HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2003, COMMUNICATION 1 - COMMUNICATION ITEM-CLARIFICATION OF COUNCIL ACTION (8/28/03) REGARDING CONNECTION OF LOS OSOS council m.c m o Ra n b um
city o.f san Luis osispo; ctty.councit '
RECEIVED
DATE: October 1, 2003 UL 1 0 1 2003
TO: City Council $L0.CITY CLERK
FROM: David F. Romero a�s�
SUBJECT: Communication Item - Clarification of Council Action (8/28/03) Regarding
Connection of Los Osos Valley Road to Buckley Road
Under Council comments at the 8/28/03 meeting, I indicated my desire that we include as an
active option the connection of LOVR to Buckley Road via the Dolezal property and Vachell
Lane. During subsequent Council comments, I thought I heard two other Council members
indicate their agreement that this should be an active option (see transcript minutes, Attachment
1).
Based on his understanding of the Council action, Mr. Dolezalsubmitted his letter of 9/12/03
(Attachment 2) requesting a meeting to further discuss the issue.
In preparing a response to Mr. Dolezal's letter, staff indicated that in their interpretation, while
Council was open to the concept of such a connection it did not give staff specific direction for
follow through(Attachment 3). The Council minutes for the 8/28/03 meeting(Attachment 4) are
not clear as to Council intent regarding this option.
It had been my hope and intention that the Council would include the LOVR connection via the
Dolezal property and Vachell Lane in the alternatives to be further studied, with the possibility
that this might prove to be a more feasible connection than Alternative #2. This would enable
staff to investigate possibilities and costs involved with acquisition of property from Mr. Dolezal
and several other properties scheduled for near future development on Vachell Lane.
The purpose of this communication therefore, is to request Council clarification of its intention
regarding this possible road connection,thus enabling staff to proceed accordingly.
L
ErCOD DIR$FIN DIRZO FIRE CHIEFRED FILE
�'PW DIR Al1E IIVG AGENpq
�+ p®LICE CHF pA 1�Z Re"C DIR ITEM # uiyQ�1 1
Z UTIL DIR
-Z HR DIR
GACouncil.Support&Corresp\City Council Correspondence\Romero\Communication Item.doc
c
ATTACHMENT 1
Verbatims from the August 28, 2003 City Council Meeting re: STATUS UPDATE AND
DIRECTION ON THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT–PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
SUPPORT FOR THE US IOULOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD INTERCHANGE
Mayor Dave Romero: Well,first I'm very pleased that this is before us. I wish it had come
before us a couple of years ago when we first had a chance to get some funds and could
have started earlier. As far as the alternatives are concerned—would you put that whole
group of alternatives back up again? The first one with the smallest number is the
comprehensive alternative, Alternative 2; I know no one likes that. I am concerned that we
are doing very short-range planning with our city. Some day, in the long-time distant future,
SLO will have a great need,I think, for traffic to be able to bypass the downtown. Traffic
that is beyond the airport,that wants to go to Los Osos, or wants to go to Poly, should not
have to travel through the middle of town. We need a convenient route where they can
bypass the heart of downtown. Alternative 2 will do that; it's a very expensive solution to
do that but it is one way of handling that. I think we need to keep that long-range need so
that 25 years from now some other Council won't have to wrangle through this whole
problem all over again. I am disappointed that this study does not, did not include (and I
wish it did) the alternative that we adopted and was in our Circulation Element for a number
of years, that is the connection from Buckley Road up with a big, wide sweeping tum up
Vachell Lane, with a big wide sweeping tum through the Dolezal property that Mr.Dolezal
mentioned tonight, and would tie to LOVR at Higuera St. I know that would be opposed by
the Los Verdes people but maybe not so much if we were able to mitigate some of the sound
problems and traffic problems they have. That is very doable in the very near future if we
adopted that because that property is developing very soon. Right-of-way acquisitions are
the difficult part,there's two big projects on Vachell Lane that would dedicate the right-of-
way, we could get the curves needed, Mr. Dolezal would be receptive. We could do that in
a very few years and we could solve our very long future needs. That would be much less
expensive than Alternative 2. In any event, I think we need to keep in the studies a long-
range solution for SLO. So I would hope we would expand the Alternative 2 concept to
consider the Vachell Lane alternative,that would connect Buckley Road to LOUR.
(Mayor Romero gave detailed discussion on alternatives presented.)
Council Member Settle: Dave, I would support that and would make a motion to that effect.
But one of the other factors I would like to urge is that we take a look at a signalized
prospect for the intersection of Los Verdes I and H. When this is all put in,it's going to
directly impact those residents of Los Verdes I and H. There won't be access—I think the
gentleman's correct on that point and I would think that that's essential.
CAO Ken Hampian: Mr.Mayor, if I could just comment at this point. You've made a lot
of individual comments;some are in agreement with one another,others are not in
agreement with one another. I think it's all good stuff. It's food for thought for CalTrans,
for staff, but what we ultimately need is a motion here and I think what we're looking for is:
Do we agree that 6A is the leading alternative...
Council Member Allen Settle: I so move.
ATTACHMENT 1
(Additional discussion of the alternatives.)
Council Member Mulholland: May I add a friendly amendment? That among the aspects of
the most favored, 6A, that we include looking at a signal between Los Verdes I and H.
Mayor Dave Romero: I think that confuses the issue. I think it should be a separate issue.
(Discussion regarding the separation of these issues.)
Mayor Dave Romero That would have been a serious problem for me. Somewhere in
these plans we need to look at the long-range solution that we need for out in the future here.
Vice-Mayor Mulholland: I absolutely agree. I appreciate that and I spoke to that earlier.
When I said"Kill 2"it's that entire comprehensive so there are portions in 2 in that south
connection that I think are vital. So the killing of 4 is definite in my mind and I like the idea
of leaving open for further study looking at the idea of 6A generally speaking but it's the
core but keeping in a discussion of how to meander past Los Verdes,how to get out to
Buckley. And I think during our discussion and comments we pointed out things that we
think are good and bad and I would leave it to staff to work through that to figure out what
are going to be the best things to study from that.
Allen Settle: And the maker of the motion agrees with that, Christine.
John Ewan: Could I ask for some help? `Cause I'm hearing"Do this, but always have that
in your background but if you want to do it don't do it because it would be too expensive but
kind of-think about it anyway.
Council Member Allen Settle: But Tim just said to us we're not focusing on just one option
but keep the flexibility.
Council Member John Ewan: So the ones that are moving forward would be 3,6 and 7.
And in each of those three we would look for some form of ultimate connection to Buckley
as an ultimate planning tool. But in the short term, still making the connection through Los
Verdes to Higuera. Am I on track here?
Mayor Dave Romero: And actually the long-term planning tool is covering a flaw, I think,
in the study here that we didn't look at all the alternatives that might solve the long-term
connection.
(Discussion)
Mayor Dave Romero: Is staff clear?
Is 6A the core and we're bringing these other items in?
ATTACHMENT 1
CAO Ken Hampian: We did say that 7 is included so Ken's concern about northbound on 7
could be a continued consideration?
(Comments: Oh, sure; Yes; Absolutely)
Mayor Dave Romero: It's just a different design standard than 6A. And actually,I would
like to have that ramp takeoff before it gets to the intersection. 7 has to go out of the
intersection; they've got to go to a signal and turn right. And it has a different approach to
the freeway but those are design details and they can be worked out. Ken,I think your
primary problem was with 4.
Council Member Ken Schwartz: Yes. Its tight hand turn off of the freeway exit onto
LOVR as well as the 2nd look.
Mayor Dave Romero: All right,let's see if we have a majority that favors the motion now.
Does everybody have it clear?
(Mayor Romero called for the vote.)
Mayor Romero: It's 4-1,Schwartz objecting.
(Minutes notes read as follows: ACTION: Moved by AS/Council Member Ewan to
support 6A as the most favored option,in a phased approach; eliminate Alternative 4,4:1
(KS). Continue to use the$16 million as the planning number.)
(Additional discussion concerning the dollar amount of the project.)
ATTACHMENT 2
THE DOLEZAL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
4251 South Higuera Street, Suite 900, San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 544-3990 - Fax(805) 784-0888
12 September 2003
Mayor David Romero
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Mayor Romero,
At the City Council meeting on the Los Osos Valley Road and Highway 101 Interchange on
August 28th it was discussed and I stated to the Council that I would like to cooperate with the
city in resolving the major traffic problem and bottleneck at the very busy intersection of Los
Osos Valley Road and South Higuera Street: I believe that it is an important element as the
increase in traffic due to the Interchange Project at this intersection needs to be addressed.
To accomplish this Los Osos Valley Road would need to continue directly through our Los
Verdes Business Park to connect into Vatchell Lane. This would require a relocation of
approximately 16,000 square feet of office space of our 40,000 square foot business park.
I would.like to schedule a meeting ASAP with you and the appropriate City staff to discuss the
details that need to be addressed to determine city requirements, timing and costs.
Now is the time to take action as land along Vatchell Lane and Buckley Road that is important to
this roadway is vacant but soon scheduled for building improvements.
Your early response to a meeting would be appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Warren F. Dolezal, General P
Cc: City Council Members
j RECEIVED
SEP 11 2003
ISLO CITY COUNCIL ;
ATTACHMENT 3
council memoaxnbum
DATE: September 24, 2003
TO: Dave Romero, Mayor
VIA: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer441
FROM: Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer L;*'
SUBJECT: Request by Warren Dolezal to Discuss Property Purchase
In following up on the attached letter from Warren Dolezal, you requested that I confirm the direction
given by the Council at the August 28, 2003, meeting relative to pursuing a connection from the Los
Osos Valley Road interchange to Buckley Road via Vachell Lane. To do this, I listened to the audio
tape of the meeting, in addition to reviewing the attached minutes.
While it is correct that you said that it would be possible to make a connection to Buckley Road though
property owned by Warren Dolezal, and that such a connection could be made within the next two
years, the Council's final action does not appear to provide that specific direction. The following
statements, while not verbatim, comprehensive quotations, paraphrase the Council discussion that
occurred at the end of this agenda item:
Tim Bochum: You are saying a long-term connector to Buckley Road should be included in the
options?
Dave Romero: We should bethinking about a long-range solution far out in the future.
Christine Mulholland:We should leave open for facture study how to meander past Los Verdes and
connect to Buckley
Mike McCluskey: Each option should provide some ultimate connection to Buckley in the future,
but in the short term, it will be Los Verdes to Higuera.
There were comments of general assent to Mike McCluskey's summary statement.
Based on the above, it would appear that the Council as a whole was open to the concept of some
eventual connection between the interchange and Buckley Road, but no specific direction was given to
staff to begin any discussions to purchase property leading to Vachell Lane. Should you wish staff to
pursue this possibility with Mr. Dolezal, it would be necessary for the Council to address this idea in
Closed Session and then so direct staff. However; it must also be said that the purchase of a portion of
an already developed business park would be expensive and we have no funding source presently
identified for such an undertaking.
C: Council, Hampian, McCluskey, Statler, Lowell
G/staff/georgetmemostdolawl mcmo
14aa4_ 6-MA411 V ZING AGENDA
Z COUNCIL ZCDD DIR DA tE Q 1(0 03 TEM * C—_
.21 CAO Z FIN DIR
'l ACRO 2r FIRE CHIEF MINUTES ATTACHMENT 4
ATTORNEY 2 PW DIR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
..� CLEKORIo ZPOUCE CHF CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
O DEPT HEADS 2 REC DIR
Z B UTIL DIR THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 2003 -4:00 P.M.
fa - HR DIR COUNCIL CHAMBER, 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Members, John Ewan, Ken Schwartz, Allen K. Settle, Vice
Mayor Christine Mulholland, and Mayor Dave Romero
City Staff:
Present: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer; Jonathan Lowell, City
Attorney; Lee Price, City Clerk; Wendy George, Assistant City
Administrative Officer; John Mandeville, Community Development
Director; Bill Statler, Finance Director; Jill Sylvain, Personnel
Analyst; Deborah Linden, Police Chief; Wolfgang Knabe, Fire Chief;
John Moss, Utilities Director; Mike McCluskey, Public Works
Director; Paul LeSage, Parks and Recreation Director; Betsy Kiser,
Principal Administrative Analyst; Tim Bochum, Deputy Director of
Public Works; Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate; Jake
Hudson,Transportation Assistant; Austin O'Dell,Transit Manager
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. STATUS UPDATE AND DIRECTION ON THE PROJECT STUDY REPORT—PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR THE. US 1011LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
INTERCHANGE.
Public Works Director McCluskey and Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum presented
the staff report. Consultants from Dokken Engineering and Morro Group Environmental
were also present to respond to questions.
Public Comments
Pastor Thom O'Leary and Lori Atwater(representing the Vineyard Church) spoke in support
of Alternative 6A. It was suggested that the City continue to work cooperatively with other
agencies to acquire grant funding to reduce costs.
Jeff Wilson, architect representative for Costco, explained that the company is currently
evaluating feasibility of the project, including the issue of dollar cost allocation for
Interchange Improvements.
Warren Dolezal, President of Los Verdes 11, (noting that he was not speaking for all the
homeowners) spoke In favor of Alternative #6A and suggested the Installation of an eight
foot sound wall along Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) to mitigate noise. He also urged
Council to consider a stoplight where the residential neighborhoods access LOVR and
proposed that his property adjacent to Vachell Road might provide some additional .
opportunities to solve traffic problems.
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE a fitolo3 ITEM 0 CI
C �-
City Council Meeting Page 2
Thursday, August 28,2003-4:00 p.m. ATTACHMENT 4
Mary Beth Schroeder. 2085 Wilding Lane, spoke in opposition to spending money on this
project.
Ray Belknap, 70 Benton, voiced opposition to Alternative 2 because it will have an impact
on the alignment of the "Bob Jones City-to-Sea" trail. Regarding the wetlands, he urged
the Council to consider construction alternatives that will enhance or expand the wetlands
so that it may continue to function. If the wetlands are diminished, he added, it will result in
the creation of a commercial site.
John Donovan, Program Manager for Regional Rideshare, advocated for a "park and ride
lot" in the area of the intersection because it would provide large employers with
opportunities for shuttling employees.
Steve Devencenzi, Deputy Director of Council of Governments, commented that there may
be delays in program funding and speculated that this project would not be constructed
until 2013. He stated that he believes staff is being too optimistic by suggesting that it will
be built in 2009 and encouraged the Council to look at phased approach.
—end of public comments—
Council questions to staff followed.
Council Member Settle expressed concern about potential delays due to outside agency
permit processing and commented in support in phasing in the project.
Vice Mavor Mulholland spoke in opposition to Alternatives 2 and 4. She commented in
favor of the suggestion to construct a"park and ride lot", opposed the idea of a sound wall
on LOVR, but indicated she would be interested in looking at options like a response trigger
light to alleviate traffic problems on LOVR at the entrances to the Los Verdes I and 11.
Lastly,she noted interest to discussing a phased approach for Alternative 6A.
Council Member Schwartz voiced disappointment that the consultant did not present any
design alternatives that would allow the Council to make a truly refined decision. He
summarized pros and cons of Alternatives 4, 6 and 7. He emphasized that he favors
strongly the design of the northbound ramp in Alternative 7, but shared concern about the
design of that ramp in Alternative 6. He pointed out that the southbound ramp designs
illustrated in Alternatives 6 and 6A create another Madonna Road exist forcing a left hand
turn in order to proceed on LOVR. In addition, he proposed that the ultimate project design
contemplate a 100-year storm and accommodate the Bob Jones City-to-Sea trail. Lastly, he
expressed support for consideration of a"park and ride lot".
Council Member Ewan voiced disapproval for Alternatives 2 and 4, and agreed that the
northbound access In Alternative 7 is the preferable design.
Mayor Romero expressed concern that the design alternatives presented demonstrate short
long-range planning and speculated that traffic will eventually need to bypass the
downtown. He explained that Alternative 2 would do that, but noted that it's too expensive.
He suggested that the connection from Buckley Road to Vachell to the Dolezal property be
included In further studies. He pointed out disadvantages In Alternatives 3 and 4 and
indicated strong support for Alternative 6A,with a phased-in approach.
Council Member Settle also voiced support for 6A and urged signalization at the
intersection at Los Verdes I and Ii and LOVR.
Cl
City Council Meeting. _ Page 3
Thursday, August 28,2003-4:00 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 4
Council discussion ensued regarding the opportunities that may exist with a potential
connection to Buckley Road.
ACTION: Moved by Settle/Ewan to support the advancement of Project
Alternatives 3, 6A and 7, noting Alternative 6A in a phased-in approach as the
favored option (4:1 Schwartz).
By mutual agreement, the Council directed staff to include in all alternatives
future possible extensions of LOVR to connect to Vachell/Buckley or Buckley
and, further,agreed to continue to use the amount of$16 million as the planning
figure.
2. 2002 ANNUAL TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT.
Due to time constraints, the Council continued this mtter to September 2,2003.
PUBLIC ARINGS
3. GEN AL PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE CIRCOATION ELEMENT TO RECLASSIFY
SEVEN ESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET MGMENTS AS RESIDENTIAL LOCAL
STREET GMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVIEW GPA/ER 102-03).
DeputV Director of\Pubric Works Bochum and Tr s ortation Assistant Hudson presented
the staff report.
Mayor Romero opened the biic hearing.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2085 ding Lan spoke in support of reclassifying Johnson
Avenue and Patricia. Ma or omero clarified that Johnson Avenue is not being
reclassified. Ms. Schroeder argued at' should be.
Sandra Rowley, representing Residen r Quality Neighborhoods, recommended approval
per the staff recommendation.
Roger Malinowski, 153 Broad treet, exp ined that he had been at the Planning
Commission meeting when th' item was c sidered and believes that the Planning
Commission amended the commendation t include some additional streets for
reclassification. He asked y they were not Inc ded for the Council's consideration.
Staff clarified that the Plann' g Commission approve he seven streets for reclassification
and asked that additional s eets be studied, but no for I direction to include them in their
action was taken.
Mayor Romero closed t e public hearing.
ACTION: Mo ed by Mulholland/Ewan to adopt Resolution o. 9473 2003 Series
approving t negative declaration, and amendment to Figur 2 of the Circulation
Element to reclassify seven Residential Collector street s ments as Local
Residentia street segments, and further, directed staff to b alert to other
opportun ies to reclassify other streets,as appropriate; motion card 5:0.
CI - 3
r
t
JEEEW
'
` 16 " Y
tr
r , - : ,
Development49
Ak
Bowden Ranch
FINAL IMPACT REPORT
City • San LuisObispo
San Luis Obispo • California
2002071126
IM
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 00
r -
- ; ` a y'•v
:- ''
t
Bowden Ranch Development
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
City of San Luis Obispo
' San Luis Obispo County, California
SCH# 2002071126
' August 2003
City.of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm'Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary................:...................................................................................:.:.......... ..............E5-1
1:Introduction...»...».»».............»........»».»».»........»».---- ........».»...»......»...»...»...............................
.........,.1-1
2:Project Description::.................:.....................................:...............................................»............................2-1
3:Environmental Impact Analyses:...:....::.:.:::..::.:.:.:..::..:....::..:::..::...............:........................................
......3-1
3.0 Introduction._...__.................._........................................................................................_......................_....::........:.....................................3-1
1 3.1 Aesthetics.....,_......_........._..__.................................................................................................................
__.._ ._.._....___...____.._.....3 2
3.2 Air Quality.................._.._ ..__..__ .__ _.____ _..__..._ ....._.._..._._._____..._.._._..._..._..._........._...........................................3=29
33 Biological Resources_._....._.............................................................................................................:......... w ...........:......................3-32
' 3.4 Cultural Resources. .._._. -. ......... ........ ....:.........:_..............................................................................._....._._.._
3.5 Energy and Mineral Resources.......... _ ._.._.._.__......................_...__............................................:....3-68
3.6 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity...............................................................................__......................................._.............3-71
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials_....... ._.__._.......................:....................3-79
' 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality...... ......__._.__.....
3.9 Land Use and Planning...................:............::.:: ........................................._.................::....:..:....._.................................................3-99
t3.10 Noise . . ..: ._:.__.....__..............................................................................................._......--•-____ ______._...............3-105
3.11 Population and Housing_ _. ___ _.____„_.._......:_..._......_................................................................._..:..:.......-3-109
3.12 Public Services......_.....__...._......................................:.............:..............................................................___.._.__ __._........_3-112
3.13 Recreation..... ._ .. __ _____..._ .__::_..._._.._._.________.__._._..._....:................................... .._....:.:_..........:_3-115
t3.14 Transportation and Traffic._..__.._........................................................................................._.................-.:...._,.,._.........3-121
3.15 Utilities and Service Systems....................................................................................................__..... ..,.................................3-128
4:Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts.....:....:..........Was...:..::....:..:..........»..........»..».».».......»............4-1
' 5:Alternatives to the Project».».».»...........................................................................»..................:...:............5-1
6:Comments Received on the Draft Elk»...............»................»»..».»»..........»»»...................................6-1
7:Response to Comments..........:....::.......................»...............»...».»...»...».»..»».»......................................7.1
8:List of Preparers...:...........:..:...:.:::......:.............::.......::...::......::...:............:.......».....».»».»»»..»..»........»....8'1
9:References»..».................................................».........................................»........_....:......................................9-1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.TOC-1
August 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIXA:Notice of Preparation:.....,...:..:.:...::....:...:�::.::...........::....:............::.........................................A-1
APPENDIXB:Initial Study......................................................................................................................:...::....B-1
APPENDIX Cc Air Pollution Control District Letters.....»......»........»».....».........».......»...............................C-1 t
APPENDIXD:Biologic Resources Technical Reports................................................»................................D-1
APPENDIX E:Native American Hertiage Commission Letter:.......::........:....:....:....................................»...E-1
Appendix F:Letters from Fire Marshal............. ........ ........:.................................on...............................F-1
APPENDIXG:Drainage Analysis...............................................................................................:»...................G-1
APPENDIXH:Land Use Table....»........».................. ..»..»........»...»..»».....»........»...............»..»...............H-1
APPENDIXI:List of Acronyms...::............................».................................:....::...:...:................................»........1-1
APPENDIX J:Memorandum from the Manager of Natural Resources....::...::..»...::..:.:.......::..::................J-1
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table ES-9-1:.Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............::.:..:.::.:...............:............. ........................_...........ES-10
Table 2.4-1:Summary of Agencies Involved in Permitting and Approving Proposed
Table 3.1-1:Visibility Inventory Locations .......... _ ....... ......... ...............:..a... _.:......................._........3-10
Table 3.1-2:Key Viewing Areas..............................._.....................,............................................................................:......................
:..:. ..3-17
Table 3.1-3:Elevation Differences Within Selected Proposed Building Envelopes._._.._.......................................3-23
Table 3.2-1:Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................_._........._......__.3-31
Table 3.3-1:List of Sensitive Plant Species Occurring/Potentially Occurring within the Bowden Ranch
DevelopmentProject Site..._..........................................................................._.........................................................................................3-38 '
Table 3:3-2:List of Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring/Potentially Occurring within the Project Site_3-40
Table 3.41:Summary of Potential Cultural Resource Impacts,Mitigation,and Level of Significance........3-67
Table 3.6.1:Sources of Ground Shaking in the Vicinity of the City of San Luis Obispo..........................................3.73 t
Table 3.8-1:Pre-and Post-Development Peak Discharge at Downstream Drainage Facilities........................3-93
Table 3.8-2:Pollutant Loading Estimates for Post-Development Conditions.......................... ......3 97 '
Table 3.9-1:General Plan Conformance_.............................................................................................................................................3-104
Table 3.10-1:Typical Residential/Commercial Noise Sources and Levels................................................................:....3-106'
TOC-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' Table 3.10-2:Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Stationary Noise Sources.................:.....
_.w.._:_...................._................................................................................................._.............__---._..._.._...._......................................3-108
' Table 3.11-1:Historic Annual Population Growth/Decline for the City of San Luis Obispo...._......................3-110
Table 3.11-2:Population Growth Projections for the City of San Luis Obispo...._.._............................................_...3-110
Table 3.13-1:City of San Luis Obispo Recreational Development Guidelines-Recreation Locations...................
_............__....._...._.................................. .......... _.._.._........................3-117
' . Table 3.13-2:City of San Luis Obispo Recreational Development Guidelines-Resources and
Recreation........._.........................._....................._..._ ___. _ _ __ __- _ _ - _ _.._.........................................3-117
' Table 3.14-1:Street and Intersection LOS Criteria..._.__._................................... _ _._....._.............................3-122
Table 3.142:San Luis Obispo Trip Generation Rate._..___................_........................................
Table 3.14-3:Johnson Avenue/Lizzie Street Existing Peak.Hour Delay- ......................._....._w__..3-125
Table 3.14-4:Johnson Avenue/Lizzie Street Existing Peak hour Delay-LOS..............._._.._..:........._........_.........3-127
Figure ES 1-1:Bowden Ranch Development Location....._..................._..._..._........._......___.._......._._.................................ES-2
Figure ES 3-1:Bowden Ranch Development..............................................................................._...........
_.
Figure 1.0-1:Bowden Ranch Development Location..........................................................................:.............
_____..____...1-2
Figure 2.0-1:Bowden Ranch Development_.......................................:_.........._.._.....,..................._.....................................................2-3
Figure 2.3-1:Proposed Project Site Grading....................................................................................................._.................................2-6
Figure 3.1-1:Existing View Toward the Project Area as seen from Grand Avenue__ _.____._....._..............3-11
1 Figure 3.1-2:Existing View Toward the Project Area as seen from California Boulevard.................. _..3-12
Figure 3.1-3:Existing View Toward the Project Area from San Luis Drive nearthe High School.....................3-13
Figure 3.1-4:Existing View Toward the Project Area as seen from Terrace Hill..............................
-._...._.._
' Figure 3.1-5:Existing View Toward the Project Area from the Palm Street Parking Structure—__....3-15
Figure 3.1-6:Existing View Toward the Project Area from the Marsh Street Parking Structure........................3-16
Figure3.1-7:Key Viewing Areas.-....................._....................................._..........................w_ ._.._.......................3-17
Figure 3.1-8:Pre-and Post Development Views of Project Site from Lizzie Street.____...................................„.3-18
Figure 3.1-9:Pre-,Post-,and Mitigated-Development Views of Project Site from the.Intersection of
Wilding Lane and Woodland
Figure 3.1-10:Pre-,Post-,and Mitigated-Development Views of Project Site from Taylor Field....................3-20
Figure 3.3-1:Natural Habitats of the Project Area--..--.--...................................................................3-35
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.TOC-3
August 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS ,
Figure 3.3-2:Sensitive Resources of the Project Area..„„.„...„.....................„..................................„........._.........„....................3-36 '
Figure3.6-1:Slope Analysis........................................... _ ____.-_._..-....---„....-___„-----------------------------------„._------------------3-76
Figure 3.7-1:Local Wildland Fire Hazard Map....................................................................„.....__..._.„„„_...............................3-80
Figure 3.8-1:Project Sub-Basins....„„........................ „„...„.__.„..._.._.„... „_„_..............................
Figure3.8-2:Site Hydrology _._.........................................._............„...„„_____......_.„. .„._.„.............................„....3-89
Figure 3.9-1:City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use.:...............................................—-------...................3-101 '
Figure 3.9-2:City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Districts_ ...........„...._.._„„....._„..„.3-103
Figure 3.141:Turning Movements........_...„................................................................................._„ _ _ ..„...._.„.....3-126 '
Figure 5.2-1:Hillside Planning Areas._................... .............
Figure 5.3-1:Modified Proposed Project_.........._„..........................................._..................„„..........„.„ ._ _ „„__.. ........_....5 4
1
1
TOC-4 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
� ES :
� EXECUTIVE
1
� SUMMARY
1
ES:
1 -
1
EXECUTIVE
1
SUMMARY
1 E5-1 Introduction
Bowden Ranch Partners,JV(applicant)are proposing the development of 23 custom residential lots with
1 private residential streets and one 27-acre open.space lot on approximately 40 acres of undeveloped
land within the City of San Luis Obispo(City).The project site is located on the eastern edge of the City
limits,northeast of the intersection of Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane,approximately 0.75 miles south
1 of U.S.Highway 101 (Figure ES 1.0-1).
Project development activities include site grading,utility installation,access street development,
1 recreational-use parking,and restoration landscaping.The City will consider whether to approve a
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to rezone the portion of the property proposed for development from R-
1 (Low Density Residential)to R-1-5 (Low Density Residential-Special Consideration),and whether to
1 approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.The project will also require evaluations and permit
approvals by the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG),U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS),
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(COE),Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),and
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
1
1
'Bowden Ranch Development EIR
MHA Inc.ES-1
1 Augu5t,2003
1
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure FS 1-1:Bowden Ranch Development Location
F x
im
b �
EeW
San Lui Obisp S A N
L S
OBISP
i
�.. i
SnU"Obb i
LOS
,o
r
PROJECT
s.e � LOCATION '
LL=�
N
SOURCE Cartesia 1995,EDA 2002 and MHA 2003
ES-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
ES-2 EIR Process
1 CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require all government agencies in California to assess potential impacts
to the environment prior to making a discretionary decision.The City of San Luis Obispo has been
identified as the lead agencyfor preparation of the.environmental assessment presented in this EIR.As
lead agency,the Carty must determine if the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the
environment,and whether those impacts could be avoided,eliminated,compensated for or reduced to
less-than-significant levels.The EIR will become part of a body of evidence that the City and responsible
agencies will use in deciding whether or not to approve the applications.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines,the City prepared a Notice of Preparation
(NOP)for this EIR(Appendix A).The NOP was mailed on July 25,2002,to local,state,and federal
agencies,the State Clearinghouse,and potentially affected property owners for a 30-day review period.
The NOP provided a general description of the proposed project and a summary of the main regulations
and permit conditions applicable to the development and operation of the proposed project.The .
agency and public comments on the NOP helped to determine the relevant environmental issues
associated with the project that would be analyzed and described in this EIR.Comments on the NOP
from.state agencies are included as part of Appendix A.
PUBLIC SCOPING
The City conducted a public scoping meeting to explain the environmental review process and to receive
public comments on the scope of this EIR.The meeting was conducted at the.City of San Luis Obispo City
Hall on July 31,2002.The City sent notices of the public meeting to more than 230 potentially interested
1 agencies and property owners.The public comments received at the publicscoping meeting helped to
determine the relevant environmental issues to be.analyzed and described in this EIR.
DRAFT EIR
A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public and agency review.The purpose of the Draft
EIR was to provide the public and a9encies an opportunity to review and comment on the adequacy of
the environmental analyses prior to finalizing the EIR.The Draft EIR presented a description of the.
project,a description of the environmental setting,an identification of direct and cumulative impacts,
mitigation measures for impacts found to be.significant,as well as an analysis of project alternatives.
FINAL EIR
Written and oral comments received in response to the Draft EIR have been responded to in Section 7,
Response to Comments.Revisions to the Draft EIR were.made based on the comments received,and
those changes are reflected in this Final EIR.
The Final EIR may also be used by any responsible or trustee agency with authority to review or approve
aspects of the proposed project.
I
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-3
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require.lead agencies to"adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring
program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in
order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment."(CEQA Guidelines Article 7,Sections
15091(d)and 15097).A final reporting and monitoring program is not required to be included in this EIR.
Throughout this EIR,however,mitigation measures have been clearly identified and presented in
language that would facilitate establishment of a monitoring program.The Mitigation,Monitoring,and
Reporting Program(MMRP)for the project would be submitted as a stand-alone document separate
from the Final EIR.
ES-3 Background and Project Overview
Development plans for the Bowden Ranch property were first prepared in the early to mid-1990s.The
Bowden Ranch Partners JV began preparation of a constraints analysis,initial site plan,and tentative tract
map application in March 2000.The applicant submitted a project application to the City in January of
2001.The applicant submitted a revised tentative map application and supplemental studies in
September of 2001.An Initial Study was prepared for the project in early 2002.The Initial Study,which
summarized a preliminary environmental assessment,presented the conclusion that the proposed
project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts.The City concluded that an EIR
should be prepared before considering whether to approve the proposed project.In 2001 and 2002,the
applicant conducted meetings with the community and City to receive preliminary comments on the
proposed project.The result of those community and City meetings was an evolution of the initial
proposal to the proposed project currently being considered by the City.
The applicant formally defined the project in their application to the City.The basic element of the
proposed project is the subdivision of an existing 40-acre parcel into 23 lots for the future development
(by others)of single family detached homes,the construction/installation of typical residential
infrastructure,and the creation of a 24`"lot to be dedicated to the City for open space uses.The project
consists of the following key components(Figure 2.0-1):
• Lot Development.The proposed project includes the creation of 23 lots for the future
development(by others)of single-family detached homes
• Open Space Parcel.The applicant has proposed the creation of a 27-acre lot(Lot 24)
that would be retained in an undeveloped condition and maintained by the City
• Site Access.Vehicular access to the project site would be taken off of Lizzie Street,
Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive
• Utility Systems.The applicant has proposed the construction of utility systems to
serve the future residential development including water,wastewater,drainage
systems,electric,natural gas,telephone,and cable television systems
ES-4 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR 1
August 2003
>r.
o v� -
_
•'tom--•
,o
r
r o
s -
'
12
13. r x.Y i;t •t
5 asCoas�ltJ ifred �'' S c %[
l S School its--,c.�> .. -�. ,�;- 6 x � ' _
\>. •.9'9 9t
"ATF �s
Ad.Le.Jiri n n sera rve Su Ing, ,; r \`oo��a- r. �.. I•_
'- $a t A^! ?�ityF Scro �9
zp
ML
t IN Y J�
log
•.J �Li.'w5��-
=
- ~ � -;`"'
ES:EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY
Additional information about the proposed project is presented in Section 2.3 Project Description.The City would
need to consider whether to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to rezone the portion of the property
proposed for development from R-1 (Low Density Residential)to R-1-5(Low Density Residential-Special
Consideration)and whether to approve a Vesting Tentative.Subdivision Map.The project would also require
evaluations and permit approvals from several agencies(Section 2A,Permits and Approvals).
ES-4 Approach to Environmental Review
The City of San Luis Obispo is conducting its review of the potential environmental impacts that could
result from implementation of the project.The review is being conducted in accordance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines.All government agencies in California are required to consider whether their
decisions would result in significant impacts on the environment and,if so,to take actions to eliminate,
avoid,compensate for,or reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.
In conducting the environmental review,the City,and its consultants,first examined and verified
information provided by the applicant.in its applications.The City then consulted with government
agencies that have permitting or statutory authority over all or part of the project or who have
specialized knowledge of the project area.The City also consulted with the public about the scope of
issues this EIR should cover.The City and its consultants conducted additional studies and analyses as
needed to identify any potentially significant impacts and identified measures,called mitigation _
measures,that would avoid,eliminate,compensate for,or reduce any such impacts to a less than
significant level.
In reading this EIR,it is importantto understand the assumption used throughout the document to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project.Each environmental issue in this EIR is
analyzed based on significance criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines.When no specific guidelines
are suggested by the CEQA Guidelines,professional judgment was used to develop appropriate
significance thresholds.The significance criteria are defined at the beginning of each impact analysis
section,following the discussion of the environmental and regulatory setting.Potential impacts are
categorized as follows:.significant and unavoidable;significant,but mitigable to a less than significant
level;or less than significant.
Feasible mitigation measures are identified in this EIR for impacts that could be considered potentially
significant.The measures are designed to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
This EIR includes an analysis of the environmental effects of feasible project alternatives.These included:
• Alternative sites where the project might be developed
• Modified (for found Morro shoulderband snails) proposed project
• Reduced density alternative
• Clustered residential development
e "No project"alternative
The City is seeking comments on this EIR.The City will respond to comments on this EIR,conduct
additional analysis as necessary,and modify mitigation measures as appropriate.If the City approves the
project,City staff would closely monitor the applicant's compliance with the requirements imposed by
the mitigation measures.
ES-6 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The EIR presents the conclusions that the project has the potential to result in significant environmental
impacts.Table ES-1,located at the end of the Executive Summary,.summarizes the environmental
impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project.Table ES-1 also summarizes
mitigation measures that have been identified to minimize or avoid these impacts,and identifies the
significant effects and unavoidable significant environmental effects associated with the proposed
project.
Perhaps the single most significant potential environmental impact that could result from the proposed
project is to biological resources.The proposed project would convert a portion of the project site to
' urban development.In so doing,a portion of the site would be irreversibly altered from its current
condition,with potentially significant effects on biological resources.Analyses presented in Section 3.3,
Biological Resources,identify mitigation measures that would reduce any potentially significant
biological effects to less than.significant levels.
Among the project site's biological resources are several freshwater wetlands and the Morro
shoulderband snail and their associated habitats.The freshwater wetland habitat are present in several
locations associated with project site drainages and seeps.Evidence of the federally protected Morro
shoulderband snail (live specimens and shell fragments) has been located at numerous locations across
the project site.The habitats associated with the snail finds are in greater populations and distributions'
on the site,suggesting the,possibility that there are greater populations of this protected specie on site.
And,there is the importance of protecting and preserving movement corridors between these habitat
areas.The City's historic implementation of General Plan Open Space Element policy 6.2-.2(Development
' Practices for Sensitive Habitat Areas)has been to require avoidance.This policy would dictate that all
locations of sensitive habitats,include the wetlands and snail habitats,be avoided,and preserved as
open space.
ES-6 Cumulative and Growth_ Inducing Impacts
fThe CEQA Guidelines require that potential cumulative impacts be assessed by developing either a list of
past,present,and probable future projects that would produce related or cumulative effects in
combination with the.City's project,or a summary of projections contained in adopted general plans or
related planning documents.
The discussion of cumulative impacts in Section 4 of this EIR describes the potential cumulative impacts
for each resource topic.
The CEQA Guidelines also require that this EIR consider whether the proposed project would cause growth-
inducing impacts.These are effects that.foster economic or population growth or cause the construction of
additional housing,either directly or indirectly,in the surrounding environment.Section 4 of this EIR also
addresses growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project
ES-7 Alternatives to the Project
The CEQA Guidelines require that all lead agencies investigate a reasonable range of alternatives to a
proposed project,or to its location,that could feasibly achieve the proponent's objectives.The identified
' alternatives must focus on eliminating any significant environmental effects of a proposed project or
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-7
August 2003
ES`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
reducing them to a less than significant level,even if the alternatives would be more costly or would to
some degree impede the project's objectives.Under CEQA,the discussion of alternatives need not be
exhaustive,and the requirement for the discussion of alternative is subject to the"the rule of reason."In
other words,an EIR need only consider alternatives that are"feasible,"meaning that they can be
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period,taking into account economic,
environmental,legal,social,and technological factors.CEQA also requires that an EIR analyze the no-
project alternative,which describes a scenario in which the proposed project would not be
implemented.The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project would not occur.
Further,no impacts would'occur as a result of the project.not being implemented.The effects of the No
Project alternative are summarized in the Section 5,Alternatives.
The EIR considers several alternatives,including:
• Alternative sites where the project might be developed
• Modified (for found Morro shoulderband,snails) proposed project
• Reduced density alternative
• Clustered residential development '
• "No project"alternative
The No Project alternative would potentially maintain the project site in its present-state and use and
essentially avoid or eliminate any direct environmental impacts associated with the project.This
alternative does,however,eliminate a number of project benefits including:
• Implementing the City's General Plan
• Providing housing adjacent to existing single-family residential development and
within closer proximity to forms of transportation,jobs,educational facilities,health
care services,and shopping opportunities
• Maintaining a boundary between the City's residential edge,open space,and low-
density development t
• Maintaining and protecting informal trail and recreational usages in the area
• Clustering of the lots to maintain contiguous open space adjacent to parcels within
current City ownership
• Protecting scenic hillsides and certain on-site biological resources
• Enhancing existing native habitat and special status animal and plant species through
the elimination of non-native vegetation (e.g.,eucalyptus)and designation of open
space areas
The other project alternatives,including the Alternative Sites,Modified (for found Morro shoulderband
snails) Proposed Project,Reduced Density,and Cluster Development alternatives"would generally meet
the project's objectives and would retain (or transfer in the case of the alternative sites alternative)most
if not all of the proposed project's potentially significant impacts at the same or similar levels to other
similar hillside areas.With the presumption that it the City's intent to have lands developed in t
accordance with the General Plan,then development of the project site and other similarly situated,
General Plan designated,and zoned properties would be accordingly developed.
ES-8 MHA Inc
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
tThe environmentally superior project would be the one that is strictly guided by all of the mitigation
measures identified in this EIR.Collectively,the mitigation measures identified in this EIR would guide
substantial revision to the project as proposed to either eliminate potentially significant impacts,or
reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.Taken as a whole,the mitigation
measures may reduce the overall lot yield for the project.site,may dictate smaller lots than currently
proposed,or may substantially constrain development potential for each of the individual lots.The
specific response to the mitigation measures that would manifest in the form of a revised project design
would require the experience and expertise of a number of design and environmental professionals,and
City and other agency staff,to develop a project-that is sensitive to the environment into which it would
be placed.
ES-8 Opportunities for Public Comment
The City invites all interested persons to provide comments on the accuracy and completeness of this EIR.
Comments can be provided in writing to the City at the address identified on the cover sheet of this EIR.
All written comments on this EIR received during the public comment period would be addressed in the.
Final EIR.
ES-9 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1 The mitigation measures identified in this EIR must be implemented to assure the stated impacts
associated with project implementation are brought to less than significant levels.The purpose of the
t Mitigation,Monitoring,and Reporting Program (MMRP)is to summarize the mitigation,monitoring,and
reporting process for the proposed project and the role and responsibilities of the City in ensuring the
effective implementation of mitigation for potential adverse effects and cumulatively considerable
effects.
This MMRP is a draft program,and would be finalized if the City approves the project At that time final
mitigation measures would be incorporated into the program and the roles and responsibilities for their
implementation refined.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
As the lead agency under CEQA,the City is required to monitor the project to ensure that mitigation is
undertaken and that it accomplishes the required levels of mitigation or compensation.
The City would have the responsibility for initiating implementation of all of the mitigation measures.
Oversight of their implementation would be divided among a variety of agencies including:
• City of San Luis Obispo
• California Department of Fish and Game(DFG)
• US Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS)
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• Central Coast Regional Water Quality control Board
Y State Water Resources Control Board
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
MHA Inc.ES-9
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For overall coordination and responsibility,the City would ensure implementation and adequate.
monitoring of all mitigation measures through and beyond construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL SECTORS AND MITIGATION
Construction,operation,and maintenance.of the proposed project could result in potentially significant
environmental impacts.Mitigation measures identified in this EIR have been developed to reduce those
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The numbers of the mitigation measures summarized in Table ES 9-1 correspond with the mitigation
measure numbers outlined in Section 3,Environmental Impact Analyses.
Table ES-9-1.Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
Aesthetics
Potential Impact 3.1-2:Potential for Mitigation Measure 3.1-1.Prior to the start of
adverse effect on a scenic vista. any grading and concurrent with submittal of
improvement plans,the applicant shall submit
to the Director of Community Development for
review and approval a Landscape Screening
Plan that illustrates the introduction of '
landscape materials to help obscure views of
the project from areas to the north and west.A
goal of the plan shall be to provide partial
screening of the project and to create a visual
transition from the developed character of the
site to the adjacent natural hillside.The
Landscape-Screening Plan shall include the
following elements:
• A minimum 30-foot wide swath of native
trees planted in a natural-appearing form
along the norther perimeter of Lots 14
through 17,and Lots 20 and 21.This
planting shall avoid-the appearance of a
linear row by undulating its vertical and
horizontal form and by mixing plant
varieties.Native shrubs shall be included
in the planting.where this Mitigation
Measure conflicts with the Fire
Management Plan,the applicant shall
develop an alternative screening plan that
achieves the same goal.The City shall
have the sole responsibility to determine if
this Measure and the Fire Management
Plan are in conflict and to adjudicate the
adequacy of an alternative screening plan.
• Trees shall be planted within the interior
of the project along all proposed
roadways and access easements.The trees
.shall.be planted after all project grading is
complete and prior to acceptance of
public improvement and building permit
ES-10 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
E5:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
issuance.The applicant shall maintain
trees for one year after the project is
completed,or until the fronting lots have
been sold and the homes occupied,
whichever occurs last
' • A long-term maintenance program that
describes maintenance responsibilities,
protection measures,guaranteed access
to the planting areas,and vegetation
replacement measures shall be
developed.The programshall be
incorporated as part of the development
CC&Rs.
• A proposed strategy that ensures the
long-term survival and preservation of the
planting.The proposal strategy shall
consider mechanisms such as easements,
deed restrictions,reconfiguring of lot
lines,homeowner associations,and public
dedication as a means to guarantee the
success of the planting.The strategy shall
avoid placing the responsibility of long-
term maintenance in the hands of the
individual property owners.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2.Prior to issuance of
the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit
to the Director of Community Development for
review and approval subdivision improvement
plans and utility plans that demonstrate that
the proposed placement of utilities and
drainage structures and channels do not
conflict with or preclude implementation of
the proposed planting plan required in
Mitigation Measure 1.1-1.The improvement
plans shall place all drainage conveyance
systems underground to the greatest extent
possible.If above-surface channels and
retention areas are unavoidable,grass-lined
channels,natural materials,and colored
surfaces shall be used to reduce visibility.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-3.Prior to
recordation of the Final Map,the applicant
shall submit to the Director of Community
I Development for review and approval
language to be recorded against each lot as a
Deed Restriction.This language shall state that
future development of each of the lots require
that site grading be minimized to the greatest
extent possible.Floor elevations should
generally follow the natural landform.Stepped
foundations,drilled-pier and grade beams,and
other methods shall be used to rniRitnize
minimize grading and reduce hillside scarring.
Unavoidable grading shall be contour-graded
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-11
' August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
where possible to avoid engineered,angular
landforms.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-4.Improvement
plans shall demonstrate that site development
grading for roads,access easements,utilities,
drainage,and other project features is
minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Required grading shall be contour-graded
where possible to avoid engineered,angular
landforms.All disturbed areas shall be
vegetated with appropriate seed or other
plants to reduce erosion and to blend with the
surroundings,and shall be consistent with
applicable biological resource.mitigation.
Mitigation Measure3.1-5.Priorto
recordation of the final Map,the applicant
shall submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval
language to be incorporated into a Deed
Restriction for each of the lots and the project-
wide Covenants,Codes,and Restrictions
(CC&Rs).This language shall disclose that prior
to issuance of building permits for each of the '
lots respective builders that the applicant shall
submit an application for and receive approval
of an Administrative Use Permit and
architectural review.The Deed Restriction or
project CC&Rs shall state that City review of
elevations is required and shall outline the
parameters specified below.Review shall
include any proposed retaining walls.The
elevations shall show at a minimum forms,
dimensions,exterior finish materials and colors,
as follows:
• Roofs shall be articulated and follow the
general shapes of the hills and avoid flat
planes which project against the '
background in long straight lines or acute
angles which may be considered intrusive
to the existing natural character of the
hills and vegetation.
• Building colors shall be similar to
surrounding natural colors and no
brighter than a value of 6 in chroma and
on the Munsell Color Chart.
• Exterior wall colors shall be limited to
muted earth tones.The use of white paint
shall be prohibited.
• Roof colors shall be limited to deep,
muted earth tones,deep muted reds,
browns,and grays and no brighter than a
value of 6 in chroma and on the Munsell
Color.Scale Chart Shiny metal roofs,or
ES-12 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
r
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Parry
roofs colored bright orange,red or blue
' shall be prohibited.
• Retaining walls shall be similar in color to
adjacent natural soil color and shall
' include landscaping if possible to reduce
visibility.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-6.Prior to
recordation of the Final Map,the applicant
shall submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval
language to be incorporated into a Deed
Restriction for each of the lots and the project-
wide Covenants,Codes,and Restrictions
(CC&Rs).This language shall require that lot-
specific landscape plans be submitted as part
of the Administrative Use.Permit and
Architectural Review application for each
individual lot The Deed Restriction and project
CC&Rs shall outline the parameters specified
below.
The following requirements apply to all lots:
• Existing trees and vegetation shall be
preserved to the maximum extent
possible and shall adequately blend the
new development,including driveways
and outbuildings,to the existing
landscape.
• Irrigated turf areas shall not be allowed
under the root zone of oak trees(The
outer edge of the root zone is one and
one-half times the distance from the trunk
' to the drip-line of the tree).
In addition,the following requirements apply
to Lots 13 through 20.
• The plans shall delineate all proposed
fencing.Fencing shall not be constructed
of solid,flat planes.Fence colors shall be
similar to surrounding natural colors and
no brighter than a value of 6 in chroma
and on the Munsell Color Scale.White
paint or other white materials shall be
prohibited.
• Palm trees and Italian Cypress are
prohibited.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-7.Prior to
recordation of the Final Map,the applicant
shall submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval
language to be incorporated into a Deed
Restriction for each of the lots and the project
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-13
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY '
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
wide Covenants,Codes,and Restrictions
(CC&Rs).This language shall require that prior '
to issuance of building permits for Lots 13
through 23 the applicant shall submit a
lighting plan to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval.The
Deed Restriction and project CC&Rs shall state
that City review of the lighting plan is required
and that the point source of all exterior lighting
shall be shielded from views to the north and '
west.
Potential Impact 3.1-3:Potential for Mitigation Measure 3.1-8.Prior to
degradation of the visual character or recordation of the Final Map and approval of
quality of the site. Improvement Plans,the applicant shall submit
with the Improvement,Plans a landscape and
revegetation plan which includes landscape
materials to help obscure views of the project
from areas within and near the site.The
landscape plan shall be in conjunction with
Mitigation Measure 1.1-1 and shall include the
following:,
• Street trees shall be planted adjacent to
the development along the project side(s) '
of Lizzie Street,Lizzie Court,Wilding Lane,
Woodland Drive,and Woodland Court.
Street trees shall be spaced at irregular
intervals in keeping with naturally
occurring vegetation patterns.Trees
planted along Lizzie Street shall be
compatible with any applicable cultural
resource mitigation measures regarding
the historic setting of the La Loma Adobe.
• A revegetation plan shall be prepared for '
the undeveloped portions of the site.The
plan shall address the long-term
rehabilitation of the creek areas to a more
natural state,be consistent with any
historic plantings on the site,and maintain
the skyline value of the existing tree mass
as seen from off-site locations.The
revegetation plan shall be a collaborative
effort balancing resources such as
aesthetics,biology and habitat,historic
values,recreational hiking opportunities,
erosion and sedimentation control,fire
protection,storm water and flooding,
maintenance and preservation.
Air Quality
Potential Impact 3.2-1:The potential Mitigation Measure 3.2-1:Prior to issuance of
to generate a nuisance or increase air the Grading Permit,or approval of
emissions from on-and off-site sources Improvement Plans,whichever occurs first,the
associated with the project applicant shall submit to the Director of
Community Development for review and
approval a plan for the control of fugitive dust
E5-14 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
during and after construction.The plan shall
include,but not be limited to,the following
measures:
• To the extent possible,minimization of
the amount of area disturbed during
construction.
• Limitation of construction vehicles.
' • The speed of all construction vehicles shall
not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved
surface.
• Should airborne dust be observed to leave
the construction site area,water from
water trucks or another source shall be
1 applied in sufficient quantities to reduce
those,emi'ssions.
Mitigation Measure 32-2.Prior to the
issuance of a Grading Permit,or approval of
Improvement`Plans,whichever occurs first:the
applicant shall submit to the Air Pollution
Control District the name and telephone
number of a designated person or persons to
monitor the dust control program and order
increased watering as necessary to.prevent
transport of dust off site.Their duties shall
include holidays and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress.
Mitigation Measure 32-3:All diesel powered
construction equipment,including mobile and
stationary equipment,shall adhere to the
following:
' • All construction equipment shall be
maintained in proper tune according to
manufacturer's specifications.
• All off-.road and portable diesel-powered
equipment shall be fueled with CARB-
certified motor diesel fuel..
• The use of diesel construction equipment
meeting,as a minimum,the California Air
Resources Board's 1996 certification
' standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines shall be maximized.
MitigationMeasure 32-4:Prior to the
issuance of tradino Permit,or approval of
Improvement Plans,whichever occurs first,the
applicant shall submit to the Air Pollution_
Control District a project site geological
evaluation.The study shall comply with the
requirements of the Air Resources Board's Air
Toxics Control Measure(ATCM)for
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-15
August 2003
ES:EXKUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
Construction,Grading,Quarrvina,and Surface
Mining Operations.Altematively,the applicant
shall comply with the ATCM for dust control..
Biological Resources
Potential Impact 33-1.Potential to Mitigation Measure 33-1.The applicant shall
directly impact sensitive habitats. offer to dedicate that portion of the property
identified as "Open Space Lot", as such lot is
ultimately configured by the development
approval process, to the City of San Luis
Obispo,or to.an entity designated by the City
of San Luis Obispo, for permanent
conservation to protect serpentine bunchgrass
grassland habitat, among other things. Tke
.1 nee --1-1y by the Gity of San 1..:-
Mitigation Measure 3:3-2.Prior to
recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
submit to the.Director of Community
Development for review and approval a revised
Vesting Tentative.Subdivision Map.The Vesting
Tentative Map shall be revised to eliminate
encroachments into the creek setback areas
defined by the City of San Luis Obispo's Creek
Setback Ordinance,and into the identified
wetland area on Lot 8 plus an appropriate t
buffer.Prior to recordation of the Final Map the
applicant shall also submit to the Director of
Community Development and the Natural
Resources Manager for review and approval an
Enhancement Plan for the drainage crossing
Lots 4 and 5.This plan shall,at a.minimum,
indicate a grading,planting,and maintenance
schedule for the drainage that would enhance
the drainage by the addition of riparian
plantings.This Enhancement Plan shall also
include.the transplanting of spreading rush
found on Lot 3 and elsewhere within the
development envelope to appropriate
locations within said drainage.
Potential Impact 3.3-2.Potential to Mitigation Measure 33-3 Prior to recordation
indirectly impact sensitive habitats of the Final Map,the applicant shall submit an
Environmental Education and Awareness
Program to the Director of Community '
Development for review and approval.The
Program shall be recorded as a deed restriction
against each of the individual lots.The
applicant shall develop an Environmental
Education and Awareness Program in
consultation and coordination with.the City to
distribute to prospective project site residents. '
The program shall include a list of sensitive
resources at and near the project site,the
biological.importance of these resources,their
ES-16 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development Elk
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
! Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
legal.statusand protection afforded under
! various acts and policies,and penalties for
violations of the noted acts and policies.The
program shall also stress the importance of
resource avoidance and stewardship through
' trail fidelity and trail maintenance.The
program shall be implemented at the time that
individual lots are sold.
! Mitigation Measure 3.3-4.The applicant shall
develop interpretive and restrictive use
signage for the trail system linking the project
! site and Reservoir Canyon via the Santa Lucia
Range.Signage shall summarize the items as
part of Mitigation Measure 33-3.The City shall
install the signage at the time that project lots
! are sold.Appropriate fencing(e.g.,split-rail)
should also be considered to restrict off-trail
usage and minimize impacts to sensitive
habitat near trails.
