Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2003, BUS 3 - SCOPE OF WORK AND SHARED COST FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFI council Feb.4,2003 acEnaa nEpont CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner G"W SUBJECT: SCOPE OF WORK AND SHARED COST FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (ER 209-98). CAO RECOMMENDATION:. 1. Approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Orcutt Area EIR, and authorize the CAO to award the contract if it is within the contract estimate of$120,000, subject to prior receipt of funds from the applicants for their share of the contract and administrative costs. 2. Authorize the CAO to approve and issue an RFP to prepare an alternative design emphasizing cluster and courtyard development; and to award the contract if within the contract estimate of $25,000, subject to prior receipt of funds from the applicants for their share of the contract costs. 3. Approve funding 50% of the total cost of the EIR ($156,000, including administrative costs of 30% in conformance with City policy) and alternate design services ($25,000), and appropriate $90,500 from the General Fund unreserved balance for this purpose, with the balance ($90;500) to be paid by the property owners prior to any contract awards by the CAO; direct that the City's share of these costs will be reimbursed at the time of development in the manner set forth in the specific plan infrastructure financing program. 4. Adopt the following criteria for considering any future requests by other applicants for City financial participation in funding an EIR: The City will consider financially participating in the cost of EIR preparation only when it is for a specific plan, there are a significant number of property owners, and the City wants to encourage expedited preparation as a high community-wide priority. REPORT IN BRIEF The City's General Plan calls for annexation and residential development of the Orcutt Area, after a specific plan has been adopted for it. The next step is preparing an EIR. Staff is recommending a scope for the EIR, and requesting additional design services for an alternative. The City Council previously expressed support for sharing with the Orcutt Area property owners the substantial cost of preparing an EIR. The Council is being asked to approve a scope of work, including specialized design services, and to fund one-half the cost, with that amount to be recovered as the area is built. The City's worsening budget situation may prompt reconsideration of the cost-sharing idea, so various financial alternatives are discussed at the end of the report. f � Council Agenda Report— ..utt Area Specific Plan EIR Page 2 DISCUSSION Scoping the EIR Four property owners in the Orcutt Area (map, Attachment #1) have filed an application for environmental review, specific-plan adoption, related General Plan amendments, and annexation, for the entire area. On October 1,2002, the City Council endorsed a conceptual land use layout for the Orcutt Area and directed staff to proceed with preparation of a specific plan and environmental impact report. The owner's planning consultant has prepared a revised draft specific plan following the Council-endorsed layout (map excerpt, Attachment #2). That document and a draft workscope for the EIR were considered by the Planning Commission January 8, 2003. The Commission made suggestions for the workscope, which have been reflected in the draft being presented to Council (Attachment#3). The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a project's potential environmental impacts be evaluated and appropriate mitigation measures developed before a lead agency can take action on a project. In accordance with CEQA, the Community Development Department staff has completed a preliminary review of the project and determined that it will require the preparation of an EIR to fully evaluate potential impacts. Potential impacts were identified in the areas of: aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; General Plan consistency; geology; hazards; hydrology and drainage; noise; public services (education); recreation; traffic and circulation; and utilities. These impacts will be evaluated from a project-specific perspective, as well as a cumulative perspective including other pending specific plans and General Plan changes. The EIR will examine alternatives, including a layout emphasizing high-density housing clusters and more, level open space. (See the section below concerning "Preparing a Design Alternative.") The final workscope will reflect any suggestions by the Council and the selected EIR consultant. It should be noted that an initial environmental study was not completed, because it was determined that an EIR is required for the project. The EIR is being processed consistent with Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: If the lead agency can determine that an EIR will be clearly required for a project, the agency may skip further initial review of the project and begin work directly on the EIR process described in Article 9, commencing with Section 15080. In the absence of an initial study, the lead agency shall still focus the EIR on the significant effects of the project and indicate briefly its reasons for determining that other effects would not be significant or potentially significant. The content of the specific plan itself is not under consideration. It will come to Council for action following completion of the EIR and Planning Commission hearings. 3 �� Council Agenda Report—'u.,;utt Area Specific Plan EIR Page 3 Paying for the EIR Staff estimates a contract cost of$120,000 for EIR consulting services. Allowing 30 percent for City administrative costs, probably including supplemental staff, brings the total expense to $156,000. It is customary for major studies such as this EIR to be prepared by a consultant. For development projects, the applicant typically pays the cost of consultant services, plus 30 percent to the City to cover administrative expenses (such as draft review, printing, notices, and hearings). Several Orcutt Area owners expressed concern about paying for an EIR, when they would not develop their properties for several years if ever. Though they would not have to pay any EIR costs until they chose to develop their property, their lack of participation left the entire cost of preparing an EIR on the four property owners who are seeking approval of a specific plan. These four property owners have spent more than they anticipated for several revisions to the draft specific plan that were done to accommodate the wishes of their fellow property owners. The Council has directed that the specific plan be completed as quickly as possible. An impasse over paying for the EIR would further delay development of housing in conformance with the growth management schedule, in particular affordable housing. As a result, on October 1, 2002, Council directed staff to recommend a way for the City to fund half of the initial cost, to be recovered through fees as the area develops. The City's costs would be recovered over the development interval of the area, through impact fees as developers obtain building permits from the City. It could be many years before all the costs are recovered. If some of the planned development potential is never used, the costs could not be fully recovered. Under the recommended "50/50" sharing approach, the City would make a much larger General Fund contribution to the Orcutt Area.EIR, both proportionately and in total costs, than was done for the.Airport Area and the Margarita Area. In those areas, because of outside funding from the County, grants (CDBG), property owners, and enterprise funds, the General Fund picked up about only 10% of the EIR cost ($10,900 of $109,400), compared with 50% ($90,500) for the Orcutt Area. Although the General Fund direct contribution for the other areas was relatively small, gaining Council support for City financial participation at any level was a major policy decision that took over ten years to reach. Ultimately, the Council decided to do so because of multiple property ownerships and to expedite processing of the specific plans. Perhaps the biggest difference justifying some level of direct City funding participation in the Airport Area and Margarita Area EIR was that the City was the applicant for the annexations. This is not the case for the Orcutt Area. Also, it should be noted that the Airport Area and Margarita Area Financing Plan calls for subsequent recovery of any cost advances as development occurs, so the in-place funding approach for the Airport and Margarita areas and the recommended approach for the Orcutt Area are similar. At whatever level of direct funding the Council approves for the Orcutt Area EIR, it is important to be clear about the criteria in responding to any future requests the City may receive from others requesting similar assistance. Hence the recommendation that the City will consider helping to pay for an EIR only when it is for a specific plan, there are a significant number of property owners, and the City wants to encourage expedited preparation as a high community- wide priority. 3 � 3 Council Agenda Report—t,.,;utt Area Specific Plan EIR Page 4 Preparing a Design Alternative Council members and Planning Commissioners have expressed interest in an alternative design for the area that would emphasize cluster, courtyard development, or more mixed residential, and more; level open space complying with the Airport Land Use Plan. The draft EIR workscope contains a general reference to this alternative. With this general reference only, City staff, the applicant's consultant, and the EIR consultant would flesh out the alternative for purposes of environmental review. However, staff is recommending that specialist design services be obtained, at a cost not to exceed $25,000, for help in refining this alternative. The additional consultant support would allow for a design proposal having sufficient detail to become part of the specific plan. Property Owner Disagreements Just before the January 8 Planning Commission hearing on scoping the EIR, nine of the 13 property owners in the specific plan area delivered a letter (previously distributed) saying that they wanted to be excluded from the planning process and the EIR scoping process. The City's General Plan identifies the Orcutt Area as a residential expansion area and requires a specific plan for the entire area before any part of it is annexed. Several draft plans have been prepared by Cannon Associates in an attempt to design a project that satisfies all of the property owners. In addition, the City has hired a mediator to work with the staff and property owners to reach a consensus. On several occasions, the project appeared to be acceptable to all parties only to have the consensus fall apart at the last minute. It is unlikely that all property owners will be able to agree on all aspects of the plan. However, the applicants who have been paying for the specific-plan process should be allowed to proceed with the specific plan even if the other property owners do not cooperate. Ultimately, it will be the City's specific plan, with contents decided by the Council. Annexations and subdivisions can be structured to allow development to proceed on those properties wishing to do so, with minimal disruption and no costs to those who do not want to annex or develop. The property owners have objected to having the EIR evaluate a grade-separated crossing of the Railroad at Orcutt Road. (The 1994 Circulation Element calls for this facility— reference Project D.2, page 29.) The attached scope does not ask for the evaluation of a grade separation. However, the EIR scope does include evaluation of the project's impact on the level of service at the Orcutt-Laurel Lane intersection and requires that appropriate mitigation measures be identified. Under cumulative conditions (full development of the General Plan), a grade separation may be needed for this intersection to function at an acceptable level of service. The EIR would provide information that will allow the City to either validate the need for such a grade separation, or to consider deleting it from the Circulation Element. r Council Agenda Report—t,.cutt Area Specific Plan EIR Page 5 CONCURRENCES At a hearing on January 8, 2003, the Planning Commission considered a draft workscope that had been prepared by staff, and made several suggestions that have been reflected in the attached workscope. Both before and after Planning Commission consideration, the draft workscope was sent to other City departments. Their most recent comments have been reflected in the attached workscope, which as a result differs in some minor ways from the scope reviewed by the Planning Commission. The draft scope was also sent to several other agencies for review, and reflects their comments. FISCAL IMPACT As discussed above under "Paying for the EIR" and "Preparing a Design Alternative," the recommended action would result in an initial cost to the General Fund of $181,000, with $90,500 to be recovered from builders as the area develops over a period of years. ALTERNATIVES Concerning the EIR workscope, Council may direct staff to change or add items, including additional design alternatives. Concerning use of a design consultant to prepare a more detailed cluster/courtyard alternative, Council may decide not to obtain specialist services but to pursue this approach through the limited resources of staff and EIR consultants. Concerning cost sharing, Council may direct that: 1. The entire cost of the EIR be borne by the applicants. As with typical development projects, the entire $156,000 would need to be received from the applicants before work starts. This approach might substantially delay completion of the EIR and specific plan. However, this approach would avoid an added burden on the City's General Fund at a time of fiscal uncertainty and heightened competition for the City's limited resources. The City's financial situation has changed significantly since the Council considered direct City participation in funding the Orcutt Area EIR. While a very tough fiscal outlook was foreseen, its magnitude was not known. Staff now estimates a budget gap of at least $5.5 million, which could grow with more State revenue takeaways and the possibility that not all of the major new tax generators assumed in the forecast will come on-line in the next five years. 