Landscape elements and enlargements are shown on Figures III-9, III-1013a, and III-1113b. Costco has developed the landscape plan to meet the City’s Large Scale Retail Design Guidelines. 1.b.14 Comment 400 watt lighting would create bright spots with areas of darkness. 175 watt bulbs would eliminate this potential. Response The lighting plan would be subject to review by the ARC and determination of adequate lighting has been established by the project applicant based on experience with several other similar developments requiring adequate lighting. We would recommend that lighting be complementary with adjacent Home Depot. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.b.15 Comment Figure III-6a references a 0.4 foot retaining wall to be constructed adjacent to the Devaul development. Response According to Costco civil engineers, the reference to a 0.4 retaining wall as part of the stepped wall adjacent to DeVaul is correct. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. c. Commissioner Boswell 1.c.1 Comment Handling of runoff from gas station and parking lot. Response The gas station and parking lot runoff will be filtered through an oil-water separator prior to entering a bioretention area that will allow for bio-filtration of pollutants prior to site runoff entering the vegetated swale adjacent to LOVR. The project description has been revised to include information provided by the applicant on parking lot cleaning practices as follows: Costco will vacuum-sweep the parking lots two to three times a week to remove heavy metals and sediments from the parking area. Revised mitigation in the FEIR is as follows: BR/mm-3a:At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit plans for construction of a bioswale bioretention area (as described by the EPA Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet-Bioretention-[www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/biortn.pdf],) in lieu of the proposed retention basin.closed culvert adjacent to the fueling facility and along the southeastern property line to the driveway access point from Froom Ranch Drive, in addition to installation of oil-water separators at all site drainage outlet locations. The bioretention area shall: 1. Be adequately vegetated with appropriate plant species and constructed with proper soils to ensure adequate operation. 2. Become part of the landscape plan and maintained as necessary including periodic removal of trash, weeds, and debris. 3. Shall be designed to include an underdrain within the sand bed to collect the infiltrated water and discharge to the open swale along LOVR in order to not allow infiltration into the groundwater basin. BR/mm-3b At the time of application for construction permits for Parcel 1,the front parcel applicant shall install a bioretention area along the southeastern property line as described in BR/mm-3a. The figure below is an example of a bioretention area (without inclusion of an underdrain) Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-11 1.c.2 Comment Concern regarding exposure of DeVaul residents to northern building aspect lighting. Response Lighting proposed is low level, shielded lighting designed not to spill outside of the project area. Lighting will be specifically reduced adjacent to the DeVaul residential development (Refer to Page III-15). Parking lights will be turned off after 8:30 and low level security lighting provided at exit doors for security reasons. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.c.3 Comment Coordination with adjacent commercial development for employee trip reduction. Response AQ/mm-11-h. has been revised to the following: Establish an Employee Trip Reduction Program (ETRP) to reduce employee commute trips (i.e. carpooling incentives, van pools, and transit subsidies), coordinated with adjacent commercial development that attempts to achieve an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) for project employees of 1.60 or larger. 1.c.4 Comment Reference in DES/mm-1 to mitigation of a 100-year storm. Response Comment noted. The project is required to maintain the same peak discharge rates that existed prior to development for storm levels established for monitoring by the City. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.c.5 Comment Discussion of a stormwater pollution prevention plan relating to the gas station and mitigation for operational runoff and potential spills. Response DES/mm-2, #5 provides for accidental spills during construction; HM/mm-1 discusses specifically the operation of the gas station; and requires implementation of several safety requirements, including the ability to immediately cleanup overfills and accidental surface spills. Refer to Response 1.c.1. 1.c.6 Comment General map to show location of historic wetlands. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-12 Response This information has been included in Appendix G, as Exhibit E. The FEIR has been revised as follows: Mitigation in the form of in-kind, off-site creation of wetlands should be located as near to the impact site as is feasible. Biological Resources discussion from the 1989 Madonna General Plan Amendment EIR and a map showing habitat areas and historic wetlands within the vicinity of the improvement area are included in Appendix G- Exhibit E. 1.c.7 Comment Notification of residents of dust control coordinator contact. Response AQ/mm-6-c. regarding dust control coordinator contact information has been revised in the FEIR as follows: The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD and adjacent residents of Garcia Drive and the DeVaul residential development prior to construction commencement. 1.c.8 Comment Potential for gas station to provide MTBE-free gas. Response Pursuant to State law, MTBE is to be phased out by the end of 2003, prior to operation of the project. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.c.9 Comment Show key viewing areas from adjacent DeVaul Ranch residential development. Response Comment noted. Key viewing areas were established based on major viewsheds existing at the time of document preparation. Refer to Response 1.b.11. d. Commissioner Caruso 1.d.1 Comment Distance of Costco building from DeVaul residences. Response Comment noted. The building is located 65 feet from the property line adjacent to the DeVaul residential development. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.d.2 Comment Definitions of Abbreviations. Response See Response 1.b.4. 1.d.3 Comment Provide a best guess on wetlands impacted by traffic mitigation. Response Estimated wetland impacts were based upon a minimum build requirement, assuming Costco would be responsible for just the interchange area to connecting Calle Joaquin to the current alignment. The following sentence has been added to the FEIR: Approximately 48,276 square feet or 1.11 acres of wetland area would be disturbed by implementation of the Calle Joaquin realignment. 1.d.4 Comment All San Luis Obispo commuters are sensitive to their viewshed. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Motorists living in the general Laguna Lake area may be included in this group.as well asThe commuter passing by the project mid-way to work or school may be less aware of the visual environment because of the repetitive nature of their activity. Cuesta College and Cal Poly students, along with workers who commute to or from San Luis Obispo and its neighboring communities are included in this group. 1.d.5 Comment Visual impacts of the project are Class I and should be called out as such. Response The project is bounded on three sides by existing development and is similar in size to commercial development located adjacent to the project. A Class I impact was determined to be a project that would block at least 50% of views of the Irish Hills. The project Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-13 will block less than 15% of the Irish Hills and Visual Resources mitigation proposed for the front parcel development will ensure views of the Irish Hills are preserved Refer to Response 1.a.1. The Consultant agrees that development of the project would change the nature of a rural parcel to that of the urban environment that currently surrounds the site on three sides but the impact remains mitigable. e. Commissioner Loh 1.e.1 Comment On-site pedestrian circulation. Response See Response 1.a.10. 1.e.2 Comment AQ/mm-11 requests installation of an Electronic Vehicle charging station in the parking lot and this technology may be replaced by fuel cell technology. Response The FEIR has been revised per comments received from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD), refer to Response 7.6. 1.e.3 Comment Why does TR/mm-1 state that traffic operations would be monitored at the Auto Park Way intersection 12 months after the Costco project is open for business? Response This condition was established by City staff determining the appropriate timeline for monitoring. Refer to Response 4.6. 1.e.4 Comment Justification for discussion of serpentine rock and naturally occurring asbestos. Response The APCD has determined that naturally occurring asbestos is present in serpentine rock, and the presence of this must be determined prior to grading activities to ensure that health risks are adequately covered. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.e.5 Comment Justification for wall to mitigate noise on Garcia Drive, and suggestion of bottle brush instead. Response CEQA requires that mitigation be proposed to effectively mitigate noise impacts of a project. Bottle brush is not considered a desirable mitigation to the City due to annual maintenance requiring shut down of the adjacent streets. The City has determined that noise impacts would be insignificant and the proposed mitigation is not required. Refer to Response 4.20. 1.e.6 Comment Will ARC review final landscaping plans? Response The project will be required to obtain ARC approval, which would include all outside building elements and landscape designs. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.e.7 Comment Connection between VR/Impact 4 and associated Mitigation VR/mm-5. Response Comment noted. The impact discussed as VR/Impact 4 regarding the potential visibility of rooftop equipment from DeVaul residences is directly addressed in the associated mitigation, VR/mm-5, that requires the applicant to submit cross sections and sight-line indicators from the second floor of the DeVaul residences. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.e.8 Comment Concern regarding specificity of public art mitigation. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-14 Response See Response 1.a.2. 1.e.9 Comment DES/mm-1 discussion and explanation. Response Refer to Response 1.c.4. 1.e.10 Comment Feasibility of bioswale for proposed detention basin. Response The FEIR has been revised to remove the condition requiring the detention basin to be designed as a bioswale as the basin would not handle runoff from the project site. Refer to Response 1.c.1 regarding revised project runoff mitigation requirements. f. Commissioner Christianson 1.f.1 Comment AQ/mm-3 appears that a. and f. are the same item. Response Refer to Response 7.1. 1.f.2 Comment AQ/Impact-5 indicates PM10 long-term operational emissions exceed Tier 1 thresholds, but Table V-22 does not reference this. Response Mitigation requirements do not change and discussion of PM10 and AQ/Impact-5 has been revised in the FEIR as follows: PM10 long-term operational emissions are within exceed the APCD’s Tier I Threshold, but are within the Tier II Thresholds. AQ/Impact-5 PM10 long-term operation emissions exceed the APCD’s Tier I Threshold. After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). 1.f.3 Comment References to Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects are inconsistent. Response Visual Resources impacts have been revised in the FEIR as follows: VR/Impact 1 A reduction in visual quality as seen from Los Osos Valley Road, and inconsistency with Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Project, BC-1 will occur due to visibility and visual dominance of the proposed parking lot and related vehicles. VR/Impact 3 A reduction in visual quality as seen from Los Osos Valley Road may occur due to the high reflective value and high contrast often associated with "plaster" walls and red-tile roofs of typical Spanish-style architecture, resulting in an inconsistency with the Design Guidelines for Large-Scale Retail Projects, section DE-3.e. VR/Impact 4 A reduction in visual quality as seen from Los Osos Valley Road may occur due to visibility the building’s “big-box” outward appearance, resulting in an inconsistency with the Design Guidelines for Large- Scale Retail Projects, Section DE. 1.f.4 Comment Section VII. references San Luis Obispo County. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Precedence was set by the Home Depot project, which was the first, large single commercial facility to date in San Luis Obispo County the City. 1.f.5 Comment What are default values in Air Quality appendix from URBEMIS? Response URBEMIS is a software program designed to estimate air emissions from land use development projects. URBEMIS defaults are changed as appropriate to match the project environment and as needed according to information provided in the Traffic analysis for the Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-15 project. Noted values changed to “0” were for the rural environment since the project is located in an urban environment. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.f.6 Comment Section I- typo reference to Appendix B as NOP and responses. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: The IS/NOP and comment letters received during the NOP review period are included in Appendix B A of this EIR. 1.f.7 Comment Reference to Lighting Figure III-16 does not exist. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: The parking lot will be illuminated with downward pointing lights, each containing two 400-watt halide bulbs, as shown in Figure III-164. 1.f.8 Comment Reference to Landscaping figures are inconsistent. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Landscape elements and enlargements are shown on Figures III-9, III-1013a, and III-1113b. 1.f.9 Comment Clarify cumulative discussion on Page IV-22 regarding the front two parcels. Response As stated on Page IV-22, “for the purposes of the cumulative analysis, the “project” includes the Costco parcel only (parcel 2)”. This means that the project being studied in the EIR is Costco and cumulative analysis includes development of the front parcels specifically along with the other projects listed in Table IV-3. Refer to Response 1.f.13. 1.f.10 Comment Response to NOP letter from Donald Vermeer, not directly addressed. Response Mr. Vermeer wrote a second letter commenting on the DEIR that included all of the issues discussed in the first letter, but with greater specificity. His DEIR comment letter is addressed fully, in Section 12. 1.f.11 Comment Truck delivery traffic impacts during the morning peak hour. Response Comment noted. As the PM peak hour was determined to be the established peak for patrons to the Costco store, the impact of truck deliveries was not specifically analyzed. The estimated window of approximately 18 deliveries during the hours of 4 am and 10 am averages to three truck trips added to the road network during 7am to 8am, prior to operating hours of the Costco store and this added traffic is considered insignificant. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.f.12 Comment Discussion of Higuera Street/Vachell Lane intersection. Response Appendix G, Existing Conditions, page 2 discusses the Avila Ranch Subdivision project that is currently in the process of completing an EIR that will address the existing deficient operation at the Higuera Street/Vachell Lane intersection. Refer to Response 5.4. 1.f.13 Comment Clarity of Project, Total Project, and 10-year Cumulative Projects on Page V-59. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: b. Project Combinations for Evaluation of Impacts The following section is divided into three development scenarios with required impact and mitigation measures correlated with each particular scenario. All development scenarios include traffic impacts of the approved projects Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-16 shown on Table V-7, or a Background setting. The first scenario is the Background Plus Costco Project (Project), which analyzes the impact of development of the Costco store warehouse only. Second, development of the front two parcels is analyzed as the Project Plus Adjacent Froom Parcels (Total Project Froom Parcels). Finally, the 10- year cumulative estimate is analyzed by combining the Total Project Approved Projects, Costco, and Froom Parcels with anticipated development in the area that will occur in the next ten years. This condition is called Total Project Plus 10-Year Cumulative Buildout (10-Year Cumulative). 1.f.14 Comment Explain first sentence on page V-77, 6.c. Response “Development of the Froom Parcels in conjunction with the Costco store will not create additional impacts beyond the intersection-related impacts described for the Costco-only project.” The sentence states that the construction of the front two parcels would not create other intersection deficiencies beyond those caused by the Costco project. The stated intersection deficiencies occur with development of the Costco project, and are exacerbated by Froom Parcel development. The Froom Parcels would be required to pay a fair share to reimburse Costco for a portion of implemented improvements. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.f.15 Comment Discussion of benzene emissions is less extensive than that given for other pollutants. Response The following paragraph has been added to the FEIR: e. Benzene Benzene is a widely used chemical formed from both natural processes and human activities. Benzene can pass into the air from water and soil and can pass through the soil into undergound water. Breathing benzene can cause drowsiness, dizziness, and unconsciousness. Long-term benzene exposure causes effects on the bone marrow and can cause anemia and leukemia. Benzene is used to make other chemicals found in plastics, resins, and nylon and synthetic fibers and is also used to make some types of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides. Natural sources of benzene include volcanoes and forest fires. Benzene is a natural part of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke. 1.f.16 Comment Discussion regarding commuter being less aware of the visual environment. Response See Response 1.d.4. 1.f.17 Comment Specificity of front parcel development characteristics and proposed visually screening berm. Response Refer to Response 1.a.1. g. Brian Haglan (SLO Resident) 1.g.1 Comment Froom Ranch Way connection to Garcia Drive. Response The FEIR has been revised based on City-preferred mitigation, which includes the connection of Garcia Drive to Froom Ranch Way. Refer to Response 4.11. 1.g.2 Comment Proposed noise wall along Garcia Drive not desired. Response Refer to Response 1.e.5 and Response 4.20. 1.g.3 Comment Limit delivery truck times. Response Deliveries for Costco typically occur between 4 am and 10 am. Refer to Noise mitigation N/mm-1 (illustrated on Figure V-6), that requires Costco to alter the delivery route Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-17 prior to 7 am (nighttime according to City noise standards) so as to not use the DeVaul property line as the arrival accessway when trucks may back up and be required to idle. Trucks would use the accessway to exit the parcel during the nighttime hours and idling would not be required. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.g.4 Comment Home Depot color is undesirable. Response The Costco project is subject to review and approval from the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and preliminary meetings have already determined that the Costco shall not match Home Depot in color or design. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.g.5 Comment Breaking up of structure would reduce mass. Response The project is an allowable use and the applicant’s intent could not be achieved with separate structures. Project design, location, and mitigation proposed in the EIR have been developed to reduce the perceived scale of the building. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 1.g.6 Comment Dust from adjacent construction was not contained effectively. Response Refer to Response 1.c.7. h. Michael Kidd (Owner-Western Inns) 1.h.1 Comment Some relocation designs for Calle Joaquin adversely affect existing businesses. Response The exact design for traffic mitigation has not been established and the presence of existing development is a determining factor. Consultation between the City, the applicant, and adjacent property owners would occur prior to construction. i. Michael Sullivan (SLO Resident) 1.i.1 Comment Discussion of Costco impacts to the existing deficient LOVR interchange. Response The Caltrans comment letter, based on the PSR analysis and the traffic analysis in the DEIR regarding the impact of the Costco project, determined that the proposed mitigation of realigning Calle Joaquin, extending U.S. 101 ramps at LOVR and coordinating the signals at this intersection would effectively mitigate the project impacts. The project is also responsible for mitigation of cumulative project impacts. Refer to Response 4.7, Response 4.8 and Response 6.1. 1.i.2 Comment Caltrans DEIR comment letter regarding cumulative impacts. Response The referenced letter was submitted prior to publication of the DEIR and recommendations regarding cumulative analysis were included in the DEIR. Refer to Response 4.5 and Response 4.6 regarding revised mitigation language included in the FEIR to ensure the project pays fair share of improvements. j. Doris Allowits (SLO Resident) 1.j.1 Comment Handle infrastructure improvements prior to project implementation. Response Mitigation requires the project to install infrastructure improvements prior to operation. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-18 2.1 2.2 2.3 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-19 2.RESPONSE TO FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU, LETTER DATED 4/21/03 2.1 Response Comment noted. The FEIR has been revised as follows: In order to operate the fueling facility, Costco shall meet requirements of local, state and federal regulatory agencies, including San Luis Obispo County City Fire Protection District Bureau... 2.2 Response Comment noted. The FEIR has been revised as follows: CO 4.1.1: The Soil USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service The Soil USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service is a primary vehicle for conservation, providing technical assistance through locally administered agencies. 2.3 Response A) The applicant has revised the UST storage tank capacity and the FEIR has been amended as follows: It would occupy an area of approximately 37,800 square feet (180 feet x 210 feet), and would include three 10,00020,000-gallon capacity underground storage tanks (USTs) to store gasoline. B) Comment noted. Construction of the canopy for future potential fueling positions would be installed at the time of application for permits for the expanded facility. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. C) Comment noted. HM/mm-1, item 6 requires an oil/water separator. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. D) The following item has been added to HM/mm-1 in the FEIR: 15. Pay Telephone installed in close proximity to the fueling facility for emergencies. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-20 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.2 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-21 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-22 3.RESPONSE TO CITY OF SLO UTILITIES DEPT, LETTER DATED 4/28/03 3.1 Response Runoff will connect to the storm drain system. Page III-13, Section 5 of the DEIR discusses drainage of the proposed project. Refer to Response 1.c.1. 3.2 Response Comment noted. The FEIR has been revised as follows: The project will connect to existing City infrastructure located adjacent to the project site at the terminus of Froom Ranch Way and the applicant will pay Water and Wastewater Impact Fees established by the a fair share of City infrastructure improvements. 3.3 Response Refer to Response 1.a.8. 3.4 Response Comment noted. The FEIR has been revised as follows: Section IV.-Conservation Element The proposed project does not propose inclusion of wastewater reuse. Mitigation is proposed in the Public Services/Utilities Section of this EIR. will include an appropriately sized main from the City’s trunk system to irrigation areas for use of reclaimed water when it is available. Section V.I.-Public Services and Utilities: PS/mm-1 During construction, the applicant shall install purple piping project design, for irrigation of all landscaped areas in preparation for use of the City’s planned water re-use program the applicant shall design all irrigation on and off site for use of recycled wastewater. All water utility services shall be designed for compatibility with on site use of recycled water for irrigation. 3.5 Response Comment noted. The reference to the City’s retrofit requirement was based on the 1996 Water and Wastewater Element, which according to the City’s 2001 General Plan Annual Report (approved April 2002) is the most recent edition. Per CEQA Guidelines the DEIR includes the most up to date information available at the time of Notice of Preparation was available for circulation. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 3.6 Response Comment noted. The FEIR has been revised as follows: The permit application must meet the requirements of local, state, and federal regulatory agencies. Local regulatory agencies include the San Luis Obispo Certified Unified Program Agency (County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Division, City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, Department of Agriculture/Measurement Standards, and Utilities Department), APCD,and City Public Works Department. 3.7 Response Comment noted. The Wastewater discussion has been revised in the FEIR as follows: The City has reached 80% design capacity of its wastewater treatment facility and has begun planning and design of a capacity upgrade per State requirements. The project is not expected to exceed existing wastewater collection or treatment capacity. The project is not anticipated to result in or require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and payment of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fee will ensure the construction of any needed capacity expansion at the treatment plant.Payment of the City’s Wastewater Impact Fees include consideration of needed system improvements. 3.8 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows based on updated information from the project applicant: Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-23 Trash Collection Trash collection services are anticipated to be conducted by San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The applicant will pay for these services and the project is not anticipated to significantly impact landfill capacity. Costco uses a bailer for cardboard recycling and also uses a compactor for recycling plastic shrink wrap and any other plastics. 3.9 Response Comment noted. PS/mm-1 has revised in the FEIR as shown in Response 3.4. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-24 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.1 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-25 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-26 4.16 4.15 4.13 4.14 4.12 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-27 4.20 4.19 4.18 4.17 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 1 4.RESPONSE TO CITY OF SLO PUBLIC WORKS DEPT, LETTER DATED 5/1/03 *Traffic responses prepared by Higgins Associates. 4.1 Response Refer to Response 1.b.6. 4.2 Response Fair share of infrastructure improvements are based on cumulative development approved by the City and County in the vicinity of the project. CEQA Section 10150(3) states: “An EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and is thus not significant…if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact.” Drainage mm-3 requires the applicant to pay a “fair share” of any fee established by the City to pay for drainage improvements. As the fee is not yet established and the City has not determined which specific projects would contribute to the needed drainage improvements, the actual percentage of the project’s share could not be identified. In addition, construction of the detention basin is designed “to achieve the desired result of maintaining peak flows within the limits of the pre-development condition.” The preparation of cost estimates for the traffic mitigation is beyond the scope of the traffic analysis. Fair share estimates for cumulative development should be determined by the City at the time of project approval. Infrastructure improvements required to be implemented by Costco that would benefit adjacent future development would require establishment of a reimbursement agreement with the City and Costco when the adjacent parcel applicants submit development plans. The project’s fair share portion of a noise wall would be based on the cumulative impact scenario established for the EIR, and determined by the City if the measure were to be adopted. 4.3 Response Orientation references have been amended to reflect true directions. Refer to Response 1.b.1 for summary description. In addition, the following text has been added to the Transportation section of the FEIR: The traffic analysis uses an east-west orientation for LOVR and a north-south orientation for Madonna Road, Calle Joaquin, Garcia Drive, Auto Park Way, U.S. 101, Higuera Street, and the project access driveways. 4.4 Response The “Traffic/Circulation” section and all references have been changed to “Transportation” in the FEIR, as follows: Traffic/Circulation Transportation 4.5 Response Comment noted. Traffic operations at the terminus of Froom Ranch Way were not analyzed in the DEIR and the option of a roundabout was not considered by the applicant as feasible due to the size required to accommodate large delivery trucks, and the impacts relating to parking, building locations, drainage swales, and circulation roadways. The consultant has determined that since development plans for the front two parcels have not been submitted, requiring construction of a roundabout on these undeveloped parcels would be premature. During the site plan review process for the project, design and traffic control Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 2 alternatives would be evaluated for the Froom Ranch Way intersection with the east-west circulation aisle that separates the Froom parcels from the Costco and Home Depot parcels. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 4.6 Response Comment noted. TR/mm-1 has been amended in the FEIR as follows: TR/mm-1 A minimum of Ttwelve months after the Costco project is open for business… 4.7 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: TR/mm-2a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco,construction contracts and necessary permits shall be secured in order to complete improvements of the LOVR/U.S. 101/Calle Joaquin intersection. The applicant shall apply for an Encroachment Permit for all work done in the State Highway City Right of Way and the improvements shall be completed to Caltrans City standards, shown by a letter of acknowledgement from the Caltrans Department of Permits Office. The necessary improvements are as follows: 1.Coordinate Existing Caltrans and City Signals, 2. Realign Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin-North, and subject to approval by the Director of Public Works. 3.Lengthen Southbound U.S. 101 and Northbound U.S. 101 off-ramps. 4.8 Response Based on comments from Public Works and Caltrans, the FEIR has been revised as follows: TR/mm-2b Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit for all work done in the State Highway right-of-way and the improvements shall be completed to Caltrans standard, shown by a letter of acknowledgement from the Caltrans Department of Permits office. The necessary improvements are as follows: 1. Coordinate existing Caltrans and City signals 2. As ultimately determined by Caltrans, lengthen Southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp subject to approval of Caltrans. 4.9 Response Based on consultation with City staff, the sidewalk requirement has been amended to require improvements from the Garcia Drive residential area to the existing crosswalk at Froom Ranch Way. The applicant, adjacent property owners and the City would determine ultimate alignment and right-of-way dedication if necessary. TR/mm-3 Prior to start of business operations (or occupancy permit) for Costco,the applicant shall obtain and dedicate sufficient right of way dedication on the northeast side of LOVR to the City and construct improvements of a sidewalk to City Standards.The sidewalk shall extend from the residential subdivision northwesterly of the project (Garcia frontage road), and shall include a connection with the signalized crosswalk that exists across LOVR at Froom Ranch Way. on the north side of LOVR that connects the existing sidewalks located on north side of LOVR east and west of the project site with the crosswalk that will be provided across LOVR at the main project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with future other projects that would benefit from the sidewalk extension. 4.10 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: TR/mm-4 Prior to issuance of building permits for Costco,the applicant shall develop project plans shall to show the northwesterly most driveway along LOVR to be relocated located aligned across from Garcia Drive and construct a raised median “worm” island at the intersection of Garcia Drive at LOVR to restrict left turn egress from both Garcia and the northwesterly project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 3 responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with the front parcels and future other projects that would benefit from the access improvements. 4.11 Response As the City does not support Mitigation Measure 5a, and in order to solve the problematic intersection of Garcia at LOVR as traffic increases along LOVR and available gaps in main street flows are reduced, the FEIR has been revised as follows: TR/mm-5a Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the Costco component of the project, the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to LOVR to accommodate either: a)Extend the dual left turn storage lengths on LOVR at the Project main driveway. The inside lane will have a minimum length of 250 feet with a total overall storage capacity of the dual lanes a minimum of 500 feet in length. Appropriate deceleration lanes and reverse tapers for the revised turn lanes shall be designed and installed pursuant to State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, or; A new left turn lane and appropriate deceleration/reverse tapers shall be constructed on LOVR at the Project northwesternmost driveway. The left turn storage length shall be a minimum of 150 feet in length. The Project driveway/Garcia Drive intersection shall be modified so as to be restricted to right turn in-and-out only, with left turns allowed from LOVR to Garcia Drive and from LOVR to the northwesterly project driveway. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with the front two parcel applicants that would benefit from the access improvements. TR/mm-5b Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for Costco, the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to accommodate: The LOVR frontage road on the northeast side of LOVR shall be extended from Garcia Drive to the Project main driveway traffic signal to allow left turn access out of that neighborhood. The traffic signal shall be modified to provide appropriate indications for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing this new approach. Upon project approval, the City will determine the project’s fair share responsibility and establish a reimbursement agreement with future other projects, including the front two parcels, that would benefit from the extension. 4.12 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: TR/mm-6 Prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the Costco component of the project, the applicant shall undertake all necessary modifications to the main project driveway (Froom Ranch Way) to accommodate either: a)In conjunction with TR/mm-5a; modify the existing driveway approach to accommodate two northbound left turn lanes and a right turn lane, or; b)In conjunction with TR/mm-5b; modifying the existing driveway approach and traffic signal to accommodate one northbound left turn lane, an additional shared left-through lane and a right turn lane. 4.13 Response The following text and mitigation has been added to the FEIR: The Costco project would have a cumulative impact at the LOVR interchange location. A fair share contribution for the ultimate interchange improvements satisfies the mitigation responsibility of the project’s cumulative impact by participating in costs of mitigating future conditions to insignificant levels. TR-Impact 7 The Costco project will have a cumulative impact at the LOVR interchange. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 4 After mitigation, this impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-7 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a “fair share,” based on current, order of magnitude cost estimates being studied in the LOVR PSR towards the reconstruction of the LOVR interchange, taking into account improvements implemented as part of TR/mm-2a and TR/mm-2b. Payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) will satisfy this requirement if the TIF program has been updated to include revised cost estimates for the LOVR interchange. If at the time of issuance of permits, the TIF program has not been modified to reflect these costs, the applicant will be responsible for paying current TIF fees plus a mitigation fee associated with the estimated cost differential between the LOVR interchange cost and the assumed TIF component for the project. 4.14 Response Mitigation measure numbers have been revised as necessary in the FEIR, shown below, and in Response 4.15 and Response 4.16. TR/mm-78 Prior issuance of occupancy permits for the front parcels… 4.15 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: TR/mm-89 Prior to issuance of occupancy development permits for the front parcels, the applicants for the front parcels shall undertake all necessary modifications to LOVR to accommodate either:conduct a traffic study subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works to determine the most appropriate improvement measures for increasing left turn capacity for the project site, which may include extending a)Extend the dual left turn storage lengths at the Project Main Driveway (Froom Ranch Way). The inside lane will have a minimum length of 300 feet with a total overall storage capacity of the dual lanes a minimum of 600 feet in length. Appropriate deceleration lanes and reverse tapers for the revised turn lanes shall be designed and installed pursuant to State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual, OR; b)A new left turn lane and appropriate deceleration/reverse tapers shall be constructed on LOVR at the project’s westernmost driveway. The left turn storage length shall be a minimum of 150 feet in length. The driveway/Garcia Drive intersection shall be modified so as to be restricted to right turn in-and-out only. The LOVR frontage road on the north side of LOVR shall be extended from Garcia Drive to the traffic signal located at the Project main driveway to allow left turn access out of the Oceanaire neighborhood. The traffic signal at this location shall be modified to provide appropriate indications for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing this new approach. 4.16 Response The mitigation requirement of Costco paying a “fair share” of intersection improvements is addressed in Response 4.13 and associated new TR/mm-7. The FEIR has been revised as follows to incorporate “fair share” of the Froom Parcel development: TR/mm-910 Prior to issuance of occupancy building permits for the front two parcels, the Costco applicant and applicants for the front parcels shall contribute “fair share” contributions, based on current, order of magnitude cost estimates being studied in the LOVR PSR towards the construction of the LOVR Interchange reconstruction. Payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) will satisfy this fair share contribution requirement if the TIF program has been updated to include revised cost estimates for reconstructing the LOVR interchange. If at the time of building permit issuance, the TIF program has not been modified to reflect these different costs, the front parcel applicants will be responsible for paying current TIF Fees plus a mitigation fee associated with the estimated cost differential between the LOVR interchange and the assumed TIF component of the project. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 5 4.17 Response TR/mm-10 has been removed and the FEIR has been revised as follows: Additional mitigation measures recommended to correct 10-year Cumulative Condition deficient conditions would be covered under the congestion relief component of the current City TIF program and are as follows: … This impact would be considered significant but mitigable (Class II). TR/mm-10 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, Costco and the applicants for the front parcels shall contribute a fair share contribution, as determined by the City, to either; a.Construct a second exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Madonna Road approach to LOVR by widening the east side of Madonna Road on both the north and south legs of the intersection, or, b.Convert the southbound Madonna Road through lane to a shared left/through lane on the approach to LOVR and convert the northbound approach lanes to provide a shared left/through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. The signal phasing for the northbound and southbound Madonna Road approaches should be modified to provide split phasing on these approaches. 4.18 Response The following mitigation has been removed from the FEIR: TR/mm-11 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, Costco and the applicants for the front parcels shall pay a fair share to, at the time of the development of the “Gap” property located on the north side of LOVR at the main project driveway, provide an eastbound left turn lane on LOVR, a westbound right turn lane on LOVR and two southbound left turn lanes, one southbound through lane and one southbound right turn lane on the new north intersection leg. Higgins General Response to City Traffic Comments City Comments 9, 10, 11 and 12 address pedestrian impacts (TR Impact 3), left turn storage on LOVR (TR Impact 5), intersection spacing on LOVR (TR Impact 4) and left turn storage on the northbound approach of Froom Ranch Way to LOVR (TR Impact 6). The DEIR presents two alternative mitigation measures to address left turn storage on LOVR. The City’s comments described the City’s preferred mitigation program, which includes providing additional westbound LOVR left turn storage at a new project driveway on the south side of LOVR across from Garcia Drive, constructing channelization in the median of LOVR to prohibit left turn movements from the new project driveway and from Garcia Drive, constructing the missing section of sidewalk on the north side of LOVR and extending the LOVR frontage road on the north side of LOVR to the LOVR/Froom Ranch Way intersection. These improvements may require right of way on the north side of LOVR on property that is not under the control of the project applicant. It is recommended that the mitigation 5a, 4 and 6b as originally worded be included as an alternative mitigation program. In the event that right of way is required to implement the preferred mitigation program and the project applicant cannot obtain the right of way, the alternative mitigation program can be implemented. 