Mitigation Measure 33-5.All construction
activity on lots 7,9,22,and 23(adjacent to the
butterfly over-wintering habitat)shall be
avoided during the monarch over-wintering
period of November through February.The
over-wintering area should be managed as a
natural biotic community complete with a
normal complement of insects.Covenants,
Codes,and Restrictions(CC&Rs)shall be
developed by the applicant and recorded prior
to the.Final Map,in coordination with the City
of San Luis Obispo,to minimize the impacts of
pesticide and/or biocides on monarch habitat
within individual lots during and after
' development.
Potential Impact 33-3.Potential to Mitigation Measure 33-6.The applicant shall
directly impact sensitive plant species work with a qualified restoration specialist,in
' coordination with the City,to identify potential
off-site restoration sites for the propagation of
San Luis Obispo County morning glory and
Hoffmann's sanicle.Potential sites may include
those open space areas containing physical
characteristics appropriate for the species.
Holland(2001)suggested a3 to 1 mitigation
ratio(e.g,plant for plant,or acre for acre)for
San Luis Obispo County morning glory.Similar
ratios may be acceptable for Hoffmann's
sanicle.The applicant shall retain an approved
restoration specialist to monitor the mitigation
site for a period of 3 years.Terms and
conditions of the off-site mitigation effort shall
be detailed within a Mitigation and Monitoring
Plan prepared by the applicant and approved
by the.City.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-17
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
Potential Impact 3.3-4.Potential to Mitigation Measures 33-3 and 3.3-4.
indirectly impact sensitive plant
Species.
Potential Impact 3.3-5.Potential to Mitigation Measure 33-7.Not more than 72
directly impact sensitive wildlife hours prior to the start of any on-site grading,a
species. qualified wildlife biologist,approved by the
City,shall trap and translocate woodrats from
non-grassland habitats(riparian,oak
woodland,scrub)to be graded.The qualified
biologist shall determine receptor sites,with
consideration given to habitat suitability and
proximity to the project site.Animals may be
held in captivity,at the discretion of the '
qualified biologist,until such time that site
grading is complete.Animals would then be
released to the project site within suitable
habitat,as determined by the qualified
biologist
Mitigation Measure 33-8.Not more than one '
week prior to the start of any on-site
construction,the applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist,approved by the City,to
conduct a nighttime survey for CRLF within t
those portions of the project site planned for
disturbance(i.e.,grading).If CRLF are found
within the planned project site disturbance
areas during the survey,the applicant shall not '
proceed with site development until such time
that the USFWS has been contacted,consulted,
and all recommendations of the USFWS
implemented to mitigate impacts to the
species.Measures required by the USFWS to
mitigate potential impacts to CRLF.and/or CRLF
habitat might include avoidance,seasonal t
activity restrictions,or on-site habitat
enhancement or protection or off site.habitat
acquisition and/or enhancement.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-9.Not more than one
week prior to the start of any on-site
construction,the applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist,approved by the City,to
conduct a survey for western spadefoot toads
within those portions of the project site
planned for disturbance(i.e.,grading).If toads '
are found within the planned project site
disturbance areas during the survey,the
applicant shall not proceed with site
development until such time that the CDFG
has been contacted,consulted,and all
recommendations of the CDFG implemented
to mitigate impacts to the species.Measures
required by the CDFG to mitigate potential
impacts to toad and/or toad habitat might
include avoidance,seasonal activity
restrictions,or on-site habitat enhancement or
ES-18 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE.SUMMARY
1 Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
protection or off-site habitat acquisition and/or
' enhancement.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-10.If any on-site
grading is to occur within the months of March
through mid-August,the applicant shall retain
a qualified biologist,approved by the City,to
conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting
birds within the project site no more than 1
1 week prior to planned grading.All active nests
found shall be marked(flagged,staked)by the
biologist.Nests shall not be directly disturbed
1 (e.g.,by grading within a certain proximity of
tree removals)until such time that nestlings
have fledged from(left)the nest,as
determined by the monitoring biologist.
Mitigation Measure 33-11.If project site tree
removal is to occur within the months of
January through August,the applicant shall
' retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-
construction surveys for nesting birds within
the trees to be removed.All trees supporting
active nests shall be clearly flagged by the
qualified biologist.These trees may not be
removed until such time that the qualified
biologist determines that the nest is no longer
t active,and that nestlings have fledged from
the nest.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-12.Prior to
recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval a revised
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.The Map
' shall be revised to completely avoid the
locations of live MSS,MSS shell fragments,and
MSS habitat,together with appropriate buffers
to protect these areas and ensure their
' connection to the.Open Space of the project
for MSS dispersal purposes:The Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map shall also be revised
to identify portions of Lot 13 for use as MSS
habitat and enhancement thereof.The
feasibility of this mitigation shall be
determined solely by the City of San Luis
Obispo..However,prior to the onset of any
clearing or grading activities,the applicant
shall obtain any needed approvals from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service,and
submit evidence of said permit(s)to the
Director of Community Development.
Mitigation Measure 33-13.Covenants,
Codes,and Restrictions(CC&Rs)shall be
developed by the applicant and recorded prior
to recordation of the Final Map,in coordination
with appropriate City of San Luis Obispo staff,a
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-19
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Parry '
qualified biologist,and LISFWS staff,to
minimize the impacts of post-development
land use and alteration,grassland mowing
activities,and property-owner pesticide and/or
biocide use,on MSS and MSS habitat within
individual,project-site lots during and after
development.
Mitigation Measure 33-14.The applicant
shall develop information on MSS for the
Environmental Education and Awareness
Program(identified in Mitigation Measure 33-
3)in consultation and coordination with the
City and LISFWS to distribute to prospective
project site residents.Program information
shall include information on MSS and MSS
habitat at and near the project site,the
biological importance of such resources,their
legal status and protection afforded under
various acts and policies,and penalties for
violations of these noted acts and policies:.This
program shall also stress the importance of
MSS and MSS habitat avoidance and
stewardship through trail fidelity and trail
maintenance.
As part of Mitigation Measure 33-4,the.
applicant shall develop interpretive and
restrictive use signage,which protects MSS and
MSS habitat,for the trail system linking the
project site and Reservoir Canyon via the Santa
Lucia Range.The City shall install the signage
at the time that project lots are sold.
Appropriate fencing(eg.,split-rail)should also
be considered to restrict off-trail usage and
minimize impacts to MSS and MSS habitat near
trails.
Mitigation Measure 33-15.Prior to
recordation of the Final Map,and as part of
Mitigation Measures 33-3 and.33-4,the
applicant shall submit the Environmental
Education and Awareness Program information
and MSS signage information to the Director of
Community Development for review and
approval.This program shall be implemented
at the time individual lots are sold.
Potential Impact 3.3-6.Potential to Mitigation Measures 33-3,3.3-4,3.3-s,33-
indirectly impact sensitive wildlife 14.
species.
Potential Impact 3.3-7.Potential to Mitigation'Measure 33-16.Prior to
directly impact on-site trees. recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval a tree
mitigation plan.The tree mitigation plan shall
identifying a palette,planting locations and
ES-20 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
1
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
methods,and specifying monitoring and
' contingency measures.The plan shall identify
the replanting of a minimum of 140 individual
trees and shrubs on the project site of
indigenous species suited for the site
conditions.The palette may include,but shall
not be limited to,western sycamore,coast live
oak,and California bay.This measure is
' supported by the applicant's proposed
mitigation of the planned removal of a
minimum of 48 trees.The timing of
replacement planting shall be as approved by
' the Director of Community Development.
Mitigation Measure 33-17.Prior to any
ground disturbing activity within the project
' site,the applicant shall erect exclosure fencing
around all significant trees(defined here as all
native trees in excess of 3 inches dbh)with a
reasonable chance for damage during site
development.The trees to be saved shall also
be marked by a qualified biologist.Fencing
shall be highly visible(e g,orange snow fence
' or similar),and shall completely encircle the
drip line(Le.,lateral extent of tree's leaves)of
each fenced tree.-No vehicular traffic or
construction equipment shall be allowed
within any of the exclosed areas.
Mitigation Measure 33-1 a The applicant
shall retain a qualified biologist,botanist or
' arborist to periodically inspect the form and
function of each erected exclosure fence
required by Mitigation Measure 33-17.The
qualified biologist,botanist,or arborist shall
' have the authority to require the applicant's
contractor to repair or reconfigure enclosure
fencing to best protect tree resources.
Mitigation Measure 33-19.Excavation,.
including trenching and boring,shall not be
allowed within the enclosed areas of significant
' trees.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-20.If Mitigation
Measure 33-18 and 33-19 are not feasible,the
t applicant(or contractor)shall minimize root
zone and other tree impacts within enclosure
zones by implementing the mitigation
measures and best management practices
' detailed by Holland et al.(2000)..
Recommendations include:
• Boring through root zones,rather than
' trenching;
• Minimizing the number of trenches;
• Conserving topsoil for replacement
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-21
' August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
following site work-
irrigating
orkIrrigating trees prior to root zone work; 1
• Temporarily covering exposed roots with
wet burlap,
• Cutting rather than ripping tree roots; '
• Preserving drainage patterns around trees.
t
The feasibility of Mitigation Measure 3.3-20
shall be determined solely by the City. '
Mitigation Measure 3.3-21.Prior to
recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
submit to the.Director of community
Development Covenants,Codes,and
Restrictions(CC&Rs).The CC&Rs shall be
recorded concurrently with the Final Map and
shall include provisions to ensure protection of t
significant tree resources within individual lots
during and after all construction activities.
Cultural Resources
Potential Impact 3.41.Potential to
disturb,destroy,or adversely affect the
integrity of cultural(prehistoric,
historic)resources on or adjacent to the
project site.
eligibility
and Fnapping w"!be uRdenaken.if Eultwe;
JeIF he GRI IR We identified
Mitigation Measwe 3.4 3 shall be
Mitia�ation Measure 3.4-1.All design-level 1
engineering and construction drawings shall
be prepared in consultation with an '
archaeologist,acceptable to the City.Facilities,
staging areas,and any activityinvolving
ground disturbance shall be located to avoid
resources determined to be significant.To '
ensure that no inadvertent damage occurs to
cultural resources,the cultural resource
boundaries shall be marked as exclusion zones
ES-22 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
t
E5:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
both on construction drawings and on the
ground Construction supervisory personnel
shall be notified of the existence of these
resources and shall be required to keep
personnel and equipment away from these
areas.The qualified archaeologist,acceptable
to the City,shall be notified prior to initiation of
construction activities:Periodirmonitoring of,
cultural resources to be avoided shall be
completed by the qualified archeologist to
ensure that no inadvertent damage to the.
resources occurs as a result of construction or
construction-related activities.The timing and.
frequency of this.monitoring shall be at the
discretion of the qualified archaeologist.
Mitigation Measure 3.4 2;PFier to the staFt
any eenstFmNen e,gFetind disturbing
,.
._ ree. .Re.e..o_el shell be
:opt....-t..d ah At.
...1.:_the•mmed.ote e.ee eF the find.hell he
_ the._.
Deyelepm
.. _. _
,
deewne v Jewatlen
ff .tee TL
the full east efthe
.
Whaeelegost
' that the resftFee be left in plaee,all -,
be Immed:..tely L..la_J end the n:.....a..e..F
shall be immeoafely RetiCed.If the remains We
detef:Fnined to he wi_t:.._Ame.:L.._ then the
1
PANE NE tf_._... es rode 609; Th_RI I'G shall
fie"designated Mast Hke4y Deseendants that
NAI IG will Fnedia�e any disputes Fegapdip@
Mitigation Measure 3.42.The Gibson Report,
an archaeological survey,was prepared for the
proposed project and recommended."a
historic archaeologisf...review the grading
plans and possibly conduct archaeological
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc ES 23
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party 1
monitoring during grading.Historic review,
documentation including photographs and
mapoing will need to be done prior to grading
[accomplished by Chattel Report].The historic
review may also identifv.areas where.
archaeoiogical monitoring may be necessary of
construction grading"(Gibson Report,page 61.
The Gibson Report continues:
In therareevent,if during construction
excavation,any intact prehistoric or historic
cultural materials are unearthed,work in that
area should halt until they can be examined by
a qualified archaeologist and appropriate
recommendations made as outlined in
California Environmental Quafity Actof 1970.In
such an event,contact the San Luis Obispo City
Planning Department or a qualified historic
archaeologist.
t
t
SWFOEal
recemly feund will be deetimented an the
623 - ;hese_ •fi ...I..J...
Euealyptms Stand
� Fenee 1e
TFash dump
Gan duFnp1
a FiFed Fed bF:_I.41
signifieam
shall be the PFef.FFed. __ems '
ES-24 MHA Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
E5:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
reseupees would Fesult in less then signillean
--- .All design I.yeleRqiReeFiR-
e8AStFU04ORdFaw
te the City.
. .
1
...-.1_ed as excl seen zeRes Loth en
shall be FequiFed te keep peFsewiel and
ewltwal FeSOUPEes to be ayeeded shall be1equipment away 4em these was.:Me
eampleted by the qualified aFeheelegi
eFISUFe that no inadyeFtenf damage te the
Ir Of-OR
S4UENOR OF
4equency efthis FROHkWiRg Shall he at the
lfayeWaRee Is defeFFRined to he iRfeasible,the
aeEeptable to the Gly,t8 FeE8Fd,deewment
and-...-w..the Fess Wee.A-;..--J..nee w:th all
applaeable laws,
and aeeepted
nn
Tse s.
Mitigation Measure 3A-3.If feasible,road
sections,including street width,curb,cutter
and sidewalk,should be designed to preserve
' and enhance the rural character of the existing
project site.Use of the narrowest possible,
asphalt-paved road width,rolled concrete
curb-and-gutter,and elimination of sidewalks
' further addresses Potential impacts to the
setting of the La Loma Adobe by retaining,to
the extent feasible,the rural character of the
existing project site.
iEnergy and Minerals
Potential Impact 3S-1.The potential Mitigation Measure 35-1:Landscaping plans
t to conflict with adopted energy for individual lots shall include shade trees
conservation plans. along the southwestern side of the houses to
reduce summer cooling needs.In addition,the
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-25
' August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Parry 1
following measures would be taken:
a. All glazing shall be dual-paned. '
b. Wall and ceiling insulation shall exceed
Title 24 energy standards to the.
satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
c. Appliances, furnaces, water heaters, and ,
lighting shall be high-efficiency and
energy conserving to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Development.
d. The project shall use energy efficient
lighting.
Potential Impact 35-2.The potential Mitigation Measure 35-1. '
to use non-renewable resources in
wasteful and inefficient manner.
Geology,Soils,and Seismicity
Potential Impact 3.6-1.The exposure Mitigation Measure 3.61.Groundshaking
of people or structures to potential hazards to people,structures,and property
substantial adverse geologic or soil cannot be eliminated,however,they can be
effects,including risk of loss,injury,or reduced through implementation of the
death. following
llowing mitigation:
• Cut and fill operations at the project site '
shall be consistent with all
recommendations made by the project
geotechnical engineer,and City
regulations.Only clean material t
recommended and approved by the
geotechnical engineer and approved by
the City shall be used.
• Structures shall be designed in
accordance with all building design
requirements as established by the
Uniform Building Code(UBC)of 1997, '
which has been adopted by the City of
San Luis Obispo in the Building and
Construction Ordinance,Title 15,Chapters '
15.02&15.04.
• Design and construction of foundations
and paved areas shall conform to all
relevant seismic regulations and '
recommendations made by state-licensed
civil,geotechnical,and structural
engineers for the specific project.
• New utilities shall be designed to
withstand the expected ground motion of
an earthquake in the vicinity of the project '
site.
Potential impact 3.62.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.62.Erosion control
for substantial soil erosion. Best Management Practices(BMPs)must be
imnlpmantpri rlwmnn the ennOnirtinn nprinri '
ES-26 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
E5:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
implemented during the construction period
' to prevent extensive soil erosion and loss of
topsoil during the construction period.Erosion
control BMPs are required under the statewide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
' System(NPDES)General Construction Permit.
NPDES permit requirements are further
described in Section 3.8,Hydrology,of this EI-FL
1 Erosion control practices to be implemented
during the construction period include the
prohibition of grading and earthwork during
the wet season(typically October 15 through
April 15)and the utilization of soil'stabilization
techniques such as photodegradable erosion
control blankets and hydro seeding.The
Measure shall.be implemented in conjunction
with Mitigation Measure 3.8-1.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3.Immediately
following construction of all.subdivision
t improvements,all remaining bare areas with
exposed soils shall be planted with grass or
appropriate vegetation to promote the natural
stabilization of site soils and reduce soil loss.
' For purposes of this mitigation measure site
improvements include rough grading,
installation of all utility and infrastructure
' systems,and construction of all streets and
sidewalks.
Potential Impact 3.6-3.The potential Mitigation Measure3.6-4.Foundations,
' construction of buildings and pavement,and sidewalks shall be designed in
structures atop expansive soils. accordance with all recommendations made
by the project soil engineer and geotechnical
engineer including the placement of non-
expansive material beneath slabs and
increasing the depth and reinforcement of
foundation elements.
Potential Impact 3.6-4.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.6-5.Foundations,
construction of buildings or structures pavements,underground utilities,and
atop settlement-prone soils. sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance
with all recommendations made by project
soils and geotechnical engineers.
Recommendations made in the project Soils
Engineering report include the complete
removal of all fill material and the
recompaction of building and improvement
areas prior to construction.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potential Impact 3.7-1.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.7-1.Prior to issuance of
to cause injury or harm to employees the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit
or the public from construction to the Director of Community Development for
operations at the site,including review and approval a site construction safety
operation of construction equipment, plan.The purpose of the plan shall be to ensure
movement of sail,and public access public safety during all phases of project
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-27
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
construction areas. construction through:.
• The installation of safety signage,placed
as appropriate within the project area,
that warns of risks associated with on-site
construction activities and outlines
measures to betaken to ensure safe use of
on-site trails near construction areas and
avoidance of active construction
equipment
• The installation of temporary safety
fencing to restrict or prevent public access
to active on-site construction sites or '
equipment,as well as to"funnel°hikers
directly to hillside trails and trail access
points
• The temporary restriction of public access '
to site trails when heavy equipment is
being used or particularly dangerous
construction operations are being
conducted
Potential Impact 3.7-2.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.7-2.Prior to issuance of
to cause injury or harm to employees, the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit
the public or the environment from to the Director of Community Development for
construction activities which may review and approval a safety plan.The purpose
release hazardous substances that may of the plan is to minimize the exposure of the
be already present in the soils at the public to potentially hazardous materials
project site. during all phases of project construction
through:
• Appropriate methods(e.g.,Best '
Management Practices)and approved
containment and spill-control practices
(e.g.,spill control plan)for construction
chemical and materials on-site
• Safety signage,placed as appropriate
within the project area,that warns of risks
associated with on-site construction
materials and outlines measures to be
taken to ensure safe use of on-site trails
near construction areas and avoidance of 1
construction materials
• Temporary safety fencing to restrict or
prevent public access to active on-site
construction materials or chemicals,as
well as to"funnel"hikers directly to
hillside trails and trail access points
• Temporary restriction of public access to
site trails when fueling or chemicals are in
use
Potential Impact 3.7-4.Potential to Mitigation Measure 3.7-3.Prior to
increase the risk to project site homes recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
and homeowners from failing trees and submit to the Director of Community
tree limbs. Development for review and approval a copy
ES-28 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
tree limbs. of the proposed Covenants,Codes,and
Restrictions(CC&Rs)for the project.The CC&Rs
shall include a provision for the on-going
minimization of on-site dangers from falling
trees and tree limbs.On-going minimization of
on-site dangers from falling tees and tree limbs
shall be the responsibility of the project's
homeowners'association.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Potential Impact 3.8-1.Alterations in Mitigation Measure 3.8-1.Prior to issuance of
drainage patterns and grading during the Grading Permit or approval of
the construction period could result in improvement plans;the applicant shall submit
construction-related erosion problems. to the Director of Public Works for review and
approval a detailed erosion control plan(ECP)
to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts
during the construction period.The detailed
ECP shall be accompanied by written
narrative and be approved by the Director of
Public Works.At a minimum,the ECP and
written narrative should include the following:
• A proposed schedule of grading activities,
monitoring,and infrastructure milestones
in chronological format,
• Identification of critical areas of high
erodibility potential and/or unstable
slopes;
• Soil stabilization techniques such as short-
term biodegradable erosion control
blankets and hydroseeding should be
utilized.Silt fences should be installed
downslope of all graded slopes.Strew
wattles or another appropriate BMP
should be installed in the flow path of
graded areas receiving concentrated
flows,as well as around storm drain inlets;
• Description of erosion control measures
on slopes,lots,and streets;
• Contour and spot elevations indicating
runoff pattems before and after grading;
• Filter systems at catch basins(drop inlets)
in public streets as means of sediment
control;and
• The post-construction inspection of all
' drainage facilities for accumulated
sediment,and the clearing of these
drainage structures of debris and
sediment.
Mitigation Measure 3.82.The applicant shall
comply with NPDES General Construction
Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements
established by the CWA.Pursuant to the
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-29
August 2003
1
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Partjr
NPDES Storm Water Program,an application
for coverage under the statewide General 1
Construction Activities Storm Water Permit
(General Permit)must be obtained for project
development.Itis the responsibility of the
project applicant to obtain coverage prior to
site construction.
The applicant can obtain coverage under the
General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent(NOI) 1
with the State.Water Resource Control Board's
(SWRCB)Division of Water Quality.The filing
shall describe erosion control and storm water
treatment measures to be implemented during 1
and following construction and provide a
schedule for monitoring performance.These
BMPs would serve to control point and non-
point source(NPS)pollutants in storm water
and constitute the project's SWPPP for
construction activities.While the SWPPP would
include several of the same components as the 1
ECP,the SWPPP would also include BMPs for
preventing the discharge of other NPS
pollutants besides sediment(such as paint,
concrete,etc.)to downstream waters.
Potential Impact 3.8-2.Development Mitigation Measure 3.8-3.Prior to
of the proposed project could result in recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
an increase in peak discharge at submit to the Director of Public Works for
downstream drainage facilities. review and approval a plan to mitigate
increases in peak discharge.All drainage
improvements must be constructed in
accordance with Section 7.2 of the City's
Drainage Design Manual.The plan shall adhere
to one of several design alternatives:
Altemative 1:Improve the entrance to the
Liaie Court culvert entrance so that 10-year
event or greater would not over top the culvert
headwall and/or creek banks(this
improvement is proposed by the project
applicant).
Alternative 2:Demonstrate with more detail
to the City's satisfaction that individual
detention tanks are appropriate on the site
(this alternative is proposed by applicant).
Alternative 3:Construct off-channel open '
detention basin(s)on the project site to reduce
flows to the culvert entrance.These ponds
differ from the individual detention tanks in t
that they capture runoff from several lots
rather than just one,and are open as opposed
to subsurface.
The applicant shall confer with the Director of
Public Works prior to preparation of the plan
for the purpose of receiving specific direction
regarding which alternative would be
ES-30 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
1 '
ES:EXECUTNE SUMMARY
' Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
acceptable to the City.
' Alternative 1:Improve the L'i2xie Court
Storm Drainage Entrance Structure.The
applicant has proposed raising the head wall at
the Lizzie Court culvert entrance to increase
capacity.The 10-year post project flow in Sub-
basin C is 119 ds(337 m'/sec).In order for the.
culvert entrance under inlet control conditions
to carry this flow it has been estimated that the
headwall must be raised a minimum of 1.5 feet.
on all sides of the;creek.if possible the
headwall should be raised between 2 and 3
feet to gain additional capacity and account for
possible debris problems.The design for the
extension of the headwall shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Public Works
' Department..
Alternative 2:Demonstrate liability of the
' Detention Tank System to the City.The
detention tank system shall be designed in
detail with the subdivision improvement plans
and submitted to the City for approval.At a
' minimum,the detention tanks should have the
following features:
All outlets for each tank shall be shown.A
gravity line with aslope of no less than 1
percent must drain each tank.
• Each tank must have an emergency
spillway or outlet in case of clogging.
a The tanks must be.shown to have enough
volume over the duration of longer period
' storms such as a 12-hour rainfall event.
• The applicant shall require that a legal
document be recorded against each lot
1 that relieves the City of San Luis Obispo
from any maintenance or other
responsibilities in the event that these
systems fail and/or cause any flooding
' downstream.
Alternative 3:Off Channel Open Detention
Ponds.The off-channel open detention ponds
would be constructed adjacent to proposed
Lots 3,4,and 5,and possibly within open space
' lot 24.The pond(s)would serve to temporarily
detain runoff and decrease peak discharge at
downstream drainage facilities so that a 25-
year event does not overtop the existing
1 channel bank or culvert headwall.The
detention ponds may also function to improve
water quality by allowing sediments and
particulates to settle out of storm water prior to
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-31
1 August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party ,
discharge to downstream drainage facilities
(please refer to Impact 3.8-3 and Mitigation '
Measure 3.8-4 for more details on the water
quality aspects of the ponds).The detention
ponds shall be designed to comply with
applicable City drainage design standards and
ata minimum have the following features:
• Each pond should include an outlet
structure to allow the basin to drain
completely within 24 hours.
• Each pond shall be designed with an-
emergency
nemergency spillway that can pass the 100-
year storm event with 1-foot freeboard
between the design water surface
elevation and the top of the embankment.
• The detention ponds shall be elongated to
maximize the flow length between inlet
and outlet structures.
• The ponds shall be designed to prevent
frequent resuspension of deposited
sediments and have a storage volume
sufficient to detain average seasonal flows
for about five minutes.
• All storm drain outfalls shall be equipped
with energy dissipaters to avoid erosion of
the ponds.
• The ponds shall be.planted with grass or
appropriate emergent vegetation. '
• An easement reservation for the
homeowners association would be
necessary to ensure maintenance access.
Potential Impact 3.8-3.Project Mitigation Measure 3.8-4.It is recommended
development could result in an that storm water detention ponds,rather than
increase in non-point source(NPS) underground detention tanks,be incorporated
Pollutants to receiving waters. into the project drainage system(Mitigation
Measure 3.8-3).These ponds should be
designed to improve water quality by allowing
sediments and particulates to settle prior to
discharging to downstream waterways.By
detaining runoff,the detention ponds would
allow for some pollutant removal through
infiltration and vegetative.uptake.Many
pollutants in storm water,including lead,
copper;zinc,phosphorus,and hydrocarbons
are associated with sediment and fine
particulates.Thus,the ability of a storm water
practice to remove.many nutrients,trace
metals,and hydrocarbons is largely related to
its ability to remove suspended sediment and
particulates.Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 '
for general detention pond design guidelines.
ES-32 MHA Inc.
Bowden_Ranch Development.EIR '
August 2003
ES:EXECUTNE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
Mitigation Measure 3.8-5.Prior to issuance of
the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit
to the Director of Public Works for review and
approval a plan that incorporates grassed
swales(biofilters)into the project drainage
' system for runoff conveyance and filtering of
pollutants.The preliminary project grading and
drainage.plan indicates that runoff would be
conveyed from each parcel to roadside ditches
via a series of drainage swales.Rather than
have concrete drainage swales to transport the
runoff to roadside ditches,these swales shall
be lined with grass or appropriate vegetation
to encourage.the biofiltration of sediment,
phosphorus,trace metals,and petroleum from
runoff prior to discharge into the formal
drainage network.General design guidelines
relevant to optimizing the pollutant removal
mechanisms of grassed swales are:1)a dense,
1 uniform growth of fine-stemmed herbaceous
plants for optimal filtering of pollutants;2)
vegetation that is tolerant to the water,
climatological,and soil conditions of the
' project site is preferred,-3)grassed swales that
maximize water contact with the vegetation
and soil surface have the potential to
substantially improve removal rates,
particularly of soluble pollutants;and 4)
pollutant removal efficiency is increased as the
flow path length is increased.General
maintenance guidelines for biofilters are
discussed in Mitigation Measure 3.8-6.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-6.Prior to issuance of
the Grading Permit or approval of
improvement plans,the applicant shall submit
to the Director of Community Development
and Director of Public Works for review and
approval a long-term storm water pollution
prevention plan(SWPPP)to protect storm
water quality after the construction period.
The SWPPP shall include the following
' additional BMPs to protect storm water
quality:
' • Proper maintenance of parking lots and
other paved areas can eliminate the
majority of litter and debris washing into
storm drains and thus,entering local
' waterways.Regular sweeping is a simple
and effective BMP aimed at reducing the
amount of litter in.storm drain inlets(to
prevent clogging)and public waterways
(for water quality).The project applicant
shall enter into an agreement with the
City of San Luis Obispo to ensure this
maintenance is completed prior to
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES733
August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party '
approval of improvement plans or final
maps. t
• Proper maintenance of biofilters is
essential to maintain functionality.The
maintenance of biofilters on the project 1
site would be the responsibility of a
homeowner's association for the
proposed project.The homeowner's
association would be responsible for the.
following biofilter maintenance:1)Regular
mowing to promote growth and increase
density and pollutant Uptake(vegetative
height should be.no more than 8 inches,
cuttings must be promptly removed and
properly disposed of);2)Removal of
sediments Year-round derirg-surntneF
menths when they build up to 6 inches at
any spot,cover biofilter vegetation,or
otherwise interfere with biofilter
operation;and 3)Reseeding of biofilters as t
necessary,whenever maintenance or
natural processes create bare spots.
• If storm water detention ponds or t
underground detention tanks are
incorporated into the project drainage
system,proper maintenance is necessary
to ensure their effectiveness at preventing '
downstream drainage problems and
promoting water quality.The
maintenance of the detention ponds or
underground detention tanks would be
the responsibility of the homeowner's
association.Necessary detention
pond/tank maintenance includes:1) '
Regular inspection during the wet season
for sediment buildup and clogging of
inlets and outlets;2)Regular
(approximately once a year)removal of
basin sediment,and 3)if an open
detention basin is used,mowing and
maintenance of pond vegetation(replant
or reseed as necessary to control erosion.
Maintenance reports shall be submitted
annually to City's Public Works
Department.
• The applicant shall prepare informational
literature and guidance on residential
BMPs to minimae pollutant contributions
from the proposed development.This
information shall be distributed to all
residences at the project site.At a
minimum the information should cover.1)
General information on biofilters and
detention ponds for residents concerning
their purpose and importance of keeping
ES-34 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
t
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter,2)
' Proper disposal of household and
commercial chemicals,3)Proper use of
landscaping chemicals,4)Clean-up and
appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and
leaf litter,and 5)Prohibition of any
washing and dumping of materials and
chemicals into storm drains.
Land Use and Planning
Potential Impact 3.9-1:Potential to Mitigation Measure 3.9-1.Prior to
' conflict with adopted policies of the recordation of the final map the applicant shall
General Plan. submitto the Director of Community
Development for review and approval a
landscape plan for those portions of Lots 11
' through 16.The plan shall provide fora
landscape palette that ensures a gradual visual
transition from the.urban residential
development to the adjacent open space on
Lot 24.Installation and maintenance of the
landscape materials identified in the plan shall
be the responsibility of the future owners of
the subject lots and shall be governed by the
project's Covenants,Codes,and Restrictions
(CC&Rs)
Mitigation Measure 3.9-2.Prior to
recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval
language for a deed restriction to be recorded
against each of the residential lots.The Deed
Restriction shall specifically allow the use of
' Class A rated materials only.
Mitigation Measure 3.9-3.Prior to
recordation of the final map the applicant shall
' submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval
language for a deed restriction to be recorded
against each of the residential lot.The Deed
' Restriction shall specifically require the
provision of adequate defensible space around
each of the homes to be built in accordance
with the City s Fire Marshal.
1 Mitigation Measure 3.9-4.Prior to
recordation of the final map the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval a
graphic depiction of building envelopes for
each of the residential lou that includes or is
' adjacent.to Eucalyptus trees.The map shall
indicate that no buildings may be sited closer
than 15 feet from the outside edge of the
canopy of any Eucalyptus tree.
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.ES-35
' August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party '
Noise
Potential Impact 3.10-1.Construction Mitigation Measure 3.10-1.Construction- '
noise at the project site. related noise impacts to sensitive receptors at
or near the project site would be minimized
and/or reduced using the following methods:
• Grading and construction work shall occur
during the weekdays only and not on
Saturday,Sunday,or holidays,consistent
with established City ordinances.
• Feasible,appropriate noise-reducing
technology shall be used for on-site '
machinery and equipment.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-2.Prior to the first
ground disturbing activity on the oroiect site
the applicant shall fund an engineering
analysis of the.La Loma Adobe for the express
purpose of determining what reinforcing
measures must be installed to eliminate any
potential damage to the structure from on-site
grading and construction activities.The
recommendations included in the analysis
shall be implemented prior to any ground '
disturbing activities:.
Population and Housing No potentially significant impacts.
Public Services No potentially significant impacts. '
Recreation
Potential Impact 3.13-1.The potential Mitigation Measure 3.13-1.Prior to issuance
to increase the use of existing of the Grading Permit the applicant shall
recreational facilities resulting in submit Site Improvement Plans to the Director
accelerated deterioration or the of Community Development for review and 1
construction of recreational facilities approval.The Plans shall provide for temporary
that could result in significant signage,to be installed during active project
environmental effects. construction and development operations,and
permanent trail signage,which would be '
placed as appropriate in the project area.The
signage would be posted at each of the
informal trailheads or trail access points on
Lizzie Street/Court,Wilding Lane,and
Woodland Drive/Court and would:
• Identify the trailhead,access points,and
trail path(s)ascending the foothills east of '
the project site
• Provide phone numbers and information
for hiker use,including City Police,Fire, '
and Parks and.Recreation Department
contact phone numbers
• Provide appropriate safety and emergency '
information for hiker use
• Provide direction for responsible,safe,and
quiet use and access of trails,including
ES-36 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
' Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
hours of operation
' • Provide info about avoiding and
respecting on-site natural resources such
as creek areas,wetlands,sensitive
' vegetation,animal nests and habitat
• Describe the sensitive on-site wildlife,
plant,and habitat resources,such as
woodrat nests,wetlands areas,and
' monarch butterfly habitat
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.Prior to issuance
of the Grading Permit,the applicant shall
1 submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval Site
Improvement Plans.The Plans shall provide for
' the installation of small,environmentally
friendly and/or neutral waste bins for hiker
trash at the trailhead or trail access point(s),as
well as at appropriate points along the trails
accessing the foothills.The City(or community
association)would be designated to collect
garbage from these bins on a time schedule to
be determined as part of a mitigation and
' monitoring plan.
Mitigation Measure 3.13-3.Prior to issuance
of the Grading Permit the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval Site
Improvement Plans.The Plans shall provide for
short-term bicycle parking at the trailheads or
trail access points to encourage hikers to bike
rather than drive to the site,and to alleviate
vehicle-parking concerns.
Transportation and Traffic No potentially significant impacts.
Utilities and Service Systems
Potential Impact 3.15-2.Potential for Mitigation Measure 3.15-1.Prior to
constructed homes to have water recordation of the Final Map or prior to
pressure at a level lower than that approval of improvement plans,whichever
required by the Uniform Building Code. occurs first,the applicant shall submit to the
' Director of Community Development for
review and approval a plan to ensure that a
minimum of 15 pounds per square inch(psi)of
water pressure will be attained within all future
t homes to be constructed on the project site.All
fixtures in all homes at all floor levels must
have a minimum of 15 psi.If required,
individual pressure booster pumps shall be
installed at each residential unit where the
minimum 15 psi cannot be met using the City's
water delivery system pressures.All booster
' pumps required by this mitigation measure
must be permanently connected to PG&E
electrical service or another reliable source of
electricity.All booster pumps required by this
' mitigation measure must also have installed
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc ES-37
' August 2003
ES:EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible Party
and maintained in operating condition an
alternative,automatically switched,electrical t
supply to take over during periods of PG&E or
other reliable source system outages.
Alternatively,if portions of homes cannot
receive water at the minimum 40 psi,then '
those portions of the homes shall not be
constructed.
t
1
' 1
t
1
1
ES-38 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR 1
August 2003
1 1 :
� INTRODUCTION
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 .
1
INTRODUCTION
1
1 1.0 Introduction and Purpose of the EIR
Bowden Ranch Partners,JV(applicant)are proposing the development of 23 custom residential lots with
1 private residential streets and one 27-acre open space lot on approximately 40 acres of undeveloped
land within the City of San Luis Obispo(City).The project site is located on the eastern edge of the City
limits,northeast of the intersection of Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane,approximately 0.75 miles south
of U.S.Highway 101 (Figure 1.0-1).
Project development activities include site grading,utility installation,access street development,
1 recreational-use parking,and restoration landscaping.The City will consider whether to approve a
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to rezone the portion of the property proposed for development from R-
1 (Low Density Residential)to R-1-S(Low Density Residential-Special Consideration),and whether to
1 approve a Vesting Tentative.Subdivision Map.The project will also require evaluations and permit
approvals by the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG),U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS),
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(COE),Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),and
' the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB).
The proposed project identified in this Environmental Impact Report(EIR)is the project presented in the
1 applications submitted to the City.As required by the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA Guidelines),this EIR
examines the expected direct,indirect,and cumulative impacts of the proposed project.This EIR also
1 identifies means to minimize potentially significant adverse impacts(mitigation measures)and presents
an evaluation of feasible alternatives to the proposed project,including the No Project Alternative.The
City has principal responsibility for approving or denying the proposed project and therefore is the.lead
agency in preparing this EIR.
' This EIR has been prepared to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with information
about the potential effects of the project on the local and regional environment.This EIR was prepared in
1 compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.1-1
' August 2003
1
1:INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.0-1:Bowden Ranch Development Location 1
1
1 i
� 1
( „ tM \ \\ 1
I
FUMM
a•
San Lui Obisp s A N
L 5 1i OBISP ,(•�y�
i
M \
i
y Qlallde
9aGaNaab (
Sao FrasbW
Sm `~ �•
•Poon ., X.
San Uft 1
us
1
PROJECT
gn LOCATION t
C= OF SAN
L= OEM" g1 Oa
�s 1
� � 1
N
1
SOURCE:Cartesia 1995,EDA 2002 and MHA 2003 1
1-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
t
1:INTRODUCTION
M EIR Process
t CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require all government agencies in California to assess potential impacts
to the environment prior to making a discretionary decision.The City of San Luis Obispo has been
identified as the lead agency for preparation of the environmental assessment presented in this EIR.As
lead agency,the City must determine if the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the
environment,and whether those impacts could be avoided,eliminated,compensated for or reduced to
less-than-significant levels.This EIR will become part of a body of evidence that the City and responsible
agencies will use in deciding whether or not to approve the applications.
' NOTICE OF PREPARATION
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines,the City prepared a Notice of Preparation
(NOP)for this EIR(Appendix A).The NOP was mailed on July 25,2002,to local,.state,and federal
' agencies,the State Clearinghouse,and potentially affected property owners for a 30-day review period.
The NOP provided a general description of the proposed project and a summary of the main regulations
and permit conditions applicable to the development and operation of the proposed project.The
1 agency and public comments on the NOP helped to determine the relevant environmental issues
associated with the project that would be analyzed and described in this EIR.Comments on the NOP
from state agencies are included as part of Appendix A.
PUBLIC SCOPING
' The City conducted a public scoping meeting to explain the environmental review process and to receive
public comments on the scope of this EIR.The meeting was conducted at the City of San Luis Obispo City
Hall on July 31,2002.The City sent notices of the public meeting to more than 230 potentially interested
agencies and property owners.The public comments received at the public scoping meeting helped to
determine the relevant environmental issues to be analyzed and described in this EIR.
DRAFT EIR
A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public and agency review.The purpose of the Draft
' EIR was to provide the public and agencies an opportunity to review and comment on the adequacy of
the environmental analyses prior to finalizing the EIR.The Draft EIR presented a description of the
project,a description of the environmental setting,an identification of direct and cumulative impacts,
' mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant,as well as an analysis of project alternatives.
FINAL EIR
Written and oral comments received in response to the Draft EIR have been responded to in Section 7,
Response to Comments.Revisions to the Draft EIR were made based on the comments received,and
those changes are reflected in this Final EIR.
' The Final EIR may also be used by any responsible or trustee agency with authority to review or approve
aspects of the proposed project.
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 1-3
' August 2003
1:INTRODUCTION
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require lead agencies to"adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring
program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in
order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment."(CEQA Guidelines Article 7,Sections
15091(d)and 15097).A final reporting and monitoring program is not required to be included in the EIR.
Throughout the EIR,however,mitigation measures have been clearly identified and presented in
language that will facilitate establishment of a monitoring program.The Mitigation,Monitoring,and
Reporting Program (MMRP)for the project will be submitted as a stand-alone document separate from
the Final EIR. 1
1.2 Key Areas of Environmental Concern 1
This EIR presents an analysis of all potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and
alternatives to the project.The key areas of environmental concern described in this document include: '
• Aesthetics • Land Use/Planning
• Air Quality • Noise '
• Agriculture • Population/Housing
• Biological Resources • Public Services
• Cultural Resources • Recreation
• Energy and Mineral Resources • Transportation/Traffic
• Geology/Soils • Utilities/Service Systems '
• Hazards&Hazardous Materials • Mandatory Findings of Significance
• Hydrology/Water Quality • Cumulative Impacts '
1.3 Organization of the EIR
This EIR has been organized into the following sections:
• Executive Summary:Presents a summary of the proposed project,required permits, '
environmental setting,impacts of the proposed project,mitigation measures identified
to reduce or elminate.significant impacts,and a summary of alternatives to the
proposed project.
• Section 1.Introduction:Provides an introduction and overview that describes the
proposed project and the purpose of the EIR,summarizes the EIR review and
certification process,identifies key areas of environmental concern,and outlines the EIR
process.
• Section 2.Project Description:Presents the project objectives,provides a detailed
description of the proposed project,including facilities and construction methods,and
the permits required for the proposed project's implementation.
• Section 3.Environmental Setting,Potential impacts,and Mitigation:Includes a 1
description of the existing conditions,analysis of the proposed project's potential
1-4 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
1:INTRODUCTION
1 environmental impacts,and identifies mitigation measures for the impacts identified in
this EIR.
' • Section 4.Cumulative and Growth-Inducing Impacts:Describes cumulative and
growth-inducing impacts resulting from implementation of the project,together with
reasonably anticipated future projects that may have related or cumulative impacts.
1 • Section S.Alternatives:Describes the objectives of the proposed project and provides
an evaluation of a reasonable range of project options that.would reduce or avoid
1 environmental impacts.The alternatives section describes alternative ways of meeting
the project objectives and alternative locations for certain proposed facilities.In
addition,the No Project Alternative is evaluated.
• Section 6.Comments Received on the Draft EIR:Presents each of the letters of
comments received on the Draft EIR..
• Section 7.Response to Comment:Presents the responses to each of the comments
received on the Draft EIR,and also presents any changes to the text or mitigation
measures from that presented in the Draft EIR.
' • Section 8.Report.Preparation:Lists prepares of this EIR,identifies public agencies
that were consulted,and describes the members of the public involved in the EIR
process.
t • Section 9.References:Lists sources of information used in the preparation of this EIR.
• Appendices:Includes the Notice of Preparation(NOP)for this EIR and background
technical material.
1.4 Incorporated References
The following documents are incorporated by reference into this EIR:
• Development Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420,Bowden Ranch Estates,with
Appendices(Oasis Associates 2001)'
• Initial Study Environmental Checklist for ER 11-01:Bowden Ranch Development(City of
1 San Luis Obispo 2001)(enclosed as Attachment B)
• Biological Survey,Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area,Bowden Ranch Estates,San
Luis Obispo,California (Holland,V.L.,Keil,D.,and F.Villablanca 2000)'
• Supplement to Biological Survey Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area,Bowden
Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,California (Holland,V.L.,Keil,D.,and F.Villablanca 2001)
• Biological Survey,Monarch Butterfly Habitat,Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area,
Bowden Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,California(Frey,D.2000)'
• California Red-Legged Frog,Biological Assessment Report for the Proposed Bowden
Ranch Estates Development Project,San Luis Obispo,California(Small Planet
Environmental Consulting Institute 2000)'
This document is included in the bound document entitled Development Plan,Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420,
1 Bowden Ranch Estates,Appendices
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 1-5
tAugust 2003
1:INTRODUCTION
• Final Report,Woodrat Monitoring Spring 2001,Bowden Ranch,San Luis Obispo County,
California (Villablanca,F.2001)
• Bowden Ranch Estates,Morro Shoulderband Snail(Helminthoglypta walkeriana)Survey 1
Report(Tenera Environmental2003)(enclosed as part of Attachment D)
• Supplement to Botanical Survey,Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area,Bowden
Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,California (Holland,V.L.2001) 1
• Wetland Delineation,Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area,Bowden Ranch Estates,
San Luis Obispo,California(Holland,V.L.and L.Moody 2002) 1
• Results of Archival Records Search and Phase One Archeological.Surface survey for the
Bowden Ranch Estates Project,City of San Luis Obispo,California(Gbson's
Archaeological Consulting 2000)' 1
• Historic Review Report,Bowden Ranch Estates,ban Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo
County,California(Chattel Architecture,Planning&Preservation,Inc.2000)
• La Loma Adobe,Condition Assessment and Preliminary Rehabilitation Study,Prepared
for Friends of Las Casas de Adobe,San Luis Obispo,California(Daryl Allen and Gil
Sanchez 1998)
• Condition Assessment and Preliminary Rehabilitation.Study,Rodriguez Adobe,Butron
Adobe,La Loma Adobe,Prepared for the Friends of Las Casa de Adobe,San Luis 1
Obispo,California(Gil Sanchez 1998)
• Soils Engineering Report,Tract 2420—Bowden Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,
California(Earth Systems Pacific 2001)
• Geotechnical Feasibility Report,Bowden Ranch Estates,22 Lot Residential Subdivision,
Northeast End of Lizzie Street,San Luis Obispo,California(Earth Systems Pacific 2000)'
• Geologic Hazards Study,Bowden Ranch Estates,22-Lot Residential Subdivision,
Northeast End of Lizzie Street,San Luis Obispo,California(Earth Systems Pacific 2000)
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report,Bowden Ranch Property,Lizzie Street,
San Luis Obispo,California (Earth Systems Pacific 2000)'
• Drainage Analysis for Bowden Ranch,San Luis Obispo,California(Engineering 1
Development Associates 2000)'
• Traffic Impact Study for the Bowden Ranch Estates Development,San Luis Obispo,
California (Penfield Smith Engineers•Surveyors 2001) 1
These references are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Planning '
Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249.
1
1-6 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development.EIR
August 2003
i
i z :
� PROJECT
� DESCRIPTION
1
1
1
1 2.
•
PROJECT
1 DESCRIPTION
1
2.0 Introduction
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
1 Development plans for the Bowden Ranch property were first prepared in the early to mid-1990s.The
Bowden Ranch Partners JV began preparation of a constraints analysis,initial site plan,and tentative tract
map application in March 2000.The applicantsubmitted a project application to the City in January of
t 2001.The applicant submitted a revised tentative map application and supplemental studies in
September of 2001.An Initial Study was prepared for the project in early 2002.The Initial Study,which
summarized a preliminary environmental assessment,presented the conclusion that the proposed
project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts.The City concluded that an EIR
should be prepared before considering whether to approve the proposed project.In 2001 and 2002,the
applicant conducted meetings with the community and City to receive preliminary comments on the
proposed project.The result of those community and City meetings was an evolution of the initial
proposal to the proposed project currently being considered by the City.
The applicant formally defined the project in their application to the City.The basic element of the
proposed project is the subdivision of an existing 40-acre parcel into 23 lots for the future development
(by others)of single family detached homes,the construction/installation of typical residential.
infrastructure,and the creation of a 24`"lot to be dedicated to the City for open space uses.The project
consists of the following key components(Figure 2.0-1):
• Lot Development.The proposed project includes the creation of 23 lots for the future
development(by others)of single-family detached homes
• Open Space Parcel.The applicant has proposed the creation of a 27-acre lot(Lot 24)
that would be retained in an undeveloped condition and maintained by the City
• Site Access.Vehicular access to the project site would be taken off of Lizzie Street,
Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.2-1
' August 2003
2:PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Utility Systems.The applicant has proposed the construction of utility systems to
serve the future residential development including water,wastewater,drainage
systems,electric,natural gas,telephone,and cable television systems '
Additional information about the proposed project is presented in Section 2.3 Project Description.The
City will need to consider whether to approve a Zoning Ordinance.Amendment to rezone the portion of
the property proposed for development from R-1 (Low Density Residential)to R-1-S(Low Density
Residential-Special Consideration)and whetherto approve a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.The
project will also require evaluations and permit approvals from several agencies(Section 2.4,Permits and
Approvals).
CEQA ANALYSIS
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that this EIR identify the expected individual and cumulative
impacts of the proposed project.This EIR also identifies ways to minimize potential adverse impacts
(mitigation measures)and presents an evaluation of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, t
including the"No Project Altemative."The City has the principal responsibility for approving or denying
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and therefore is the Lead
Agency in preparing this EIR.
For the purposes of evaluating the project under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,the"proposed project"
identified in this EIR is the project presented in project permit applications submitted to the City.This
section of the EIR presents information that describes the proposed project at a level of detail that
provides the reader with a basic understanding of the proposed project.This project description
presents the following relevant information on the proposed Bowden Ranch Development:
• Project purpose and need
• Project location and setting
• Project description
Additional information about the existing conditions is included in Section 3.0,.Environmental Impact
Analyses,of this EIR.More detailed information on the proposed project may be found in the
Development Plan and Appendices,Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420,Bowden Ranch Estates(Oasis
Associates,Inc.,January 2001),which is incorporated by reference in this document and is available for
review at the City's Community Development.Department office.
M
2.1 Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to create residential building lots(for the subsequent
development of single family detached homes)and an open space lot.The project would fill the need for
additional residential development opportunities in the City and retain existing recreational and
biological resources found within City limits.
2-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
;.
Cy
0
i
wpproima nUFhan .. - i� Ioo•G�Spo
Res iv'e�Lin• URL)
ry 14 r
X12
.l C.OUNI22 0 1.
9 r.
LuisCoasnlUnifizd�
f r
School Distric[�1's,• �{ >� 6 +�.-
vo
�- Admmistraivre budding,,
can Luis 0 1 o�'tiigh Scher
r ar�d u' bol a. -+1 4 _ •1� 1 -�'�•i T i
• ! �\. ,•.,}r_'�� T��jli'� ;rt'`'e •+�
La'L'oma, pl 2: r -' ,s i. ..x� �•' ..
ir
Ae L \.T. ,.� / ��� ` 16t II DI NG NE�- +
AR
do
r. s r �. i ��2ti • .rr. @.�.
JIM
r u FI%tl�IN115�FET
3 4. •� 1{t � �� ��ti`
;•
_r •�F , s I•.. C� 1
�• � _ 'al AN*
2:PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.2 Project Location and Setting
PROJECT LOCATION
The 40-acre project site is located at 1636 Woodland Drive,near the terminus of Lizzie.Street and at the '
intersection of Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane in San Luis Obispo(Assessor's Parcel Number 02-352-
018-portions of Lot 5,Lot 1,and 2 of the Piedmont Tract,a portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section
25,Township 30 South,Range 12 East,and a portion of the Southwest Quarter of Sect.25,Township 30 '
South,Range 12 East,M.D.M).The project site is shown in Figure.2.0-1 and is presently undeveloped.
EXISTING PROJECT SITE FEATURES '
The project site is situated on a moderately sloping hillside,with elevations ranging from approximately
340 to 465 feet above mean sea level.Grasslands cover the upper elevations.Oak woodlands,stands of
Eucalyptus,cactus,and riparian vegetation are found on the lower elevations(Figure 3.3-1).The site
includes one perennial stream that is fed by two ephemeral tributaries,all of which drain down the
slopes and converge on the central and western portion of the site(Figure 3.3-1).
The site is visible from several off-site locations,with the most distinctive visual feature being the stands
of eucalyptus trees that contrast with the site's grasslands.
ADJACENT LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT
The project site is bordered by urban development on the north,west,and south,and by the open space
areas of the Santa Lucia Foothills to the east(Figure 2.0-1).The urban development surrounding the site
includes single-family detached homes(west and south),and the San Luis Obispo High School,San Luis
Coastal Unified School District administration buildings,and the adult school campus(west and north).
The historic La Loma Adobe is also located northwest of the project site(Figure 2.0-1).The project site
affords views of the immediately surrounding lands,as well as the City of San Luis Obispo to the north
and west.
2.3 Project Description
The project description is a critical element in the preparation of the environmental analysis for the
Bowden Ranch Development.Section 15278(a)of the.CEQA Guidelines defines"project"as follows:
"Project"means the whole of an action,which has a potential for resulting in either a '
direct physical change in the environment,or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment... '
The environmental analysis conducted for the Bowden Ranch Development examined the proposed
activities associated with the project if it were to be approved and developed.The current condition of '
the project area is referred to as the baseline condition or the environmental setting for the purposes of
environmental analysis.
2-4 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
2:PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Lots
The proposed project includes the creation of 23 lots(ori approximately 13 acres of the 40 acre project
site)for the future development(by others)of single-family detached homes.The applicant has
proposed the installation of utility and infrastructure systems to the lots.Preparation of the 23 lots for
residential construction(final grading/contouring)would be the responsibility of subsequent lot-owners.
1 The applicant would not substantially alter pre-development land contours,except as required for the
construction and installation of streets and other infrastructure systems.The City anticipates that the
development of the individual single-family homes would be custom,rather than tract development.
Any future development would be.subject.to additional development and environmental review on a
lot-by-lot basis at the time individual plans are submitted to the City for consideration.
Open Space Lot
The applicant has proposed the creation of a 27-acre lot(Lot 24)that would be dedicated to the City for
1 future conservation and open space uses.This lot would remain as it currently exists and would continue
serving as both an ecological resource and a conduit for hikers to the Santa Lucia Foothills and Reservoir
Canyon area to the east.
' Existing Site Vegetation
The applicant has proposed the removal of approximately 48 eucalyptus and oak trees.The trees are
predominately located along the one perennial stream and two ephemeral tributaries.A considerable
portion of the existing riparian vegetation and cactus would remain.
Streets
Vehicular access to the project site would be via Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive.Lizzie
Street would be extended(as Lizzie Court)onto the project site along its northern side and would
provide access to 11 of the proposed lots.Woodland Court would branch off of Woodland Drive)to serve
8 of the proposed lots.The remaining four lots would be accessed from existing Wilding Lane and
Woodland Drive.
Several of the lots near the future.Lizzie Courtand Woodland Court would be accessed from private
1 driveways extending beyond the Courts.Retaining walls up to 8 feet in height are proposed to retain
earth where cuts or fills are required along portions of the proposed streets and drives.
To further minimize street grading,the City s"hillside cul-de-sac"street configuration has been proposed
to provide two travel lanes,and a parking lane and sidewalk on one side of each cul-de-sac.The private
driveways would be 20 to 25 feet in width with no parking lane or sidewalks.