2. The entire cost of the design services be borne by the City. Because the desire for a more detailed design alternative comes mainly from the City, and this is not a typical component of an application-driven EIR,there is justification for the City to bear the entire $25,000 cost. 3 -� Council Agenda Report—u..:utt Area Specific Plan EIR Page 6 3. The City front all of the costs, with subsequent reimbursements. With this approach, the City would appropriate all costs ($156,000 plus $25,000, totaling$181,000) from the General Fund now, and be reimbursed on an indefinite schedule in the future as development occurs. This approach would be at odds with the General Fund's current adverse outlook, and the policy that new development pays its way. 4. The City front some or all of the costs through a loan. With this approach, the City would appropriate some or all costs from the General Fund now, and be paid back on a definite schedule. This approach would probably slow the process by requiring negotiation of loan agreements with each property owner. Further, given the dollar value and past experience in collecting on unsecured notes, the loans should be secured by the property. Staff recommends that the City not enter the loan business. Many financial institutions in the community would better fill any applicant cash-flow needs. 5. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds be used. With this approach, CDBG funds would cover some or all costs of either the City's or the applicants' share. The CDBG program allows up to 20% of its proceeds to be used for planning or administration purposes (about $90,000 annually). Actual expenses have been far below this limit for several years. This approach would require re-evaluating the priority of available unspent funds from prior years and amending CDBG allocations via a formal public hearing. It appears that up to $181,000 in unencumbered funds could be found, and the City remain within the 20% guideline (all years combined). However, Council recently reviewed proposed CDBG allocations comprehensively, following an extensive public outreach process, and revisiting these recent CDBG decisions is not recommend as a way of funding the Orcutt Area EIR. Council may continue action. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 —Vicinity Map Attachment 2—Reduction of draft specific plan's proposed zoning map Attachment 3-Excerpts from Draft Request for Proposals, including the Scope of Work In the Council reading file: The entire Draft Request for Proposals Map of Orcutt Area ownerships gamtteso/Orcutt/RFP_candoc 3 �� Attachment 1 Orcuft Area Vicinity Map N 0 1000 2000 Scale: 1:24,000(1 in 2000 ft) South St lax 0 e0nii si�iill 0 trin", s"'islon jjjji� Tank Farm Rd f%I 0�1 S L 0 County Regiona Mo e3 9 Attachment 2 oY w c O" ;, - cc i P it 91 e - O 1.LUIf Zppw rn w n a a a. " ui LLI % J CL O dS2 EL 5 aCk vlvl 0833tivJ yy CL (/r I.I irY1tll500N1'.. a IL I a dS-t-H a. a a ?i d w II wBy0011 w 1 A V M (.1 dS-Hd dS-ca ; 65 LU Ul CO 55 z dJ 4CU�- - ill w > w 0 ;� I ¢ Q IL : I = W 0 w w y Oi � _J. J CL Cz CL I 1 a 0. f O o pQ p, PENN wO'010' ; N qGL I F Ci (W}Fr r Ula. /. P1 D 0 rn IIIIIIIII����� IIIIIIII� City Or Attachment 3 i san WI s OBI SPO 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Notice Requesting Proposals for ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan and related actions, pursuant to Specification No. 90384. The EIR must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and address the topics identified in the Request for Proposals (RFP). All proposals must be received by the Department of Finance by 3:00 p.m. on February 28, 2003, when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Proposals received after said time will not be considered. To guard against premature opening, each proposal shall be submitted to the Department of Finance in a sealed envelope plainly marked with the proposal title, specification number, proposer name, and time and date of the proposal opening. Proposals shall be submitted using the forms provided in the specification package. Additional information may be obtained by contacting Mike Draze, at (805) 781-7274. ® The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. 3 -9 ATTACHMENT 3 Specification No. 90384 TABLE OF CONTENTS 77771�'d.. C A. Project Description and Scope of Work 2 B. General Terms and Conditions 14 Proposal Requirements Contract Award and Execution Contract Performance C. Special Terms and Conditions 18 Project Coordination Proposal Content Proposal Evaluation and Consultant Selection Proposal Review and Award Schedule Start and Completion of Work D. Agreement 22 E. Insurance Requirements 25 F. Proposal Submittal Form 27 G. References 28 H. Statement of Past Contract Disqualifications 29 -t- 3 - [ u AFACHMENT 3 Section A DESCRIPTION OF WORK 77 . iu. , t Project Description Project Location The project site is in the southeastern part of the city, generally bounded by Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road, and the Union Pacific Railroad (attached map). Policy Context The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Orcutt Area as a future residential neighborhood, with the hill and creeks to remain open space. The General Plan requires City adoption of a specific plan for the Orcutt Area, before any part of it is annexed or developed under City jurisdiction. A specific plan shows proposed land uses, public facilities, and design standards in more detail than the General Plan, but in less detail than subdivision maps and construction plans. A specific plan helps coordinate development and open space protection for relatively large areas that involve several landowners and many years from start to completion of development. The Specific Plan The Orcutt Area Specific Plan would apply to about 230 acres. About 113 acres would be for residential development, ranging from detached houses on half-acre lots through small-lot or attached houses, to apartments and manufactured homes. The plan would allow up to 979 dwellings, to be built over 15 to 20 years. About 81 acres would be open space, including Righetti Hill (sometimes called Mine Hill) and creek corridors. Parks and a setback along the railroad would occupy about 21 acres. Principal roads would take up about 15 acres. A site would be reserved for a public elementary school, encompassing about five acres that would otherwise be used for residential development along with about five acres for playfields that would be shared with the neighborhood park. The project is described in greater detail in application materials submitted by the applicant, which are available for public review in the Community Development Department. A reduced site plan is attached. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249 Contact Person and Phone Number: Mike Draze, Deputy Director 805 781-7274; e-mail:mdraze@slocity.org Project Sponsor's Name and Address The draft specific plan was prepared by, and applications have been filed by, Cannon Associates (364 Pacific Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; attention Andrew Merriam) on behalf of four owners of land within the Orcutt Area. -2- 3 - t -- - ATTACHMENT 3 Project Entitlements Requested City discretionary approvals needed for proposed development of the area are: A. Amending the General Plan Land Use Element to: (1) Set the target capacity for dwellings to about 980, rather than a range of 500 to 700 dwellings depending on use of transferred development credits (this would also be reflected in the Housing Element). (2) Change the designation of about nine acres on the northeast side of Righetti Hill from Open Space to Low-density Residential; (3) Move the urban reserve line and the Orcutt Area boundary so they encompasses the nine new residential acres, the hill, and the Righetti ranch house on the southeast side of the hill, making the housing sites eligible for City utilities and services but keeping most of the hill as open space. B. Adopting the specific plan. C. Amending the citywide Residential Growth Management phasing schedule to account for the greater number of dwellings to be permitted in the Orcutt Area along with associated changes for other areas subject to residential growth phasing. D. Eventually annexing all land in the planning area, except a six-acre parcel southeast of Bullock Lane that already is inside the city limits. E. Zoning land consistent with the specific plan as the land is annexed. F. As individual ownerships pursue development, approving subdivisions and architectural review applications. The EIR is intended to cover all aspects of development in the Orcutt Area that are consistent with the specific plan, in sufficient detail that further environmental review will not be needed unless there is a substantial change in environmental conditions. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required No other agencies' approvals are needed for the City actions listed above, except that the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) decides annexations. Also, completion of an annexation depends on the County and the City having a tax-sharing agreement. Prior to City action, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission must determine whether the General Plan amendments, specific plan, and subsequent City zoning are consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The City Council must make specific findings by a four-fifths vote to approve the project if the Airport Land Use Commission has determined that it is not consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Prior to actual construction, approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game generally is required for bridges, culverts, and creek channel changes, or other alteration of wetlands. While these agencies' approval is not required for the City actions listed above, the City intends that the specific plan contain provisions that will make subsequent development acceptable to the agencies with jurisdiction. -3- 3- Ia ATTACHMENT 3 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Developed residential neighborhoods are to the north and south. Large-lot residential development under County jurisdiction has occurred to the east. To the west, across the railroad, are a developed residential area, and developed and vacant industrial land. Most of the site proposed for development slopes gradually from north to south and from east to west. Several small creeks flow from neighboring areas through the site and on to tributaries of Acacia Creek and the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. Willow, eucalyptus, and sycamore trees grow along some of the creeks. There are about 17 dwellings and several outbuildings in the area, and yards with planted fruit trees and ornamental trees. Most of the houses are located south of Bullock Lane and along the northern part of Orcutt Road. Most of the area not occupied by existing houses and yards is non-native grassland. There are several wetlands along the creeks and on the flanks of the hill, fed by seeps. The Orcutt Area is within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, which at its closest point is about eight-tenths of a mile away to the southwest. Scope of Work A preliminary review of this project determined that there may be significant environmental impacts associated with development and that an environmental impact report (EIR) is required. The project proponent is not disputing the need for preparation of an EIR. Suggestions for the EIR scope have been solicited from affected agencies by mail and from the public at a Planning Commission hearing on January 8, 2003. The following workscope more specifically identifies potential impacts to be evaluated and tasks that need to be performed. EIR Workscope Items A. Aesthetics Views from, into, and across the Orcutt Area are important aspects of San Luis Obispo's attractive natural setting and sense of place. According to the scenic roadways classification of the Circulation Element, Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road, and Broad Street provide views of moderate to high scenic value. While not classified, the railroad along the western boundary of the area is the southern passenger-train entry to the city.. Development will significantly change the appearance of the area. Development has the potential to obstruct views from surrounding roads, in contradiction to General Plan policies. However, the ground slope away from Orcutt Road implies that, except along high-density development, most existing views over the area will be maintained. The extent of development on the hill, both in conformance with existing land use designations and resulting from the proposed amendment, is expected to be an issue. The EIR needs to portray how the likely pattern of building volumes and spacing will affect views from roads bordering the area, from Broad Street, and from public areas such as parks in the Edna-Islay Area. -a- :3- 13 TT NMENT 3 B. Agricultural Resources Much of the central part of the Orcutt Area is considered prime soil (Resource Conservation Service Class I or Class 11). However, this area has not been intensively cultivated. Lack of water appears to have been a limiting factor. The area has been productively grazed. Conversion of prime soil was addressed by the General Plan EIR, which included both mitigations and overriding considerations. As mitigation, Orcutt Area development will need to help protect agricultural land outside the development area (Land Use Element policy 1.8.2). Elimination of the Orcutt Area as a receiver site for transferred development credits means other types of mitigation, such as acquisition of easements or payment of in-lieu fees,will be needed. The draft specific plan does not include mitigation for conversion of agricultural land. The EIR needs to identify this lack and recommend mitigation. C. Air Quality Cumulative air quality impacts were addressed in the General Plan EIR. The increased residential capacity of the Orcutt Area is expected to offset the reduced capacity of the Margarita Area, resulting in no net increase above the total population capacity anticipated in the County Clean Air Plan. There have been no substantial changes involving pollution sources or meteorological conditions. The EIR needs to verify these conclusions and respond to points of the attached letter from the Air Pollution Control District dated January 7, 2003 (including potential asbestos hazards