HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/2000, 4 - FROOM RANCH ANNEXATION AND MINOR SUBDIVISION: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ANNEX AND PREZONE 53 ACRES, MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 4 PARCELS, PLUS A REMAINDER, AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AT 12395 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00) Mee
council ting 07/05/00
j acEnaa Report "�"4
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas;Community Development Director 0
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville,Associate Planner'?XA
SUBJECT: FROOM RANCH ANNEXATION AND MINOR SUBDIVISION:
Consideration of a request to aanex and prezone 53 acres, minor subdivision to create 4
parcels, plus a remainder, and environmental review at 12395 Los Osos Valley Road
(ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to:
a) Adopt a resolution approving the vesting parcel map based on findings and subject
to conditions and code requirements to become effective upon annexation and
adopting the mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact(ER 51-00)
b) Pass to print an ordinance prezoning the annexation area Retail-Commercial (C-R).
c) Adopt a resolution recommending that LAFCo approve the annexation.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The applicant has filed an application with the City to annex 53 acres on the southwest
side of Los Osos Valley Road to the City of San Luis Obispo. An application for
annexation has also been filed with the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo), which authorizes annexations. City and LAFCo policies require
that the Planning Commission and City Council determine the appropriate zoning-(referred
to as"prezoning")for the site to be annexed.
The applicant is also requesting approval of a minor subdivision to create 4 parcels plus a
5.7 acre remainder. Minor subdivisions are normally acted on by the Community
Development Director. However, given the strong community interest in the project, the
applicant has requested that the minor subdivision be referred to the City Council for action
as part of the prezone and annexation action.
Data Summary
Address: 12395 Los Osos Valley Road
4-1
Froom Ranch Annexation
July 5,2000
Page 2
Applicant: Madonna Construction Company
County Zoning: Commercial Retail
City General Plan: General Retail
Environmental Status: An EIR was prepared for the County in 1998 for the home
improvement development (Copies are available for review in
the Council read file and at the Community Development
Department). A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for
the annexation,prezoning and minor subdivision(Attachment 9)
Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to permit streamlining
deadlines.
Planning Commission Review
At its meeting on May 24, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the annexation,
prezone and subdivision requests. The Planning Commission staff report and minutes are
attached(see Attachments 9 and 10). On a vote of 5-2-0(Commrs. Peterson and Osborne
voting no), the Commission agreed to forward a recommendation to the Council to adopt
the mitigated negative declaration, as amended; prezone the site Retail-Commercial (C-
R); approve the vesting parcel map; and recommend that LAFCo approve the annexation.
Commissioners agreed that the proposed annexation is a logical addition to the City and
that annexation was the best tool to ensure City review of future development
Discussion focused on the dedication of an open space easement, the protection of the
historic resources of the Froom Ranch buildings, and revisions to the initial study to
ensure that future development will be located away from any active faults pursuant to
State law. Commissioners opposed to the motion felt review of the item should be
continued to allow the Commission more time to review the Eagle Hardware EIR.
Site Description
The project site is located on the south westerly side of Los Osos Valley Road, north
westerly of US Highway 101 and south easterly of Madonna Road. The site is bordered
by Los Osos Valley Road to the north east and the Irish Hills to the southwest The site is
relatively flat and is covered by grassland and pasture lands.
Proiect Description
The applicant proposes to annex and prezone 53-acres of the Froom Ranch as
Commercial-Retail (C-R) and subdivide the property into 4 developable parcels. One
parcel will contain a County approved home improvement store assuming construction
begins prior to annexation. The three remaining parcels have no approved development
plans and therefore will require City approvals prior to any development of these
parcels. A 5.7 acre remainder is proposed, but consistent with the State Subdivision
Map Act, is not proposed for sale or development at this time.
4-2
Froom Ranch Annexation
July 5,2000
Page 3
Analysis of Annexation, Prezone and Minor Subdivision
As pointed out in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 9), the
site is envisioned by both the City and County land use plans to be annexed to the City.
Additionally,the proposed annexation complies with the City's General Plan policies.
The applicant has agreed to dedicate a 150+ acre open space easement (Attachment No.
12) over the visible portion of the adjoining Irish Hills (not proposed for annexation)
which is substantially larger than the 53 acre requirement per the Land Use Policy LU
1.13.5 which states, "Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements
covering an area in the hills at least equal to the area to be developed". A condition of
approval was recommended by the Planning Commission that the open space easement
be dedicated to the City rather than the County (Condition No. 26 of resolution).
The Planning Commission determined that the most appropriate zoning category is
Retail-Commercial (C-R)for the property fronting on Los Osos Valley Road. This zoning
district implements the General Plan land use designation of General Retail. The County
approved and planned uses of the property are consistent with the purposes of the C-R
zoning district. Future development will require at a minimum architectural review in
accordance with City standards and guidelines.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with conditions to
ensure the division of land is consistent with the City's subdivision regulations. Several
of these conditions have been modified by staff since the Planning Commission meeting
to more clearly identify that the conditions do not affect the County approved Eagle
Hardware project but will be applied to any future development in the City.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a resolution denying the annexation and prezoning.
2. Continue action with direction-
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Development Plan Map
3. Subdivision Map
4. Ordinance prezoning the 53 acre site to C-R.
5. Resolution approving parcel map, Mitigated Negative Declaration
6. Resolution requesting LAFCO proceedings
7. Resolution for project denial
8. Applicant acceptance of mitigation measures
9. Planning Commission staff report including Initial Study
10. Planning Commission minutes
11. Letters received on the project(available in the Council Reading file)
12. Open space easement exhibit
4-3
MEETING AGENDA
RICHARD SCHMIDT DATE y ITEM #_4
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail:rschmidt@calpoly.edu
July 5, 2000
Froom: Erratum In previous message
To the City Council:
On re-proofing my letter after faxing it, I noted an obvious numerical typo in the section
titled:
4. Open Space Dedication Inadequate.
Where it states that development is 400 times what the county approved, obviously that
was supposed to be a repeat of the figure in the previous paragraph: 400% times as
much development.
Sorry for any confusion this might have caused.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
ORNEY,COUNCIL CDD D]CHF
❑FIN DI
❑FIRE C❑PW DI
CLERKIOR10 ❑POLIC❑MGMT TEAM ❑REC D❑PERS Ar
RECEIVED
u 1 l- 0 5 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
e-mail:rschmidt@calpoly.edu
July 5, 2000
Re: Froom Ranch annexation, subdivision, development proposal
To the City Council:
This project represents a very sad day in the history of our city. The manner in which it
is being promoted by the city represents an even sadder day in our community's history.
Some points:
1. Improper CEQA Review by Planning Commission.
It Is my understanding that the Planning Commission was directed by staff to sign off on
the adequacy of an EIR that commissioners had never seen. Staff chose not to provide
commissioners with the EIR on grounds it would cost too much to make copies of it.
Instead, staff wrote a report on the EIR and asked commissioners to approve the
contents of the EIR on the basis of having received that report.
This is improper CEQA procedure. Because of this breach of process, the entire item
needs to return to the Planning Commission, the commissioners need to be provided
with a copy of the EIR whose adequacy they are considering, and the process needs to
roll onward from that point.
Also, you should note that the CEQA review for the four-lot subdivision is also improper
on its face. The city MUST examine the likely outcomes of such a subdivision, not
simply defer review to the future, since the use of these lots is very clear at this time,
and it is clear that the impacts of FOUR BOX STORES would merit an EIR, not a
negative dec.
2. Disregard for General Plan Prime Soil Preservation Provisions.
According to U.S. Soil Conservation Service maps, much of the level portion of the
Froom Ranch is prime soil (That it has not been irrigated and cropped does not change
this status). As such, it is protected by the Land Use Element's prime ag land
provisions. The spirit of those provisions is that prime land MAY be developed, but that
in return other equivalent prime land within the greenbelt or urban reserve shall be
preserved by easement or fee ownership.
Where is the prime land that is being preserved in return for Froom Ranch conversion?
RECEIVED
.11.11 0 5 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
micnara acnmirn
3. Giving Applicant Four Lots Denied by the County.
The pretext for the annexation and development of the Froom.Ranch within the city is
that the city is simply ratifying what has already been approved by the county. This,
however, is a fiction.
In fact, the applicant has permission from the county to build a single box store. The city
is proposing to give him FOUR LOTS, each capable of housing at least one box store. A
four-lot box store subdivision was not part of any county approval. In fact, the applicant
applied for a four-lot subdivision, and that application was denied by the county's
subdivision review board. The applicant's failure to follow through with appeal of the
board's action made its denial final. The city is thus granting the applicant a gift of great
value --four box store lots-- which he had no chance of obtaining from the county.
[Minutes of the subdivision review board meeting indicate that the mayor testified at
length against this four-lot subdivision.]
The city is thus granting the applicant development rights that exceed those granted by
the county by 400%. The proposal before the council is NOT a mere ratification of a
praevious county approval.
4. Open Space Dedication Inadequate.
The open space dedication in return for development is inadequate for development of
this scale. Again, the rationale staff provides for the amount of open space being
dedicated is that this is what the county approved. However, the PROJECT BEFORE
YOU IS NOT WHAT THE COUNTY APPROVED -- it is 400 times as much as the
county approved. In light of that, the open space dedication needs to be increased
commensurately.
5. Terrible Precedent--Teaches Developers the way to get ANYTHING is to do it
in the county, then blackmail the city into annexing.
1 seldom agree with Bill Bird, but Mr. Bird is absolutely correct on this matter. He points
out that he has worked in good faith for years with the city to get approval for his Dalidlo
project, and still lacks that approval. On the other hand, Madonna goes to the county,
gets quick approval, then blackmails the city into approving his project.
What a message for the city to send to developers! Do it in the county if you want to
save time and trouble, and we'll take you in! And give you a density bonus to boot. What
an incredibly stupid message for the council to send to the Dalidlo and McBride
developers, plus those near the airport, and any others who have visions of developing
in unincorporated land on the city's borders.
This procedure totally negates our General Plan, and proves that our planning program
is a complete joke that can be ignored by all concerned.
In conclusion, I'd urge you to do the following:
1. Either deny this project tonight, or send it back to the planning commission, as
outlined below.
2. Send this back to the Planning Commission for proper EIR review, and for their
reconsideration of the open space dedication now that staff's contention of the
"equivalency° of this proposal with the county approval is shown to be inaccurate.
3. Upon return from the commission, delete the four-lot subdivision. (I find it surprising
that in an election year two mayoral candidates will go to voters expressing their support
for a big box row on LOVR. Surely a challenger could beat both of these candidates if
he or she were to run on a platform more in tune with the desires of the residents of this
city!)
4. Augment the open space dedication to make it commensurate with the true extent of
the development taking place.
5. If the council decides to move ahead with the 4-lot subdivision, do a proper EIR for it.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
•ii
• Y
.\•� . .uY• •�V.�p••• pe• e p
� ��l� a�I ��i ,ter, ♦ \ •- !-
0,ROF MR
.111 ,
� �•Y Y
.I•..IIYI. _ _ �ee
_
MISSION �
o
r�
I
I
i
Attachment 2
z �. Z
�
Z
QW
W �?