' Grading
Construction of the individual lots,the on-site circulation/access system and installation of the various
' infrastructure systems would require some modification of the site's existing landform (Figure 23-1).Cut
and fill grading is proposed along some portions of on-site streets and access drives to minimize grades
for vehicular access.Cut and fill methods using both on-site and approved import materials may be used;
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.2-5
August 2001
2:PROJECT DESCRIPTION '
Figure 2.3-1:Proposed Project Site Grading '
,
24
O O Q
y1 WWy c 8:e33 II
&
a a FW r.
IL
•� alt-' s'% •I -••-t .': > i " i
J:gel
.27
71
16i A leg
SOURCE:EDA 2002 and MHA 2002 '
1
2-6 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
t
2:PROJECT DESCRIPTION
' the project would result in approximately 2,500 cubic yards each of cut and fill.The future development
of the proposed 23 lou may require additional landform modification,which would be evaluated for
conformance with applicable City policies and regulations and for environmental effects at the time of
individual development proposals.
Infrastructure
Water Supply.The proposed project would be served by the City's domestic water system.The City's
public water system,located within Lizzie Street.,Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive,would be extended
onto the project site within the rights-of-ways of the cul-de-sacs and private driveways.The future
connection of the individual residential lots to the on-site system would be the responsibility of the
' future lot owners.
Wastewater.Similar to the proposed water distribution system,the City's existing wastewater collection
system would be extended onto the project site within the rights-c&ways of the cul-de-sacs and private
' driveways.Wastewater(sewer)laterals would be extended to the edge of each lot,with final connections
to be made at the time the individual lots are developed.
Stormwater Drainage.The applicant.has proposed that stormwater from the project site be transported
to the City's existing stormwater collection systems located west of the site.On-site conveyance systems
would include a combination of paved curbs and gutters,natural drainage ways,pipelines.To meter
overland water flows,the applicant has proposed that individual detention basins be constructed on
each residential lot to detain storm water run-off.
' Electricity,Natural Gas,Telephone,and Cable Television.Electricity,natural gas,telephone,and
cable television services would be extended to the project site via underground conduits and stubbed to
each lot.
2.4 Permits and Approvals
1 The site is currently unoccupied and undeveloped; no development-associated permits exist for the
project site. In addition to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Vesting Tentative Subdivision
approval from the City, the applicant would be required to obtain permits and approvals from several
agencies or jurisdictions as outlined in Table 2.4-1.
Table.2.41:Summary of Agencies Involved in Permitting and.Approving the Proposed Project
City of San Luis Obispo The City will need to consider whether to approve a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to rezone the portion of the project
.site zoned R-1 to R-1-S(Low Density Residential-Special
' Consideration).The City will also need to consider approval
of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the project that
would include certain exceptions to existing City standards.
1 Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.2-7
August 2003
2:PROJECT DESCRIPTION
California Department of Fish and Game Tract improvement and development plans could impact 1
riparian resources on the project site.The proposed project
would result in modifications to on-site stream channels.
This requires that the California Department of Fish and
Game(CDFG)approve the modifications and issue a
Streambed Alteration Agreement.CDFG involvement may
also be required for guidance and consultation on impacts
to sensitive species,mitigation measures to protect
sensitive species,and conservation activities. '
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Potential impacts to animal or plant species with federal
protection status may require U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS)involvement for guidance and consultation on
mitigation or conservation activities.Impacts to and the
potential take of federally listed species would trigger '
consultation activities with the FWS.
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Project-related impacts to on-site wetlands or streams may
require COE`approval of a wetlands delineation,wetlands 1
permit,and a Section 404(Clean Water Act) permit for 1
potential stream-filling activities. 1
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Potential impacts to on-site.water quality may require.
Control Board Section 401 (Clean Water Act) permit approval by the
Central Coast RWQCB. 1
State Water Resources Control Board State Water Resources Control Board(WRCB)approval of a
General Construction Activity Storm Water permit will be
required to address construction activities.
2-8 MHA Inc. Bowden.Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
i
1 3 :
� ENVIRONMENTAL
� IMPACT ANALYSES'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 3 .
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
1
1
IMPACT ANALYSES
1 3.0 Introduction
1 Sections 3.1 through 3.15 present the findings of the environmental analyses conducted for the
proposed Bowden Ranch Development.Each of the sections identifies the:
1 • Environmental Setting
• Regulatory Setting
• Environmental Analysis
1
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1 The environmental setting sections present a description of the physical environment for each of the
fourteen environmental parameters analyzed for the proposed project.The discussion of environmental
1 setting varies among the parameters.As appropriate,separate environmental setting discussions are
presented for federal,state,regional,and local environments.
1 REGULATORY SETTING
Similar to the Environmental Setting discussions,current regulatory settings are presented for each of
1 the fourteen environmental parameters.Federal,state,regional,district,and local regulations applicable
to the project site are identified.
1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The.results of the environmental analyses conducted for the proposed project are presented in these
' portions of sections 3.1 through 3.14.Each of the environmental analysis discussions present:
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-1
August 2003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Areas of potential environmental concern
• Thresholds of significance
• Impact discussion
• Mitigation measures(as appropriate to mitigate significant effects)
The areas of potential environmental concern identify a range of potential impacts for each parameter.
The thresholds of significance discussions identify the criteria against which the impact was compared to
determine if the project would cause a potentially significant impact.
Each of the environmental analysis sections presents discussions on the potential effects of the proposed
project on the environment.Analyses are presented for each area of potential environmental concern..
For each potential effect,a determination is made as to whether or not the proposed project would
result in a significant environmental impact.Mitigation measures are identified to reduce the impact to a
less than significant level.
EFFECTS FOUND NOT SIGNIFICANT
The CEQA Checklist(Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines)presents a series of environmental parameters
against which all proposed projects should be evaluated.The analysis of many of those factors is
included in this EIR.Several of the factors outlined on the Checklist have been determined by the City to
be either not applicable,or the potential impact from the proposed project would be less than
significant.Those identified parameters are not addressed in Sections 3.1 through 3.15.Those
environmental parameters for which it was determined that the project would result in less than '
significant impacts,or which were not applicable to the proposed project,are identified in the Initial
Study prepared by the City(Appendix B).
3.1 Aesthetics
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Setting
The proposed development is located just within the border of the City of Luis Obispo,adjacent to
the easterly edge of the San Luis Obispo City Urban Reserve Line,at the base of the Santa Lucia Hills.San '
Luis Obispo was founded on predominantly undulating topography,with low hillsides rising from
drainages and creeks.The overall landform of the City and its surroundings is generally defined by the
convergence of the Chorro and the Los Osos Valleys.A series of low,visually distinct mountain peaks '
such as Bishop's Peak and Cerro San Luis separate the two valleys and provide a scenic focal point for
much of the City.The Cuesta Ridge and Santa Lucia Mountains generally border the Chorro Valley to the
north and east,and the Irish Hills border the Los Osos Valley to the southwest.The Santa Lucia Mountains
and Irish Hills are the visual limits of this region and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the
City.The visual boundaries to the south and southeast are distant and are defined by low hills rising up
from broad valleys.City and county development in the region occurs predominantly at the lesser
elevations and on the low hills.
3-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Local Setting
Surrounding Visual Character.The project site is located at the suburban/open space interface on the
' edge of the.City(Figure 1.0-2).The project site is bordered on the south and west by a well-established
single-family residential neighborhood.To the north is the San Luis Coastal Unified School District
administrative offices,an adult education school,sports fields associated with the high school,and open
' hillsides.East of the project site are undeveloped hillsides,which serve as a visual backdrop for much of
the City.
As seen from various parts of the community,the visual setting of the area surrounding the project site
includes views of large masses of eucalyptus and oak trees,along with mature landscaping associated
with nearby residences.From a distance,many of the actual homes adjacent to the project site cannot be
1 seen because of the scale and density of the neighborhood landscaping.A few larger houses are visible
at the higher elevations that border the open space.Some of these developments are located at higher
elevations than would be allowed by current building ordinances.The surrounding visual context for the
project site is one of well-vegetated residential neighborhoods along the lower slopes of the Santa Lucia
Hills.Above the project site and adjacent residences the hills are visually identified by open grassland on
most slope-faces with swaths of oaks and riparian vegetation rising vertically along the drainage courses.
' The hills that rise up behind the project site are the scenic.backdrop for a portion of the community and
also define the horizon line from many viewpoints in the older more established parts of town,including
1 some of the City's Historical Preservation Districts.
Present Site Visual Character.The project site itself totals approximately 40 acres.Ante eastem
approximated 27 acres is being proposed as permanent open space.This lot includes central_drainNe
' and the steeper slopes which can be seen as they rise up behind the lower portions of the site.The
project site ranges in elevation from approximately 340 to 465 feet above sea level.The topography of
the project site generally ranges in steepness from approximately 5 to 30 percent slopes.The landform of
the site is characterized by the confluence of two seasonal creeks that join together near the western
portion of the site.The combined creek exits the site under Wilding Lane,which borders the site to the
west.Vegetation plays an important role in visually identifying the site.Stands of large eucalyptus trees
and oaks are found along the creekways,and naturalized annual grasses define the open areas.Colonies
of Prickly-Pear cactus can be found throughout much of the site,primarily in the area between the two
creeks.This area between the creeks is also proposed as permanent open space.The project site is
currently undeveloped.The La Loma Adobe is located immediately adjacent to the northwest portion of
the project site.Remnants of the Bowden Ranch such as aspringbox,a building foundation,and a water
line remain on site.The project is generally bordered by post-and-wire fencing.Informal hiking trails
have been established adjacent to and through the site for access to the hills east of the project.
' REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the City of San Luis Obispo.The regulatory
' setting pertaining to visual resources includes review of the proposed development's consistency with
the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan,and the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance,in addition
to the review of findings made in this document per CEQA Guidelines.
' San Luis Obispo City General Plan- Land Use Element
The Community Goals Section of the City's General Plan states that San Luis Obispo should:
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-3
' August2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
4) Protect public views of the surrounding hills and mountains
32) ...preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places
34) Develop buildings and places which complement the natural landscape and the fabric '
of neighborhoods
Growth Management Policies.The Growth Management Policies section of the Land Use Element
states under 1.3 Urban Edges Character that:The boundary between San Luis Obispo's urban
development and surrounding open land should be clear.Development just inside the boundary shall
provide measures to avoid a stark-appearing edge between buildings in the City and adjacent open land.
Such measures include:using new or existing groves or windrows of trees,or hills or other landforms,to
set the edge of development;increasing the required side-yard and rear-yard setbacks.
The project site is identified in the Land Use Element as the"Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area"The
site is also located within the designated Hillside Planning Area and is subject to Section 6.2,Hillside
Policies.
Hillside Policies.The Hillside Policies of the Land Use Element focus on the protection of scenic hillside
areas,which,in addition to other attributes,function as"landscape backdrops for the community."The 1
Hillside Policies section 6.2.2 Development Standards states that development-including buildings,
driveways,fences and graded yard areas on hillside parcels shall:
B) Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes. t
C) Avoid large,continuous walls or roof surfaces,or prominent foundation walls,poles or
columns.
D) Minimize grading of roads.
E) Minimize grading on individual lots;generally,locate houses close to the.street;minimize '
the grading of visible driveways.
F) Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and which provides a
visual transition from developed to open areas. '
G) Use materials,colors,and textures which blend with the natural landscape and avoid high
contrasts. '
Hillside Programs.The Hillside Programs section of the Land Use Element includes the following:
LU 6.3.3 Architectural Guidelines..Through architectural review guidelines,the City will establish
the presumption that all hillside development occurs on sensitive sites,where architectural review is
required.
San Luis Obispo City General Plan-Open Space Element t
Hills and Mountains.The.Hills and Mountains section states that"The hills and mountains surrounding
the City of San Luis Obispo,and the hillsides within the City,are important resources.They are a major
aesthetic resource which defines the City."
The General Plan's Community Goals section includes: '
3-4 MHA Inc_. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1 OS 2.1.1 Geologic Features.Preserve mountains and hills, ridgelines,scenic rock
outcroppings....as open space.
OS 2.1.2 Mountain and Hill Resources.Preserve.and enhance the aesthetic quality of
mountain and hill resources.
OS 2.13 Hazards and Views.Protect hill and mountain properties from potentially hazardous
' or visually degrading development conditions.
' Scenic Resources.The Scenic Resources section of the Open Space Element includes many policies that
pertain to the project site and specifically address protection of scenic resources.These policies include:
OS 11.2.3 Development Practices for Protecting Scenic Resources.Public or private development
' should be required to protect scenic resources by:
A) Prohibiting structures along ridgelines,steep slopes,or in other highly visible locations
unless no practicable alternative is available,otherwise provided for in the Land Use
Element„or such a location is necessary to protect public health and safety.
B) Utilizing natural landforms and vegetation for screening structures;access roads,
building foundations,and cut and fill slopes.
C) Including landscaping which:(1) provides a landscape transition between developed
areas and adjacent open space or undeveloped areas;and (2) is compatible with the
scenic resource being protected..
D) Incorporating sound Soil Conservation Service practices and minimizing land
alterations.Land alterations should be minimized by:(1) keeping cuts and fills to a
minimum;.(2)limiting grading to the smallest practical area of land;(3) limiting land
exposure to the shortest practical amount of time;(4) replanting graded areas to insure
' establishment of plant cover before the next rainy season;.and (5)creating grading
contours that blend with the natural contours on site or look like contours that would
naturally occur.
E) Designing roads;parking,and utilities to minimize visual impacts.If possible,utilities
should be underground.Roadways and parking should fit the natural terrain.
F) Designing projects to fit the site's scale and character.Structures should be designed
and located so:(1)they do not silhouette against ridgelines,mountaintops,or hilltops,
(2) roof lines and vertical architectural features blend with and do not detract from the
natural background or ridge outline,(3) residential density and massing is decreased
with increased elevation where it would mar the scenic quality of the scenic resource,
(4)they fit the natural terrain,and (5)they utilize building materials,colors,and
textures that blend with the natural landscape and avoid the creation of high-contrast
situations.
1 Urban Edge.The Urban Edge section of the Open Space Element includes the following policy:
E) Require proposed urban uses located adjacent to the Urban Reserve Line to provide a
1 transition to open space or greenbelt areas.Transition areas should add to the preservation
of open space lands or resources.At a minimum a 50 foot transition area (preserved in
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
MHA Inc.3-5
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
essentially natural state)should be provided within the project along the project
boundary with the URL.
San Luis Obispo City General Plan-Circulation Element
Review of the Scenic Roadways Map indicates that the project site.would have some visibility from
California Boulevard,a designated scenic"Road of Moderate Scenic Value."Other Scenic Roads are within '
the project vicinity but have no appreciable view of the project site.
Policy 14.3A states that"Projects in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as"sensitive" 1
and require architectural review.
City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 1
Development Standards for this R-1 property include:
17A2.020C.Maximum structure height is 25 feet '
17.42.020D.Maximum coverage is 40 percent
The City's Zoning Ordinance includes provisions for the grant of a variance from these and other
development-standards subject to the making of specific findings in accordance with Section 17.60.040
of the Ordinance:
A) That there are circumstances applying to the site,such as size,shape or topography,which
do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning;
B) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege-an entitlement
inconsistent.with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning;
C) That the variance will not adversely affect the health,safety or general welfare of persons
residing or working on the.site or in the vicinity.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Project Characteristics
The potentially most identifiable visual characteristics associated with the proposed project are as
follows:
• Structures.The project proposes the eventual construction of 23 new residences.The size
of these houses is not defined atthis time,however because of the expected desirability of
the homesites and recent building trends on the Central Coast,it is reasonable to assume
that many of the structures would be the maximum height and mass allowed by the zoning
ordinance.Current zoning would allow for a 25 foot above natural grade.structure with a '
maximum lot coverage of 40 percent.The homes are expected to be in the 2000 to 4000
square foot range,single and two story.
• Tree removal.As proposed,the project would remove a minimum of 48 mature trees.Of '
these trees,approximately 20 of the trees are quite large,with heights of approximately 80
feet or more.
3-6 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Site grading.The site topography may necessitate extensive earthwork to accommodate
the construction of housing pads and foundations,yards,driveways,streets and access
roads.Drainage systems may also be visible elements.
• Paved driveways,streets,and access roads.The project plans include widening and
extending Lizzie Street approximately 200 feet east,and also proposes three"access
easements"which are assumed to function as shared-driveways into the interior lots.
Wilding Lane and Woodland Drive would also be altered with curb,gutter,and sidewalk.
• Landscaping.It is reasonable to expect that the owners of each of the 23 new residences
would improve their homes with.landscaping.These landscapes may take on a wide variety
of appearances.In addition each homeowner may want to erect fencing or walls for
functional and/or aesthetic reasons.
1 Sensitive Viewers
Viewer response to the visual quality of an area can be evaluated by considering the viewer group,their
exposure,and their sensitivity.The visual sensitivity level deals with the public's aesthetic expectations
' for the area and their reactions to development within the context of the area's existing visual quality.If
there is an anticipated sensitivity about the established visual character of a setting and a project
proposal that would contrast that character,then probable viewer reaction can be evaluated.
In observing the typical activities of potential viewers in the area,generalizations can be made regarding
their relative awareness and likely visual perceptions of the proposed project.Due to its somewhat
elevated location and proximity to the City core,the project has the potential to be seen by many
community residents and visitors.An-inventory of project visibility reveals that the viewer groups with
the greatest potential to observe the project are:
' • Residents of the adjacent neighborhood.Viewers who live near the project may be
generally more aware of visual resources due to their personal interest and sense of
"ownership"of the visual quality of the area.
Workers and students at the nearby School District facility.Similar to the adjacent
residents,these"neighbors"have the potential to feel a high level of concern about the
1aesthetic changes to their working and school environment.
• Visitors to the adjacent sports field.Sporting participants'sensitivity would vary greatly
' depending on the type and intensity of their activity.The fields include bleachers for
observing the events.
• Hikers using the existing trail though the project site.Hikers who utilize the site are
t expected to have a high degree of interest in potential changes to the project site,and the
affect that changes may have on the quality of the landscape setting.
' By reviewing all applicable planning documents and guidelines,the community s priorities and interest
regarding the overall aesthetic character of the area can be determined.Review of planning documents
shows that the City of San Luis Obispo places a high value on retention of existing visual resources.
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-7
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern '
The following are areas of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
of the proposed project:
• The potential to have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• The potential to substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
Determination of the project's potential effect on these two areas of environmental concern is based in '
part on focused analysis of the following resources and elements:
• Overall visibility of the project '
• Tree removal
• Site layout
• Grading and earthwork
• Residential and other structures '
• Lighting and glare
• Visual relationship to the.La Loma Adobe
• Cumulative impacts to the community t
Thresholds of Significance
The determination of significance forthis project was based on applicable policies,regulations,.goals,
and guidelines defined by CEQA and the City of San Luis Obispo. '
CEQA Thresholds.Section 15064.7 of CEQA states that each public agency is encouraged to develop
thresholds that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.The
section further states that"A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative,qualitative or
performance level of a particular environmental effect,non-compliance with which means the effect
would normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the.
effect normally would be determined to be less than significant".
According to Section 15382 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act(CEQA),an effect on the environment is considered to be significant if it is a substantial,or potentially t
substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area being studied,
"including...objects of aesthetic significance."Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines defines a project as
having a significant visual effect on the environment if it would"have a substantial,demonstrable,
negative.aesthetic effect."
City of San Luis Obispo Thresholds.City of San Luis Obispo planning documents do not contain '
specific criteria for determining thresholds of significance regarding visual resources. In order to identify
the City's standards for determining aesthetic impacts,policies and goals are found in the Land Use
Element and Circulation Elements of the General Plan.
In addition to comparing the project to relevant policies and standards,this visual impact assessment
determined which specific criteria contribute most to the existing quality of each view,and if change
3-8 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
' 3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' would occur to that criteria asa result of the project.If a change in visual criteria was identified,this
change was analyzed for its potential affect on the existing scenic character.This analysis was combined
with the potential number of viewers,their sensitivities,and viewing duration in order to determine the
overall level of impacts.
Specifically,the project would be considered to have a significant effect on the environment if the effects
' exceed the significance criteria described below.
• Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista.If the proposed project could significantly
' degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads,or in particular designated
Scenic Roadways,or from other public areas,this would be considered a potentially
significant impact on the scenic vista.The scenic landscape in this case includes views of
' the Santa Lucia Mountains as a backdrop to the community setting.The degree of
potential impact on scenic vistas would vary with factors such as viewing distance,
duration,viewer sensitivity,and the visual context of the surrounding area.
• Degradation of Visual Character or Quality of the Site.Project related actions would be
considered to have a significant impact on the visual character of the site if they altered the
' area in a way that.significantly altered,detracted from,or degraded the visual quality of the
site for sensitive viewers in the area and was inconsistent with community policies
regarding visual character.Afundamental change in visual character is inevitable with the
conversion of vacant land to a residential subdivision.The degree to which that change
reflects documented community values and meets neighbors'and other viewers'aesthetic
expectations is the basis for determining levels of significance.Visual contrast may be used
as a measure of the potential impact that the project may have on the visual quality of the
site.Project components that are not subordinate to the landscape setting could result in a
significant change in the composition of the landscape.If a strong contrast occurred where
' project activities attract attention and dominate the landscape setting,this would be
considered a potentially significant impact on visual character or quality of the site.
' Analysis Methodology
In order to ensure a thorough analysis of the project's potential affects,visual resources were inventoried
and potentially sensitive viewer groups were identified.Locations and heights of proposed project
structures were identified by surveyed placement of reference pylons and markers,and by comparison
' with the known dimensions of existing on-site elements.The project applicant prepared a tree.removal
plan and specific trees proposed for removal were tagged in the field.The project applicant provided
surveyed locations and ground elevations of project features.
Proposed project feature locations were then viewed from all potential viewer-group areas,and an
inventory of community-wide project site visibility was developed.Representative views are mapped on
Exhibit 1 and photographs taken from each of the inventory locations are shown in Figures A through F.
Based on overall visual access to the site,dominance of the site within the view,duration of views,
expected sensitivity of the viewer group,and community interests as defined in local planning policy,
' Key Viewing Areas(KVAs)were selected for further.analysis.Photographs were taken from the Key
Viewing Areas,and photo-simulations were prepared illustrating a likely appearance of the project as
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-9
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
proposed(Figures 1 through 3).The emphasis of the photo-simulations was on structure massing, t
grading,tree removal,and visibility relative to the surroundings.
Since no specific residential styles or individual site plans are proposed at this time,the residences shown
in the photo-simulations are only intended to illustrate the existence of structures on the lots.The size,
style,and positioning of the simulated homes should be considered a reasonable estimation of the visual
character of the development and not a specific design proposal.The photo-simulations were analyzed t
and used to quantify potential project visibility,assess related character impacts,and to develop
mitigation measures if necessary.The project site was then field-reviewed again to further assist in
determining the effectiveness of possible mitigation measures. ,
Project Visibility.Determining the extent of the proposed project's visibility is a critical step in analyzing
its potential visual impacts.Field studies were conducted throughout the community to identify
locations from where the proposed project could be reasonably seen.Emphasis was given to public
areas and transportation corridors,both vehicular and pedestrian.Areas with no evidence of a potential
viewer group were considered but not included in further analysis.The locations of visibility inventory
locations are shown in Table 3.1-1.Representative photographs and discussion of the views are included
in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-6.
Table 3.1-1.Visibility Inventory Locations
View Location Figure
A From Grand Avenue near Mill Street. 3.1-1
B From California Boulevard near Mill Street(Scenic Roadway). 3.1-2
C From San Luis Drive near the High School. 3.1-3
D From Terrace Hill. 3.1-4
E From the top of the Palm Street parking structure. 3.1-5 ,
F From the top of the Marsh Street parking structure. 3.1-6
3-10 MHA Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003 '
' 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Figure 3.1-1:Existing View Toward the Project Area as seen from Grand Avenue
Project location
a•J;
' +
' This view toward the project is available for the southbound viewer on Grand Avenue for near
the intersection with Mill Street.This viewing distance is estimated at 0.6 mile.As shown in the
' photograph,the project site is visible directly ahead.The existing mass of trees on the project
site is the most noticeable site feature at this distance.The reference pylon flags on Lots 13 and
14 can be seen from this viewpoint.
' From this location,approximately three to five homes may be visible.These structures would
not silhouette against the skyline and would visually benefit from the large mass of vegetation
in the background.The approximately eighteen eucalyptus trees proposed for removal are
generally located within this view,however,due to the viewing distance and the number of
large trees remaining in the grove,the tree loss would not be noticeable to the average viewer.
The existing City development in the foreground and mid-distance reduces the viewer
sensitivity from this location.The project site does however provide an attractive backdrop as
seen from this viewpoint,and residential structures visible on the project site would have the
' potential to degrade the view.
SOURCE:Carr 2002
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-11
August 2003
1
3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Figure 3.1-2: Existing View Toward the Project Area as seen from California Boulevard '
r 1
r; Project location '
t
Y r E
This section of California Boulevard is identified as a Scenic Roadway in the City of San Luis '
Obispo Circulation Element.From this section of California Boulevard at the crest of the hill
near Mill Street,the project site is visible straight ahead at a distance of approximately 0.6 mile.
The large grove of eucalyptus trees is the only site feature that can be seen from here. No '
reference pylons or flags are visible from this location.The existing buildings of the high school
block views of the ground plane and are expected to subsequently block views of any
proposed structures on site. I '
Similar to the viewpoint identified on Grand Avenue,the windrow of approximately eighteen
eucalyptus trees proposed for removal is located within this view.As seen from this distance '
the grove of trees appears basically as a single visual mass,and individual trees are difficult to
distinguish from the larger grouping.With the proposed tree removal,the profile of the tree
mass would change somewhat;however the tallest trees within the grove are to remain,and '
sufficient numbers of existing trees would be left in place to minimize noticeability of the tree
loss.
SOURCE:Carr 2002 ,
3-12 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR ,
August 2003
' 3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Figure 3.1-3: Existing View Toward the Project Area from San Luis Drive near the High School
Approximate location of project.
(project not visible)
,w •� .,gip<i:..,
Along most of San Luis Drive,existing landscaping adjacent to the road blocks views of the
project area.At this viewing location nearthe high school,large parking lot trees have recently
been removed allowing increased views toward the project site.Even with this more open
viewing opportunity,only the tops of the eucalyptus grove within the project are visible.This
lack of visibility is due to the intervening landform,existing buildings in the mid-ground and
' mature vegetation in the distance.
Structures associated with the project would not be seen and the removal of trees would be
unnoticed because of the limited visibility.
' SOURCE:Carr 2002
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-13
' August 2001
3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES '
Figure 3.1-4:Existing View Toward the Project Area as seen from Terrace Hill ,
Project location
w tl�
r
The view from Terrace Hill shows the project location at about 0.5 mile away to the north.At '
this viewing distance,the existing development and mature landscaping of the community
precludes views to the ground-level of the project site.The existing grove of eucalyptus trees is
clearly visible from this location.As seen from this angle,the eighteen windrow trees proposed '
for removal are located on the far side of the existing grove.The removal of those trees would
slightly alter the profile of the tree mass;however,the majority of trees would remain
(including the tallest trees).The visual change is expected to be largely unnoticed by most ,
viewers.This elevated viewpoint is from a picnic area associated with a condominium complex
adjacent to a cul-de-sac public road.This quality view is anticipated to be experienced by a ,
relatively low number of potential viewers.
SOURCE:Carr 2002
3-14 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR ,
August 2003
' 3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Figure 3.1-5:Existing View Toward the Project Area from the Palm Street Parking Structure
Projeat location -
, +1 f,;;V;�`�r]4e���tir�ri e.�ir+ tea.. :•'S••.
;'.�`;j;`i Inti V'R�.f`�;'�;v..�.,,;i5ei',iee ,-w }• �:::::":�':r:tiff :_}:r
;�+�:,'I Pii�+'eiei"eat ::v:"-7=•..•.:•::.�
,, +ytie' ,•. •-_..:•:�.:,a
1 �1 6 tiL
' From the top of the Palm Street Parking Structure,the project site is visible to the southeast.At
this viewing distance of approximately 1 mile,the project is seen as part of the scenic backdrop
to the City.Because of this greater distance,the eucalyptus grove on site visually blends with
' the overall vegetative patterns of the adjacent community and the hills beyond.Within this
viewshed are existing homes on the hillsides to the south of the project site.
' The number of potential viewers from this public parking facility is expected to be low.The
viewing distance and intervening development of the City reduces the noticeability of the
project location;however,the addition of structures on this hillside community backdrop has
' the potential to result in adverse visual affects from this public location.
SOURCE:Carr 2002
1
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-15
August 2003
3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Figure 3.1-6:Existing View Toward the Project Area from the Marsh Street Parking Structure ,
N F,c�eict location ,
This viewpoint from atop the Marsh Street Parking Structure reveals the project site along the ,
lower portion of the hills east of town.Similar to the view from the Palm Street Parking
Structure,the trees of the project site appear to blend with the vegetation on the adjacent hills
and neighborhoods.Other hillside development can be seen in this view.Most of that existing '
development is well-vegetated which somewhat reduces its visibility in the landscape.
From this viewing distance and angle,the proposed tree removal would not be noticed.The ,
homes proposed for Lots 13 through 23 may be seen on the currently open hillside.Although
the viewing distance and intervening development lowers the viewers'sensitivity to the visual
changes proposed for the site,the project site does contribute positively to the scenic '
backdrop for the City.It is important to note that relatively few viewers are expected to see the
project from this viewpoint.The construction of houses and other site features on the hillside
community backdrop has the potential to cause adverse impacts to the visual setting as seen '
from this City-owned location.
SOURCE:Carr 2002 '
In addition to the Visibility Locations shown in Table 1,three Key Viewing Areas (KVAs)were selected to '
illustrate the appearance of the proposed project as seen from the adjacent neighborhood.Locations of
these KVAs are shown on Exhibit 3.1-7 and listed in Table 3.1-2. Photo-simulations from these locations,
depicting landscape materials at maturity,can be seen in Figures 3.1-8 through 3.1-10. '
3-16 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1 Table 3.1-2.Key Viewing Areas
KVA Location Figure No.
1 KVA-1 From the corner of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane 3:1-8
1 KVA-2 From Wilding Lane and Woodland Drive. 3.1-9
KVA 3 From the sports field adjacent to the project site(Taylor Field). 3.1-10
1
1 Figure 3.1-7:Key Viewing Areas
i 1
1 Sports
Field
1 KVA-3 /
l
School \
Facility '
1 KVA-1
PROJECTSITE
�e 1
a�a�a 1
1 KVA-2 �opiNe
1 9!
1
SOURCE:Carr 2002
1
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-17
August 2003
•� . . .
ivy a. � 2 s3 y, - . 1"c'' !r~�'"'�• ;rr` ;,
d(�
� \ It v7� n' Ta Sh<:� af4 r • r R^a.:
b i
a a
l'♦n J
r�n.
a
Olt
jr
0
v N SAY . `lt Y \. x♦ i.
e a s
Yn ✓h Cj• o 1 t � ♦ °1� f ��.as'Y�
<' .t-i� FTI-[.�'. u•✓'T .i;fi �. q � �t a ��> '
�4� .,a. �P"•'.n�r �,(+�, fir_ r her,` �:, `""♦. r,.+X• asw.F. '.
FriTWUNI ••. .
r- -ny • - " JC`
YAC I�� •1 � . r� � 4. l
Nil
1� ' •rfl.�`�.
4..
J
- 1.• L J Y �i l7 s .4 aye? �!� R .y Y ,n R���.i.
• -• • - -
:. - ••
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Summary of Project Visibility.The Visibility Inventory study shows that in general,the project has low
to moderate visibility throughout the community.The most visible elements of the existing site are the
t groves of eucalyptus trees,which from many viewing points are difficult to distinguish from other large
masses of trees in the area.From most potential viewing locations throughout the City,the ground-level
of the site is screened from view by other development and existing mature vegetation.From a few
t locations generally north of the project site,development on Lots 13 through 23 would be potentially
visible at average viewing distance of 0.6 mile.This viewing distance reduces the viewers'perception
of smaller-scale project details as well as the site's overall prominence within the viewshed.Where the
project can be seen,the open space of the site and the existing tree mass visually reinforces the City's
goal of maintaining a natural hillside character.
' The project would be visible from California Boulevard,a City designated Scenic Roadway.The visibility is.
from a distance of approximately 0.6 mile and of short duration.From this location,the site occupies a
small portion of the visible landscape,and other development in the fore and mid-ground is also within
' view.
With the exception of viewpoints in the immediate vicinity of the project,homes built on Lots 1 through
' 12 would not be visible to the overall community.
The individual components of the project would be almost exclusively noticeable from the adjacent
neighborhood.Views from Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive would see new residences,
' related site amenities,and street improvements(Figure 2,KVA-2 for photo-simulation).At the eastern
end of Woodland Drive,existing vegetation,which is proposed to remain currently,blocks views of much
of the site.Recreational hikers traversing the project site to and from the hills would also experience the
individual components of the project.From these close viewing locations,the trees proposed to remain
would continue to filter views across the site and of many residences,and would help reduce the visual
scale of the project.The majority of viewers in the immediate vicinity of the project are expected at
' eastbound Lizzie Street,approaching the project from Johnson Avenue.Because no homes are proposed
directly at the comer of Lizzie Street,and few tree.impacts are proposed,this view would not be greatly
affected.The widened extension of Lizzie Street and a proposed entry monument would be the most
noticeable only evidence of the project(Figure 1 KVA-1 for photo-simulation).
The most complete view of the project would be from Taylor Field,immediately to the northwest of the
project(Figure 3,KVA-3 for photo-simulation).The project site rises above the sports field,with little
existing vegetation to block potential views of the residences.Lots 13 through 23 would be visible from
this location.At this closer viewing distance,architectural details of the project would be more
noticeable.
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
The potential affect of the project on scenic vistas,visual character,and overall visual quality are
identified through analysis of the relevant project actions and characteristics.The following discussion
addresses the potential affects of the proposed project by individual resource or project related actions:
1 Potential Impact 3.1-1. Potential for general visual impacts.
Tree Removal.The most visible tree removal action would involve the seventeen eucalyptus trees that
make up the"windrow"along the current private road at the end of Lizzie Street.The visual effect of
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-21
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES i ,
removing these trees would be potentially viewed from locations within and near the site,and from ,
distant locations throughout the City.As seen from close proximity,the loss of these trees would partially
open up views through the site.The majority of the existing trees are proposed to remain and would ,
continue to provide substantial screening of visibility across the project site.Field reviews indicate that
the tallest trees currently existing on site would be among those that remain.Relative to views within the
project site and from the adjacent neighborhood,the removal of the eucalyptus windrow as well as the '
other identified trees would not significantly reduce the existing visual quality or character.Although
some change in spatial characteristics would be jnoticeable,because of the large number of remaining
trees,visual impacts are anticipated to be minimal.
It should be noted that if the eucalyptus windrow as well as certain other plants on site are determined
to have importance as part of the historic La Loma Adobe,the viewer sensitivity and subsequent impact '
on visual resources relative to their proposed removal would increase..
The project proposes to plant 140 new trees as part of the development plan.Although the locations of
this tree planting has not been determined,these proposed trees would eventually contribute to a ,
vegetated character and would reduce the developed-look of the subdivision to some degree.
As seen from elsewhere in the community,the existing grove of trees on site contributes to the well- '
vegetated look of the lower portions of the hillside City backdrop.From locations away from the
immediate project vicinity,the removal of the eucalyptus trees would mostly be perceived as a slight
alteration of the top profile of the grove.From tliese typical long viewing distances,the change in overall ,
visual mass of the trees would not be noticeable to the average viewer.
Since many of the existing trees are proposed to',be part of the individual lots and thus privately owned,
the potential exists for continuing tree removal well beyond that proposed as part of this initial project.
At some future point,this potential collective loss of existing trees may have an adverse affect on the
wooded visual character of the site.
Site Layout.Site layout and design can affect how well the project visually blends with the adjacent hills
and open space by how well it accommodates lowered building massing,reduction of grading,and
sufficient area for appropriate planting.Site layout must consider and avoid conflicts between utilities
and drainage systems and potential mitigation opportunities such as planting locations.Decisions
regarding potential easements,long term maintenance,liability,and enforcement should be designed
into the project.
As previously mentioned,lots 1 through 12 would generally not be visible to the community and as a
result the layout of the lots would have little visual affect.Because of the viewing distance of most '
viewpoints around the community,Lots 13 through 23 would generally appear as a somewhat unified
development with a defined boundary.If the future residences are placed on the highest,most visible
portions of the lots to take advantage of outward views,and inadequate area is allowed for planting,the '
visual contrast between the built character of the,development and the adjacent open space would be
increased.This visual contrast as seen in the context of the scenic backdrop for the City would have an
adverse affect as seen from viewpoints around th'e community.
Lighting and Glare.At this time,no lighting plan is included as part of the project.Because of the
project's elevated location relative to the community,the potential exists for adverse impacts to occur '
due to visibility of residential lighting sources and also reflected light against the hillside slopes from the
upper lots.If public safety requirements necessitate street lights within the subdivision,potential lighting
3-22 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 ,
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
impacts would increase.During times when the adjacent sports field is operating its night lights,impacts
from this development would be reduced by comparison.
' The San Luis Obispo High School baseball field is located immediately adjacent to the project site.
Known as Taylor Field,this facility has nine light standards for illuminating night games and practices.
These lights relate to the visual considerations of the project primarily in two ways:The potential for
removal of trees to increase visibility of the lights to existing residences,and the direct visibility that
proposed future residences would have of the existing lights.
' The night lights are primarily used by the high school baseball team.The frequency of usage of the field
varies according to sporting season,availability of Sinsheimer Field(the team's alternate field is across
town)for high school events,and requests for use by other community leagues.Given these variables,
' the lights currently have the potential to be operated seven nights a week.The hours of lighting
operation are limited to 10:00 PM for school events and to 9:00 PM for non-school related activities.
1 Field review of the existing lights,trees,and residences indicate that although mostly screened by
existing trees,some degree of sports-field lighting visibility already occurs for a few residences The
proposed removal of trees from the existing grove may increase visibility of the lights to a minor extent.
However,as was previously stated in the tree removal discussion,the majority of existing trees would
remain,which would continue to provide substantial filtering of lights from Taylor Field.In addition,the
new residential structures constructed between the.sports field and the existing neighborhood would
further block visibility of the lights at certain locations.
The new homesites proposed as part of this project would have direct views of the night lights of Taylor
' Field.Because of the elevated project site,several of the future residences are at approximately the same
elevation as the luminaires.The visibility of these existing lights may have an affect on the quality of
night time views as seen.from the future residences.
Grading.The lots at the steeper portions of the site may create the desire for property owners to grade
the parcels to achieve a level building pad or yard or increase outward views.Review of the site plan and
topographic maps show a high potential for grading on many of the lots.Some of the lots approach 30
percent in slope steepness.For Lots 13 through 23,the most visible.lots,the approximate elevation
difference between the lowest point and the highest point within each proposed building envelope is
' listed below:
Table 3.1-3.Elevation Differences Within Selected Proposed Building Envelopes
' Lot Elevation Difference
13 26 ft.
14 16 ft.
15 17 ft.
16 26 ft.
17 23 ft.
18 32 ft.
19 14 ft.
Bowden Ranch.Development EIR MHA Inc.3-23
August 2003
it
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Lot Elevation Difference
20 15 ft.
21 7 ft.
22 t o ft.
23 13 ft.
With these elevation differences,excavation slopes,embankment slopes,retaining walls,or some
combination equal to those heights may be proposed.Since the exact placement of each residence is '
not known at this time,the amount and visibilityiof earthwork and retaining walls cannot be specifically
determined.As a result,the potential for extensive grading and retaining structures exists as part of this
project.
The construction of the proposed Lizzie Court an Woodland Court would result in cuts and fills.This
earthwork would likely have limited visibility from off-site viewing locations due to general landform and '
viewing angles.Where visible,the grading would reinforce the engineered look of the site and increase
the visibility of the project.
Related to grading,if paved drainage channels are proposed,they may be highly visible as distinct
geometric patterns in the landscape and the potential would exist for a conflict with the City's goal of
blending hillside development with the surroundings.
Residential Structures.Preliminary review of the scaled reference pylons shows that none of the lots
create the potential for residential structures to silhouette against the sky or above important ridgelines 1
from public areas.The proposed size,form,and architectural style of the 23 residences would not be
known until each subsequent property owner applies for construction permits.Because of the project
site's somewhat elevated location above the City;many of the residential structures would be visible 1
from off-site locations.The most visible structures would be on Lots 13 through 23.Given the distance
from many of the viewpoints to the project,much of the extent of visibility of the overall project would
depend on the form and colors of the residential structures.Distinct angular rooflines,building forms '
and colors that visually contrast with the adjacent hillside landscape,and materials and finishes with a
high reflectivity would all increase the visibility of!the development.
Landscaping and fencing would also have the potential to conflict with community goals of minimizing 1
hillside project visibility.Non-native trees with distinctive forms such as palm trees and Italian Cypress
would visually stand-out and not ease the visual transition from the development to the natural ,
landscape.Fencing and walls along the perimeter.of the project have the potential to add noticeable.
geometric lines into the hillside landscape and tolrun counter to the efforts of blending the project with
the adjacent setting.Solid planes and highly reflective colors of fencing and walls along the northern 1
perimeter of Lots 14 through 17,and Lots 20 and 21 have the highest potential for causing visual
impacts.
The Visual Relationship to the La Loma Adobe'The importance of the visual context of site features as
they relate to the La Loma Adobe is established in the Historic Resources section of this document.A
program for preserving and/or rehabilitating identified resources should be based on recommendations
made in that section..The*degree of impact that this proposed project may have on the visual context of
the Adobe would be based largely on how that context is defined.Potential measures to avoid or
3-24 MHA Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR t
August 2003 t
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
mitigate impacts would depend on which site features,if any,are recommended for preservation.If for
example the eucalyptus windrow is recommended to be saved based on its direct visual relationship
1 with the Adobe structure,then maintaining or strengthening visual access between the two may be
desirable.Conversely,if the Adobe structure itself is the only site feature recommended for preservation,
then perhaps a planting of native and historically-appropriate species to visually isolate the Adobe from
' the widened Limie Street and views of the new development may be preferred.In any case,the potential
exists for this project to adversely affect the visual setting of the La Loma Adobe,depending on the
historic resources identified.
Cumulative Impacts to the Community as a Whole.At this time,no other substantial developments
are proposed within the project vicinity.Hillside development has occurred in San Luis Obispo and in the
' surrounding county in recent years.Hillside subdivisions have generally been approved and constructed
in the last five years in the Islay Hills area,the Ferrini Heights neighborhood,and in the Laguna Lake area.
Cal Poly University is currently developing a hillside site behind campus into high-density housing.None.
' of these developments however are visible from the project area or from some other common viewing
location.In addition,both the City and County have.specific development standards intended to
preserve the open space character of the hills.Because of the relatively few hillside developments and
' the required adherence to applicable hillside development ordinances,this project is not expected to
result in adverse cumulative visual impacts to the community.
' Potential Impact 3.1-2: Potential for adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Because of the project's location within the Hillside Planning Area and as part of the scenic backdrop
1 from various locations of the community,a high degree of viewer sensitivity is expected.Although the
lower portions of the project are not visible from many parts of town,the site is a contributing visual
element to the hillside setting of the community.The project would be seen from California Boulevard,a
' Scenic Roadway designated in the City's General Plan.From viewing areas where the proposed houses
can be seen,the project would be noticed more by the color and form of the residential structures and
other built site features and by visible grading than by the proposed removal of trees.This project has
the potential to create an undesirable visual contrast with the hillside setting.Due to visible grading,
form and color of structures,visibility of roads and driveways,fences,walls and drainage systems,this
project has the potential for significant adverse visual impacts to the hillside scenic vista as viewed from
locations within the community.Project impacts to the scenic vista of the community backdrop could be
potentially significant.
' Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-7 would reduce the potential impact to the scenic vista to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-1.Prior to the start of any grading and concurrent with submittal of
improvement plans,the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development for
review and approval a Landscape Screening Plan that illustrates the introduction of landscape
materials to help obscure views of the project from areas to the north and west.A goal of the
plan shall be to provide partial screening.of the project and to create a visual transition from the
developed character of the site to the adjacent natural hillside.The Landscape-Screening Plan
' shall include the following elements:
• A minimum 30-foot wide swath of native trees planted in a natural-appearing form
' along the northern perimeter of Lots 14 through 17,and Lots 20 and 21.This
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-25
' August2003
II
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
planting shall avoid the appearance of a linear row by undulating its vertical and
horizontal form and by mixing plant varieties.Native shrubs shall be included in the
planting.Where this Mitigation Measure conflicts with the Fire Management Plan,
the.applicant shall develop an alternative screening plan that achieves the same
goal.The City shall have the sole responsibility to determine if this Measure and the
Fire Management Plan are in conflict and to adjudicate the adequacy of an t
alternative screening plan. j
• Trees shall be planted within the interior of the project along all proposed
roadways and access easements.The trees shall be planted after all project grading
is complete and prior to acceptance of public improvement and building permit
issuance.The applicant shall maintain trees for one year after the project is
completed,or until the fronting'lots have been sold and the homes occupied, '
whichever occurs last.
• A long-term maintenance program that describes maintenance responsibilities,
protection measures,guaranteed access to the planting areas,and vegetation
replacement measures shall be developed.The program shall be incorporated as
part of the development CC&Rs.'; '
• A proposed strategy that ensures the long-term survival and preservation of the
planting.The proposal strategy shall consider mechanisms such as easements,
deed restrictions, reconfiguring of lot lines,homeowner associations,and public
dedication as a means to guarantee the success of the.planting.The strategy shall
avoid placing the responsibility of long-term maintenance in the hands of the
individual property owners.
i
I
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit,the applicant shall.submit to
the Director of Community Development for review and approval subdivision improvement
plans and utility plans that demonstrate that the proposed placement of utilities and drainage
structures and channels do not conflict with or preclude.implementation of the proposed
planting plan required in Mitigation Measure 1.1-1.The improvement plans shall place all
drainage conveyance systems underground to the greatest extent possible.If above-surface
channels and retention areas are unavoidable,grass-lined channels,natural materials,and '
colored surfaces shall be used to reduce visibility.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-3.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,the applicant shall submit to
the Director of Community Development for review and approval language to be recorded '
against each lot as a Deed Restriction.This language shall state that future development of each
of the lots require that site grading be minimized to the greatest extent possibie..Floor elevations
should generally follow the natural landform.Stepped foundations,drilled-pier and grade
beams,and other methods shall be used',to
minimize grading and-reduce hillside scarring.Unavoidable grading shall be contour-graded '
where possible to avoid engineered,angular landforms.
I
Mitigation Measure 3.1-4.Improvement plans shall demonstrate that site development grading
for roads,access easements,utilities,drainage,and other project features is minimized fo the
greatest extent possible.Required grading shall be contour-graded where possible to avoid
engineered,angular landforms.All disturbed areas shall be vegetated with appropriate seed or
3-26 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
other plants to reduce erosion and to blend with the surroundings,and shall be consistent with
applicable biological resource mitigation.
' Mitigation Measure 3.1-5.Priorto recordation of the Final Map,the applicant shall submit to
the Director of Community Development for review and approval language to be incorporated
into a Deed Restriction for each of the lots and the project-wide Covenants,Codes,and
Restrictions(CC&Rs).This language shall disclose that prior to issuance of building permits for
each of the lots respective builders that the applicant.shall submit an application for and receive
' approval of an Administrative Use Permit and architectural review..The Deed Restriction or
project CC&Rs shall state that City review of elevations is required and shall outline the
parameters specified below.Review shall include any proposed retaining walls.The elevations
shall show at a minimum forms,dimensions,exterior finish materials and colors,as follows:
• Roofs shall be articulated and follow the general shapes of the hills and avoid flat
planes which project against the background in long straight lines or acute angles
which may be considered intrusive to the existing natural character of the hills and
vegetation:
• Building colors shall be similar to surrounding natural colors and no brighter than a
value of 6 in chroma and on the Munsell Color Chart.
• Exterior wall colors shall be limited to muted earth tones.The use of white paint
shall be prohibited.
• Roof colors shall be limited to deep,muted earth tones,deep muted reds,browns,
and grays and no brighter than a value of 6 in chroma and on the Munsell Color
Scale Chart.Shiny metal roofs,or roofs colored bright orange,red or blue shall be
prohibited.
' • Retaining walls shall be similar in color to adjacent natural soil color and shall
include landscaping if possible to reduce visibility.
' Mitigation Measure 3.1-6.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,the applicant shall submit to
the Director of Community Development for review and approval language to be incorporated
into a Deed Restriction for each of the lots and the project-wide Covenants,Codes,and
Restrictions (CC&Rs).This language shall require that lot-specific landscape plans be submitted as
part of the Administrative Use Permit and Architectural Review application for each individual lot.
The Deed Restriction and project CC&Rs shall outline the parameters specified below.
rThe following requirements apply to all lots:
1 • Existing trees and vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible
and shall adequately blend the new development,including driveways and
outbuildings,to the existing landscape.
• Irrigated turf areas shall not be allowed underthe root zone of oaktrees(The outer
edge of the root zone is one and one-half times the distance from the trunk to the
drip-line of the tree).
In addition,the following requirements apply to Lots 13 through 20.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-27
August 2003
I
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• The plans shall delineate all proposed fencing.Fencing shall not be constructed of
solid,flat planes.Fence colors shall be similar to surrounding natural colors and no
brighter than a value of 6 in chroma and on the Munsell Color Scale.White paint or '
other white materials shall be prohibited.
• Palm trees and Italian Cypress are prohibited.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-7.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,the applicant shall submit to
the Director of Community Development for review and approval language to be incorporated
into a Deed Restriction for each of the lots and the project wide Covenants,Codes,and
Restrictions(CC&Rs).This language.shall;requirethat prior to issuance of building permits for Lots
13 through 23 the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval.The Deed Restriction and project CC&Rs shall state that
City review of the lighting plan is required and that the point source of all exterior lighting shall
be shielded from views to the north and;west.
Potential Impact 3.1-3: Potential for degradation of the visual character or quality of the
site.
The project site has moderately high viewer sensitivity because the project is located within the Hillside
Planning Area and is part of the scenic backdrop for various locations in the community.The lower
portions of the project are not visible from manyparts of town;however;the site is a contributing visual
element to the hillside setting of the community;The project has the potential for significant adverse
visual impacts as viewed from locations within the community because of the visible grading,possible
form and color of structures,and the visibility of roads and driveways,fences,walls,and.drainage
systems.Project impacts to the existing visual character of the site could be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 through 3.1-6 listed above,plus Mitigation Measure 3.1.8 would reduce the
potential impact to the visual character of the site itself to a less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure 3.1-8.Priorto recordation of the Final Map and approval of Improvement
Plans,the applicant shall submit with the Improvement Plans a landscape and revegetation plan
which includes landscape materials to help obscure views of the project from areas within and
near the site.The landscape plan shall be in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 1.1-1 and shall
include the following:
i
• Street trees shall be planted adjacent to the development along the project side(s)
of Lizzie Street,Lizzie.Court,Wilding Lane,Woodland Drive,and Woodland Court.
Street trees shall be spaced atirregular intervals in keeping with naturally occurring
vegetation pattems.Trees planted along Lizzie Street shall be compatible with any
applicable cultural resource mitigation measures regarding the historic setting of
the La Loma Adobe.
• A revegetation plan shall be prepared fort-he undeveloped portions of the site.The
plan shall address the long-term rehabilitation of the creek areas to a more natural
state,be consistent with any historic plantings on the site,and maintain the skyline
value of the existing tree mass as;seen from off-site locations.The revegetation
plan shall be a collaborative effort balancing resources such as aesthetics,biology
and habitat,historic values,recreational hiking opportunities,erosion and
3-28 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACTANALYSES
sedimentation control,fire protection,storm water and flooding,maintenance and
preservation.
3.2 Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Air Basin.The project is located on the east side of the City of San Luis Obispo,approximately seven
Imiles inland from the Pacific Coast,in San Luis;Obispo County.San Luis Obispo is within the South
Central Coast Air Basin,which consists of San Lis Obispo,Santa Barbara,and Ventura counties.
Climate.The climate of San Luis Obispo County can be generally characterized as Mediterranean,with
warm,dry summers and cooler,relatively damp winters.Along the coast,mild temperatures are the rule
throughout the year due to the moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean.This effect is diminished
inland in proportion to distance from the ocean by major intervening terrain features,such as the coastal
mountain ranges.Regional meteorology is largely dominated by a persistent high-pressure area,which
commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean.Seasonal variations in the strength and position of this
pressure cell cause seasonal changes in the weather patterns of the area.
The region's climate is heavily influenced by coastal processes,and is subject to wide ranges in
1 precipitation,from periods of drought,to unusually wet winters,and occasional short duration very high
intensity storms.Generally,the region's rainy season extends from November to March with average
annual precipitation of 22.6 inches(57.4 cm)(World Climate 2002a).Average temperatures range from a
low of 41 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter,to 80 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer(World Climate
2002b).
Baseline Air Quality.The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District(A.PCD)operates an air
' quality monitoring station at 1160 Marsh Street in San Luis Obispo that measures CO,NO2,03,PM,o,and
PMu.The Marsh Street monitoring station is approximately 05 miles from the project area.Both the
1 federal and state governments have enacted laws mandating the identification of areas not meeting the
ambient air quality standards and the development of regional air quality plans to eventually attain the
standards.Under the federal Clean Air Act,San Luis Obispo County has been designated attainment.for
1 all national ambient air quality standards(EPA 2001).Under the state system San Luis Obispo County is
designated as a non-attainment area for bothithe state ozone and PM,o standards.in theyeaF 22999,
Fecefeled 'eye's ef epene and PM,.did net exEl,eed state eFfedeFal standapds feF these pellutants
^^PG 992).In 2001,the state and federal ozone standards were not exceeded at any of the
permanent ambient air monitoring stations.In that same year,PM10 levels exceeded state standards on
10 out of 61 different sample days,but did not exceed the national air quality standard (SLOAPCD 2003)."
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal and State
Both the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and the California Air Resources Board (GARB) have
' established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants.These ambient air quality standards
represent safe levels to avoid specific adverse I health effects associated with each pollutant.Ambient air
' -
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-29 j
' August 2003
i
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES 1
quality standards are developed for"criteria"pollutants based on the evaluation of the health and other
effects of each pollutant.
The federal and California state ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants are summarized in 1
Table 3.2-1.The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods,although both processes attempt to avoid health related effects.As a result,the
federal and state standards differ income cases.In general,the California state standards are more
stringent.
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above,Toxic Air Contaminants(EACs)are also pollutants of
concern.TACs are injurious in small quantities and are regulated despite the absence of ambient air
quality standards.The identification,regulation and monitoring of TACs is relatively recent compared to
that for criteria pollutants.
Federal and.state air quality laws require identification of areas not meeting the ambient air quality
standards.These areas must develop regional airquality plans to eventually attain the standards.San
Luis Obispo County has been identified as not meeting two ambient air quality standards,the state
ozone and PM,o standards.
Local
The San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan has not adopted specific significance thresholds for any pollutants.