associated with serpentine soils). D. Biological Resources The area contains several sensitive habitat types, including creeks tributary to streams supporting southern steelhead. A reconnaissance habitat survey was done before the draft specific plan was prepared. This information has been refined by research for the City's Conservation Element and Open Space Element update, as well as by actual wetland delineation for one parcel on the northern leg of Orcutt Road. The City has several policies to protect species listed for protection by State and Federal agencies, species of local concern, and various habitat types. The specific plan should reflect these policies and be self-mitigating. Of particular concern is that wetlands enhanced or created as mitigation duplicate the type and function of wetlands degraded or lost due to project development. While development in conformance with the specific plan will eliminate a large area of non-native grassland, protection for riparian areas and the coastal sage scrub on the hill is likely to be better under City jurisdiction. Of particular concern are impacts to creeks from new bridges, and division of the lowland and riparian habitat from the hill by proposed "C" Street(attached memorandum from City's Natural Resources Manager, dated December 11, 2002). The EIR needs to examine alternatives to the "C" Street connection, and the adequacy of proposed mitigation for all sensitive habitat impacts. -5- -- ATTACHMENT 3 E. Cultural Resources Paleontological resources have not been found and are very unlikely within the watershed, given its lack of sedimentary rock. No prehistoric archaeological resources are known to exist in the Orcutt Area, but the region's long Chumash settlement means resources may be encountered. A current records search and surface survey need to be done. Standard mitigation for archaeologically sensitive areas will be applied as development occurs. No significant historical resources in addition to the Righetti ranch house are known to.exist in the area, but it has not been surveyed. Under the specific plan, the ranch house would be preserved. The EIR needs to confirm that any eventual removal of existing buildings in the course of development would not be a significant impact. F. Energy and Mineral Resources No economically useful resources are known to exist in the area. No impacts are foreseen. G. Geology and Soils The City of San Luis Obispo is in a seismically active region. Strong ground shaking is expected during the life of structures, which must comply with seismic design criteria in the Uniform Building Code. No known faults pass under or next to the site. The parts of the site planned for development are not subject to landslide. There is a potential for gradual earth movement and differential settlement around the base of the hill, which will be addressed in evaluations and plans, subject to City approval, for subdivision improvements and individual site development. None of the site is subject to seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards. It does not contain unique geologic features. Soil erosion and expansive soils are common concerns at construction sites in the San Luis Obispo area. They are addressed by requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as modified by local amendments, and by typical conditions of approval for subdivisions. The City's Safety Element classifies much of the lower part of the area, like most valleys around San Luis Obispo, as having a high potential for liquefaction. However, individual site investigations in similarly classified areas have shown an absence of saturated, unconsolidated alluvium that produces an unacceptable risk. The EIR needs to verify this conclusion. Likewise, the EIR needs to evaluate the potential for landslides east of "D" Street in more detail than the Safety Element's broad classification of moderate risk. H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials There has not been previous industrial or intensive agricultural use of the area that would be expected to have used hazardous materials in significant quantities. The principal known hazards affecting the area are: (1) the high-voltage transmission lines; (2) the railroad; (3) aircraft operations associated with the nearby airport; and (4) an abandoned mine or quarry on the hill. -6- 3 , ►S (1) Electrical transmission lines The 115,000-volt transmission lines cross the northern part of the Orcutt Area in an easement, reaching a substation on the opposite side of Orcutt Road. In response to concerns about the potential health affects of electromagnetic fields, the City has adopted a policy that schools, playgrounds, dwellings, and workplaces should be set back from high-voltage power lines, considering the space available within the site being planned. The neighborhood park and potential school site would be located 950 feet from the easement, while residential yards and buildings would be adjacent. The EIR should evaluate additional mitigation, such as restricting the location of day-care facilities or other particularly sensitive uses normally allowable in residential designations. (2) Railroad The railroad along the western boundary of the area carnes substantial hazardous- materials traffic, consisting mainly of flammable and corrosive chemicals. Trains on this segment travel at relatively low speeds,because they are approaching or departing the San Luis Obispo yard; the tracks are on a gently upward grade approaching the yard. These factors minimize the likelihood of catastrophic accidents. About two-thirds of the boundary formed by the tracks would have a linear park adjacent, providing 100 to 200 feet of buffer space along the potential school site and, dwellings. Complying with City policies on emergency access is judged to be adequate mitigation. (3) Aircraft operations Flights paths for the main runway's right downwind departure and right 45-degree arrival, as well as military helicopter routes, pass over the area. In this area, aircraft are typically operating at 500 to 1,000 feet above ground level, and may be operating in limited visibility conditions. In response, the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) sets a maximum residential density, prohibits certain impaired egress uses such as schools, and prescribes minimum open space and emergency landing space. The overall density of 4.2 dwellings per acre is within the six dwellings per acre allowed by the ALUP. For purposes of the ALUP, open space must be relatively smooth, level, and free of obstacles such as light poles and trees. The draft specific plan appears to provide three to four percent open space meeting these criteria, rather than 15 percent as called for by the ALUP. Also, to satisfy the ALUP, an emergency landing site generally must be open space at least 75 feet wide and 300 feet long. It appears that the linear park or railroad could serve this purpose. The draft plan does not prohibit, and would allow, a school, in contradiction to the ALUP. The EIR needs to verify these conclusions and identify alternatives that would achieve consistency with the ALUP. Of particular concern is an alternative site for a new school to serve increased enrollment in the southern part of the city, which appears to be precluded by the ALUP. (4) Old mine The draft specific plan shows a recreational trail extending to the vicinity of the quarry on the hill. The EIR needs to verify that the expected level of public access to this site will not pose an unacceptable risk. - ATTACHMENT 3 I. Hydrology and Water Quality The creek channels and nearby over-bank areas are subject to flooding. Development in such areas is subject to the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. Development will avoid flood-prone areas. Increased impervious surfaces from buildings and paving are expected to cause more frequent flood flows of a given level. However, individual worst-case floods occur when the ground is saturated and the runoff difference between developed and undeveloped areas is relatively small. The capacities of some downstream channels and drainage structures are not adequate to avoid flooding. The specific plan proposes detention of peak flows by on-site basins. The EIR needs to confirm the adequacy of this approach and to evaluate potential impacts of detention basins on riparian habitat and aesthetics. The EIR should identify ways to keep runoff into creeks within the site from exceeding pre-development conditions. Increased impervious surfaces will reduce the area's capability for groundwater recharge. This will be at least partly offset by stormwater detention. Recharge of areawide aquifers occurs mainly through the fractured rock of hilly areas and through sands and gravels along watercourses, rather than through the heavier clay soils existing on most of the site. This topic need not be further investigated. Development can cause construction residues and silt-laden runoff into creeks. City approval of grading plans and compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's "general construction activity storm water permit" will be required. Standard mitigations include restrictions on concrete and plaster wash water runoff, temporary silt traps and barriers, replanting of exposed soils, and maintaining undisturbed buffer areas along creeks and around wetlands. Runoff from pavement directly to waterways and wetlands is an areawide concern. Typical mitigation measures include properly designed stormwater detention and avoidance of direct drainage from pavement to waterways, such as use of creek setbacks and planted-swales. Currently, wastewater disposal is by septic tanks and leach fields, some of which are relatively close to creeks. Availability of City sewer service would eventually improve the quality of surface and ground water as existing facilities are replaced. J. Land Use and Planning The draft specific plan contains a section on General Plan consistency, but it may not be complete. The EIR must address at least the following. (1) The draft specific plan would designate as Low-density Residential two areas that the General Plan Land Use Element shows as Open Space, requiring an amendment to the Land Use Element to maintain consistency. The first area is gradually sloping land along Orcutt Road, between the creek that aligns roughly with Calle Crotala and the next creek to the south. Here, the change to the Land Use Element is essentially an interpretation of the boundary between Residential Neighborhood and Open Space designations. The Land Use Map Element adopted in 1994 showed the boundary close to the southern creek. When the Land Use Map was converted into a geographic information system format, the ATTACHMENT 3 boundary was depicted on the northern edge of the northern creek, following General Plan policies calling for creek corridors to be designated as Open Space. The second part is moderately sloping land across the southerly creek, on the northeast side of Righetti Hill (also known as Mine Hill). This area has been designated as Open Space since 1977. Open Space land is to be kept in an essentially natural condition. The specific plan would designate this area for large lots. The slope of this land ranges from four to 20 percent. Hillside-protection policies in the General Plan discourage structures on slopes steeper than 20 percent. The Open Space Element shows this land as part of a specific open space feature, Mine Hill, which is in the designated greenbelt. The Land Use Element and the Open Space Element say that if development is allowed on the lower slopes of a hill, its visual intrusion should be minimized through the design of buildings, roads and driveways, grading, building form and materials, and landscape planting. Across Orcutt Road from this area, the County Land Use Element has allowed, and owners have developed, single houses on parcels ranging from five to seven acres. The proposed development, at about ten times the neighboring density, would introduce a new type of land use to the area. (2) Several General Plan policies say the City should approve development only if it is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. See item H above, concerning safety of aircraft operations. (3) The Circulation Element contains several policies to encourage alternatives to motor vehicles, including walking, cycling, and bus transit. See item O concerning circulation features. (4) The Land Use Element contains policies concerning residential neighborhood design features, which the EIR should compare with the draft specific plan. Of particular interest are compact housing forms with high design quality, including such things as clustered and courtyard forms. K.Noise The General Plan Noise Element sets standards and contains information on projected noise levels. It and the Land Use Element discourage use of walls, particularly for new residential areas. The main noise source of concern is the railroad. The specific plan proposes a linear park buffer and berm along about two-thirds of the area exposed to the railroad. The EIR needs to confirm the adequacy of this approach and to address the remaining exposure along Bullock Lane. Of particular concern is noise exposure for the potential school site, which is near the end of the buffer. L. Population and Housing For the Orcutt Area, the draft specific plan would accommodate 1.5 to two times the number of dwellings and residents as the General Plan. Extension of City services and facilities would induce growth in the Orcutt Area. The cumulative impact assessment should confirm whether all the pending changes would have a largely neutral or beneficial impact on the relationship between jobs and housing in San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 3 Over the long term, development of the area is expected to result in removal of some existing dwellings, including some that have been available at little or no cost to the occupants. However, these removals are expected to be voluntary, and owners will be able to provide replacement dwellings for themselves and family members. There are no dwellings in the area owned or managed by the Housing Authority or other institutional providers of affordable housing. M. Public Services The General Plan EIR and related fiscal studies concluded that government services such as police and fire protection and recreation could be expanded into planned development areas as development occurred. This conclusion is expected to