W �j w wloLi
-
CLaO I I. w }
LU
ww Z
pW
¢ z oW W LL
W W Z N O U-
� o ZN 1— � �¢
Q a W o a
p
ail. Iil U� �
cc
•= W j U J 7 Q.i .
w Z
I ^�CC. Lug
LU
W aJcc O
VAI O — "
CL
u1
'I w — — �! l;u1
j 1- 0
wi QW 1 F J
UIiTI Xa i lirfll. a
O N Z
w' LL
r1u�ulnurc;nri o-l;{,r"I�-f{ rr+�ffHB �� o; I I
I
Attachment 3
g zLLr Lz��0 Z.
n
w Z<
z L w
2
g Z0a0 zo,
WJ QQz Qd W�' z
8 d O DZNmm Wed
Z�0 �=ODoo ci ¢Ow
�J W W��/ m~ =L UV
440YOU w3rnn Soso sol $ c9 L.LO O^j J C) —ice
1 W Q�_JZ O �Y 9
> " " W ��//�� WZOL.LL I.LLQ LL
Co W;
>aVJ m0000U U ,
W 44ZL9 3.ZS`[0•LS N
(I`�f�fjfl fff1 9
�� (.4 Ess)LLL
of
�w
I�
�w m II OOwo
w�C Lu-ao
U/`'_'° E
95 ! W
to S7
E.
'"'(•�r — .— — -L00'918)ut�- =�( EOSS}WSL'L9[ n_
p.
•\\;� "``1 ��mi \ OIC (�. f _...P.L.. O -...
¢ V i O ' J M
E _ l0
U.
...Ci
p
\ ./...�' •� !�/Ems � bm ,I
I t1 li 1
,- - I
[9'99 L
W Z4 Z 329.0,.LS N
O m N� (~ ( I
4-6
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. (2000 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO PREZONE
APPROXIMATELY 53 ACRES RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-R) AT 12395 LOS
OSOS VALLEY ROAD
(R 51-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 24,
2000 and recommended prezoning the proposed annexation site Retail-Commercial (C-R)
as shown in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS,the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 5,2000 and has
considered testimony of interested persons, the records of the Planning Commission
hearing and action, and evaluation and recommendations of staff in accordance with
Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed revisions are consistent
with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations, and other applicable City
ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the project's Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact approved by Council as part of the minor
subdivision action; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's mitigated
Negative Declaration (ER51-00) approved by Council as part of the minor subdivision
action adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project,and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings:
1. Prezoning the annexation area Retail Commercial (C-R) as shown on attached
Exhibit A, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial;
2. Prezoning the annexation area Retail Commercial (C-R) as shown on attached
Exhibit A, is consistent with the intended use and location of C-R zoned
properties as described in the zoning regulations;
3. A prezoning of Retail Commercial is appropriate at the proposed locations and
will be compatible with surrounding land uses which are primarily retail
4-7
Ordinance No. (2000 Series) Attachment 4
Froom Ranch Prezoning
Page 2
commercial in nature; and
4. The prezoning will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
SECTION 3. The annexation area shall be prezoned Retail-Commercial (C-R) as
shown on the attached map marked Exhibit A and included herein by reference.
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final
passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city. This
ordinance shall go into effect upon the date of final action by the City Council on the
annexation.
INTRODUCED AND FINALLY PASSED by the Council of the City of San
Luis Obispo
at its meeting held on the day of , 2000, on motion of
, seconded by ,and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
4�1'34/xv
ome Jer en
4-8
C- , 1
d� r_
J LAKE4 PF
PF ••
R-3
PF Qp PF44
R-2 2 0149-
•. �' 1. moo
o R-2-PO ,• �\ o
PF
C-N ..•
+ r �
0Ct
I �
v` % '�
R-3
'♦y / r
V
R-3-PD `t n f
PF•
\g
•° -S-P \♦
Zoning Change to Commercial Retail \ C-S
c-s R - 2 - S
C-T
/OS-2
R- C
-"C-T s`
R i-
sos mos wusrJ` r'
I C/OS
10 l
!� R-2 PD
. /�� I :I I �•ry � � ase -�+
-kttachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE VESTING PARCEL MAP,SUBDIVIDING A 53-ACRE SITE INTO 4
COMMERCIAL PARCELS AT 12395 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD(MS 51-00, County
File: SLO 00-041)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 24, 2000 and
recommended'approval of Vesting Parcel Map MS 51-00; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 5, 2000 and has
considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing
and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact with mitigation as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Mitigated
Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the
proposed project, and reflects the independent judgement of the City Council. The Council
hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation
measures into the project:
1. Future development shall include:
1. bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use;
2. continued sidewalk along the property;
3. outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch
hour; and
4. extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from
automobiles.
2. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
5. skylights to maximize natural day lighting;
6. operable windows to maximize natural ventilation; and
7. energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings,the project
architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community
Development Director shall review this document and make a final decision as to the
feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
4-10
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 2
3. Any future development adjacent to residential areas shall require a noise analysis and
mitigation in order to comply with the City's Noise Standards contained in the General Plan.
4. Future site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded
building materials, such as concrete, sheetrock,wood, and metals, from the construction site.
The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director, prior to
building permit issuance.
5. Existing and future site development shall incorporate convenient facilities for interior and
exterior on-site recycling. A description of current recycling efforts and any plans to expand
those efforts shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to City
Council review of the annexation request.
6. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The
maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixture(s),
standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels
measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles.
7. Any future development shall be subject to the City's architectural review process to ensure
against negative aesthetic impacts and compliance with City development standards
including the Scenic Highways section of the Circulation Element.
8. Future site development shall be subject to further analysis as part of the development review
process to ensure compliance with City standards and the payment of City traffic impact fees
which were established(Resolution No. 8406)to mitigate the impacts of new development
on the City's streets,transit,and bikeway facilities.
9. Future development shall be located away from active faults per State law and the Safety
Element.
SECTION 2. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the Vesting Parcel Map
TR 51-00 and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public
testimony,and reports thereof,makes the following findings:
1. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the
General Plan, which allow the division of land in accordance with the City's subdivision
regulations.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the Retail
Commercial (C-R) zone, because the lots have adequate size and frontage for commercial
uses, consistent with the subdivision regulations.
3. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through, or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
4-11
Httachment 5
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 3
4. As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
5. An initial study of environmental impacts was prepared by the Community Development
Department on May.10, 2000, describing potential environmental impacts associated with the
annexation, prezoning and subdivision of the property. Based on the review of the certified
EIRs prepared for the Eagle Hardware project, and the City's Land Use Element Update EIR
and Supplement, and relevant reference documents in the Community Development
Department, the City Council has determined that there is no evidence that the project will
have any significant adverse impact on the environment.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of Vesting Parcel Map for MS 51-00
is approved subject to the following conditions and code requirements:
(Parcel Map Conditions)
1. The subdivider shall comply with all adopted mitigation measures for the Froom Ranch
project including the Eagle Hardware EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 51-00.
2. All conditions established under the County Development Plan D970143D shall be
conditions of this parcel map except:
a. That the proposed traffic signal shall be located at the proposed street entrance
between parcels 1 and 3 along with any modifications and extensions to the
proposed median island to accommodate the new traffic signal location,to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
b. Drainage improvements across parcel 3 shall be extended across the frontage of
parcel 1,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
3. The full width of the proposed onsite main access road between the parcels shall be"offered"
for public purposes on the(final) parcel map,but not accepted by the City until some future
date,based on future possible subdivision or development proposals and/or at the discretion
of the City. This road shall be improved to City standards (with 13.4m curb-curb)and
terminated as a cul-de-sac(12.2m curb radius),to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. The cul de sac location may be adjusted to accommodate the approved Home Depot
project,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Street improvements shall consist
of curb, gutter, sidewalk and full width street pavement(based on a T.I.= 8.5),to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The (9.14 in (30 ft.)wide access road between
Parcels 1 & 2 shall likewise be offered and increased to 40 ft. minimum and offered for
dedication as an easement for public sewer,water and other typical utilities,and pedestrian
access,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
4-12
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 4
. 4. The subdivider shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City along.the Los Osos Valley
Road(LOVR)frontage,except at approved driveway and street locations shown on the
tentative parcel map and any additional driveway or street connection to Los Osos Valley
Road shall be specifically approved by the Community Development and Public Works
Directors.
5. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement adjacent to and contiguous
with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street easement adjacent to and contiguous with all
public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
7. If construction phasing of the new street pavement is proposed,the phasing shall provide for
the ultimate structural street section and pavement life (per the City's Pavement Management
Plan)prior to acceptance by the City. The improvement plans shall include a detail regarding
this requirement, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
8. Public water, sewer and utility mains and services shall be extended to serve all parcels,to
the satisfaction of the Directors of Public Works and Utilities.
9. Installation of street trees and parkway landscaping shall be deferred until development of
each parcel.
10. All on-site drainage and detention facilities shall be privately owned and maintained.
11. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent
and downstream properties will be required as a condition of development of the respective
parcels. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private
drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of
disposal and shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce
flooding. Detention facilities will be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage
improvements (except those within a public street) shall be privately owned and maintained
by the property owner.
12. If the study identifies areas that are subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm event the
developer shall process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of
Map Amendment(LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision(LOMR)prior to final acceptance of
any development Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject
to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at
least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation.
13. All boundary monuments,lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's,EC's,etc, shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
4-13
�C1T1�GH1'"1E{-1T CJ
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 5
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital
Interchange Format,DXF)for Geographic Information System (GIS)purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
14. The final map,public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units (metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map
where necessary (e.g. -all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units,metric
translations should be in parenthesis), to the approval of the City Engineer.
15. A digital copy of all "record drawing" improvement plans shall be submitted to the City
containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format,DXF)
for Geographic Information System(GIS)purposes,to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
16. Development of the respective parcels shall be in accordance with the City's adopted Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
17. Fire Department Access: Access for future development shall be in accordance with Article
9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
20 feet. Access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a
60,000 pound fire apparatus and shall be.provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather
driving capabilities. -
18. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the
California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system
and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow
shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. Any future
development shall connect to the City Water system for the purpose of providing the required
fire flow.
19. Fire Hydrants: Upon development,fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section
903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to
the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the
approved City Engineering Standards. The City Fire Department prior to installation shall
approve location of all fire hydrants. Hydrants shall be in-service prior to the stockpiling of
combustible building materials. .
20. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with
the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. Prior to
installation all fire protection equipment,valves,connections and locations shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Fire Department.
21.Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction,alteration or
4-14
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 6
demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code.
22. Plan Check: The City Fire Department shall coordinate with the County Fire Department
and conduct a parallel plan review of the proposed project Every effort shall be made to
consolidate both agencies fire protection needs. All design submittals shall bear the stamp of
a professional engineer.