The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control_District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook outlines significance
thresholds for both operational and constructions related emissions.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following topics are areas of potential environmental concern that may be associated with
implementation of the proposed project: 1
• The potential to generate a nuisance or increase air emissions from on-and off-site
sources associated with the project
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are used,to determine the level of impact to areas of potential
environmental concern.The project would have a significant effect if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementationof applicable air quality plans
• Violate any air quality standard or contrib;utesubstantiallyto an existing or projected air
quality violation
• Result in a cumulatively considerable netjincrease of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone 1
precursors)
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people
I
3-30 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Table 3.2-1.Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
1 Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.08 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm
1-Hour - 025 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm -
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm
1-Hour - 0.5 ppm
PM10 Annual 50µg/m3 3820µg/m3
24-Hour 150µg/m3 50µg/m3
Lead 30-Day Avg. - 1.5 pg/m3
Month.Avg. 1.5µg/m3
ppm=parts per million
pg/m3=Micrograms per cubic meter
SOURCE US.EPA 2001,CARB 2002
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
Project-related grading and construction would create fugitive dust.Appendix Section 3307 of the City s
modifications to the Uniform Building Code states that"...all graded surfaces shall be wetted,protected
or contained in such manner as to prevent dust or spill upon any adjoining property or street"
1 Additionally,the.Air Pollution Control District(APCD)staff has reviewed the project(APCD letter dated
March 16,2001,Appendix Q.The APCD staff concluded that the project,by itself,would not exceed
CEQA significance thresholds and would not significantly impact air quality.The letter from APCD also
includes suggestions related to energy conservation,which on a cumulative basis,would help to reduce
emissions at a power plant source.See discussion and recommended mitigation under Section 3.6,
Energy and Mineral Resources.
Additionally,in a letter dated August 24,2002(Appendix C).and in their letter of comment on the Draft
EIR,the APCD recommendeds the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for nuisance
concerns to nearby properties during the construction phase of the project:
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1:Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit,or approval of Improvement
' Plans,whichever occurs first,the applicant.shall submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval a plan for the control of fugitive dust during and after
construction.The plan shall include,but not be limited to,the following measures:
1 e To the extent possible,minimization of the amount of area disturbed during
construction.
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-31
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Limitation of construction vehicles.
• The speed of all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved.
surface.
• Should airborne dust be observed to leave the construction site area,water from
water trucks or anothersource shall be applied insufficient quantities to reduce
those emissions.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-2:Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit,or approval of
Improvement Plans whichever occurs first,the applicant shall submit to the Air Pollution
Control District the name and telephone number of a designated person or persons to
monitor the dust control program andorderincreased watering as necessary to prevent
transport of dust off site.Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress.
Mitigation Measure 32-3:All diesel powered construction equipment,including mobile
and stationary eguipment,.shall adhere to the following:
• All construction equipment shall,be maintained in proper tune.according to
manufacturer's specifications.
• All off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment shall be fueled with CARB-
certified motor diesel fuel.
• The use of diesel construction equipment meeting,as a minimum,the California Air
Resources Board's 1996 certification.standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines shall be maximized.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-4:Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit,or approval of
Improvement Plans whichever occurs first the applicant shall submit to the Air Pollution Control
District a project site geological evaluation The study shall comply with the requirements of the
Air Resources Board's Air Toxics ControlMeasure(ATCM)for Construction,Grading,Quarrying, '
and Surface Mining Operations Alternatively,the applicant shall comply with the ATCM for dust
control.
3.3 Biological Resources
Section 3.3 of this EIR is based in part on the peer review of four biological.resource reports prepared by or on
behalf of the applicant:
.2000.Biological survey. Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area.Bowden Ranch Estates,San Luis
Obispo,CA.Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on December 2000,.
Frey,D.2000.Biological survey.Monarch butter fly habitat.Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area.
Bowden Ranch Estates,Son Luis Obispo,CA.Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and
Planning.January.
Small Planet Environmental Consulting Institutes(SPEC!).2000.California red-legged frog biological
assessment report for the proposed Bowden Ranch Estates Development project,San Luis Obispo,
CA 93407 Prepared for Oasis Associates,Inc.on November 6,2000.
ment EIR
Bowden Ranch Development 3-32 MHA Inc. P
August 2003
i
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Tenera Environmental,2003.Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail(Helminthoglypta
walkeriana)Survey Report Prepared for OasisAssociates on February 21,2003
t These reports are incorporated by reference into this EIR and are available for review at the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Planning Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project Site.
The approximately 40-acre project site is characterized by a diversity of habitat types located on the
west-facing slope of an unnamed hillside within the Santa Lucia Foothills of the Santa Lucia Range.The.
project site consists largely of annual and perennial grasslands,traversed from east to west by an
unnamed,perennial(i.e.,flows all year)drainage course and two ephemeral tributary channels(Figures
3.3-1 and 3.3-2).The drainage nearest Lizzie Street(i.e.,the unnamed perennial stream)is mapped by the
United States Geological Survey(1995)as a"blue-line"stream.The two ephemeral(Le:,flows only during
and shortly after rainfall events)tributaries are not shown on the`USGS quadrangle map.Oak woodland
and blue gum Eucalyptus forest are the dominant vegetation near the projectsite drainage courses.
Areas of coastal scrub occur patchily throughout the project site.More detailed information on the
project area hydrology is provided in Section 3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality,of this EIR.
Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats
I Eight distinct habitat types are present within the project site:
• Coastal Valley and California Native Grasslands
• Coastal Scrub/Opuntia (cactus)Scrub
• Coastal Live Oak Woodland
• Blue Gum/Coast Live Oak Forest
• Riparian Forest
• Freshwater Marsh/Wetlands
• Rock Outcrop ,
• Ruderal/Disturbed Areas
These eight distinct habitat types are discussed in detail in the various reports prepared by or on behalf
of the applicant and other reports listed in Section 7,References,of this EIR.
Sensitive Habitats
Sensitive habitats are defined within the context of the proposed project as:
• Habitats recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)as rare,
sensitive,important,or meriting further study(Holland 1986),
1 • Wetlands,as defined by the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps;Environmental Laboratory
1987)and classified by Cowardin et al.(1979);or,
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-33
August 2003
1i
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Creeks and riparian corridors;as defined by the City of San Luis Obispo within its General
Plan Land Use Element(City of San Luis Obispo 1997)
The California Natural Diversity Database(NDDB 2001,2002)lists three sensitive habitat types within the
San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle(project vicinity).These include serpentine bunchgrass,
coastal and valley freshwater marsh (wetlands),and northern interior cypress forest.Serpentine 1
bunchgrass and wetlands are found at the project site,as is protected over-wintering habitat for
Monarch butterflies.
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland.Holland et al.(2000) reported finding"California native grassland"
within the project.site.This habitat corresponds well with the serpentine bunchgrass habitat described
by R.Holland (1986).Holland et al.(2000,pg.6)summarized their observations within the project site as
follows:
'The Bowden Ranch Estates is one of the few'remaining sites where the California native grasslands
have maintained a dominance and form impressive stands...Other stands occur in the hillsides east
of Cal Poly and in other scattered hillside areas around the City of San Luis Obispo where they are
often associated with serpentine...'
Serpentine bunchgrass is open grassland typified by perennial (and generally native) bunchgrasses
growing on serpentine-derived soils.Total cover is typically low.Characteristic species include
needlegrasses(Nassella pulchra,N.lepida,and N.cernuo),melic grass(Melita colifornico),and several
other non-native grass species.This community type is noted by Holland (1986)as occurring widely
through the coastal ranges and,less commonly,in the Sierra Nevada and mountains of southern
California.The distribution of serpentine bunchgrass(California native grassland] habitat within the
project site was noted as occurring"....in the upland,eastern portion of the development site,the"upper
portions of the grasslands away from the roads...;"and"on and around the serpentine hillsides in the eastern
portion of the site outside the development area."(Holland et al.2000,p.6).Serpentine bunchgrass is
scattered in distribution and intermixed with other grasses within the area mapped as grassland habitat
(Figure 33-1).
Review of the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County,California,Coastal Part(USDA Soil Conservation
Service, 1984),and on-site field investigation revealed that there are scattered to fairly dense,small
stands of a native bunchgrass species Nasella pulchra (purple needlegrass)found within the grassland 1
extensively dominated by non-native species.Uphill and outside of the area proposed for development
there exist extensive areas of high-quality native bunchgrass habitat,found primarily on a low-
productivity soil series known as the Obispo-rock'outcrop.These areas are proposed for permanent
conservation as part of the development plan.Some existing bunchgrasses would be lost by site.
development;however,virtually all of the high-quality serpentine bunchgrass habitat would be
permanently preserved as part of the project:.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
3-34 MHA Inc. - P
August 2003
' 3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Figure 3.3-1:Natural Habitats of the Project Area
1
if
8 l
i?
QQ LL
ZO
Y �
O 1
. G � � � ffl� � � _•f Ci
,�_ G Q;1i\a a ;y '•� f Of
'``,i: /�\ ,�` l.�"• /� e \ 4, \ "kyr
0 ;
1 �
1 SOURCE Morro Group 2002
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-35
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES '
Figure 3.3-2:Sensitive Resources of the Project Area ,
� - W
= a
UJ '
0 { o LL
{ { }I rte. _ =•r:- :!/#,'J
.a, v� `• moo 'OU
( VIt
` It
�\ :y
9 i'p 1
SOURCE:Morro Group 2002 and MHA 2003 '
3-36 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Freshwater Marsh Habitat/Wetlands.Freshwater marsh wetland habitat in association with project site
drainages and seeps has been documented by Holland et al.(2000),Holland and Moody(2002),and
Holland and Langford (2002)(Figure 3.3-2).There are several areas on-site that qualify as jurisdictional
wetlands according to agency classification criteria and Corps survey methodology.In July 2002,a
wetland delineation report for portion of the project site was prepared(Holland and Moody 2002).The
study area included the area near the proposed drainage crossing at the planned extension of Woodland
Court,adjacent to and northeast of Lot 8(Figure 3.3-2).Wetland habitat was identified within the defined
drainage swale near the planned stream crossing and within the channel of the ephemeral tributary
1 between Lots 4 and 5.
In November 2002,a wetlands delineation report of two small areas of potential wetland habitat existing
outside of defined creek corridors was completed(Holland and Langford 2002).A seasonal freshwater
seep dominated by rushes that occurs within Lot 16 and a second seep area located within Lot 8 in
association with a patch of rushes and an ephemeral drainage were both determined to meet State
criteria for classification as a wetland (Figure 3.3-2).The tops-of-bank of project site drainages were
mapped using a Global Positioning System(GPS)to provide a liberal estimate of the Ordinary High Water
Mark(OHWM)of each drainage,stream,or tributary.The main creek within the Open Space Lot,and the
drainage crossing Lots 4 and 5 are considered jurisdictional wetlands in the areas between the tops of
the banks of both waterways.This is considered to be a reasonable representation of the area of U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers'jurisdiction of lands within the"Ordinary High Water Mark"(OHWM).For
purposes of this EIR,therefore,these areas are considered sensitive habitat.
Monarch Butterfly Over-Wintering Habitat.A portion of the blue gum/live oak woodland habitat of
the project site was noted by Frey(2000)to support over-wintering populations of monarch butterfly
(Figure 3.3-2).While this insect species is afforded no special status bythe CDFG,its over-wintering
habitat is considered sensitive by the CDFG due to declining stands and distribution.The current project
design incorporates previous recommendations from Frey(2000)to avoid direct impacts to on-site
butterfly over-wintering habitat.The location and extent of this monarch habitat within the project site is
shown is Figure 33-2,and is not impacted by proposed building envelopes.Indirect impacts and
disturbance to monarch habitat,however,could result from development or activity(e.g.,tree removals,
chemical use)on the projectsite that is nearthe over-wintering area.
Sensitive Species
Sensitive Species are defined as:
• Species afforded protection under the.Federal.Endangered Species Act(FESA)and/or
California Endangered Species Act(CESA)
• Species proposed for listing under the FESA and/orCESA
• Species afforded protection under sections of the California Fish and Game Code
• Birds afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918
• Species considered either Federal Special Concern species or California Special Concern
species
t • Species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered.species under CEQA
• Plants considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc-3-37
tAugust 2003
!1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
C Species considered sensitive or important.by local resourcegroups/agencies or the
scientific community
The following section includes a brief discussion',of those sensitive plants and animals that occur within
the project site,or those that have a reasonable chance for occurrence within the project site,given site
conditions and existing habitats.More information on these-species'general and local ecologies can be
found in the various reports prepared by or on behalf of the applicant and other reports listed in Section
7,References,of this EIR.Pertinent information on species found or potentially found in the project area
is presented in the Impacts and Mitigation discussion below.
Sensitive Plants.The NDDB(2002)lists 19 sensitive plant species within the San Luis Obispo 7S-minute
USGS quadrangle(project vicinity).Many of these species are not found on-site due to habitat
conditions;only seven are found,or have the potential to be found on the project site.(Table 33-1).The
statuses of these seven sensitive plant taxa (e.g.,species,subspecies,varieties,etc.)are listed in Table 33-
1 and descriptions of the plants are available in the various reports prepared by or on behalf of the
applicant and other reports listed in Section 7,References,of this EIR.Holland et al.(2000) reported
finding San Luis mariposa lily,San Luis Obispo County morning glory,Palmer's spineflower,San Luis
Obispo dudleya,and Hoffman's sanicle within the Bowden project site.Brewer's spineflowerand Most-
beautiful jewel flower are noted as having occurred within a 1-mile radius of the project site;however
these two species have not been found on the project site.
Table 3.3-1.List of Sensitive Plant Species Occurring/Potentially Occurring within the Bowden Ranch
Development Project Site
Scientific Name Common Name Legal status
Federal/State/CNPS
Calochortus obispoensis San Luis mariposa lily —/—/1 B,2.2-3
Calystegia subacaulis var.episcopolis San Luis Obispo County morning glory —/—/1 B,3-2-3
Chorizanthe brewed Brewe(s spineflower —/-/1 B,3-1-3
Chorizonthe palmeri Palmer's spineflower —/—/4, 1-2-3
Dudleyo obromsii ssp.murino San Luis Obispo dudleya —/--/1 B,2-1-3
Soniculahol1mannii Hoffmann's sanicle —/—/4, 1-1-3
Streptanthus albidus ssp. Most-beautiful jewelflower —/—/1 B,2-2-3
Notes:
California Native PlantSociety(CNPS): j
List 1 B=rare,threatened,or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 4=plants of limited distribution;a watch list
CNPS Rare-Endangerment-Distribution:
Rare.1)rare,but found in sufficient numbers and distributed.widely enough that the potential for extinction is low at this time;
2)distributed in a limited number of occurrences,occasionaly more if each occurrence is small;3)distributed in one to several
highly restricted occurrences,or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported.
Endangerment.l)not endangered;2)endangered ina portion of its range;3)endangered throughout a portion of its range.
Distribution:1)more or less widespread outside California;2)rare outside California;3)endemic to California.
SOURCE:NDDB 2002
3-38 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
i aI
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1 Sensitive Wildlife.The twelve sensitive wildlife species listed below in Table 33-2,along with their
protection status,have been identified using the NDDB(2002),other reference literature,and site
1 surveys as occurring,or having the potential to occur,within the project vicinity.Based on the specific
location and habitat characteristics of the project site,the following seven species could be found within
the project site:
1 a Cooper's hawk
a Burrowing owl
a White-tailed kite
a California horned lark
1 a California red-legged frog
a Western spadefoot toad
1 a Coast Range newt
Additionally,.several other special status species listed in Table 33-2 have been found on-site during
1 surveys.Two species of woodrats(Monterey dusky-footed and San Diego desert)were trapped
previously on site,but their residential status in the project area is uncertain because woodrats may
forage at a distance from their home nests(ViIlablanca 2001).Sensitive over-wintering roosting habitat
1 for the Monarch butterfly is found on the project site but not within currently proposed building
envelopes.One federally endangered species,the Morro shoulderband snail,was found on and adjacent
to the project site during recent(August and December 2002)surveys and are discussed in detail in the
various reports prepared by or on behalf of the applicant and other reports listed in Section 7,
References,of this EIR.Both live individuals and shell remnants of the snail were found on and near the
project site(Figure.33-2).The ecologies of all of the species listed in Table.3,3-2 are discussed in detail in
1 the various reports prepared by or on behalf of the applicant and other reports listed in Section 7,
References,of this EIR.
Wildlife Movement Corridors
Movement corridors are connections between habitat areas that allow for physical and genetic exchange
between animal populations.These connections may be local,such as between foraging and nesting or
denning areas,or regional in nature.As undisturbed habitats become surrounded by urban
development,they become isolated from neighboring areas.Movement corridors provide critical
1 linkages between islands of open space,isolated foraging and breeding habitats,and other important
wildlife use areas.Drainage courses and adjacent upland habitats typically function as migration
corridors,providing water,food,and coverfor animals.
1 All drainage corridors within the project site represent movement corridors (Figure.33-2).Mule deer,
which are considered game animals in California,have been observed within the noted corridors located
' within the project site and east of the project site in the mountainous swales of the.Santa Lucia Range.
Track evidence indicates that mule deer use the drainage corridors to move between the project site and
Reservoir Canyon,east of the project site.It is likely that several other species of mammals use the
corridors similarly.Additionally,animals whose life histories depend upon aquatic resources(e.g.,
amphibians)could also use drainage corridors for their dispersal or movement.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-39
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Table 3.3-2.List of Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring/Potentially Occurring vvitAtin the Project&K-e
Vicini
Scientific Name Common Name Legal Status
Federal/State/other
Accipitercooperi Cooper's hawk(nesting) —/CSC/—
Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl FSC/CSC/—
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis(nesting) Western yellow billed cuckoo FC/SE/—
Donaus plexippus(over-wintering habitat) Monarch butterfly
Elanus leucurus(nesting) White-tailed kite FSC/—/FP
Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark —/CSC/—
Helminthoglypto wa/kerfana Morro shoulder band snail FE/—/—
Neotoma fuscipes luciono Monterey dusky-footed woodrat —/CSC/—
Neotoma lepido intermedia San Diego desert woodrat —/CSC/—
Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog FT/CSC/P
Scaphiopus hommondii Western spadefoot(toad) —/CSU—
Taricha toroso toroso CoasrRange newt _/CSC/_
FE:federally endangered
FT:federally threatened
FSG federal species of concern
FC:federal candidate species
SE:California endangered
CSC:California species of special concern ,
P:protected by CDFG
FP:fully protected by CDFG
'Habitat only
i
SOURCE:NDDB 2002 and Morro Group 2002
REGULATORY SETTING
Clean Water Act of 1977 '
Regulatory protection for water resources throughout the United States is under the jurisdiction of the
Corps.Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters.
of the U.S.without formal consent from the Corps:Waters of the U.S.include marine Waters,tidal areas,
stream channels,and associated wetlands.Wetlands often include freshwater marshes,vernal pools,
freshwater seeps,and riparian areas.Policies relating to the loss of wetlands generally stress the need to
compensate for wetland acreage losses by creating wetlands from non-wetland habitat on at least an
acre-for-acre basis.
Section 7 of The Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act(FESA)provides legislation to protect federally listed plant and
animal species.Impacts to listed species resulting from the implementation of a project would require
the responsible agency to consult the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS).Section 7 of the
FESA requires that all federal agencies must,in consultation with the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries
Service(NMFS),ensure that its(the agency's)actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species,or destroy or adversely modify the listed species'"critical habitat"Forthis project,it is
3-40 MHA Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR 1
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1 likely that the Corps would be the lead federal agency to consult with the USFWS.Section 10 of the.Act
describes the process by which take permits are issued by USFWS/NMFS for take incidental to an
otherwise lawful activity.
State of California Endangered Species Act
tThe State of California Endangered Species Act(CESA)ensures legal protection for plants listed as rare or
endangered and species of wildlife formally listed as endangered or threatened.The state also lists
' "Species of Special Concern"based on limited distribution,declining populations,diminishing habitat,or
unusual scientific,recreational,or educational value.Under State law,the CDFG is empowered to review
projects for their potential to impact state-listed species and Species of Special Concern,and their
habitats.Impacts to the state-listed species would be evaluated and identification of mitigation
measures would likely be required.
1 California Department of Fish And Game Code
California Fish and Game Code governs state-designated wetlands,including riparian and stream habitat,
and mandates that mitigation be implemented to replace wetland extent and value lost to development.
Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code regulate activities that would alter the flow,
bed,channel or bank of streams and lakes.Activities that affect these areas,as well as associated riparian
habitats,would require a Streambed Alteration Permit from the CDFG.In addition,Section 3503 of the
California Fish and Game Code prohibits impacts to actively nesting birds,their nests,or their eggs.
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board-Basin Plan
The Central Coast Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan provides management guidelines for
' maintaining water quality and associated beneficial uses of streams and rivers within the central coast
region of California.General water quality objectives are set forth to facilitate the maintenance of
optimum habitat for various aquatic species.
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The City of San Luis Obispo encourages.creek and wetland setbacks within its General Plan Land Use
Element(City of San Luis Obispo 1997).Typically,the City requires 20-foot setbacks from the edges of
riparian canopies,wetlands,or the tops of creek banks.Such setbacks are intended to be protective of
instream,riparian,and wetland resources.
The General Plan's Open Space Element includes 05 Policy 6.2.2,which states:
' OS 6.2,2:Development Practices for Sensitive Habitat Areas
A) Sensitive habitat areas and associated habitat buffers should be preserved as open
' space.
B) Sensitive habitat should be protected by requiring public or private development to:
' 1) Preserve such resource areas and associated habitat buffers through easements or
dedications.Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall be located to optimize
resource protection.Easements as a condition of development approval shall be,
required only for structural additions or new structures,not for accessory structures
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-41
tAugust 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
i
or tree removal permits.If the resource area is within a proposed open space parcel
or easement,allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or
easement should be clearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project
approval.
2) Designate easements or dedications(as enumerated in 1 above)as open space.
3) Enhance such resource areas by:'(a) providing an adequate habitat buffer around
the resource area,(b)maintaining protected areas in a natural state, (c)employing
restoration techniques where restoration is needed to achieve a natural state,(d)
utilizing native plants within resource areas,and where possible,within habitat
buffers,and(e) prohibiting the planting of invasive,non-native plants(such as
vinca major and eucalyptus)within resource areas or associated habitat buffers.
4) Incorporate recreation and public access near resource areas consistent with
Section 12,Outdoor Recreation.
5) Incorporate design,construction,and maintenance techniques that(a) preserve
and enhance resource protection;(b)avoid the creation of habitat islands(habitat
surrounded by developed areas);(c) provide necessary wildlife corridors(including
corridors under proposed major roads,highways,or other impediments which
restrict animal movement);and(d)are consistent with the.Section 11 of this
element,Scenic Resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern 1
The following areas of potential environmental concern may be associated with implementation of the
proposed project: '
• The potential for the taking or harassment of sensitive plant and animal species or damage
to their habitats
• The potential for the destruction or degradation of sensitive habitats or plant communities,
such as wetland and riparian areas
• The potential for the interference with movement or nursery sites of native,resident,or
migratory wildlife
Thresholds of Significance
Impacts to biological resources of the project site were evaluated by determining the sensitivity,
significance,or rarity of each resource that could::be adversely affected (either directly or indirectly)by
the proposed project,and by using thresholds of significance to determine if the impact constitutes a
significant impact.The significance threshold may be different for each habitat or species and is based
upon the rarity or sensitivity of the resource and the level of impact that would result from the proposed
project.Guidance for determining significance thresholds is based on Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines and local/regional general plans and ordinances.Using these guidelines,implementation of
the proposed project would have asignificant impact on biological resources if it were to:
3-42 MHA Inc. ,
Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
i
' 3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
t • Adversely and substantially affect a sensitive species,as defined previously;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any important or sensitive habitat;
' • Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory species of wildlife or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors;
' • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources;or,
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or
other approved local,regional,or state habitat or conservation plan.
' • Conflict with adopted City General Plan policy associated with the protection and
preservation of biological resources
' Based on these guidelines,as well as pertinent state and federal policies and regulations,the following
thresholds of significance-would be applied to project-related impacts to biological resources within the
proposed project area:
• Loss of individuals or habitat for sensitive species;
' . Project-related loss or degradation of wetland habitat or riverine habitat(other waters of
the U.S.)associated with on-site drainages;
• Introduction of invasive/exotic species at the project site;or,
• Disruption or degradation of wildlife migration or movement corridors
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
Impacts to biological resources on the project.site could occur where proposed construction or
' development activities would result in temporary or permanent modification of sensitive communities or
habitats occupied or potentially occupied by sensitive species.These activities could also result in direct
impacts(e.g.,loss or injury)to special status species
The applicant proposes to dedicate to the City a portion of the project site(Lot 24)for permanent
conservation and open space uses.Dedication of this area,and conservation of project site creek
' corridors(with buffers),would promote continued use of the project site as a wildlife movement corridor
linking Reservoir Canyon with the project site.The.proposed dedication of Lot 24 and maintenance of
riparian and wildlife movement corridors would ensure that there are no potentially significant impacts
1 to wildlife movement corridors on the project site.
The following significant or potentially significant impacts would be associated with the proposed
project development;the outlined mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less than
' significant levels
Potential Impact 3.3-1.Potential to directly impact sensitive habitats.
Serpentine Bunchgrass.Development of lots 6-10, 13-17,and 21-23 would adversely affect stands of
purple needlegrass distributed among on-site grasslands(Figure 33-2).The CDFG would consider
unmitigated impacts to this community as significant(D.Hillyard,CDFG,pers.comm.,2002).Mitigation
Measures 3.3-1 is proposed to avoid or mitigate this impact.
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-43
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Creeks,Riparian Corridors,and Wetlands.The proposed project;as currently defined,would encroach 1
into portions of the 20-foot creek setback.Small areas of identified wetland habitat within Lots 4,5,8,
and 16 could be lost during development,as would the wetland-like areas of spreading rush on Lot 3.
However,preservation of these wetland areas in isolation from adjacent open space habitats would
severely reduce their value for wildlife.Therefore,::a mitigation program is recommended to reduce these
impacts to a level of less than significant,and Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 is designed to fully mitigate for
those impacts..
Blue Gum/Live Oak Woodlands.Frey(2000)reported that blue gum/live oak woodland habitat within
the project site provided unique over-wintering Habitat for monarch butterfly.Over-wintering habitat is
considered sensitive by the CDFG.The applicant's designated open space area is currently configured to
encompass and protect important monarch butterfly over-wintering habitat,as recommended by the
applicant's consultant(Frey 2000).As currently designed,there are no proposed lots or building
envelopes overlapping existing monarch over-wintering habitat and no direct impacts to this sensitive
habitat related to the project;however,indirect impacts to the monarch habitat could result from on-site '
project activities.
Blue gum and oak woodland vegetation are also associated with creek corridors on-site.As presently
configured,the building pad areas of Lot 1 and Lots 8-13 could encroach into the 20-foot creek setback
limits required by the City of San Luis Obispo,which is considered a significant impact.These potential
impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure 33-2.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-1. The applicant shall offer to dedicate that portion of the
property identified as "Open Space Lot", as such lot is ultimately configured by the ,
development approval process,to the City of San Luis Obispo,or to an entity designated by
the City of San Luis Obispo,for permanent conservation to protect serpentine bunchgrass
grassland habitat,among other things. 'this mitigatien shall be defeimi
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2.Priorto recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall submit
to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a revised Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map.The Vesting Tentative Map shall be revised to eliminate
encroachments into the creek setback areas defined by the City of San Luis Obispo's Creek
Setback Ordinance,and into the identified wetland area on Lot 8 plus an appropriate
buffer.Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall also submit to the Director
of Community Development and the Natural Resources Manager for review and approval ,
an Enhancement Plan for the drainage crossing Lots 4 and 5.This plan shall,at a minimum,
indicate a grading,planting,and maintenance schedule for the drainage that would
enhance the drainage by the addition of riparian plantings.-This Enhancement Plan shall
also include the transplanting of spreading rush found on Lot 3 and elsewhere within the
development envelope to appropriate locations within said drainage.
Potential Impact 33-2. Potential to indirectly impact sensitive habitats
Residents of the Bowden Ranch Development and community members choosing to use the trail system ,
linking Bowden Ranch with Reservoir Canyon via the Santa Lucia Range/Foothills may adversely affect
bunchgrass grassland habitat located east of the project site(e.g.,via trampling).Similarly,bunchgrass
3-44 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR 1
August 2003
I
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' grassland habitat and on-site wetlands avoided by direct development may be adversely affected by
pedestrian traffic from future residents,despite lot line reconfigurations or the elimination of lots.
' Formalizing a trail system linking the project site,over the Santa Lucia Range,to Reservoir Canyon has
the potential to result in increased foot traffic volume on the existing/planned trail system.Such an
increase would result in adverse impacts to sensitive communities within,and adjacent to,the project
' site.
Additionally,on-site development activities near Monarch butterfly over-wintering habitat in Lot 24
' could result in indirect impacts to this sensitive habitat.These potential impacts would be mitigated to
less than significant levels with the implementation of the following mitigation measures,in conjunction
with implementing Mitigation Measures 33-1 through 3:3-2.Additional mitigation measures addressing
' this potential impact are outlined in Section 3.13,Recreation.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 Prior to recordation of the Final Map,the applicant shall submit
an Environmental Education and Awareness Program to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval.The Program shall be recorded as a deed restriction
against each ofthe.individual lots.The applicant shall develop an Environmental Education
' and Awareness Program in consultation and coordination with the City to distribute to
prospective project.site residents.The program shall include a list of sensitive resources at
and near the project site,the biological importance of these resources,their legal status
and protection afforded under various acts and policies,and penalties for violations of the
noted acts and policies.The program shall also stress the importance of resource avoidance
and stewardship through trail fidelity and trail maintenance.The program shall be
timplemented at the time that individual lots are.sold..
Mitigation Measure 33-4.The applicant shall develop interpretive and restrictive use
signage for the trail system linking the project site and Reservoir Canyon via the Santa Lucia
Range.Signage shall summarize the items as part of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3.The City
shall install the signage at the time that project lots are sold.Appropriate fencing(e.g.,
' split-rail)should also be considered to restrict off-trail usage and minimize impacts to
sensitive habitat near trails.
' Mitigation Measure 3.3-5.All construction activity on lots 7,9,22,and 23 (adjacent to the
butterfly over-wintering habitat) shall be avoided during the monarch over-wintering
period of November through February.The over-wintering area should be managed as a
natural biotic community complete with a normal complement of insects.Covenants,
Codes,and Restrictions(CC&Rs)shall.be developed by the applicant and recorded prior to
the Final Map,in coordination with the City of San Luis Obispo,to minimize the impacts of
pesticide and/or biocides on monarch habitat within individual lots during and after
development.
Potential Impact 3.3-3.Potential to directly impact sensitive plant species
Of the five sensitive plant species identified within the project site,three(i.e.,Palmer's spineflower,San
Luis Obispo dudleya,San Luis mariposa lily)are now located within the proposed open space area (Lot
24)near the east-central portion of the property.Development and construction activities would not
directly impact plants found in this area.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-45
August 2003
'
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Residential development within grassland habitat on proposed lou 6-18,22,and 23 would adversely t
affect an unknown number of individual San Luis Obispo County morning glory plants(Calystegia
subacaulis var.episcopolis) reported by Holland(2001).Development within lots 8,9,and 10 may t
adversely affect individuals of Hoffmann's sanicle located in association with the creek corridor near
Woodland Drive.
These potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
Mitigation Measure 33-6.The applicant shall work with a qualified restoration specialist, '
in coordination with the City,to identify potential off-site restoration sites forthe
propagation of San Luis Obispo County morning glory and Hoffmann's sanicle.Potential
sites may include those open space areas containing physical characteristics appropriate '
for the species.Holland (2001)suggested a 3 t 1 mitigation ratio(e,g,plant for plant,or
acre for acre)for San Luis Obispo County!morning glory.Similar ratios may be acceptable
for Hoffmann's sanicle.The applicant shall retain an approved restoration specialist to
monitor the mitigation site for a period of 3 years.Terms and conditions of the off-site
mitigation effort shall be detailed within:a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared by the
applicant and approved by the City. t
Potential Impact 33-4. Potential to indirectly impact sensitive plant species. t
Unregulated use and increased foot traffic within the proposed project site open space area (Lot 24),and
within the foothills of the Santa Lucia Range east,of the project site,has the potential to result in adverse
impacts to sensitive plant species noted by Holland et al.(2000).These include.Hoffmann's sanicle, t
Palmer's spineflower,.San Luis mariposa lily,San Luis Obispo County morning glory,and San Luis Obispo
dudleya.Other sensitive species of plants not found during focused botanical surveys may occur within
these same areas. ,
These potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.3-3 and 33-4.
Potential Impact 33-5.Potential to directly impact sensitive wildlife species.
Woodrats.Villablanca (2001)trapped both Monterey dusky-footed woodrat and San Diego desert
woodrat(both California special concern:species)within blue gum forest,scrub,coast live oak woodland,
and ruderal habitats of the project site.He noted that there remained some question as to whether or
not this species actually occupied the project site,or rather,occupied adjacent(off-site)areas and was
simply trapped while foraging within the project site.Both species of woodrat use and/or occupy the
project site to some extent.Grading within non-grassland habitat,particularly vegetation near creek
corridors,has the potential to adversely affect both species of woodrat.This potentially significant
impact would be mitigated by measure 3.3-7.
California Red-Legged Frog and Western Spadefoot.California red-legged frogs(CRLF)were not
found within or near the project site during previous surrey work.SPECT(2000) reported that the.site
provided suitable dispersal habitat,suggesting that CRLF could occur within the project site.
Development activities on-site could negatively impact frog dispersal and potential habitat.Adverse
impacts to this species during project implementation would constitute"take,"as defined in the Federal
3-46 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Endangered Species Act.Western spadefoot were not observed within the project site;however,suitable
habitat for this species does exist within the project site within those areas near creek corridors.
Mitigation Measures 33-8 and 33-9 mitigate this potentially significant impact.
Birds.California horned lark may nest within the grassland habitat of the project site.Site grading has
the potential to adversely affect these active nests.Other non-sensitive bird species(e.g.,western
meadowlark and various species of sparrows)may also nest within grassland habitat.
Many species of birds,including raptors,potentially nest within the oak woodland and blue gum forest
' habitats of the project site.During recent surveys,nesting great homed owls were observed within the
Eucalyptus forest located north of Lot 12.Several red-shouldered hawks have been noted within the
Eucalyptus trees within all project site drainages,and these may be nesting individuals.Tree removal on-
site could impact these birds by removing potential nesting and foraging habitat.Mitigation Measures
3.3-10 and 3.3-11 mitigates this potentially significant impact.
Morro Shoulderband Snail.The presence of Morro shoulderband snail(MSS)within the development
area of the project site was demonstrated during surveys conducted in 2002(Appendix D).Living MSS
were found on Lot 10 and in the open space area (Lot 24)east of Lot 12 and north-northeast of Lot 14)
' (Figure 3.3-2).MSS shell fragments were found within Lots 10-14,and also on Lot 24.Site grading of
coastal scrub and cactus vegetation within the development area of the project site has the potential to
adversely affect this species through destruction of habitat and individual snails.The post-development
' activities of property-owners(e.g.,grassland mowing,pesticide use)could also negatively impact MSS
and their habitat.Mitigation Measure 33-12 mitigates this potentially significant impact.
Site grading and vegetation removal,as well as certain on-site,post-development property-owner
activities,may directly And adversely affect Monterey dusky-footed woodrat and San Diego desert
woodrat(both California special concern species),California red-legged frog (federally threatened),
western spaciefoot(California species of concern),and Morro shoulderband snail(federally endangered).
Site grading and tree removals may adversely affect sensitive and non-sensitive nesting bird species.
These potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of
the previously described mitigation measures and Mitigation Measures 3.3-7 through 3.3-16.
Mitigation Measure 33-7.Not more than 72 hours prior to the start of any on-site
grading,a qualified wildlife biologist,approved by the.City,shall trap and translocate
woodrats from non-grassland habitats(riparian,oak woodland,scrub)to be graded.The
qualified biologist shall determine receptor sites,with consideration given to habitat
suitability and proximity to the project site.Animals may be held in captivity,at the
discretion of the qualified biologist,until such time that site grading is complete.Animals
would then be released to the project site within.suitable habitat,as determined by the
qualified biologist.
Mitigation Measure 33-8.Not more than one.week prior to the start of any on-site
' construction,the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist,approved by the City,to
conduct a nighttime survey for CRLF within those portions of the project site planned for
disturbance(i.e.,grading).If CRLF are found within the planned project site disturbance
areas during the survey,the applicant shall not proceed with site development until such
time that the USFWS has been contacted,consulted,and all recommendations of the
USFWS implemented to mitigate impacts to the species.Measures required by the USFWS
to mitigate potential impacts to CRLF and/or CRLF habitat might include avoidance,
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-47
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT ANALYSES
seasonal activity restrictions,or on-site habitat enhancement or protection or off-site
habitat acquisition and/or enhancement.',,
Mitigation Measure 3.3-9.Not-more than one week prior to the start of any on-site
construction,the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist;approved by the City,to
conduct a survey for western spadefoot toads within those.portions of the project site
planned for disturbance(i.e.,grading).If toads are found within the planned project site
disturbance areas during the survey,the applicant shall not proceed with site development
until such time that the CDFG has been contacted,consulted,and all recommendations of
the CDFG implemented to mitigate impacts to the species.Measures required bythe CDFG
to mitigate potential impacts to toad and/or toad habitat might include avoidance,
seasonal activity restrictions,or on-site habitat enhancement or protection or off-site
habitat acquisition and/or enhancement:
Mitigation Measure 33-10.If any on-site grading is to occur within the months of March
through mid-August,the applicant shall 'retain a qualified biologist,approved by the City,
to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds within the project site no more than 1
week prior to planned grading.All activenests found shall be marked (flagged,staked)by
the biologist.Nests shall not be directly disturbed (e.g.,by grading within a certain
proximity of tree removals)until such time that nestlings have fledged from(left)the nest,
as determined by the monitoring biologist. '
Mitigation Measure 3.3-11.If project site tree removal is to occur within the months of
January through August,the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-
construction surveys for nesting birds within the trees to be removed.All trees supporting
active nests shall be clearly flagged by the qualified biologist.These trees may not be
removed until such time that the qualified biologist determines that the nest is no longer
active,and that nestlings have fledged from the nest.
Mitigation Measure 33-12.Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a revised
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.The Map shall be revised to completely avoid the
locations of live MSS,MSS shell fragments,and MSS habitat,together with appropriate
buffers to protect these areas and ensure their connection to the Open Space of the project '
for MSS dispersal purposes.The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map shall also be revised to
identify portions of Lot 13 for use as MSS habitat and enhancement thereof.The feasibility
of this mitigation shall be determined solely by the City of San Luis Obispo.However,prior ,
to the onset of any clearing or grading activities,the applicant shall obtain any needed
approvals from the United States Fish avid Wildlife Service,and submit evidence of said
permit(s)to the Director of Community Development.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-13.Covenants;Codes,and Restrictions (CC&Rs)shall be
developed by the applicant and recorded prior to recordation of the Final Map,in
coordination with appropriate City of Sa'n Luis Obispo staff,a qualified biologist,and
USFWS staff,to minimize the impacts of'post-development land use and alteration,
grassland mowing activities,and property-owner pesticide and/or biocide use,on MSS and
MSS habitat within individual,project-site lots during and after development.
I
i
3-48 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
i
I
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Mitigation Measure 33-14.The applicant shall develop information on MSS for the
Environmental Education and Awareness Program(identified in Mitigation Measure 3.3-3)
in consultation and coordination with the City and USFWS to distribute to prospective
project site residents..Program information shall include information on.MSS and MSS
habitat at and near the project site,the biological importance of such resources,their legal
status and protection afforded under various acts and policies,and penalties for violations
of these noted acts and policies.This program shall also stress the importance of MSS and
MSS habitat avoidance and stewardship through trail fidelity and trail maintenance.
' As part of Mitigation Measure.33-4,the applicant shall develop interpretive and restrictive
use signage,which protects MSS and MSS habitat,for the trail system linking the project
' site and Reservoir Canyon via the Santa Lucia Range.The City shall install the signage at the
time that project lots are sold.Appropriate fencing(e.g.,split-rail)should also be
considered to restrict off--trail usage and minimize impacts to MSS and MSS habitat near
trails.
Mitigation Measure 33-15.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,and as part of Mitigation
Measures 33-3 and 3.3-4,the applicant shall submit the Environmental Education and
Awareness Program information and MSS signage information to the Director of
Community Development for review and approval.This program shall be implemented at
the time individual lots are sold.
Potential Impact 3.3-6.Potential to indirectly impact sensitive wildlife species.
Unregulated use and foot traffic within the proposed open space area,and within the foothills of the
Santa Lucia Range east of the project site,resulting from project activities or development could result in
adverse impacts to Morro shoulderband snail;California red-legged frog,western spadefoot,and
wood rats within these areas.
During recent site surveys(August 2002),Morro shoulderband snails were found within the open space
portion(Lot 24)of the project site(Figure 3.3-2).Scattered populations and individuals of this species
have the potential to occur throughout the.Santa Lucia Range east of the project she.
' Foot traffic and increased trail system use within the proposed open space area and within the Santa
Lucia Range foothills east of the project site may adversely affect several species of sensitive wildlife.
These potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of
' Mitigation Measures 33-3,3.3-4,3.3-5,3.3-14.
Potential Impact 3.1-7.Potential to directly impact on-site trees.
The applicant is proposing to remove a minimum of 48 trees from the project site,including 21 blue gum
Eucalyptus(6-60 inches diameter at breast height[dbh]),11 oaks(3-8 inch dbh);one California walnut(12
inch dbh),one Monterey cypress(12 inch dbh),and one 8 inch dbh unidentified tree.Trees planned for
removal are largely located along the planned eastern extension of Lizzie Street(Lizzie Court),and at the
origin of the planned Woodland Court.Additional small-diameter Eucalyptus trees would be removed..
The applicant did not quantify Eucalyptus trees less than 6 inches diameter at breast height(dbh) and
native trees less than 3 inches dbh planned for removal.These tree removals would require permits from
the City.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-49
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
An unknown number of trees may be incidentally and adversely affected by various activities during site
construction.These impacts may include compaction of root zones by heavy equipment traffic,root
cutting or damage during site excavation,trunk damage.by heavy equipment collision,and limb/branch '
damage by equipment.Such impacts may resultin the death of trees well after project completion.Trees
may also be adversely affected by residents/property owners during and following development of the
individual lots.Impacts may include tree removal or significant tree damage leading to mortality.
These potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of
the.following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-16.Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
submit to the Director of Community Debelopment for review and approval a tree
mitigation plan.The tree mitigation plan shall identifying a palette,planting locations and
methods,and specifying monitoring and contingency measures.The plan shall identify the.
replanting of a minimum of 140 individual trees and shrubs on the project site of
indigenous species suited forthe site conditions.The palette may include,but shall not be
limited to,western sycamore,coast live oak,and California bay.This measure is supported
by the applicant's proposed mitigation of the planned removal of a minimum of 48 trees.
The timing of replacement planting shall be as approved by the Director of Community
Development.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-17.Prior to any ground disturbing activity within the project site, t
the applicant shall erect exclosure fencing around all significant trees (defined here as all
native trees in excess of 3 inches dbh)with a reasonable chance for damage during site
development.The trees to be saved shall also be marked by a qualified biologist.Fencing '
shall be highly visible(e.g.,orange snow fence or similar),and shall completely encircle the
drip line(i.e., lateral extent of tree's leaves)of each fenced tree.No vehicular traffic or
construction equipment shall be allowed within any of the exclosed areas. '
Mitigation Measure 3.3-18.The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist,botanist,or
arborist to periodically inspect the form and function of each erected exclosure fence '
required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-17.The qualified biologist,botanist,or arborist.shall
have the authority to require the applicant's contractor to repair or reconfigure enclosure
fencing to best protect tree resources.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-19.Excavation,including trenching and boring,shall not be
allowed within the enclosed areas of significant trees.
Mitigation Measure 33-20.If Mitigation Measure 3.3-18 and 3.3-19 are not feasible,the
applicant(or contractor)shall minimize Foot zone and other tree impacts within enclosure
zones by implementing the mitigation measures and best management practices detailed
by Holland et al.(2000).Recommendations include:
• Boring through root zones,rather than trenching; ,
• Minimizing the number of trenches;
• Conserving topsoil for replacement following site work;
• Irrigating trees prior to root zone work,
• Temporarily covering exposed roots with wet burlap; '
3-50 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Cutting rather than ripping tree roots;
C Preserving drainage patterns around trees.
The feasibility of Mitigation Measure 33-20 shall be determined solely by the City.
' Mitigation Measure 33-21.Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall
submit to the Director of community Development Covenants,Codes,and Restrictions
(CC&Rs).The CC&Rs shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map and shall include
1 provisions to ensure protection of significant tree resources within individual lots during
and after all construction activities.
3A Cultural Resources
Section 3.4 of this EIR was prepared under the direction of the Community Development Department;and is
based solely' on the peer t: a4ew-e€€ems five cultural resource reports prepared by or on behalf of the
applicant,the City of San Luis Obispo,or the.Friends of Las Casas De Adobe.
Chattel Architecture,Planning,&Preservation,Inc.2000.Historic Review Report.Bowden Ranch Estates,
San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo County,California.Prepared for Oasis Associates,Inc.,San Luis Obispo,
California.
Gibson,Robert 0.2000.Results of Archival Records Search and Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey
for the Bowden Ranch Estates Project,City of San Luis Obispo,CA.Report prepared for Oasis Landscape,
Architecture and Planning,San Luis Obispo,California.
Sanchez;Allen,Daryl,and Gil. 1998.,La Loma Adobe,Condition Assessment and Preliminary
Rehabilitation Study.Prepared for Friends of Las Casas de Adobe.San Luis Obispo,California.
Sanchez;Gil. 1998.Condition Assessment and Preliminary Rehabilitation Study,RodriguezAdobe,Butron
Adobe,La Loma Adobe.Prepared for the Friends of Las Casa de Adobe,San Luis Obispo,California.
t Chattel Architecture,Planning&Preservation,Inc.2003.Bowden Ranch Development Supplemental
Report.Prepared for Oasis Associates,Inc.,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
These reports are incorporated by reference into this EIR and are available.for review at the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Development Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249.
' INTRODUCTION
Adebe and its lands that afe situated en the pFejeet site.
0 ReWding Allan and Samehez(1998),Ghat4el AFEhiteetuFe (2999),Gibsen(2999)and SaneheE(1998).IR
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-51
1 August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
damage,Adebe and the lands that weFe enee pan ef the r-aneh asseeiated with the Adebe.This peitien ef th
ep destmetwen.
An initial survey of the Bowden Ranch Development in San Luis Obispo(project site)was prepared by 1
Robert O Gibson in July 2000(Gibson Report) The Gibson Reporttitled"Results of the.Archival Records
Search and Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey for the Bowden Ranch Estates Project,"identified
the La Loma Adobe and a number of related ancillary features as historical resources..The.Gibson Report '
recommended preparation of additional mapping research and documentary photographs(page 2).To
fulfill this recommendation Chattel Architecture Planning&Preservation,Inc.prepared a"Historic
Review Report"(December 21 2000 Chattel Report) which included supplementary research and
documentation of these ancillary features Further ancillary features in addition to those-ancillary
features noted in the Gibson Report and documented in the Chattel Report,were identified in the
Bowden Ranch Development Draft Environmental Impact Report(March 2003 DEIR).A supplemental
report was prepared by Chattel(June 2003)to clarify historical resource eligibility of the La Loma Adobe.
and its ancillary features including those identified in the Gibson and earlier Chattel reports,as well as in '
the DEIR(collectively,"identified ancillary featuresl.This report also identifies project impacts to
historical resources and provides treatments and mitigation measures to reduce and/or eliminate
identified project impacts. '
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Setting
The applicant submitted twe three cultural resource reports that contain information specific to the '
project area.These reports are Chattel Architecture(2000 and.2003)and Gibson(2000).The Friends of
Las Casas De Adobe commissioned two reports,Allan and Sanchez(1998)and Sanchez(1998).
Collectively,the reports provide historical information about the La Loma Adobe and use of the project
area,which was once part of the ranch associated with the Adobe.The findings of these studies are
summarized below.
Ethnography.At the time of Euroamerican contact(ca. 1769),the Obispeno Chumash,a Hokan speaking '
group of Native Americans,occupied the area in the vicinity of modern San Luis Obispo.The Obispeno
Chumash are a geographic and linguistic subdivision ofthe larger Chumash cultural group.Their specific
name is based on their historic association with the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa(Greenwood
1978).The Obispeno Chumash are culturally similar to the other Chumash,but ethnographies of the
Obispeho Chumash and other northern groups are scant.Regional ethnographies tend to highlight the
southern Chumash of the Santa Barbara Channel region.Consequently,ethnographic discussions of the
Obispeno Chumash rely extensively on analogy with groups to the south.
Pre-Historic Period.Important excavations in the 1970's,particularly at Diablo Canyon,followed t
intensive cultural studies of the San Luis Obispo area in the 1960's.Excavations at this series of sites
uncovered the first radiometrically-dated chronology for the region:Early Millingstone,Hunting,and '
3-52 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2,003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Canalino;or,Early,Middle,and Late Periods(Greenwood 1972):The sequence spans more than 9,000
years of prehistory.Archaeological studies have continued through the 1980's and into the 1990's,
' increasing the knowledge base on the prehistoric Chumash culture living in the San Luis Obispo region.
Cultural History.The accepted chronological model for San Luis Obispo consists of four general periods
that are defined as a result of a continuity of cultural material between northern and southern Chumash
sites.The four periods are:
Paleocoastal Period 19,000-6,000 B.C.;
' • Early Period 6,000-1,000 B.C.;
C Middle Period 1,000 B.C.-1,000 A.D.;and
' • Late Period 1,000-1,800 A.D.
The Paleocoastal Period (9,000-6,000 B.C.)is under-represented in the archaeological record.Only two
known sites at Diablo Canyon are dated to between 9,000-6,000 B.C.Typically,sites in this period are
found near estuaries and bay shores where the Chumash exploited both marine and terrestrial resources.
' The Early Period (6,000 B.C.-1,000 A.D.)is noted by a move inland,where sites are typically situated on
top of knolls and near fresh water.Artifacts from these sites consist of large flake tools,side-notched dart
points,bone fish hooks,.manos,and metates.The move inland was spurred by regional environmental
changes(Rogers 1929;Harrison and Harrison 1966;King 1981;Moratto 1984).
The Middle Period (1,000 B.C.-1,000 A.D.)appears to be the most diverse in terms of resource use.Both
large settlements and smaller camps existed.The artifact assemblage includes an increased number of
trade items,.such as shell beads and obsidian.There most.likely was much socio-political interaction
during the Middle Period(Hoover 1980).
' The Late Period(1,000-1,800 A.D.)is characterized by greater marine exploitation as well as acorn use.
Also noteworthy is the introduction of the bow and arrow.Excavation of burials suggests a developed
social hierarchy(Hoover 1980;Bouey and Basgall 1991).
Historic Period.Padre lunipero Serra founded the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772,and it had
a dramatic effect on Chumash culture.Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa dominated the social,political,
and economic lives of the people in the area during the Spanish Period (ca. 1769-1821).Religious
conversion of the local Chumash population increased as the strength of the mission grew.This factor,in
combination with the onset of European diseases,virtually ended the traditional life of the Chumash in
the region by the beginning of the early 1800s(Englehart 1933).
The Mexican Period (ca. 1821-1848)in California is an outgrowth of the Mexican Revolution,and its
accompanying social and political views affected the mission system.In 1833,the missions were
secularized and their lands divided among the Californios as ranchos in the form of land grants.The
ranchos facilitated the growth of a semi-aristocratic group that controlled large ranchos or land grants.
The local Native American populations,who were essentially used as forced labor,accomplished work on
these large tracts of land.Consequently,the Obispeno Chumash,as well as other groups across
California,were forced into a marginalized existence as peons on the large land grant ranchos(Englehart
1933).Ranchos in the general project area include San Bemardo(Cane),Canada de los Osos y Pecho y
Islay,EI Chorro,San Luisito,Potrero de San Luis Obispo,Laguna,and Huerta de Romualdo or EI Chorro
(Beck and Haase 1974).
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-53
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
The end of the Mexican-American War and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 ,
marked the beginning of the.American Period (ca.1848-Present)in California history.The onset of this
period did not.bring about a change in the economic condition of the Native American populations
working on the ranchos.The rancho system generally remained intact until 1862-1864,when a drought
forced many landowners to sell off or subdivide their holdings.At this time ranges began to be fenced
and the economy began to shift from cattle ranching to dairy farming and agriculture based on new
crops such as wheat.Regardless of a change of economic focus,the plight of Native American
populations remained at best relatively unchanged(e.g.,the U.S.Senate rejected treaties between the
government and Native Americans in 1851 and 1852,and military reserves were established to maintain
various groups) (Heizer 1974).Subsequent conflicts regarding reservation lands(e.g.,the Santa Ynez
Chumash Reservation was established in 1901 at Santa Ynez,just east of Santa Barbara)and local and
federal recognition continue to the present. ,
Local Setting '
Bowden Ranch Property and Adjacent Properties.T-vm Three studies have been completed that
specifically address cultural resources found on the Bowden Estates property:
• Archaeological survey of the property by Gibson (2000);
• Historical assessment of the property and features found by Gibson(Chattel Architecture
2000); ,
• Bowden Ranch Development Supplemental Report by Chattel (2003)
prepesed pice�eet site (PaF'eeF;996),and the.icepen ef FneRkeFiAg db!FiRg eeH9tFUEtieI9 fGF the same paFEel
(Par'EeF �99 .Two architectural studies were also completed for the La Loma Adobe by Allen and
Sanchez(1998)and Sanchez(1998).While the La Loma Adobe is no longer within the Bowden Ranch
Estates property,these reports contain chronological information on use of the combined properties
since the mid 1850s.
pfief te Gibsen,9(2eee)siudy fef the Bewden Rameh Estates,Pafleer(1996) eempleted a study feF a single
family henge leeated eR the west-side ef lets 19,29-and 2! e4ilge pFepesed Bowden Raigeh Estates.:Fhe 6a
feundatieig that nweasuFed 10 by 26 feet aeFess,and c-eald haye-been as tall as 2 feet and 6 iFlEhes .
PaFkef(1996)suggested that the fetindatien dated te the late 1 809's and was asseeiated with the 6a,
6eFna Adebe whieh beFdeFed the west side ef the.paFEel.Meigitefing ef eenstFdEtien by PaNeeF(1997)did
Robert Gibson (Gibson 2000)conducted an archival review and pedestrian survey of the Bowden Ranch
Estates property.Since 1981,six archaeological surveys have been conducted in the general area of
Bowden Ranch Estates property,but no prehistoric sites have been recorded.The La Loma Adobe(CA- ,
SLO-1802H)was noted adjacent to the project area.