4.19 Response Refer to Response 7.6 for amendments to AQ/mm-11 in the FEIR. 4.20 Response As the City’s General Plan was adopted with overriding considerations in regards to noise, and no mitigation was proposed on LOVR to reduce outdoor noise levels, the noise wall cumulative mitigation has been removed from the EIR. The FEIR has been revised as follows: Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 6 N-Impact 23 Noise levels at the front of the homes off Garcia Drive will exceed 60 dBA in the front yards of residences off Garcia Drive. After mitigation, this impact would be This impact is considered Class III, (insignificant). Cumulative project traffic causes the exterior noise level at the fronts of the residences to be approximately 64-65 dBA. The interior levels in the rooms of the residences fronting on LOVR would be approximately 42-43 dBA, decreasing to about 33 dBA at the rear of the residence depending on the effectiveness of interior separating walls. All interior noise levels are below the standard of 45 dBA (Ldn). The City’s General Plan was adopted with overriding considerations in respect to noise impacts to the outside areas of residences on LOVR. The aesthetic impacts of a noise wall would exceed the advantages in reducing traffic noise and no mitigation is proposed. N/mm-3 Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall pay their fair share of wall construction costs to mitigate the noise levels exceeding 60 dBA in the front yards of residences off Garcia Drive. The wall shall be a 6-foot landscaped concrete block wall along the northerly side of LOVR in the area now occupied by palm trees. Palm tree removal shall be avoided, if feasible. The wall shall be varied in texture and height and shall be heavily landscaped, both along the Garcia Drive side and the LOVR side for aesthetic reasons. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 7 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.4 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 8 5.5 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 9 5.RESPONSE TO SLO CO. DEPT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING, LETTER DATED 4/18/03 5.1 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Copies of all referenced and incorporated documents are available for review in the Environmental Division of the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building at the County Government Center in San Luis Obispo (805) 781-5600 or by request at the Community Development Department of the City of San Luis Obispo at 990 Palm Street in San Luis Obispo. 5.2 Response Comment noted. The cumulative development scenario and analysis was developed from the cumulative project list provided by the County at the time of research and development of the DEIR. (Refer to CEQA Guidelines 15144-Forecasting). The Senn/Glick Development was not included in cumulative project information provided by the County at the time of research and development. The Dioptics portion of the Avila Ranch Development was included within the 10-year cumulative forecast. Development on the remaining Avila Ranch parcels was not assumed within this timeframe. It is likely that the additional development would change the study conclusions at LOVR/Higuera and that additional lanes would be required at this intersection (currently under separate environmental study). The additions are not likely to significantly affect the Costco calculations but would increase cumulative numbers. Cumulative impacts are significant, adverse impacts with or without full development of the Avila Ranch, until such time as the LOVR interchange is widened. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 5.3 Response See Response 5.2. 5.4 Response City staff input required on whether to remove “closing the left turn from Vachell Lane” should be removed as an option to improve this existing deficient condition. The DEIR does not indicate that the project would significantly impact the Vachell/Higuera intersection. The significance criteria used in the study does not include thresholds that account for determining impacts when an unsignalized intersection is deficient under background conditions. Unless the significance criteria is modified to cover this situation and it is determined that the project’s impacts are significant, the project would not be required to pay for the Buckley improvement. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 5.5 Response Comment noted. The SLAPCD does not have established mitigation standards for PM2.5 and mitigation proposed for PM10 would mitigate for PM2.5 as well. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 10 6.1 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 11 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 12 6.RESPONSE TO CALTRANS DISTRICT 5 LETTER, DATED 4/29/03 6.1 Response The FEIR has been revised as shown in Response 4.8. In developing mitigation for the Costco project, it was determined that the required Calle Joaquin realignment should mitigate the project impacts while staying consistent with the overall LOVR interchange project. Based on the traffic analysis conducted for the project, the Southbound U.S. 101 on- ramp is not anticipated to be significantly impacted by project operations. Realignment and lengthening of this on-ramp would be constructed as part of the overall LOVR interchange project and the applicant would be required to pay its fair share of that project. The applicant would lengthen the Southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp and realign Calle Joaquin as shown on Plate 9, Page X-8 of this section. No further revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 13 May 7, 2003 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Attn: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 SUBJECT: Costco Project Draft EIR (SLO City file # 173-00) Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the proposed Costco development located on Los Osos Valley Road in San Luis Obispo. We have the following comments on the proposal. The proposed project will result in significant air emissions. District staff evaluation of the potential operational impacts agrees with the evaluation in the Draft EIR that the emissions from the Costco and fueling station project will greatly exceed our CEQA significance thresholds, indicating Class I impacts. While some emissions related to fugitive dust and naturally occurring asbestos can be reduced to Class II with proper mitigation, the ozone precursor emissions during construction and operation are expected to remain at a level of Class I, even with mitigation. The District would like to commend the applicant for the breadth of mitigation measures proposed in the Draft EIR. All of the air quality impact areas have been identified and most of the recommended mitigation measures have been included. We have the following additions and changes: Mitigation Discussion AQ/mm-3 Items "a" and "f" are the same. Strike item "f". To item "g", add the options of fueling on-site mobile equipment with LNG (liquefied natural gas) or biodiesel. AQ/mm-4 Based upon the expected emissions during the construction phase of the project, a total of one (1) catalyzed diesel particulate filter should be installed on the piece of equipment expected to generate the highest emissions. If the catalyzed diesel particulate filter is found unsuitable, a total of one (1) diesel oxidation catalyst must be installed. Based upon ordering times for these devices, the requirement should be outlined in the bid specifications for the project. Equipment to be operated during the construction should be identified as early as possible in order to place the order for the appropriate filter and avoid any project delays. AQ/mm-5 Where necessary, portable equipment can either be permitted by the APCD or registered in the statewide portable equipment registration program. For more information on these requirements, please contact David Dixon, Engineering Division Supervisor, at 781-5912. 7.1 7.3 7.2 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 14 AQ/mm-8 The last sentence in item "b" should read, "This compliance review will identify all equipment and operations requiring permits and will assist in the identification of suitable equipment for the catalyzed diesel particulate filter. Item "c" should end with, "where necessary." AQ/mm-10 Mitigation measures should be revised as follows: a. Increase building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is required by Title 24. g. Use low energy parking lot and street lights (e.g. sodium). i. Incorporate energy efficient skylights into the roof plan (i.e. should meet the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating). Add the following mitigation measures: - Install high efficiency or gas space heating - Install door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and windows are not available AQ/mm-11 The flash pass program indicated in item "a" has been used to reduce employee commute trips to the neighboring Home Depot project. The proposed Costco project with gas station will result in higher air emissions and equivalent mitigation will not be appropriate. Remove mitigation item "a" and replace with the selection of one or more of the following options, for an amount to be negotiated with the APCD: - Implement a Flash Pass program for employees using public transit. - Install or contribute to funding alternative fueling infrastructure (i.e. fueling stations for CNG, LPG, biodiesel, conductive and inductive electric vehicle charging, etc.). - Fund a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and heavy-duty vehicles. - Replace/repower heavy-duty diesel school vehicles (i.e. bus, passenger or maintenance vehicles). - Purchase particulate filters or oxidation catalysts for local school buses, transit buses or construction fleets. - Provide assistance in the implementation of projects that are identified in city or county Bicycle Master Plans. - Use alternatively fueled delivery vehicles. Remove mitigation item "b". Electric vehicle charging stations were installed in front of the neighboring Home Depot project. Additional charging stations in approximately the same location will not provide the necessary added benefit. Mitigation to substitute for this measure will be identified through negotiation with APCD on item "a" above. Under item "c", indicate which transit stop(s) are proposed for enhancements. Under item "d", the Trip Reduction Plan should be to the APCD for approval. Under item "f", the reserved parking area for 25 regional commute motorists should be indicated with signage and registered with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as an official Park and Ride lot. Under item "h", the applicant should work with the Transportation Choices Coalition partners for free consulting services on how to start and maintain a Trip Reduction Program. Contact SLO Regional Rideshare at 541-2277. Add the following mitigation measures: 7.4 7.6 7.5 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 15 - Pedestrian and bike connection to the neighboring residential neighborhood should be provided. This can be provided as a path connected from the end of the road to the north west of the property, with an opening in the retaining wall. - Provide onsite banking (i.e. ATM) and postal (i.e. mailbox) services - Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce vehicle queing and improve the pedestrian environment Section 5.b.2 indicates that a 12 to 16 fueling pump gasoline station will be constructed at the site. The proposed gas station has the potential to be located within 1000 feet of an existing school property boundary. The parcel upon which the Costco project will be constructed ranges in distance between approximately 670 to 1550 feet from the school property. The Conceptual Site Plan indicates that the fueling station will be located at the far end of the property, potentially outside of the 1000 foot perimeter, therefore may not be subject to public notification requirements. The applicant should contact David Dixon of our Engineering Division for more information on this requirement. Impacts from the future uses on parcels 1 and 3 will need to be more fully examined prior to moving forward with any approvals. Under the examination of alternatives for these parcels, one option would be residential units and small, pedestrian friendly shops. The APCD is supportive of mixed use, pedestrian oriented development as this type of development reduces dependence on the private automobile, reduces trip generation and therefore minimizes vehicle related air emissions. Therefore, we recommend this alternative be more fully explored as options for these sites move forward. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions or comments, or if you would like to receive an electronic version of this letter, feel free to contact me at 781-5912. Sincerely, Heather Tomley Air Quality Specialist III cc: David Dixon, Engineering Division 7.7 7.8 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 16 7.RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM SAN LUIS APCD, LETTER DATED 5/7/03 7.1 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: AQ/mm-3 During construction, the applicant shall implement the following Best Available Control Technology for diesel-fueled construction equipment, where feasible: a. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer’s specifications. b. All off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generators, compressors, auxiliary power units, shall be fueled exclusively with CARB motor vehicle diesel fuel. c. Use 1996 or newer heavy duty off road vehicles to the extent feasible. d. Use of Caterpillar pre-chamber diesel engines (or equivalent) together with proper maintenance and operation to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX). e. Electrify equipment where possible. f.Maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer’s specifications, except as otherwise required above. g. Use Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas( LNG), biodiesel, or propane for on-site mobile equipment instead of diesel-powered equipment. 7.2 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: AQ/mm-4 Prior to construction, Install one (1) catalytic soot filters on the pieces of equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. Where If a catalytic soot filters are is determined to be unsuitable, the owner shall install and use an diesel oxidation catalyst. a. Suitability is to be determined by an authorized representative of the filter manufacturer, or an independent California Licensed Mechanical Engineer who will submit, for APCD approval, a Suitability Report identifying and explaining the particular constraints to using the preferred catalytic soot filter. b. Installations must be conducted according to manufacturer’s specifications. c. Proof that the catalytic soot filters have been installed must be provided to the APCD. d. The APCD shall be notified prior to operation of the equipment with the filters installed. e. Acceptable proof may be in the form of visual inspection by APCD staff or submittal of filter serial numbers and photos of the equipment with the installed filters. f. Equipment to be operated during construction should be identified as early as possible in order to place the order for the appropriate filter and avoid any project delays. 7.3 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: AQ/mm-5 Prior to construction, If it is determined that portable engines and portable equipment will be utilized, the contractor shall contact the County of San Luis Obispo APCD and obtain a permit to operate portable engines prior to commencement of construction.or Pportable equipment shall be registered in the statewide portable equipment registration program. Contact David Dixon, APCD Engineering Division Supervisor, 781-5912. 7.4 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: AQ/mm-8 Prior to construction, the following mitigation measures are required in order to remain in compliance with the APCD: a. The applicant must obtain a compliance review with the APCD prior to the initiation of any construction activities. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 17 b. A list of all heavy-duty construction equipment operating at the site must be provided to the APCD. The list shall include the make, model, engine size, and year of each piece of equipment. This compliance review will identify all equipment and operations requiring permits and will assist in the identification of suitable equipment for the catalyzed diesel particulate filter. c. The applicant must apply for an Authority to Construct from the APCD where necessary. 7.5 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: AQ/mm-10 During and Post construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce area source emissions, where applicable. a. Increase walls and attic insulation beyond by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. b. Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. c. Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. d. Use built-in energy efficient appliances, were applicable. e. Orient buildings toward streets with convenient pedestrian and transit access. f. Use double-paned windows. g. Use sodium low-energy parking lot and streetlights. (e.g. sodium) h. Use energy efficient interior lighting. i.Incorporate energy efficient skylights into roof plan (i.e. should meet the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating). j. Install High efficiency or gas space heating. k.Install door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and windows are not available. 7.6 Response A pedestrian and bike connection is provided at the north property corner adjacent to DeVaul, at the junction of Parcels 1 and 2. Costco is a member-use only warehouse that does not accept ATM or credit cards and does not sell postal materials; therefore, installation of an ATM or postal services would not be appropriate. Based on comments received by APCD and City Public Works, the FEIR has been revised as follows: AQ/mm-11 During and Post construction, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce vehicle emissions, where applicable. a. Implementation of one or more of the following options, for an amount to be negotiated with the APCD: x A Flash Pass program for employees using public transit, xInstall or contribute to funding alternative fueling infrastructure (i.e. fueling stations for CNG, LPG, biodiesel, conductive and inductive electric vehicle charging, etc.) xFund a program to buy and scrap older, higher emission passenger and heavy-duty vehicles. xReplace/repower heavy-duty diesel school vehicles (i.e. bus, passenger, or maintenance vehicles). xPurchase particulate filters or oxidation catalysts for local school buses, transit fleets. xProvide assistance in the implementation of projects that are identified in City or County Bicycle Master Plans. xUse alternatively-fueled delivery vehicles. b. Location of an Electronic Vehicle charging station in the parking lot. c.Transit stop enhancements (shelters, phones, etc.) within the project impact area. d. Subject to the approval of a trip reduction plan submitted to the Public Works DirectorAPCD, implement a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program for employees. e. Provide on-site long-and short-term bicycle parking consistent with provisions of Section 16.060, Table 6.5 of the City Municipal Code, with location and design criteria as established Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 18 by the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, and with installation and design guidance provided by the City’s Community Design Guidelines. One bicycle parking space for every 10 employees is considered appropriate. f. Provide preferential carpool parking for employees and reserve at least 25 spaces for regional commute motorists. The City and APCD should pursue a shared use agreement with the project applicant to utilize over-supplied, weekday parking areas for potential of a park-and- ride lot. Based on trip generation estimates for the commercial components of the project, much of the parking facility would go unused during non-peak times of the weekdays and could be used by daily commuters as a park-and-ride location. A target number of 25 spaces should be utilized for this purpose. The parking area should be indicated with signage and registered with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as an official Park and Ride lot. g. Provide shower stalls and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike and/or walk to work, at the rates shown in the table below. Employees Lockers Stalls 50-199 1 per 20 2 200+ 1 per 20 4 h. Establish an Employee Trip Reduction Program (ETRP) to reduce employee commute trips (i.e. carpooling incentives, van pools, and transit subsidies), coordinated with adjacent commercial development that attempts to achieve an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) for project employees of 1.60 or larger. Contact the Transportation Choices Coalition partners for free consulting services on how to start and maintain a Trip Reduction Program. Contact SLO Regional Rideshare at 541-2277. i. Employ and implement a transportation/rideshare coordinator. j. Implement a lunch-time shuttle to reduce single occupant vehicle trips. k.Provide on-site eating, refrigeration, vending for employees. l.Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing and improve the pedestrian environment. 7.7 Response The fueling station would remain at its proposed location outside of the 1000 foot boundary from the school property due to site constraints and proposed development plans. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 7.8 Response The following mitigation measure has been added to the FEIR. AQ/mm-12 Prior to permit approval for Parcels 1 and 3, the applicant for those parcels would be subject to subsequent environmental review and approval from the APCD. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 19 May 7, 2003 Mr. Phil Dunsmore Associate Planner Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Costco Wholesale Warehouse & Gas Los Osos Valley Road San Luis Obispo, CA Project Number: 00-008A Subject: Comments to Draft Costco/Froom Ranch Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Mr. Dunsmore: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR for the Costco Wholesale Froom Ranch project on Los Osos Valley Road. After review of the document, I wish to provide the following comments on behalf of my client, Costco Wholesale. Additional comments prepared by consultants to Costco have also been enclosed with this letter. General Comments xPlease refer to the project as Costco Wholesale Warehouse instead of store. xReview Mitigation Measures and Impacts as outlined in Table II-1 and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Section VIII for consistency. Have found several instances where the mitigation measures are different. xThe Costco Wholesale Warehouse project proposed for the project is a total of 140,000 square feet. Section I Page Section Comments I-1 I.A xThe project should be described as “a 140,000 square Costco Wholesale warehouse with tire sales and installation, outdoor food service, and gas pumps for the sale of gas to Costco Wholesale members.” I-4 I.B xRevise Project Applicant to: Costco Wholesale Mr. Todd Bartok C/o Northwest Atlantic Partners 17300 Red Hill Ave., Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92614 I-5 I.F last ¶ xEnd of 45-day public review period should be changed to May 7th. Section II Page Section Comments II-1 II.A xRevise 1st sentence as follows: “The project applicant is proposing to construct a 140,115 140,000 square-foot Costco Wholesale Warehouse including tire sales, tire installation, outdoor food service, and a fuel station.” II-1 II.B Project Objective does not clearly address all the objectives Costco had in selecting this site. Please incorporate the following: 8.1 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.8 8.7 8.6 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 20 xGeneral Plan zoning that is consistent with Costco’s use. xSufficient area to accommodate Costco’s use and allow for ample parking. xSynergy of being located next to Home Depot, making the Project part of a “power center.”. xAccess to transportation infrastructure. xVisibility (without being “in your face” because it is set back at the base of the hills: you can see it easily, but it is small in comparison to the backdrop geography) xCentrally located to the trade area. II-1 II.C.1 xRevise section as follows: “The 140,000 square-foot building is proposed to be located in the southwest corner of the project site facing Los Osos Valley Road with the main entrance located at the northeast corner of the building. The warehouse square footage estimate includes an approximate 5,200 square Tire Sales and Installation facility and an approximate 1,055 square foot outdoor Food Service facility.” Table II-1 See comments under Section VIII for consistency. Section III Page Section Comments III-1 III.A xRevise Project Representative: MulvannyG2 Architecture Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP 1110 112th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 III-4 III.B 1 st ¶ xRevise the 1st sentence as follows: “Costco Wholesale has filed an application for the development of a 140,115 140,000 square-foot Costco Wholesale Warehouse including an approximate 5,200 square Tire Sales and Installation facility, an approximate 1,055 square foot outdoor Food Service facility, and a fuel station…..” III-11 III.E.1 1 st ¶ x2nd sentence revise as follows (underline & strikeout format): “This particular store warehouse as proposed will include a tire center, and a freestanding fueling station for Costco member use only., and may also provide an outdoor food service court.” III-11 III.E.1 2 nd ¶ x1st line – change 140,115 to 140,000 xRevise the 5th sentence as follows: “The tire center is proposed along the southeast side of the warehouse……….” xRevise the 8th sentence as follows: “An outdoor food service and outdoor seating area are proposed next to the main entrance on the northeast side of the warehouse.” III-11 Table III-1 xRevise as follows: o Main Warehouse Floor Area 133,742 sq. ft. o Tire Center 5,200 sq. ft. o Food Service 1,055 sq. ft. o Total Warehouse Floor Area Not to Exceed 140,000 sq. ft. III-11 III.E.2 1 st ¶ Revise last sentence as follows: “It is proposed to be located in the southern corner of the proposed site………” III-12 III.E.5 1 st ¶ xRevise as follows (underline & strikeout format): “Surface water currently flowing from the Irish Hills open space on the property will be contained and channelized at the southern property line, as shown in Figure III- 8.11 8.10 8.9 8.13 8.12 8.14 8.15 8.16 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 21 6b. From this location it will flow either to a proposed detention pond located to be constructed west of the Costco site that has been developed for Home Depot or in a channel behind Home Depot to a detention pond located in front of the Froom Ranch if these two uses exceed the capacity of the pond.” III-13 III.E.5 2 nd ¶ xRevise as follows (underline & strikeout format): “The existing proposed detention pond is located immediately adjacent to the southern property line of the Costco parcel (APN: 053-510-012). The detention basin has a capacity to contain approximately three acre-feet of runoff from the immediate vicinity offsite. The low point of the detention basin is approximately 20 feet below the top of the detention basin.” III-13 III.E.5 3 rd ¶ xRevise as follows (underline & strikeout format): “The proposed project will increase runoff from the site due to the increase in impervious surfaces associated with the building footprint and paved parking area. Surface water will be directed through storm sewers to a central drainage easement under the main access drive between the parcels and then into a storm drain channel along LOVR. The proposed detention basin will reduce the combined existing off-site and proposed developed runoff from an existing 50-year runoff to a 2-year runoff.” III-13 II.E.6 xRevise the first sentence as follows (underline & strikeout format): “Grading for the project will occur in a single phase for all three parcels, as shown in Figure II-6b, Grading and Drainage Plan. The proposed development, and all components of this development, will result in an estimated 45,000 cubic yards of earthwork. The applicant is proposing to remove 30,000 cubic yards of earth to level the site and construct the proposed detention basin. Of the soil that is proposed for grading, 15,000 cubic yards of earth will be re-compacted and used as fill material. The remaining 15,000 cubic yards of earth will be removed from the site and disposed of at an offsite location as yet to be determinedand placed on Lot 1. Grading on parcels 2 and 3 1 will be minimal and limited to leveling the sites and installing the drainage swale across the frontage (refer to Figure III-6). Finish grading will occur after plans have been approved for the front two parcels.” III-13 III.E.7 xRevise the first sentence as follows (underline & strikeout format): “The proposed project will may utilize retaining walls along the northern and western property line in an effort to stabilize the grading and site development work (See Figure III-6a and b, Grading Plan), alternatively, the project may utilize a minimum 2:1 slope setback from the property line to accommodate changes in grade for the property adjoining the residential developments to the northwest.” Section V Page Section Comments V-121 V.H.1.a 1 st ¶ xRevise the last sentence as follows (underline & strikeout format): “It would occupy an area of approximately 37,800 square feet (180 feet x 210 feet), and include three 10,00020,000-gallon capacity underground storage tanks (UST’s) to store gasoline.” V-123 V.H.5 1 st ¶ xRevise the last sentence as follows (underline & strikeout format): “The station will contain three 10,00020,000-gallon capacity UST’s situated side by side.” V-124 V.H.5 2 nd ¶ xPursuant to State law, all MTBE’s are to be phased on at the end of 2003, which will be prior to the construction of this project. 8.18 8.17 8.21 8.20 8.19 8.23 8.22 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 22 xPursuant to Assembly Bill 2481: o AB 2481 will require double wall product, vent and vapor recovery piping that is continuously monitored for the detection of the liquid and vapor phases of the product stored. In addition, AB 2481 will require construction details to mitigate vapor and liquid transmissions from the UST system to the surrounding backfill. Prior to placing tanks into operation an Enhanced Leak Detection (ELD) test will be required to confirm the UST system are liquid and vapor tight. xCARB o Stage I Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) is required. o Stage II Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) compatible system components are required. Section VI Page Section Comments VI-7 VI.B.3.b xThe current 140,000 square foot limitation on the size of the warehouse is currently at the low end of operational effectiveness for Costco Wholesale. A requirement to devote additional portions of the limited floor area for vacant store fronts to “allow for the potential for future mixed uses of the building” would severely inhibit the ability of the project to meet its operational objectives. Section VIII Comments made to this section also apply to Table II-1 in Section II. Page Section Comments VIII-1 GH/mm-2 xParcel 2 is the Costco parcel. Parcels 1 & 3 are owned by Madonna, therefore it should be made clear that this mitigation measure applies to future development not related to the proposed Costco Wholesale project. Before submitting plans for the front parcels, Mr. Madonna must obtain a Geological investigation Report. VIII-2 DES/mm-3 xDefine when the “fee” is to be established and what the “fair share” rate is. VIII-3 BR/mm-3 xChange “retention” basin to “detention” basin per application. xClarify where the “bio-swale” would have to be located to be effective. VIII-3 BR/mm-4 xThis measure needs to provide a standard for determining how may perches and/or nesting boxes will be required. VIII-4 xGeneral Traffic Safety Comments – There are three major issues with this section: o Some of the numerical assumptions of the traffic study are not supported by documentation, o The means of determining “fair share” allocations are not defined and the nexus of the mitigation to Costco is not identified, and o There are requirements for construction on land not controlled by Costco Wholesale or actions by third parties not related to Costco Wholesale. VIII-4 TR/mm-1 xWhat is the cost of the signal identified and what is the basis for the “fair share” allocation. Installation of a traffic signal at Auto Park Way should be based on study data confirming that the one or more Caltrans warrants are satisfied. The intersection may have poor level of service for the left turns on the side street but it may still not justify stopping all the LOVR traffic with a traffic signal for a handful of cars. The Auto Park Way left turn traffic can turn right and then make a U-turn at the Costco signal. VIII-5 TR/mm-2 xCostco Wholesale is not in a position to control Caltrans or secure construction contracts prior to issuance of occupancy permit. Please redefine roles and relationships to create a specific condition that can be addressed by Costco. We 8.24 8.28 8.27 8.26 8.25 8.31 8.30 8.29 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 23 understand that the PSR is about to be released which may address components of this issue. Please identify the mitigation project in greater detail and the costs or “fair share” contribution that is being requested of Costco. xCan findings of ‘over riding consideration” be granted for the final LOVR interchange project with however a specific intermediate improvements being identified as adequate contribution? As an alternative identify Costco “fair share” and the fact that Costco receive a credit for initial work? VIII-5 TR/mm-3 xThis mitigation measure should be stricken, based on the same logic contained in the letter from the Public Works Department pertaining to TR/mm-11. These improvements will primarily benefit the adjoining property owner and not Costco member use. While there may be a very insignificant of members who may use transit to travel to the site, the percentage would not justify this level of off-site improvement. Additionally, the mitigation measure would require Costco, who does not have the power of eminent domain to obtain property from a third party, for the purposes of dedication to the city and construction of the improvement. VIII-5 TR/mm-4 xSame as comment for mm-3 above. VIII-6 TR/mm-5 xa) This mitigation measure should be dropped since Caltrans has dropped it’s request for this mitigation measure. xb) Related to the driveway alignment to Garcia Drive, Costco Wholesale does not control the land on which the subject driveway is located. VIII-6 TR/mm-6 xSame comment as TR/mm-5 above. Alternative “a)” should be eliminated. Costco Wholesale does not control the land on which the subject driveway is located. VIII-7 TR/mm-7 xThis applies to the front parcels controlled by Madonna and should not be tied to development of the Costco. VIII-8 TR/mm-9 x“Fair Share” needs to be defined as it relates to the respective property owners involved. Additionally, mitigation measure need to take into account the Costco Wholesale does not control when the front parcels may be developed and therefore Costco should only be responsible for it’s fair share prior to occupancy permit. VIII-8 TR/mm-10 xPlease reevaluate this mitigation in light of the questions raised by Costco Wholesale’s Traffic Engineer, Kimley-Horn (letter of May 5, 2003) regarding trip generation rates. xPlease identify the “fair share” allocation to Costco Wholesale, or the formula, which will be used to determine “fair share.” VIII-9 TR/mm-11 xThis mitigation measure applies to a third party parcel, not in control of Costco, and should be stricken. This is also supported by the May 1, 2003, letter from the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. VIII- 13 AQ/mm-10 xSubparagraph .g – Requirement for use of sodium parking lot lighting conflicts with the lighting plan submitted by Costco Wholesale and is also inconsistent with comments made by members of the Planning Commission during the April 23rd public meeting to receive comment on the DEIR. Retain the use of metal halide fixtures as proposed. VIII- 14 AQ/mm-11 xSubparagraph .b – This measure should be eliminated in light of the State of California dropping the requirements for electric cars in favor of the more effective hybrids. xSubparagraph .f – The provision requiring Costco Wholesale to “reserve at least 25 spaces for regional commute motorists” should be stricken. Based on the City’s adopted “Big Box” ordinance the Costco Wholesale Warehouse facility has been limited to on-site parking, which is significantly below standard demand for a similar 8.35 8.34 8.33 8.32 8.40 8.39 8.38 8.37 8.36 8.41 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 24 size Costco Wholesale Warehouse facility and would place a significant hardship on Costco to meet it’s membership demands. Furthermore, in response to the comment from the Public Works Department that Costco Wholesale hit a rate of 1.6 employees Average Vehicle Ridership may be difficult. Costco can attempt to reach this goal, but there should be no penalties incorporated into mitigation measures. xSubparagraph .g – Please clarify if locker requirement is on a per employee, or per gender basis. VIII- 15 N/mm-2 xThe requirement for the wall appears to contradict both neighborhood desires, expressed during the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting, and aesthetic requirements. This issue should be addressed by a support for findings of over riding consideration and the mitigation measure eliminated. xIf the mitigation measure is left in tact, Costco Wholesale should only be responsible for it’s fair share to construct the wall. The mitigation measure states Costco shall pay a fair share, while the Administrative Action states Costco shall construct the wall. Because the participation of parties over which Costco has not control may be required, and because its impact is only cumulative, Costco’s obligation should be limited to paying its fair share of the cost of constructing this mitigation measure. Mitigation measures imposed on the Project must be proportional to the impacts of the Project. VIII- 16 HM/mm-1 xSubparagraph 2 – Delete. Please refer to comments on page 4 of this letter to DEIR page V-124. VIII- 17 PS/mm-3 xDelete request for store discounts as this is impractical to administer. VIII- 17 VR/mm-1 xThis mitigation measure applies to the front parcels, which are not owned by Costco Wholesale. It should be made clear that this condition relates to the future development of property owned by Alex Madonna and is not a condition of the development or operation of the Costco Wholesale Project. VIII- 18 VR/mm-2 xThis mitigation measure applies to the front parcels, which are not owned by Costco Wholesale. It should be made clear that this condition relates to the future development of property owned by Alex Madonna and is not a condition of the development or operation of the Costco Wholesale Project. VIII- 18 VR/mm-4 xThis should be the determination of the ARC. VIII- 19 VR/mm-5 xThis measure appears to be inconsistent with AQ/mm-10, which requires that shade tress be planted along the southern exposure of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs. Also, the timing for complying with mitigation measure should be adjusted. Installation should be timed to an occupancy permit. xProvide flexibility as to location and type of art used. VIII- 20 VR/mm-8 xThe landscape plan is being prepared for a “detention” basin, not a “retention” basin. xThis mitigation measure suggests the purpose of the basin is to contain runoff from the project site. The basin serves a different function in the drainage proposal. The basin will detain runoff from the Irish Hills that currently flows across the project site, thereby freeing up capacity in the existing system to accept the increased runoff generated by the impervious surfaces on the project site. Accordingly, there is no need for a bioswale to act as a filter for the natural runoff from the Irish Hills. VIII- VR/mm-10 xThis should simply reference that the lightingplan comply with adopted City 8.44 8.43 8.42 8.48 8.47 8.46 8.45 8.50 8.49 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 25 20 standards. VIII- 21 VR/mm-11 xThis measure should stipulate that it must be implemented by Alex Madonna as Costco Wholesale does not control Parcel 5. Response/Comments to Letter from CalTrans dated April 29, 2003 xWe do not believe that it is appropriate to include a mitigation measure requiring Costco Wholesale to lengthen the southbound on-ramp to State Route 101 at LOVR. This appears to be a pre-existing design deficiency that Costco Wholesale should not be responsible for fixing. Response/Comments to Letter from the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department dated May 1, 2003 General Comment #5 xThis comment suggest that a roundabout be considered “at the terminus of Froom Ranch Way in order to avoid problematic traffic control…” However, not data is included in the DEIR to support the need for a roundabout. A roundabout is generally constructed in lieu of a traffic signal, when stop signs can no longer satisfy the operational needs of an intersection. If the city believes that traffic volumes at the on-site intersection will exceed the capacity of a stop-controlled intersection, the DEIR should include operational analysis to justify the expense and impact of a roundabout. Constructing a roundabout at this location will require approximately 110 feet in diameter (or larger) to accommodate heavy trucks making deliveries to Costco and the Home Depot. This large size may have a significant impact on the parking fields, building locations, swales, and circulation roadways. Additionally, the size of area needed for the roundabout may impact the adjoining parcels to the southeast (Home Depot), which are not parties to this EIR review. xThere needs to be a determination if Costco should receive credit against the TIF fees for excessive contributions it may have to make for Calle Joaquin and the 101 ramps. Should you require any additional information regarding this matter, please contact me at 425.463.1378. Thank you. Sincerely, MULVANNYG2 ARCHITECTURE Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP Sr. Project Manager Enclosures JSW/JSW c: Costco Wholesale: Todd Bartok 8.51 8.52 8.53 8.54 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 26 8.RESPONSE TO MULVANNY G2 LETTER, DATED 5/7/03 8.1. Response References have been change throughout the FEIR as follows: Costco Wholesale store Warehouse 8.2. Response Mitigations and Summary table have been reviewed and inconsistencies corrected. 