23. Permits: Prior to a certificate of occupancy,the facility shall obtain all required Uniform Fire
Code permits and submit a current Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
24. Hazardous Materials: The storage,use and handling of hazardous materials,aerosols,
flammable and combustible liquids shall be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code.
25. The conditions associated with this approval do not override, supersede or modify the County
approvals for Development Plan D970143D, except as noted in Condition 2.
26. Provided that it is acceptable to the County,the applicant shall dedicate the County required
open space easement to the City.
27. The applicant shall protect the historic resources and historic resources buffer around the
Froom Ranch buildings as required by the County approval for the Eagle Hardware project.
28. The subdivider shall enter into an indemnity agreement with the City in a form approved by
the City Attorney.
29. The minor subdivision approval shall go into effect upon the effective date of the
annexation.
(Code Requirements)
1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies.
Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The
City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the
necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The
cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of
$150 per bathroom retrofitted.
2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter
serving each parcel.
3. If a well is to be used for domestic purposes,the domestic usage will be measured with a City
meter, in order to properly bill for wastewater collection. The well meter shall be installed in
4-15
ATfAOtMeA T
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 7
accordance with City Standard 6240. An agreement for the metering of the private well must
be signed, notarized, and recorded with the County Recorder.
4. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water
system if the property includes an active well.
5. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so
that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If
it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the
deficiency as a part of the overall project.
6. Depending on the proposed uses at the site, industrial waste/wastewater pretreatment
requirements may apply. The project shall be coordinated with the City's Industrial Waste
Coordinator,Dale Karnes, who can be reached at 781-7425.
7. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. A monthly service fee
of$22.40 shall be required if the property does not have a connection to the City system for
domestic use.
8. On-site use of any well will be allowed to continue only on the parcel overlying the well.
Well water may be allowed to cross property lines in specific commercial instances, and
subject to the approval of the Utilities Director. Upon failure of the well, the owner will be
required to connect (if not already connected) to the City water distribution system. If
development occurs under City jurisdiction,the applicant shall develop an allocation and pay
water impact fees, even if the property is not connected to the City water system.
9. The applicant can use their well water for domestic use and irrigation while connecting to the
City water system for fire protection once the property is annexed to the City. They will need
to develop an allocation and pay impact fees at the time a building permit is issued for any
new buildings. If the applicant chooses to be connected to the City system for fire protection
without having a meter for domestic use, they will be required to pay a small monthly water
system `access charge' for the fire sprinkler connection.
10. The nearest point of connection to the City sewer system is in Los Osos Valley Road in front
of 1484 Auto Parkway. This 8" sewer main shall be extended across the LOVR frontage of
the subject property. The requirement to extend the sewer main across the entire frontage
may be lessened if it is determined that no other properties to the north of the Froom Ranch
will require service to this main line extension as determined by the Utilities Engineer. The
City may be able to develop a reimbursement agreement by which the developer could be
reimbursed for portions of the cost that are attributable to any "non-participating"properties
that would eventually connect service laterals directly to the new sewer main.
11. The applicant will be required to pay the fair share cost of the additional capacity of the
Laguna Lift Station and the Howard Johnson Lift Station needed to serve the development.
4-16
tkffA"MWT 97
Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page S
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 2000.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Je y org en, A mey
4-17
Attachment 6
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY
COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION APPROVE ANNEXATION NO. 51-00
AT 12395 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD; FROOM RANCH ANNEXATION
(ANNX 51-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held public
hearings on the proposed Froom Ranch Annexation;and
WHEREAS, the City Council on.July 5, 2000, by Resolution No. (2000
Series), approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation,
prezoning and minor subdivision, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines Section 15090; and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result of
its deliberations, the Council on July 5, 2000, by Ordinance No. (2000 Series)
approved the prezoning for the annexation of property known as the Froom Ranch
Annexation; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo
County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate formal annexation proceedings;
and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is uninhabited, and a description of the
boundaries of the territory is set forth in Section 2; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the
affected city;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings.
1. The annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the City on its north side
and the site is within the urban reserve line of the City.
2. The annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location in
relation to existing urban development.
3. The annexation is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The Froom Ranch Annexation
consists of that area, including approximately 53 acres on the southwest side of Los Osos
4-18
Resolution No. (1998 ..ries) Attachment 6
Page 2
Valley Road, generally east of Madonna Road and west of Highway 101, in the County
of San Luis Obispo, being Assessor's Parcel Number 067-241-019, as shown on the
attached map, Exhibit A, and legally described in the attached Exhibit B.
SECTION 3: Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the
Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County approve the proposed
annexation subject to property owner compliance with City requirements regarding
environmental mitigation and public improvements as described in the project's
Mitigated Negative Declaration and minor subdivision, in accordance with California
Government Code Section 56844 et seq.
SECTION 4: Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this
resolution and prezoning actions, the EIR, and all pertinent supporting documents to the
Local Agency Formation Commission.
On motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,
2000.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
P1i
me Je or nsen
4-19
Madonna. Road �.
- �_
{ r I �
SITE
COtARrOFsA L"o�B19P�up'..:...�. .I
N 570 0166.00 {
-
N ST 01'77F 155000
mr
•' IGa�cia.Dr:
or VICINITY MAP
r — WScade
muEPOWOF
uneoovwwc�+ocu+N�OEuuososniDuuouru cnvoFew
noun on. u
uneeoFwv+cxowun�oEwsQeo6uieau�icoiwr�c ' " .
K �. . asr0rSrw
noon. o0
J w `
1 H —C .�
G
•� . E BA ..: m .11
r} F c v v v v 4„oCM
OUYOF SLO o�
lJ SST 01'W- W YYY. CRY SRS
FROOM RANCH 798.69' .:
9
COMPLEX
{ !Auto Park
{ -- nW
ca
>
�, —
� ' FROOM . RANCH
ANNE XATION
J/
OF.PARCEL 2 OF'COAL 97-182 IN.
�,CALQE THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
�OAQVIN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
Total Area-54.17 Acres
Net Area=52.97 Acres(less LOVR)
dote CENTRAL COAST ENGINEERING
Legal description is based upon 71 RS 87. 396 BUCKLEY ROAD SAN WIS.OBISPO,CA 93401
.EIIARY
4
2000 SHEET ONE OF ONE E2210
FROOM RANCH ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
All that real property situate in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California being
a portion of Lots 60 and 68 of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna and a
portion of Los Osos Valley Road, maps of said Lots being recorded in Book A of Maps
at Pages 83 and 84 in the office of the County Recorder of said County, a survey of
portions of said Lots being recorded in Book 71 of Records of Survey at Page 87 in the
office of said County Recorder, said portion of said Lots being more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the northeasterly corner common to said Lots 60 and 68, on the westerly
line of said Los Osos Valley Road, said point being the True Point of Beginning;
Thence, along the northeasterly line of said Lot 68 and said westerly line of Los Osos
Valley Road, S32042'14"E 786.01 feet; Thence, leaving said northeasterly line and
said westerly line along the following courses: S57°01'52"W 798.63 feet;
N32°58'08"W 15.96 feet to a curve concave northerly which is tangent to a line which
bears S66°55'33"W, along said curve, said curve, said curve having a radius of 64.00
feet, a central angle of 38°59'27", and an arc length of 43.55 feet; N74°05'00"W 30.00
feet to a tangent curve concave southerly, along said curve, said curve having a radius
of 16.00 feet, a central angle of 48°53'08", and an are length of 13.65 feet;
S5rOl'52"W 165.11 feet to a tangent curve concave northerly; along said curve, said
carve having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 62°58'08", and an arc length of
71.44 feet; N60000'00"W 87.77 feet; S82°20'32"W 143.16 feet; N77°26'25"W
207.79 feet; N81°36'50"W 220.62 feet; N56°26'12"W 136.77 feet; N44°22'51'V
108.70 feet; N14°40'57"W 307.82 feet; N04°28'04"W 112.28 feet; N39°08'4T'W
425.27 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of that certain portion of said Lot 60
described in Deed recorded in Volume S of Deeds at Page 19 in the office of said
County Recorder, Thence, along said northwesterly line, N57101'52"E 1550.00 feet to
a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 60 and said westerly line of Los Osos
Valley Road; Thence, across said Los Osos Valley Road,N57001'52"E 66.00 feet to a
point on the easterly line of Los Osos Valley Road and the existing City Limits of the
City of San Luis Obispo; along said easterly line S32°42'14"E 793.67 feet to a corner
of said City Limits; Thence, across said Los Osos Valley Road, S57°01'52"W 66.00
feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 54.17 saes.
EMIT n=cW alegalde
Attachment 7
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, PREZONING AND MINOR
SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY AT 12395 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
(ANN'X/R/MS/ER 51-00)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 24, 2000 and
recommended approval of the annexation,prezoning, and minor subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 5, 2000 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the project evaluation and recommendations of staff.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request to annex 53
acres of the Froom Ranch, prezone the site Retail Commercial(C-R), and subdivide the property
into 4 parcels,makes the following findings:
(Council to insert findings here)
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the annexation,prezone and minor
subdivision described above is hereby denied.
On:motion of , seconded by ,and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 12000.
4-22
Attachment 7
Resolution No. (2000 Series) _
Page 2
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:; -
CityClerk Lee ce
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City.Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
i
4-23
Attachment 8
Applicant Acceptance of Mitigation Measures
Project: 51-00
12395 Los Osos Valley Road
This agreement is entered into by and between the City of San Luis Obispo and
Madonna Construction (Alex Madonna) on the 17th day of
May 2000. The following measures are included in the project to
mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Please sign the original and return it
to the Community Development Department.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. Future development shall include:
• bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use;
• continued sidewalk along the property;
• outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the
lunch hour; and
• extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative
emissions from automobiles.
2. New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• skylights to maximize natural day lighting;
• operable windows to maximize natural ventilation; and
• energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the
project architect shall document why they were determined to be infeasible. The
Community Development Director shall review this document and make a final
decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving features.
3. Any future development adjacent to residential areas shall require a noise analysis
and mitigation in order to comply with the City's Noise Standards contained in the
General Plan.
4. Future site development shall include a solid waste recycling plan for recycling
discarded building materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from
the construction site. The plan must be submitted for approval by the Community
Development Director, prior to building permit issuance.
5. Existing and future site development shall incorporate convenient facilities for
interior and exterior on-site recycling. A description of current recycling efforts and
any plans to expand those efforts shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to City Council review of the annexation request..
6. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties.
The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including
fixture(s), standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished
4-24
ER 51-00 Attachment 8
Mitigation Agreement
Page 2
grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall
not exceed 10 footcandles.
7. Any future development shall be subject to the City's architectural review process to
ensure against negative aesthetic impacts and compliance with City development
standards including the Scenic Highways section of the Circulation Element.
8. Future site development shall be subject to further analysis as part of the
development review process to ensure compliance with City standards and the
payment of City traffic impact fees which were established (Resolution No. 8406) to
mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's streets, transit, and bikeway
facilities.