3-54 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 ,
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Gibson's survey did not result in the discovery of any prehistoric resources.He did note several features
associated with historic period use of the La Loma.Adobe.These features included two water tanks,
pipes,and fence lines associated with the La Loma Adobe.He also noted non-native vegetation
consisting of a eucalyptus tree windbreak,a prickly pear(mission cactus)field located primarily between
two drainages,agave,olive trees,black walnut trees,pepper trees,coffee bent',and anise.
In response to the Gibson study,Chattel Architecture(2000)completed an historic review report
addressing a number of the recommendations put forward by Gibson(2000).The report presents an
' adequate chronology of use of the property in relation to occupation of La Loma Adobe that has been
summarized in the preceding section.Chattel Architecture also presents documentation for nine features
found on the Bowden Estates property.The features include a stand of eucalyptus trees,a farm house,a
fence line,a barn,an arroyo stone foundation,a water tank,a prickly pear field,an ABS pipe,and aspring
box(Chattel Architecture 2000),described below:
Eucalyptus Stand.Sometime between 1887 and 1898 a small stand of eucalyptus,or blue gum trees,
were planted by Mrs.John Corbit.The grove is still standing and is located on both sides of the creek
below the confluence of two drainages.Eucalyptus trees were introduced to California for windscreens,
fuel,and construction lumber(Chattel Architecture 2000).
Farm House and Barn.At some unknown date,a wood-framed farmhouse was constructed across the
creek and northeast of the Adobe.The house was moved in 1946 to a new location at 2046 King Street
(Chattel Architecture 2000).Based on the map provided by Chattel,the farmhouse and barn would be
located in the vicinity of lots 3,4 and 5,bordering Woodland Drive.
Fence Line.A barbed wire fence runs for a distance across the Bowden Ranch property(Chattel
Architecture 2000).The date of construction is unknown,but barbed wire fences are common features of
any ranch as a way to corral cattle and other livestock.
Barn.A barn was built sometime between 1905 and 1910 on the north bank of the creek near the La
Loma Adobe.The barn was demolished in 1995.It was rectangular in shape and had a gabled roof and
shed extension with redwood siding (Chattel Architecture 2000).The barn may have been located along
a paved access road to the Bowden Ranch property.
Arroyo Stone Foundation.A cobble,or arroyo,stone foundation was discovered on the Bowden
' property in 1996 near the location of the barn (Chattel Architecture 2000).Although itis not known what
the structure(no longer standing)supported by the foundation was used for,the foundation itself dated
to the late 1800's.It measures 10 by 26 feet across and could have been as tall as 2 feet and 6 inches high
' (Chattel Architecture 2000).
The recent site visit
and assessment suggests it is in the vicinity of the proposed Lizzie Court extension and Lot 21.
Prickly Pear Field.The prickly pear field (Opuntia ficus indica)is located between two intermittent
drainages in the eastern edge of the property and is thought to be associated with early occupation of
' the La Loma Adobe.Although there is no real date for the appearance of the prickly pearfield,the plant
was economically important to Spanish settlers.Also known as the Mission cactus or Indian fig,the fruit
(tuna)and pads(nopales)are edible.The juice was used as an additive in paint and plaster for adobe
' walls.They were also planted as hedges around gardens and orchards.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-55
' August 2003
i
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Water Tank.The water tank is located overlooking the northernmost drainage adjacent to the prickly t
pear field.The current tank replaced another tank built sometime between 1.900 and 1915 (Chattel
Architecture 2000).Metal pipes are still in place that may have crossed the creek(north)towards the La t
Loma Adobe.
ABS Pipe.Chattel Architecture(2000)describes plastic pipe beginning at the spring box at the northeast
edge of the property and continuing in a northwesterly direction downslope toward the La Loma Adobe. '
It is partially buried and exposed.The ABS(plastic)pipe was installed.in 1996.. Clearly,the ABS is a
modern feature of the Bowden ranch and is not a contributing historical element of early occupation of 1
the Bowden Ranch.
Spring Box.The current spring box,constructed in 1993,is one that replaces an older redwood box used
to supply the Adobe with water,as well as water for the cattle.The box was 36 inches square and level ,
with the ground.The old box was removed when the new concrete spring box was put in (Chattel
Architecture 2000).The spring box has been reconstructed within the last ten years and is not considered
a historic feature of the La Loma Adobe or Bowden Ranch. ,
Recent Site Inspection.A Feeent site Ylsit eenduaed feF this EIR neted but did net feeerd fetiF additienel
Trash Dump.Aa trash dump consisting of primarily cans and wood,was observed within a vegetated ,
area in Lots 18,19 and 20.
Large Can Dump.The second feature,a large can dump situated within a prickly pear stand,is located
within the eucalyptus windbreak on the north bank of the creek
Ash Lens.The third feature,an ash lens observed on the south side of the creek across from(south of)
the La Loma Adobe,is located at the southwest corner of Lot 21 and within the proposed Lizzie Court. '
Fired Red Brick Tile.Within the fourth feature was found a fired red brick tile eroding out of the creek
bank The creek bank.in this area may have been rock-lined.A small rock-lined wall was noted on the 1
north bank of the main drainage along the south edge of Lot 13.
Although not found during the surface survey of the area by Gibson(2000),there is the potential for
contact with period resources or artifacts.The Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)conducted
a sacred lands inventory.In a letter dated September 6,2002(Appendix E),the NAHC indicated that no
known Native American cultural resources were identified in the project area.
La Loma Adobe.Most,if not all,of the features noted by the Gibson (2000)survey are associated with
the La Loma Adobe.The La Loma Adobe has been recorded with the California Historical Resources
Information System as CA-SLO-1802. '
The La Loma Adobe is located at 1590 Lizzie Street in San Luis Obispo.While not located in the project.
area,the Adobe.is immediately adjacent to proposed Lizzie Court on the north side of the.project area.
The Historic Review Report(Chattel Architecture 2000:21-28)provides the most recent chronology
regarding acquisition,use,and transfer of title for the Bowden Estates property,which is summarized
below.There is some debate as to the age of the La Loma Adobe.Chattel Architecture(2000:4)suggest '
that the Adobe,which lies adjacent to the proposed development area,was constructed in 1782.The
Adobe possibly housed the mission overseer.A second story was added pre-1846(cf.Kreiger 1990).On
3-56 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
the other hand,Parker(1996)indicates,"it seems equally possible that the adobe was not constructed
until the 1830's(or didn't become a two story structure till that time)"(Parker 19963).The Bowden
' Estates property,which included the La Loma Adobe,was initially pan:of the La Vena land grant
petitioned for by Francisco Estevan Quintana in 1842.Francisco Estevan Quintana,a very successful
cattleman,owned at least 6,000 acres of land in San Luis Obispo County and several properties within the
' City of San Luis Obispo(Thompson and West 1883).His son,Pedro Quintana,is also noted in the
Thompson and West History of San Luis Obispo County(1883)as a large landowner with property
northwest of the City of San Luis Obispo.
During 1842,Maria Concepci6n Boronda,acquired a portion of the La Vena land,which included the La
Loma Adobe(Chattel Architecture 2000).Apparently she traded a portion of her property for a corner of
La Vena land that contained two adobe buildings(Sanchez 1998:3).She was granted the 3,506-acre land
grant called Rancho Potrero de San Luis Obispo,which was patented and confirmed on July 1, 1870.The
property that included La Loma Adobe and the Bowden Estates project area stayed within the Maria
Boronda's family until 1887,when it was sold to John Corbit and in 1889,the property was subdivided
and became the Piedmont Tract(Chattel Architecture 2000).In 1898,Corbit.sold the property to Mrs.
Caroline Evangeline Philbrick Bowden Noyes and in 1900,a portion of the property was transferred to
t Charles Bowden(Chattel Architecture 2000).The property,known as the.Bowden Ranch,remained in the
Bowden family until 1989,when John Auden acquired an interest in the property(Chattel Architecture
2000:28).The adobe appears to be uninhabited after 1953,although ranching activities continued on the
property.In 1995,the adobe residence was deeded to the City of San Luis Obispo.
REGULATORY SETTING
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA)requires consideration of historic preservation in
Federal actions,such as those involving impacts to wetlands under Corps permitting.Section 106
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and provide the
Council an opportunity to comment on Federal projects prior to implementation.
1 California Public Resources Code
Cultural resources must be addressed pursuant to regulatory guidance found in Section 5024 of the
California Public Resources Code,which established the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR).Both CEQA and guidelines for the CRHR direct agencies to avoid effects to cultural resources
determined to be eligible for the CRHR whenever possible.
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
The Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan includes a policy that addresses historic adobes.
Policy 8.13 states:
OS 8.1.3:Protection of Archaeological Resources.In areas where it is suspected that
archaeological resources may exist,the agency with jurisdiction should require surface surveys,
literature searches,and sub-surface testing priorto site development or grading.
1 -
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-57
tAugust 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Restored adobes may also be open to the public depending on their condition. '
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS '
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following is an area of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
of the proposed project:
The potential to alter,damage,or destroy important cultural resources on or near the t
project site
Thresholds of Significance
u and afe
n u Feseufeen u adye Fse ehe ng
u-S—U1
L 1 A.diverse Substantial_tial adye__..change :.al fined as the . hyszeJ demelitie . 1
Change. ava�oe ciiai vc �r�y
impaired.phys6eal EhaFaL4eFistiEs ef an hist1
,
ulistefieal
n.
i
r ,
3-58 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
,engineefing,sdemik,
FesewFEe shall be histeFieally signifleafit if it!
1 a is asseeiated with eyeF« that made a signifi.EaRt EeH4ibW!i8H te the bFead paneffis c
wIIrC6ti6 YAWS
Gw'dehnes difea that,when a prejea weuld ifnpaa an afehaeelegieal site,the lead agency sheuld
4
Gede•"Unique h. ..
/e6jeet/ .
eafi
high b _/ t-
type
As defined in California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Statues at Section 21084.1:
An historical resource is a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in,the
California Register of Historical Resources.Historical resources included in a local register of
historical resources as defined in subdivision(k)of Section 5020.1,or deemed-significant
1 pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(g)of Section 5024.1 are presumed to be historically
or culturally significant for purposes of this section unless the preponderance of the evidence
demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.The fact that a
resource is not listed in or determined to-be eligible for listing in,the California Register of
Historical Resources not included in a local register of historical resources,or not deemed
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(g)of Section 5024.1 shall not preclude.a.
lead agency from determining whether or the resource may be an historical resource.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines a project impact would be considered significant if the project
would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource:as defined
in Section 15064.5;
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
MHA Inc.3-59
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5;
• Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature;or
• Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means"physical demolition,
destruction,relocation,or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired."'
The significance of an-historical resource is materially impaired when,a project:
A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in,or
eligibility for,inclusion in the California Register of Historical-Resources;or
B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those.physical characteristics that
account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant.to section
5020.1(k)of the Public Resources Code.or its identification in an historical resources surrey
meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g)of the Public Resources Code,unless the
public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes.by a preponderance of the
evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant;or
C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those.physical characteristics of an
historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency
for purposes of CEQA?
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Potential Impact 3.41.Potential to disturb,destroy,or adversely affect the integrity of
cultural(prehistoric,historic) resources on or adjacent to the project site.
.
date,
' §15064.5(4)(b)(1).Emphasis added.
Z§15064.5(4)(b)(2).
3-60 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1spe ,but is ineluded en the San Wis
1
1
1 EsWe.pr,epeny that fnay be affeeted need te be eyaluated With FespeEt te GEQA Guidelines and#�e
GRI 114.
the pfejea site. Hs Feeemmendatiens
� i c renee r u rIgetafien 1 irb mapped
1 r
1
1
1
1
1
1
identified
histefieal ef amhaeeleg:Eal features en fige pfejeet site te less than signifleant leye6
1GRI Ill eligibility ef these featufes asseEiated with the 6a 6efna adebe.This wetiiel FequiFe
r
1
,-
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-61
1 August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
,
1
the full east ek-he qualified histepieal afehaeelegisVs semees.if the qualified hister4eal
Potential ImPaeft to Mown Potentially Significant Cultural Resources
„• PFesefvatien nnn 523 c..... These..peeifie fesetifees iRE'tide!
` Ew Eal..ptus Stand
__e. I •
�r�eTILe.cn c.
ane f l eEatien of the Baa i i I
Priddy Pew Field
rl-T!S[07TCR7CVSiCITCrthe 1/4SCI l al lIC
� A6h lenJ
L:Fed tied Lam:_-I.tmie '
3-62 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1
cfefn theseWeas.The _heel, ept equipment
qualifiedr
r
tIf ayeidanee.6 deteFFnined te be infeasible,the applieant '
1 ,but shall net
be limited te,funhef study fep defefmining if these reseur-Ees am eligible feF listing en the
La Loma Adobe.The La Loma Adobe is not.listed in the National Register of Historic Places(National
Register) It was nominated for listing in the National Register in 1997 but was"denied by[California
' Office of Historic Preservation]staff,"and the application is considered inactive-(Attachment 1,single
property print-out) The-La Loma Adobe is not listed in the California Register.However,the La Loma
Adobe-is included in the Master List of Historic Resources(San Luis Obispo City Council,Resolution
Number 827 March 15 1994) which serves as the local register of historical resources?Thus,the La
Loma Adobe has"presumptive significance"and is considered an historical resource as defined in CEQA.
1 Identified Ancillary Features.The identified ancillary features include:stand of eucalyptus trees,
approximate location (former site)of relocated farmhouse(relocated in 1946),fence line,approximate
location (former site)of bam(removed in 1995),site of arroyo stone foundation,water tank remnants,
prickly pear field exposed ABS pipe spring box trash dump large can dump ash lens and rock-lined
wall with fired red brick tile.The.features are principally disparate landscape elements,or former sites,
remnants and ruins of earlier buildings,and do not.form.a cohesively designed,cultural landscape as a
' whole.Four of the features are contemporary,these include:fence line,exposed ABS pipe(installed
1996) watertank remnants(constructed circa 1985-1.990),and spring box(constructed circa 1993).Most,
if not all of the identified ancillary features cannot be directly linked to specific events(criterion 1)or
' significant individuals(criterion 2),and none of the ancillary features embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type period or method of construction,nor do any represent the work of the master,
1
1 3 Public.Resources Code§5020.1 (k)asserts that"local register of historical resources"means a list of properties
officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or
' resolution.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-63
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
or possess high artistic values(criterion 3). The four contemporary features noted above(fence line, '
exposed ABS pipe water tank remnants and spring box)do not appear to retain sufficient integrity to an
earlier period and therefore do not have the potential to contributeinformation important to prehistory
or history(criterion 4) The remaining identified ancillary features as more fully described below,may
contribute to the setting of the La Loma Adobe and by a process of elimination,would only be
potentially significant under criterion 4 for their information potential.However,all of the identified '
ancillary features either individually or collectively,do not appear to have sufficient significance or
integrity for listing in the California Register under any of the four criteria.
Some of the identified ancillary features have a direct association to the La Loma Adobe as components '
of its immediate surroundings and can therefore be classified as contributing to the adobe's setting.
Contributing setting features include:stand of eucalyptus trees,former site of relocated farmhouse, '
prickly pear field,former site of barnand site of arroyo stone foundation.The stand of eucalyptus trees
and prickly pear field are important physical features of the adobe setting.The former site of relocated
farmhouse former site of barn and site of arroyo stone foundation are only important for their '
information potential specifically information they may provide about the La Loma Adobe and how this
adjoining property was historically used.
The identified ancillary features also include features that were first identified in the DEIR.Because.no
additional research or documentation has been done on these features,which include a trash dump,
large can dump ash lens and rock-lined wall with fired red brick tile,these features are also treated as
contributing components of the setting of the.La Loma Adobe. '
The La Loma Adobe is located outside the.boundary of the proiect site,and no foreseeable,direct,
project related impacts to the adobe proper are anticipated Direct impacts to contributing setting
features would affect the immediate surroundings of the adobe and therefore have only an indirect
impact on the La Loma Adobe.These direct and indirect impacts are described below.
Eucalyptus Stand Most of the stand of eucalyptus(Eucalyptus globulus)or"blue gum"that lines the t
creek near the residence is proposed to be retained.While the eucalyptus stand may have been planted
by Mrs john Corhir(circa 1817-1898) it has randomly spread around the creek the closest source of '
water.It does not exhibit the linear,single-file character of a_windrow or windbreak.A common features
locally and regionally,loss of a portion of the eucalyptus stand is a less than significant direct impact to
the feature Because a substantial portion of the eucalyptus stand is retained,this is also a less than
significant indirect impact to the La-Loma Adobe.
°California Public Resources Code,PRC§5024.1 provides that in order for a property to be considered eligible for
listing in the California Register,it must be found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be significant t
under one of the following four criteria:
1. Is associated with events that have made a.significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's
history and cultural heritage.
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past '
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,.region,or method of construction,or
represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values.
4. Has yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history. '
s Eucalyptus stands are relatively commonplace,as evidenced by aerial photographs,which show adjoining
properties,including the school to the north. '
3-64 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 1
' 3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Approximate Location of Relocated Farmhouse.The former site of the relocated farmhouse is within
proposed Lot 1.Site grading would cause a direct impact to the site,and an indirect impact to the La
' Loma Adobe..
Approximate Location of Barn.The.former site of the barn is within the proposed extension of Lizzie
Court.Site grading would cause a direct impact to the site,and an indirect impact to the La Loma Adobe.
Site of Arroyo Stone Foundation.The site of the arroyo stone foundation is within proposed Lot 20.
Site grading would cause a direct impact to the site,and an indirect impact to the La Loma Adobe.
Prickly Pear Field.Most of the prickly pear field is proposed to be retained.A relatively common feature
locally and regionally,loss of a portion of the prickly pear field is a less than significant direct impact.to
' the field-Because a substantial portion of the field is retained,this is also a less than significant indirect
impact to the La.Loma Adobe.
Trash Dump.The trash dump is located within proposed Lots 18,19 and 20.Site grading would cause a
' direct impact to the dump,and an indirect impact to the La Loma Adobe.
Can Dump.The can dump is within areas proposed for development.Site grading would cause a direct
impact to the dump,and an indirect impact to the La Loma Adobe.
Ash Lens.The.ash lens is located within the proposed extension of Lizzie Court.Site grading would
cause.a direct impact to the ash lens,and an indirect impact to the La Loma Adobe.
Rock-Lined Wall with Fired Red Brick Tile.The rock-lined wall with fired red brick tile is located along
the south border of proposed Lot 13.Site grading would cause a direct impact to the wall,and an
' indirect impact to the La Loma Adobe.
As noted above,the La Loma Adobe has been recognized as having presumptive significance under
' CEQA.Contributing setting features have been identified that contribute to its immediate surroundings or
setting,these include eucalyptus.stand,approximate location of relocated farmhouse,approximate
location ofbam,site of arroyo stone foundation,prickly pear field,trash dump,can dump,ash lens,rock-
lined wall with fired red brick tile.
Substantial portions of the eucalyptus stand and prickly pear field are proposed to be retained,resulting
' in less than significant indirect and direct impacts to the resource(La Loma Adobe)and features
(eucalyptus stand and prickly pear field).Remaining contributing setting features(approximate location
of relocated farmhouse,approximate location of bam,site of arroyo stone foundation,trash dump,can
dump,ash lens,rock-lined wall with fired red brick.tile)are only Important for their information potential.
When feasible,avoidance and retention in situ of resources or setting features significant for their
information potential is always preferable.If avoidance is not possible or feasible,retention.of substantial
portions of the feature is preferable.In those.cases where retention of all or substantial portions of
features significant fortheir information potential is not possible,retrieving the.scientifically
consequential information contained in the feature can generally mitigate project impacts to a less than
significant level.
In order to reduce potential project impacts on the adobe or it's setting;.the following mitigation
' measures should be implemented.Implementation of these mitigation measures reduces direct and
indirect impacts to a less than significant level.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-65
1 August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Avoidance.and retention of the principal historical resource and contributing setting features is '
preferable to proiect-related damage alteration or demolition.While contributing setting.features are
being treated as component resources their significance is principally based on the potential to yield '
important information;therefore the preferable treatment for these features is avoidance and retention
in situ.In order to avoid and where avoidance is not feasible,the following work,as outlined in this EIR,
shall be undertaken to reduce potentially significant.impacts to less-than-significant levels: '
Mitigation Measure 3.41.All design-level engineering and construction drawings shall
be prepared in consultation with an archaeologist,acceptable to the City.Facilities,staging
areas and any activity involving ground disturbance.shall be located to avoid resources
determined to be.significant.To ensure that no inadvertent damage occurs to cultural
resources the cultural resource boundaries shall be marked as exclusion zones both on
construction drawings and on the ground.Construction supervisory personnel shall be
notified of the existence of these resources and shall be required to keep personnel and
equipment away from these areas.The qualified archaeologist,acceptable to the City,shall '
be notified prior to initiation of construction activities.Periodic monitoring of cultural
resources to be avoided shall be completed by the qualified archeologist to ensure that no
inadvertent damage to the resources occurs as a result of construction or '
construction-related activities.The timing and frequency of this monitoring shall be at the
discretion of the qualified archaeologist.
If avoidance is determined to be infeasible,the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist,
acceptable to the City,to record document and curate the resource in accordance with all applicable
laws regulations and accepted professional practice With implementation of Mitigation Measure 1
impacts to contributing setting features including former site of relocated farmhouse,former site of
barn site of arroyo stone foundation trash dump can dump,ash lens,and rock-lined wall with fired red
brick the should be reduced to a less than significant level. '
Mitigation Measure 3.42.The Gibson Report an archaeological survey,was prepared for
the proposed project and recommended ."a historic archaeologist...review the grading
plans and possibly conduct archaeological monitoring during.grading.Historic review,
documentation including photographs and mapping will need to be done prior to grading
[accomplished by Chattel Reportl The historic review may also identify areas where ,
archaeological monitoring may be necessary of construction grading"(Gibson Report,page
The Gibson Report continues:
In the rare event if during construction excavation any intact prehistoric or historic cultural
materials are unearthed work in that area should halt until they can be examined by a '
qualified archaeologist and appropriate recommendations made as outlined in California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970.In such an event,contact the San Luis Obispo City
Planning Department or a qualified historic archaeologist.
These steps will adequately mitigate any adverse impact the proposed Bowden Ranch Estates Project
may have on potentially significant historic cultural resources (Page 6).With implementation,Mitigation 1
Measure 3.42 should reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
3-66 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Anticipated impacts to the immediate surrounding of the La Loma Adobe include introduction of new
roadways sidewalks residential site preparation (grading for building pads) and associated other work
(such as building infrastructure) Overthe past 50 or more years the character of the immediate
surroundings of the LaLoma Adobe has changed This includes construction of school facilities,
including playing field Isand numerous single-family residences in the vicinityof the La Loma Adobe.
' Based on the fact that contemporary homes have been recently constructed_on both the east and west
sides immediately adjacent to the La Loma Adobe construction of additional,new homes should.have
no further impact on its setting Recommendations contained in DEIR Mitigation Measures,when
implemented should reduce impacts of the proposed residential development to a less than significant
level The Mitigation Measures addressing Aesthetics Biological ng,
Resources and Land Use and Planni
are collectively intended to maintain as closely as possible the current urban residential-to-natural open
space transitional character of the proiect site The following mitigation measure would further reduce
potential impacts to the setting of the La Loma Adobe.
' Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 If feasible road sections including street width,curb,gutter
and sidewalk,should be designed to preserve and enhance the rural character of the
existing proiect site Use of the narrowest-possible,asphalt-paved road width,rolled
concrete curb-and-gutter,and elimination of-sidewalks further addresses potential impacts
to the setting of the La Loma Adobe by retaining to the extent feasible the rural character
of the existing project site.
tWith implementation of Mitigation Measure 34-3 the proposed project is expected to have no greater
impact on the La Loma Adobe than previous intrusions have had to its immediate setting.The proposed
' project is expected to result in a less than significant impact on the La Loma Adobe.
' Table 3.4-1 Summary of Potential Cultural Resource Impacts Mitigation,and Level of Significance
Resource Potential impacts Applicable mitigation Level of significance
'
after mitigation
La Loma Adobe Indirect Mitigation Measures Less than significant
3.4-1 and 3.4-3
tContributing feature
1.Eucalyptus stand Less than significant. None Less than significant
2.Approximate location Indirect and direct Mitigation Measure 3.4- Less than significant
of relocated farmhouse 1
3.Approximate location Indirect and direct Mitigation Measure 3.4- Less than significant
of barn 1_
4.Site of arroyo stone Indirect and direct Mitigation Measure 3.4- Less than significant
foundation 1
S.Prickly Pear field Less than significant None Less than significant
6.Trash dump Indirect.and direct Mitigation Measure 3.4- Less than significant
t
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc..3-67
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
7.Can dump Indirect and.direct Mitigation Measure 3.4- Less than significant
1 1
8.Ash lens Indirect and.direct Mitigation Measure 3.4- Less than significant
.9.Rock-lined wall with Indirect and direct Mitigation Measure 3.4- Less than significant
fired red brick tile 1 '
SOURCE:Bowden Ranch Development Supplemental Report 2003
3.5 Energy and Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is situated on a westward facing hillside,at the eastern edge of the City.The
predominant orientation of that portion of the project site proposed for residential development is west '
to north-northeast.
REGULATORY SETTING '
Local '
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan's Energy Conservation Element outlines a series of goals,
policies,and programs aimed at policies to encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use,
including: '
• EC 1.2.4:Private.Sector Performance.The City's intervention in the private sector will
focus on areas where typical performance lags behind what is technically and economically
feasible.First priority will be the elimination of obstacles to the use of alternative energy
sources in both existing and.new development.New development will be encouraged to
minimize the use of conventional energy for space heating and cooling,water heating,and '
illumination by means of proper design and orientation,including the provision and
protection of solar exposure.The energy performance of existing structures will be
upgraded. '
• EC 1.2S:Accelerate Trends Toward Energy Self-Sufficiency.Through design standards,
discretionary review,and public recognition of good examples,the City will attempt to '
accelerate trends already underway in the private sector to move individual properties and
the-community as a whole toward energy self-sufficiency.
The City's Municipal Code also outlines in ordinance form requirements for the consideration of energy
consumption in development:
Section 1636.170 Solar orientation.The longest dimension of each lot shall be oriented within '
thirty degrees of south,unless the sub divider demonstrates that for certain lots:
3-68 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
The lots are large enough to allow proper building orientation and maximum feasible control of
solar exposure by the lot owner,regardless of lot orientation;
' Buildings will be constructed as part of the subdivision project(as in condominium or planned
development)and the buildings themselves will be properly oriented,with adequate solar
exposure;
Topography makes variations from the prescribed orientation desirable to reduce grading or tree
removal or to take advantage of a setting that favors early morning or late afternoon exposure,or
where topographical conditions make solar energy infeasible;
The size of the subdivision in relation to surrounding streets and lots precludes desirable lot
orientation.(Ord.934§ 1 (part), 1982:prior code§9107.3(C))
16:36.260 Generally.
A.In order to provide for the maximum feasible use of solar energy within subdivisions,the
' city may require establishment of a system of easements to protect access to sunlight.
Such easements shall be established on each parcel for the benefit of neighboring
parcels within the subdivision.Such easements will not be required when:
1. A plan for building construction and landscaping is approved in conjunction with
the subdivision approval,and the plan will provide an acceptable level of solar
' exposure,as provided in the energy element of the general plan;or
2. The size and shape of the parcels together with the yard and height restrictions of
the zoning regulations will allow subsequent development of each parcel in a way
which will not eliminate acceptable solar exposure for neighboring parcels within
the subdivision;or
' 3. The subdivision is a condominium conversion.
Depending on the circumstances and conditions prevailing,the city may require
easements for some of the lots within a subdivision.
B.Solar access easements shall protect solar exposure during the period from ten a.m.to
two pm.,Pacific standard time,on the winter solstice,unless topographical conditions or
other overriding design considerations make protection of some other,equivalent time
interval more desirable.They shall be recorded concurrent with recordation of the
subdivision map.
C.The description of the easement shall include:
1. Either:
' a.A plan review of the easement area in relation to lot lines,together with
notations on the maximum height of structures or vegetation which may
occupy the easement area (preferred form for easements);or
' b.A written description specifying the easement as a plane limiting the height of
structures or vegetation,such plane beginning at a line clearly defined in
relation to ground elevation and lot line location,and extending upward at a
' specific angle(altitude)in a specific direction (azimuth);
2. The restrictions placed on vegetation,structures or other objects that would impair
' or obstruct passage of sunlight through the easement;
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-69
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
3. Any terms or conditions under which the easement may be revised or terminated. '
D. The burdens and benefits of the solar easement shall be transferable and run with the
land to subsequent grantees of the original grantor(s)and grantee(s).
E. The establishment of solar easements is not intended to result in reducing allowable.
densities or the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by structures under zoning in
force at the time the easement is established. '
Section 17.18.080 Energy conservation.The use of conventional energy sources for space heating
and cooling,water heating,and illumination shall be minimized by means of proper design and '
orientation,including provision and protection of solar exposure.(Ord. 1265 §2 Ex.A, 1994)
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following topics are areas of potential environmental concern that may be associated with
implementation of the proposed project:
• The potential to conflict with adopted energy conservation plans '
• The potential to use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner
• The potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be '
of value to the region and the residents of the state
Thresholds of Significance '
The following thresholds of significance are used to determine the level of impact to areas of potential
environmental concern.The project would have a significant effect if it would: '
• Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans
• Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner t
• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the.state
Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures '
There are no known on-site energy or mineral resources that would be affected by the proposed project:
this impact is not significant.The following other impacts are potentially significant,but are reduced to
less-than-significant levels by the proposed mitigation measure. '
Potential Impact 3.5-1.The potential to conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.
Lots proposed are large enough to enable houses to take advantage of solar exposure without requiring
that the longest dimension of the lot be oriented within 30 degrees of south.To address the cumulative
impacts of energy use on air quality, comments from the Air Pollution Control District recommend that t
building design exceed baseline energy efficiency standards.
3-70 MHA Inc
Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
This impact would be reduced to less than significant levels with the adoption of the following
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure 35-1: Landscaping plans for individual lots shall include shade trees along the
southwestern side of the houses to reduce summer cooling needs. In addition, the following
measures would betaken:
' a. All glazing shall be dual-paned.
b. Wall and ceiling insulation shall exceed Title 24 energy standards to the satisfaction of the
' Community Development.Director.
c. Appliances,furnaces,water heaters,and lighting shall be high-efficiency and energy conserving
' to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
d. The project shall use energy efficient lighting.
Potential Impact 35-2.The potential to use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner.
This impact is reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-
1.
' 3.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
1 Section 3.6 of this E1R is based in part on the peer review of four geologic resource reports prepared by or on
behalf of the applicant
Earth Systems Pacific.2001.Soils Engineering Report,Tract 2420—Bowden Ranch.Estates,San Luis
Obispo,California.
Earth Systems Pacific.2000a.Geologic Hazards Study,Bowden Ranch Estates,22 Lot Residential
1 Subdivision,Northeast End of Lizzie Street,Son Luis Obispo,California.
Earth Systems Pacific.2000b.Geotechnical Feasibility Report,Bowden Ranch Estates,22 Lot Residential
Subdivision,Northeast End of Lizzie Street,San Luis Obispo,California.
EDA.2002.Engineering Development Associates."Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan forTract2420,
Bowden Ranch Estates."(Map]9Jan.2002.
' These reports are incorporated by reference into this E1R and are available for review at the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Planning Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Geology
The project site is located on the southern end of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range within the Coast
1 Range geomorphic province of California.The Coast Range geomorphic province is a series of northwest
trending ridges and valleys that run parallel to the coast.The province consists of two distinct structural
features existing side-by-side(the Jurassic-Cretaceous Franciscan Complex and the Jurassic-Cretaceous
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-71
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
granitic rocks(65 to 190 million years old)).The geologic and topographic characteristics of the Coast '
Ranges Province are a product of the combination of the tectonic processes,geologic materials,and
climate of the region. '
The Santa Lucia Mountains,a component of the Coast Range,extend approximately from the City of
Santa Maria to the City of Monterey.The mountain range is characterized by the widespread occurrence
of deformed and partially metamorphosed marine rocks of the Franciscan Complex.The Franciscan '
Complex is a melange of various rock types including claystone,sandstone(greywacke),chert,
serpentine,greenstone,shale,and high-grade metamorphic rocks such as eclogite and blueschist.These
rocks are pervasively faulted and fractured,often making them unstable on steep mountain slopes.The '
Franciscan Complex forms the geologic foundation underlying the City of San.Luis Obispo and the bulk
of the Santa Lucia Hills(Hall CA,et a1. 1979). '
Regional Seismicity
San Luis Obispo is located within an active plate margin tectonic environment.Three main faults have '
been mapped within 5 miles(8 km)of the project site:
• The Cambria fault; '
• The Oceanic fault;and
• The Los Osos fault(Earth Systems Pacific 2000a).
The Cambria fault,located approximately 1 mile(1.6 km)northeast of the project site,can be
distinguished by the series of serpentine rock ridges that appear along its course.The Oceanic fault,
located approximately 2 miles(3 km)northeast of the project site,lies along the crest.of the Santa Lucia
Mountain Range.The Cambria and Oceanic faults have been classified by the California Department of
Mines and Geology(CDMG)as potentially active.Potentially active faults are faults that have shown
displacement in the Pleistocene(during the last 1.6 million years),but have shown no evidence of
movement during the Holocene(within the last 11,000 years).
The Los Osos fault,located approximately miles(5 km)southwest of the.project site,runs along the
northern flank of the Irish Hills in western San Luis Obispo.Two miles(3.2 km)of the Los Osos fault are
zoned active by CDMG,indicating that this segment of the fault has shown displacement within the last
11,000 years.The active segment of the fault is located approximately 4 miles (6.4 km)southwest of the
project site,near Laguna Lake.The average slip rate of the Los Osos fault has been estimated at 0.5
millimeters per year(SLO County 1999). '
Groundshaking '
San Luis Obispo is subject to earthquakes along faults and potentially strong groundshaking.The
intensity of groundshaking at any particular site is a function of many factors including:1)earthquake
magnitude;2)distance from the epicenter;3)the duration of strong ground motion;and 4)local '
geologic conditions(soil characteristics and topography).Probable sources of seismically induced
groundshaking in the City of San Luis Obispo were discussed in the Technical Background Report for the
Safety Element of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan.Potential sources of earthquake-induced '
groundshaking in the City are presented in Table 3.6-1.
3-72 MHA Inc
Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
' 3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' The San Andreas Fault and the offshore Hosgri faults are considered to present the greatest risk from
strong groundshaking to the City of San Luis Obispo.The.active Los Osos fault also has the potential to
' generate strong ground motion in the City.In addition to the mapped faults,blind thrust faults,located
deep below the surface in the coastal area,are capable of producing strong ground motion(SLO County
1999).
1
Table 3.6-1.Sources of Ground Shaking in the Vicinity of the City of San Luis Obispo
' Maximum Anticipated
Approximate Distance Maximum Earthquake Probable Acceleration
Fault from Project Site (Moment Magnitude) Earthquake Range(g) Status
Cambria 1.25 miles 6.25 Potentially
(2 km) Active
Oceanic 2.25 7.00 - - Potentially
(35 km) Active
' Los Osos 3 miles 7.00 5.00 0.2-0.6 Active
(4 km)
Blind Thrust - 750 5.75 0.2-0.6 -
' Faults
Rinconada 8 miles 7.50 6.25 0.2-03 Potentially
(13 km) Active
Wilmar 9mIles 6.50 4.00 <0.1-0.3 Potentially
Avenue (14 km) Active
Pecho 12 miles 6.25 3.00 <0.1-02 Potentially
09 km) Active
Hosgri 15:5 miles 750 6.50 0.1-02 Active
(25 km)
La Panza 17 miles 7.50 5.00 <0.1-0.3 Potentially
1 (27 km) Active
San Andreas 36 miles 8.25 8.00 0.1-0.2 Active
(57 km)
(1)The moment magnitude is related to the physical size of fault rupture,the movement across the fault,and the strength of the
rock that is faulted.Earthquakes with magnitudes of 6 or greater are capable of causing widespread damage.
' (2)Earthquake acceleration is defined as the speed at which the ground moves with respect to the force of gravity.An upward
vertical ground acceleration of 1.0 g would throw loose objects into the air.
1 (3)Active faults are defined as faults that show signs of displacement within the last 11,000 years.Potentially active faults are
faults that shown signs of displacement between 1.6 million and 11,000 years ago.
SOURCE:San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building 1.999.
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-73
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES '
SITE CONDITIONS '
Site Topography
The project site is located on west-facing slopes of the.Santa Lucia Mountains along the eastern
boundary of the City of San Luis Obispo.The project site slopes to the west and can be divided into two
separate areas,the proposed development area and the open space area.The U-L__ReseFve 6 :__(6;R ) '
feFFAs the beufidmy be%veen these twe aFeas-and geneFally follows the 465 feet(I 4G:2 Fn)Mean Sea
Elevations in the proposed development area range from approximately
340 feet 003.6 m)MSL at the intersection of Lizzie Court and Wilding Lane to 465 feet MSL along the URL
(EDA 2002).In the open space area,elevations range from 465 feet.MSL along the URL to roughly 800 feet
(243.8 m)MSL at the northeastern corner of the project site.Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent in the
development area to 30 percent in steep portions of the open space area(USGS 1965).Project site slopes
are presented in Figure 3.6-1.
SITE GEOLOGY AND SOILS '
The project site is underlain by shallow,olive to yellow brown sandstone(greywacke)of the Franciscan
melange(Earth Systems Pacific 2000b).The sandstone is extensively sheared and in large part composed
of greenish/black claystone.Upland areas bordering the eastern boundary of the project site are
composed of serpentinite and serpentinized ultrabasic rocks that are also of Franciscan origin(Hall and '
Prior 1975).
According to the Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County,site soils consist of two primary soil types:
Diablo and Cibo clays(9 to 15 percent slopes);and Los Osos-Diablo complex(15 to 30 and 30 to 50
percent slopes).Diablo and Cibo clays are mapped along the western boundary of the proposed
development area.Diablo and Cibo clays are derived from residual material weathered from sandstone, '
shale,ormudstone and hard sandstone.or shale,respectively.Diablo and Cibo clay soils are
characterized as having a moderate hazard of erosion and high shrink-swell potential.The Los Osos-
Diablo complex is mapped throughout the majority of the project site.Los Osos soils and Diablo soils
form in residual material weathered from sandstone or shale and sandstone,shale,or mudstone,
respectively.The Los Osos-Diablo complex is classified as having a moderate to high hazard of erosion
and a high shrink-swell potential (USDA 1984).
Subsurface soil conditions on the project site were observed in eightvxploratory test boreholes drilled in
June 28,2000,and August 3,2001.Interpretation of the test boreholes indicates that soils on the project
site are generally shallow and consist of dark brown to olive brown sandy fat clay(approximately 1.5 to 4 1
feet thick)underlain by sandstone.Thin layers of fill soil (up to 3 feet in thickness)were encountered near
the intersection of Lizzie Court and Wilding Lane and observed in other isolated areas on the site(Earth
Systems Pacific 2001).
Expansive Soils
Soil expansion is a phenomenon in which clayey soils expand in volume as a result of an increase in
moisture content,and shrink in volume upon drying.Changes in soil volume as a result of changes in
moisture content can stress and result in damage to slab-on-grade type foundations.Expansive soils are '
identified with an expansion index test that evaluates the percentage of clays and liquid limit.It is
generally accepted that soils with an expansion index greater than 50 are susceptible to soil expansion. 1
3-74 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
In an expansion index test performed on a bulk sample of site soils,site soils were rated with an
expansion index of 73 (Earth Systems Pacific 2001).
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following are areas of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
' of the proposed project:
• The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse geologic or soil
effects,including risk of loss,injury,or death
• The potential for substantial soil erosion
• The potential forthe construction of buildings and structures atop expansive soils
• The potential forthe construction of buildings or structures atop settlement-prone soils
' Thresholds of Significance
According to CEQA Guidelines,City of San Luis Obispo environmental review guidelines and procedures,
and professional practices,the project would result in a significant geologic or geotechnical impact if:
• The project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
1 including risk of loss,injury,or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault,strong
seismic ground shaking,seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction,or landslides
• The project would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil
1 • The project site is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or would become
unstable as a result of the project,and result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction,or collapse
• Onsite soils are characterized by high shrink-swell potential and have the potential for
expansion and/or settlement
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Potential Impact 3.6-1.The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial
adverse geologic or soil effects,including risk of loss,injury,or death.
Surface-Fault Rupture.The project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the
Alquist-Priolo Act of 1972.There are no active or potentially active faults that cross the project site.
1 Therefore,surface fault rupture is not considered to be an impact.
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-75
August 2003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES 1
Figure 3.6r1:Slope Analysis '
c' 1
LEGEND
#%*,U1bm1 Reserve Line(URL)
Project Site
Slope
n 610% U
8 11-15%
1620% '
Q 21-25%
-26%or mom
Bow Rw%6 A
Bowden Raneb Development '
UESTA "`m San Luis Obispo,CA
p too a leo xoo Fe"
Drnwn By: 4 !TWiETT05i�
xWEN. .•.G :EEKv.[N... ...0OaKR w , . 50 - o so 1a smBowden Ranch
Daae '
.Slope Analysis Exhibit
16 Aug.MM
SOURCE:Questa 2002 and MHA 2003 '
3-76 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development.EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Liquefaction.Liquefaction hazards may be present.in loose,saturated soils,such as sands or loamy
sands,in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water.Liquefaction
occurs when the strength and stiffness of a soil is decreased by seismic shaking(dynamic densification)
or rapid loading and can be responsible for widespread structural failure.Liquefaction induced lateral
spreading is a possible consequence ofliquefaction occurring beneath a slope.However,onsite soils are
primarily shallow clayey soils underlain by shallow and are not considered susceptible to liquefaction
(Earth Systems Pacific 2000a).
Slope Stability.Factors that affect the stability of a slope include slope height and steepness,type of
materials,materials strength,structural geologic relationships;groundwater level,and level of seismic
shaking.While the Franciscan Complex is commonly associated with slope instability,no evidence of
slope instability has been observed on the project.site(Earth Systems Pacific 2000a;Questa Engineering
Corporation 2002).
Rupture and Ground Shaldng.The proposed project would expose people,structures,and property to
the substantial adverse effects associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault,strong seismic
ground shaking,seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction,or landslides.
San Luis Obispo is located in the Central Coast region of California.The Central Coast region is
t considered to be a seismically active region of California.Ground shaking resulting from movement
along a nearby or distant fault would present a significant risk to life,public safety,and property.Building
codes and common engineering practice have developed standards to address to the extent feasible the
potential risk associated with living on or near an active fault.At this time no standard or construction
method is available that would render all threats from active faults less than significant:
While Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 would reduce the potential ground shaking hazards associated with
project development,ground-shaking hazards would remain potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1.Groundshaking hazards to people,structures,and property cannot be
eliminated;however,they can be reduced through implementation of the following mitigation:
• Cut and fill operations at the project site shall be consistent with all recommendations
made by the project geotechnical engineer,and City regulations.Only clean material
recommended and approved bythe-geotechnical engineer and approved by the City
shall be used..
• Structures shall be designed in accordance with all building design requirements as
established by the.Uniform Building Code.(UBC)of 1997,which has been adopted by
the City of San Luis Obispo in the Building and Construction Ordinance,Title 15,
Chapters 15.02&15.04.
L • Design and construction of foundations and paved areas shall conform to all relevant
seismic regulations and recommendations made by state-licensed civil,geotechnical,
and structural engineers for the specific project.
• New utilities shall be designed to withstand the expected ground motion of an
earthquake in the vicinity of the project site.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-77
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Potential Impact 3.6-2.The potential for substantial soil erosion.
The proposed project could result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil,both during and after the
construction period.According to both the project Soils Engineering Report(Earth Systems Pacific 2001)
and the Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County(USDA 1984),site soils are prone to erosion..Without
stabilization of the soils by vegetation or other erosion control measures,particularly in steeper areas of
the project site,during and immediately following the construction period,project development could
result in substantial erosion and loss of topsoil.Mitigation Measures 3.6-2 and 3.6-3 would reduce project
impacts associated with soil erosion to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2.Erosion control Best Management Practices(BMPs)must be
implemented during the construction period to prevent extensive-soil erosion and loss of
topsoil during the construction period.Erosion control BMPs are required under the statewide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)General Construction Permit.NPDES
permit requirements are further described in Section 3.8,Hydrology,of this EIR.Erosion control
practices to be implemented during the construction period include the prohibition of grading
and earthwork during the wet season (typically October 15 through April 15)and the utilization
of soil stabilization techniques such as photodegradable erosion control blankets and hydro
seeding.The Measure shall be implemented in conjunction with Mitigation Measure.3.8-1.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-3.Immediately following construction of all subdivision
improvements,all remaining bare areas with exposed soils shall be planted with grass or
appropriate vegetation to promote the natural stabilization of site soils and reduce soil loss.For
purposes of this mitigation measure site improvements include rough grading,installation of
all utility and infrastructure systems,and construction of all streets and sidewalks.
Potential Impact 3.6-3.The potential construction of buildings and structures atop
expansive soils.
The project Soils Engineering Report and the Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County both indicate that
site soils have high shrink-swell characteristics and are expansive.Soil expansion occurs as a result of
changes in soil moisture content and can potentially damage structural foundations if precautionary
measures are not incorporated into construction design and procedure.The implementation of
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4 would reduce soil-expansion impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-4.Foundations,pavement,and sidewalks shall be designed in
accordance with all recommendations made by the project soil engineer and geotechnical
engineer including the placement of non-expansive material beneath slabs and increasing the
depth and reinforcement of foundation elements.
Potential Impact 3.6-4.The potential construction,of buildings or structures atop
settlement-prone soils.
While soils in the majority of the proposed development area are comprised of sandy clays,fill material
was encountered in the vicinity of the intersection of Lizzie Court and Wilding Lane.Fill material was also
observed in other isolated areas of the project site.Differential settlement can occur when foundations '
rest on two materials with significantly different compression characteristics,such as fill and native soil or
native soil and sandstone.The varying characteristics of the different materials can result in uneven
3-78 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
settling of the materials beneath the foundation and can result in damage to foundations and structures.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-5 would reduce differential settlement impacts to less-
than-significant levels..
Mitigation Measure 3.6-5.Foundations,pavements,underground utilities,and sidewalks
shall be constructed in accordance with all recommendations made by project soils and
geotechnical engineers.Recommendations made in the project Soils Engineering report
include the complete removal of all fill material and the recompaction of building and
improvement areas prior to construction.
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed project site is an undeveloped area dominated by woody vegetation and open grasslands;
there are no existing man-made structures on the project site (Figure 1.0-2).The project site is located
amid the grassland areas of the eastern slopes of the Santa Lucia Foothills.The City's General Plan Safety
Element describes the project site as an area of high fire hazard potential (City of San Luis Obispo 2002;
Figure 3.7-1).
The site is traversed by one perennial stream and two ephemeral tributaries, which drain in a westerly
direction into the existing City water culvert and channel at the intersection of Lizzie Street and Wilding
Lane.The hydrology of the site is described in detail in Section 3.8;Hydrology and Water Quality.
Phase One Environmental Site Assessments were conducted on the project property materials (Earth
Systems Pacific 2000).The project area has no evidence of recognized hazardous. Section 3.6, Geology,
' Soils and Seismicity,describes the local soil conditions, stating that serpentine rocks are present on the
upper slopes of the Santa Lucia Foothills at the eastern boundary of the site.
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal
Clean Water Act(CWA).The CWA provides the framework through which permits to discharge wastes
to surface waters are authorized.The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit
typically has conditions specific to the permitted operation and may set limits on.various constituents.
The CWA also prohibits the discharge of pollutants to storm water.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA).OSHA regulations contained in Title 29 CFR
and Cal-OSHA regulations codified in Title 8 contain employee safety provisions that are designed to
minimize the hazards for employees in the workplace.
State
California Water Code(CWC).The CWC includes provisions of the federal CWA and water quality
programs specific to California.The CWC requires reporting,investigation,and cleanup of hazardous
material releases that could affect waters of the state(including storm water).
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-79
August2003
-
(�
Peak ti'• —
• /
p�m, `Wl��06I� O ti �qI
IF I.Ob��s�mlol I8 ?'. P '1
Cerrro °��/obbdI'bb/b91 �:?e%,`15"?s
c �bloeA'poel♦4 �tr,,G.PRQJECT SITE
4��s4*.m��i�r °o'^'smart„u; � Santa Lucia
od°soi°omi
- Ies.m.mr, thills
illo,,s•ot, r, wi�uurr�u r�o-+�
ffA
Imbi4.I
d �eeeeee..p '�
e �
.ten® • ' �� "tp s” R
"'gyp �4'\� = •� .'F:
Irish Hills
f
Davenport Hills
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Local
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan.The Open Space Element of the City's General Plan addresses
hazards related to land instability,fire,flooding,airports,and seismology by defining goals and policies
that serve to:
• Protect life and property from hazards or hazards areas
• Preserve hazards areas
1 • Minimize hazard-associated dislocations
• Mitigate or avoid hazards or hazards areas
The goals of the Safety Element are to:
• Minimize injury and loss of life
• Minimize damage to public and private property
• Minimize social and economic disruptions resulting from injury,death,and property
damage
' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following are areas of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
of the proposed project
• Potential for harm to wildlife through the use of pesticides and herbicides
• Potential to increase the risk of wildland fire
• Potential to impair or interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans
• The potential to cause injury or harm to employees or the public from construction
operations at the site,including operation of construction equipment,movement of soil,
and public access to construction areas
• The potential to cause injury or harm to employees,the public or the environment from
1 construction activities that could release hazardous substances that may be already
present in the soils at the project site
1 • The potential to cause harm to employees,future residents of the project,or members of
the public through exposure to asbestos present in soils near the project site
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are used to determine the level of impact for areas of potential
environmental concern.The project would have a significant effect if it would:
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-81
' August 2003
t
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Cause a significant increase in the likelihood of injury or harm to employees or the public 1
from routine operations at the project site,including operation of construction equipment,
movement of soil at the construction site,and public access to the site
• Cause a significant increase in the likelihood of injury or harm to employees,the public or
the environment from construction activities that may release hazardous substances that
may already be present in the soils at the project site
• Cause a significant increase in risk to wildlife through the use of pesticides and herbicides
• Cause a significant increase in the risk of wildland fires
• Cause a significant increase in the risk to project site homes and homeowners from falling
trees and tree limbs t
• Cause a significant increase in the risk of exposing employees,future residents or members
of the public to asbestos
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
Hazardous materials have not been identified in the project area,although the upper slopes of the Santa
Lucia Foothills above the project site contain asbestos containing soil types.Some.hazardous materials
from project-related development activities(Le.,fuels,oils)would be present on-site during
development and construction activities.There is the potential risk of public and employee exposure to
these hazardous or dangerous materials,whether through direct contact or through environmental
means(e.g.,water contamination from spills).Impacts from and mitigation for hazards related to the
hydrology of the site are discussed in detail in Section.3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality.
The project also has the potential to increase the risk from wildland fires and falling trees or tree-limbs
because of the proximities of the lots,and potential lot homes,to existing vegetation on the project site
(e.g.,grasslands and large eucalyptus trees).
Potential Impact 3.7-1.The potential to cause injury or harm to employees or the public
from construction operations at the site,including operation of construction equipment,
movement of soil,and public access construction areas.
Construction employee safety is maintained through providing personal safety equipment on an as-
needed basis,and holding periodical safety meetings to discuss issues dealing with site operations and
existing construction activity safety plans.There would be.no increased likelihood of injury or harm to '
employees involved in development activities.This safety impact to project-associated construction
personnel would be less than significant.
Hikers,walkers,and runners currently use the informal trails on the site,and this use would continue
during project construction activities.It possible,but unlikely,that people using the trails could be
exposed to harm or injury from development or construction operations in the project area.With
implementation of the following mitigation measure,risks to the public using the site would be reduced
to a less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Community Development for review and approval a site construction safety plan.The
3-82 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
purpose of the plan shall be to ensure public safety during all phases of project construction
through:
• The installation of safety signage,placed as appropriate within the project area,that
warns of risks associated with on-site construction activities and outlines measures to
be taken to ensure safe use of on-site trails near construction areas and avoidance of
active construction equipment
• The installation of temporary safety fencing to restrict or prevent public access to active
on-site construction sites or equipment,as well as to"funnel"hikers-directly to hillside
trails and trail access points
The temporary restriction of public access to site trails when heavy equipment is being
used or particularly dangerous construction operations are being conducted
1 Potential Impact 3.7-2.The potential to cause injury or harm to employees,the public or
the environment from construction activities which may release hazardous substances
that may be already present in the soils at the project site.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for this project(Earth Systems Pacific 2000) revealed no
evidence of recognized hazardous materials on the property.With implementation of the following
mitigation measure,the risk of exposure of project personnel to construction-associated hazardous
materials would be reduced to a less than significant level:
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant.shall submit
to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a safety plan.The
purpose of the plan is to minimize the exposure of the public to potentially hazardous
materials during all phases of project construction through:
• Appropriate methods(e.g.,Best Management Practices)and approved containment
and spill-control practices(e.g.,spill control plan)for construction chemical and
materials on-site
• Safety signage,placed as appropriate within the project area,that wams of risks
associated with on-site construction materials and outlines measures to be taken to
ensure safe use of on-site trails near construction areas and avoidance of construction
materials
• Temporary safety fencing to restrict or prevent public access to active on-site
construction materials or chemicals,as well as to"funnel'hikers directly to hillside
trails and trail access points
• Temporary restriction of public access to site trails when fueling or chemicals are in
use
® Potential Impact 3.7-3. Potential to increase the risk of wildland fires.
The project site is shown in the General Plan Safety Element as an area of high fire hazard potential
' (Figure 3.7-1).A fire management plan,incorporated herein by reference,has been submitted to the City
with the goal of reducing the potential fire hazards to a Less than significant level.The City's Fire Marshal
has reviewed the fire management plan submitted for this project.The document has been revised as of
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-83
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
February 5,2002 to reflect the Fire Marshal's recommended changes and has been approved by the Fire
Marshal(Appendix F).Additionally,the fire hazard on site may be temporarily or permanently reduced to
a greater or lesser degree:development activities that clear vegetation,create access roads,and re-
landscape the site may decrease the amount of high-risk fire areas or natural substances.This impactis
less than significant.
Potential Impact 3.7-4.Potential to increase the risk to project site homes and
homeowners from falling trees and tree limbs. 1
The project site contains numerous large eucalyptus trees that could pose a threat to homes developed
on site lou,especially those located near the windrow and northern creek The following mitigation
measure addresses tree and tree limb impacts on the.project site and reduces this risk to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-3.Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall submit to
the Director of Community Development for review and approval a copy of the proposed
Covenants,Codes,and Restrictions(CC&Rs)for the project.The CC&Rs shall include a
provision for the on-going minimization of on-site dangers from falling trees and tree limbs.
On-going minimization of on-site dangers from falling tees and tree limbs shall be the
responsibility of the project's homeowners'association.
se harm to employees, '
Potential Impact 3.7-5.The potential to cause future residents of the
project site,or members of the public through exposure to asbestos present in soils near
the project site.