remain valid so long as there is not a substantial net increase in population capacity citywide (see item Q. The EIR needs to address expected additional elementary school enrollment in the southern part of the city (attached letter from San Luis Coastal Unified School District dated December 18, 2002). The suitability of the potential school site should be evaluated in terms of railroad and aircraft noise and hazard exposure (including consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan). Alternative school sites that would be acceptably located with respect to noise, hazards, topography, and access should be identified. N. Recreation City policy calls for 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in expansion areas, with five acres to be developed as neighborhood park. The draft plan meets the neighborhood park standard, but is about 1.5 acres (seven percent) deficient overall, even counting some creek corridors and private outdoor space as parkland. Generally, these areas and open space such as the hill cannot be counted toward parkland. However, the City Council could determine that some of the hillside open area could be considered passive parkland. The EIR should identify an alternative (perhaps combined with open-land requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan and higher density clustering) that would be consistent with City policy. O. Traffic and Transportation The General Plan EIR evaluated traffic safety and levels of service for the development proposed at that time. The higher residential capacity and certain features of the current proposal raise several issues of traffic volumes and safety, and conformance with City circulation policies. Of particular concern are cumulative impacts to Johnson Avenue. There is also interest in alternative road alignments, such as item (1) below, that would better match with surrounding streets, though these entail impacts to riparian areas and existing land uses. See also the attached letter from Caltrans District 5 Development Review dated December 26, 2002. (1) `B" Street intersection with Orcutt Road An off-set intersection represents a significant safety issue that should be evaluated by a qualified traffic professional as part of the EIR The EIR should evaluate: (a) the alignment shown in the draft specific plan [Figure 12]; (b) an alternative where `B" Street would align with the existing Tiburon Way; (c) realignment of Tiburon Way to connect with draft's proposed `B" Street. Secondary impacts to the creek with options (b) and (c) must be addressed. -t 3- 6 P71THMENT 3 (2) Orcutt Road bikeway connections The draft specific plan is not consistent with the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan. The EIR should evaluate the impacts of: (a) extension of the Class I bikeway northeast of`B" Street, adjacent to but outside of the creek setback; (b) an alternative alignment that extends north of"B" Street along the northwest side of the creek, then transitions directly north, then east using the power lines easement to connect with Orcutt Road just south of Johnson Avenue. The EIR may identify other alignments. Concerning the relationship of bikeways and creeks, the EIR should consider mitigation measures (fencing and landscaping) like those proposed for the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail Initial Study. (3) Railroad bikeway alignment The EIR needs to evaluate bikeway extensions: (a) northward to the Railroad Bike Path at Orcutt Road and the new Laurel-Orcutt intersection (an "ultimate" alignment, subject to the installation of a grade-separated road crossing of the railroad; (b) southward to connect with a bridge over Tank Farm Road and the north end of the existing path in the Edna-Islay Area. (4) Bicycle &pedestrian connection to Industrial Way The EIR must evaluate cross-track safety issues caused by trespassing onto the railroad, which is expected due to travel demands between the Orcutt Area, the Marigold shopping center, and the Margarita Area. In addition to mitigations such as effective fencing, the EIR needs to show how a grade-separated path could be accomplished and integrated into the design of the linear park, and evaluate the design for its impacts. Alternative crossing locations should be considered to the extent that their physical feasibility can be established. (5) Traffic calming for collector streets The relatively straight alignments of streets A, B, D, and parts of C, make it difficult to achieve the City's speed standard of 25 mph in residential areas. The EIR should review the proposed collector street alignments, evaluate the proposed cross-sections and the effectiveness of calming measures shown in the draft specific plan, and identify other mitigation strategies (in the form of schematic concepts) that will achieve the 25 mph standard. (6) Transit The EIR should evaluate bus-route impacts on adjoining land uses (mostly noise concerns,) and the adequacy of the street design to accommodate internal transit circulation (will the roundabout work for busses?). (7) Traffic signal analysis The EIR should evaluate the need for a traffic signal at the Johnson Avenue-Orcutt Road intersection under full development within the specific plan area and based on the proposed phasing plan. (8) Laurel—Orcutt intersection The EIR should evaluate the impact of traffic from the project on the level of service and operation of the Laurel Lane — Orcutt Road intersection, under"baseline + project" and "baseline + cumulative" conditions. For purposes of this analysis, the widening of Orcutt Road to four lanes and the relocation of Bullock Lane to connect to Laurel Lane are considered part of "baseline" conditions. As needed, the EIR should identify mitigation measures necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) at this intersection. ATTACHMENT 3 P. Utilities (I) Water supply Development of the Orcutt Area would result in a substantial additional demand for water (approximately 260 acre feet per year). Cumulative demand from General Plan build-out exceeds available supplies. General Plan policies and City regulations aim to balance current water usage with the reliable yield of supplies, so development will not proceed unless adequate water is available. The City is pursuing several supplemental sources of water. Water reclamation is expected to be the first available, and will be used to offset some existing and future potable water demand. The EIR needs to provide an updated, cumulative assessment of water demands and supplies for build-out. (2) Wastewater collection and treatment The City's treatment plant does not have adequate capacity for build-out, but can be expanded using impact fees paid by development. Sewer mains and pumping stations serving the southeast quadrant of the city are at capacity. The City has determined that Orcutt Area development should not proceed until a new trunk sewer and lift stations in the Airport Area are installed. This mitigation needs to be reflected in the specific plan. The EIR needs to evaluate extension of a sewer main under the railroad to Industrial Way, including aesthetic, hydrologic, and biological impacts in the proposed linear park and stormwater detention area. Cumulative Projects The overall assessment of cumulative impacts in the San Luis Obispo urban area has been provided by the EIR for the 1994 updates of the General Plan Land Use Element and Circulation Element (hereafter referred to as "the General Plan EIR"), and by the negative declaration for the 1994 Housing Element update. Therefore, the several current development projects that follow the Land Use Element need not be examined. However, as noted above, the Orcutt Area Specific Plan would require amendments to some of the previously evaluated elements. In addition, the following major planning actions need to be considered as part of the cumulative impact assessment because they involve amendments to the General Plan. A. Housing Element update The City intends to adopt an update of its Housing Element by the end of 2003. City acceptance of a Regional Housing Needs Allocation, as assigned by the State and the San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments, may require increased residential development capacities beyond the increase proposed for the Orcutt Area. A likely way to increase housing capacity is to re-designate vacant and lightly used commercial and industrial land for relatively dense housing. Also, the City may have to consider allowing a housing construction rate faster than the long- standing policy of about one percent annual average. The Housing Element update is not expected to change the mix of dwelling types proposed for the Orcutt Area. -12- 3l '' ATTACHMENT 3 B. Orcutt Road property The City has already initiated a General Plan amendment and rezoning for about 11 acres of vacant land south of Orcutt Road and west of the railroad, from Services and Manufacturing to Medium-High Density Residential (application number 114-02). Up to 200 additional dwellings are likely to result from this action, with a corresponding reduction in potential commercial or industrial space. C. Broad Street corridor There is not a specific proposal for changes in this area, which is approximately bounded by the main Fire Station at Broad and South streets, Broad Street, Orcutt Road, and the railroad. However, private parties have proposed, and the City has pursued grant funding for, a planning effort aimed at improving the appearance of this area, more clearly defining allowed retail uses, and possibly accommodating residential use on vacant sites such as the land south of the Fire Station or north of the Villa Rosa development. D. Margarita Area.Specific Plan The Margarita.Area Specific Plan would apply to about 420 acres between the South Hills and the former Unocal tank farm. The current version would designate the hills and creek corridors as open space, show parks and greenways, allow up to 880 dwellings in a range of densities, and designate land for a business park. The City published a draft EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan in January 2002. Changes to the draft specific plan to achieve consistency with the recently amended Airport Land Use Plan will require an addendum to that EIR The reduced residential capacity for the Margarita Area and refinement of land use designations will require amendments to the General Plan and to the residential growth phasing schedule. E. Airport Area Specific Plan The Airport Area Specific Plan would apply to about 1,000 acres of land between South Higuera Street and Broad Street, along Tank Farm Road and around.the airport. Most Airport Area land would be designated for public (airport), open space, commercial, or industrial use.. The 2002 EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan covers the Airport Area Specific Plan. Changes to the Airport Area Specific Plan to address airport compatibility, reduced infrastructure costs, and some landowner preferences will also require some additional environmental information as that plan proceeds toward adoption. F. Dalidio property(Marketplace project) The current shopping-center proposal for the Dalidio property appears to approximately fit the commercial area shown by the Land Use Element, but the residential designation would be removed, eliminating the potential for about 180 dwellings. No-Project Alternative The no-project alternative will consist of not adopting a specific plan and not annexing the area, while having some additional dwellings on acreage parcels as may be allowed under the County's jurisdiction. -13- 3-2� ATTACHMENT 3 Orcutt Area Vicinity Map N 0 1000 2000 Scale: 1:24,000(1 in=2000 ft) of South St I/- ............................ *% 0 Cal tw dn W-1 0 0.01 .00 Tank Farm Rd t, S L 0 county Re-gi-on-TAJ�rppo 17 ATTACHMENT 3 °r n Q� Oz CL 01 ml I I'i II •` „I a I1 l t,.k w rl 1.I 1 Or 1 U w la/1 i. N � F Q � 1 �I 1 �•II � ��`+ f\ Q _! I w xb o CC a UO `^ Q. I I. ..IJ. I I; Z Q Q -°OJT dS-SO/0 - WCL N LL Q LU m vera oda lilt° a y •t =!•.T'— I = O 0. d CL a CL dSi-tl •o � a a a 'I d d Q X°tl�0'1 is, }VM Illi W dS-VhIa dS£N Fno N QZ W dS-£-H Z o a N ¢ Z dS-£-ki I 1 w 0 UI co 0 CL IMF N Q D W 30 W W d 'I ZLLJ J CL r r. — M (/{J i (n m (: Qui CL i a Q za a � O CC cm o , �ERNM'0•0 [7 Gy Om LU °f\ D OCA 3 + AIR POLLUTIO I CIiYo PO CONTROL DISTRICT COUNTY c>r SAN i ins ( Wlsr. . N 7 2D I DATE: January 7, 2003 �_MOOUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo FROM: Heather Tomley, Air Quality Specialist 11I 1 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Comments for Development of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Thank you for including the APCD in the scoping process. We have reviewed the meeting notice and are submitting written comments to assist you in the development of the Environmental Impact Report for the Orcutt Area.Specific Plan. 1. APCD Contact Information: Heather Tomley Air Pollution Control District 3433 Roberto Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-5912 2. Permit(s) or Approval(s) Authority: Portable equipment used during construction activities may require statewide registration or a District permit. Additionally, some future developments (i.e. gas stations, auto body and paint shops, etc.) may require District permits and applicants will need to apply for an Authority to Construct. Please contact David Dixon of our Engineering Division at (805) 781.-5912 prior to final permit approval of these types of projects by your agency. Demolition and remodeling activities have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper demolition and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Demolition and remodeling projects are subject to the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which includes but is not limited to: 1) notification requirements to the District, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Please contact Tim Fuhs of the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912 prior to final approval of these types of projects by your agency. 