If the Community Development Director or hearing body determines that the above
mitigation measures are ineffective or physically infeasible, he may add, delete or
modify the mitigation to meet the intent of the original measures.
Please note that section 15070 (b) (1) of the California Administrative Code requires the
applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is released for public review. This project will not be scheduled
for public review and hearing until this signed original is returned to the
Community Development Department.
Arnold B. Jonas Alex Madonna-Representative
Community Development Director Madonna Construction Company
4-25
Attachment 9
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM#2
BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate Planner(781-7170) ft� MEETING DATE: May 24,2000
FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
FILE NUMBER: ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00
PROJECT ADDRESS: 12395 Los Osos Valley Road
SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to annex and prezone 53 acres of Froom Ranch to Retail-
Commercial (C-R); minor subdivision to create 4 parcels; and environmental review.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council:
A. Introduce an ordinance prezoning the 53 acre site C-R(Retail-Commercial).
B. Adopt a resolution approving the vesting parcel map based on findings and subject to
conditions and code requirements and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
C. Adopt a resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve
the annexation of 53 acres on the south side of Los Osos Valley Road.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) authorizes annexations.
City and LAFCo policies require that the Planning Commission and City Council provide
LAFCo with a recommendation on the proposed annexation and determine the appropriate
zoning(referred to as"prezoning") for the site to be annexed.
Project History
Since 1980,when the County adopted a new General Plan,the Froom Ranch including the project
site,had been zoned Agriculture. The City's General Plan,which extends to areas currently outside
of the City jurisdiction,designated the flatter areas of the ranch, near Los Osos Valley Road, as a
residential expansion area. In 1994,the City updated the General Plan and redesignated this area as
a commercial expansion area,meaning that upon annexation,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.
The applicant has submitted applications for annexation and development of the property in the
past, but those were withdrawn after the City Council determined that an environmental impact
report (EIR) should be prepared for the project. The applicant then applied for and received
approval of development plans in the County. Specifically,the Board of Supervisors certified a
project EIR, approved changes to the County's planning area standards,and the development of an
4-26
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 2
approximate 220,000 s.f. home improvement store. Building plans are currently under review by
the County and it is anticipated that building permits will be issued by the County prior to the Local
Agency Formation Commission's(LAFCO)approval of the annexation.
Data Summary
Address: 12395 Los Osos Valley Road
Applicant: Madonna Construction Company
Environmental status: An EIR was prepared for the County in 1998 for the home improvement
development. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for the annexation, prezoning and
minor subdivision.
Project action deadline: Legislative actions are not subject to processing deadlines.
Site Description
The project site is located on the south westerly side of Los Osos Valley Road, westerly of US
Highway 101 and south easterly of Madonna Road. The site is bordered by Los Osos Valley
Road to the general north and the Irish Hills to the southwest. The site is relatively flat and is
covered by grassland and pasture lands.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to annex and prezone 53-acres of the Froom Ranch as Commercial-Retail
(C-R) and subdivide the property into 4 parcels. One parcel will contain a County approved
home improvement store assuming construction begins prior to annexation'. The three remaining
parcels have no approved development plans and therefore will require City approvals prior to
any development of these parcels.
EVALUATION
Annexation
The City's General Plan designates this site as General Retail. The following General Plan
policies apply to the annexation request:
LU 1.13.2: Annexation Purpose and Timing
Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban
development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be
developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may
annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are
to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in.phases, consistent with the
city-approved speck plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and
development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space
objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads.
Ultimately this site is envisioned by both the City and County land use plans to be annexed to the
City. The County however has approved a home improvement store on a portion of this site
4-27
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00, Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 3
prior to annexation. Annexation is the best tool to ensure future development will be consistent
with City plans and development standards.
L U 1.13.3: Required Plans
Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted
a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public
facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with LU
policy 1.13.5.
D) For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan
under "PD"zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area.
To comply with this policy, staff recommends that the annexation area be prezoned C-R.
Planned Development (PD) zoning is not recommended by staff because the applicant is not
seeking any variations in the established development standards or allowed uses. The minor
subdivision proposed in conjunction with the annexation contains a plan for roads, utilities and
general overall lot layout as required by this Land Use Element policy. Finally, any future
development will require Architectural Review Commission approvals for building architecture
as well as site design.
LU 1.13.5: Open Space
Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and
for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in LU
Policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The
following standards shall apply to the indicated areas:
A) Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering an area in the hills
at least equal to the area to be developed.
As a condition of his County land use approval, the applicant is required to dedicate an open
space easement over the visible portion of the adjoining Irish Hills (not proposed for annexation)
that is substantially larger than the annexation area of 53 acres.
LU3.1.1: Purpose and Included Uses
The City should have areas for General Retail uses adequate to meet most demands of the City
and nearby County residents. General Retail includes specialty stores as well as department
stores, warehouse stores, discount stores, restaurants, and services such as banks. Not all areas
designated General Retail are appropriate for the full range of uses (see LU Polices 3.1.2 and
3.1.5).
The proposed annexation of land designated as General Commercial in the City's Land Use
Element complies with this General Plan policy.
4-28
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 4
LU 3.1.2: Locations for Regional Attractions
The City should focus its retailing with regional draw in the locations of downtown, the area
around the intersection of Madonna Road and Highway 101, and the area around Highway 101
and Los Osos Valley Road
The annexation and prezoning of this site for retail commercial uses complies with this General
Plan policy.
L U 3.1.5: Specialty Store Locations
Most specialty retail stores should be downtown, in the Madonna Road area, or the Los Osos
Valley Road area; some may be in neighborhood shopping centers so long as they are a minor
part of the centers and they primarily serve neighborhood rather than citywide or regional
markets.
The annexation and prezoning of this site for retail commercial uses complies with this General
Plan policy.
LU 8.10.2: General Retail
About 72 acres southerly from the vicinity of the Garcia Drive intersection is designated General
Retail.
While a specific plan is not required, development plans (described in LU Policy 1.13.3) are
required and should include the following:
A) Street intersections consistent with the Circulation Element and no driveway access, to
minimize disruption to traffic flow along Los Osos Valley Road
B) Pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle access integrating circulation among any separate
development sites, in addition to access provided by Los Osos Valley Road.
C) Building heights, setbacks, and spacing to allow views of the Irish Hills from Los Osos
Valley Road.
D) Permanent open space protection of hill areas at least equal to the development area.
Prezoning the site C-R will require Architectural Review Commission approval of any future
development plan to address the above development issues. The applicant's proposed parcel
map indicates the location of the site's overall circulation routes and areas planned for future
commercial development. Proposed conditions of approval for the minor subdivision include
requirements for street and intersection improvements consistent with City standards. Permanent
open space protection in excess of 53 acres has been accomplished as a condition of County land
use approvals.
4-29
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 5
The Land Use Element also identifies the site as within the City's Urban Reserve Line and
located within one of the City's principal expansion areas. Annexation of this property would
result in a logical extension of the present City limits boundary consistent with applicable
policies of the General Plan. For the reasons listed above, the proposed annexation can be found
consistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan and therefore, staff recommends
approval of the proposed annexation.
PrezoninQ
The following General Plan policies apply to the prezoning request:
L U 8.10: Irish Hills Area
This approximately 110-acre area extends from Los Osos Valley Road to the base of the Irish
Hills and from Madonna Road to Auto Park Way. It shall be zoned Conservation/Open Space
upon annexation, and shall be zoned for appropriate urban districts upon approval of
development plans.
Part of the annexation process involves specifying an appropriate City zoning designation for the
site upon annexation. The City's General Plan Land Use Element applies a designation of
"General Commercial" to the site. To be consistent with this land use designation, the site
should be zoned "Retail-Commercial" (C-R).which requires Architectural Review Commission
approval of any future development plans for the property.
Minor Subdivision
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 53-acre site into four parcels. The following General
Plan policies apply to the minor subdivision request:
LU3.0.1: Slope
Commercial and industrial uses should be developed in appropriate areas where the natural
slope of the land is less than 10 percent.
The southerly portion of the annexation area extends along the base of the Irish Hills. The
approved home improvement store does not encroach into the hillside and therefore complies
with the policy. Any future development will be reviewed for similar compliance.
L U 3.0.2: Access
Commercial and industrial uses should have access from arterial and collector streets, and
should be designed and located to avoid increasing traffic on residential streets.
The proposed subdivision has access from an arterial street(Los Osos Valley Road)and does not
increase traffic on neighboring streets.
LU 6.2.6: Hillside Planning Areas
Hillside policies apply to all hills in and around the City. Specific policies to address particular
concerns for the areas as shown on Figure 6 are listed below. For each of these areas, land
. 4-30
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00, Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 6
above the development limit line should be secured as permanent open space.
H) The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the
150 foot elevation, in conjunction with any subdivision or development of the lower
areas. (See also Optional Use and Special Design Areas).
The annexation area does not extend beyond the 150-foot elevation line and appropriate open
space protection above that line was provided by County approvals. Therefore the annexation is
consistent with this General Plan policy.
Environmental Review
The attached environmental initial study concludes that the proposed annexation and future
development will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment. Preliminary
review of the development potential of this site indicates that such development could be
accommodated by City services. The annexation itself has no environmental issues. Mitigation
however is recommended to reduce cumulative impacts of air quality, energy conservation,
noise,traffic and circulation, solid waste disposal,and aesthetics. Future development plans may
trigger additional environmental analysis provided project specific details were not adequately
covered under prior program level environmental analysis.
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Comments from other departments are included in the conditions of approval.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission may recommend that the Council deny the project. Action denying the
application should include the findings for denial.
2. The Commission may continue review of the project. Direction should be given to the
applicant and/or staff regarding desired information.
3. The Commission may recommend that the Council support the annexation with C-R-PD
zoning. Planned Development (PD) zoning is not recommended by staff because the
applicant is not seeking any variations in the established development standards or allowed
uses. The minor subdivision proposed in conjunction with the annexation contains a plan for
roads, utilities and general overall lot layout as required by this Land Use Element policy.
Finally, any future development will require Architectural Review Commission approvals for
building architecture as well as site design.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward a recommendation to the City Council as outlined at the beginning of this report based
4-31
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 7
on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings
1. The project's initial study (ER 51-00) adequately evaluates and mitigates the potential
adverse impacts to the environment resulting from the annexation, prezoning, and minor
subdivision. Furthermore, based on the review of the certified EIRs prepared for the Eagle
Hardware project, and the City's Land Use Element Update EIR and Supplement, and
relevant reference documents in the Community Development Department, staff has
determined that there is no evidence that the project will have any potential adverse effect on
the environment
2. The annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the City on its north side.
3. The annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location in relation to
existing urban development.
4. As indicated in the above analysis, the annexation is consistent with the goals and policies of
the City's General Plan.
5. Prezoning the site Retail Commercial (C-R) is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation of General Retail.