8.3. Response The FEIR has been amended as follows: The project will include a 142,000 140,000 square foot Costco… 8.4. Response Refer to Responses 8.1 and 8.3. 8.5 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Costco Wholesale Northwest Atlantic Partners Mr. Todd Bartok Mr. Todd Bartok C/o Northwest Atlantic Partners 17300 Red Hill Ave. Ste. 300 Irvine, Ca 92614 8.6 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: The 45-day public review period for the DEIR ended will end on May 5 7, 2003. 8.7. Response The size of the store had been amended. The Summary description has been revised in the FEIR as follows: The project applicant is proposing to construct a 140,115000 square-foot Costco Wholesale store Warehouse including tire sales, tire installation, outdoor food service, and a fuel station. 8.8. Response The requested additions have been incorporated into the FEIR as follows: The particular site was chosen by the applicant for several reasons including consistency with the City’s General Plan zoning, sufficient area to accommodate Costco’s use and allow for ample parking, proximity to Home Depot (making the area a “power center”), access to transportation infrastructure, ease of visibility while remaining small in scale when compared to the backdrop of the Irish Hills, and a central location within the trade area. 8.9 Response Refer to Response 1.b.1. The FEIR has been amended as follows: The 140, 115000 square foot building is proposed to be located in the southwestern corner of the project site facing Los Osos Valley Road with the main entrance located at the northeastern corner of the building. This The warehouse square footage estimate includes the an approximate 5,200 square foot tire center facility, and an approximate 1,055 square foot outdoor food service facility. 8.10 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: McClellan Hunter MulvannyG2 Architecture Ken McKently Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICP 120 West Bellevue 1110 112th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Pasadena, CA 91105 Bellevue, WA 98004 8.11. Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Costco has filed an application for the development of a 140,115 140,000 square-foot Costco Wholesale store Warehouse including an approximate 5,200 square foot tire sales and tire installation facility, an approximate 1,055 square foot outdoor food service facility, and a fuel station… Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 27 8.12 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: This particular store warehouse as proposed will include a tire center, and a freestanding fueling station for Costco member use only, and may also provide an outdoor food service court. 8.13 Response Refer to Response 8.7 regarding building size. Refer to Response 1.b.1 regarding directional references. The food court discussion in the FEIR has been revised as follows: An outdoor food court and outdoor seating area are proposed next to the main entrance on the northeast side of the building. The proposed building floor area is summarized in Table III-1 below. 8.14 Response Table III-1 has been revised in the FEIR as follows: TABLE III-1 Costco Building Data Building Area (square feet) Main Building Floor Area 134,915 133,742 Tire Center 5,200 Food Service 1,055 Total Building Warehouse Floor Area Not to Exceed 140,115 140,000 *Building size exceeds City building cap size by 115 square feet 8.15 Response Refer to Response 1.b.1. 8.16 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Surface water currently flowing from the Irish Hills open space onto the property will be contained and channelized at the southwestern property line, as shown in Figure III-6b. From this location it will flow either to a proposed detention pond located west to be constructed southwest of the Costco site. that has been developed for Home Depot or in a channel behind Home Depot to a detention pond located in front of the Froom Ranch if these two uses exceed the capacity of the pond. 8.17 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: The existing proposed detention pond is located to be constructed immediately adjacent to the southwestern property line of the Costco parcel (APN: 053-510-012). The detention basin has a capacity to contain approximately three acre-feet of runoff from the immediate vicinityoff-site. 8.18 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: The proposed project will increase runoff from the site due to the increase in impervious surfaces associated with the building footprint and paved parking area. Surface water will be directed through storm sewers to a central drainage easement under the main access drive between the parcels and then into a storm drain channel along LOVR. The proposed detention basin will reduce the combined existing off-site and proposed developed runoff from an existing 50-year runoff to a 2-year runoff. 8.19 Response Refer to Response 1.b.12. 8.20 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: The proposed project will may utilize retaining walls along the northwestern and southwestern property line in an effort to stabilize the grading and site development work (See Figure III-6a and b, Grading Plan). Alternatively, the project may utilize a minimum 2:1 slope setback from the property line to accommodate changes in grade for the property adjoining the residential developments to the northwest. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 28 8.21 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: It would occupy an area of approximately 37,800 square feet (180 feet x 210 feet), and would include three 10,00020,000-gallon capacity underground storage tanks (USTs) to store gasoline. 8.22 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: The station will contain three 10,00020,000- gallon capacity USTs situated side by side. 8.23 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Pursuant to State law, all MTBE is to be phased out at the end of 2003, which would be prior to construction of the project. Due to the project location and proximity to underlying groundwater aquifer, the mitigation as stated in the DEIR would be required to ensure no impacts to the water source occur with operation of the fueling facility. No further revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 8.24 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: Although potentially feasible, the 140,000 square-foot size limitation on the warehouse is at the low end of operational effectiveness for Costco Wholesale. Requiring additional portions of the limited floor area for vacant store fronts would severely inhibit the ability of the project to meet its operational objectives. 8.25 Response The Mitigation Monitoring Plan in the FEIR has been revised to clearly define responsibility for mitigation. 8.26 Response Comment noted. The applicant’s “fair share” of a fee for cumulative drainage would be determined by the City Public Works Department at the time grading and improvement plans are submitted, and would be set by the City Council at the time the final map is approved. Refer to Response 4.2. 8.27 Response Reference to a retention basin has been amended to a detention basin throughout the FEIR. Due to the ineffectiveness of a bioswale at the detention basin, this mitigation has been revised as stated in Response 1.c.1 8.28 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: BR/mm-4:At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall provide for raptor perches; within the vicinity of the bioswale(three in the secondary mitigation replacement area) and design and install at least two nesting boxes for owls on, or in the vicinity of the Costco building such as along the rear property line bordering the Irish Hills open space area. 8.29 Response Numerical assumptions in the traffic study have been clarified in the FEIR. Refer to Response 9.1. Cost allocations were not included in the scope for the project and are not normally covered under CEQA, which looks at the feasibility of a project, not the economics of implementation. Fair share allocations would be determined by the City at the time of project approval. Refer to Response 4.2. Nexus and land acquisition issues have been addressed in response to specific comments below. 8.30 Response The cost of the signal would be established by the City if the mitigation were to be implemented. The traffic analysis indicates that the Auto Park Way approach to LOVR will operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour commute considering background and Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 29 Costco traffic. The intersection will be monitored by the City for possible signalization after the Costco opens. If it is determined that a signal is warranted, the City will install the signal using TIF funds. Additional funds or mitigation by the project will not be required. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 8.31 Response The project significantly impacts the operation of the U.S. 101/LOVR interchange based on the findings of the traffic study prepared for the project. TR/mm-2a and TR/mm-2b require the project applicant to construct improvements at the U.S. 101/LOVR to mitigate the project’s impact to the interchange. The improvements involve the realignment of Calle Joaquin South to Calle Joaquin North and lengthening the southbound U.S. 101 off-ramp at LOVR. Construction of the ultimate interchange is not required. Conceptual plans for the improvements have not been prepared and would be required to develop cost estimates for the improvements. As project mitigation, the project applicant would be responsible for constructing the improvements. The City has indicated that a reimbursement agreement will be established with the project applicant and the applicant will be partially reimbursed for the costs of the project from other new development that benefit from the improvements. Other projects that would benefit from this project include the two hotels and church proposed for development on Calle Joaquin-South and new development on the Froom Ranch parcels. Typically, improvements are constructed by a contractor contracted by the project applicant with the design and construction supervised by Caltrans. 8.32 Response The project will induce pedestrian trips to the site. These trips will be primarily generated from the residential areas near the project site, including the residential community served by Garcia Drive. Completing the sidewalk on the northeast side of LOVR between the frontage road serving the residential area to the northwest of the site to the LOVR/Froom Ranch Way intersection is required upon occupancy of the project to provide pedestrian and bicyclists with a connection to the project site. The sidewalk will also benefit other future projects in the area (front parcels and “Gap” properties). Therefore, establishment of a reimbursement agreement with the future other projects would be appropriate. Refer to Response 4.9. 8.33 Response Costco would be responsible for construction improvements and the City would establish a reimbursement agreement at the time of project approval with future projects. Acquisition of privately-owned front parcel land would be required and the City would assist the applicant in this ROW acquisition. Refer to Response 4.10. 8.34 Response Refer to Response 4.11. TR/mm-5 is a City required mitigation measure, not related to improvements required by Caltrans. Garcia Drive extensions would require acquisition of property from San Luis Coastal Unified School District and potentially a portion of adjacent privately-owned land. The City would assist the applicant in obtaining required ROW acquisitions. 8.35 Response This mitigation measure does not involve widening of Froom Ranch Way, and requires the applicant to alter the arrow directions on the existing road. Refer to Response 4.12. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 30 8.36 Response As stated in the EIR, this measure applies to the front parcels, not Costco Wholesale. This mitigation measure is not tied to the development of the Costco. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 8.37 Response Refer to Response 4.2 regarding fair share estimates and 4.13 regarding Costco’s cumulative impact mitigation requirement. 8.38 Response Refer to Response 9.3 and Response 9.5. 8.39 Response This measure has been removed from the FEIR. Refer to Response 4.18. 8.40 Response The FEIR has been revised to require “low-energy” lighting. Refer to Response 7.5. 8.41 Response Refer to Response 7.6 which states that the applicant shall coordinate with APCD as to which of the proposed mitigations are to be implemented. Note that the electric vehicle charging station requirement has been removed and the Employee Trip Reduction Program is required to “attempt” the stated goals. 8.42 Response Refer to Response 1.e.5 and Response 4.20. 8.43 Response Comment noted. Refer to Response 8.23. 8.44 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows. PS/mm-3 Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall provide employees with City bus information and implement incentives for car-pooling and use of public transportation. Bus Route and bicycle transportation information shall be posted outside the store in a convenient location so as to encourage customer’s use of alternate transportation. A store discount or other incentive acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo shall be provided for at least the first month of business to customers who utilize non-vehicular or public transportation. 8.45 Response The referenced mitigation has been clarified in the FEIR to ensure responsibility to the front parcel applicants, as shown below. VR/mm – 1 Prior to issuance of permits for front parcels, the City shall consider rezoning the property with an “S” overlay. This Special Consideration zone will ensure the incorporation of the following design features that will reduce visual impacts: The front parcel grading plan shall include a continuous earthen berm along the entire perimeter of front parcels facing Los Osos Valley Road and along the northern edge of the main driveway to the point where the driveway opens to the Costco parking lot. The berm shall be a minimum of five feet tall with maximum side slopes of 2:1 (H:V). The berm shall be designed to appear as a naturally occurring landform and shall include subtle horizontal and vertical undulation. Breaks may occur in the berm to accommodate pedestrian flow to public roadways, however the breaks shall be designed to minimize visual access to the parking lot from Los Osos Valley Road. 8.46 Response The referenced mitigation has been clarified in the FEIR to ensure responsibility to the front parcel applicants, as shown below. VR/mm – 2 Prior to issuance of permits for front parcels, the front parcel applicants shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval, incorporating the following design guidelines. The landscape plan shall include a continuous planting screen on and adjacent to the berm along the front two parcels facing Los Osos Valley Road and along the northern edge of the main driveway to the point where the driveway opens to the Costco parking Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report 31 lot. The planting shall complement the naturally appearing form of the berm and not look like a formal, manicured landscape. The design shall avoid a linear planting along the "ridge" of the berm. 8.47 Response Refer to Section V.J.7, paragraph 3 that discusses the visual impact of highly reflective and contrasting building materials. The ARC would determine final design. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 8.48 Response Mitigation stated in AQ/mm-10 are to be applied where applicable, and according to the landscape plan, the trees are be planted in clusters, which would allow for placement of artwork along this southeastern façade of the building. The location was determined due to the non-articulated design of this façade. Refer to Response 1.a.2 for wording of VR/mm-5 in the FEIR. 8.49 Response The FEIR has been revised as follows: VR/mm – 8 Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval. The landscape plan shall include a natural-appearing planting along the north, south and east perimeter of the rdetention basin which at maturity will completely screen the engineered landform and any required pumps, gates or other equipment associated with the basin from the view of the DeVaul Ranch and the vicinity of the proposed gas station. The basin shall be constructed as a vegetated bioswale designed to filter runoff from the project site before entering the watershed and to visually screen the rdetention basin, consistent with mitigation measure BR/mm-3. If fencing is required, uncoated galvanized chain link shall not be used. No barbed or razor fencing shall be used. 8.50 Response Comment noted, due to the large scale of the development and close proximity to residential development, the project shall include the minimum required lighting. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 8.51 Response The City would be responsible for placing the parcel into a conservation easement, so Costco could vegetate the parcel to mitigate project impacts. The FEIR has been revised as follows: VR/mm-11 At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall request that the City shall condition the property owner to place Parcel 5 into a conservation easement, so and require the applicant can to vegetate the parcel with native tree plantings designed to create a buffer between the development and the open space area. 8.52 Response Refer to Response 4.8 and Response 6.1 8.53 Response Refer to Response 4.5. 8.54 Response Refer to Response 4.13. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-59 M e m o r a n d u m To: Todd Bartok Development Services Manager Costco Wholesale c/o Northwest Atlantic Partners 17300 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 230 Irvine, CA 62614 CC: Jeff Wilson – MulvannyG2 From: Jim West Re: Comments Regarding Costco/Froom Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report Date: 2 May 2003 At your request, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has complete a review of the Costco/Froom Ranch DEIR, March 2003. Our review focused on fundamental assumptions, calculations, and conclusions of the traffic and circulation section of the DEIR. Below is a summary of our review. Background Trip Generation (p.V-53, 54) Background traffic generated by approved development projects (but that are not completed or occupied) were included as part of the background traffic in the DEIR. Twenty projects were considered in the background evaluation. Twelve of the projects are located on the east side of town and are more than two miles from the project site. Although it is likely that trips from these far away residential developments will pass through the study intersections, it is questionable whether some of the small commercial and retail projects will have any impact on the study intersections. The DEIR does not provide specific trip generation and traffic assignment breakdowns for these development projects to confirm the individual effect of trips at the study intersections. It is our understanding from the traffic consultant that these project trips were hand distributed rather than using the City’s travel forecasting model. Hand allocation methods are a common and acceptable procedure if the distribution generally follows the same distribution determined from a travel forecast model. The impact of assuming that far away developments will all generate project trips through the study intersections, will affect the level of service (LOS) results of the DEIR analysis scenarios. LOS impacts could be overestimated with and without the Costco project, thus resulting in poorer reported levels of traffic operations. It is requested that the DEIR provide additional detail on these approved development projects and that the distribution be shown to be in harmony with the City’s travel forecasting model. If the hand distribution varies from the City’s travel forecasting model, the hand allocation should be corrected. Background Pass-by Reduction (p.V-53, 54) Several of the approved development projects are commercial/retail related. Although these developments will create a specific number of vehicle trips, many of the trips will already be on the road and will stop as they pass by the development sites. Thus, a portion of the trips are attracted to the developments as they pass from their origin to their ultimate destination. These are not new vehicle trips but are considered to be pass-by trips. The DEIR reports trips generated by the 20 approved developments as if all the trips are new vehicle trips but does not discuss whether trips were reduced for pass-by vehicles. Reasonable pass-by reductions should be assumed for From the desk of... Jim West Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 260 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Ph. 925-463-5640 Fax 925-463-5641 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 9.1 9.2 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-60 the commercial and retail uses. Appropriate pass-by reductions are contained in the City’s Traffic Impact Study Preparation Guidelines or from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook. The DEIR does not contain sufficient documentation to determine which uses would likely qualify for a pass-by trip reduction. However, Table V-7 lists several land uses that we believe should have pass-by trips. They include: #2 – Froom Ranch, Home Improvement Superstore (Home Depot) #10a – Trader Joes, Grocery #10b – Trader Joes, Restaurant #24 – Canon 2, gas/market/carwash Other land uses may also have pass-by trips. Failure to account for pass-by trips can overestimate the total number of vehicle trips on the street network, including on Los Osos Valley Road. It is requested that the DEIR provide additional detail to demonstrate that pass-by trip reductions were appropriately applied to each of the background development projects. If pass-by trips were not included, the trip generation and levels of service calculations at study intersections should be updated. Project Trip Generation (Table V-10) Project trip generation in the DEIR reports that the Costco will generate 870 PM peak and 1,349 Saturday peak trips for the combined discount club store and gas station. This equates to a trip generation rate of 6.2 PM trips and 9.6 Saturday trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The City’s Traffic Impact Study Preparation Guidelines do not have a specific rate for discount club stores; however, ITE Trip Generation has an average weekday PM peak rate of 3.80 trips and an average Saturday peak rate of 6.46 trips per 1000 square feet. Gas stations have an average weekday PM peak rate of 14.56 trips but no Saturday peak rate is available from ITE. However, it is likely that Saturday is similar to a weekday PM peak hour of generator which is 16.18 trips per fueling position. Using the City and ITE rates for a 140,000 square foot discount club store and a gas station with 12 vehicle fueling positions, the number of trips is calculated as follows: xDiscount Club Weekday PM - 140,000 x 3.80 = 532 trips Gas Station Weekday PM - 12 x 14.56 = 175 trips 707 trips xDiscount Club Saturday Peak - 140,000 x 3.80 = 904 trips Gas Station Saturday Peak - 12 x 16.18 = 194 trips 1098 trips The DIER notes that the assumed trip generation was based on a single study of a combined Costco/gas station in Idaho, which may or may not be representative of the trip generation for the proposed Costco in San Luis Obispo. Standard industry practice, when deviating from published ITE rates, is to calculate trip generation based on 3-5 studies from similar facilities, rather than a single study. Having multiple studies helps confirm the validity of using a trip rate different than from ITE sources. On the other hand, ITE trip rates are generally based on numerous studies and should be followed unless other studies can be shown to provide more accurate rates. If the ITE average rates for a discount Club store and gas station are assumed, the trips generated by the Costco drops by more than 163 PM and 251 Saturday peak trips. Using miscalculated trips generated by the Costco can significantly affect the level of service (LOS) results for the DEIR scenarios. LOS impacts would be overestimated with the Costco project, thus resulting in poorer reported levels of traffic operations. 