3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 • 8OS-781-5912 • FAX: 805-781-1002 info@slocleanairorg . wwwslodeanairorg j prinfod on rwyi lrrl p.1peB ATTACHMENT 3 Development of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 2 January 7, 2003 Asbestos has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common in the state and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities at the site, a geologic evaluation will be necessary to determine if naturally occurring asbestos is present. If naturally occurring asbestos is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. These requirements may include-but are not limited to 1) an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan which must be approved by the District before construction begins, and 2) an Asbestos Health and Safety Program will also be required for some projects. Please refer to the District web page at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.asp for more information regarding these requirements. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact Karen Brooks of our Enforcement Division at 781-5912. 3. Environmental Information: Potential air quality impacts from construction and buildout of the specific plan should be assessed in the EIR. The Specific Plan under development has the potential for significant impacts to local air emissions, ambient air quality, sensitive receptors, and the implementation of the Clean Air Plan (CAP). A complete air quality analysis should be included in the DEIR to adequately evaluate the overall air quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan. This analysis should address both short-term and long-term emissions impacts. The following is an outline of items that.should be included in the analysis: a) A description of existing air quality and emissions in the impact area, including the attainment status of the District:relative to State air quality standards and any existing regulatory restrictions to development. The most recent CAP should be consulted for applicable information. b) A detailed quantitative air emissions analysis at the project scale is not relevant at this time. A qualitative analysis of the air quality impacts should be conducted. A consistency analysis with the CAP will determine if the emissions resulting from development under the Specific Plans will be consistent with the emissions projected in the CAP, as described in item 6 of this letter. The qualitative analysis should be based upon criteria such as prevention of urban sprawl and reduced dependence on automobiles. A finding of Class I impacts could be determined qualitatively. The DEIR author should contact the District if additional information and guidance is required. All assumptions used should be fully documented in an appendix to the DEIR. ATTACHMENT 3 .Development of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 3 January 7, 2003 ➢ To aid in the air quality analysis, the traffic study should include the total daily traffic volumes projected. The traffic study results can be used in the qualitative analysis by providing a tool for comparing trip generation between different alternatives and evaluating effectiveness of mitigation methods for reducing traffic impacts. c) The DEIR should include a range of alternatives that could effectively minimize air quality impacts. A consistency analysis should be performed for each of the proposed alternatives identified, as described above. A qualitative analysis of the air quality impacts should be generated for each of the proposed alternatives. ➢ Examples include but are not limited to: • Flexible zoning to promote mixed use and design standards that protect mixed use. • Increase the amount of neighborhood scale mixed use. • Increase transit access. • Design standards that require narrow streets and minimum front setbacks on structures. o Limiting the size of each arterial through the development. This reduces the need for noise barriers such as cinder block walls along roadways, decreases roadway widths, and slows the speed of traffic, creating an atmosphere that encourages walking and bicycling. d) Mitigation measures to reduce or avoid significant air quality impacts should be recommended. 4. Permit Stipulations/Conditions: It is recommended that you refer to the "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (the Handbook). If you do not have a copy, it can be accessed on the District web page (www.slocleanair.oru/business/regulations.asp) or a hardcopy can be requested by contacting the District. The Handbook provides information on mitigating emissions from development (Section 5) which should be referenced in the DEIR. 5. Alternatives: Any alternatives described in the DEIR should involve the same level of air quality analysis as described in bullet items 3.c and 3.d listed above. ATTACHMENT 3 Development of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 4 January 7, 2003 6. Reasonably Forseeable Projects, Programs or Plans: The most appropriate standard for assessing the significance of potential air quality impacts for Specific Plan EIRs is the preparation of a consistency analysis where the proposed project is evaluated against the land use goals, policies, and population projections contained in the CAP. The rationale for requiring the preparation of a consistency analysis for Specific Plans is to ensure that the attainment projections developed by the District are met and maintained. Failure to comply with the CAP could result in long term air quality impacts, which could delay or preclude attainment of the state ozone standard. Inability to achieve compliance with the state ozone standard could bear potential negative economic implications for the county's residents and business community. The District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides guidance for preparing the consistency analysis and recommends evaluation of the following questions: • Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those used in the most recent CAP for the same area? • Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the rate of population growth for the same area? • Have all applicable land use and transportation control measures from the CAP been included in the plan or project to the maximum extent feasible? The land use and circulation policy areas contained in Appendix E of the District's CAP are crucial to the consistency analysis and should be specifically addressed in the DEIR. Implementation of these land use planning strategies is the best way to mitigate air quality impacts at the Specific Plan scale. These land use planning strategies are: • Planning Compact Communities • Providing for Mixed Land Use • Balancing Jobs and Housing. • Circulation Management Policies and Programs ➢ Promoting Accessibility in the Transportation System ➢ Promoting Walking and Bicycling ➢ Parking Management ➢ Transportation Demand Management ➢ Communication, Coordination and Monitoring F3 .{= 3�� MACHMENT 3 Development of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Page 5 January 7, 2003 The formation of compact, pedestrian friendly and more economically self-sufficient communities will reduce automobile trip generation rates and trip lengths. 7. Relevant Information: As mentioned earlier, the Handbook should be referenced in the EIR for determining the significance of impacts and level of mitigation recommended. 8. Further Comments: No further comments. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the NOP. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 781-5912. HAT/sll cc: David Dixon, Engineering Division Tim Fuhs, Enforcement Division Karen Brooks, Enforcement Division H:ois\planlresponse\2611.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TR 'ORTATION.AND HOUSING.AGENCY ATMANTIVerl 1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 50 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415 TELEPHONE (805) 549-3111 Flex your pow TDD (805) 549-3259 Be energy ejficie http://www.dot.ca.gov/distO5 December 26, 2002 SLO-227 PM R12.03 Notice of Scoping Meeting for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR Mr. Glenn Matteson, Associate Planner Community Development Department 990 Palm StreetCir IY OF SAN LUIS OEISPO San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Dear Mr. Matteson; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thank you for including the California Department of TranspUr-ba-fiofi (Department) in your circulation for comments regarding the scoping of the EIR for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The Department Staff offers the following comments vis-a-vis potential traffic impacts to the State Transportation created by buildout of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. 1.) The Orcutt Area Specific Plan needs to integrate the past efforts of the Route 227 Task Force and the current Project Study Report - Project Development Support (PSR-PDS). The PSR-PDS is being done to document initial agreement on the scope, schedule and cost for improvements to the Route 227 Corridor, from South Street to south of the San Luis Obispo Airport. For more information regarding the progress of the PSR-PDS, please contact Ms Amy Donatello, Project Manager at 549-3398. 2.) The Department suggests that the following traffic analysis scenarios be incorporated into the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The scenarios are based on the, Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies —June 2001. • Existing Conditions - Current year traffic volumes and peak hour LOS analysis of effected State highway facilities. • Proposed Proiect Only with Select Link Analysis - Trip generation and assignment for build-out of the Area Plan. ("Select Link" analysis represents a project only traffic model run where the project's trips are distributed and assigned along a loaded highway network. This procedure isolates the specific impacts on the State highway network. ATTACHMENT 3 Mr. Matteson December 26, 2002 Page 2 • General Plan Build-out Only - Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis. Include current land uses from the San Luis Obispo General Plan and other pending general plan amendments. • General Plan Build-out Plus Proposed Project - Trip assignment and peak hour LOS analysis. Include proposed project and other pending general plan amendments. 3.) The Department encourages early consultation with the Lead Agency and the project proponent's Traffic Engineer to discuss the scoping and assumptions for the traffic study. The TIS scoping meeting can be as informal as a telephone conversation or a meeting in person with Staff from Development Review and Traffic Operations. Contact me at the telephone number listed below to set the meeting up. Also, please stipulate in the Request for Proposal (RFP) that the bidder needs to a lot time for the Traffic Engineer to meet with Department Staff at least once for the initial scoping for the traffic study. Please find enclosed a copy of the Department's Traffic Impact Study Guidelines, 2001 for the Lead Agency and the project proponent's reference. I hope this gives you an understanding of the Department's concerns regarding this project. If you have any questions please call me at 549-3683. (5esrel ; Kilmer District 5 Development Review cc: File, D. Murray, R. Barnes enclosure: 13 -r 3 -31 ATTACHMENT 3 San Luis Coastal U), -,'--W* dSchoof District 1500 Lizzie Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 -3062 (805)549-1200 December 18, 2002 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Glen Matteson, Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo cl L i: Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Dear Glen: Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the scope of the EIR for the Orcuft Area Specific Plan. The San Luis Coastal Unified School District requests that the impacts to K-12 public education be considered and specific mitigation measures adopted to address the increased student population that will result in the southern section of the city due to this proposed developed. Sincerely, �7 44 Brad Parker Director Facilities, Operations and Transportation Cc: Russell Miller S:\ADMINSEC\Debbie\Director\Correspond2002\1218 Orcutt Plan.doc 15 -S 3' ATTACHMENT 3 mcmomnbum DATE: December 11, 2002 TO: Glen Matteson FROM: Neil Havlik'� SUBJECT: Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan Glen, both Michael Clarke and I have reviewed the Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan, and we have the following comments on the Section addressing Open Space and Recreation. Righetti Hill Open Space and major wetland and creek areas to the north The establishment of a Righetti Hill Open Space is a positive for the project area and the community. The open space is relatively large and provides a variety of habitats and a reliable water source for wildlife. One major drawback to this plan, however, is the placement of a road between the water source—a large spring area on the north side of Righetti Hill—and the balance of the open space. This will have the effect of cutting off much of the habitat from its water source. This is not an acceptable outcome for an area that is a"blank slate". We suggest that this be remedied by amending Goal 2.3.3 to read: "Circulation and development within the Specific Plan Area shall be designed to minimize impacts to creeks and wetlands, and to maintain to the greatest degree possible the integrity of those creeks and wetlands, and their connection to the proposed Righetti Hill Open Space. " This goal will then set the stage for an additional Policy 2.3.11, which will read: "The major wetland area at the north base of Righetti Hill, including associated creek areas, shall be maintained as integral parts of the proposed Righetti Hill Open Space to the greatest extent possible, without intrusion of roads or other development infrastructure incompatible with open space." Urban limit line on Righetti Hill We are uncertain as to where the development limit of 320 feet elevation is on the ground, and it has been several years since we have been on the site to look. It may be fine, or it may be too high. We suggest that the limit be expressed as "approximately" the 320 foot elevation, and be subject to review on the ground. t J •� glen m eson'm 0 3-33 ATTACHMENT 3 TENTATIVE PROPOSAL REVIEW AND AWARD SCHEDULE The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for proposal review and contract award: Issue RFP February 7, 2003 Receive proposals February 28, 2003 Complete proposal evaluation March 12, 2003 Conduct finalist interviews March 26-28, 2003 Finalize staff recommendation April 1, 2003 Applicant deposits EIR cost April 7, 2003 Award contract April 11, 2002 Execute contract/Start work April 18,2003 Complete administrative Draft EIR July 18, 2003 START AND COMPLETION OF WORK 1. Contract Schedule. The above schedule, as well as meeting dates needed in the future, may be modified with the mutual consent of the City and the Consultant. 