6. Prezoning the site Retail Commercial (C-R) is consistent with the intended uses and locations
of C-R zoned properties as described in the City's zoning regulations.
7. Prezoning the site Retail Commercial (C-R) is appropriate at this location and will be
compatible with surrounding land uses which are primarily retail serving.
8. The design of the minor subdivision and proposed improvements are consistent with the
General Plan, which allow the division of land in accordance with the City's subdivision
regulations.
9. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the Retail
Commercial (C-R) zone, because the lots have adequate size and frontage for commercial
uses, consistent with the subdivision regulations.
10. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
for access through,or use of property within,the proposed subdivision.
Conditions
1. The subdivider shall comply with all adopted mitigation measures for the Froom Ranch
project including the Eagle Hardware EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration ER 51-00.
4-32
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 8
2. All conditions established under the County Development Plan D970143D shall be
conditions of this parcel map except:
a. That the proposed traffic signal shall be located at the proposed street entrance
between parcels 1 and 3 along with any modifications to the proposed median to
accommodate the new traffic signal location, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
b. Drainage improvements across parcel 3 shall be extended across parcel 1, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
3. The full width of the proposed onsite main access road between the parcels shall be`offered"
for public purposes on the (final)parcel map, but not accepted by the City until some future
date,based on future possible subdivision or development proposals and/or at the discretion
of the City. This road shall be improved to City standards(with 13.4m curb-curb) and
terminated as a cul-de-sac (12.2m curb radius),to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works. The cul de sac location may be adjusted to accommodate the approved Home Depot
project,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Street improvements shall consist
of curb, gutter, sidewalk and full width street pavement(based on a T.I.= 8.5),to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The (9.14 m (30 ft.)wide access road between
Parcels 1 & 2 shall likewise be offered and increased to 40 ft. minimum and offered for
dedication as an easement for public sewer, water and other typical utilities,and pedestrian
access,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
4. The subdivider shall dedicate vehicular access rights to the City along the Los Osos Valley
Road(LOVR) frontage, except at approved driveway and street locations shown on the
tentative parcel map.
5. The subdivider shall dedicate a 2m wide public utility easement adjacent to and contiguous
with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
6. The subdivider shall dedicate a 3m wide street easement adjacent to and contiguous with all
public right-of-way lines bordering each lot.
7. If construction phasing of the new street pavement is proposed,the phasing shall provide for
the ultimate structural street section and pavement life(per the City's Pavement Management
Plan)prior to acceptance by the City. The improvement plans shall include a detail regarding
this requirement,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
8. Public water, sewer and utility mains and services shall be extended to serve all parcels,to
the satisfaction of the Directors of Public Works and Utilities.
4-33
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 9
9. Installation of street trees and parkway landscaping shall be deferred until development of
each parcel.
10. All on-site drainage and detention facilities shall be privately owned and maintained.
11. A detailed hydrology study indicating the effects of the proposed development on adjacent
and downstream properties will be required as a condition of development of the respective
parcels. The scope of the study must include analysis of all existing public and private
drainage facilities and creek capacities between this property and an adequate point of
disposal and shall make recommendations for appropriate improvements that will reduce
flooding. Detention facilities will be required. All proposed detention basin and drainage
improvements (except those within a public street) shall be privately owned and maintained
by the property owner.
12. If the study identifies areas that are subject to flooding during a 100-yr storm event the
developer shall process and complete a Federal Emergency Management Agency Letter of
Map Amendment(LOMA), or, Letter of Map Revision(LOMR)prior to final acceptance of
any development. Any lots or building pads, identified in the hydrology study to be subject
to flooding during a 100-yr storm shall be graded to provide minimum pad elevations of at
least 1 foot above the 100-yr storm elevation.
13. All boundary monuments, lot comers and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc, shall be
tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a
tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map or parcel map. All
coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A 3.5" diameter
computer floppy disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital
Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic,Information System(GIS) purposes, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer.
14. The final map;public improvement plans and specifications shall use the International
System of Units(metric system). The English System of Units may be used on the final map
where necessary (e.g. -all record data shall be entered on the map in the record units, metric
translations should be in parenthesis),to the approval of the City Engineer.
15. A digital copy of all"record drawing"improvement plans shall be submitted to the City
containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad(Digital Interchange Format, DXF)
for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes,to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works.
16. Development of the respective parcels shall be in accordance with the City's adopted Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
17. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire
4-34
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 10
Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Access roads
shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000 pound fire
apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving
capabilities.
18. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the
California Fire Code., An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system
and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow
shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. Prior to annexation
the proposed project shall connect to the City Water system for the purpose of providing the
required fire flow.
19. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the
California Fire Code. The location, number and type of hydrants connected to the City
system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the
approved City Engineering Standards. The City Fire Department prior to installation shall
approve location of all fire hydrants. Hydrants shall be in-service prior to the stockpiling of
combustible building materials.
20. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with
the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. Prior to
installation all fire protection equipment,valves, connections and locations shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Fire Department.
21. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction,alteration or
demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code.
22. Plan Check: The City Fire Department shall coordinate with the County Fire Department
and conduct a parallel plan review of the proposed project. Every effort shall be made to
consolidate both agencies fire protection needs. All design submittals shall bear the stamp of
a professional engineer.
23. Permits: Within 30 days of annexation the facility shall obtain all required Uniform Fire
Code permits and submit a current Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
24. Hazardous Materials: The storage, use and handling of hazardous materials, aerosols,
flammable and combustible liquids shall be in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code.
25. The conditions associated with this approval do not override, supersede or modify the County
approvals for Development Plan D970143D.
Code Requirements
4-35
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 1 I
1. A water allocation is required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies.
Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The
City's Water Conservation division can help in determining the needed allocation and the
necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The
cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, at a rate of
$150 per bathroom retrofitted.
2. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued.
Both the Water and the Wastewater Impact Fees are based on the size of the water meter
serving each parcel.
3. If a well is to be used for domestic purposes,the domestic usage will be measured with a City
meter, in order to properly bill for wastewater collection. The well meter shall be installed in
accordance with City Standard 6240. An agreement for the metering of the private well must
be signed,notarized, and recorded with the County Recorder.
4. Appropriate backflow prevention will be necessary on any connection to the City water
system if the property includes an active well.
5. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so
that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If
it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the
deficiency as a part of the overall project.
6. Depending on the proposed uses at the site, industrial waste/wastewater pretreatment
requirements may apply. The project shall be coordinated with the City's Industrial Waste
Coordinator, Dale Karnes,who can be reached at 781-7425.
7. A separate connection shall be required for automatic fire sprinklers. A monthly service fee
of$22.40 shall be required if the property does not have a connection to the City system for
domestic use.
8. On-site use of any well will be allowed to continue only on the parcel overlying the well.
Well water may be allowed to cross property lines in specific commercial instances, and
subject to the approval of the Utilities Director. Upon failure of the well, the owner will be
required to connect (if not already connected) to the City water distribution system. If
development occurs under City jurisdiction, the applicant shall develop an allocation and pay
water impact fees, even if the property is not connected to the City water system.
9. The applicant can use their well water for domestic use and irrigation while connecting to the
City water system for fire protection once the property is annexed to the City. They will need
to develop an allocation and pay impact fees at the time a building permit is issued for any
new buildings. If the applicant chooses to be connected to the City system for fire protection
4-36
ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00,Froom Ranch Annexation
Page 12
without having a meter for domestic use, they will be required to pay a small monthly water
system `access charge' for the fire sprinkler connection.
10. The nearest point of connection to the City sewer system is in Los Osos Valley Road in front
of 1484 Auto Parkway. This 8" sewer main shall be extended across the LOVR frontage of
the subject property. The requirement to extend the sewer main across the entire frontage
may be lessened if it is determined that no other properties to the north of the Froom Ranch
will require service to this main line extension as determined by the Utilities Engineer. The
City may be able to develop a reimbursement agreement by which the developer could be
reimbursed for portions of the cost that are attributable to any "non-participating" properties
that would eventually connect service laterals directly to the new sewer main.
11. The applicant will be required to pay the fair share cost of the additional capacity of the
Laguna Lift Station and the Howard Johnson Lift Station needed to serve the development.
Attached:
1. Vicinity map
2. Annexation map
3. Prezoning map
4. Minor subdivision map
5. Environmental Initial Study
4-37
i0111111in III
city Of SAII WIS OBISPO
A
ll
oozeal
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ER 51-00
1 . Project Title: Froom Ranch Annexation, Prezone, and Subdivision
(ANNX/R/ER 51-00)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
3. Contact Person and, Phone Number: Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville,
781-7175
4. Project Location: 12395 Los Osos Valley Road
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Alex Madonna, Madonna Construction
Co., P.O. Box 3910, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3910
6. General Plan Designation: General Retail
7. Current County Zoning: Commercial Retail
8. Description of the Project: The applicant is requesting prezoning and
annexation of a 53-acre parcel lying within the City's Urban Reserve Line.
The area to be annexed contains a County approved and permitted home
improvement store and vacant land for future development consistent with
the City's land use and development regulations. The project will also
include a subdivision of the 53-acre annexation area into four parcels ranging
in size from 10 to 16.5 acres and a remainder. Future development of the
vacant parcels may require subsequent environmental analysis once
development plans are known.
9. Entitlements Requested: Annexation, Prezoning, and Tentative Map
approvals
10. Surrounding Land Uses: Just outside the proposed annexation area to the
south is the Froom Ranch farmhouse and outbuildings. To the southeast is
agricultural land, used for grazing. Running roughly parallel with Los Osos
Valley Road are the Irish Hills, which provide a visual backdrop to the site.
To the north of the project site is the DeVaul Ranch property, which is
rCO, The city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and adivftie "
�` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.
currently farmed but approved for residential development. Across Los Osos
Valley Road are houses, farmland, and auto dealerships.
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement):
Local Agency Formation Commission
2 4-39
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources X Aesthetics
Population and Housing X Energy.and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water X Noise X ;Mandatory Findings
of Significance
X Air Quality Public Servicesi in
Al
X Transportation and X Utilities and Service R`*
11:
Circulation Systems '`, � €^ si-:%'s<`•'=''
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects
on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project
qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial
study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Rind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an X
attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at leas
one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable lega
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis a
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potential)
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
3 4-40
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ther
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
May 10, 2000
Signature Date
Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No
Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact
simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture
zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination
is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they.
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Referenceto a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
4 4-41
Issues and Supporting Informatioi, Sources Sources Potentia.. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2,3 x
4
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 6,9 x
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 10
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 1,2 x
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impac- 1,7 x
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible lane 11
uses? 12
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of ar x
established community (including a low-income o
minority community)?
Pre-Zoning
The City's general plan applies a designation of General Retail to this site. To be consistent with this Ian
use designation the site must be pre-zoned Retail Commercial (C-R) as part of the annexation request. Th
approved home improvement store proposed for one of the parcels is an allowed use in the C-R zoning
district. Any.future development of the remaining parcels will have to be consistent the property's C-R
zoning.