As stated in Section 3.6,Geology and Soils,"upland areas bordering the eastern boundary of the
project site are composed of serpentinite and serpentinized ultrabasic rocks..."Serpentine rocks
contain naturally occurring asbestos;however,no soil or rock types known to contain asbestos
were found on the project site.The proposed project would not result in disturbance of off-site
soils;therefore,no asbestos would be released to the atmosphere and the risk of increased
exposure to asbestos is less than significant.
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Section 3.8 of this EIR is based in part on the peer review of three resource reports prepared by or on behalf of '
the applicant:
Earth Systems Pacific.2000.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,Bowden Ranch Property,Lizzie Street, j
San Luis Obispo,California.
EDA.2002.Engineering Development Associates."Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan for Tract2420,
Bowden Ranch Estates."lMapl 9Jan.2002..
EDA.2000.Drainage Analysis for Bowden Ranch,San Luis Obispo,California(Revised 21 Dec.20011.
These reports are incorporated by reference into this EIR and are available for review at the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Planning Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249.
3-84 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
t
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1 Climate and Topography
The projectsite is located in the southern Coast Range geomorphic province,between the Santa Lucia
Mountains and coastal hills of central California.The region's climate is heavily influenced by coastal
processes,and is subject to wide ranges in precipitation,from periods of drought,to unusually wet
winters,and occasional shoe:duration very high intensity storms.Generally,the region's rainy season
extends from November to March with average annual precipitation of 22.6 inches(57:4 cm)(World
Climate 2002a).Average temperatures range from a low of 41 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter,to 80
degrees Fahrenheit in the summer(World Climate 2002b).
The project site is located on west-facing slopes of a mountain ridge.The project site can be divided into
two separate areas:the proposed development area and the open space area.The Urban Reserve Line
(URL)forms the boundary between these two areas and generally follows the 465 feet(1402 m)Mean
Sea Level(MSL)contour.Elevations in the proposed development area range from approximately 340
feet(103.6 m)MSL at the intersection of Lizzie.Court and Wilding Lane to 465 feet MSL along the URL
(EDA 2002).In the open space area,elevations range from 465 feet MSL along the URL to roughly 800
rfeet(243.8 m)MSL at the northeastern comer of the project site.Slopes range from 0 to 15%in the
development area to 30%in steep portions of the open space area (USGS 1965)(See Figure 3-6-2:
Bowden Ranch Slope Analysis Exhibit).
Site Soils
The characteristics of on-site soils influence drainage patterns at a project site.Site soils were determined
from the Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County.There are two different types of
soil that occur on the project site:Diablo and Cibo Clays(9 to 15 percent.slopes)and Los Osos-Diablo
Complex(15 to 30 percent and 30 to 50 percent slopes).Soil permeability is the rate at which water is
absorbed under saturated conditions and is related to the hydraulic conductivity of the soil.Site soils are
' typically characterized by slow permeability,moderate to high runoff potential,and a high hazard of
erosion(USDA 1984).
Regional Hydrology
The project site is located in the.San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.The watershed drains approximately
84 square miles(218 km2)between the Santa Lucia Mountains and coastal hills of central California.San
Luis Obispo Creek originates in the foothills of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range near Cuesta Grade,
flowing approximately 18 miles(29 km)along State Highway 101 to its discharge to the Pacific Ocean at
' San Luis Bay,near the.community of Avila Beach.The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed has a history of
problems that involve flooding,bank instability,and erosion.Bank instability and erosion have resulted
in increased sedimentation of San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries(Questa 2002).
There is a long history of flooding in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.Damaging floods have.
occurred in 1868-69, 1884,1897, 1911,1948,1952, 1962,1969,1973 and most recently,during January
and March 1995,with a lesser flooding problem in 1998.Within San Luis Obispo,flow overtopped
' streambanks near the intersection of Marsh and Higuera Streets and remained out of the channel for
nearly three miles(4.8 km)downstream,causing damage estimated at nearly$23 million(Questa 2002).
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
MHA Inc.3-85
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Site Hydrology
The project site is situated on three separate sub-basins.The sub-basins,referred to herein as Sub-Basin
A,Sub-Basin B,and Sub-Basin C,are moderately steep to.steep and are underlain by material that
generally has low permeability.Runoff within the three sub-basins is conveyed within five natural
drainages.The drainages are referred to herein as.Stream A,Stream B,Stream C1 (perennial),Stream C2
(ephemeral),and Stream C3 (ephemeral).The streams traverse in a generally east-west direction across 1
the 40-acre(16.2 hectares)project site.Project sub-basins-are presented in Figure.3.8-1.
Sub-Basin A.Sub-Basin A,located along the northernmost boundary of the project site,drains an area of '
11 acres(4.5 hectares)above and including the project site.Runoff within Sub-Basin A is conveyed within
Stream A.This sub-basin drains only areas of the project site designated for open space-and would not
be impacted by project development.Thus,this report does not include a hydrologic analysis of Stream
A.
Sub-Basin B.Sub-Basin B is located in the northern half of the project site and has a drainage area of 18
acres(73 hectares),only 1.5 acres(0.6 hectares)of which are comprised of the proposed development
area.Stream B is located within Sub-Basin B.Stream B,an intermittent stream that originates in the
northeastern corner of the proposed development area,flows northwest to a culvert at California
Boulevard,near San Luis Obispo High School.
Sub-Basin C.Sub-Basin C,with a drainage area of 87 acres(35 hectares)above and including the project
site,is the largest sub-basin affecting runoff at the project site.This sub-basin drains approximately 11.5
acres(4.5 hectares)of the proposed development area.This sub-basin contains three drainages;Stream
C1,Stream C2,and Stream C3.Stream C1,shown as an unnamed intermittent stream on the USGS
topographic map,is the primary drainage on the project site.Stream C1 originates at the top of the '
mountain ridge located east of the project:site and flows west to a 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe(RCP)
at Wilding Lane.The RCP is equipped with a debris rack on the upstream end.Stream C1 is fed by a year
round spring and has a small perennial flow.Stream C2 begins just east of the project and converges
with Stream C1 at the western end of the project site..Finally,Stream C3 flows along the southern
boundary of the project site,along Woodland Drive.This channel drains portions of the undeveloped
hillside area and development along Woodland Drive and Skylark Lane.Downstream drainage problems
caused by increasing development led to the construction of a drainage ditch that diverts Stream C3 to
Stream C1 at the southwest comer of the project site(Livick 2002).Site hydrology is presented in Figure
3.8-2.
Groundwater
Generally,groundwater flows as a subdued reflection of the surficial topography.Groundwater basins in
the San Luis Obispo Valley are typically comprised of alluvial aquifers that are utilized for agricultural and
municipal water supplies.In shallow bedrock areas such as the project site,perched groundwater is
sometimes contained at the interface between alluvial soils/weathered bedrock and consolidated rock
(Earth Systems Pacific 2000).
Four subsurface investigations performed at the project site in June of 2000 did not reveal free
subsurface water at depths of up to 10.5 feet(3.2 m)below ground surface(BGS).However,groundwater
levels can be expected to fluctuate as a result of seasonal variations and thus,groundwater levels may
have been undetectable during the dry summer months during which the borings were drilled.
3-86 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
The Department of Water Resources(DWR)defines state groundwater basins based on geologic and
hydrogeologic conditions.The project site is not located within the.boundaries of a groundwater basin
as defined by the DWR(DWR 1975).
Flooding.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRMS)produced by the.Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)
(FEMA 1996)and a subsequent hydrologic analysis(City and County of SLO 2002)indicate.that the
project site is located outside of the 100-year flood plain of San Luis Obispo Creek.However,the FEMA
FIRM does indicate that the Zone B flood insurance rate zone extends onto the project site at the
intersection of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane.The Zone B zone corresponds to"areas outside the 100-
year floodplains,areas of 100-year sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot,areas of
100-year stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile(2.6 km ),or
areas protected from the 100-year flood by levees(FEMA 2002)"
Flooding problems have been noted at the intersection of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane and in the
vicinity of Woodland Drive and Skylark Lane during 10-year and larger storm events.According to the
San Luis Obispo Public Works Department,these drainage problems can be attributed to two factors:
undersized drainage facilities and further restriction of flow due to the accumulation of debris(branches,
leaves,etc.) (Livick 2002).
Regulatory setting
rNPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements
The Clean Water Act(CWA)has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United
States from any point source since 1972.In 1987,amendments to the CWA added section 402(p),which
established a frameworkfor regulating nonpoint source(NPS)storm water discharges underthe National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES).The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates
storm water discharges from major industrial facilities,large and medium-sized municipal separate storm
sewer systems(those serving more than 100,000 persons),and construction sites that disturb one five or
more acres of land.
The.California State Water Resources Control.Board(SWRCB)was last issued a statewide.General Storm
Water Permit for Construction Activities in 1999.The five-year permit requires all land disturbances of 5
acres or more to implement Best.Management Practices(BMPs)to prevent the discharge of silt and
sediment off site..BMPs are implemented through a site specific plan called the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan(SWPPP).It is the responsibility of the project applicant to prepare a project SWPPP prior
to the commencement of construction activities.
1
i
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-87
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Figure 34-1:Project Sub-Basins
-,4
A,{
n
V�
-694
T I
Sub-Basin A
'rt
.�Basau 8
♦ x
ffg aerea or 7.3 hedar")
N�
Wt.
Sub-Basin C
W acamn or 35
i.
Jr.
4
NIN ,
.6
14 ft*"` Bowden Farwh
D"rhqnnent
Pj=No, UESTA, San Luis Obispo,CA
4W 0 40) sm M�
D�1y,. Q-10% - , -
-1—
KW
D� "�,.. ., ::L $00 0 no IQIQ Fed Project Sub-Basins
L6 Aug.20M
SOURCE Questa 2002 and USGS 1965
3-88 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Figure 3.8-2:Site Hydrology
du
o
m a.
.o
a �
' d
O
m
i
r
� � s
S R j
' e
w0. �
m!
i
GA$i G
Z
r
�
_
r• V 'm
0=8
s
r
rSOURCE:Questa 2002
1 =
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-89
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following are areas of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
of the proposed project:
• The potential to alter existing drainage patterns
• The potential to create or contribute runoff water exceeding current drainage system
capacities,or produce additional sources of polluted runoff
• The potential to violate water quality standards
• The potential to increase erosion or siltation due to changes in drainage patterns
• The potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge
Thresholds of Significance
According to the State CEQA Guidelines,City of San Luis Obispo environmental review guidelines and
procedures,and professional practices,the project would result in a significant hydrologic or water
quality impact if it:
• Substantially altered the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the ,
alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increased the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site
• Created or contributed runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or '
planned storm water drainage systems or provided substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff,
• Violated SWRCB or RWQCB water quality standards
• Substantially altered the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site
• Substantially depleted groundwater supplies or interfered with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer storage or a lowering of the local groundwater
table
Relevant Project Characteristics r
Development that would be accommodated under the proposed project includes 23 residential lots on
13 acres(5.25 hectares).The remaining 27 acres(11 hectares)of the project site.would consist of open
space.
Runoff from residential lots would be conveyed within a series of drainage swales.Typically,each lot
would include a drainage swale that would carry runoff downstream to concrete drainage ditches along
either side of Lizzie Court,Wilding Lane,Woodland Drive,and Woodland Court(EDA 2002).A bridge
would be built over Stream C3 to allow access from Woodland Drive to Woodland Court.Also proposed
for the project are individual underground detention tanks that would detain storm water runoff from
impervious areas from each residence.The detention tanks would have a capacity of approximately
3-90 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1 3,00 to 5,000 gallons{11 to 19 cubic.meters)each and would be located underground(EDA 2000).In
addition to the-individual detention tanks,the applicant.has proposed increasing the capacity of the
Lizzie Court/Wilding Lane culvert entrance by raising the head walla
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
Potential Impact 3.9-1.Alterations in drainage patterns and grading during the
construction period could result in construction-related erosion problems.
Increased erosion could result in the sedimentation of receiving waters.Sedimentation can lead to a
reduction of water quality because sediment can carry nitrogen,phosphorus,and trace metals.Sediment
can also accumulate at the entrance of downstream storm drain system inlets and reduce capacity.
Planned earthwork and grading activities on the project site would involve approximately 2,500 cubic
1 yards(1,911 m3)each of cut and fill in the proposed development area.Vegetative cover,which acts to
stabilize the soil,would be.removed from areas where earthwork and grading activities would occur.Due
to the fact that some grading would occur on moderate to steep slopes,the proposed project would
presents threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unvegetated areas to the erosional
forces of runoff.
The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8-2 would reduce construction-related erosion
impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit or approval of improvement
' plans,the applicant shall submit to the Director of Public Works for review and approval a
detailed erosion control plan (ECP)to mitigate erosion and sedimentation impacts during the
construction period.The detailed ECP shall be accompanied by a written narrative and be
approved by the.Director of Public Works.At a minimum,the ECP and written narrative should
include the following:
• A proposed schedule of grading activities,monitoring,and infrastructure milestones in
chronological format;
• Identification of critical areas of high erodibility potential and/or unstable slopes,
• Soil stabilization techniques such as short-term biodegradable erosion control blankets
and hydroseeding should be utilized.Silt fences should be installed downslope of all
' graded slopes.Straw wattles or another appropriate BMP should be installed in the flow
path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows,as well as around storm drain inlets;
• Description of erosion control measures on slopes,lots,and streets;
t • Contour and spot elevations indicating runoff patterns before and after grading;
• Filter systems at catch basins (drop inlets)in public streets as a means of sediment
control;and
• The post-construction inspection of all drainage facilities for accumulated sediment,and
the clearing of these drainage structures of debris and sediment.
' Mitigation Measure 33-2.The applicant shall comply with NPDES General Construction
Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements established by the CWA.Pursuant to the NPDES
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-91
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Storm Water Program,an application for coverage under the statewide General Construction '
Activities Storm Water Permit(General Permit)must be obtained for project development.It is
the responsibility of the project applicant to obtain coverage prior to site construction.
The applicant can obtain coverage under the General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent(NOI)
with the State Water Resource Control Board's(SWRCB) Division of Water Quality.The filing
shall describe erosion control and storm water treatment measures to be implemented during
and following construction and provide a schedule for monitoring performance.These BMPs
would serve to control point and non-point source(NPS) pollutants in storm water and
constitute the project's SWPPP for construction activities.While the SWPPP would include.
several of the same components as the ECP,the SWPPP would also include BMPs for
preventing the discharge of other NP5 pollutants besides sediment(such as paint,concrete,
etc.)to downstream waters.
Potential Impact 3.8-2.Development of the proposed project could result in an increase in
peak discharge at downstream drainage facilities.
Project development would result in an increase in impervious surface area within the watersheds that
drain into the existing City storm drain system.An increase in impervious surface area could result in an
increase in peak runoff at downstream drainage facilities and exacerbate downstream drainage
problems.During 10-year and larger storm events,drainage problems have been noted at the
intersection of Wilding Lane and Lizzie Court and along Woodland Drive in the vicinity of Skylark Lane.
These problems,likely caused by the combination of accumulated debris and undersized drainage
infrastructure,could be exacerbated by post-development increases in peak discharge.
In order to analyze the impacts of the proposed development on peak discharge the project applicant
completed a drainage analysis.The analysis was conducted using the.Rational Method and showed that '
little or no increases in peak discharge would occur from the site.The peak discharge,as computed by
the Rational Method,is a function of precipitation,topography,soil characteristics,and land use within
the project sub-basins.There are some minor inconsistencies with the applicant's drainage analysis in
how impervious areas were estimated.Some calculations assume that each home would have 7,800
square feet(725 m2)of impervious surfaces and others assume 5,000 square feet(465 mZ)of impervious
surface per home.It appears that the road improvements to Lizzie Court and Woodland Court were also
not included in the sum of impervious area.The analysis conducted for this EIR estimated that
approximately 3.07 acres,and not 1.7 acres of impervious surface would result from project
development.
The applicant's hydrologic calculations show that the project would have no impact on the existing peak
discharges at Lizzie Court Storm entrance.This is primarily due to the fact that the runoff coefficient that
was used for the existing condition analysis is very high and thus mutes the impact of additional
impervious surfaces from the project site.A second drainage analysis was completed for this EIR and is
summarized in Table 3.8-1 and shown in Appendix G.That analysis also utilized the Rational Method to
calculate peak discharge for the 2-year,1 0-year,and 100-year storm events.The second analysis indicates
that the project would have about a 4 to 5 percent increase in runoff in both Basins B and C,thus
potentially exacerbating any downstream flooding problems at the entrance of the City storm drainage
system.
3-92 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
The applicant's drainage.study indicated that given the height of the entrance headwall of the storm
drain inlet at the Lizzie Court,the capacity of the storm drainage system is limited to 90 cubic feet-per
second(2.55 m3/sec).Both hydrologic evaluations indicate that the City's culvert system at Lizzie Lane is
undersized and currently does not accommodate:the 10-year event.The Rational Method calculations
presented in Appendix G indicate that the.storm drainage system at Lizzie Court can pass a.5=year event.
but overtops in a 10-year or greater event.The debris and sediment production can be high from the
watershed above the project site.Debris and sediment accumulation contributes to drainage problems
during large storrh flows.Thus,the downstream storm drain system presents asignificant hydrologic
constraint to any increase in peak runoff from the site.Any increase in the amount of runoff would likely
increase the frequency of flooding at the Lizzie Court culvert entrance.
Table 3.8-1.Pre-and Post-Development Peak.Discharge at Downstream Drainage Facilities
Sub-Basin Storm Event Conditions Runoff(ft3/sec) Increase(ft/sec) Percent Increase{%)
B Pre-Development 13.82
(03 .3/sec) 0.51
2-year (0.03 m3/sec) 3.7%
Post-Development 1433
(0A1 m3/sec)
Pre-Development 22`$2
(0.65 m/sec) 0.84
3.7%
10-year 23.66 (0.04 M3/sec)
Post-Development (0.67 m3/sec)
40.97
Pre Development
(1.16 m3/sec)
100-year (0.08 m3/sec) 31%Post-Development 42.49
1 (1.20 m/sec)
C Pre-Development (1 94 m'/sec)
' y 355 52%
2-year .71.92 (0:17 0/sec)
Post-Development
(2.04 m3/sec)
Pre-Development 112.89
(3.20 m3/sec) 5 87
10-year (0,28 m3/sec) 52%
Post-Development 118.76
'. (336 m/sec)
' Pre Development 202.73
(5.74 m3/sec)
1053.
100-year (0.51 m3/sec) 52%
21326
Post-Development. (6.04 M3/sec)
SOURCE:Questa Engineering 2002
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-93
1 August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
in an effort to mitigate for increases in peak runoff,the applicant has proposed the use of individual f
detention tanks on each lot.The modified Rational Method was used to size the tanks so that discharge .
during a 10-year event would not exceed the 2=yearpeak discharge.The individual detention tanks
would have an approximate capacity of 3,000 to 5,000 gallons(11 to 1.9 m3).While the individual
detention tanks are feasible,there are.several potential problems with the tanks as they apply to the
project:
• As shown on the project plans these tanks would be buried beneath the lots.Outlets for
these tanks would be 6 to 8 feet(1.8 to 2.4.meters)below grade.Maintaining a gravity flow t
line from some of lots would be difficult and may require long pipes.
• The applicant did not specify where all of these pipes would discharge.Some systems
immediately adjacent to creek channels would discharge directly to those channels,others j
would have to discharge to the project streets. 1
• This system relies on the fact that the homeowner would have to maintain thesesystems,
which in some cases may not occur on a timely basis thus potentially reducing their
effectiveness and resulting in localized property damage.
Based on the above discussion,there are significant issues that need to be worked out as they pertain to
potential increases in runoff from the project.While increases in runoff within Sub-Basin B are not
significant,increases in runoff within.Sub-Basin C could result in impacts to downstream infrastructure.
The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 would reduce project impacts associated with an
increasein peak discharge to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-3.Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall submit
to the Director of Public Works for review and approval a plan to mitigate.increases in peak
discharge.All drainage improvements must.be constructed in accordance with Section 7.2 1
of the City's Drainage Design Manual.The plan shall adhere to one of several design
alternatives:
Alternative 1:Improve the entrance to the Lizzie Court culvert entrance so that ,
10-year event or greater would not over top the culvert headwall and/or creek banks
(this improvement is proposed by the project applicant). '
Alternative 2:Demonstrate with more detail to the City's satisfaction that individual
detention tanks are appropriate on the site(this alternative is proposed by applicant).
Alternative 3:Construct off-channel open detention basin(s)on the project site to t
reduce flows to the culvert entrance.These ponds differ from the individual detention
tanks in that they capture runoff from several lots rather than just one,and are open as
opposed to subsurface.
The applicant shall confer with the Director of Public Works prior to preparation of the plan
for the purpose of receiving specific direction regarding which alternative would be
acceptable to the City.
Alternative 1:Improve the Lizzie Court Storm Drainage Entrance Structure.The
applicant has proposed raising the head wall at the Lizzie Court culvert entrance to
increase capacity.The 10-yearpost project flow in Sub-basin C is 119 cfs(337 m3/sec).
3-94 MHA Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
tIn order for the culvert entrance under inlet control conditions to carry this flow it has
been estimated that the headwall must be raised a minimum of 15 feet on all sides of
the creek.If possible theheadwall should be raised between 2 and 3 feet to gain
additional capacity and account for possible debris problems.The design for the
extension of the headwall shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works
Department.
Alternative 2:Demonstrate Viability of the Detention Tank System to the City.The
1 detention tank system shall be designed in detail with the subdivision improvement
plans and submitted to the City for approval.At a minimum,the detention tanks
should have the following features:
• All outlets for each tank shall be shown.A gravity line with a slope of no less
than 1 percent must drain each tank.
' • Each tank must have an emergency spillway or outlet in case of clogging.
• The tanks must be shown to have enough volume over the duration of longer
period storms such as a 12-hour rainfall event.
The applicant shall require that a legal document-be recorded against each lot
that relieves the City of San Luis Obispo from any maintenance or other
responsibilities in the event that these systems fail and/or cause any flooding
downstream.
' Alternative 3:Off Channel Open Detention Ponds.The off-channel open detention ponds
would be constructed adjacent to proposed Lots 3,4,and 5,and possibly within open space
lot 24.The pond(s)would serve to temporarily detain runoff and decrease peak discharge at
downstream drainage facilities so that a.25-year event does not overtop the existing channel
bank or culvert headwall.The detention ponds may also function to improve water quality by
allowing sediments and particulatesto settle out of storm water prior to discharge to
downstream drainage facilities(please refer to Impact 3.8-3 and Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 for
more details on the water quality aspects of the ponds).The detention ponds shall be
designed to comply with applicable City drainage design standards and at a minimum have
the following features:
• Each pond should include an outlet structure to allow the basin to drain completely
Within 24 hours.
• Each pond shall be designed with an emergency spillway that can pass the 100-year
storm event with 1-foot freeboard between the design water surface elevation and
' the top of the embankment.
• The detention ponds shall be elongated to maximize the.flow length between inlet
and outlet structures.
• The ponds shall be designed to prevent frequent resuspension of deposited
sediments and have a storage volume sufficient to detain average seasonal flows for
' about five minutes.
• All storm drain outfalls shall be equipped with energy dissipaters to avoid erosion of
the ponds.
'
Bowden Ranch.Development EIR MHA Inc.3-95
' August.2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• The ponds shall be planted with grass or appropriate emergent vegetation.
An easement reservation for the homeowners association would be necessary to
ensure maintenance access.
Potential Impact 3.8-3.Project development could result in an increase in non-point
source(NPS)Pollutants to receiving waters.
NPS pollutants are washed by rainwater from residential areas,landscape areas,and streets and parking
areas into the drainage network Development of the project site would result in an increase in the levels
of NPS urban pollutants and litter entering downstream drainage facilities,and eventually,San Luis
Obispo Creek An increase in NPS pollutants in San Luis Obispo Creek could have adverse effects on
wildlife,fauna,and human health. ,
A pollutant concentration is the mass of a pollutant per volume of water.Pollutant concentrations in
runoff from a site are dependent on a number of factors including: 1)land use conditions;2) 1
implementation of BMPs;3)site drainage conditions;4)the intensity and duration of rainfall;and 5)the
climatic conditions preceding the rainfall event.Based on these variables,there is considerable.
uncertainty in estimating pollutant concentrations in runoff from a project site.There are,however,
published pollutant loading rates,based on results of several storm water monitoring studies,that can
be used to estimate site-specific pollutant loading conditions.
Pollutants from the proposed project would likely be consistent with suburban low/medium density
residential areas,parking lots,and roads.Increases in the levels of oil and grease,petroleum
hydrocarbons,metals,and possibly nutrients on the project site are likely.Due to the variability of urban
runoff characteristics,it is difficult to estimate pollutant loads for oil and grease and total petroleum.
However,average pollutant concentrations for the proposed development area are presented in Table
3.8-2.It is important to note that the pollutant loading estimates presented in Table 3.8-2 are intended
for planning purposes only and do not necessarily represent actual pollutant loads at the developed
project site..
It is estimated that the proposed development would result in an increase in total phosphorus,total
kjedahl nitrogen,biological oxygen demand,lead,zinc and copper.However,due to the creation of
impervious surfaces,it is likely that project development would result in a decrease in total suspended
solids.Total suspended solids(i.e.eroded clayey soil)were estimated for existing conditions using the '
Universal Soil Loss Equation(USLE).The USLE uses physical factors,such as amount and severity of
rainfall,slope length,steepness,vegetation cover,and inherent soil erodibility to quantify the amount-of
gross soil"loss"per acre per year.The LISLE estimates indicated that a gross soil loss of 12.1 tons per year
occurs within the proposed development area.Because the USLE estimates the total amount of soil loss
throughout the entire subject area rather than the quantity of soil and sediment that wind up in
waterways,a sediment delivery ratio of 20%used to estimate the quantity of sediment that actually
reaches downstream waterways.USLE calculations are presented in Appendix G.
The LISLE results indicate that approximately 3.0 tons of sediment are currently discharged from the '
proposed development area each year to downstream waterways.Compared to estimates presented in
Table 3.8-2 for post-development conditions(1.1 tons per year),project development would result in an
approximately 63 percent decrease in suspended solids at downstream drainage facilities.However,as '
previously noted,project development would result in an increase in phosphorus,Kjedahl nitrogen,
biological oxygen demand,lead,zinc,and copper.
1
3-96 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Table 382.Pollutant Loading Estimates for Post-Development.Conditions
Bowden Ranch
Low/Medium-Density Residential Roads and Parking Areas Site
Constituent (Ib/ac/yr) (Ib/ac/yr) (lbs/year)
' Total Suspended 190 400 2395 .
Solids 0.1 tons)
' Total Phosphorus OS 0.7 6.0
Total Kjedahl 2.5 5.1 31A
1Nitrogen
Biological Oxygen 13 47 1835
Demand
Lead 0.2 0.8 2.9
' Zine 0.2 0.8 2.9
Copper 0.03 0.14 0.455
' Notes:.
1.Based on low-density residential loadings for 10.5 acres and typical road/parking lot loadings from 1.0 acres of the site.
SOURCE:Homer et a1.1994
' The implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 and Mitigation Measure 3.8-5 would reduce project
impacts associated with NPS pollutants to a less-than-significant level.
' Mitigation Measure 384.It is recommended that storm water detention ponds,rather than
underground detention tanks,be incorporated into the project drainage system(Mitigation
Measure 3.8-3).These ponds should be designed to improve water quality by allowing sediments
and particulates to settle prior to discharging to downstream waterways.By detaining runoff,the
detention ponds would allow for some pollutant removal through infiltration and vegetative
uptake.Many pollutants in storm water,including lead,copper,zinc,phosphorus,and
hydrocarbons are associated with sediment and fine particulates.Thus,the ability of a storm
water practice to remove many nutrients,trace metals,and hydrocarbons is largely related to its
' ability to remove suspended sediment and particulates.Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 for
general detention pond design guidelines.
' Mitigation Measure 38S.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit to
the Director of Public Works for review and approval a plan that incorporates grassed swales
(biofilters)into the project drainage system for runoff conveyance and filtering of pollutants.The
1 preliminary project grading and drainage plan indicates that runoff would be conveyed from
each parcel to roadside ditches via a series of drainage swales.Rather than have concrete
drainage swales to transport.the runoff to roadside ditches,these swales shall be lined with grass
' or appropriate vegetation to encourage the biofiltration of sediment,phosphorus,trace metals,
and petroleum from runoff prior to discharge into the formal drainage network.General design
guidelines relevant to optimizing the pollutant removal mechanisms of grassed swales are:1)a
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-97
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
dense,uniform growth of fine-stemmed herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of pollutants;2) 1
vegetation that is tolerant to the water,climatological,and.soil conditions of the project site is
preferred;3)grassed swales that maximize water contact with the vegetation and soil surface
have the potential to substantially improve removal rates,particularly of soluble pollutants;and
4)pollutant removal efficiency is increased as the flow path length is increased.General
maintenance guidelines for biofilters are discussed in Mitigation Measure.3.8-6. '
Mitigation Measure 3.8-6.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit or approval of improvement
plans,the applicant shall submit to the.Director of Community Development and Director of '
Public Works for review and approval a long-term storm water pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)
to protect storm water quality after the construction period.The SWPPP shall include the
following additional BMPs to protect storm water quality:
• Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate the majority of
litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus,entering local waterways.Regular
sweeping is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing the amount of litter in storm
drain inlets(to prevent clogging)and public waterways(for water quality).The project
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure this
maintenance is completed prior to approval of improvement plans or final maps.
• Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality.The maintenance
of biofilters on the project site would be the responsibility of a homeowner's association ,
for the proposed project.The homeowners association would be responsible for the
following biofilter maintenance:t)Regular mowing to promote growth and increase
density and.pollutant uptake(vegetative height should be no more than 8 inches,
cuttings must be promptly removed and properly disposed of);2)Removal of sediments
year-round duping suFnFneF menths when they build up to 6 inches at any spot,cover
biofilter vegetation,or otherwise interfere with biofilter operation;and 3) Reseeding of
biofilters as necessary,whenever maintenance or natural processes create bare spots.
• If storm water detention ponds or underground detention tanks are incorporated into
the project drainage system,proper maintenance is necessary to ensure their
effectiveness at preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water
quality.The maintenance of the detention ponds or underground detention tanks would
be the responsibility of the.homeowner's association.Necessary detention pond/tank
maintenance includes:1)Regular inspection during the wet season for sediment buildup
and clogging of inlets and outlets;2) Regular(approximately once a.year) removal of ,
basin sediment;and 3)if an open detention basin is used,.mowing and maintenance of
pond vegetation(replant or reseed as necessary to control erosion.Maintenance reports
shall be.submitted annually to City s Public Works Department.
• The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential BMPs to
minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development.This information shall
be distributed to all residences at the project site.At a minimum the information should
cover. 1)General information on biofilters and detention ponds for residents concerning
their purpose and importance of keeping them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter,2) '
Proper disposal of household and commercial chemicals;3)Proper use of landscaping
chemicals;4)Clean-up and appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter,and 5)
Prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. '
3-98 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Potential Impact 3.8-4.The proposed project could result in the interference of
groundwater recharge.
The proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surface on the project site.An increase in
impervious surface area would result in a decrease in groundwater recharge.However,soils on the
project site are shallow and are underlain by nearly impervious bedrock.These soils are characterized as
Class D soils,meaning that they have low infiltration rates and thus,would not allow for a significant
amount of infiltration of runoff into underlying groundwater basins.Furthermore,the proposed project
' site is not located within a groundwater basin as determined by the DWR.Impact 3.8-4 is considered to
be less than significant.No mitigation is necessary.
3.9 Land Use and Planning
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Local Setting
The project site is currently undeveloped;the only active,regular use of the site is for informal access to
the Santa Lucia Hills.The project site is located at the suburban/open space interface on the edge of the
' City(Figure 1.0-2).The project site is bordered on the south and west by a well-established single-family
residential neighborhood.To the north are school district administrative offices,an adult education
school,sports fields associated with the high school,and open hillsides.East of the project site are
' undeveloped hillsides,which serve as a visual backdrop for much of the City.
' REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The City's General Plan goals,policies,objectives,and standards provide direction forthe use of all lands
within the City.The portion of the project site the is situated below the Urban Reserve Line is designated
by the City's General Plan for Low Density Residential uses by the.General Plan.The balance of the
' project site is designated for Open Space by the General Plan(Figure 3.9-1).
The project site is also within the Woodland Drive Hillside Planning Area(HPA).The General Plan outlines
additional use criteria for lands within the Woodland Drive HPA.
The City's General Plan consists of ten elements.In addition to the Land Use Element,the Plan includes:
1 • Housing Element
• Open Space Element
' • Circulation Element
• Noise Element
Safety Element
Conservation Element
• Energy Conservation Element
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-99
August 2003
3:.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Parks and Recreation Element
• Water and Wastewater Element
Taken as a whole,the various General Plan elements,and the goals,policies,programs,and standards
outlined in each of those elements serve as a"...blue print for growth and development..."
Zoning Ordinance
The City's Zoning Ordinance is the principal implementing tool for the General Plan.The Ordinance
refines the types of uses allowed within the City's various Zoning Districts,and establishes development
standards for each of those Districts.
The project site is situated within the Low Density Residential(R-1)and Conservation/Open Space(UOS) ,
Zoning Districts.Lands surrounding the projectsite include those situated within the Public Facilities,
and C/OS Districts.(Figure 3.9-2) ,
R-1 Zoning District.The purpose of the R-1 District is as follows:
• 'The R-1 zone is intended primarily to provide housing opportunities for people who want 1
private open space associated with individual dwellings.It is intended to preserve existing
single-family neighborhoods,provide for compatible infill development in such areas,and
prescribe the overall character of newly subdivided low-density areas.This zone shall be
applied to areas designated"low-density residential"on the general plan map."
The R-1 District provides for the following types of uses: t
• Agriculture
• Family day care '
• Residential dwellings
• Schools ,
C/OS Zoning District.The purpose of the C/OS District is:
• A.The C/OS zone generally will be applied to areas which are most suitable for open space uses '
because of topography,geology,vegetation,soils,wildlife habitat,scenic prominence,
agricultural value or flood hazard. ,
• B.The C/OS zone is intended to prevent exposure of urban development to unacceptable risks
posed by natural hazards and to protect natural resources from disruptive alterations.To these
ends,it is further intended to prevent the subdivision of such lands.
• C.It will be applied as a permanent zone to areas designated"open space"or"park"on the
general plan map.It may also be applied to areas designated"interim open space"where
development is contingent on prerequisites identified in the general plan text.
The C/OS District provides for the following types of uses:
• Agriculture J ,
• Parks
3-100 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR t
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Figure 3.9-1:City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use
' E
ga
Q t
n e U w
zpJp F W Q' � ppT W ggi •�ccY G QQ
�§ c�Ei o CUKI o oy, v gg
t a- $.a-.so ,.°C zeWeMI v@��a z �' o 1
Wy Y- W gp
$z€ manes.gVs$=$i8=8 :gI'a'�� drg�HE �, 91
W.a _ - �.t�z 0 u~i"g x�vWap{n a HE c '^
<'yago1 "4yaFaHwlllly= c x�zSs" l m v5,206 w a .-a I
M�`-8 EW&� d'EW]� � osW W�VemC gy NLw:Vy ZZQ� LL g 3 Wp2. ply
' a1p,3 W1 2aC52{��ga'my99;pp e��{C{yt��os xepl 'Y.�m'^grq�1zya1��QNEtCy E$Q•m W
0�= 6KQ KZ Ni 77�J 2�23atZ ba 8266Z.2�t�tOYa la
��000��aooaooaoaaoo�®goo � �
I
<
SOURCE:City of San Luis Obispo 2002
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-101
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS '
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern t
The following topic is an area of potential environmental concern that may be associated with
implementation of the proposed project:
• The potential to conflict with adopted policies of the General Plan
Thresholds of Significance 1
The following threshold of significance is used to determine the level of impact to areas of potential
environmental concern.The project would have a significant effect if it would:
• Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal '
program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
The City has determined that the existing zoning for the portion of the project site proposed for '
residential development should be rezoned from R-1 to R-1-SP.The intent of adding the"SP"(Specific
Plan Area)overlay to the project site's R-1 District would be to"...translate the provisions of an adopted
specific plan into regulations for the subsequent development of land."The City's Zoning Ordinance '
states that the Specific Plan Overlay"...be applied to areas for which a specific plan has been adopted or
where the general plan calls for a specific plan prior to development,generally within residential
expansion areas." '
The Ordinance goes onto to state that the Specific Plan Overlay shall provide for specific development
standards for the lands within the Overlay.Among these are:
• Residential density shall be as provided in the specific plan.
• Height,yards,coverage and parking shall be as provided in the specific plan.If the specific plan
does not contain explicit provisions on these items,they shall be provided in the underlying
zone.
• Other development features explicitly contained in the specific plan,such as landscaping, '
building siting and form,and circulation,shall be as provided in the specific plan.
Potential Impact 3.9-1:Potential to conflict with adopted policies of the General Plan. '
Table 3.9-1 presents an evaluation of the proposed project compared with relevant policies of the
General Plan's Land Use,Housing,Safety,and Conservation Elements.Only those polices that the
proposed project may be in conflict with are listed.A complete listing of relevant General Plan policies '
and the proposed project's degree of conformance are included in Appendix H.
3-102 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
tFigure 3.9-2:City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Districts
W 'w (Legend ojZones
ConservatioNopen Spam(UOS)
1n^, Uwv Density Residential(R-1)
4 I t Medium Density ReSidentw(R-2)
Q Medium-High Density Residential(R-3)
_ l Q High Density Residential(R-4)
• • Office(0)
I -Neighborhood Commercial(C-N)
Central Commercial(C-C)
Retail u Q Tmft Commercials((C T)
1 D�
Yt.. Service Commercial(C-S)
Q Manufachirfng(M)
Public facility(PF)
Y Y a Yi D Bowden Ranch Development
Owrlay 1 , �•M ° >` '��'�' ea.. .j{` H H Zones
r 5-
Special consideration
.m uu ,�• - SP-Speditc Plan Area
PD-Planned DevelopTat
� • // ''' — �� -� fAU-fToa:d the
•iti • r w A,�. `',�� iv..\tl� "'' n y `.,'SIA Jy' S.10-MINTun1 Pante S18(e.9.g05-5)
E.
M.MIL
_ — Tae•® ��! �> `..5 7k 'L Xv�w.l
J
SOURCE:City of San Luis Obispo 2002
1
1
1
1
1
1 Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 3-103
August 2603
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES '
Table 3.9-1.General Plan Conformance
Policy Consistent/inconsistent Mitigation Recommended
LAND USE ELEMENT
LU 13:Urban Edges Character. Potentially Inconsistent.Proposed Mitigation Measure 3.9-1.Prior
The boundary between San Luis development on Lots 11 through 16 to recordation of the final map the '
Obispo's urban development and would abut the proposed open space. applicant shall submit to the
surrounding open land should be on Lot 24,potentially creating a harsh Director of Community
clear.Development just inside the urban edge against the backdrop of the Development for review and
boundary shall provide measures undeveloped open space lands. approval a landscape plan for 1
to avoid a stark-appearing edge those portions of Lots 11 through
between buildings in the city and 16.The plan shall provide for a
adjacent open land.Such landscape palette that ensures a '
measures include:using new or gradual visual transition from the.
existing groves or windrows of urban residential development to
trees,or hills or other landforms,to the adjacent open space on Lot ,
set the edge of development, 24.Installation and maintenance
increasing the required side-yard of the landscape materials
and rear-yard setbacks. identified in the plan shall be the
responsibility of the future owners '
of the subject lots and shall be
governed by the project's
Covenants,Codes,and
Restrictions(CC&Rs)
SAFETY ELEMENT
S 2.2:Wildland Fire Safety Potentially Consistent.The project site Mitigation Measure.3.9-2.Prior '
is within a High Fire Hazard Area as to recordation of the Final Map the
Q Buildings that are in areas of defined by the City s General Plan. applicant shall submit to the
moderate fire hazard and which Because the proposed project does not Director of Community 1
are close to areas of high or include the actual design or Development for review and
extreme fire.haiard shall have construction of homes,there is a approval language for a deed
noncombustible exteriors; potential for the design and restriction to be recorded against
noncombustible exteriors are construction of homes that would each of the residential lots.The
encouraged for all buildings in include combustible roofing materials. Deed Restriction shall specifically
moderate fire hazard areas. allow the use of Class A rated
Because the proposed project does not materialsonl
D)In areas of moderate or higher y
include the actual design or
wildland fire hazard,defensible construction of homes,there is a Mitigation Measure 3.9-3.Prior
space-accessible space free of potential for the design and to recordation of the final map the
highly combustible vegetation and construction of homes that would not applicant shall submit to the '
materials-shall be provided provide adequate defensible space. Director of Community
around all structures. Development for review and
approval language for a deed '
restriction to be recorded against
each of the residential lot.The
Deed Restriction shall specifically
require the provision of adequate
defensible space around each of
the homes to be built in 1
accordance with the City's Fire
Marshal.
3-104 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR t
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Policy Consistent/inconsistent Mitigation Recommended
S 7.1:Hazardous Trees.Minimize Potentially Consistent.The proposed Mitigation Measure 3.9-4.Prior
danger to people and property project could result in the construction to recordation of the final map the
from trees that are weakened and of homes close to large Eucalyptus trees applicant shall submit to the
susceptible to falling or limb loss that have the tendency to have limbs Director of Community
during storms. fall. Development for review and
approval a graphic depiction of
building envelopes for each of the
residential lou that includes or is
t adjacent to Eucalyptus trees.The
map shall indicate that no
buildings may be sited closer than
' 15 feet from the outside edge of
the canopy of any Eucalyptus tree.
SOURCE:MHA 2003
' 3.10 Noise
' ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1 Technical Background
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air and is described in terms of loudness or amplitude
(measured in decibels[dBA]),frequency of pitch (measured in Hertz[Hz]or cycles per second),and
duration (measured in minutes or seconds).
Typical human hearing can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal
conditions.Changes as low as 1 dBA are discernible under quiet,controlled conditions.The human ear is
not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies.Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all but can be.
felt as vibrations.While people with extremely sensitive hearing can discern sounds with pitches as high
' as 20,000 Hz,most people cannot hear sound with a frequency above.5,000 Hz or below 200 Hz.A special
frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity.The.A-weighted decibel
compensates by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the
' human ear.
Noise is defined as unwanted or objectionable sound,and usually reflects changes from typical
1 background noise levels and spectra.Airborne sound is described as a rapid fluctuation of air pressure
above and below the atmospheric pressure.Magnitude,frequency and duration are the variables used to
characterize noise.A difference of 6-10 dB is perceived as a doubling of loudness.Distance.serves to
' attenuate noise levels and changes in frequencies.With every doubling of distance,there is a
corresponding reduction in noise levels of approximately 5 to 6 dB.Noise levels from familiar sources are
shown in Table 3.10-1.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-105
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Table 3.10-1.Typical Residential/Commercial Noise Sources and Levels
Noise Source Noise Level(dBA)
Rustle of leaves in the breeze 25 '
Whisper(at 6 feet) 35
Inside average residence 40
Refrigerator(in same room) 40
Average office 55
Normal female speech (at 3 feet) 60
Vacuum cleaner(at 10 feet) 70
Garbage disposal(at 3 feet) 80 '
Food blender(at 3 feet) 90
Auto horn(at 10 feet) 100 '
SOURCE:CIEA 1996
LOCAL SETTING
Existing Noise Sources t
There are no existing noise sources on-site because the project site is currently undeveloped and not
used for noise-producing outdoor activities.The only significant source of noise in the vicinity of the
project site is the adjacent athletic field.
Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive noise receptors are generally considered to be residential land uses and facilities such as
hospitals,schools,or rest/convalescent homes.Sensitive receptors in the project.site vicinity are limited
to the people at the residences nearest to the project area,along Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane,and
Woodland Drive.
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal '
No Federal regulations apply to the proposed project.
State and Regional
California has not established absolute standards for noise exposure forthe general population.There
are established noise exposure standards for the workplace that are administered by the state's Division
of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA).
3-106 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' The state's General Plan Guidelines include recommended noise levels for various types of land uses
measured as"Ld„"(State of California 1998).This type of measurement applies a 10-dBA penalty to noise-
producing sources during the night and evening hours(10:00 P.M.to 7:00 Am.) because of people's
greater sensitivity to noise during those hours.When prorated over 24-hour period,the Ldp represents a
6.4-dBA penalty for noise-producing sources.For example,a noise source that produces an equivalent
noise level(L q)of 60 dBA is assumed to be producing the noise effect of 66A dBA on the Ld,scale.The dB
scale is used in City General Plan documents as a means of describing the compatibility of various land
uses within a community.
' Local
The San Luis Obispo City General Plan Noise Element has as its goals the prevention,exposure
protection,and reduction of noise sources with in the community,it also stresses the education of the
public about noise exposure,site-planning to reduce project noise impacts,and the prevention of noise
' incompatible land uses(City of San Luis Obispo-2002a).Applicable noise policies under these overall
goals include:
' • Minimizing noise through maximum acceptable noise levels
• Determining the appropriateness of designations or developments of land for noise-sensitive
uses
' • Defining acceptable,conditionally acceptable,and unacceptable noise environments
• Limiting traffic growth through noise standards
• Mitigating all types of noise sources and outdoor noise exposure
The Noise Element includes a table(Table 3.10-2)against which projects within the City are evaluated for
new stationary noise source impacts.Table 3.10-2 outlines the criteria for determining the acceptability
and conformity of proposed project noise effects with the General Plan.Similar policies to reduce and
minimize noise pollution are included in the Conservation Element of the City's General Plan(City of San
' Luis Obispo 2002b).
' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following is an area of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
of the proposed project:
• The potential exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance associated with construction activities
Threshold of Significance
There would be a significant noise impact if:
• The project would expose people to noise levels in excess of applicable local guidelines during
construction
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-107
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Table 3.10-2:Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Stationary Noise Sources
Duration Day(7 a.m.to 10 p.m.) Night(10 p.m.to 7 a.m.)
Hourly Leq in dB',2 50 45
Maximum level in dB12 70 65
Maximum impulsive noise in dB',3 65 60
'As determined at the property line of the receiver.When determining effectiveness of noise mitigation measures,the standards
may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property-line noise mitigation measures. ,
=Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response.
3 Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter response.
SOURCE:City of San Luis Obispo 2002 '
Potential Impacts and Mitigation ,
Potential Impact 3.10-1.Construction noise at the project site.
The operation of heavy equipment on site would be the principal source of construction-generated noise
at the project site.The equipment would be used during lot development activities for grading and
access road construction,earthmoving,infrastructure placement,and tree-removal.Neighbors to the
project site and area,as well as those recreating in or near the open space and/or trails on-site,could also
be impacted by the project construction noise.
Attenuation of the equipment sounds,at a rate of approximately 5-6 db for each doubling of distance
from the source,local topography,and existing vegetation currently does,and would,reduce equipment
noise exposure to non-project personnel,such as neighbors or passers-by.Construction noise,however,
could result in potentially significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. '
The project would generate construction noise during grading and development activities that could
result in potentially significant impacts unless mitigation is incorporated.following mitigation measures
would ensure that the project does not generate significant noise impacts to on-site project personnel or
surrounding residents:
Mitigation Measure 3.10-1.Construction-related noise impacts to sensitive receptors at or near
the project site would be minimized and/or reduced using the following methods:
• Grading and construction work shall occur during the weekdays only and not on '
Saturday,Sunday,or holidays,consistent with established City ordinances.
• Feasible,appropriate noise-reducing technology shall be used for on-site machinery and
equipment.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-2.Prior to issuance of each grading or building permit the applicant
shall submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval grading and '
building plans that have placed on their-first page of all plan sets a note that states,"Grading and
construction work shall occur only in conformance with City Ordinances.
3-108 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Potential lmpact.3.10-2.Traffic noise and ground borne vibration.
Large trucks and heavy equipment associated with project construction and development would be the
primary source of traffic noise and vibration along the local roads in the project area.The nearest
sensitive receptors for noise are the residents of homes located on Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane,and
Woodland Drive.The La Loma Adobe may be susceptible to damage from ground borne vibration.The
noise associated with vehicle traffic and trips would be temporary,short in duration,during daylight
hours only,and not on Saturdays,Sundays or holidays,thereby reducing project traffic noise impacts to
less than significant levels.
The proposed project would result in only a relatively small addition to existing City traffic volume and
local/neighborhood traffic trips(Refer to Section 3.14,Transportation and Traffic).Sensitive receptors in
' the vicinity of the project would not be affected by the.small increase in traffic noise associated with the
project because of distance,topography,and vegetative cover of the area,as well as the infrequent,
residential nature of the traffic.
Because of the nature of ground-borne vibration,the extent to which the surrounding area is affected by
vibration is much less than for airborne noise.The levels of existing ground-borne vibration transmitted
to adjacent buildings or receptors are generally low enough to be imperceptible because vibrations
attenuate significantly and rapidly with ground distance.The relatively distant location of residences
near the project site would ensure that potential,temporary,project-associated vibrations would result in
less than significant impacts to these receptors.The structural condition of the La Loma Adobe makes it
susceptible to potential further structural deterioration from ground borne vibration during earth
moving activities.To ensure the adequate protection of the Adobe,the following mitigation measure
' shall be implemented to reduce the potential risk of damage to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-3.Prior to the first ground disturbing activity on the project site the
applicant shall fund an engineering analysis of the La Loma Adobe for the express purpose of
determining what reinforcing measures must be installed to eliminate any potential damage to
the structure from on-site grading and construction activities.The recommendations included in
the analysis shall be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities.
3.11 Population and Housing
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional and Local Setting
Population.Data available from the California Department of finance's(DOF)Economic Research Unit
indicates that population growth in the City from July 1990 to July 2000 reflected an average annual
growth rate of 0.49%,with a net increase of 2,092 people from 1990 through 2000.The growth
represents a 0.72%population increase over the ten-year period.Table 3.11-1 illustrates the City's
population growth over that period.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-109
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Table 3.11-1.Historic Annual Population Growth/Decline for the City of San Luis Obispo
r0 Lk rn ren r-e ren r� �^ rm rrn ro
fQ fT f0 OeR e0 e6 at fQ eT f0' e0 fr R a f0 O
C C " C C C _ ^ ^ t ^ _ ^ C
L CC
ry
m C m a to ee eo C eo eo
Population 41,958 42,100 42,650 42,900 43,200 42,100 42,350 43,000 43,400 43,750 44,050
(in
thousands)
Annual 142 550 250 300 -1,100 250 650 400 350 300 ,
Growth/
Decline
Annual 034% 1.31% 059% 0.70% -2.55% 059% 1.53% 0.93% 0.81% 0.69%
Percentage ,
Growth/
Decline
SOURCE:California Department of Finance 2003 ,
The DOF estimates the City's January 1,2002 population to be 44,450,which represents an increase of
400 people from the.2000 population(DOF 2003).
The City is projected to have an annual growth rate of 1.0%between the years 2001 and 2008(San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments,2001).From the estimated 2002 population,a 1%increase represents '
an additional 444 additional people to the City in one year.
Table 3.11=2.Population Growth Projections for the City of San Luis Obispo
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ,
44,450 44,895 45,343 45,797 46,255 46,717 47,185
SOURCE:San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 2001
Housing.California Department of Finance's Economic Research Unit:indicates that there-was an
average of 2.32 people per household in the City of San Luis Obispo in the year 2000,with a total of
18,871 housing units.
It has been estimated that City's population living in households is approximately 42,564,and that an
average of 2.27 people live in each household.This translates into 18,750 households in the City.
REGULATORY SETTING
Federal,State,and Regional
No federal goals,objectives,or policies are considered relevant to the potential population and housing
effects that may result from implementation of the proposed project.
3-110 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1 The State of California,through the San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments,has established
targets for housing construction (both in total numbers and cost ranges)for San Luis Obispo,the other
1 incorporated cities within the County,and for the unincorporated County.
Local
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan addresses residential growth rate as follows:
1 LU 1.0.1:Growth Management Objectives.The City shall manage its growth so that:
A) The natural environment and air quality will be protected.
B) The relatively high level of services enjoyed by City residents is maintained or enhanced.
1 Q The demand for municipal services does not outpace their availability.
D) New residents can be assimilated without disrupting the community s social fabric,safety,or
established neighborhoods.
E) Residents'opportunities for direct participation in City government and their sense of
community can continue.
1 The City will not designate more land for urban uses than its resources can be expected to support.
LU 1.11.1:Overall Intent.Growth rates should provide for the balanced evolution of the community
1 and the gradual assimilation of new residents.Growth must be consistent with the City's ability to
provide resources and services and with State and City requirements for protecting the environment,
the economy,and open space.
1 LU 1.11.2:Residential Growth Rate.The City's housing supply shall grow no faster than one
percent per year,averaged over a 36-month period,excluding dwellings affordable to residents with
very low or low incomes as defined in the Housing Element.This rate of growth may continue so long
as the City's basic service capacity is assured.Table 3.11-2 shows the approximate number of
residents,which would result from the one percent maximum average annual growth rate over the
1 planning period.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following is an area of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
1 of the proposed project:
• Potential for generating population growth
1 Threshold of Significance
1 The impacts of project actions shall be considered significant if population is affected in the following
way:
• Substantial,unplanned population growth would be induced in an area,either directly or
1 indirectly
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-111
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Potential Impacts and Mitigation 1
The proposed project would provide for the future development 23 new single family detached
residential units for an estimated total additional population of approximately 53 people. Cumulative
population growth is addressed by the City's Residential Growth Management Regulations, which
assume a certain amount of in-City development and regulate the pace of housing construction in major
annexations.Development of this project has been taken unto account.for the in-City assumptions. '
The total potential population increase attributable to the proposed project of 53 people is well within
the currently estimated annual population increase for a single year at the currently estimated growth
rate of 1.0%for the City.The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on population.
The addition of 23 peoples to the estimated 18,750 households in the City would have a less than
significant impact on housing.
In summary, the proposed project would not have significant impacts on population or housing. Due to
the small number of added persons and housing units, as well as the projected rates of population
growth for the City, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on population and ,
housing.No mitigation is necessary.
3.12: Public Services
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Local
Fire Protection.There are 56 full-time employees of the San Luis Obispo Fire Department(City of San
Luis Obispo Fire Department 2002).Department goals include responsive,effective and efficient fire '
department programs and well-planned,long-term improvements to the fire department facilities,
equipment and organization (City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department 2002).The emergency response
program protects life and property by responding to medical emergencies,fires,hazardous materials
incidents,and other emergencies.The hazard prevention program prevents injury and loss of life,
property and the environment caused by fire,explosion or exposure to hazardous materials.The disaster
preparedness program ensures that City forces can provide appropriate relief and rescue services
following major disasters like earthquakes,floods,nuclear power plant accidents,hazardous materials
spills,and wildland fires,as well as providing disaster preparedness education and training to the general
public.The radio communication services program manages and coordinates the City's emergency '
communications system in accordance with adopted plans and policies.The program's primary goal is to
ensure effective emergency communications citywide.There are 4 fire stations in the City.The closest fire
station to the project site is the Headquarters Fire Station#1,at 2160 Santa Barbara Street,approximately
1.5 miles from the project site.