2. Completion of Work. Work on the administrative draft of the EIR shall be completed 90 calendar days after execution of the contract. 3 Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by or in possession of the Consultant as part of the work or services under these specifications shall become the permanent property of the City,and shall be delivered to the City upon demand. 4. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Consultant for the costs of duplicating of such copies at the Consultant's direct expense. 5. Required Deliverable Products. The Consultant will be required to provide: a. Five (5) copies of the Administrative Draft EIR, which addresses all elements of the workscope. Any documents or materials provided by the Consultant will be reviewed by City staff and, where necessary, the Consultant will be required to respond to staff comments and make such changes as deemed appropriate. b. A camera-ready original (unbound, each page printed on only one side, including any original graphics in place and scaled to size)and a pdf version on CD of the Draft EIR. C. A camera-ready original and pdf version on CD of the Final EIR, which incorporates the draft EIR, changes to the draft document as a result of its review at pubic hearings, and comments and responses to comments. e. When computers have been used to produce materials submitted to the City as a part of the workscope, the Consultant must provide the corresponding computer files to the City, compatible with the following programs whenever possible unless otherwise directed by the project manager: -20- 3 fir-0 FILE' - -- NannUll ,MEETING AGENDA MEMO-, ASSOCIATES DAT -ITEWZ_ To: San Luis Obispo City Council Frown Andrew Merriam ENGINEERS CC: City Planning and Engineering staff 7RECEIVEDDates January 31,2003PLANNERS � Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR Scoping 1 1003COUNCIL SURVEYORS Thank you for taking the time to consider the requests of the Orcutt Area property owners for some revision to the EIR scope as presented in the Staff Report for the February 4, 2003 hearing. My clients(both the four under contract and the nine who are involved by city requirement)feel that several items presented in the EIR scope are not reasonable or relevant either to the production of the EIR or the project itself. These items add cost to units which should be affordable as possible. I have detailed these items below followed by our reasoning for their removal. Following this list is a suggested motion for the revision of the scope to assist City Council discussion. 1. Preparation.of a Design Alternative: ❑ This item is not an environmental issue and does not constitute a reasonable part of an EIR. Spending$25,000 at this juncture does not seem productive. ❑ The applicants request that this item be entirely deleted from the scope of the EIR as it imposes an additional and unnecessary financial encumbrance to the already costly EIR preparation. The Staff Report,dated February 4,confirms that the EIR could be prepared with general reference to alternative types of housing(p.3-4, line 4)and that the design alternative,however helpful is not essential to the EIR. We are dealing with 13 separate different property owners each with their own Iff�f COU CI 2' DD DIR requirements and aspirations. In addition,each property has a unique physical 'LI CAO 0 IN DIR configuration.. While most want creative design and are not against a unifying 0 ACAO la IRE CHIEF neighborhood theme,the imposition of this type of requirement at the broad ,lZ ATrORNEY Z DIR specific plan level,rather than at the development level on an individual basis,has Ja'CLERK/ORIG IOLICE CHF been a cause of distrust and resistance among the Orcutt neighbors. ❑ D-EPT HEADS EC DIR 2f IJTIL DIR If the City feels that a design alternative is needed this cost should be borne solely R DIR by the City. 2. Population and Housing—Cumulative impact assessment of Orcutt Area development on the relation between jobs and housing in San Luis Obispo: ❑ This item is not a project specific environmental issue relevant to OASP and does 364 Pacific Street not constitute a reasonable part of this EIR. San Luis Obispo,CA ❑ While this is clearly a topic of interest to the Community Development 93401 Department and the City,it will not affect the conclusions of the EIR regarding environmental impacts. The staff report anticipates that the changes will have 805 5447407 either neutral or positive impacts. If the City deems this assessment necessary; FAx 805 544-3863 my clients feel that it should commission a separate consultant to prepare such a study and encompass other proposed residential development(such as the 5005 Business Park potential development on Orcutt Road west of the railroad tracks)for a more North,Suite 102 complete picture of housing changes and impacts in the City. Bakersfield, CA 93309 3. School Site: ❑ There is strong possibility that a school site in the Orcutt Area may be precluded 661-328-6280 by the Airport Land Use Commission. If this is the case,all EIR studies FAX 661-328-6284 conducted regarding the school site will be a waste of time and funds. The determination of ALUC approval should be required prior to any other school site related studies. In the event that no school site is permitted by the ALUC,no ®�lUn MEMO ASSOCIATES further school site studies should be conducted(i.e. noise,site location alternatives). 4. Loss of Agricultural Resources: ENGINEERS ❑ While some areas in the Orcutt Specific Plan Area are classified as prime soils,the configuration of creeks and property lines in the area along with inadequate water supply do not and have never constituted the area as one suited for prime PLANNERS agriculture. Grazing uses only are possible in this area,and then with supplemental feeding. Again,given the limiting factors,this area is not prune agricultural land. SURVEYORS ❑ It has long been the intention of the City to develop this area as a residential neighborhood and still is. This is not a request to rezone productive agricultural land,such as the farms along Los Osos Valley Road,for development. This issue was previously in the General Plan EIR. ❑ The requirement of Orcutt development to provide protection of other agricultural lands is unreasonable in light the minimal agricultural use of the land and considering.. ❑ This requirement only adds to the burden of fees and infrastructure costs which are expected to be greater than$30,000 per residence. If the City desires to improve the affordability of housing,this requirement should be rescinded. 5. Bicyclelpedestrian connection to Industrial Way: ❑ This item continues to be one where the property owners agree to disagree with City planning and engineering staff. ❑ It is the continued consensus of the property owners that the proposed bicycle/pedestrian grade separated connection from the Orcutt Area to Industrial Way has drawbacks which exceed potential benefits. Additionally,other existing and proposed bike paths and bike lanes in the area are sufficient to provide connections to neighboring areas without imposition of this.75 to 1.25 million dollar structure. ❑ While this connection is called for in the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP),it is possible to revise the BTP. 6. Tragic calming on.internal streets: ❑ The configuration of existing property lines was a major factor in the design of internal road layout as seen in the submitted project. In order to optimize the developable area of each property,provide access to each property,and in fairness to the owners,the road alignments straddle property lines where possible. ❑ The EIR should limit its study of internal roads to possible additional traffic calming features,and not examine alternative alignments. 364 Pacific Street While not an issue of concern to the owners, it should be stated that the alignment and San Luis Obispo,CA connection of"C"Street to Orcutt Road was provided following discussions with City 93401 staff members. If it is the consensus of the planning and engineering staff that"C" Street is not necessary and is undesirable,the applicants are willing to delete the"C" 805 544-7407 Street alignment to Orcutt Road from the project description per an exhibit to be FAX 805 5443863 supplied. 5005 Business Park Finally,the applicants appreciate the City Council's offer of financial support for the North,Suite 102 preparation of the EIR. Itis our hope that even with the financial challenges faced by Bakersfield,CA the City,that funding will be earmarked to assist with the EIR costs in order to expedite 93309 the development of much needed housing. 661-328-6280 FAx 661-328-6284 �r=on MEMO ASSOCIATES Suggested Motion to alter the scope of the Orcutt Area EIR as outlined in the Staff Report dated February 4,2003 ENGINEERS 1. Delete the request for Preparation of a Design Alternative Finding: The design alternative is not relevant to environmental impacts resulting from the project and is not necessary for the preparation of the PLANNERS EM, 2. Delete Item L:Population and Housing SURVEYORS Finding: This item is not relevant to environmental impacts resulting from the project. 3. Modify Item M.•Public Services to condition that school site studies be conducted only after it is determined that the ALUC will in fact permit school site development within the Orcutt Area. Finding:This will be a more effective and cost efficient process. 4. Remove Item B:Agricultural Resources Finding:The change in land use was previously addressed the General Plan EIR and added costs resulting from this requirement will be counter productive to affordable housing. 5. Remove Item 0(4):Bicycle&pedestrian connection to Industrial Way. Finding: The cost of the connection at approximately$1000 per unit is not an effective cost-benefit ratio and will be counter productive to affordable housing. 6. Modify Item 0(5): Traffic calming on collector streets to limit EIR proposed mitigation strategies to physical traffic calming measures,but not new alignments of the internal roads; except as may be necessary for the northeastern portion of`B"Street. Finding: It is more practical to use traffic calming techniques such as bulb- outs and paving texturing rather modifying street layouts given the configuration of the separate properties within the Orcutt Area and the need to provide access to each. 364 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 805 544-7407 Fax 805 5443863 5005 Business Park North,Suite 102 Bakersfield,CA 93309 661-328-6280 FAx 661-328-6284 January 31, 2003 RECEIVED City council RED FILE JAN 31 1003 Mayor Romero, MEETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK Councilmembers, Swchartz, Ewart, Mulholland and Settle, DA ITEM # 3 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Calif 93401 Dear City Council Members. Regarding: OASP and EIR, Staff report dated Feb 4,2003 We are not writing this letter with the intent to stop the EIR process. The recommendation before you will no doubt receive a 5-0 vote of approval. The intent of this letter is to state we do not want to be included. Conlan to your staff report dated 2=4-03, we do not have disagreements, nor has consensus fallen apart upon numerous occassions. The 13 property owners still share common goals. Such is not the relationship with city staff. See attached letter, dated 1-30-03. In a letter to the SLO Planning Commission,dated January 8,2003, nine property owners in the Orcutt area requested "...that you do not include our properties in the EIR scoping recommendations". See attached letter dated 1-8-03. According to a relevant letter received from Andrew Merriam, Cannon&Associates,dated 12-27-02 the following was stated- Sin"the Imels and Garays(OASP property owners)have chosen not to participate in the OASP, impacts resulting from potential development on their property will not be analyzed by the EHL Therefore,there will neither be funds advanced on their behalf nor will they be required to repay OASP EIR costs. However,if the Imels or Garay's choose to develop in the future,the City will require a property specific environmental evaluation,with preparation costs to be borne in fall by the developer or owner. We have chosen to be included in the same text as the Imels and Garays. We do not know how the EIR consultants will world around our trine properties but that they must. It is clearly stated here that no consultants or city Personnel are to be on our properties without written permission. We tried,but as our letter indicates,it is a waste of city funds to include us. In no way is this to be a reflection for those 4 property owners who wish to develop. We fully agree with their right to develop their own land. They have our support as long as the environment and edsting neighborhoods are protected Sincerely, Roland Maddelena Jay/Lory Farrior Garney/Vicid Fall Nick Muick/Patti Taylor', !� Paul Fiala )f COUNCIL .['CDD DIR PhvIissEmil/Jerry Emil ICAO Z. FIN DIR Paul Garay ZACAO JZ FIRE DIR Jean Anderson ATTORNEY ZPW D Leo Evans RrCLERK/ORIG OPOUCECHF ❑ DEBT EADS I"REC DIR B' fZ'UTIL DIR fa'HR DIR January 30. 