CONCLUSION: Not significant. Consistency with general plan polices and zoning regulations is best
achieved by prezoning the subject property C-R, Retail Commercial.
r
Agricultural Compatibiliri
The project site has historically been used for cattlegrazing. The project will ultimately remove 53 acres of
the Froom Ranch out of this historic agricultural use. According to the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service
maps, the two dominate soil types of the site (Cropley clay 127, and Salinas silty clay loam, 197). The soil
is suited to vegetable crops, dryland farming and pasture, however, crop production may be greatly reduce
during the winter unless surface and subsurface drainage systems are installed. For agricultural production
the soils within the subject property have crop production capability classifications of Class I and Class I
soils when irrigated and Class III when not irrigated. Class I and II soils are the equivalent to prime soil
beneficial for use in agriculture practices.
Normally, the conversion of prime agricultural land is considered a significant impact. These impacts were
previously evaluated and mitigated as part of the City's LUE EIR, 1994 and the County Supplemental EIR for
the Madonna/Eagle Hardware development, 1998. More specifically, adoption of the City's LUE EI
included a statement of overriding consideration for conversion of prime agricultural land to urban use
(Resolution 8332).
CONCLUSION: Not significant due to previous evaluation and Council action.
Airport Compatibility
The site is included within the boundaries of the County's Airport Land Use Plan and is more specifically
located in Land Use Area 6. Retail commercial development is considered a "compatible use" within this
planning area.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation will not impact airport operations. Approved and future
5 4-42
Issues and Supporting Informatioi, oources Sources Potentiall, Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Issues unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
use of the site is considered compatible with airport operations. Future development may require the
dedication of an avigation easement in accordance with the Airport Land Use Plan policies and procedures.
Land Use Element Policies
This site is envisioned by both the City and County land use plans to be annexed to the City. The property i
located within the City's Urban Reserve Line and is planned for Retail Commercial development.
Governing Policies:
♦ 1.13 Annexation and Services
♦ 1.13.1 Water & Sewer Service The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City water or sewer
services to the following areas. However, the City will serve those parties having valid previous
connections or contracts with the City.
A. Outside the City limits;
B. Outside the urban reserve line;
C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water system;
D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer system.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation into the City will ensure compliance with this policy. In
addition, the property is located inside the City's urban reserve line. See also the water supply discussion
under Utilities and Service Systems.
♦ 1.13.2 Annexation Purpose and Timing Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both
to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve lin
which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. Th
City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas whic
are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city
approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development wil
reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing an
proposed land uses and roads.
Annexation of this site is consistent with this policy. Topography poses no issue since the site is essential)
flat. Needed capital facilities and funding are outlined in the attached letter from the Community
Development Director to the applicant.
CONCLUSION: Not significant. Urban development and annexation of this site are envisioned in both Cit
and County land use plans.
♦ 1.13.3 Required Plans Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the
City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing o
public facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with policy
1.13.5.
D. For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan under "PD
zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The applicant's request is for annexation of land approved fo
development. A portion of the property will remain undeveloped. It is being annexed at this time t
facilitate a logical extension of the city limits boundary southeast from the DeVaul Ranch. Consistent with
6 4-43
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentlaity Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
the above policy, the property will be zoned to Retail Commercial.
♦ 1.13.4 Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when
adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services o
increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of Jul
1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. The water management policies may
allow part of the water retrofit credit that would be needed for build-out within the 1994 city limits to
be used for annexation projects. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available b
any one or any combination of the following:
A. City water supply, including reclaimed water;
B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in
long-term water usage;
C. Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition t
City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the
City's municipal groundwater supply.
The applicant plans to connect to City services. The applicant will have to develop a water allocation before
connecting. Currently, this requires that the applicant retrofit existing plumbing fixtures throughout the Ci
to save twice the amount of water that site development is anticipated to use.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Connection to City water and future site development under the
jurisdiction of the City will be subject to the City's water allocation regulations. Preliminary analysis of
existing and future site development indicates the project is unlikely to use more than10 acre-feet of water
per year. See also the water supply discussion under Utilities and Service Systems.
♦ 1.13.5 Open Space
♦ Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for the
habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in policy 6.1.1. Policies
concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply t
the indicated areas:
A. Irish Hills Area properties shall dedicate land or easements covering an area in the hills at least equa
to the area to be developed.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The applicant intends to annex 53 acres of developable property. Th
applicant, as part of his County land use approval, will dedicate an open space easement over the visible
hillside above the development site that is well over 53 acres.
♦ 1.14 Costs of Growth
The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the nevy
development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain
community-wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate
financing measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities
needed to serve it.
CONCLUSION: Not significant. Anticipated infrastructure needs for future development are outlined in
comments from the City's Public Works Department. Project specific infrastructure needs will be addressed
at the time of hook-up and for the undeveloped portion of the site, through conditions of future site
4-44
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than xo
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Issues Unless impact
mitigation
Incorporated
development.
♦ 1.15 Solid Waste Capacity
In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to development, the Cit
must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting an
discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation.
CONCLUSION: See discussion under Utilities and Services (Section 12)
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local populatior1 x
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly o x
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable x
housing?
The Land Use Element (LUE) growth management provisions (section 1.0 of the LUE) call for limitations o
the number of residences that may be built every year, to maintain an average growth rate of one percen
per year during the 1990s.
CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation by itself will not impact population. Any expansion in jobs is
not anticipated to be significant and such jobs are likely to be filled by local residents.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 11 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 1, 11 x
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 1, 11 x
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? x
e) Landslides or mudflows? 1, 11 x
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 1, 11 x
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? 11 x
h) Expansive soils? 11 x
i) Unique geologic or physical.features? 11 x
An EIR prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo by the Morro Group in 1998 for the Madonna/Eagle
Hardware & Garden development notes that the project is located within, or in close proximity to the Lo
Osos fault zone. The potential for fault rupture and general geologic hazards were investigated. Risk o
fault rupture, slope instability, earthquake shaking, liquefaction, and subsidence were found to b
insignificant. Construction in accordance with local building codes will mitigate any impacts to a level o
insignificance. -Project specific recommendations of the Earth Systems analysis (1997, incorporated into the
project EIR) will be implemented at the time of building permit approvals.
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant unless mitigated.
Mitigation Measure: Future development shall be located away from activefaults per State Law and the
Safety Element.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 1,13 x
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards x
such as flooding?
8 4-45
Issues and Supporting Informatio.. Sources Sources Potentia. Potentially Lcss Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of x
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water x
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water x
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either througt x
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? x
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? x
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater x
otherwise available for public water supplies?
The approved and future development will increase runoff from the site as a result of site improvements.
The applicant intends to mitigate these impacts through the use of a drainage detention basin.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Improvements to the site will include the development of a drainage
detention basin in order to ensure no increase in discharge of surface water from the site from presen
conditions. Any future development will be required to demonstrate similar compliance and construc
appropriately sized drainage facilities to ensure no added run-off.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 7, 11 x
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance
with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) .Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants x
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause x
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? x
Air quality impacts of the home improvement store were previously evaluated and mitigated as part of the
project EIR. The annexation itself will not create any additional air quality impacts. The potential impacts o
future development will be addressed in more detail once plans for commercial buildings come forward. Thi
initial study addresses generic development of the remaining annexation area.
Short-term Impacts
During project construction of future development, there will be increased levels of fugitive dust associate
with construction and grading activities, as well as construction emissions associated with heavy-duty
construction equipment. Compliance with the dust management practices contained in Municipal Cod
Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2) will adequately mitigate short-term impacts. No further mitigation is
necessary.
Long-Term Impacts
San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PM10 (fine particulate matter 1
9 4-46
Issues and Supporting Information sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
microns or less in diameter) air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment
pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. Th
1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution
Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed
to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use.
Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.
Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are
also a significant source of PM,,. Thus, a major requirement in the CAP is the implementation of
transportation control measures designed to reduce motor vehicle trips and miles traveled by local residents
The APCD recommends that site development include the following mitigation measures to encourage
transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists an
pedestrians.
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant. Future site development will impact air quality as a result of
construction activity and traffic generated by uses established. Standard mitigation is recommended t
reduce impacts resulting from construction activity and future site development.
Mitigation Measure:
Future development shall include:
• bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use;
• continued sidewalk along the property street frontage;
• outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; and
• extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 10, x
11,
12
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp x
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby x
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? 10 x
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative x
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility -7 x
with San Luis Obispo Co.
Traffic impacts of the home improvement store were previously evaluated and mitigated as part of the
project EIR. Mitigation measures required roadway improvements to widen LOVR to 4 lanes between
Madonna Road and Calle Joaquin, signalize the intersection of LOVR and the project entry, provide a transi
stop on the LOVR frontage, provide sidewalks and bike lanes on the project frontage, provide turn lanes o
LOVR to the project site, and contribute the fair share cost for numerous intersection improvement
impacted by the proposed project. The annexation of additional vacant land will not create any additiona
traffic impacts beyond those that were previously addressed as part of the project EIR and the City's Updat
of the LUE of the General Plan. The potential impacts of future development will be reviewed and addresse
in more detail once specific plans for commercial buildings come forward. This initial study addresses
generic development of the remaining annexation area.
10 4-47
FEROO;
and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentia[., potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
Air traffic compatibility is discussed in Section 1. On-site parking is subject to zoning regulation standard
and will be addressed as part of the architectural review.
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Future site development shall be subject to further analysis as part of the development review process t
ensure compliance with City standards and the payment of City traffic impact fees which were established
(Resolution No. 8406) to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's streets, transit, and
bikeway facilities.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 7, x
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 11,
animals or birds)? 13
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 7,11 x
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest 1,7, x
coastal habitat, etc.)? 1 1
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 1,7, x
11,
13
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 1,7, x
11
A detailed assessment of biological resources present on the site was evaluated as part of the
Madonna/Eagle Hardware EIR. c The primary sensitivity area includes seasonal wetlands that are locate
toward the southeast corner of the annexation area. The additional annexation area between th
development area evaluated in the County EIR and the DeVaul Ranch property was also evaluated as
project alternative and found to not contain any sensitive resources. The conclusions that were reached i
the project EIR were that the development would impact annual grassland habitat to a less than significan
level and the wetland losses could be mitigated. The wetland mitigation can be accomplished to the
satisfaction of the County of San Luis Obispo, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. A Corps permit has been obtained.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation itself will not result in any biological impacts. Based on
information contained in the Madonna/Eagle Hardware EIR, there is no evidence before the Department tha
the project and development will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends provided the project complies with the mitigation measures tha
were established through the County approval process.
B. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 1 x
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 1 x
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
The Energy Element states that, "New development will be encouraged to minimize the use of conventiona
energy for space heating and cooling, water heating, and illumination by means of proper design an
orientation, including the provision and protection of solar exposure." The City implements energ
conservation goals through enforcement of the California Energy Code which establishes energ
conservation standards for residential and nonresidential construction. Buildings proposed as part of thi
project must meet those standards. The City also implements energy conservation goals throug
I I 4-48
Issues and Supporting Informatioi. oources Sources Potentia, Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
architectural review. Project designers are asked to show how a project makes maximum use of passive
means of reducing conventional energy demand, as opposed to designing a particular image and relying o
mechanical systems to maintain comfort.