9.3 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-61 It is recommended that the DEIR use published ITE rates in the calculation of the project generated trips or provide additional independent studies to verify the appropriateness of using a much higher rate. Project Pass-by Reduction (p. V-60) The DEIR notes that a 30% weekday pass-by reduction was assumed for the Costco but it does not discuss how, or if, a pass-by reduction was assumed for the gas station. According to the City’s Traffic Impact Study Preparation Guidelines, gas stations are assumed to have a 50% weekday PM pass-by rate. Similar reduction would occur on Saturday. If pass-by was ignored, or assumed to be only 30% for the gas station, trips at many of the study intersections would be overestimated. In addition, the DEIR briefly mentions trip generation by the Froom parcels located in front of the Costco and Home Depot sites (p. V-59) but makes no mention of a pass-by trip reduction. If pass-by was ignored for these parcels, trips at many of the study intersections would be overestimated. The DEIR should provide documentation that appropriate pass-by trip reductions were applied to the project’s gas station trip generation and the two Froom parcels. If pass-by was not appropriately included, the vehicle trips should be corrected in the DEIR and LOS results should be updated. Mitigation Conclusions Level of service results, impacts, and mitigation recommendations in the DEIR were based off the assumed trips generated by the approved development projects, the Froom parcels, and the proposed Costco. Because the trip generation appears to be overestimated and the DEIR may not have fully accounted for pass-by trips, the results and conclusions of the DEIR appear to be in error and overestimate the project impacts. It is recommended that corrected trip generation and pass-by reductions be implemented into the analyses, and the impacts and mitigation be updated. Minor DEIR Questions xWhy does the DIER assume the Costco to be 142,000 square feet when the City’s “Big Box” ordinance limits building size to 140,000? (p. 1-1) xWhy did Table V-7 list AM peak trip generation when the analysis was PM peak? No similar list of PM trips was found in the DEIR? xShould the last item in the table of distribution patterns (p. V-61) be “To/From the South via Calle Joaquin”, rather than “To/From South via Madonna Road”? 9.4 9.5 9.7 9.8 9.6 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-62 9.RESPONSE TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES LETTER, DATED 5/2/03 9.1 Response The FEIR has been revised to include an Exhibit D, in Appendix G, (shown below) which shows the percentage of trips from the approved projects that were assigned to LOVR between Madonna Road and U.S. 101 and also the percentage of trips assigned to U.S. 101 via the LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange. For the most part, trips generated by approved projects located on the SR 227 corridor were not assigned to LOVR west of U.S. 101. Some of these trips were assigned to U.S. 101 via the LOVR interchange. Trips generated by projects on the SR 227 corridor were not over-assigned to the LOVR corridor. 9.2 Response Refer to Response 9.1 The total trip generation for commercial projects was reduced by 30% except #24- Cannon 2, gas/market/carwash, which was reduced 50%. 9.3 Response Comment noted. The Costco trip generation rates used for this study are based on a Costco with Service Station trip generation rates published in a study for a proposed new Costco store located in Ada County, Idaho, not based on a trip generation of a single store. The rates in that study are based on surveys of more that one Costco store. While the staff report for the Ada County project does not indicate the sample size for the trip generation findings, the staff report states: “Generally, trip generation for projects is estimated using data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation Manual. However, Costco Wholesale has collected significant data specific to their stores and supplied this proprietary information for use in determining the expected trip generation for the new 166,450 square foot store (including Garden Center). The stated trip generation rates are as follows for the Costco with Gas Station:…” The trip generation rates for this study were provided by Costco and are based on trip generation experienced at existing Costco stores and are believed to provide the most reasonable estimate of trip generation for the proposed project. If it is believed that the trip generation rates are too high, trip generation surveys at multiple Costco stores can be conducted to validate the trip generation rates and, if necessary, the analysis can be revised. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 9.4 Response The trip generation for the Costco store and the development on the Froom parcels were adjusted to account for pass-by trips. Exhibit C of Appendix G of the DEIR contains a detailed trip generation calculation worksheet for the Costco store and the Froom parcels. The net new trips at the bottom of the table are the trips that were assigned to the local road network. A 30% pass-by trip capture rate was used for the Costco store for the weekday PM peak hour and a 20% pass-by trip capture rate was for Saturday. The same trip capture rate was applied to the Costco store trips and the Costco service station trips. The trip capture rates used for this study are reasonable to use given the characteristics of the site. A lower pass-by trip capture for the service station was utilized to reflect a greater percentage of primary trips to the station than with other service stations. The service station is only available to Costco members and, therefore, the customer potential does not include the entirety of the motoring public. In addition, the experience with other existing Costco service stations is that gas prices are discounted from other prevailing sales prices in the area. This suggests at least the potential for Costco members to make a primary or at least a “diverted link” trip to the Costco store to purchase gasoline. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Co s t c o / F r o o m R a n c h Re s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t s FI N A L E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t R e p o r t X- 6 3 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-64 9.5 Response As explained in Response 9.1 and Response 9.3, appropriate pass-by trip reduction rates were used for the approved projects as well as the other projects modeled in the analysis. Trip generation rates based on Costco’s trip generation studies were used. The analysis documented in the DEIR provides a reasonable worst-case analysis of traffic related impacts associated with the development of the proposed project. 9.6 Response The project description was written based on information provided to the City by the applicant. The FEIR has been revised as shown in Response 8.3. 9.7 Response The AM peak hour was not analyzed. The peak hour trips shown in the DEIR on Table V-7 under the heading “AM” are AM peak hour trips generated by the approved projects. The corrected Table V-7 with the PM peak hour volumes is shown below and is included in the FEIR. The PM peak hour analysis is based on the PM peak hour volumes shown below. Table V-7 Background Condition Trip Generation Number of Trips AMWeekday (PM)SAT Project*Land Use AM Peak hour Daily Peak hour Daily 2. Froom Ranch Home Impr. Superstore 192373 4,557 702 5,937 5-6. DeVaul Ranch Sin. Fam./Dplx./Apt. 263340 3378 293 3162 10. Wayrick Office Commercial/Office 7572 486 20 105 10a. Trader Joes-G Grocery 65231 2,230 245 3,552 10a. Trader Joes-R Restaurant 1416 196 30 238 11. T.K Infill Service Commercial 62227 2,514 319 3,435 12. Tract 1750 Residential 4155 517 51 545 13. Goldenrod Residential 3445 431 42 454 14. Fuller Rd. Subdivision Residential 2027 258 25 272 15. Quaglino Mixed 1 Residential-Apts. 810 106 7 80 15. Quaglino Mixed 2 Commercial 52189 2,095 266 2,863 18. Autozone Retail Auto Parts 1130 310 42 433 19. Stickler Project Retail Commercial 39142 1,572 199 2,147 21. Rockview/Broad St. Residential 1115 144 14 151 23. City Sports Field Complex Sports Fields 20160 400 232 580 24. Cannon 1 Office 162155 1,145 43 249 24. Cannon 2 Gas/market/carwash 128158 1,834 222 2,568 25. 4101 Broad St. Service Commercial 139541 5,854 750 7,828 26. Aerovista Drive Industrial 3032 229 5 43 29. Aerovista Dr./Broad St. Commercial/Industrial 161172 1,220 25 231 *-# Correlates with Exhibit B, Appendix G TOTAL 15272992 29,473 3,529 34,873 Source: City of San Luis Obispo/Higgins Associates 9.8 Response Comment noted. A small percentage of project trips were assigned to Madonna Road south of LOVR, Garcia Drive, and Auto Park Way. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-65 10.1 10.2 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-66 10.3 10.5 10.4 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-67 10. RESPONSE TO FRANCISCAN DEVELOPMENTS LETTER, DATED 2/24/03 10.1 Response The location of the building was chosen in order to break up the scale of existing commercial development (Home Depot) and to accommodate the fueling station proposed as part of the project. If the building was located to the side of the lot adjacent to Home Depot, the fueling station would be adjacent to the homes, instead of a façade of the building, employee parking, and customer parking, as shown on Figure III-7. Due to the difference in elevation of the Costco parcel and the residential parcels, only the rooftop of the building would be visible from the second floor windows of adjacent property owners. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 10.2. Response Refer to Response 1.g.3. 10.3 Response Refer to Response 1.c.2 10.4 Response Refer to Figure III-6a, Section A-A and D-D showing the Costco building located 68.6 feet from the adjacent residential development. Refer to Figure III-13b. showing large trees in association with the retaining wall. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 10.5 Response Refer to Response 1.b.11 regarding visibility of rooftop equipment. The FEIR has been revised as follows regarding noise of rooftop equipment: Impacts to the adjacent DeVaul residential development could also occur due to noise from rooftop equipment. N-Impact-2 Rooftop equipment could cause disturbance to the DeVaul residents located adjacent to the proposed project. After mitigation, this impact would be considered Class II, (significant but mitigable). N/mm-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, project plans shall show noise baffles installed surrounding the rooftop equipment. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-68 11.1 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-69 11.2 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-70 11. RESPONSE TO CHUMASH CULTURAL RESOURCES LETTER, DATED 4/19/03 11.1 Response Comment noted. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 11.2 Response As stated in the Cultural Resources section of the EIR, an archeological surface survey was conducted on the project site, revealing no evidence of culturally significant materials or significant natural resources. Existing mitigation requiring presence of an archaeological monitor during initial vegetation removal has been amended in the FEIR as follows: CR/mm-2 During initial vegetation removal, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be onsite to inspect the disturbed area for prehistoric and historic artifacts. A Local Native American Monitor shall be invited to participate in the on-site inspection. If artifacts are found, CR/mm-1 shall apply. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-71 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-72 12.1 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-73 12.2 12.3 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-74 12.4 12.6 12.5 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-75 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10 12.11 12.12 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-76 12.14 12.13 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-77 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-78 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-79 12. RESPONSE TO DONALD E. VERMEER, LETTER DATED 4/17/03 *Responses prepared by John Larson, URS Corp. 12.1 Response Comment noted. The City of San Luis Obispo has updated its drainage plans a number of times during the last few decades. The referenced Questa Engineering report is the most recent effort in this regard. The report was prepared by Questa Engineering, and is undergoing review by the City staff, County staff, and other consultants retained by the City. The Questa report was used in the EIR to highlight the cumulative drainage issues and the interactions between the drainages that contribute to these cumulative effects. The Questa report is not used, and will not be used, in any “firm, final decisions” regarding the adequacy of drainage improvements within the Costco/Froom Ranch development. These decisions will be made by the City Public Works Department during their review of the final plans for this project, and will be based on conformance with the City’s adopted design standards. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary 12.2 Response Refer to Response 12.4. 12.3 Response Comment noted. Appendix C includes a brief explanation and references for how the modeling used by Questa Engineering was developed. The fundamental model is from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and is known as the HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS model. Design storms used in the model are theoretical events with a 24-hour duration, having their peak intensity on the twelfth hour. The design storm rainfall intensities were developed from NOAA data for storms with 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year recurrence intervals. Depending on the recurrence interval chosen, these rainfall intensities are less than, similar to, or much greater than rainfall intensities measured for typical storms in the area. Resulting flows are computed from the rainfall intensities and from the watershed characteristics, including the shape of flow routes and infiltration rates. The infiltration rates are modeled using the SCS Curve Number methodology, and land use patterns based on current and planned future land uses. The calculation procedures do not rely on stream gauge data from the field, and do not rely on mean rainfall data. It is recognized that rainfall intensities vary throughout the watershed, which is why the modeling procedures include storms with large recurrence intervals and other conservative assumptions. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 12.4 Response Comment noted. Flow rates presented in the tables (Table V-1 in the EIR and Table 3 in Appendix C) were rounded to the nearest 0.1 cubic meter/second. The percentage change results were computed from the unrounded flow rates. There are no unspecified elements, troubling results, or errors in the data or calculations. As explained in Response 12.3., above, data used in the modeling is derived from several sources. Stream gauge data and highly localized rainfall data are typically not used in applying regional hydrological models. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary 12.5 Response Comment noted. The Questa Engineering report is being reviewed by the City Public Works Department, the County Flood Control District, Zone 9, and by consultants retained by the City. An EIR has been prepared as part of that review. While important in the overall planning of the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, this report is not necessary for the Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-80 review of individual projects by the City Public Works Department in accordance with current City standards. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 12.6 Response Comment noted. The purpose of the referenced detention basins, and of the detention basin proposed within the Costco/Froom Ranch project, is to reduce peak flows from the properties to insure that they do not exceed the peak flows from the undeveloped conditions. City and County review of the past projects (De Vaul Ranch and Home Depot) have concluded that the detention basins are consistent with applicable engineering design standards. City review of the grading and improvement plans for the Costco/Froom Ranch development will provide the same assurance. It is recognized that no engineering standard can provide a 100% guarantee against flooding under all circumstances. The City, County, state, and federal governments, however, generally accept standards that protect homes and permanent structures from flooding by 100-year design storms. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 12.7 Response Comment noted. While the engineering models and procedures used in designing stormwater conveyance systems can always be improved with more empirical data, the absence of data at a given location does not invalidate the models and procedures. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 12.8 Response Comment noted. Observations #2, #3, and #4 all deal with the adequacy or inadequacy of current flood control and water conveyance structures downstream from the Costco/Froom Ranch project site. The cumulative nature of the runoff impacts in these areas is clear in the EIR. Observation #11 deals more directly with the runoff from the project site itself. The EIR recognizes the potential impact of increased peak flows from the project, and identifies the appropriate mitigation measure to avoid or minimize that impact (construct the proposed detention basin). No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 12.9 Response Comment noted. As explained above in Response 12.4, the alleged “errors of computation” in the percentage of peak runoff increase are due to rounding in the presentation of the peak runoff values. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 12.10 Response Refer to Response 12.4. 12.11 Response Precipitation values used were those associated with theoretical storms having recurrence intervals ranging from 2 to 100 years. The precise rainfall intensity values were not provided in Appendix C. The rainfall intensities from the more frequent storms are likely equal to or lower than many storms reported by Mr. Vermeer. The rainfall intensities for the 50 and 100-year storms are likely much higher than typically reported storms. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 12.12 Response The original Home Depot design under the County jurisdiction included a joint detention basin that would accommodate the needs of both the Home Depot and the Costco/Froom Ranch properties. As the processing of the projects became more separated, the drainage design was modified to rely on two separate detention basins. The statement in the EIR was intended as a qualitative evaluation since the general capacity of the two separate basins appears at least as great as the original single basin. The final evaluation of the adequacy of the Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-81 design, however, is up to the City Public Works Department when they review final grading and improvement plans, with supporting engineering calculations, for the project. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 12.13 Response Refer to Response 12.3. 12.14 Response Comment noted. Item # 10 deals with the peak flow in the downstream portion of Prefumo Creek. The “low magnitude of increase” is not related to using low precipitation values. In fact, the sentences immediately following the referenced sentence from Appendix C read as follows: The reason the increase is relatively low is primarily because the watershed above Laguna Lake contributes so much of the flow in Prefumo Creek, [having already explained Laguna Lake's function as a large detention basin] and secondarily because the soils in the watershed are clayey. They have high runoff rates when fully saturated, such as during a 10-year or larger storm, and conversion to urban land use does not result in especially large increases in runoff rates. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-82 13.1 13.2 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-83 13. RESPONSE TO KENT M. TAYLOR LETTER, DATED 5/2/03 13.1 Response Economic studies conducted by the University of California at Santa Barbara and economic leakage studies have shown that the City of San Luis Obispo loses revenue and jobs to adjacent cities due to the lack of commercial facilities provided by the project. If a cost-benefit study were to be done, it would show an economic benefit to the community by retention of job and revenue funds within the City. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 13.2 Response Costco as an empty facility would not generate traffic. The operating Costco would impact traffic operations, and can mitigate the impacts as specified in the EIR. A summary of impacts and associated mitigation, responsibility, and timing was included on the final pages of the Traffic section, page V-91 of the DEIR and page V-84 of the FEIR. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-84 From: Ron Whisenand [RWHISENA@slocity.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 8:11 AM To: Phil Dunsmore; Tim Bochum Subject: Fwd: Costco Draft EIR >>> Dan CA <danren95@yahoo.com> 04/28/03 08:52PM >>> Hello I have been reviewing the draft EIR for the proposed Costco development, and I have a number of concerns regarding the traffic element of the plan. My largest complaint is that the impacts have been rated significant but mitigable ... when quite clearly they are NOT fully mitigable. In fact the author states that the LOVR interchange redesign is needed to fully mitigate the situation, but this won't happen for 10 years. There are many other similar statements in the report I disagree with, such as assuming because in intersection already fails, it is OK to add more traffic. Does the person who wrote this report have to drive this road everyday????? On a technical level I also doubt the engineers claims that the proposed mitigation measures (especially the realignment of Calle Joaquin) will have the results they suggest. I would really like to view the SYNCHRO file output that is in Appendix G. Is it possible for me to view this somewhere? The report has errors on turning movement diagrams, and unless I missed them does not contain turning movement diagrams for the mitigated cases? Further, queuing diagrams are essential for this study along with coordinated signal timing plans, and these seem to also be absent. On the whole, the traffic element seems to contain bias toward the developers interests ... not the best interests of the inhabitants of SLO. I hope it is not too late for me to have some input. thanks Dan (a concerned resident) 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 (Dan Reynolds) Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-85 To: Pamela Ricci, AICP Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo From: Dan & Kristen Reynolds 3974 Sunrose Lane San Luis Obispo Subject: Review of the COSTCO Draft EIR Date: May 7, 2003 Executive Summary In general, I oppose this type of "Big Box" development that threatens to impact local businesses, decentralize the downtown core, and pave-over prime open space, all this while increasing traffic congestion, worsening conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, and doing nothing to further the quality of the "SLO Life". But I find this project particularly objectionable due to the poor quality of the Draft EIR, specifically the transportation element. My background includes five years working on transportation impact studies, where I specialized in corridor simulation, signal coordination, and mitigation analysis. The next section discusses why I find fault with this EIR. EIR Issues 1. Land Use Element 1.1 LUE 1.3 Urban Edges Character This section states that "Development just inside the boundary shall provide measures to avoid a stark appearance edge between buildings in the City and adjacent open land". While the Draft EIR says that this project takes steps to meet this goal, I did not see anything specifically addressing this issue. Frankly, if these are the same steps as used for Home Depot then nothing could be starker than a big box stuck in the middle of a field. The artist renditions are very nice, but can the City specify that trees of the same size as in the renditions be planted? All too often tiny saplings are used and it takes 10-20 years for the landscaping to look like the renderings! Also, the artist used a gray color for the asphalt, will this project use a light colored asphalt to help reduce VOC emissions from parked vehicles? 1.2 LUE 1.4 Housing Supply vs. Jobs This section states that development should not increase the gap between housing supply and jobs. This is a very important item, as this project is not in compliance with this standard, which needs to be made more prominent. 2. Transportation Element 2.1 Inconsistencies Page V-50 states: "For this study, overall intersection Level of Service F is the threshold for improvements" Page V-57 states: "Level of Service D is the peak hour design objective for all movements outside of Downtown" also "CalTrans has indicated that Level of Service D is acceptable for the LOVR/101 interchange signals" What is the design standard, LOS F for the intersection or D for all movements? Level of Service F as a threshold for the whole intersection seems like we're cutting the developer a break! Most jurisdictions require LOS D as a minimum acceptable operating condition. 2.2 Missing Information The following cannot be found either in the main body (instead are perhaps inappropriately filed in the Appendix), are missing sufficient detail, or cannot be found at all: xA diagram showing percentage traffic distributions for the COSTCO generated traffic, xA scale diagram showing the location of all the driveways and intersections mentioned in the report for planned and mitigated scenarios, xDiagrams showing 95%tile intersection queue lengths for each scenario within the project area, xDiagrams showing recommended geometry changes, and their relationship to nearby existing road geometry, xAssumptions made for signal timing under coordinated conditions, 14.5 14.6 14.8 14.9 14.10 14.7 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-86 xAssumptions made for pedestrian crossing times at intersections (were pedestrians accounted for in LOS calculations?), xTime space diagrams for coordinated intersections, xSYNCHRO analysis for all of the suggested mitigation measures, and xA review of site circulation and interaction between pedestrians and vehicles. 2.3 Overlooked Impacts xPage V-69 The report states that as Higuera and Vachell " … is an existing deficient condition" no immediate improvement is needed. While the developer should not be responsible for the entire cost of this problem, just adding more traffic to the situation does not seem like a reasonable solution either. In fact, once an intersection begins to fail, so the delays will increase exponentially, so a little more traffic can have a big impact. Perhaps this problem should be dealt with now, and the developer pay their fair share? xP19 of Appendix G - Main Project driveway analysis The right-turn leaving the site has a delay of 207 seconds! Surely this is unacceptable and the intersection timing should be re-balanced to allow for this failure? Otherwise this could lead to huge queues and a breakdown of the internal roadway circulation, which in-turn could cause backups out onto LOVR. xP33 of Appendix G - Calle Joaquin w/mitigation The LOS E for this intersection is unrealistic, as the NB right turn movement operates at LOS F, with 341 seconds of delay! It appears only two seconds of green time was assigned to this movement. This might seem OK on paper, but the City/CalTrans will be bombarded by phone calls from angry citizens if the green time is set that low. Also, this is obviously not enough time for a pedestrian or even a cyclist to cross the street. Please use reasonable signal timings. 2.4 Questionable Mitigation Measures xTR/mm-1 This mitigation suggests a signal for the Auto Park Way and LOVR intersection. While this might a good idea, the EIR does not report on signal spacing issues such as coordination, and queue spillback from adjacent intersections. Was any analysis done to check the suitability of the mitigation measure? xTR/mm-2 This mitigation measure suggests that aligning Calle Joaquin North and South will improve the operation of the interchange area. I find this very hard to believe, as this will result in two very closely spaced intersections, which rarely works well in practice. Further, we are given little evidence to suggest that the minimal separation of these two intersections has been studied: No diagram showing intersection geometry, No queuing impact analysis, and No revised turning movement diagram. Without this information it appears that these intersections have been studied in isolation. A bad idea when spacing is minimal and queues are long (an application like CORSIM or SimTraffic should really be used for this type of analysis). So is this really the correct mitigation measure to use? Is there a suitable mitigation measure? Further, the mitigation chart states that the applicant should pay their fair share, and that these improvements do not need to be in prior to opening. It seems that some definition of fair share should be made by the EIR, and that to avoid severe congestion some sort of improvement must be in before the project opens. xTR/mm-5 Option "a" states that the left hand turn lanes should be lengthened to accommodate the additional queue demand. Will this impact the recently landscaped median that was implemented to help reduce the visual impact of the 6-lane LOVR and Home Depot Project? Option "b" is hard to follow; a diagram would be really useful in trying to determine the mitigation being recommended. This diagram should show how turning pockets would be integrated into the median, how their location relates to near-by intersections, and also the expected distribution of project traffic under this 14.11 14.12 14.13 14.14 14.15 14.16 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-87 scenario. Further, I could not find SYNCHRO analysis of this alternative in the Appendix, and I would be interested to see how this was analyzed. xTR/mm-8 Three hundred foot left turn lanes are recommended for LOVR into the main project entrance. I would like to see a diagram showing how these lanes will impact the center median, and also the proposed intersection at Auto Park way. xTR/mm-10 One of the suggested mitigation measures is to change SB Madonna at LOVR to be a Left, Left-Thru, and to change to a split phased intersection. However, I could not find analysis of this alternative in the appendix, and no mention is made of the impact caused by pedestrians on the spit-phased intersection timing. In general, queue spill back needs more attention in the study. Spillback can result in gridlock for all or just specific movements. For example, during the AM peak hour EB LOVR can get backed up because traffic coming off SB 101 making a left across the overpass fills up all the storage space on the bridge. When the light turns green for EB LOVR there is no where to go, so no cars can move during the entire green phase. This cycle repeats itself resulting in long queues along EB LOVR. How might this type of behavior impact the proposed signal at Auto Park Way, or the proposed realignment of Calle Joaquin? Signal timings seem to have been set without consideration for reasonableness, pedestrians, or cyclists. This calls in to question many of the intersection Level of Service results. Also, while the traffic generation for COSTCO is lower during the AM peak hour, it will still have an impact on an already congested EB LOVR. Further, when roadway improvements are being recommended, we should know that they are suitable for the AM peak also. While volumes may be lower, different conflicting movements arise, which may highlight shortcomings in the proposal. Conclusion If my findings are indeed correct, then the transportation element of the Draft EIR needs to be significantly improved and modified prior to the EIR being finalized. Either way, I hope to see a detailed response to my concerns by the City Planning Staff or the EIR engineering consultant. Without such a response I will feel that the process has not be properly served. While there are possible problems with the EIR, I question the whole basis for the COSTCO development. An assumption seems to have been made that COSTCO is needed and that it will provide benefits to the people of San Luis Obispo, but I have yet to be convinced of these benefits. Surely, the costs are too high? Who wants more traffic, less open space, and valuable tax money being spent on road widening and road maintenance? When the Mayor was running for election he said he would improve housing and traffic within the City. This project does neither; in fact it worsens traffic and reduces possible space for new housing development! It is time for the Mayor to live up to campaign promises and say "No to COSTCO". Sincerely Dan and Kristen Reynolds (805) 215 8596 14.17 14.18 14.19 14.20 14.21 14.22 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-88 14. RESPONSE TO DAN AND KRISTEN REYNOLDS LETTERS DATED 4/29/03 AND 5/7/03 *Traffic Responses prepared by Higgins Associates 14.1 Response Refer to Response 14.9. 14.2 Response As requested, appendices to the DEIR were posted on the City website during the public review period. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.3 Response Refer to Response 14.10. 14.4 Response The environmental document was written to assess the environmental impacts of the proposed project and was written as unbiased as possible. Research was conducted by a third party company and subconsultants hired to deliver an environmental assessment based on fact, with no political agenda involved. 14.5 Response Comment noted. VR/mm-8 specifically addresses visibility of the detention basin that is proposed at the property boundary line at the base of the Irish Hills, behind the Costco building. VR/mm-3 suggests planting along the southeastern side of the gas station facility that will further decrease the stark boundary of development. Landscape plantings are proposed throughout the development in order to reduce the perceived scale of the project. In addition, the wetlands revegetation area established by the Home Depot project between that development and the Froom Ranch buildings has exceeded expectations and further reduces the stark urban boundary. The consultant concurs that any big box store alters the character of an area; however, the City General Plan permits this development as an allowable use and is therefore consistent. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.6 Response Comment noted. Size of planted trees would be determined by the ARC prior to project approval and would be subject to a reasonable growing period. The landscape trees planted less than two years ago behind the Home Depot building are nearing the rooftop of the building and will begin to reduce the urban edges boundary. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.7 Response Comment noted. The color of the asphalt was not addressed in the EIR but the City may require color specifications as part of the conditions of approval for the project. Refer to comment letter from the San Luis Air Pollution Control District (Comment Letter #7) regarding adequacy of air pollution mitigation measures. 14.8 Response Comment noted. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 states, “The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans.” Mitigation is not required to achieve consistency with these plans. In addition, the DeVaul residential development added several new houses to the area and the City is currently working on solving the jobs and housing balance. Studies conducted by the City and County have determined that there is adequate land available in the area for housing Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-89 development to meet the State requirements and that both the City and County are in compliance with the State housing standards. 14.9 Response The design standard is LOS D for intersections. The referenced sentence on page 50 has been revised in the FEIR as follows: For this study, LOS F operation of the overall intersection operations that exceed Level of Service D is the threshold warranting improvements at unsignalized intersections. 14.10 Response a) The distribution pattern used for the project is shown in the DEIR on page V-61. b) A scale diagram was not included in the original scope of work, and has been provided in the FEIR to include all potential mitigation strategies, and is shown in this section in Response 1.b.6. Based on discussions with Caltrans staff, 50th percentile queues are described at the interchange and 95th percentile queues are not shown. d) Refer to response 14.10.b. e-h) The level of detail with regards to level of service analysis in the DEIR is what is typically provided in a traffic report. More detail is contained in the Synchro electronic files and could be printed out for review if required. i) Site circulation diagrams with pedestrian interactions were provided in the DEIR on Page III-21, Figure III-7. 14.11 Response Refer to Response 5.4. The City has decided to monitor the intersection and implement appropriate improvements if it is determined higher levels of delay at the intersection create safety issues at the intersection. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.12 Response The traffic study reports intersection levels of service (LOS) based on technical procedures documented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using the Synchro software program. The LOS calculations indicate that the referenced right turn movement will experience 207 seconds of delay per vehicle. This is an overstatement of the delay that will be experienced by these vehicles due to the treatment of right turn on red movements in the HCM calculation procedures. As the commenter is aware, the HCM procedures do not directly account for right turn on red movements and therefore, the LOS calculation makes no adjustment to account for right turn on red movements. The procedures allow the analyst to reduce the right turn volume to account for these movements. The right turn volumes were not reduced for this analysis to account for right turns on red because the potential mitigation for the road network includes coordinating the operation of the signals on LOVR. Discounting the right turn volumes impacts coordinated timing plans calculated by Synchro. That is, reducing volumes at one intersection could impact timing plans and, potentially, LOS results at the coordinated intersections. Reducing the right turn volume also impacts the calculated intersection delay for the subject intersection. Coding the right turn movement with a right turn overlap phase could be used to model right turns on red in the HCM calculation. However, application of an overlap phase could understate the delay to right turn vehicles, which will be subject to red signal stop control even when turning right on red. Therefore, the right turn volumes were not discounted. In reality, right turn movements from the Froom Ranch Way approach to LOVR will be able to turn right on a red signal indication. In the condition referenced in the comment, the volume of traffic turning left turn from westbound LOVR to Froom Ranch Way is 988 vehicles (in two turn lanes). The green time provided to the westbound left turn traffic will allow a considerable volume of vehicles to turn right on red from the northbound Froom Ranch Way approach to LOVR. Vehicle delays will not approach the 200 second level as modeled by the level of service calculation. The Synchro program provides a Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-90 second level of service calculation based on modified procedures developed by the Synchro software developer that accounts for right turn on red movements. Calculations by the alternative Synchro calculation indicate the right turn movement will not experience the delay calculated by the HCM procedures. The calculation presented in the DEIR provides a reasonable worst-case analysis of intersection operations and the impact of recommended mitigation measures. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.13 Response The minimum green time for the northbound Calle Joaquin approach was set in the Synchro program at 20 seconds. The minimum green time accounts for a pedestrian activated signal across LOVR. The Synchro output indicates that an average of 15.2 seconds of green time is provided to the northbound Calle Joaquin approach per cycle, not 2 seconds as the commenter thinks. Response 14.12 applies to this instance as well. Realistic signal timings were used for the study. Pedestrian activated signals were coded in the Synchro files at existing and future signalized intersections. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.14. Response Froom Ranch Way is located about 1200 feet from Auto Park Way and Calle Joaquin is located about 1300 feet from Auto Park Way. These spacings are satisfactory between signalized intersections. The Synchro analysis indicates that signals at these intersections should be operated in coordination. The LOVR/Auto Park Way intersection will be monitored by the City and a signal will be installed when conditions warrant installation of a signal. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. The relocation of Calle Joaquin-South to Calle Joaquin satisfies a Caltrans objective to separate local (Calle Joaquin-South) traffic from traffic accessing southbound U.S. 101 from LOVR. It also represents an interim step to modifying the interchange. The proposed mitigation is not a long-term design solution for the interchange. The Project Study Report (PSR) that is currently underway as well as subsequent planning and design studies for the LOVR interchange project will address long-term design alternatives for the interchange, including intersection spacing. Volumes for this condition are included on the Synchro calculation worksheets. The signal at Calle Joaquin will require coordination with the signals at the interchange ramps. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.15 Refer to Response 4.2, Response 4.7, and Response 4.8. As stated in the EIR, several of the mitigation measures would be required prior to occupancy in order to address the traffic impacts caused by the project. 14.16 Response Lengthening the left turn lanes on the westbound LOVR approach to Froom Ranch Way would reduce size of the landscaped median on LOVR. Refer to Response 4.11 regarding the City’s preferred mitigation to provide left turn storage on westbound LOVR at the planned northwesterly driveway to the project site. This mitigation would require reducing the size of the landscape berm, as shown in Response 1.b.6. Creation of additional left turn lane storage capacity on westbound LOVR is required to ensure that adequate left turn storage is provided and that the Garcia Drive intersection operates adequately, and is not necessarily to improve overall intersection operations at the LOVR/Froom Ranch Way intersection. Refer to Response 4.11. No further revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-91 14.17 Response Refer to Response 14.16. The left turn lanes on westbound LOVR at Froom Ranch Way are currently approximately 150 feet in length. The recommended lengthening included in the DEIR (not supported by the City), if implemented, would double the existing length of the left turn lanes provided at this location. Auto Park Way is located about 1,200 feet east of Froom Ranch Way. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.18 Response The intersection timing reflects pedestrian activated signals on each approach. The LOS calculation worksheet for the alternative mitigated condition is not included in the appendix. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.19 Response As observed, queue spill back currently occurs at the interchange. Average vehicle queues are reported in Appendix G of the DEIR for LOVR and ramp approaches at the LOVR/U.S. 101 interchange for various interim design alternatives. Where the volume-to-capacity ratio exceeds 1 for a movement, the potential for spill back queuing is significant since sufficient green time is not provided during each signal cycle to serve the traffic demand for the movement. The proposed mitigation will not eliminate queuing and queue spill back on the interchange approaches, including LOVR. The realignment of Calle Joaquin-South to align with Calle Joaquin-North will mitigate intersection level of service impacts resulting from the Costco only project. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.20 Response The level of service calculations for the LOVR interchange design alternatives that were analyzed as potential mitigation measures assume coordination of the interchange intersection signal operations. Minimum green times for the intersection approaches at existing signalized intersections reflect pedestrian activated signals on intersection approaches where they currently exist. For the analysis of future signalized intersections, pedestrian activated signals were coded on approaches that would likely have pedestrian signals. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.21 Response The project will generate an estimated 287 trips during the AM peak hour versus 870 trips during the PM peak hour and 1,370 trips during the Saturday peak hour. Generally, eastbound traffic on LOVR is higher than westbound traffic during the AM peak hour, while westbound traffic is higher than eastbound traffic during the PM peak hour. Previously documented LOVR peak hour volumes indicate that the peak eastbound flow during the PM peak hour on LOVR (the non-peak direction) approximates the peak eastbound flow during the AM peak hour (the peak direction). Therefore, traffic conditions during the PM peak hour (when westbound flow exceeds eastbound flows), represent the worst-case situation for the corridor and interchange. When the combination of project generated trips plus existing traffic is considered, traffic conditions during the PM peak hour are significantly more critical versus AM peak hour conditions. Therefore, AM peak hour conditions were not evaluated for this study. The Saturday analysis provides an assessment of traffic conditions at the project main driveway when the project itself will generate the highest volume of trips. In addition, the Project Study Report and subsequent planning and design studies for the LOVR interchange project will include an analysis of long-range AM peak hour traffic conditions at the interchange. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 14.22 Response Comment noted. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-92 15.1 15.2 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-93 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-94 15.9 15.7 15.8 15.10 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-95 15.11 15.13 15.12 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-96 15.15 15.14 15.16 15.17 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-97 15. RESPONSE TO MICHEAL SULLIVAN LETTER, DATED 5/6/03 15.1 Response Comment noted. The grading plan is consistent with City policies that state that development shall be constructed at the base of the hill on areas not above 20 percent slopes. The interpretation that “there should be no grading or cuts or retaining walls at the base of the Irish Hills where naturally existing slopes exceed 20 percent,” is an incorrect interpretation since the base of the hills (not greater than 20% slopes) is where the development is proposed and furthermore, Costco does not propose any grading on slopes greater than 20%. The location was chosen to reduce the visual scale of the building and accommodate for required parking facilities. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.2 Response Refer to Response 1.a.10. Response Refer to Response 1.i.1 and Response 4.13. The City will determine the appropriate fair share and costs to be attributed to the project and subsequent development. The project is being required to implement interim improvements to mitigate project impacts to the LOVR interchange. The PSR and subsequent studies address long-range design needs for the interchange. If the ultimate interchange is not constructed, cumulative impacts will not be mitigated. Information from the Draft PSR is available for the City to provide a basis for calculating a pro rata fair share contribution to the interchange improvement project. 15.3 Response Refer to Response 1.i.1. 15.4 Response Refer to Response 1.i.1. 15.5 Response Comment noted. This comment refers to alternatives being considered in the PSR for the LOVR interchange. With regards to the Buckley Road extension, environmental and design studies for the LOVR interchange project will evaluate the impact of improvement alternatives, including the extension of Buckley Road to traffic operations in the vicinity of these projects. This analysis includes traffic generated by the proposed Costco store as well as other anticipated development in the area to year 2030. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.6 Response Comment noted. Refer to Response 1.d.5 regarding class determination of visual impacts. Refer to Response 1.b.11 regarding visibility of the project from DeVaul residential. Refer to EIR discussion Section V.J.6.2- Views from Adjacent Residences. Key Viewing Area 3 is a view from LOVR at the north end of the project site, which essentially shows what the residences along LOVR would view of the project. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.7 Response Comment noted. Refer to Response 8.8 regarding the chosen project location. In addition, due to the required square footage needed to effectively operate the Costco store, relocation of the project to the front two parcels would severely block views of the Irish Hills, and as stated in Comment 15.6, preserving views of this open space area is an important issue for the community. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.8 Response Comment noted. Refer to Response 1.c.6 and incorporated text and figures included as Exhibit E. of Appendix G. for historical wetlands discussion. The applicant Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-98 is required to install an oil-water separator at the drain outlet from the gas station facility which would effectively mitigate impacts to the downstream wetland and riparian environment. In addition, a bioretention area would be constructed to handle runoff from the fueling facility prior to runoff reaching the drainage system. Refer to Response 1.c.1. The wetland area adjacent to Home Depot is a manmade wetland created after construction of that project and the City could enter into a conservation agreement with the property owner of that parcel for protection of the wetland area. The Home Depot project mitigated wetland impacts by creation of an off-site wetland area located at LOVR and Foothill Blvd. Potential impacts to the wetland area in the vicinity of the required traffic improvements is discussed via secondary mitigation proposed resulting from TR/mm-2, page V-71 through V-73 of the DEIR, pursuant to CEQA Section 15126.4(D), which states: “If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” Impacts to the wetland/riparian area resulting from construction of the full interchange project are discussed in the Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report/Project Study Report for the LOVR Interchange that is currently undergoing review and all environmental impacts resulting from that project would be fully mitigated per State regulations. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.9 Response The analysis documented in the DEIR shows the need to widen SB 101 to three lanes within a 10-year time frame (based on development of approved and pending development applications that are analyzed in the study). If Highway 101 were not widened, the cumulative impact would be unmitigated. However, the Regional Transportation Plan seeks to implement measures designed to reduce travel demand on Highway 101 and extend into the future the need to widen Highway 101 to 6 lanes. The Caltrans Concept Report for Highway 101 in the vicinity of LOVR includes the following recommended actions: 1. Implement Intelligent Transportation System components from Central Coast Deployment Plan, 2. Reduce demand by encouraging and improving alternative modes such as transit, vanpools and ridesharing, 3. Consider Express Bus Stops per Highway Design manual procedures, 4.Facilitate goods movement with projects identified in the California Statewide Goods Movement Strategy, 5. Construct system-wide operational improvements such as auxiliary lanes and interchange modifications, 6. Ensure any improvements to the facility will accommodate a future 6-lane facility, 7. Convert expressway portion of Segment 4 to freeway, 8. Enhance intermodal facilities and services to improve interconnectivity, 9. Widen facility to 6-lanes after the above measures have been fully implemented and if level of service continues to deteriorate. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.10 Response Comment noted. Refer to Response 15.1. The consultant agrees that a bicycle path at the base of the Irish Hills could connect behind the residential areas to the Costco and Home Depot parcels but the path would then be required to use the Home Depot southeast exit onto LOVR due to the location of the Froom Ranch buildings and wetland area located southeast of the Home Depot (or would require grading on slopes greater than 20% on the Irish Hills). No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.11 Response Comment noted. Since the Costco project is in compliance with the City’s General Plan policies (refer to Response 15.1) and pedestrian and bicycle access is provided Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-99 throughout the site (refer to Response 1.a.10), there is no nexus under CEQA with which to require the request of relocation. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.12 Response Comment noted. The consultant agrees that affordable housing along the frontage parcels on LOVR is a beneficial use, which is why it was proposed as an alternative. There are no development proposals by the property owner for these two parcels and they were analyzed on a preliminary basis in this EIR based on current zoning on the parcels. Refer to Response 14.8 regarding the jobs/housing balance within the City and County. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.13 Response Comment noted. The reference to Appendix B has been revised in the FEIR to reference Appendix D, as included in the DEIR and correctly referenced as the Congdon’s Tarplant Mitigation Plan in the Table of Contents of the DEIR. According to CEQA Section 10003(i), “CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure.” 15.14 Response Comment noted. Refer to Appendix D of the DEIR for Congdon’s Tarplant mitigation options, including three sites located on private property with established populations of the species in addition to further enhancement and establishment at the Laguna Lake location. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.15 Response The EIR states, “Construction and operation of the project has potential to indirectly impact aquatic habitats located downstream from the site.” Proposed mitigation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, installation of oil-water separators, vaccum sweeping of the parking lot, and a bioretention area to capture pollutants from the fueling facility are sufficient to mitigate for the indirect impacts of the proposed project. Bioretention areas have been shown to be effective in the reduction of pollutants. Refer to Response 1.c.1. 15.16 Response Comment noted. Refer to Response 15.8, CEQA Section 15126.4(D). Mitigation proposed requires the applicant to implement improvements that would require a permit from ACOE. The wetland delineation required as mitigation in TR-SEC/mm-1 would identify impacts associated with the improvements and “establish an off-site in-kind wetland compensatory mitigation area within the Froom Creek corridor”, which is shown as an acceptable replacement area on the historic wetlands figure incorporated into Appendix G of the FEIR. No further revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 15.17 Response Comment noted. The referenced mitigation has been amended as shown in Response 8.28. No further revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-100 16.1 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-101 16. RESPONSE TO DANIEL SINTON LETTER, DATED 5/6/03 16.1 Response The following text, revised impact, and new mitigation measure have been added to the FEIR: Local evidence of paleontological remains has been found in the project vicinity and these cultural resources have the potential to exist on the project site. CR-Impact 1 Project activities have the potential to unearth subsurface cultural, paleontological, or historical material. CR/mm-4 During initial vegetation removal, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be onsite to inspect the disturbed area for paleontological remains. The monitor shall have authority to temporarily divert grading and construction equipment away from exposed fossils in order to recover the fossil specimens. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-102 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.5 17.4 17.6 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-103 17.7 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-104 17. RESPONSE TO ECOSLO LETTER, DATED 5/6/03 17.1 Response The reference to moderately expansive soils in the DEIR is explained and adequately mitigated for in the Geotechnical report including as Appendix B, which states, “No severe soil or groundwater constraints were observed which would preclude the planned construction. Foundation soil is moderately expansive. Careful adherence to these recommendations should mitigate the potential for future differential movement related soil expansion.” In order to address community concerns regarding impacts to the groundwater aquifer (ECOSLO) and downstream riparian areas (Avila Valley Advisory Council and others), the FEIR has been revised. Refer to Response 1.c.1 regarding mitigation for runoff from the facility. Refer to Response 2.3 regarding location of a payphone for emergencies and HM/mm-1 that requires the applicant to comply with City and State regulations for operation of an underground storage tank including: Secondary Containment for all tank penetrations Double wall vent and vapor lines, with crash protection post for vent risers Watertight tank sump lids and watertight traffic grade manways Overfill prevention equipment Traffic-rated drainways between the dispenser islands leading to an oil/water separator UST leak detection system (automated) with positive shutdown Periodic inspections of UST system by the fire department Ability to cleanup overfills and accidental surface spill immediately Prompt reporting of the discovery of a leaking or rupture UST system or major surface spill. These measures are considered adequate to ensure contamination of groundwater does not occur and no revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 17.2 Response As stated in the DEIR, page V-127, “Three wells currently supply approximately 250 acre feet of water for domestic use. The groundwater basin is relatively small and recharges very quickly…” The project would use City infrastructure for water supply and would not use a well from the underlying aquifer. The City monitors water usage and aquifer conditions and the City is not in a state of overdraft. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 17.3 Response Comment noted. The project will be subject to standards noted above in Response 17.1, which would require secondary containment in addition to a leak detection system that would automatically shut down if contaminants were to reach the secondary containment facility. Water supply testing is conducted periodically by City staff. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 17.4 Response Refer to Response 2.3-D for emergency services and above discussion of HM/mm-1. 17.5 Response Comment noted. As stated above in Response 17.1, the fueling facility would be constructed according to local and State regulations regarding underground storage tanks. Petroleum contamination mitigation is conducted by the Regional Board and local agencies with funding provided by the responsible party with State assistance from an established Tank Cleanup Fund. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. 17.6 Response Comment noted. Runoff from the site would be conveyed to an oil-water separator prior to entering the drainage system consisting of a bioretention area with an underdrain to significantly reduce runoff entering the aquifer. Refer to Response 1.c.1. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-105 17.7 Response Comment noted. Impacts to agricultural areas were mitigated as part of the General Plan Amendment for the parcel, biological resource impacts are fully mitigable with implementation of the EIR proposed measures, and contamination of the aquifer is considered a mitigable impact due to the stringent regulations imposed on installation of the underground storage tanks and associated runoff filters. No revisions to the FEIR are necessary. Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-106 18.1 Costco/Froom Ranch Response to Comments FINAL Environmental Impact Report X-107 18. RESPONSE TO AVILA VALLEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE LETTER, DATED 4/21/03 18.1 Response Potential contamination from site runoff to San Luis Obispo Creek is a concern addressed fully in the EIR. Refer to Response 1.c.1 for revised mitigation proposed in the FEIR to ensure runoff does not significantly impact the watershed.