2003 Cin•Council Honorable Mayor Romero Council members Swchwartz. Ewan. Mullholland; and Settle 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Calif 934o i Dear Council, Regarding: Staff Report dated Feb 4,2003,for Scope of Work for EIR for OASP In the staff report,dated 2/4/03,pg 3-3,the following statement is misleading: "These four property owners have spent more(referring to dollars spent)than they anticipated for several revisions to.the draft specific plan that were done to accommodate the wishes of their fellow property owners". The last phrase should be changed to read: "...that were done to accommodate the wishes of city staff'. City staffs intervention over the past 5+yrs has taken a serious toll on the OASP project. Blaming the need for the OASP revisions on fellow property owners is misleading readers of the staff report. The very first OASP draft was created to include only the Parsons property. City staff review and return it saying all of the Orcutt area must be included per the General Plan. Revision made. Now includes the remaining 12 property owners. Two agree to the OASP, 1 made no comment, 9 said no, not interested in developing. City staff review and return This time with instructions to include a 15 million dollar 4 Lane Prado Rd project right through the heartland of the entire Orcutt area(along with numerous other"suggestions"). By now, 9 property owners asked through many letters"how can the city be processing a plan that clearly favors one property owner, stating that the other property owners are to reimburse for open space land dedication(Mine Hill)? For years no city response to this question. The reimbursement issue was in the OASP text. No property owner in their right mind would agreed to such terms. Source of dissension for all parties. Staff was aware and ignored settling the issue by answering the question. Never knew why. Almost 2 yrs of time and money spent to remove Prado Rd from the OASP project. Revision Now without Prado Rd. Still no response to the open space dedication reimbursement issue. The 9 property owners,in writing,keep maintaining their original position of not wanting to develop. There are inequality issues,environmental issue,infrastructure issues,etc.,that have not been adequately addressed Staff does not respond. Staff says they need help. Rincon consultants are paid 560,000 to work with the property owners. Rincon,under the assistanrn of city staff,made things worse. Property owners ask the open space questions along with many others and never received answers. Ask us,we went to the meetings,the agenda items were:bogus: Everyone quit attending because the meetings were so nonproductive. Waste of city money. . City staff review and return This time with Rincon/Staff influenced suggestions that were not acceptable to anyone. Disappointed and misled,the 9 property owners request to be removed from the OASP. Staff does not support the request One day city staff lets it be known that"it is generally not city policy to have property owners reimburse for another property owner's open space land dedication". Now no problem. Staff knew from reading of the OASP text,5+)7s ago,that it was not city policy to require reimbursements. They knew the answer when the question was ask.•Wby did it take 2 yrs for a response from city staff? Staff creates thein own version of the Orcutt 121an. Itis not well received but does result.in all 13 property owners getting together on their own and finding_ great unity. The 13 property owners in a very short time,like days, agreed upon a viable OASP. Pg 2 This OASP revision was presented. in concept only. to the City Council on October 1, 2002. City Council has not reviewed the entire OASP. At this point property owners united and working with staff to move forward. City staff reviews ind re erns . This time through the January 8. 2003, Planning Commission meeting(OASP EIR scoping process)staff report which proposed multi-million dollar surprises. City staff is back to changing things again.this time by requesting substantial and encumbering.projects such as an 18 million dollar overpass, 3 major intersection lights, major road improvements, a bicycle underpass,and design changes to only mention a few....and not even having the decency to discuss such with the property owners. This is the typical"intervention" that has cause 95%of the accommodating revisions and difficulty in getting the OASP on board Out of the blue city staff throws a zinger into the mix of settled issues/plans/directions. If city staff cannot ger the GASP development underway before A B or C needs to be done, then say so. Everyone knows that the city has to provide'a certified water source, a new wastewater system, new lift stations.etc. We are asking city staff to quit blaming the property owners for delays. We are not developers. We did not volunteer. Get the city in order. Then call us. We are in the urban reserve line,we are not going anywhere. We do not wish to spend 18 to 20 yrs studying every project or new concept that comes along. We do not wish to endure every whim and every change proposed by staff,nor do we want to accumulate any costs resulting from being raptured. by a-specific plan. We do support the rights of all property owners wishing to develop their own land. In the meantime why all the stress,heartache,and waste of taxpayers money? It is not going to happen for 5 to 10 years at the earliest and maybe never with all the excessive capital improvement costs being proposed for the OASP. This is about S80 million dollars of funds becoming available to the city through development. It comes from the fee's for building 1000 units on Orcutt property. "Affordable housing" is a guise. The$80 million will finance infrastructure,improvements and whatever else is needed to provide future growth out Edna Valley. In the. meantime, some Orcutt developers will go broke meeting city staff demands,most of the Orcutt property owners will pay more to the city than they will receive from development or sale. The land in the Orcutt area is viewed as a means to finance building the south side of San Luis Obispo. It is all part of a Master Plan that will render San Luis Obispo unrecognizable in 20 years. Revisions and changes are constant factors in the planning process,all to accommodate the wishes and goals of city staff. Sincerely, Roland Maddelena Jay/Lory Farrior GarneyNicki.Hall Nick Muick/Patti Taylor Paul Fiala Phyliss Emil/Jerry Emil Paul Garay '. Jean Anderson Leo Evans i January 8.2003 Planning Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo. Cal 93401 Regarding: Agenda item 3- Orcutt Area Specific Plan, EIR scoping recommendations Dear Commissioners. The parties signing this letter have reached an agreement to not continue with the OASP planning process. We are requesting that you do not include our properties in the EIR scoping recommendations tonight. It would be a waste of City funds especially during these crucial economic times. We have spent years working with the OASP with high hopes that it could be a very successful project. We. have made concessions when needed to benefit the majority. We have made concessions to benefit the City. We have tried to be active. positive. and productive participants. We have been involved in the process for many years. and today.vituallv most of the significant issues still have not been resolved May we clearly state that we have no unresolved issues or differences with any of the 13 property owners. Our issues of concern have always been with City staff interventions. Marry times we were lead to believe issues had been resolved only to find them presented again. There really is nothing left to discuss as we do not chose to enter into any form of obligations for our property at this time. require property owners to assume responsibility for excessive We do not approve of the continuous attempts to Capital Improvement costs. We understand "fair share" but we do not understand "moreore ts�share". Citv staff has consistently attempted to put the burden of absorbing large Capital improvements necessary for OASP property owners. These Capital Improvement costs appear to far exceed imp servicing properties. The property owners along proposed Road"A" realize the We recognize the City wide need for housing. Pry to discuss necessity of providing Road"A" in order to service limited improvements others. They are willing this issue at a later date when needed. We support those wanting develop.ElR scoping. We have attempted to Thank you for your consideration of our request to be removed foarrthe ens make it impossible far us to work in good faith.bun repeated.unreasonable,and manytimes, continue with the OASP planning process. Sincerely. Roland 1Vladdelena Jay and Lory Famor Garrey and Vick Hall Nick Munck and Patti Taylor Paul Fiala Phyliss Emil and Jerry Emil Paul Garay , Jean Anderson Leo Evans RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Mayor Dave Romero DATE41a ITEM #PU, 3 RECEIVED John Ewan AhA gDw OrTAID JAN 31 2003 Ken Schwartz Ja COUNCIL 2 CDD DIR Christine Mulholland is CAO 7 FIN DIR $LO CITY CLERK .Ja ACAO C2 FIRE CHIEF Allen Settle "ATTORNEY Z� PW DIR A CLERK/CRIG POLICE CHF January 30,2003 OO DEREC DIR �� aUTIL DIR HR DIR City Council Members: I just want to say from the very start,that I am not against development in the Orcutt Area The four property owners have every right to develop their land as the nine property owner have the right to not develop. 1. As one of the nine property owners who are not an applicant,we do not want to be included in the EIR,nor do we want to be included in the cost. 2. If the city staff wants a study on cluster and courtyard development,then the city should pay the$25,000 for the study. Property owners and developers should have the say as to what they want to build. Zoning regulates what can be built. Are we not going to be allowed impute into what we can plan? 2. If the EIR is going out to bid to the lowest bidder,why does the city already have a price tag on the EIR? Has the bid already been accepted? There is already a price increase from what we were first told. Paying for the EIR City staff has caused the several revisions. The thirteen-property owners work well together. We have worked hard and compromised. Then the city has come back, tossed out much of our project,and made more demands. If any one is to blame for the delays it is the city staff. When the city hired a mediator(Rincon)at$60,000 it was a waste of city and taxpayer money. We did nothing. One meeting we placed checkers on a map to show how many houses we might want on our property. One question would have given Rincon the answer. Then we could have moved onto something else. Like wise the meeting where we played with colored yarn. Showing where we might want roads. Just another waste of time as the city staff doesn't listen to anything we have had to say. If the project fell apart,it wasn't because of the thirteen property owners. It was because of the high-handed city staff. The property owners are united when we say we don't want the Orcutt Road Overpass in our project This is a city project. The city has delayed and delayed this project It isn't right to expect thirteen property owners to build and pay for this multi- million dollar project when the city can't afford to continue with it. We want affordable and low cost housing. This isn't going to happen if over passes are included. If the city wants information on the Orcutt over pass,then the city should pay for their study and not tack the cost on the Orcutt EIR. Page 6. Item 4. City front cost through aloan Property owners will not accept a loan against their property. We do not want our property encumbered with debts. Page 3-14-B If the Orcutt Area is considered prime soil. How come it has never been used for anything except grazing? In Attachment 3-Page 3-19 The city staff has begun to mention removal of houses. This is something new that has just come to light. Staff report also says it will be voluntary,and we will be able to provide replacements dwellings,but at what cost? The property owners have lived in their homes for a long time,and most are paid for and debt free. Having owned my home sense 1950,I have a low tax. If my home were to be removed as stated by the city,I would have to buy a new high priced home with to days tax rate. I have already been told my home is where the city wants a road. As to the homes to be removed=`that have little to no cost to the occupants"I take exception. When my husband and I bought out home, bread was 10 cents a loaf and house payments were$50.00 a month. Now bread is $3.00 or more a loaf and if you are lucky,your house payment is below$2,000 a month. House payments were just as hard to pay then, as they are to pay today. Does that make an older home of little or no value?If so,there are a lot of owners of older homes that had better start worrying about the bulldozer. Our older homes have become warts on the city staff's perfect plan and the homeowner is disposable. Is it any wonder that the people who live in the Orcutt Area have had a problem with this Orcutt plan and the city staff. The four property owners who want to develop do not live on their property. The nine property owners do. The city will begetting 81 acres of open space,plus 21 acres of parks and set backs. The city staff has plans for a very expensive park. That land alone is worth millions. We are also expected to pay for school land. This is also on very expensive land. 3., Page 3-20 Railroad bikeways. This bike path can continue down along Bullock Lane and the Railroad tracks to Tank Fane Road. The thirteen property owners do not see the need and expense of the 1.5 million dollar bike bridge so close to Tank Farm Road. This is a city project and not proposed in the Orcutt Plan. 4. City staff says in the proposed Orcutt Specific Plan that they don't want to put busy streets through residential neighborhoods. Yet they have planned to put Bullock Lane through to Tank Fane Road. This will become a second Broad Street. It will also go through the highest density neighborhoods. (R3's)I call this poor planning. This through street will never achieve a 25 mph speed zone. 8. The Laurel-Orcutt intersection should not be included in the Orcutt Area costs. This is an intersection the city has promised to fix and had money set-aside for years, long before the Orcutt Plan started. Property owners are willing to pay their fair share,but not more then their fair share to rebuild the south side of San Luis Obispo. 9. If the city can get grants for planning aimed at improving appearances in the Orcutt Area,then why can't they get grants for some of the expenses the city staff is loading on the Orcutt area property owners and builders. There is a great need for affordable housing. If you look at the figures, land cost,EIR,roads,sewer,waste-water,parks, school, drainage, city permits and rate increases, and the many other costs,you will see that affordable housing will be hard to build. A developer will not want to risk building if there is a chance of going broke. Property owners can't afford to try and build if there is a chance they will lose their homes. If the city really wants houses in the Orcutt Area,the city will have to help. Ask staff to quit putting obstacles in the path of low cost and affordable housing. Sincerely, Jeanne Anderson 3580 Bullock Lane San Luis Obispo Ca 93401 :. .6CEIVED ]IONf1n^ �3 OlS JAN 3 0 2003 FW 0 NVf 46so Portola Ra,Ar�oaa o,cA. SLO CITY CLERK �03 U Telephone: (805)466-9457 RED FILE - MEETING AGENDA January 30,2003 D ITEM k$UlS Honorable Mayor Romero and Members of the Ci Council .[7 COUNCIL , CDD DIR City �d'CAO Z, FIN DIR City of San Luis Obispo m'ACAO Z FIRE CHIEF 990 Palm Street ZATTORNEY Z PW DIR San Luis Obispo,CA. 93401 ZCLERK/ORIG Pf POUCE CHF co D PTHEADS O'REC DIR AAW Re: Orcutt Area Specific Plan-February 4,2003, Agenda Item 43 �.