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant. To be consistent with adopted energy conservation policies and avoid
using non-renewable resources in an inefficient manner, the following standard mitigation is recommende
for any future site development approved by the City of San Luis Obispo:
Mitigation Measure:
New buildings constructed on this site shall incorporate the following as feasible:
• Skylights to maximize natural day lighting.
• Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation.
• Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use.
If these features are not included or feasible in the design of new buildings, the project architect shat
document why they were determined to be infeasible. The Community Development Director shall review
this document and make a final decision as to the feasibility of incorporating these energy conserving
features.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 3,4, x
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 13
chemicals or radiation)? 14
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan 13 x
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 13 x
hazard? 14
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 13 x
health hazards? 14
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 13 x
grass or trees?
Annexation is not anticipated to result in the creation or exposure of people to any known health hazards.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 1 x
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as 1 x
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element?
Annexation by itself has no noise impacts. The anticipated commercial uses are not noise-sensitive uses a
described by the Noise Element of the General Plan. There are noise sensitive uses in the area, which include
the residential neighborhoods on the northeast side of Los Osos Valley Road as well as the newly approve
and pending residential developments on the DeVaul Ranch property. Impacts to these neighborhoods wil
be predominantly from increased traffic traveling on Los Osos Valley Road as well as stationary noise with
commercial activities on the property.
Mitigation that was required as part of the Madonna/Eagle Hardware development included a noise wall t
be constructed along some properties along Garcia Drive. This mitigation is occurring as part of the Count
review of the building permit for the Home Depot store. The residential development of the DeVaul Ranc
has similar mitigation that applied to it that will involve the installation of a noise wall along Los Osos Valle
Road to mitigate traffic noise impacts.
I
12 4-49
Issues and Supporting Informatiuo Sources Sources Potenti. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
As far as operational noise, no mitigation was required as part of the EIR due to the distance betweerthe
home improvement store and the DeVaul Ranch development. However, this annexation will involve
undeveloped commercial property that is adjacent to the DeVaul Ranch and Laguna West (common)
referred to as DeVaul II). Future development of areas adjacent to these residential developments will
require further noise analysis and likely the construction of a solid noise wall that separates the commercia
and residential developments.
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Any future development adjacent to residential areas shall require a noise analysis and mitigation in order t
comply with the City's Noise Standards contained in the General Plan.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? 13 x
b) Police protection? 13 x
c) Schools? x
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 13 x
e) Other governmental services? 13 x
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Annexation will not have any impact on public services. Comments
from various City Departments (attached) indicate what fees, infrastructure, easements and dedications will
be necessary to accommodate additional site development.
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? x
b) Communications systems? x
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 13 x
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 13 x
e) Storm water drainage? 13 x
f) Solid waste disposal? 6 x
g) Local or regional water supplies? 1 x
Comments from various City Departments (attached) indicate what fees, infrastructure, easements and
dedications will be necessary to ensure adequate delivery of City services to this site. In order to implement
the goals and objectives of the San Luis Obispo General Plan, and to provide adequate water supply and
treatment facilities, and wastewater collection and treatment facilities, to serve new development in the City
of San Luis Obispo and to mitigate the impacts of that new development, certain public facilities and
improvements must be, or had to be, constructed. The City Council has determined that connection fees are
needed in order to finance these facilities and improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of
the construction costs of these facilities and improvements. Site development will be subject to payment of
water and wastewater impact fees and construction of infrastructure necessary to deliver services to the
project site.
Water Supply — The Utilities Department has reviewed this annexation application and determined that it is
consistent with the Water Management Element and that there is sufficient water available to serve site
development.
The City of San Luis Obispo obtains its water from a combination of surface and groundwater sources.
Adopted safe annual yield from these sources is 7,735 acre-feet per year. The City is pursuing the
13 4-50
Issues and Supporting Information oources Sources Potential.. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Issues unless Impact
mitigation
Incorporated
development of additional water supplies, including the Nacimiento Pipeline Project, the Salinas Reservoi
Expansion Project, and the Water Reuse Project. Reuse of treated wastewater for non-potable needs, suc
as landscape watering, will reduce demand on potable water supplies. This is likely to be the first additiona
source developed and is projected to yield roughly 1200 acre-feet per year. Half that amount would be hel
in reserve. The other half would be used in place of potablewater, thereby increasing the amount of potable
water available for allocation by roughly 600 acre feet per year.
Planning for future water use in the City is based on an average consumption of 145 gallons per day per
person or 0.162 acre-feet per person per year, which is somewhat higher than actual consumption during
and since the most recent drought. Based on this water use rate and current city population, presen
demand is about 6,962 acre-feet per year. This number is recalculated annually using updated populatio
estimates from the California Department of Finance. The difference between safe annual yield and presen
demand is 773 acre-feet per year, which is available to serve new development. Half this amount (386 acre-
feet) is available for development in annexation areas.
Until retrofit of the entire City is essentially complete, all developers are subject to the City's Water
Allocation regulations and must retrofit existing facilities with low-flow plumbing fixtures in order to offset
twice the expected demand of their development prior to issuance of a building permit. The Utilities
Department staff estimates that remaining opportunities for retrofitting could reduce current water use b
500 acre-feet per year.
Building permits for the home improvement center were based on private on-site water supplies. Upon
annexation, the applicant will request City services, which will trigger the establishment of a water
allocation. The applicant could continue to use well water for landscape irrigationto reduce demand for City
water.
CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The project's (permitted and future) estimated water demand is
approximately 10 acre-foot per year. Compliance with Water Allocation regulations will ensure water supply
availability.
Water Distribution — The applicant will have to extend the water main in Los Osos Valley Road in order to
hook up to City water. This will be a condition of site development.
Sewer — The applicant will have to extend the sewer main in Los Osos Valley Road in order to connect City
sewer service.
Storm Water - Discussed under Water above.
Solid Waste - Solid waste from this site is delivered to Cold Canyon landfill, which has a capacity to accept
solid waste for approximately 18.5 years, based on the current rate of disposal and ongoing trends showing
a reduction in per capita waste generation. Measures to reduce solid waste are still needed to improv
compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939) shows that Californians
dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per person per year. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills,
posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach it
capacity in the year 2018. The act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow o
materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. As of 1998 (the date for which latest figures are
available), San Luis Obispo had reduced its waste stream by 34%.
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant.
14 4-51
Issues and Supporting Informatioi, Sources Sources PotentiL. Potentially LcssThan No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
To help reduce the ongoing waste stream, the current operation should include facilities for both interior an
exterior recycling to reduce the unrecycled waste stream generated by the project consistent with the
Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
To help reduce waste generated by future site development, a solid waste reduction plan for recyclin
discarded demolition and construction materials should be submitted with the building permit application.
Mitigation Measures:
Future site development shall include a solid .waste recycling plan for on-going operations and for the
recycling of discarded building materials, such as concrete, sheetrock, wood, and metals, from the
construction site. The plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director, prior
to building permit issuance.
Existing and future site development shall incorporate convenient facilities for' interior and exterior on-sit
recycling. A description of current recycling efforts and any plans to expand those efforts shall b
submitted to the Community Development Department prior to City Council review of the annexation
request.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? x
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x
c) Create light or glare? x
This section of Los Osos ValleytRoad is identified in the City's Circulation Element as a "road with moderate
scenic value". Annexation by itself will have no aesthetic impacts. Further development of the site to b
annexed will be subject to architectural review and approval to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts
compliance with the City's Scenic Roadways section of the Circulation Element, and compliance with Cit
lighting standards.
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height o
lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixture(s), standard and base, shall not be higher tha
20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture
shall not exceed 10 footcandles.
Any future development shall be subject to the architectural review process to ensure against negative
aesthetic impacts and compliance with City development standards including the Scenic Highways sectio
of the Circulation Element.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? x
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 15 x
c) Affect historical resources? x
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the x
potential impact area?
Cultural and historic surveys were performed of the Froom Ranch in 1993 and 1998. These surveys failed
15 4-52
Issues and Supporting Informatioi. iources Sources Potential.. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation Issues mitimpact
mtiggaa tion
Incorporated
to find any pre-historic resources. Several historic buildings were identified on the property that are
associated with early and on-going agricultural operations on the Froom Ranch. Despite recommende
mitigation, it was determined that the relationship of the home improvement store and the historic rant
buildings, that there were going to be significant and unavoidable impacts. A statement of overridin
considerations was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Future build out of the remainder of the
annexation area will occur further away form these historic resources and is determined to be less tha
significant.
CONCLUSION: Not significant.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks x
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? x
No impact.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the x
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Without mitigation, the project would have the potential to have adverse impacts for all issue areas checke
in the table on page 3.
Based on information in the application, existing environmental studies that cover the project area, a fiel
inspection, and a review of relevant references in the Department, staff has determined that there is n
evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife
resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends that were not previously addressed and mitigated.
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant without mitigation.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- x
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
Short-term and long-term goals are the same.
CONCLUSION: Not significant.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually x
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
The annexation itself will not result in any potentially significant impacts to the environment. Compliant
with adopted City policies and regulations related to growth management and resource availability and the
inclusion of mitigation measures recommended in this initial study will reduce cumulative impacts of air
quality, traffic, noise aesthetics and energy consumption to a less than significant level.
16 4-53
Issues and Supporting Information, Sources Sources Potentia. Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER 51-00; Madonna Construction Co. Annexation mitigation
Incorporated
CONCLUSION: Potentially significant without mitigation.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will x
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
With incorporation of mitigation measures, the project will not result in substantial adverse impacts o
humans.
CONCLUSION: Not significant.
r
17 4-54
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one c
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (:
(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
• Final EIR for the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Element Updates, City of San Luis Obispo. Available at
the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo.
• Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, Certified by the County Board of
Supervisors on November 2, 1999. Available at the Community Development Department, City of San
Luis Obispo.
• Final EIR fpr the DeVaul Ranch North development certified by the San Luis Obispo City Council on
December 15, 1998.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scop
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
NA
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describ,
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent t
which they address site-specific conditions of the project.
NA
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Energy, Open Space, Seismic
Safety, Water and Wastewater Management Elements
2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations
3. County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Area Plan, January 1997
4. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element
5. 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County
6. SLO County Airport Land Use Plan
7. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas
8. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
9. Letter from Arnold Jonas outlining applicable fees in the event of annexation
10. City Department Comments
11. Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, Certified by the County Board
of Supervisors on November 2, 1999
12. Resolution No. 8332 approving the City's 1994 LUE Update and EIR supplement
13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nationwide Permit for the Froom Ranch development
14.
15.