Police Protection.The San Luis Obispo Police Department consists of 87 employees,61 of which are '
sworn police officers (City of San Luis Obispo Police Department 2002).The Operations Bureau consists
of a Patrol Services Division,Traffic Safety Unit,and Situation.Oriented Response Team(SORT). The Patrol
Services division provides 24-hour emergency and non-emergency response and service to the
community,the Traffic Safety Unit provides motorcycle assignments and special traffic enforcement,and
3-112 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' the SORT provides selective enforcement,and supplements the investigative and patrol units.The
project site is 13 miles from the City's only police station,located at 1042 Walnut Street.
Health Services.There are three hospitals in the City.Medical care is available at Sierra Vista Regional
Medical Center,a 250-bed acute care facility and the largest general hospital in the area(Retirement
America 2002).The center providesa full range of medical services for optimum care including MRI,CAT
' Scan,ultrasound,etc.all supported by a professional staff.The City is home to over 150 physicians and
specialists representing nearly all medical and surgical specialties.There are over 400 total beds in the
' county in the three acute care hospitals.The other hospitals in the City are French Hospital and San Luis
Obispo County General Hospital.
Schools.The City s public school system is comprised of seven elementary,one middle,and one high
t school(City of San Luis Obispo Economic Development 2002).These schools are part of the San Luis
Coastal Unified School District and have an enrollment of approximately 8,200 students of the County's
nearly 37,000 students.The City is also home to an alternative elementary and high school,mental
health-connected elementary school,and four private/parochial schools(City of San Luis Obispo
Economic Development 2002).The higher educational needs of the City,region,and state are served by
California Polytechnic University—San Luis Obispo(Cal Poly)and two two-year community colleges in
the Central Coast area.The current enrollment of Cal Poly and the San Luis Obispo Campus of Cuesta
College is approximately 18,000 and 9,000 students,respectively.Other area colleges that accept
students from the San Luis Obispo area include the North County Campus of Cuesta College,located in
Paso Robles,and the Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria.
Parks and Recreational Facilities.Local(and regional)park and recreation resources are discussed in
' detail in Section 3.13,Recreation,in this EIR.
Public Utilities.Local public services resources are discussed in detail in Section 3.15,UtiIity.Systems,in
' this EIR.
The portion of the project site proposed for development lies within the Low Density Residential Zoning
District(R-1).There are no schools,parks,or hospitals on the project site.A school and two hospitals are
located less than one mile of the project site.Informal hillside access trails also traverse.the project sites.
' REGULATORY SETTING
Regional
Safety and Fire Protection.The California Public Resources Code(PRC)defines hazardous fire areas,
restrictions on fire use,and minimum fire protection requirements for the state.The Code is
administered by the California Department of Forestry(CDF).The PRC also sets forth provisions for the
reduction of fire hazards around buildings located on land that is covered with flammable material.A
firebreak of at least 30 ft is required to be maintained around buildings by removing all flammable
vegetation or combustible growth.Wider firebreaks may be.required under extra-hazardous conditions.
Firebreak clearance is also required around electrical transmission poles and towers.
1
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-113
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Local
The City's General Plan addresses avoiding and preparing for general emergencies and includes policies
on emergency preparedness and emergency response(City of San Luis Obispo 2002).The Safety Element 1
has identified the following response performance standards for recurrent emergencies:
• The Fire Department:Response time objective of four minutes,with standard coverage by three-
person engine company and paramedic meeting this standard 95%of the time
• Police Department:30%available-time objective for patrol response
• Public Works and Utilities Departments:Evaluate,identify,and remedy water system deficiencies; '
set and work to achieve.response-time objectives
The Element states that substantial development(i.e.,industrial,commercial,and institutional uses, 1
multifamily housing,and more than ten single-family dwellings)would only be allowed where multiple
routes of road access can be provided,consistent with other General Plan polices. '
The Safety Element also includes policies and standards to guide the response of City resources to
specific emergency responses,training of staff for both specific and recurrent emergency situations,
development of emergency plans,information and planning,and disaster preparedness and recovery.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following potential public services concerns must be considered in an analysis of the impacts of the
project:
• Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered '
governmental facilities,the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,response times.or other performance objectives for any of the public t
services
Thresholds of Significance
The impacts of project actions shall be considered significant if the project actions would:
• Necessitate the expansion of the equipment and manpower of responsible fire departments to
more than existing resources in order to maintain current service ratios and response times
• Necessitate the expansion of the City's Police Department to exceed its current resources in order
to maintain current service ratios and response times
• Necessitate the expansion of the City's school facilities or exceed the capacity of existing
resources in order to maintain current service
• Necessitate the expansion of parks facilities to more than existing resources in order to maintain '
current service
3-114 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1 Potential Impacts and Mitigation
1 Potential Impact 3.12-1.The potential to result in impacts on public services requiring the
unplanned expansion of facilities or personnel
1 Summary.The proposed project would add housing for approximately 53 people.If all of the residents of
the new development came from out of the area,the population increase associated with the proposed
project and future on-site development would be within projections for the City of San Luis Obispo(See
1 Section 3.11,Population and Housing).Existing and projected City public services are capable of
accommodating the increase in demand that would be caused by the proposed project.The City's Police
Department,Fire Department,school system,health services,public recreation,and public utilities
1 resources have adequate capacity and are adequately staffed to provide service to the proposed
development.
1 The project would not necessitate the expansion of the equipment,facilities,or manpower of
responsible fire,police,health,and school services to more than existing resources in order to maintain
current.service ratios and response times.The project also would not result in substantial adverse
t physical impacts associated with the provision of new or altered fire,police,health,or school facilities.
There would be no need for new or physically altered governmental facilities.The project would be
subject to payment of school fees and park-in-lieu fees.The San Luis Coastal Unified School District
1 (SLCUSD)can absorb any students generated as a result of the project since.school fees would be paid in
accordance with new home construction(B.Parker,SLCUSD,pers.comm.,2002).
The project would not necessitate the need for significant expansion or alteration of the City s parks and
recreation public services.The project would add additional recreation opportunities through the
dedication of project area lands to open space.Formal public access to the on-site trails and open space
area associated with the project is discussed later in this document in Section 3.13,Recreation.
Implementation of the proposed project would include physical improvements or operations that would
impact City public utilities systems.The provision of public roads and emergency and fire access to the
site would require grading that may have an adverse.physical impact on the environment.Grading and
on-site road and infrastructure development activities,and associated potential impacts are discussed in
depth in Section 33 (Biological Resources),3.14(Transportation and Traffic),and 3.15 (Utilities)of this EIR.
Impacts to local City public services resulting from the project would be less than significant.No
mitigation is necessary.The impacts to recreation and other public services resulting from the project are
potentially significant and are addressed in Section 3.3 (Biological Resources),3.14(Transportation and
Traffic),and Section 3.15 (Utilities)of this EIR.
3.13: Recreation
1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regional Setting
1 The Central Coast of California is renowned for its beauty and moderate climate,making it an ideal
destination for enjoying a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities year-round.San Luis Obispo
1 Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-115
1 August2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
County alone contains approximately 14,000 acres of parklands located along the scenic coast and offers t
public access to the Pacific Ocean and coastal mountain ranges.The region also provides outstanding
multi-use trail,hiking,and camping activities,as well as outdoor sporting such as golf,cycling,and
fishing.
The City of San Luis Obispo offers recreational opportunities to both residents and visitors at nearly 30
parks and recreational facility sites,and 14 open space,natural reserve,and nature.preserve areas
throughout the City.Over 500 acres of parkland and nearly 70,000 square feet of recreational facilities
exist in the City.Many of these parks and facilities were acquired and developed in the 1960's and 1970's,-
more
970's;more recent efforts have focused on maintaining and improving existing parks and recreational facilities.
Local Setting
Several informal trails exist within the project area as shown in Figure 1.0-2.Recreational uses that occur
in the immediate vicinity of the project site include nature viewing,hiking,and outdoor sports. '
The informal trails begin at the west side of the project site,at Lizzie Street and Woodland Road,and lead
uphill to the Santa Lucia foothills east of the projects site.These trails proceed west to east across the
project site and provide local residents access to the open spaces and hillsides to the east of the project
area in the Santa Lucia Foothills.Limited roadside parking for hiker vehicles is currently provided on the.
south side of the access road that extends easterly from the junction of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane.
Playing fields north-northwest of the project site,and associated with the nearby educational facilities,
provide opportunities and space for sports such as baseball,softball,football,tennis,and running.
REGULATORY SETTING
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Open Space Element.The Open Space Element addresses the goals,policies,and programs for parks
and associated recreational facilities in the City.The General Plan Digest of the Open Space Element(City
of San Luis Obispo 2002)lists goals that serve to:
• Preserve and enhance existing community recreation (OS 12.1.1)
• Create an integrated trail system that connects City open space lands to other public or private
lands(05 12.1.2)
• Provide recreational uses that are consistent with a site's environmental features and character 1
(OS 12.1.3)
• Provide multiple uses on open space lands(OS 12.1.4)
Open Space policies address the need for coordination of recreational development,connection of open
space and recreational areas,determination of where passive vs.active recreation should occur,and '
guidance on the development associated with parks and trails.In particular,passive recreation is
encouraged on or near hillside areas,creeks,wetlands,sensitive habitats,or scenic resources,provided
these resources are preserved according to specific guidelines. '
3-116 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
' Tables 3.13-1 and 3.13-2 below outlines General Plan guidance for the type of recreational activity
encouraged or prohibited for City lands and resources.
1
Table 3.13=1.City of San Luis Obispo Recreational Development Guidelines—Recreation Locations
' In General,Prohibit: In General,provide passive In general,encourage active
recreation on lands that are more recreation or an active trail
rural or sensitive in character (assuming there are no significant
(assuming there are no significant environmental,land use,or
environmental,land use,or neighborhood compatibility
neighborhood compatibility, impacts or inconsistencies):
impacts),when such lands:
Recreation within creek corridors Are public lands designated open Within the City's URL or contiguous
' (except Mission Plaza and Mission space,or other lands where there is to the URL where such property will
Plaza expansion areas),wetlands a willing provider; have(or has)a parkland designation
(except portions of Laguna Lake and or a play or recreation area is
the wetland area within Meadow designated as part of development
' Park),sensitive habitat,and similar proposal;
sensitive areas
Recreation where significant Contain(or will contain)an open Within development projects or
' environmental impacts occur as a space or conservation easement; subdivisions where active recreation
result of the proposed recreation,or is needed to serve that
the proposed recreation would development;
significantly mar the scenic quality
of the site;
Recreation if there are significant Have(or will have)their Along corridors that are suited for
' neighborhood or land use development rights deeded to a active trails such as the Southern
compatibility impacts;or public agency,land conservancy,or Pacific railroad right-of--way,urban
similar organization;or or major streets;or
Active recreation which is not within Are designated for such recreation Consistent with City,County,or
or contiguous to the URL(except EI by City,County,or State plans, State plans,elements,or ordinances.
Chorro Park and Cuesta College). elements,or ordinances.
SOURCE:City of San Luis Obispo
Table 3.13-2.City of San Luis Obispo Recreational Development Guidelines—Resources and Recreation
Resource Prohibited Encouraged Comments
Hills and Mountains Highly erosive areas,or Passive recreation.such as Provide active recreation
where recreation would trails or viewing stations. (such as a trail)in-the case
significantly mar the such recreation connects
' resource. open space,parkland,or
an active trail corridor.
Creeks,Wetlands, Within creek corridors Passive recreation within Recreation such as
Sensitive Habitat,and (except Mission Plaza) the outer perimeter of a viewing stations and
Unique Resources within wetlands(except creek setback or a habitat nature study may be
Laguna Lake Park and buffer. appropriate within a creek
Mawinw Darlrl cancitiva rnrririnr ac Innn ac
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-117
1 August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Resource Prohibited Encouraged Comments 1
Meadow Park),sensitive corridor as long as
habitat,unique resources, protection of the creek '
or similar areas corridor is provided.
Crossings(such as trial
bridge)may be provided
in the creek corridor.
Hazard Areas When recreation would Passive or active Encourage recreation in
increase the hazard. recreation where hazard hazard areas where 1
control and recreation can recreation facilities will not
both be beneficially be damaged.
provided.
Historical Resources Where recreation will Passive or active Encourage.interpretive
harm the resource. recreation(depending on displays near historical
the nature and use of the resources. '
historical resource).
Mineral Resources Where recreation may Recreation after the land
represent a public health has been reclaimed.
and safety concern.
Agricultural Lands Where active recreation Passive or active trails that Passive recreation should
would bisect an connect other open space, not interfere with existing '
agricultural parcel or parkland,or trail resources. adjacent agricultural
interfere with the operations.
agricultural operation. '
Scenic Resources Where recreation would Passive recreation that is In scenic areas viewing
significantly mar the secondary to the scenic stations may be
resource. area being preserved. appropriate.
Urban Edge Active recreation that is Passive or active
not contiguous to or recreation contiguous or
within the URL(except EI within the URL '
Chorro Park and Cuesta
College).
SOURCE City of San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Element.In general,the City's parks and recreational facilities are designed to
enhance quality of life for residents and meet their recreational needs.Additional goals outlined in the ,
Element include the conservation of natural resources and environmental quality,consistency with the
General Plan,accessibility to all potential users,the design of trail linkages,development of new
recreational facilities and parks,and acquisition of open space areas.This Element also provides for the '
appropriate management of open space areas that:
• Promote public access and public trails where appropriate
• Enhance the natural environment
• Link open space and parks ,
• Designate receiver sites for mitigation project
3-118 MHA Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
1
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
1 Additionally,the Element outlines project-relevant policies that address park land-to-resident ratios,
resident access to neighborhood parks,park-in-lieu fees,new residential project-associated athletic field
development.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
' The following topics are areas of potential environmental concern that maybe associated with
implementation of the proposed project:
• The potential to increase the use of existing.neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
would be accelerated
1 • The potential to include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment
' The potential for the project to increase hiker-and trail-associated nuisances and negative impacts to the
project area resources and neighbors also must be considered.
Thresholds of Significance
The level of impact to areas of potential environmental concern would be considered significant if the
project would:
• Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or would be accelerated
• Includerecreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
' Potential Impact 3.13-1.The potential to increase the use of existing recreational facilities
resulting in accelerated deterioration or the construction of recreational facilities that
could result in significant environmental effects.
Twenty-seven acres of the project site are proposed to be dedicated to the City for ownership and long-
term maintenance.Existing pedestrian/hiking access across the site would be maintained during and
after construction.Project-associated construction activities may temporarily restrict the use of some of
the informal trails or access points,but only during construction periods.Construction could also result
' in temporary changes to access or use of existing trails,which could result in trail users hiking in non-
trails areas.Existing street access points and trailheads would change,but would not significantly
diminish,as a result of the lot and access road development on-site.Trail access would likely occur
farther east on Lizzie Street, Lizzie Court,and the lot access road from Lizzie Court.Limited parking on
the project site for trail users would be maintained and expanded on Lizzie Street/Court as part of the
proposed project(See Section 3.14,Transportation and Traffic).These temporary changes in on-site trail
t
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-11.9
1 August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES 1
use,which could potentially result in the temporary use of access-pathways through the any of the '
project site's drainages,could also conflict with recreation and resource use policies outlined in Table
3.13-1,e.g.,hiker crossing creek bank areas to alternatively access trails would conflict with prohibitions
on within-creek corridor recreation.
The proposed development is subject to payment of park in-lieu fees.These fees would be utilized by the
City to expand,enhance,and maintain existing and new park and recreation facilities to meet the needs
of the.additional population expected after project construction.
The proposed lot development and potential,future development of 23 single=family homes would not 1
significantly impact the recreational facilities of the City because of the relatively small population
increase associated with the project.The proposed project would not significantly increase recreational
usage such that substantial deterioration of City facilities were created or accelerated.The project would
also not directly result in the construction or expansion of City recreational facilities that would have an
adverse effect on the local environment.Construction of up to 23 new single-family homes and
development of the project site are not expected to result in measurable increases in the use of the site's
trails to the adjacent open space lands.
Potential secondary impacts on neighborhood residents that are associated with the continued on-site
trail use include:
• Parking and traffic associated with the use of trails
• Litter and noise associated with trail use
• Trespassing by hikers on private neighborhood property,and nuisance visits and requests from
hikers to local residents
The following mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to recreational resources to
less than significant levels.These measures would also ensure that the project and potential project-
associated activities do not conflict with General Plan recreation and open space policies and guidelines.
Mitigation Measure 3.13-1.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit Site 1
Improvement Plans to the Director of Community Development for review and approval.The Plans
shall provide for temporary signage,to be installed during active project construction and
development operations,and permanent trail signage,which would be placed as appropriate in the t
project area.The signage would be posted at each of the informal trailheads or trail access points on
Lizzie Street/Court,Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive/Court and would: ,
• Identify the trailhead,access points,and trail path(s)ascending the foothills east of the
project site
• Provide phone numbers and information for hiker use,including City Police,Fire,and Parks '
and Recreation Department contact phone numbers
• Provide appropriate safety and emergency information for hiker use '
• Provide direction for responsible,safe,and quiet use and access of trails,including hours of
operation
• Provide info about avoiding and respecting on-site natural resources such as creek areas,
wetlands,sensitive vegetation,animal nests and habitat
3-120 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR 1
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
• Describe the sensitive on-site wildlife,plant,and habitat resources,such as woodrat nests,
wetlands areas,and monarch butterfly habitat
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit,the applicant shall submit to
the Director of Community Development for review and approval Site Improvement Plans.The Plans
shall provide for the installation of small,environmentally friendly and/or neutral waste bins for hiker
trash at the trailhead or trail access point(s),as well as at appropriate points along the trails accessing
the foothills.The City(or community association)would be designated to collect garbage from these
bins on a time schedule to be determined as part of a mitigation and monitoring plan.
Mitigation Measure 3.13-3.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Community Development for review and approval Site improvement Plans.The Plans
fshall provide for short-term bicycle parking at the trailheads or trail access points to encourage hikers
to bike rather than drive to the-site,and to alleviate vehicle-parking concerns.
' 3.14 Transportation and Traffic
1 Section 3.3 of this EIR is based in part on the peer review of one traffic impact study report prepared by or on
behalf of the applicant:
Smith Penfield.2001.Traffic Impact.Study for Bowden Ranch Estates Development.
This report is incorporated by reference into this EIR and is available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo
Community Planning Department,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,C4 93401-3.249.
ENVIRONMENTAL.SETTING
Local Setting
The project site is located off of Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive(Figure 1.0-2).Lizzie
Street terminates at Wilding Lane.Both Wilding Lane and Woodland Drive terminate at cul-de-sacs.The
nearest major street is Johnson Avenue,which is intersected by Lizzie Street at a controlled (traffic signal)
intersection.Johnson Avenue.is a 4-lane,2-way street,witha•dedicated southbound left turn lane at
Lizzie Street.
1 Traffic Volume
The most recent traffic counts in the project area are for Johnson Avenue.Those counts found the
average daily traffic(ADT)to be 20,048 vehicles(both directions combined)passing the intersection at
1 Lizzie Street.No count information is available for Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane;or Woodland Drive.
Levels of Service
Level of service(LOS)is a scale of values,with designations"A"through"F,"that describes degrees of
street congestion,or interference with the normal free flow of traffic.LOS"A"indicates the absence of
congestion orfree.traffic flow at design speed;while LOS"F"indicates a congested condition where
traffic flow is seriously restricted and travel speeds are significantly below design speed.Level of service
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
MHA Inc.3-121
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
is sometimes expressed in terms of a street volume to capacity(v/c)ratio.Table 3.14-1 identifies the t
range of LOS..
REGULATORY SETTING
General Plan
The City s General Plan Circulation Element classifies Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane, and Woodland Drive as
Local Streets.The Element states that Local Streets should have 2 travel lanes, a maximum ADT of 1,500 '
vehicles,and a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour(mph).Johnson Avenue is classified as a Residential
Arterial.The Element states that these types of streets should have 2-4 travel lanes, should operate at a
maximum LOS of"D,"and a maximum speed of 35 mph.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential Environmental Concern
The following are areas of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
of the proposed project:
• The potential to substantially increase traffic in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the-street system
• The potential to delay the movement of emergency vehicles and services in the project area
• The potential to provide inadequate on-site parking for trail users 1
Table 3.141.Street and Intersection LOS Criteria 1
LOS Description V/C or
Level ICU'
LOS A LOS"A"conditions are characterized by free flow operations.Vehicles.are unimpeded in 0-0.6
their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream,and stopped delay at intersections is
minimal. 1
LOS B LOS"B"conditions are characterized by travel speeds which are within 70%of free flow 0.61-.07
operational speeds.Vehicles are slightly restricted in their ability to maneuver within the
traffic stream,and stopped delay at intersectionsis not bothersome to most drivers.
LOS C LOS"C"conditions are characterized as stable operations.The ability to maneuver and 0.71-0.8
change lanes is somewhat restricted,and travel speeds may drop to 50%of free flow
speeds.Some queuing typically occurs at signalized intersections,however all vehicles clear
the intersection on all or nearly all cycles.
LOS D LOS"D"conditions are characterized by high-density traffic flows.Travel speeds may range 0.81-0.9
as low as 40%of free flow operational speeds.Vehicles are restricted in their ability to '
maneuver within the traffic stream,and one or more vehicles may not clear the intersection
within a single signal cycle on a regular basis.
LOS E LOS"E"conditions are characterized as operations at or near capacity.There is little or no 0.91-1.00
freedom to maneuver within traffic stream.Comfort and convenience levels are low,and
driver frustration is generally high.Operations at this level are generally unstable,with even
3-122 MHA Inc.
Bowden.Ranch Development EIR 1
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
LOS Description V/C or
Level ICU,
' minor disturbances or disruptions resulting in the breakdown of operations and
substantially increased delays.The failure of vehicles to clear an intersection in a single
cycle is a regular occurrence.
t LOS F LOS"F"conditions represent forced breakdown flow.The traffic volume approaching >1.00
location exceeds the capacity of the system at that location.Intersections often become the
focal point for street system failure.Operations are characterized by extensive queues and
' long delays.Some or all vehicles fail to clear the intersection during every signal cycle.
'V/C is the Volume/Capacity ratio;ICU is the Intersection Capacity Utilization
SOURCE:Highway Research Board 1965
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are used to determine the level of impact to areas of potential
environmental concern.The project would have a significant effect if it would:
1 • Cause increased traffic,which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system f•e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the
volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)
• Result in inadequate emergency access
e Result in inadequate parking capacity
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
Potential Impact 3.141.The potential to substantially increase traffic in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
The Penfield Smith Traffic Impact Study utilized the data presented in Table 3.14-2 to projects total of 17
AM peak period and 23 PM peak period trips for the proposed project:
Table 3.142.San Luis Obispo Trip Generation Rate
Trip Generation Totals
Single Family Detached 957/unit
Proposed Units 23 units
Total Daily Trips 220 Trips
Total AM Peak Hour Trips(.75) 17 Trips
AM Peak Hour IN:OUT Ratio 25:75
AM Incoming Trips 4 Incoming
AM Outgoing Trips 13 Outgoing
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-123
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Total PM Peak Hour Trips(.75) 23 Trips
PM Peak Hour KOUT Ratio 6.4:3.6
PM Incoming Trips 15 incoming 1
PM Outgoing Trips 8 Outgoing
SOURCE:Penfield Smith 2001
Penfield Smith conducted traffic counts at the intersection of Lizzie Street and Johnson Avenue on
September 12,2000,from 7:00 A.M.to 8:30 A.M.,and again that afternoon from 2:30 P.M.to 5:30 Pm.Based
on those counts,there were a total of 1,863 trips in the morning period,with the peak hour beginning at 1
730 A.M.During the afternoon period there were a total of 1,948 trips,with the peak.hour beginning at
4:30 P.M.
The introduction of traffic from an additional 23 single-family homes would have a negligible effect on
the area-wide circulation system.Locally,the additional traffic would be focused on the intersection of
Lizzie.Street and Johnson Avenue.Penfield Smith utilized the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM-97)to
determine the current intersection LOS for the Lizzie Street/Johnson Avenue intersection.Based on the
HCM-97 the intersection currently operates at an LOS B during both the morning and aftemoon time
periods.The results of that analysis are presented in Table 3.14-3.
To evaluate the impact of the project on the intersection,Penfield Smith assigned the estimated project
trips(17 AM peak hour trips and 23 PM peak hour trips)to the intersection.The distribution of those
added trips was based on Penfield Smith's analysis of the existing turning movements and is illustrated
in Figure 3.14-1.The addition of those trips did not alter the intersection's current LOS B ranking,as
presented in Table 3.14-4.
Penfield Smith's analysis also concluded that the extension of the queue length on southbound Johnson
Avenue from 51 feet to 54 feet with project build-out was insignificant.
The Penfield Smith analysis was conducted prior to the San Luis Coastal Unified School District moving
its administrative offices to the Adult Education administrative buildings off of Lizzie Street.Penfield
Smith estimated that the District's offices would add approximately 30 AM inbound and 30 PM outbound
trips,Monday through Friday.Penfield Smith recalculated their assessment to include the additional trips
with the proposed project and concluded that the queue lengths would increase on Johnson Avenue to
78 feet(3 vehicles)in the AM period and up to 57 feet(2 vehicles) in the PM period.Both queuing lengths
can be accommodated in the existing 100-foot long left tum lane.
In summary,the proposed project would add vehicular trips to local and area streets.The existing streets
have.sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing
levels of service.Therefore,the proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to
increased vehicular trips.
3-124 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Table 3.143.Johnson Avenue/Lizzie Street Existing Peak Hour Delay-LOS
Delay LOS
fAM Peak Hour Delay-LOS 11.7 sec/vehicle B
Queue Length Johnson Avenue(southbound left turn lane) 51 feet
(2 vehicles)
PM Peak Hour Delay-LOS 13.4 sec/vehicle B
1 Queue Length Johnson Avenue(southbound left turn lane) 43 feet
(2 vehicles)
SOURCE:Penfield Smith 2001
To evaluate the impact of the project on the intersection,Penfield Smith assigned the estimated project
trips(17 AM peak hour trips and 23 PM peak hour trips)to the intersection.The distribution of those
added trips was based on Penfield Smith's analysis of the existing turning movements and is illustrated
in Figure 3.14-1.The addition of those trips did not alter the intersection's current LOS B ranking,as
presented in Table 3.14-4.
Penfield Smith's analysis also concluded that the extension of the queue length on southbound Johnson
Avenue from 51 feet to 54 feet with project build-out was insignificant.
The Penfield Smith analysis was conducted priorto the San Luis Coastal Unified School District moving
its administrative offices to the Adult Education administrative buildings off of Liaie.Street.Penfield
Smith estimated that the District's offices would add approximately 30 AM inbound and 30 PM outbound
trips,Monday through Friday.Penfield Smith recalculated their assessment to include the additional trips
1 with the proposed project and concluded that the queue lengths would increase.on Johnson Avenue to
78 feet(3 vehicles)in the AM period and up to 57 feet(2 vehicles)in the PM period.Both queuing lengths
can be accommodated in the existing 100-foot long left turn lane..
In summary,the proposed project would add vehicular trips to local.and area streets.The existing streets
have sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing
levels of service.Therefore,the proposed project would not result in aaignificant impact with regard to
increased vehicular trips.
Potential Impact 3.14-2.The potential to delay the movement of emergency vehicles and
services in the project area.
The existing residential street network east of Johnson Avenue in the project vicinity provides two travel
lanes,with street.sectionsthat provide adequate width for two=way traffic,including the movement of
emergency vehicles.The proposed project would not alter any of the existing streets'widths.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-125
August 2003
i
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Figure 3.141:Turning Movements
AM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution
N
6j% ,
_.... OUT
IN Project
,/ : 40%`. OUT Site
Lizzie St.
French
Hospital
3�% > IN
Johnson Dr. i
PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution
N
606% OUT _..
IN ._ Project
/ "400% OUT Site
Lizzie St.
French
Hospital
20%,; IN
Johnson Dr.
SOURCE:Penfield Smith 2001
3-126 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT ANALYSES
` Table 3.14-4.Johnson Avenue/Lizzie Street Existing Peak hour Delay-LOS
Delay LOS
AM Peak Hour Delay-LOS 11.9 sec/vehicle. B
Queue Length Johnson Avenue(southbound left tum lane) 54 feet
1 (2 vehicles)
PM Peak Hour Delay-LOS 13.6 sec/vehicle B
' Queue Length Johnson Avenue(southbound left turn lane) So feet
(2 vehicles)
SOURCE:Penfield Smith 2001
The proposed project would add vehicular trips to the established street network.While trips would be
added,street sections would not be altered from their existing design and no impact is expected to
result from the project with regard to delaying or impeding the movement of emergency vehicles in the
' area.Further,the addition of vehicular trips added by the proposed project are well within the carrying
capacity of the local and area streets,and no effect is projected with regard to the added vehicular trips
impeding the movement of emergency vehicles.
With respect to on-site conditions,the City of San Luis Obispo's Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed
project design,including street widths and gradients,and determined that the design as proposed
allows for the safe and timely ingress and egress of emergency vehicles.Therefore,the project's impact
on potential to delay the movement of emergency vehicles and services in the project area is less than
significant.
Potential Impact 3.14-3.The potential to provide inadequate on-site parking for trail users
A portion of the project site is currently traversed by a series of informal hiking trails that provide
connections to open space lands to the east.Those trail connections would be retained with project
construction.
Community concerns expressed during a scoping meeting for this EIR addressed concerns regarding the
need for adequate parking to accommodate hikers'use of the area as a trail head.Current trail users park
their vehicles on area streets(Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive).Those parking
opportunities would remain with project implementation.To supplement the existing parking supply,
the applicant has proposed construction of a parking bay along the south side of Lizzie Court.That
parking bay is designed to accommodate approximately 9 vehicles(a total length of approximately 180
feet).
The proposed project is not expected to increase the demand for street parking by existing and future
trail users beyond the potential new users that would reside on project site after construction of
homes.The parking demand for those potential new trail users would be accommodated on their
individual residential lots and would not deduct from the proposed available street parking.
tThe proposed project would not increase use of the area's trail system by virtue of its construction,with
the exception of those new users that are also residents on the project site.Those potential new users
would be expected to parktheir vehicles on their own lots and not utilize existing or proposed on street
'
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-127
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
parking in the area.Therefore,a significant impact with regard to on-street parking is not expected with
project implementation.
3.15 Utilities and Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Water Supply a
The City of San Luis Obispo provides water within City limits. For 2002, the.City has 152 acre-feet of
available water that may be allocated to infill development. t
The City's water supply uses both surface.and groundwater sources.These sources supply an adopted
safe annual yield of 7,520 acre-feet for 2002.Projects to increase the water supply to the City are
currently underway and include the Nacimiento Pipeline Project,the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project,
expansion of groundwater resources,and the Water Reuse Project.Demand on potable water supplies
would be reduced through the reuse of treated wastewaterfor non-potable needs such as landscape
watering.The Water Reuse Project is expected to be the first additional source developed and would
yield a projected 1200 acre-feet per year at build-out.
Future water use planning in the City is based on an average consumption of 145 gallons per person per
day,or 0.162 acre-feet per person per year.These estimates are conservative since consumption has
been lower during and since the most recent drought.Using these estimates and the 2002 City
population,the present demand for water it about 7,216 acre-feet.
Wastewater
Improvements to the City's wastewater treatment plant were completed in 1994.7hese modifications
were made to improve the quality of the treated effluent,and to increase the capacity of the treatment
facility for wet weather flows.An estimated 4.5 million gallons per day(mgd)of wastewater currently
flows through the City's sewer pipe collection system to the City's Water Reclamation Facility(WRF).
During dry weather conditions,the WRF has a current capacity of 5.1 mgd.The.remaining capacity is
approximately 0.6 mgd or 12 percent of the total wastewater treatment capacity(AMEC,2002).
Solid Waste '
The San Luis Garbage Company is the sole provider of solid waste collection services in the City.The San
Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management.Authority estimates that the daily per capita solid
waste disposal rate from all sources in the State of California is approximately 4 to 5 pounds.
Gas&Electricity
The Pacific Gas&Electric Company supplies electricity to consumers in the vicinity of the project area.
Natural gas is supplied to City residents by the Southern California Gas Company.
3-12.8 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Storm Drainage
Storm water runoff and drainage facilities are discussed under Section 3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality.
REGULATORY SETTING
Water
City water policies are based on the Safe Annual Yield concept..Safe Annual Yield is the amount of water
that can reliably be produced by the City's water supply sources to meet estimated water demand under
critical drought conditions.Present demand and safe annual yield differ by 304 acre-feet.The Water and
Wastewater Management Element;Policy 8.1.3 states that half of the water available for allocation(not
to exceed the total required,for infill and intensification),as identified annually in the Water Resources
Status Report,would be reserved to serve intensification and infill development within existing City
limits.
Wastewater
1 The City's Water&Wastewater Management Element,Section 12.0,states that the City shall provide
wastewater service adequate for existing uses and new development pursuant to the General Plan Land
Use Element for all areas within the City limits.
Solid Waste
Land Use Element Section 1.15 states that:
In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to development,the
City must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting
any discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas of Potential EnvironmentalConcern
The following are areas of,potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
of the proposed project:
Y Potential to create water demand in excess of currently available supplies
• Potential for constructed homes to have water pressure at a level lower than that required by the.
Uniform Building Code
Y Potential to increase demand,for wastewater treatment services in excess of current capacity
• Potential to increase demand for solid waste disposal in excess of current capacity
Potential to increase gas or electricity demands beyond current capacities and supplies of the
existing system
I
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-129
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES t
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are used to determine the level of-impact to areas of potential
environmental concern.The impact would be considered significant if the project would:
• Cause a cumulative water demand in excess of Safe Annual Yield
• Result in housing with water pressures lower than that required by the Uniform Building Code
• Cause a cumulative demand on wastewater treatment in excess of current capacity
• Cause an increase in demand for solid waste'disposal in excess of current capacity
• Cause an increase in gas or electricity demands beyond current capacities and supplies of the
existing system
Potential Impacts and Mitigation
Potential Impact 3.15-1. Potential to create water demand in excess of currently available
supplies.
The 23 homes that would result from implementation of the proposed project would require an
approximate 10.3 acre-feet of water annually. As of 2002, the City has 152 acre-feet.of available water
that may be allocated to infill development.
The proposed project application has been reviewed by the Utilities Department, and is found to be
consistent with the Water Management Element. The Utilities Department also concluded that there is
sufficient water supply available to serve site development. Impacts resulting from increased demand for
water will be less than significant;therefore, no mitigation is required.
Potential Impact 3.15-2. Potential for constructed homes to have water pressure at a level
lower than that required by the Uniform Building Code.
The Utilities Department notes that the uppermost lots in the proposed project may not meet the City
water pressure objective of a minimum of 30 pounds per square inch at the water meter.While this is an
objective, it is not a policy requirement. Engineering Development Associates calculated that there will
be at least 20 psi at the 465-foot contour, which is the City's maximum service elevation. The Uniform
Building Code contains a requirement that a minimum pressure of 15 psi be present at the highest water
fixture. Pressures below 40 psi may require individual pumps to provide adequate pressure for a fire
sprinkler system and to deliver water to occupants at a pressure they expect for domestic water needs.
The following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.15-1.Prior to recordation of the Final Map or prior to approval of 1
improvement plans,whichever occurs first;the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community
Development for review and approval a plan to ensure that a minimum of 15 pounds per square inch
(psi)of water pressure will be attained within all future homes to be constructed on the project site.
All fixtures in all homes at all floor levels must have a minimum of 15 psi.If required,individual
pressure booster pumps shall be installed at each residential unit where the minimum 15 psi cannot
be met using the City's water delivery system pressures.All booster pumps required by this
mitigation measure must be permanently connected to PG&E electrical service or another reliable
3-130 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
source of electricity.All booster pumps required by this mitigation measure must also have installed
and maintained in operating condition an alternative,automatically switched,electrical supply to
take over during periods of PG&E or other reliable source.system outages.Alternatively,if portions of
homes cannot receive water at the minimum 40 psi,then those portions of the homes shall not be
constructed.
Potential Impact 3.15-3. Potential to increase demand for wastewater treatment services
' in excess of current capacity.
The City of San Luis Obispo's wastewater collection system conveys approximately 4.5 million gallons of
wastewater per day(SLO 2002).The proposed development would add less than 1%to the City's
population,and would accordingly add less than 1%to the wastewater stream.New sewer line
connections through Lizzie Court and Woodland Court would be connected to existing sewer lines on
Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane.Impacts resulting from increased demand for wastewater disposal
will be less than significant;therefore,no mitigation is required.
Potential Impact 3.15-4.Potential to increase demand for solid waste disposal in excess of
current capacity.
The projected additional 53 residents resulting from the proposed project would add approximately 220
' lbs per day of solid waste to the City's waste stream.Solid waste from the Bowden Ranch project site
would be collected by the San Luis Garbage Company,and delivered to the Cold Canyon Landfill.Based
on current disposal rates and a continuing trend of reduced disposal per capita,the Cold Canyon Landfill
is not projected to reach its capacity until 2018.Impacts resulting from increased demand for solid waste
disposal will be less than significant;therefore,no mitigation is required.
Potential Impact 3.15-5.Potential to increase gas or electricity demands beyond current
capacities and supplies of the existing systems.
Pacific Gas and Electric would provide electrical services for the project site,and Southern California Gas
Company would supply gas services.No deficiencies in service capacity for either provider were
identified.Impacts resulting from increased demand for gas and electrical supplies would be less than
significant;therefore,no mitigation is required.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.3-131
' August 2003
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
3-132 MHA Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August2003
i
1 4:
� CUMULATIVE AND GROWTHM
INDUCING IMPACTS,
1
1
1
1
r -
1
r
r 40•
r
CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH®
r
INDUCING IMPACTS
r 4.1 Introduction
r This section discusses the potential cumulative and growth-inducing impacts associated with the
proposed project,according to CEQA requirements.Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more
individual effects which,when considered together,are considerable,or which compound or increase
r other environmental effects.Section 15130(a)of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
An EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is
cumulatively considerable...Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental
reffect that.is not'cumulatively considerable',a lead agency need not consider that effect
significant,but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not
' cumulatively considerable.
This section provides descriptions of related projects near the proposed project that could potentially
r contribute to cumulative environmental effects in the area.The potential for cumulative impacts
associated with the proposed project are discussed for each resource section.Following the cumulative
impact discussion,this section addresses the potential for growth-inducing impacts associated with the
' proposed project.
r 4.2.Related Projects_
The cumulative impact analysis considers impacts of the proposed project along with the potential
impacts of other projects that are reasonably foreseeable to take place near the proposed project.The
City has indicated that there are no approved and un-built or proposed projects in the general vicinity of
the proposed Bowden Ranch Development project that combined with the proposed project could be
Iidentified as potentially generating cumulatively significant environmental impacts. —
Bowden Ranch Development Ranch EIR MHA.Inc.4-1
August 2003
4:CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
This EIR makes certain assumptions about the City's projected growth rate.There are no known plans
that would suggest a change to the historic growth trends of the last decade.The absence of any known
significant new development suggests that the population growth assumptions outlined in this EIR are
reasonable.
4.3 Cumulative Impacts
The following resource areas have the potential to be significantly impacted by the proposed project and
are discussed in relation to their potential cumulative impacts.
AESTHETICS
The proposed project would change a portion of the site's current open space character to urban
development via the addition of roadway and infrastructure improvements and built structures.Analyses
presented in Section 3.1,Aesthetics,identify mitigation measures that would reduce any potentially
significant aesthetic or visual effects to less than significant levels.Hillside development has occurred in
the City and in the surrounding unincorporated county in recent years.Hillside subdivisions have been
approved and constructed in the last five years in the Islay Hills,Laguna Lake,and Ferrini Heights areas.
Cal Poly State Polytechnic University is currently developing a hillside site behind the campus into high-
density housing.None of these recent or current hillside developments are visible from the project area
or from other common viewing locations and would not compound the significance of the potential
aesthetic/visual impacts identified for the proposed project.With the application of the identified
mitigation measures the proposed project is not expected to contribute to cumulative aesthetic/visual
impacts in the project area.
AIR QUALITY
The South Central Coast Air Basin(San Luis Obispo,Santa Barbara,and Ventura Counties)is currently in
non-attainment for state PM,a and ozone.standards.The APCD noted that the proposed project by itself '
would not generate emission levels that would exceed CEQA significance thresholds.The District did
comment that the application of conventional mitigation measures to control dust generation would
minimize localized nuisances.There are no other known projects in the project's vicinity that would be of
a magnitude sufficient to generate air emissions that would exceed adopted standards,including PM,()
and ozone.With the application of the identified mitigation measures the proposed project is not
expected to contribute to cumulative air quality impacts in the project area. '
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES '
The proposed project would convert a portion of the project site to urban development.In so doing,a
portion of the site would be irreversibly altered from its current condition,with potentially significant
effects on biological resources.Analyses presented in Section 3.3,Biological Resources,identify
mitigation measures that would reduce any potentially significant biological effects to less than
significant levels.
Among the project site's biological resources are several freshwater wetlands and the Morro '
shoulderband snail and their associated habitats.The freshwater wetland habitat are present.in several
4-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
1
4:CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
locations associated with project site drainages and seeps.Evidence of the federally protected Morro
shoulderband snail(live specimens and shell fragments)has been located at numerous locations across
' the project site.The habitats associated with the snail finds are in greater populations and distributions
on the site,suggesting the possibility that there are greater populations of this protected specie on site.
And,there is the importance of protecting and preserving movement corridors between these habitat
' areas.The City's historic implementation of General Plan Open Space Element policy 6.2.2(Development
Practices for Sensitive Habitat Areas)has been to require avoidance.This policy would dictate that all
locations of sensitive habitats,include the wetlands and snail habitats,be avoided,and preserved as
' open space.
Incrementally,the proposed project could,absent the identified mitigation measures,represent a
' significant impact both on-site and to the protected species as a whole.As noted,the identified
mitigation measures are designed to ensure that does not occur.The range on some of the identified
species is broad and includes lands well beyond the Citys corporate.limits.Other projects that include
the range of the protected species could contribute to the loss of biological communities.It is presumed
that the habitats of the species addressed in this Elk that are found in areas beyond the project site
would be evaluated prior to any activities on those other sites,and that appropriate measures put in
place to ensure the protection and viability of the local habitats,thereby resulting in no significant,
cumulative biological resource effects.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Analyses of the cultural resources on-site and adjacent to the.project site identified the potential to
impact important cultural resources.Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 3A,Cultural
Resources,to reduce any potentially significant impact to cultural resources to less than significant levels.
There may be future projects in the greater San Luis Obispo area that could impact other cultural
1 resources.None have been identified to date that haven direct resource connection to the project site or
the adjacent La Loma Adobe.
GEOLOGY,SOILS,AND SEISMICITY
The proposed project could result in the generation of a variety of impacts within the areas of geology,
soils,and seismicity.Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 3.6,Geology,Soils,and
Seismicity,to reduce project impacts to less than significant levels.Known projects in the physical.vicin ity
of the project do not include landform modifications or corresponding potential geologic impacts similar
' to,and compoundable with,those of the.proposed project.Similarly,there are no known projects in the
project vicinity that would generate soil impacts or be influenced by seismic events that would
compound the impacts associated with the proposed project.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The proposed project would generate mitigable impacts associated with the potential for harm or injury
to workers and the public during construction,and injury and damage due to falling trees and tree limbs.
Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 3.7,Hazards and Hazardous Materials,to mitigate
these potential impacts to less than significant levels.These types of impacts are site specific and are not
compoundable with projects on other sites.It is noted that while not a cumulative effect,issues
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.43
August 2003
4:CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
associated with hazards of construction and from falling trees and tree limbs are issues that should be
carefully evaluated on a site-by-site basis.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed project could generate potentially significant impacts in the areas of hydrology and water
quality,including erosion,flooding,and surface and ground water contamination.Mitigation measures
have been identified in Section 3.8,Hydrology and Water Quality that would reduce any potentially
significant impacts to less than significant levels.There are no known existing or planned projects near '
the project site or within the drainage basin that includes the project site that would exacerbate any of
the potential impacts identified in Section 3.8.
LAND USE AND PLANNING '
An analysis of the proposed project's conformance with relevant policies of the City's General Plan is '
presented in Section 3.9,Land Use and Planning.It was determined that the proposed project would not
be in full conformance with a number of the General Plan's policies.Mitigation measures are identified in.
Section 3.9 that would reduce the impacts associated with non-conformance to less than significant '
levels.There are no other known projects near the project site that would be inconsistent with the City's
General Plan policies;and therefore,a cumulative impact is not anticipated in the area of Land Use and
Planning. ,
NOISE
Construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of construction-related noise.
Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 3.10,Noise,to reduce the potential level of
construction noise generation to less than significant levels.There.are no other known approved or
proposed projects within the project site's localized noise environment that would be under
construction at the same time as the proposed project,thereby avoiding the generation of cumulative
noise effects.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
There are no population or housing impacts that would result from project implementation.There are no
known existing or planned projects in the Cityas a whole that are projected to generate population or
housing-related impacts.As such,there would be.no cumulative population or housing impacts resulting '
from project construction in concert with other known projects in the City.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Construction of the proposed project,including the construction of the proposed 23 single family homes
would add demand for public services.It has been determined that the City can deliver necessary public
services to the project without affecting its ability to continue to provide services to existing residents.
The City has indicated that the proposed project's added demand for public services is well within its
capacity to deliver those services without the need for additional or expanded facilities.There are no
known projects that have been approved or which are in the planning stages that would require the
delivery of public services beyond current capacities.
4-4 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003 '
1
4:CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
RECREATION
Construction of the proposed project,including the construction of 23 single family homes,would
' incrementally increase demands for recreational opportunities which can be absorbed within the
existing recreation system.Project construction would slightly alter the current use of on-site trails
(which provide connection to the foothills to the east of the site)during and after construction.
' Mitigation measures have been identified in Section 3.13,Recreation,that reduce those potential
impacts to less than significant levels.There are no known approved or planned projects that are
' situated at the edge of the City's Urban Reserve Line that would similarly affect pedestrian/hiking access
to the foothills.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The proposed project would result in the generation of additional vehicular trips during both
construction (short-term)and post construction (long-term)phases.The analyses presented in Section
' 3.14,Transportation and Traffic,concluded that the project's contribution to area traffic would be less
than significant.There are no other approved or planned projects in the project area that would
' cumulatively contribute to traffic volumes in the area.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Section 3.15,Utilities and Service Systems,presented the conclusion that implementation of the
proposed project could result in the generation of impacts to utility or service systems.The project by
' itself would not stretch existing utility delivery systems beyond their current capacities.Development
throughout the City would continue through the life of the project.Based on the current knowledge
about the City's development pace,it is not expected that the combination of the proposed project and
' known future development projects would negatively impact utilities or their delivery systems.
1 4.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(d)of the CEQA Guidelines requires preparers of an EIR to consider the growth-inducing
impacts of a proposed project.Section 15126.2(d)states that the EIR should:
Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth,or
the construction of additional housing,either directly or indirectly,in the surrounding
environment.Included in this are projects that would remove obstacles to population growth.
The proposed project would add housing to the City's existing stock,but would not add permanent jobs
to the existing base.The construction labor force required during subdivision improvement and home
construction are expected to come from the local labor force,thereby not resulting in increased
demands for additional housing or increased demands on community services and facilities.
The addition of 23 new homes to the City's housing supply would incrementally add to the City-wide
demand for services and facilities.The projected annual growth rate of 1%,or approximately 444 people,
provides for an annual residential unit construction rate well in excess of the proposed project's 23
residential units,and would therefore not produce unplanned growth impacts.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.4-5
August 2003
4:CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ,
1
t
1
t
t
46 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
1 5 :
� ALTERNATIVES TO
� THE PROJECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 5.
1
ALTERNATIVES TO
1
TH E ROJECT
1
' SA Introduction
1 Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that an EIR describe a range
of reasonable alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain the basic project objectives and avoid
or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed
1 analysis in the EIR if they fail to meet the most basic of project objectives,are determined to be.
infeasible,or cannot be demonstrated to avoid or lessen significant environmental impacts.
1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSE
The basic objective of the proposed project is outlined in Section 2.0,Project Description,and is
1 replicated here for the reader's convenience:
• Development of a vacant,40-acre site within the City of San Luis Obispo limits into 23
lou for single-family residential development and one 27-acre open-space lot,with
' associated street and utility improvements
The following alternatives analysis presents a discussion of potential impacts associated with alternative
1 project plans.This section contains discussion of the following alternatives:
• Alternative sites where the project might be developed
' • Modified(for found Morro shoulderband snails) proposed project
• Reduced density alternative
• Clustered residential development
• "No project"alternative
1 Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.5-1
August 2003
5:ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT '
5.2 Alternative Sites
The applicant has proposed a specific use on a particular parcel of land that is currently under the
applicants ownership.Several other in-fill,hillside areas within the Hillside Planning Area have similar
physical characteristics to the Bowden Ranch Development site and are designated for predominately
residential development,e.g.,Cal Poly/Cuesta Park,Goldtree,Orcutt,Margarita (Figure 5.2-1).
The stated project objective could be met by construction of the project;or a substantially similar
project,on any of these alternative areas.Development of the proposed or a similar project on any of
these alternative areas would generally be expected to generate similar impacts as identified for the ,
proposed project site.Possible exceptions to this general conclusion would be the generation of traffic,
biological,or cultural resource impacts,depending on alternative and localized area conditions.Any of
the alternative areas could have a different localized traffic condition that could conceivably result in a t
significant impact upon localized traffic with the addition of 23 single-family homes.Alternative areas
may not possess the same types of biological and cultural resources as the Bowden Ranch Development
site;other areas may have equally important or more biological and/or cultural resources to be evaluated
and protected.
Based on a brief review of alternative hillside areas,coupled with the fact that the proposed project
would result in relatively few significant impacts,all of which can be mitigated to less than significant
levels,the proposed project would not appear to result in fewer or less significant impacts on alternative
hillside locations. t
5.3 Modified (for found Morro shoulderband snails) Proposed
Project
The applicant submitted (for study purposes only)a modified proposed project(Figure 53-1).The
modification focused on revisions to Lots 10, 11, 12, 13,and 14 that shifted the defined building
envelopes to provide a 20 foot setback from the locations of found Morro shoulderband snails or Morro
shoulderband snail shells.All other aspects of the project as proposed remain unchanged in this t
modified proposal.
All potential impacts that could be generated by the proposed project(as identified in Section 3,
Environmental Impact Analyses,of this EIR) remain with the Modified Proposed Project.The exception is
the potential impact to the Morro shoulderband snails is marginally reduced at those specific locations
where live snails or shell remnants were located.The Modified Proposed Project would continue to
present.potentially significant impacts to habitat suitable for the Morro shoulderband snails,including
movement corridors between those habitats.
5-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development E1R '
August 2003
' 5:ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
Figure 5.2-1:Hillside Planning Areas
A
s Cal PoN-
'
1 Cuesta Park
:
Luneta,.-
B
1 Woodland Drive
C
N. Goldtree
' Madonna
Prefumlo E Orccutt
44 �
Billygoat
Acres H
Irish Hills
:r
�G
' Calle
Joaquin
city of san Iuis obispo n
community development department ---^�'Hillside Planning Area Boundaries N
' SOURCE:City of San Luis Obispo 1994
1 Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.5-3
August 2003
5:ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT '
Figure 5.2-1:Modified Proposed Project
e
SIM un
_ rj
a i a a J
W
3
Jr i
i•O 0JJgi
l I C l 'Jt I.
� • r, \ :�' c"•�+ w cam, �'. �` sl'•f'=�...�: `\.
-all if
` �J �, -' .--:�\•`� .�• ' ,� � I w alp ' .
.1
SOURCE:EDA 2003 '
5-4 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
S:ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
5.4 Reduced Density
A similar,but reduced density project on the project site would provide a relatively reduced level of
overall impact as compared to the proposed project.While yielding fewer residential units,most,if not all
of the potential impacts identified in Section 3,Environmental Impact Analyses would remain;only the
order of magnitude or the reach of the impact would be correspondingly reduced (e.g.,fewer vehicular
trips would be generated,potential loss of habitat reduced,lesser grading depending on reduced
density site design,etc.).Other types of potential impacts,such as those that might affect cultural
resources,may not be substantially reduced by a reduced density alternative.The stated project
objective could largely be met by a reduced density alternative,with the principal exception of the
' preferred residential unit yield.
1 5.5 Clustered Development
Another possible project alternative would be one with the.same residential unit yield(23 units)using a
cluster/attached home design rather than the proposed detached unit design.Such a project alternative
would meet most of the stated project objectives and would retain many of the same potentially
significant impacts and at similar levels to that of the proposed project.A clustered development
' alternative would increase the potentially significant aesthetics impacts by introducing larger building
masses similar to a condominium-style project.Larger building masses situated on any hillside site would
be much more difficult to effectively.screen than would be the proposed single-family detached-home
project.The larger building masses that would be required for a clustered development alternative
would also not be compatible with the established neighborhood's single family detached design
pattern.
1
5.6 No Project
' CEQA requires consideration of the environmental consequences if the project is not constructed.
1 The No Project alternative would maintain the project site in its present state and current land use(an
undeveloped parcel within the R-1 and C/OS Zoning Districts that currently functions as passive and
visual open space with occasional trail use).The No Project alternative avoids any direct impacts
associated with the project,but also eliminates the benefits of the proposed project in terms of added
recreation for trail users.
Although this alternative avoids potentially significant environmental impacts identified in Section 3,
t Environmental Impact Analyses,it would not accomplish the objectives of the City's General Plan or
those of the applicant in terms of the provision of added housing opportunities.
1
The-selection of the No Project alternative would prevent or at least delay the current applicant from
developing the property,but would not prevent further or similar development in the future.Such future
development could result.in greater or lesser environmental impacts that those associated with the
currently proposed project.Any such future development of the proiect.site would besubiect to
separate environmental review in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA guidelines in effect at the time of
such a future proposal.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 5-5
' August 2003
5:ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative ,
The No Project alternative would potentially maintain the project site in its present state and use and '
essentially avoid or eliminate any direct environmental impacts associated with the project.This
alternative does,however,eliminate a number of project benefits including:
• Implementing the City's General Plan
• Providing housing adjacent to existing single-family residential development and
within closer proximity to forms of transportation,jobs,educational facilities,health
care services,and.shopping opportunities
• Maintaining a boundary between the City's residential edge,open space,and low-
density development
• Maintaining and protecting informal trail and recreational usages in the area .