�. !TIL.DIR ._D'HR Re: EIR- Request for Approval of RFP,for EIR and for share of funding costs Dear Mayor Romero: On October 1,2002,the San Luis Obispo City Council endorsed the conceptual map of the Orcutt Area Specific.Plan along with a recommendation on how to implement funding for the EIR. On December 2, 2002,requested revisions to the plan were completed and filed with the City,along with the project map. We are now ready to proceed with the EIR process and ask for your approval for authorization of the above Agenda items. It is imperative that we now move forward into the next level of the planning of the Specific Plan. We recognize that there have been differences between the needs of the property owners and City Staff,however we are hopeful that these differences will be worked out through the remaining hearings prior to acceptance of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan by the City. It is understood that the range of topics to be addressed by the EIR are outlined in State law,and that it is important to cover all matters that will affect the Specific Plan,in order not to have to make revisions later. However, we feel that in some areas a more conservative approach could have been taken in the preparation of the draft work scope that was presented to the Planning Commission on January 8th;therefore eliminating disapproval by some of the property owners. We urge your approval for funding of 50%of the EIR costs. Without this approval,we would not be able to proceed with the Plan. The costs for alternate design services in the amount of$25,000.00 should not be included as part of the EIR costs to the property owners,nor should these design alternatives be included as part of final Environmental Impact Report. Provisions for a variety of building designs are set forth in the Specific Plan Detailed refinements of design would be covered at such time someone wished to develop their property. Andrew Merriam of Cannon Associates,has represented the participating landowners and applicants of this Specific Plan since its inception in 1997. Over this period of time 5 formal revisions of the Plan have been completed and submitted to the City including a subdivision plan for each of the 21 parcels. Many hours of time and effort have been expended into this Plan with growing costs. The perspective of the applicants and all property owners regarding the Specific Plan process should be known to the Council,as well as our concerns pertaining to the draft scoping for the EIR. Some of these issues are set out as follows: Mayor Romero,Members of the City Council January 30,2003 Page-2 "Blank Slate" approach: This comment by the City's Natural Resources Manager does not seem appropriate. From the very beginning of this process,we have tried to stress to staff, that there are 13 property owners involved in the Specific Plan including 21 separate parcels. Parcel sizes ranges from .76 acres to 5 and 6 acres-, 12 and 13 acres and 143 acres There are two property owners that do not wish to be involved in the process,nor do they wish any encroachments on their property. This exempts approximately 18 acres from the overall total of 230 acres. The proposed project map(Conceptual Subdivision Exhibit), and set out in the Specific Plan as Appendix"B",was the result of many meetings with staff and with property owners in order to reach a consensus of most involved. Working around these restrictions was not an easy task-in addition to the requirements set forth by the City,we had to consider property lines, residences,creeks and wetlands. A"Blank Slate"this is not. Circulation and Bike Paths: Dozens of meetings have been held to discuss circulation. Many various ` c6nfigurations have been discussed with staff and property owners,with the end result being set forth in the project map. We are aware of the fact that various alternatives will be studied in the Ea A field meeting with staff on November 13th was set to discuss possible Bike Paths and Roads fronting on the East side of Orcutt Road. We felt that it was important that staff be made aware of the existing residences within the area in relationship to where Bike Paths might run as well as the many creeks flowing into the area which would be a problem in crossing. We were hopeful that some consideration would be given in these areas. It should be brought out here that all the perimeter roads on three sides of the OASP already have Bicycle Paths. The Bike Paths in the Specific Plan will connect with these Bike Paths already in place. However,the Bicycle Transportation Plan calls for three east/west connections through the Orcutt area. At this point we are working to come to agreement on one east/west connection that is acceptable to all property owners. If connection of the southerly section of the bike paths through the Linear Park to the Arbors is proven essential,then the City should provide the Bicycle bridge over Tank Farm Road We do not feel that this additional expense is necessary since all the Bike Paths passing through the OASP connect to Bike Paths already,in place on Tank Farm Road. It is only a short distance of a few hundred feet where these Bike Paths would connect with those in the Arbors. The distance of the whole project from north to south is approximately one mile in length and approximately three-quarters of a mile from west to east. These are no great distances,and can be traveled easily within a short period of time. Any alternatives accepted within the Specific Plan would supersede the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan. Comparison to Edna-Islay Bike Plan-made by Public Works: How can a comparison be made? A trip through the Arbors will reflect to anyone that there is not one single Bike Path on any of the streets running through this whole development. A Walling path runs through the Park area and along the creek coming out near the railroad track area on the West which eventually connects to Tank Farm Road at the railroad underpass. There is no elaborate system of bike/walking paths in this area,it is very minimal. Industrial Way-Bike Path connection to OASP: This recommendation was discussed many times in meetings with staff and property owners. The topography of the area and the fact that the railroad track area consists of 3 sets of tracks makes it quite prohibitive. With all Bike Paths provided along adjacent roads how can a need for this underpass be warranted? Existing bike lanes along Tank Farm and Orcutt Roads will provide access from the Specific Plan area to the Marigold Center and Broad Street areas. Mayor Romero,Members of the City Council January 30,2003 Page-3 Alignment of streets and exception to location of Street C: As stated,many meetings and much time was spent with staff,Cannon Associates and property owners regarding the location of streets. We are aware that the EIR will study some alternatives. Staff has reviewed the streets as set out in the project map many times. We were never made aware of the fact that it would be difficult to achieve the City's speed standard of 25 mph limits in residential areas. A traffic turn-a-round on Bullock Lane and"B" Street was included for that purpose. The proposed street layout follows property lines in order to minimise the burden on individual owners. Additionally,the layout of streets was dictated by need to limit creek crossings and impacts to creeks. The land use and circulation concept.for the Orcutt Area proposed by the City Community Development Department in July 2002 called for equally straight internal road alignments. The proposed plan does include brick paving at narrow cross walks and landscaping to promote traffic calming. "C" Street has been provided in the Plan at the request of City Public Works as an alternative. The City has the power to determine the necessity of this road in light of potential environmental impacts. However solutions to the impacts on the environment have been addressed in the Specific Plan. These specifics were not included within the scoping outline. "B" Street - The current proposed alignment at the"B" Street intersection at Orcutt Road was necessary in order to respect the Imel's wishes not to show any development on their property. Orcutt Road Railroad Over/Under amass: The matter of this railroad crossing has been a problem to the City for many years. It was discussed during our meetings with Public Works staff. We were told that an under or overpass was too expensive;however grant money would be used for improvements to the area for widening of the streets and sidewalks. The City did not meet the criteria for qualifying for the grant so the funds were lost: It is our understanding that Resolution#4755 of the General Plan;adopted 3/2/82,states that the Orcutt Road Overpass has a preliminary design and EIR already completed and that the primary funding for this project would come from the State,Resolution#8376(General Plan, 11/94).. The inclusion of this crossing for scoping was certainly a surprise,and a cause for great objections from the property owners. Agricultural Land,prime soil: This is not a prime soil area,just look at its history. No field crops were ever planted The individuals residing in this area do not make their living in agriculture. During the period my parents had a dairy,from 1939 to the mid 1960s,the only crop raised was a dryland hay crop. If it didn't rain,there was no crop. Our land is considered grazing land,nothing more. "Home Site" designation: This feature was utmost in regard to the acceptance of the Specific Plan by the property owners and is set out in Section 8 of the Plan. Even though this may not be an environmental issue, the designation of"Home Site"will insure that neither the City nor other agencies will impose fees or development of streets or utilities on or through the designated area. Should a brief comment be made in the EIR scoping as to this designation? School Site: An unknown in the Specific Plan is the school site in the amount of 5 acres,adjacent to the park area, which may or may not be utilized. The Airport Land Use Commission will definitely have an influence on this decision. i Mayor Romero,Members of the City Council January 30,2003 Page-4 Open Space: Included within the 81 acres of Open Space in the Plan is °Righetti Hill'which consists of 47.82 acres and which will be acquired through a dedication to the City to be preserved as permanent open space. Additionally the east flank of the hill,including the Righetti family ranch home,will be preserved in its existing state under a conservation easement to the City. Over the last few years purchases of Open Space have been made by the City for millions of dollars—This acquisition which is part of the Morros chain of mountains will be at no cost to the City and should be considered as a huge benefit to everyone as well as to those involved in Natural Resources Management. Affordable housing is in great demand within the City of San Luis Obispo. An effort to maintain reasonable building fees should be made,it is important that unnecessary amenities and excess infrastructure costs be kept to a minimum. Weare asking for your support and positive actions at this time. It is our goal to work towards an achievable and realistic Specific Plan. We are greatly appreciative of the efforts that have been extended by Mike Draze,Long Range Planning,to keep this process going forward. Sincerely, Barbara Parsons by cc: All Council Members Mike Draze,Planning Andrew Merriam,Cannon Associates i I RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Barbara Parsons RECEIVED # 4650 Portola Road ITEM ���- Atascadero,CA 93422 FEB O 4 200 Telephone: (805)466-9457 February 4,2003 AQ CITY CLERK -16412/6 POW 0 MINA Honorable Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council 4 COUNCIL e;CCDD DIR City of San Luis Obispo J 21CAO ZrFIN DIR 990 Palm Street 2—ACAO Z FIRE CHIEF San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Pf ATTORNEY 0-PW DIR CLERK/ORIG Z POLICE CHF- Re: Orcutt Area Specific Plan-February 4, 2003,Agenda Item#3 [D T HEADS �TREC DIR Re: Request for Withdrawal from EIR Process(9 property owners) Zel UTIL DIR 1011 HR DIR Dear Mayor Romero and Members of the City Council: I wish to briefly respond to the letters dated January 30th and January 31,2003,.sent to you by 9 of the 13 property owners within the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The Council should be aware that this plan has emerged from several years of meetings and negotiations;the facts are as follows: 1. The City has always been clear that the General Plan calls for inclusion of all property owners in the designated Orcutt Expansion Area. 2. Those participating property owners from the inception of the Specific Plan were: Righetti/Parsons Family, Charles Pratt,and Ernest and Julie Jones. Phil Gray of Mid-State Properties joined us in February of 2002. 3. The matter of the Prado Road extension through the Orcutt area came before your Council in February of 2000. The Council did not approve the City staff s recommendations for the extension of this road. I believe there is no issue here. 4. Open Space Reimbursement-This provision was included in the Plan early-on in the process;however, in February of 2002,we were told by City staff that Open Space reimbursement was not included in other Specific Plans;therefore it was deleted from our Plan. This is no longer an issue. 5. The Specific Plan included as an appendix,a possible subdivision plan for each landowner. All property owners were given the opportunity to express their wishes. Many concessions were made to accommodate them. Streets were relocated,a portion of the park was moved from one place to another and the school site was moved. 6. The Specific Plan map which was filed with the last revision to the Plan was accepted at one meeting by all the property owners. City staff is still concerned about some streets and bike paths. My communications with these individuals indicated to me that their main concerns seem to be limited to excessive infrastructure costs,the results of the Draft EIR scoping document. My hope is that a resolution can be reached so that the other nine owners feel they can participate in the Plan. However, in the event that this is not possible, I feel that the Specific Plan process should proceed with the submitted project description. Sincerely, Barbara Parsons 1 V by