ATTACHMENTS:
Vicinity Map
Annexation Map
Tentative Parcel Map
4-55
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 24,2000
Page 4
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Cooper moved to approve the use permit based on findings and subject
to conditions as presented by staff. Commissioner Aiken seconded the motion.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked that the motion reflect a correction to Condition 1 to
delete "above-stated"from the last sentence.
Commissioners Cooper and Aiken accepted the amendment to the motion.
Commissioner Whittlesey commented that the original mixed residential/commercial use
of this development has never come to fruition.
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Aiken, Whittlesey, Peterson, Loh, Osborne, and Ready
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried unanimously.
2. 12395 Los Osos Valley Road, ANNX/R, MS and ER 51-00: Request to annex
approximately 53 acres of the Froom Ranch and prezone the property to Retail-
Commercial (C-R); minor subdivision to create four parcels ranging in size from 10 to
16.5 acres with a 5.5 acre remainder parcel; and environmental review; Madonna
Construction Company, applicant.
Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report and recommended that
the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council (1) introduce an ordinance
prezoning the 53-acre site to C-R (Retail-Commercial), (2) adopt a resolution approving
the vesting tentative parcel map based on findings and subject to conditions and code
requirements and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and (3) adopt a
resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
approve the annexation of 53 acres on the south side of Los Osos Valley Road.
Commissioner Osborne noted the Commission did not receive the County EIR for
review of this project and asked in what way would this project have been considered
differently if it had been presented to the City first.
Manager Whisenand stated the only difference is that it is being treated as developed
property.
Commissioner Osborne commented that the General Plan goals support preservation of
agricultural land and views of the hills and opposes the worsening of traffic and smog.
He felt this project seems to contradict all of the goals. He had staff comment on the
calculations used for determining the open space dedication.
Manager Whisenand noted one of the benefits of having the project in the city is that
future development of lots will go through the City's Architectural Review Commission
4-56
Draft Planning Commission Minutes IC)
May 24,2000
Page 5
(ARC) process.
Commissioner Osbome asked what would occur on the other parcels that are being
created as a part of this annexation.
Manager Whisenand responded that there is no development proposal submitted on the
additional parcels at this time, but it is anticipated that they will be developed with a
retail nature.
Commission Osborne expressed concern with buildings being developed in the
seasonal wetlands and questioned City liability in this regard.
Attorney Trujillo explained annexation rules in relation to County-approved building
permits on land annexed into the City.
Manager Whisenand stated that the EIR completed for the County project evaluated the
entire area displayed on the map. The seasonal wetland issue was evaluated; the Army
Corps of Engineer's permit approves the location of the building.
Commissioner Loh noted the open space was not included on the annexation drawing
supplied by staff.
Associate Planner Mandeville commented that open space would be protected, but
would remain in the County, and added the original development was approved at
220,000 square feet and the current number is 130,000 square feet.
Commissioner Peterson commented that.open space dedication would be a part of the
County, yet is being counted towards City open space for this annexation.
Manager Whisenand stated there was genuine interest on the County's part to preserve
open space, knowing that indeed that was a City requirement.
Commissioner Peterson noted that staff indicated that the purpose of the open space
dedication is to mitigate visual impacts. He asked if the purpose of open space is also
to preserve habitat.
Manager Whisenand stated the prime reason for an open space dedication is to protect
the City's greenbelt.
Commissioner Peterson felt there are differences between the project that the County's
EIR considered and the project now before the City. The County considered a much
smaller additional commercial area. He asked if the EIR was still applicable.
Manager Whisenand responded that two EIRs are referenced in the environmental
document—the City's Land Use Element EIR and the County's EIR.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if consideration was given to "Business Park" zoning
for this project.
4-57
Draft Planning Commission Minutes ATrAe {H H i Ur
May 24,2000
Page 6
Manager Whisenand replied no, this land is designated for retail-commercial
development in the General Plan. This is the only zoning appropriate that would not
require a General Plan amendment.
Commissioner Cooper stated there are elements in the General Plan Safety Element
that seem to apply in this instance. He cited the draft Safety Element Policy S 3.1,
Avoiding Faults, and asked if staff had considered this.
Manager Whisenand stated a trace fault was identified as potentially occurring in this
area and was evaluated specifically by the EIR. It was determined that building areas
would be located outside areas of danger.
Commissioner Cooper had staff comment on the litigation mentioned in a letter
submitted by Michael Sullivan.
Commissioner Aiken asked if there are annexation plans for land to the south of this
property.
Manager Whisenand stated the General Plans shows the area as being within the City's
urban reserve line and is appropriate for retail-commercial development. The area
outside this boundary is shown as being appropriate for open space.
Commissioner Peterson questioned staff on the DeVaul open space dedication.
Commissioner Loh had staff review slopes and grades in the area.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Marty Tangeman, attorney for Mr. Madonna, provided the history of the project, noting
studies were completed which evaluated possible impacts to agricultural,
environmental, historical, cultural resources, etc. He stated they have approvals to
proceed with development in the County, and it makes sense to proceed in the City. He
noted they are required to sign a document that forever commits the open space
property in which wildlife habitat is preserved. They are willing to consider providing the
easement to the City rather than the County. He noted that the recommended
conditions of approval are acceptable.
Commissioner Peterson asked what assurances could be had for City ownership of the
open space easement.
Mr. Tangeman stated ownership could be reflected as a condition.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the City's architectural standards would be applied to
the Home Depot building.
4-58
Draft Planning Commission Minutes AVA4+iMEW7_ fl
May 24,2000
Page 7
Mr. Tangeman stated the County imposed specific visual requirements for the building
architecture, however the front building would fall under the City's regulation.
Commissioner Whittlesey had Mr. Tangeman review potential visual impacts identified
by the EIR.
Christine Mulholland, local resident, expressed concern with the Commission not having
reviewed the EIRs and recommended a continuance. She noted that this area is
designated for commercial development, but policy directs that we will infill our two
major zones of commercial-retail identified as our downtown and the Madonna Plaza
area. .She suggested the applicant prefers annexation into the city because it would
allow for more intensified development. She felt the City should reject this
development.
Marilyn Woods, 57 Contenta Court, expressed concern with the increase of proposed
parcels adjacent to Parcel 4, the proposed Home Depot. The original buffer between
the Froom Ranch buildings and Parcel 4 was recommended by the EIR consultant to be
at least 200 feet. An additional buffer should be included to protect and ensure an
adequate visual barrier between the historic buildings and the oversized commercial
buildings.
Michael Sullivan, 1125 Seaward Street, referred to his submitted letter and stated more
time is needed to answer legal questions, review and study the environmental
documents, and to consider points raised about the initial study.
Commissioner Cooper had staff address the Commission's required due diligence in
reviewing the environmental documents.
Sherry Lewis, 209 Longview, spoke against annexing this parcel and questioned the
City's ability to regulate building development on this parcel. She noted the City would
be supplying water and emergency services to this property. She felt the Commission
should review the EIRs. This project may affect the City's vibrant downtown and be
counterproductive to the City's image.
Bob Shanbron, 2771 Houston Drive, Los Osos, felt it would be a mistake to decentralize
downtown. Any detraction from downtown increases use of cars. He requested the
annexation be denied.
Susan Americonner (Inaudible), 883 Vista Collados, expressed concern with the town
losing its character and the preservation of the Froom Ranch. She felt the city does not
need a Home Depot.
Mr. Tangeman summarized his support of the proposed annexation.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
4-59
Draft Planning Commission Minutes Aic'/ 'ViMI;*Jr
May 24,2000
Page 8
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Loh moved to recommend that the City Council (1) introduce an
ordinance prezoning the 53 acre site C-R (Retail-Commercial); (2) adopt a resolution
approving the vesting parcel map based on findings and subiect to conditions and code
requirements and adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration; (3) and adopt a
resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the
annexation of 53 acres on the south side of Los Osos Valley Road; including added
conditions applying to the subdivision (4) that the open space dedication as shown in
green on the map be transferred from the County to the City and (5) that the historic
resources and resources buffer around the Froom Ranch buildings be protected.
Commissioner Whittlesey seconded the motion.
The Commission and staff discussed the aspect of the motion relating to the open
space dedication to the City versus to the County.
The Commission asked Mr.Tangeman if access is provided to the open space.
Mr. Tangeman replied no. He stated the applicant is receptive to dedicating the open
space to the City, as long as it does not have other negative ramifications. Further
research may be necessary.
Commissioner Cooper had Mr. Tangeman comment on the County-imposed
buffer/protection of the historic buildings.
Commissioner Aiken stated he could support the motion if the last two parts (4 and 5)
were separated out.
Commissioner Cooper requested the motion be amended to include Policy S 3.1 from
page 15 of the Safety Element with the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Commissioners Loh and Whittlesey accepted the amendment to the motion.
Attorney Trujillo recommended an indemnity clause be included to reflect that the
Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they require the subdivider
to enter an indemnity agreement with the City in a form approved by the City Attorney's
office, pursuant to Government Code.Section 66774.9b.
Commissioners Loh and Whittlesey accepted the recommended amendment to the
motion.
Manager Whisenand recommended a condition be added to the subdivision that reflects
that the buffers as approved by the County between Parcel 4 and the historic ranch
houses shall be maintained consistent with County approvals.
Commissioners Loh and Whittlesey amended the motion to reflect Manger Whisenand's
suggested language.
4-60
Draft Planning Commission Minutes A'WeMePT
May 24,2000
Page 9
Commissioner Osborne felt the project has changed substantially and the EIR may not
be relevant to the proposal and commented there is a loss of agricultural land and the
dedication of open space on the hillside is in no way compensating this loss. He could
not support the motion.
Commissioner Peterson felt the applicant would gain more benefit by annexing this
property into the City rather than proceeding with the County. He felt the staff report
analysis was insufficient for the magnitude of the project and the.Commission has not
reviewed all documents referenced to in the staff report. He did not support the
applicant giving the City open space that has already been given to the County. He
recommended the item be continued, a subcommittee be assigned to address the
conditions, with direction to staff to further address the pluses and minuses of the
project.
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Whittlesey, Aiken, Cooper, and Ready
NOES: Commrs. Peterson and Osborne
ABSENT: None
REFRAIN: None
The motion carried 5-2-0
3. CiWMde, GPA 67-96: Update Safety and Seis is Safety Elements of the General
Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
This item was continued to June 14, 2000.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
4. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
June 14—Two annexation prop o als.
June 28—Vineyard Church nexation request.
5. Commission:
A Elections:
Commissioner Aik nominated Chairman Ready to serve another term as chair. The
nomination was ted by Chairman Ready, seconded by Commissioner Cooper,
and unanimousi4approved.
Commissione&hittlesev nominated Commissioner Peterson to serve as vice chair.
The nomination was accepted by Commission Peterson seconded by Chairman Read
and unaninfously approved.
4-61
•
•
RM
�
rA
�r F�.�_•� v I'�6
\ OHO♦-- �` (� �1'�.�����,�=�
• • • • ' • ' , E, , ' • .
�'= S I