• Clustering of the lots to maintain contiguous open space adjacent to parcels within t
current City ownership
• Protecting scenic hillsides and certain on-site biological resources '
• Enhancing existing native habitat and special status animal and plant species through
the elimination of non-native vegetation (e.g.,eucalyptus)and designation of open
space areas 1
• Improvements to existing neighborhood storm drainage problems
The other project alternatives,including the Alternative Sites,Modified(for found Morro shoulderband
snails)Proposed Project,Reduced Density,and Cluster Development alternatives would generally meet
the project's objectives and would retain(or transfer in the case of the alternative sites alternative)most
if not all of the proposed projects potentially significant impacts at the.same or similar levels to other
similar hillside areas.With the presumption that it is the City's intent to have lands developed in
accordance with the General Plan,then development of the project site and other similarly situated, '
General Plan designated,and zoned properties would be accordingly developed.
The environmentally superior project would be the one that is strictly guided by all of the mitigation
measures identified in this EIR.Collectively,the.mitigation measures identified in this EIR would guide
substantial revision to the project as proposed to either eliminate potentially significant impacts,or
reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.Taken as a whole,the mitigation '
measures may reduce the overall lot yield for the project site,may dictate smaller lots than currently
proposed,or may substantially constrain development potential for each of the individual lots.The
specific response to the mitigation measures that wouldmanifest in the form of a revised project design 1
would require the experience and expertise of a number of design and environmental professionals,and
City and other agency staff,to develop a project that is sensitive to the environment into which it would
be placed. '
5-6 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
i
i
1 6:
� COMMENTS RECEIVED
� ON THE DRAFT EIR
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 6.
•
1
COMMENTS RECEIVED
1
1
ON THE DRAFT EIR
1 6.1 Introduction
The Bowden Ranch Development Project Draft EIR was circulated for review fora 45-day period
1 beginning on March 24,2003.Through that review period a total of 242 comments were received from
the City of San Luis Obispo's Planning Commission(meeting of April 9',2003),various agencies,
members of the public and the project proponent.
1
6.2 List of Comment Letters Received
1 The comment letters received on the-Draft EIR have been grouped by Planning Commission',agency,
members of the public,and the project applicant.The letters are given an alpha-numeric designation
("PC"for Planning Commission,"A"for agencies,"P"for public individuals and"AP"for applicant),as are
1 the comments in each letter.The commenter and the letter numbers are listed below.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
PC. San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Al. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
A2. California Department of Forests/San Luis Obispo County Fire Department
The Planning Commission's comments were derived from the Draft Minutes of their April 9,2003,meeting
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.6-1
August 2003
6:COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR
PUBLIC INDIVIDUALS
P1. Ernie and Heather Billing
P2. Wendy Brown
P3. Dr.Everett M.Chandler and Arlene B.Chandler
P4. Dr.Everett M.Chandler
P5. Arlene B.Chandler
P6. Eric Lloyd Cletsoway
P7. Marla and Frank DeMarco
P8. Don Dollar '
P9. Richard A.Hendricks
P10. Lora A.Hutson
P11. Marjory and Richard Johnson '
P12. Adele Klimaak
P13. Thomas L Miller '
P14. Steve and Gina Nelson
P1 S. Daniel Sinton
P16. Robert S.Vessely
APPLICANT
AP1. Chattel Architecture,Planning&Preservation,Inc.
AP2. EDA Design Professionals
AP3. Oasis Landscape,Architecture and Planning
6-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
1
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
EXCERPT—ITEM 2
' APRIL 9, 2003
' CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on
1 Wednesday, April 9, 2003, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Michael Boswell, Jim Aiken, Allan Cooper, Carlyn Christianson, James
Caruso, and Vice-Chair Orval Osborne.
1 Absent: Chairwoman Alice Loh.
1 Staff: Assistant Planner Hilary Hodges, Natural Resource Manager Neil Havlik,
Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Deputy
Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Interim City
Attorney Gil Trujillo, Consultant.Dain Anderson, and Recording Secretary
Irene Pierce.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:.
2. 1636 Woodland.Drive. ER 11-01; Review of an Environmental Impact Report for a
proposed development project to include a tentative tract map to create 23
' residential lots plus one open space lot and rezone the 40 acre parcel from R-1 to
R-1-PD; Bowden Ranch Partners, applicant.
Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand presented the staff report
requesting public testimony and input on any additional analysis or data needed to
adequately evaluate environmental issue areas.
1 Dain Anderson, Consultant, presented a power-point presentation to offer the first of
several opportunities for the Commission and members of the community to offer
' comments on the adequacy of the document known currently as the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Bowden Ranch. He explained that the purpose of
CEQA is to inform decision makers about potential environmental effects and to identify
' the ways that those effects or impacts can be avoided or significantly reduced, to
identify and prevent those significant effects and to ultimately disclose to the public why
a decision maker might approve a project, particularly if it might generate significant
environmental effects. He noted that this project has been under review by the City for
' a number of years, and defined the layout of the project as proposed. He stated there
are two distinct approvals that would be required by the City: 1) the rezoning of 13 acres
of the proposed development area, and 2) a requirement to receive permits or
1 approvals from a variety of Federal and State agencies.. He explained that there are 15
Draft Planning Commission Minutes '
Excerpt—Item 2,
April 9,2003
Page 2
environmental parameters within the document that were examined, and each of these
sections of the draft EIR presents the environmental setting. He stated they identified '
potential impacts and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than
significant levels. He noted this would not be the only opportunity for the Commission
and the community to offer comments on the draft document.
Commr. Aiken questioned the layout of the surrounding site so that a comparison could PC-1
be made on the before and after. I 1
Deputy Director Whisenand felt the applicant would be willing to stake the lots prior to
action on the tentative map.
Commr. Aiken asked what the current zoning is. ] PC-2
Deputy Director Whisenand replied R-1.
Commr. Aiken questioned if protection is being recommended on the Morro Shoulder ] PC-3
Band Snail Habitat areas where shell deposits were found.
Mr. Anderson replied yes, and explained that the report is recommending protection
both where living species were found as well as the dead.
Mr. Anderson further explained that they found, in terms of the potential impacts of this
proposed project, that if they were to transfer this project or a relatively similar type of '
residential project to any of the other hillside areas within the city that has a comparable
type of environment, it would be a push.
Commr. Cooper questioned if there is going to be an aesthetic analysis in this report? PC-4 '
Mr. Anderson replied yes, in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR, which is the other volume.
Commr. Cooper asked if lots 9, 10, & 1.1 would be accessed from the proposed '
Woodland Court (off Woodland Drive) or would they be accessed from Woodland J PC-5
Drive? J
Mr. Anderson replied the proposed Woodland Court.
Commr. Caruso questioned if the reports incorporated by reference were all reports that PC-6
came in with the application that was supplied by the applicant.
Mr. Anderson replied yes.
Commr. Caruso asked for a description of what the process was for previewing all of the J PC-7
biological reports. J '
Mr. Anderson explained the applicant submitted a number of technical reports, some of
which were utilized to support their analysis of the proposed project in lieu of their team '
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Excerpt—Item 2
1 April 9,2003
Page 3
doing that original research on the ground. He stated they examined the ones that were
relevant to discussion in the EIR.
Commr. Caruso asked if fieldwork was done on the biological end. ] PC-8
1 Mr. Anderson replied that their team supplemented the work conducted by the applicant
and his team, which was specifically for the Morro Shoulder Band Snail.
Commr. Boswell questioned what the highest topography line is for the residential lots. PC-9
' Deputy Director Whisenand replied that it appears to be the 460' to 465', however that
elevation on those lots is not proposed for development since it lies above the urban
reserve line.
Commr. Boswell noted under (Hydrology) there are several alternatives that are
presented for dealing with storm water on the site and asked if the alternatives are PC-10
independent of each other.
' Mr..Anderson replied they are independent.
Commr. Boswell questioned why detailed assessment of an alternative to revise the
subdivision map was not prepared to avoid live Morro Shoulder shell fragments or PC-11
habitat.
Mr. Anderson replied that is one option that is available.
Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, 3427 Miguelito Court, offered a clarification that they
did prepare an alternative site plan based on recommendations from the biologist
regarding the Morro Shoulder Band Snail, which is in the document and referred to as
the MSS Altemative. She noted that it is part of the EIR.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
MaryBeth Schroeder, 2085 Wilding Lane, commented that the people who live in San
Luis Obispo should be given a chance to voice their opinion on this development. She PC-12
suggested that this area be made into a greenbelt.
Wendy Brown, 1865 Wilding Lane, noted that the EIR states that development of thel
project would not increase the demand for parking. She disagreed, and felt that having J PC13
a designated legal trail advertised in City literature would attract many more visitors than
currently use the trail. She questioned who would be responsible for clearing the debris PC-14
from the floodway and would the culvert down Lizzie Street be enlarged because it is
not adequate for current situations? She felt making drainage basins would be a major ] PC-15
' disruption to the Open Space area. She questioned who would enforce the CC&R's on PC-16
the new lots, and urged reduction in density as one of the methods to promote the
implementation of the maximum number of mitigations proposed.
1
Draft Planning Commission Minutes t
Excerpt—Item 2
April 9,.2003
Page 4
Steve Nelson, 1580 Lizzie Street, noted that the picture on page 3-18 shows a big wall
where the drainage culvert presently is, and wondered if this is what they are referring PC-17
to by raising the wall to give it more protection.
Chairperson Osborne responded by saying the questions would be answered at the end
of the public testimony.
Mr. Nelson noted there is a reference to trail heads, but it doesn't indicate where the ] PC-18 '
trailheads are located. He expressed a concern on where these trails are really going to
be and what the parking situation is going to be at these trailheads. He mentioned the ] PC-19
proposed removal of 48 trees and wondered where this is going to occur. He
questioned if there is going to be a stop sign at Lizzie Street and where would it be ] PC-20 '
located. He asked if there is a logical reason why the zoning continually changes in this ] PC-21
location.
Tom Miller, 1615 Woodland Drive, felt the issue of parking and traffic has not yet been ] PC-22
adequately addressed. He felt the drainage and water issues are not adequately ] PC-23
mitigated, and urged that the density be diminished to half. He stated that this area is 1
an extraordinary location and pleaded with the City to be cautious and take their time ] PC-24
developing it.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Deputy Director Whisenand gave a brief history on the property's zoning, in answer to
public comments. He explained the property previously had an R-1-SP zoning
designation. He stated SP is a specific plan overlay designation that applied based on '
an earlier General Plan. When the City adopted an amendment to the General Plan in
1994, the zoning was not changed to reflect that the current General Plan no longer
requires a Specific Plan to be adopted prior to development of the property.
Mr. Anderson explained that the wall in the photo simulation has a combination function;
for aesthetics to create an entry wall, and for a potential sign. It could lend some ,
greatness to increasing the height of the headwall to help contain some of-the hydro
flows.
Vice-Chair Osbome requested .an explanation for the exact location of trails and the ] PC-25
parking for trails.
Mr. Anderson replied that the applicant has proposed a turnout or a parking pullout for
trail parking on the extension of Lizzie Street.
Commr. Caruso requested that the Commission receive color photos so they have an ] PC-26
accurate color simulation. He felt there is much opportunity to cut down the size of ] PC-27
these parcels to get them off the 20+% slope, which he felt might shorten the 25%
access easement at the end of Lizzie Street. He questioned if it is going to be fire safe ] PC-28
1
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Excerpt—Item 2
' April 9,2003
Page 5
because it is a dead end street. He noticed an alternative or mitigation measure that
' would require development to meet creek setback requirements, and some other PC-29
mitigation measures that would result in a redesigned project to minimize impacts on
wetlands and snails. He noted he would like to see the mitigated project alternative PC-30
mapped out. He suggested there be a statement of qualifications that the plan is
prepared by a qualified professional and some type of maintenance monitoring PC-31
requirement wherever there is a need for a plan for re-vegetation or restoration. He PC-32
1 also suggested a minimum of five, but preferably 10 ten years to monitor for any of
these biological mitigation measures. He felt the Cultural Resource section needs work
and wondered if this section is going to be revised to be legally sufficient. ] PC-33
Deputy Director Whisenand replied yes.
Commr. Aiken commented on page ES-7 there is a reference under Impacts and
t Mitigation Measures ES-5 to table ES-1 and could not find ES-1, but could only find PC-34
ES9-1.
1 Deputy Director Whisenand replied that it was a typographical error.
Commr. Aiken commented that he had difficulty following some of the acronyms. He
1 suggested first writing them out and then having the letters followed. He also suggested PC-35
having a summary of all the acronyms that are being used.
t Commr. Aiken questioned if.the Munsell Color Chart is similar to the Pantone Color
Chart.
Mr. Anderson explained the Munsell Chart is utilized to help categorize and classify J PC-36
soils, which is the ultimate earth tone guide:. J
Commr. Aiken commented that the Environmental Awareness Program referred to in PC-37
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 does not guarantee the information reaching future property
owners.
' Mr. Anderson replied that is correct and felt something could be incorporated into this
document to make sure the process is carried on to subsequent owners.
tCommr. Aiken asked if there is a map that identifies the trees that are proposed for PC-38
removal.
Mr. Anderson replied all the trees proposed for removal were marked in the field.
Ms. Florence explained as part of their application, they prepared a tree removal plan.
' Commr. Aiken suggested that the final EIR contain 11" x17" maps. He questioned if PC-39
there should be a threshold designed to a 10-year storm or to a 50-year storm and
wondered if it is normal to have a 25-year. ] PC-40
Draft Planning Commission Minutes '
Excerpt—Item 2
April 9,2003
Page 6
Mr. Anderson replied there are 25-year events. He stated the thresholds were provided
under direction of the staff from the City Public Works Department, but noted they would
revisit them.
Commr. Boswell commented on the flags on lots 13 and 14, which could be seen from '
the view point and questioned if he is supposed to see them in the picture or see them PC-41
live and in person.
Mr. Anderson replied live and in person.
Commr. Boswell noted there is a picture of a retaining wall on page 3-18 and wondered J PC-42 '
if it is a decorative wall or if it is where the storm drain inlet is located. J
Mr. Anderson explained the storm drain inlet is on the uphill or backside of that wall, but
noted it is decorative on the exposed side.
Commr. Boswell commented that lots 10 and 16 in the current configuration would be
unusable if the subdivision map was revised to provide a buffer.from the MSS sites and PC-43
felt when this comes back, they would need to address some alternatives to the
proposed lot configuration. He mentioned that there is no section on Regulatory Setting ] PC-44
in the Geology Soils and.Seismicity Section. He noted that in the slope analysis chart,
there are four lots that would be severely constrained due to the slope and felt the PC-45
existing lot configuration looked problematic in this regard, so there might be some
additional analysis for these highly constrained lots as to what the actual development
potential would be. He noted there is nothing that refers to any specific City guidelines
for the storm water discharges under the Regulatory Setting and felt this would merit
some discussion with some Public Works on how they would be reviewing this with PC-46
regard to what the appropriate design storm is for different sections of the infrastructure.
He commented on the alternatives that are discussed on 3-89 and felt Alternative 3 is J PC-47
going in the right direction, but would encourage that mitigations on a set of design J
alternatives for how to do storm water mitigation on site be included. He commented on '
page 3-127 that discusses water pressure and wondered about the fire systems and felt PC-48
some discussion is needed on the water pressure needs for the Fire Department and
how they would be met in the higher end of the project. 1
Commr. Christianson expressed concerns about the project and it's R-1 zoning. She PC-49
felt something is going to get built on it and noted they cannot mitigate all of the impacts
down to a level of less than significant. She commented that she is unsure if replacing PC-50
full-grown mature trees with little trees is a sufficient mitigation for some of this area.
She expressed concern with the steep lots and felt much grading would need to be ] PC-51
done for some of these lots. She mentioned that the Fire Marshall (Appendix F) had not '
actually signed on this and there were still some fire management issues that were PC-52
mentioned that she hoped would be addressed in the final EIR. She felt Mitigation
Measure 3.6-3 should be discussed on how they are going to enforce the maintenance ] PC-53
of landscaping. She did not support the idea of underground stormwater retention tanks
and did not like the idea of taking up open space for ponds. She commented on page J PC-54
3-127 under Water Pumps Mitigation Measure 3.15-1, which mentions that these pumps J 1
1
1 Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Excerpt—Item 2
April 9,2003
Page 7
be permanently connected to P.G.& E, and felt it should be stated that as long as these
1 pumps are attached to a reliable source of power, whether or not it is P.G. & E., should PC-54
be sufficient.
1 Mr. Anderson interjected this is why they have a notation about a backup system.
Commr. Cooper concurred with Commissioner Caruso's comment regarding the
1 mitigated project alternative and felt the alternatives should include another design that PC-55
addresses such things as mitigations for tree removals. He commented that he would
like to see alternatives also include a lot layout with a lower density. He commented on
1 Downstream Discharge Mitigation Measure 3.8.2, noting he would like to see other
kinds of mitigations that would be a combination of increasing the culvert for Lizzie
Street to have individual drainage basins or to have larger drainage basins. He PC-56
suggested another way to mitigate downstream discharge is by discouraging substantial
1 excavations, minimizing hardscape, and avoiding slab-on-grade construction. He felt
that the nine-car parking area under Mitigation Measure 3.143 for the trailhead and for PC-57
the Adobe seems to be in contradiction with the other mitigations, which encourage
1 minimal street width sections. He noted there are some contradictions between the
Supplemental Document and the EIR. He felt under 3.13 in the Aesthetic Section that
mitigations were adequately addressed, but there should be a little more specific
t reference to the hillside ordinance, specifically regarding limiting development on steep PC-58
slopes, and commented he would like the language "minimize visible grading and
reduce hillside scarring" changed to "minimize grading and reduce hillside scarring".
Commr. Caruso suggested going through all of the impact discussions and make sure
that where it is determined that an impact is less than significant, then have the EIR PC-59
clearly state that determination.
Deputy Director Whisenand reiterated that there is still opportunity to review and
comment on the document until May 7, 2003.
1
1
1
1
1
All? P0, LUTION
' f,0NTR®L € ISTRICT
003
1 ym Areve,^:e.?ssoc=,:Phm er
Civ Ci San a,48 Ub:spo
Ccmrmunity DcvcIoilmer.t Dom,arer.en[
99'l:'13i=SLC !
' San Tuts Obisp..7,CA 9 4ul-=2+5
SLI3J C7 Br En.U. -n'-mral In—:i Rrr��t rr�t:e Bowden:Z:ncl:Develep�=T
',`7- 26 10—
gen:G::..c?t ding ae rV✓in tie• =avzromnental v:cw process. "We have completed Our
ret':cu•of.^,e Drz..ft F.::•rrenra;.*s.ampac:Zcpo.: so:ute Bowden R;imch Deveiovraea;
' Cd off Of rh'ood.2nd Drive iz San Ltii:.0lns--C. vVc nave:the cOmml-W.5 tIn tbm
L'IL'vJsal.
' General Comments
We vmc uld first like*0 c0^TLTi'=--the appal:art O:i scvz al anLas offhe pro,ew<dcsigl
• T-:e Uzoie tpro`."iC'm develovixe At w'i:t:in Li:--ciT: :•SL''+S,7xiti.ncafov ccceSS M zzmit S`•T."::es
tv-bich can reduce depende7cC in driven .
' e I -0s o ti(f •c ha"Cl In r..1:`tdt R3.;,.L, :2', i -- 3. n.
e:..SL`'3_7 en.'SOtIII1C:tr C a1: Teti�".:R:.. b t:....Id� w....M'.'a.:i.::.vu�.i�c�S'i,'..0 it.i•Y..
• The Las I`c ved an i..'Ci1 f'o opan pacc.which';.-R!f1:aii -.r.the Leasthccvcs Of
`t:r!�� H-ocd
' e S::e GC`'Ciovlrc.ii c pn:!pz Nh)y 1 ?-c'ij'c sl:0:t-t rn lbizycle pa-king at the mitl,li-,Dds or Mail
az-,-:.Ss:)U:nt`:iJ C•':CTit:i:2u 1t.ih"Cti l:7 b:kCr.gtl`i.'.r i2:Sr.Sri:'C t0 t1:C Salle-
Specific Comments'
CLGS:JTj iS-9 an .�... AL t�lutl:":✓i2<'laGt,."a:'::t'j,.2�C.[GS-��Ll!!fi�_.+''._-'�..
In a:3diaan to the ra:tiaoa mC3St'ec I:ste,i a con o: uitivc d is[.f.-oc:the rJject,Dts:tia st:
rtx0r:.nlGlds U::?i7f/(1t•+ltic jt?eWSUI?s Zlic�e II.ClIt�a2d. 1 P..:SC dG6IT.GIIa l*7tC::iiiYCS t�CI.%011IItaL`d li.
' :e ihstr:t's "tt rs on thegtoc t,t;.�d til, ch 16.l=i i 2nd�l£:S: 1».2in�2. Al-1
•
Sp--Ce,t07 ail CO3-5—,Uti07 VChiCiCS Slih:!:i'1 ONCt.[:;l I'rfMh Ot era'%:.rLt3l'rn S'.ST.Y3Cil
s Should wbome dig-tile obs an-e l ti!,,ve the Const ucti0n s:-.f.arm.Si'•xcr E-0T-:t:+• zc7`L,:kS Or
' ATi0:I1C, �^.•tV'CF m'cr"e 2:'^:ICC:t!S;t^."::�,^»'.t,':itiWu.:"�tC:Cd'u:c':r.vSc ei.,:snivlv5"
Dist cont ; '__err. vu:t be s L ct'an,;rdtn�and b'ri13ix c plan . Tic ccntr'»to Jr builicr
Should--rzg 3:c a r=son or p r nrt5 T+i rrt0 LTO:ilic ilii co :7•^l pT-*gSa-n and:vide:1ncmasifi
as accessar tc-p:c tTa spoC.C r 1tiSt O_`;site. Al-2
:ee end per Ods w'hcu Sv OI{l t'not b-.-' : :0 tet.$:. it P^]iIlC$:C it y:30^.c.^.tn2• i I SL•Ct t:iSJA
s 31i'J.-pre`:i Teti so the AFC;D;nor:o ti-.e ;an:e or jradme Dernits.
' G hen co-stt •c is r z rifles:O:.ie ec 3:;iris site iT u ill U-=lv i :ol•.r i.u?c of so-m.h- '.,•duly
diene!C".a n tnt 14=*ns the:R^u:l :"on ,as Vow ow nikv iii.a•, z. rc.;'i C'. %f)� ".:.-:.:i+J`7713
t Rescurc,:Baa.d:ARB ili5te 7 p t*ion? :c:r ::r.:I Gw.ciessi e;h;tcst 2s s tc i::a it Al-3
7:1212^t'JAC)v%Cl.^.O 1.denr i7Cu LLl;-` U.''i!t:'•'Ca 040-.1-t'.h;ch,Ihc,e 3:C 7:':i l�:lhcat.:t•cait.'Y
is t'c^•t',',C!«':':ri4d`•:1ti7 7fi+j:ct:tliar`�.'ttl-r•t:1iiIC2 diesel c'•YliaitsT r=
' S 3'3 R.'..;?,^i!% Court S.;.i Li:iS 01,' c:Qi SCA .3`.701 IL' ,--AX:eV:-101-1002
1:f�. v:_'r'.Jll%?:'...::4:, N:':ib.<!^,�lf'•.i 17:,(7.:11=;
..^'✓t'n 3333:"k.••33-33.
I
1
Bon-dm.Rmcb.?_tisiopm=t E R '
May 7,2003
Faget o:1 '
public use areas Since this p e;e t is close to?he San Luis Obispo Hit Sc?tJoI and o:hcr xstaents
ThUc Is a pcitatial Conom""for nabltc e..,mos= To minim&lorc2 iztd diewel:xh.t uuy5w rl-,t
Dim.ici s_ugg.=:at iOIIowmi g cl=sslon maucing rmzaa-=*,be ii'Lpl--merited '4 ;he constmcritm '
\ aia-mir.all xnsmiction ccui,'-most iu paper tune acc:ordmg to.:a,-,^.ufac:src:`s Al-3
s'peL^.iIi.ct!nnc '
• Fuel 4,off-road a: portabie cordf cd...Qtor Vehicle
d:csel 5..--L
e ylaYi.-tI12C the use of diesel C.'ar- c*tion wuttpr crit mteltaa,as a'L''i1""1tL:2.:b2.Calt:U*7`..ia AIr
it soarccss Bowd�s 1.995 ccrtifica M standard for of!;-road hcac'y-dun'diesel en:~nes. J '
On rkP-12-5,i;was indicated 1-.a:the appt:caat proposes to=Jve appmxirately 4$euca!vptr:s a.!d
oak zees. Effo`:ave Februry 25,2000,t:rc:District p-ohfbitzd deveiapmcatai br ani^.^of vcze2 vc '
matt:ill Wit=Sura Ltus Obispo Counrl-, i Inder certain cireum;tvices where no t.'^ 1rucca lly f=ibIll-.
aIt=I atlt'zs.3rd a:'aiiablte limi-ed devzIaoP;enni bt ra ng ui?der resmcbans ilial:be 31111vwed. u`.i
ires prior xsphca io ,pati'r:cn:of fee hSed on the size of*:e r.o3oct,Dis}ict approval.std A1-4
w
issuance of a buru acrKr.by the Diszri and the iocs '.^'e dart.=authortry 'Mc.appiicar,r is '
-zauircd to famish:.fie Aistri:t w:a the srady of tectu;ic-al fesibt'r t'vAjich inciud�s casts and oter
coas¢'..in:s?at the ti=c.apP'•tcztI0n. i✓'y'r.<.r3-.-C a^: Clucnons regarding fucsc Tequir=mrs,
couracT Karan 33m,? of our E-aforCL'T.,z":1)ivi5t r.at 781,-5912. '
Seer:ian 3-7-Vr ?✓c m- ace 3_=9
Ilia fc:+awizv S=e,_=T was made,wui• re;arc�u a r ceiali c'. "In tae g=_2000,rccarded ie-veIs o2 Al-5
Giorc=U4 did act L:cce::d stain Or ii:dc:r3t st=d—ds for itzse f oflut=s`. rhis is not a coxrcct '
=. er,+z. i?:e 3+ate 24 bear Pi i;:,s and;r was wee=ded at st-+'ezaI ioeatiocs in 2000.
cuon Guai.n limrficarce P, reSh").T I5-9fiP�Y'.'�.-.7r0 '
On pare J-.0 the _""..Ym:wt vvas tZ&. -"he.S2^+Lail'Obispo f..l= Ati Flap!1:22_ ":Ct
adepted 5p-.1-4 --Lb=iholcU IOr an.;po! ^sshoWd :noted tat sficw.-c Uh- sh^_ taa fcr Al-6
bah cwmfomi and consractior re3a:sd ct das:ons are outrined,ir:te L*st ict's rcQ a sir K,uau+.c.
Handbook Th,�F.andbook is ave i3b:t for. look tloadinS f um ear web s:s at '
hur•:•:'ucvnraiJCl:aaai:•.or�bn��^s:,•n<f,•.r d-�ci•.pc
J. -J-t+;rc- i
_PIcsc auto ti-.e Sate annual ar.ti;nteric—ear fo-Sumcaded PardCulat.'Nklm_r(P'lin"is Al-7
2A u£vtrsr, The)%yl R.sow C:120--c a opt : this sa:dard on June 20.21112.
7 Hazards 1'�C::^.T�::i:i._$..>,�1lp"w S-i%we
O 3-"S the son::, s atcirer:is r a:ie. "3s sued in Section 3.6 Gcoing;•?zd Soils'L-P`.=0
zrea:.50-dl?"mg the:sal:-O bG�Y O: >rOjL'Ct<t:C 3Tt CA w^I1O]cLI Ot`Se*pen in'c and SeSpeCt nizz-
ti3tri+ifi::ice CJ:.f s.'• Tw'a SCn'.t1U^.gJCS Gu L�iG'.�fe 11131"S�...CpCIl'LuL rQCIC,i COntftlrl r3tuT'S3t?'O:c:L:i:`= Al-8
bowCvcr,no so-li or:Och ltip2s Ic'toom io CC1min 3. rUSt05 Were iouad Cr.' chc project siti:. '
at propose:;
I
' Buwden Ranch D_•:elopmcat EZR
May 20-3
Yag-!or
' re.CaSBa t^the 3'=Osphere ad; e rtsl:C,f increased B.xpciure to BJbts:C's is le--z tl1Pn
' itu i:-' Occurring AsInStoS hits betel is.xrned by tie CaLforria Air Resources Board cs a:oxic Z-
'r
3P.dI repla.ed IJV the reel rc i.=Is of the-tib Rcs=ces B.rWals Ar:'aks Co::zal
'•leasure(3 S idi)for ConSu c-io-�t.Yr'=d ag,QuarryS.2,and Sw"S«CC N ir,�nO Opc—d1:=s.7%.e
'
emli;art[u'iil nw•d to mbmit=geologir.:1 evalua.ion spadfically for the prajett sae m tae I3rt.ci Al-8 camgly�s<_ t]r ie3tlir—...ents of,'Ie z FG"v!. A .c^-ii atively,�,e aapl:caz t m::st comp:y vkrith t:: c
.�.T'C:>�.`•�:�:st cca�cl. ''_his z�crt�ust rc;`c'orriitgd enc apgrow'ect a:ior satin;Kadin;
=c��^i�es. P:e.^..<e ce.�ct keret$too& o i e�:r Erforcrrt:nt Di.zsen ai
' "S 1-:):'tJ V s3 4 tLc rcgaitcmcnts for site-sped c repot and dust conal.
District Fei-trii.<
' Based on t"^.e i uex7A tim orc,,vidcd.w as unsure of i.}e tip>c a=equtrac rt that Maybe=S=a:t:e
proposes esti n. The fano wing is a list of equiprmat:,-shish z riot tequi.-e pe-rnz fro=the rJisM. ".
It is Possible tat addi'aoaal project comp rents not tdenhSed at this time will rc"=c some foam of
Bis-mct review or so the foilowta; Ist shmly not be%•'tared i;exclusive.
' Portab:e sr.-ndtr; U=rao-:. Al-9
• Portabl.equipment used during wostrtction activities=y—,.quire Ca m:a rl:r Rescuzc:.s
Baud S=ewide Equir- t$egjs-aa,,cn qr a'D:szict path. This wou:d include ary
' chippcis Q-,un grinder that may b-rase as par of the pmposed trec m- noiil operation(page
-/ th ourEnal:a irg Di -isian as(SO ",rsl-�9' for move inf
o^ratior.
—3s -nr n
v�4.V~u S VYuI C t�'.^.uJ3�ty:c'^.ts.
' Agan n. yoL:IoI-.h,-oppon rlrN to C0:1rLt:.-li on th:s pioposal. ;f you3-,—c a_R\'gach•t'-Io^S or
or If you V:o":Id like to ro.—ti.L r.clectroni--versian of this!'otter. feel see to cor.tav,mt at
5912
�irc�n_i•:
jie..;S3 vII1Se
Spe'Cialis,
' CC. Ka-cr,Bmok:.SLO. .t D i=.nfor-ca.teat DiNisin
✓SAJ._..LL. 5--V.-k—rLLII
L =ecrDivision ivision
1
I
CDF/San Luis Obispo County
' Fire Department
635 N. Santa Rosa • San Luis Obispo • California 934(35
apri130,2003
Lvnn Azevedo, Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo ?
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249
Subject:Bowden Ranch Development
' .Dear Lynn,
I have reviewed the Bowden Ranch Development project proposed 23 lot development
located in the San Luis Obispo High S:hool area within the City of San Luis Obispo.
This project is contiguous to ar,area d::sig ated as a High Fire Severity Zone by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Construction in this area should A2-1
' follow the rules required in Public Resource Code 4290. This will include maximum dead
end road lengths,adequate clearance around structures, minimum Class B roofing
adequate water supply, proper road ani driveway widths and adequate turnarounds. Fire
resistant landscaping and construction should be required.
Please feel free to contact me if you ntzd further information.
1 Sincere'
' Robert Lewin, Fir�e,INlarshal
Battalion Chief
Cc: San Luis Obispo City Fire
Phill Veneris. Battalion Chief
1
CITY OF SAN 1_ul� uts3Jru
MAY 7 i
Ernie and Heather Billing
2001 Si.-ylark Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA
May 7-2003
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
Attention: Ms. Lynn Azevedo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3249
Dear Ms. Azevedo,
My husband and I have the following comments to make regarding the Bowden Ranch
1 Development(BRD) Draft Environmental Impact Report(E1R) SCH;x2002071126.
I. We are concerned about the number oftrees to be removed during the course of
the Bowden Ranch Development.
' Our home is located on the corner of Woodland Drive and Skylark Lane. Currentiv we
have a view of the creek to the north from our living room window. The removal of trees
would affect us as follows:
a. We would be subjected to the lights from Taylor Field,and ] P1-1
b. Removal of additional trees would decrease available nesting habitat for
1 birds(we enjoy listening to the owls at night and viewing the red-tail P1-2
hawks during the day): and
c. The current configuration of trees currently acts as an effective windbreak P1-3
and allows us to enjoy our yard.
We understand that the applicant is proposing to remove 48 trees during preparation of
the infrastructure of the BRD. In our opinion Mitigation Measures 3.1-1 and 3.3-16 (both
call for the applicant to plant over 140 additional trees and shrubs after the development
of the infrastructure)will not be effective unless the City adds the requirement to monitor P1-4
survival rates of the trees and shrubs. In other words, the City should require that a
certain percentage of the trees and shrubs (say 70%) survive a specified time period(say
3 years). The applicant should be required to monitor these survival rates and submit a
report to Cine staff on an annual basis for ; years.
Additionally, we are concerned with the language in Section 3.1-1,Potential for general
1' visual impacts, which states the following on page 3-22: "Since many of the existing
trees are proposed to be part of the individual lots and thus privately owned,the potential P1-5
exists for continuing tree removal'well beyond that proposed as part of this initial
1 project"
Mitigation Measure 3.I-6. which calls for the preservation of existing trees and
vegetation by the individual owners of the lots, will be ineffective in our opinion. The
use of a Deed Restriction and project Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions(CC&Rs)as the
tools to implement this measure are worthless unless penalties exist for not.complying. P1-6
If individual owners decide to remove trees(especially in lot#8 directly north of us), we
will then be subjected to the effects described above in bullets a,b, and c. We consider
these effects to be significant and detrimental to the qu4lity of life we enjoy in and around
our home.
? The CuIturaI Resources section of the draft-EIR is incomplete. Nlitigation
Measure 3.4-1 states that,"Prior to issuance of any permit or approval to commence
construction or ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a qualified
historical archaeologist, acceptable to the City, for the purpose of determining the '
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)significance or California Register of
Historical Resources eligibility of those features associated with the La Lorna.Adobe." P1-7
We would require that the applicant retain a qualified historical archaeologist and
perform the work required underCEQA. It is irresponsible.to draft mitigation measures
for work that is vet to be completed. We would then ask for the EIR to be resubmitted in
draft foam to the City and the public for another 45-dav comment period.
In closing, thank you for your time.
Heather and Ernie Billing
cc: Ron Whisenand
WENDY BROWN
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
1865 WILDING LANE-SA.\WIS OBISPO.CA 93401-TEV FAX (805)5E"491-w8R0VMM_SLDnET.0RG
April 30.2003
Ron Whisenand
Planning Commission Members
Community Development Department
Citv of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Re: Bowden Ranch Development Draft E.ER
Dear Mr.Whisenand and Planning Commissioners:
These remarks are a repetition of those I made at the Planning Commission hearing on April 9.
2003,about the Bowden Ranch Draft EIR. I have added a few items,as well.
1. Potential impact 3.143: the Draft EIR indicates that the project would not increase the
demand for parking. I disagree. Having a legal,designated,marked trail with signs will attract
more visitors every year. In addition,there are people,like myself,who do not like to trespass
.but who will happily walk on a city-owned and advertised trail. In addition,the streets in the
project are proposed to be private.'I would like to see them be public streets, with parking on P2-1
both sides and fulfilling all the requirements for public streets. Finally,when the La Loma
Adobe gets developed or even has work parties, the combination of two public spaces has the
potential for creating quite an impact on the neighborhood. Currently,I am already bothered.bv
hikers parking in front of my home on weekend momings. It seems to be a minor complaint, but
I no Ionger enjoy the quiet neighborhood I used to,and am expecting it to get much worse. I'd
like to see at least one of the proposed lois on the upper portion of the project turned into a
parking area,and parking along both sides of the proposed new streets.
2. Potential impact 3.8-2: There are three methods discussed in the EIR to deal with peak flow,
or flooding problems. done of them secnn adequate,appropriate,or without additional adverse
environmental effects. I can offer anecdotal evidence about the flooding problems and their
severity. I live on Wilding Lane,just across from the intersection with Woodland Drive.
Currently,a heavy downpour,even a brief one,causes sheets of water to come rapidly bank-to- P2-2
bank down Woodland,and then across Wilding Lane. A few minutes more and we have water
over the curb and into my neighbor's yards and mine. A few-minutes more and the seasonal
creek runs across the Bowden property,ever proposed lots 1,2 3,4,and part of 5. In 1982.a
Mazda Miata parked in front of my home was carried down the street by floodwater. Similar
events have occurred on Lizzie Street mere recently.
The ETR does mention that the existing city culvert going down Lizzie Street is now inadequate.
All the mitigations on the Bowden Propccty will not make that.culvert any larger. Who will pay P2-3
to replace it with something that will handle the increased runoff from the project?
Another small environmental point not addressed by the EIR: when the City built the current
culvert at the corner of Lizzie and Wiidirg in 1995, neighbors and others with environmental
concerns persuaded Mike McCluskey to allow a small open stream flow to continue down Lizzie P2-4
Street where the full stream currently flowed. The culvert was constructed so that would happen.
I would like that small flow to continue no matter what the drainage configuration at that corner.
3. A number of the mitigations called fog in the Draft EIR call for enforcement by CC -s. This
does not.appear to me to be a realistic expectation, when there are so many serious issues to P2-5
address—cultural,environmental,visual and drainage considerations,to name but a few. At the
Bveden Ra^ch Drat 7—IR
Pace 2
previous Planning Commission hearing on this matter,an S or Special Consideration designation
was mentioned. I think it will take something of that nature to make sure the development P2_5 '
occurs properly as the lots are sold,and that the property is maintained as it should be over a
long period of time.
I urge a significant reduction in the number of lots allowed.in this project as a partial solution to
many of the potential impacts of the project. Fewer lots would give the homeowners more
enjoyment and control of their property without having to be impacted by so many rules they P2-6
pfobably wouldn't adhere to anyway. Fewer lots would have less impact on water flow,would
result in less traffic,and would produce fewer headaches for the City and the existing neighbors
in the future.
Thank,you for your consideration of these issues.
Yours truly,
Wendy Brown
1
t
2045 S3ylark Lane
San Luis :biswc, CA. 934~1
' April 25, 2O03
City of San Luis ^ ispcCITY Cf C;,(YZ�iJ �4 l
Conmu,lctJ Development 'Dept. E i
990 Palmi St. ) t '
San Luis Obispo, CA. 934C1-3: 4°
Attention:tT.CT : :vnr �^f•C C12 to Planner
�.-,�•..�:• ••"^.:;
Dear Pianrin,^ Staff:
'
We are trying to find our wal• through the E1R for the Tiowde^.
Raub Development as we live at 2045 Skylark Lane which will
be vel; of=ecte5 by the develop=unt. Here are some of out
corcerrs.
(1) We cannct find assurances that adequate water pressure for
fire f ght:nc, yard mairtenarce and general iam.lg use will
' be maintained in the ex:stinc neighhorhood, particularly Skylark
lane oral upper areas cf lioodiand Drive, if the ^ea
residences,
some cf which will be at lower levels then the existinc neicl:>or- P3-1
-hood, are built. Coes the city intend to increase the vater
i:ressure to the entire neigh orhacd in order to provide ade;uate
' fare protection, etc. This is a fire prone area, sn Olis ratter
cf water pressure is extremely important.
(2) On cage 3-55 of the Draft ETR under Rclevart Project
( .,araCtQriti'_'1CS taarc is mention of the 3nstayla.tior. of ct,c:trete
dra_nace ditties along wither side of Lizzie Ccu-t, wi]dinq
Lara, Woodland Drive and Woodland Court. How deep will these P3-2
dit' t;es
be :chat is the onys3caL appearance of these ditches?
they be an adder riv:iz:o haza- -
d ca narrow woodlard Dr.?
'rail: Lk.ese concrete nItches mare -sposrible 'cc, haveany rr.-
-peen or -looalan^'. Drive'.-
' (3) Also on page -85, it is said that a bridge will be built
over Stream C-3 to al_a:w access from Woodland Dr. to Wood_and P3-3
Cr.. 4iha; w.ii._ be the phvsical a:iptaracce of this bridge, Is
it 70ing to _-o a two len_• or a one laze bridge?
' (4) Also on page 3-35, ind_ivi _L:il underground deter.tior. Lank^
fcr detc
aining ..
_or:^ wter r_,n�ff are d_szusset. Ot.r concern,
and on<, 1 have not vet fend is dincussed in the __R, is wheLhor
caese taLks -11 drain cor.pl.—Ply "_thin a snort. t_-:.",eperioc
' or 'aiL:, 7RESE '"ANX3 RECOXE ? =E
OVTlisL BRUDSPIC AREAS FOR
P3-4
X.CSQi:1TOrS? P_rds are anuadait in the area end the eomt--ation
of r.:Lr_;(Juitoes ar_-d' bins could create an ervirar-en= ideal for
Kesz. Nile uisoase. TOTS BUTLDIN—. US TANKS B^, A FrALTE
' I':tZARD?
I con;inu.ed or: 71.2)
1
t:i ANDT.£R C7t4ME:=S RE BOWDEN 'ZA:NC1i D Y. -2-
(5) On pace 3-87, we have c,3nccrns about he likely increase t
or floodi:c at the Lizzic Ct),•art culvert entrance. The
applicant's drainage analysW din not incluse the i-pervious
surfaces of Lizzie Court and woodland Court. The EIR ind�oates
the quantity of impervious sirfacc as planned i.s .3.07 acres P3-5
and rot the 1 .7 acrea estisa.ed by the developer. The TIR also
_orzsees potential exacerbat--on of any doarstrenm floodir.q
problems it the entrance of ..he City storm drainage system.
This po;.er.t:al flood problem reeds mitigation.
(6) Or. page H9, the ETR di::cusses potential problene wd.-1:
may arise w:zh _-lacing and -:iirtenance of discharge '-.nes fro::i
`:'.e flood water de-tention tA,tks. We Share t1lE:S'.' gof'C1::rr.5.
What ha,--ens if indivicua.l homeoukaers do not pro�.erly maintain P3-6
thein? Will they become mosquitos breeding tanks if not properly
e=ptied after each rain? -LU breakage in the lines result
in flooding of new residence:, built bciow the tanks? Will nearby
streets f1c:x3 as the discharne frog t:.c tanks drairs into the.^..? 1
(7) On page 3-89, Alternat--e N I for mit.g.>>ion of the floodin7
potential succests ponds which .could be above ground and which
would capture runoff from se-ex-al lots. ns described on 3-90, '
the R indicates the ponds t;hculd be constructed so that they P3-7
dri_in conplctely within Z, hours. Our concern is that suc
a time limit be rigidly enfo.:ccd or the ponds could be an
attractive hazard for children and a source fa: mosquitoe
brecdir,c.
(8) In the Executive Summar_-, =S 15, the scct.ion on m.itigaiia:t
1cr the creation of a nuisance or an increase in air emissions '
_s vague and indefinite. It needs more spec_''-ics is fugitive P3-8
dust is likely tc be high. al_ during construction. we'd like
tc ace definite measures sucl: as frequent watering of grading
area added tc this item.
9f In t::• Sst!cu:::vc Si7nncr7 (E5-32) , ander the d_scuss.on of
-pact, :n;.i^a r•espocsibi:i: s pat anon a homeowner-- As sociatiun
-or maintenance of biofiltert , detention'tanks and detention
pods. Vat happens if tt.e l;o.ma"ners don't _ors a liomeowners
Assccitjt.uar or are reglcct`u'. .n the carrying out of this P3-9
re3p0ps.bllity? Zt seems thz.t the developer is "o" the gook"
a- this as soon as he/she dit;trib:tes in'-ornational literature.
?iu:car ::aturc zeins w-at it it uoncern.ing procrast.rati.n an:: '
avoidance of responsibility, there seems to be. a need to nul
so:::c -eet.h. i.-to this resFons: t:: 1:ty :or carr•_inu cut maintenance.
(continued on P. 31 '
1
' CFIA`9nLER COMMENTS RE BO DEN f'i:NLH DEV.
' G; In the Executive Sumt,.ary, ES 3S, the last ;tem au tae
pace _s about a potent,al irnc.act for the instructed homes
to hdvc; water pressure at a JEvel lower than. that _eguired b.,
' Ct:e Ur fo_.:. BLild_ng Ccdc. lHiS RELATES tC EE Coi�cS'Ri: Ji= P3-10
Roti=SED IN ?TEM ONE. here tai: mitizaticn refers to booster
-U7-,PS which may be necessary to get the minimum of .15 psi in
the tones. .t also discusses having two source.; o:: electricity
fcr these guups. WILL THE PSI EE SC RE0jCED I'N :1EIGf13ORBOOD
HOK S SUCH .,S OURS SO THAT r9t. i;V,. BE `:EEDTNC. BOCS:rER pi;MPS
AND TWU SUURCES OF vLF..CTR:CITY?
[ :.) I^ the xecutivo Sj%-,'1d:'y, ES-39, the summary states that
' there will he no potentially sicr.tficant impacts on
transportation and traffic. WE DISAGRL'B COMPLETELY WITH THIS
STATEMENT. Twenty three homes will mean a minimum of $5 autos
Coming and going over very narrow streets (one lane or. wop51and) P3-11
and driveways opening or-to a narrow street where a curve provides
Lary poor visability. (here we are re_errirg to driveways to
Lots 3 and 5 which: will open onto Woodland a short distance
below a curve in the street.) We believe the traffic factor
'
needs, nuch more examination.
Ile are continuing t^- read and examine the Draft ETR and may
^.ave alditional concerns to express as we progress throeuh it.
Sin--erely yours, N
' Dr. Rverett t•:. Chandler and Arlene 3. Chandler
1
1
1
1
2045 Skylark Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA_ 93401
' April 29, 2003
'
Planning Dep
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-3279 j
attention: Ron Whisenand
' Re: The Bowden Ranch Development EIR
I have lived at 2045 Skylark vane since the late 50's, so I
am very aware that a large volume of water rushes down the
streets of Skvlark Lane and Woodland Drive about every other
year during heavy storms. The drains get choked with debris
and water overflows into the ,area being proposed for homes--
-eq. lot 5. This area is a w_tland as the EIR, indicates. Anv P4-1
home built there will be subject to flooding. Also, while the
=IR sees a potential for flooding at the intersection of Wilding
and Lizzie, it underestimates the extent of such possible
' flooding, I have seen this in=ersection impassable during a
heavy storm with the creek do.cnstream from the intersection
overflowing and flooding houses on Lizzie_
' The EIR does not consider the present traffic situation
adequately_ It uses figures from 2000 and since then the San
Luis Unified School District offices have located in the area
and school buses have been rerouted and now use Lizzie regularly.
' A-so, now there is a pre-school on the former Jr. High campus,
so many parents are dropping )ff and picking up small children
each day. All use Lizzie Street for entrance and exit. Also,
manv additional adult education classes are now meeting on the
former Jr. High campus and the gym on campus is used frequently
by various groups. Adjacent 'l'aylor Field is heavily used by P4-2
youth football, soccer teams and both youth and adult baseball
Ceams. All this sport related traffic also uses Lizzie for
' entrance and exit. The addition of 23 more residences to the
above usage will greatly complicate traffic flow at the
intersection of Lizzie and Jonnson. AT THE VERY LEAST A
' '']I 'IGtiTIC" SHOULD INCLUDE A T:RS SIGNAL ACTIVATOR FOR VEHICLES
ATTE'•IPTIhG TO TURN RIGHT AT THE SIGNAL. THIS IS ALREADY A VER':
DANGEROUS SITUATION AS VEIIICI,3S FROM LIZZIE TRY TO rLRGE WITH
THE RAPIDLY I.10VING TRAFFIC ON JOHNSON. I fear that someone
'
will be killed at this dangerous intersection if an activator
is not installed in the near =uture.
Another traffic related corse^n is that the EIR has Lots 3 &
' 4, and maybe 5, exiting onto Woodland Dr. If cars back out
cf these exits, just below the curve on Woodland, there will P4-3
surely be some traffic accidents_ These homes, if built, should
(continucc or, p_ --2- )
. r
E. Chandler Comments Re-Bowden Dev. -2-
have "turn around" driveways so that exiting is done with better IP4-3 '
visabi.lity and maneuverability. J
I consider the ETR to be incorrect when it (on 3-124) t
indicates that the potential new users for trails will not
increase beyond the new user: residing on the project site.
:with new signage as indicates in the EIR and population growth
=ithin the area, at Cal Poly and Cuesta, trail use is likely '
to increase. PARKING FOR THE TRAILS IS INADEQUATE AT PRESENT,
OFTEN CRATING A DANGEROUSLY NARROW TRAFFIC AREA ON WOODLAND
DRIVE AND BEAR THE INTERSECTIONS OF WOODLAND AND WILDING AeNiD '
WILDING AND LIZZIE. The EIR (3-1.24) says the "parking P4-4
opportunities" on these streE°ts would remain with project
implementation. THERE SHOULL BE NO TRAIL PARKING ON WOODLAND
OR NEAR THE INTERSECTIONS OF WOODLAND AND WILDING AND WILDING '
AND LIZZIE_ In order to prevent this, additional parking beyond
the planned 9 vehicle bay on Lizzie Court is necessary.
Mitigation should include adcitional off street parking for
trail users.
Very importantly, the EIR assigns most of the enforcement
concerns relating to parking, flood control and environment
preservation to a To-Be-Developed Homeowners Association. It
is not realistic to expect ling term compliance. There may P4-5
be a few initial owners awarE of the rules, but in time the
rules will be overlooked and no one will want to accept the
role of "enforcer." The Ci.tN needs to put some strength
bet.ind enforcement.
Sincerely yours, '
Everett M. Chandler
r
r
r
i
r
2045 Skylark Lane
' San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
May 1, 2003
Planning Dept.
City of San Luis Obispo )
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 a _
r
Re: Bowden. Ranch Development EIR
rAs I continue to study the EIR, I have additional concerns
which I did not mention ir a previous letter. They follow:
lI) I cannot find specifics in "the rI stating that r400dl.and
Dr. will be widened to two lanes. This widening is exceedingly
necessary because of the usage increase which this development P5-1
' will cause or. woodland. Am I overlooking the specifics on this
in the EIR? Who will be responsible for the widening, The City
or the developer?
' ( 2) There are numerous covenants, conditions and restrictions
mentioned in the mitigation measures. How will The City follow
through on these CC & R's when it will have little or no control P5-2
over the streets and areas nct maintained by The City. where
' _re tt_e enforcement provisions and penalties for the many CC
u R' s?
' (3l I object to any signage cn the raised water retention wall
which the EIR suggests for the creek near the corner of Wilding
and Lizzie. The only signage should be street signs for
Lizzie:Court and woodland Court and this signage should be like P5-3
' that of other street signage in the area. The prospect of gating
the new development has not teen raised to date, but gating
should certainly be prohibited.
( =) The EIR does not provide accomodation for the increased
�_ t _. Adore .,hich is likely to occur as acc+=ss
vl3i tali:.^ ..., ...... ..3L:..a,:. P5-4
to the area changes. The need `or parking at the Adobe is not
adequately addressed.
' ( 5) The flag lots on the steep slopes will increase fire danger
for the entire neighborhood Es fire equipment may not be able P5-5
' to qet to fire prone areas is time to stop fires from spreading.
(6) Trees marked 1524 and 15: 5, a black walnut and a black oak,
are beautiful trees and if ti.ey can be saved by some mitigation P5-6
of lot lines or bridge locat.-. or., it should be done.
Sincerely .yours, /7
' `:rIene B. Cnandler
1
Ron.Wh.isen -....-.Bowden Raric.h. Draft.,EUR...-
----------
From: "ajolote"<ajolote@netzer(,.net>
To: <rwhisenand@slocfty.org-
Date: 5/8/03'1:30AM
Subject: Bowden Ranch Draft EIR
This document is insufficient in identifying and analyzing many significant enviromental impacts. It does
not provide adequate methods to avoid or mitigate many of the dinviromental impacts it does manage to
identify and none of course for the many it o-ierlooks.Aesthetics This project will have immense impact P6-1
on the visual aesthetics of this area, and will stick out like a sore thumb. Suggested mitigation techniques
are inadequate to camoflage a project of thio scope. Suggestions could include lower height restrictions,
less houses, building underground,planting bore trees(native of course no eucalyptus).Of course the
best avoidance method would be no project. Biological resources This project would have profound
negative and irreversible impacts on the flora and fauna in the project area and also to areas adjacent to
ft.There are several species of plants and animals that live in the project area that were not identified.
The surveys to identify the project.biota were wholly inadequate. Many species that occur in the area are P6-2
very elusive and not easy to find.Others are only apparent for a short time each year. Surveys need to be
much more exhaustive and conducted over;i time frame of no less than a year. Surveyors can not be
paid by project developers lest they develop a vested interest in not finding something that would
compromise the competion of the project. Be st suggestion for avoidance of negative impact to the
resident plant and animal population would to no project. Once this habitat is gone it will be.
forever.Hydrology This document grossly Lnderestimates the amount of water that can roar down that
mountain. I have had more than three feet of water in my apartment as result of a torrential downpour
cascading down the mountain and have heard from other people who were here before me of more than
five feet.The drainage system is horribly inal Jequate for the amount of water that is capable of gushing
that down the.side at mountain.Any developmc nt further up the mountain will only serve to exacerbate the
already significant existing drainage problem. Paving for driveways,parking spots,patios and the footprints P6-3
of the houses will eliminate the permeability of the soil which they cover drastically increasing the amount
of runoff for this already inadequate drainage.Suggestions are to greatly increase the diameter of the
storm drain that starts at the top of Lizzie street(at least eight foot diameter). Require that all paving be
done with some of the newer paying materiais designed to be water permeable. Houses should be built
on pillars that are anchored in bedrock which allow water to permeate the soil underneath them but
prevent them from sliding.The simplest avoiclance of this potentially disastrous situation would be the no
project solution. Traffic I have lived in SLO all my life and in this particular location for more than a
dozen years.The traffic on Lizzie street is already hectic enough without having more vehicles on A to
add to the problem.The traffic study done gr,.-atly underestimated the existing amount of traffic on this
street and also the amount that this developr ient will add.Their findings of no significant impact are P6-4
ludicrous.Suggestions are to install a vehicle triggered sensor for the right hand turn lane at the bottom of
Lizzie street.The only realistic mitigation of this significant impact is reduced number of lots and the only
possible avoidance of it is the no project soluJon. -J
I hope this helps. Eric Lloyd Cletsoway 1822 FixIini Street Apt.8 San Luis
Obispo 543-8937
April 22.,2003
01111f OF SIPINI LUIL-1-1-Yo 114
City of San Luis Obispo A,P� 3 7M:
Community Development Department .......
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Attention: Lynn Azevedo
Re: Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR
My husband and I live on Skylark Lane with our family near the proposed development. We
have several concerns about the Bowden Development that we want to comment on during
this publicreview period.
Reviewing the proposed 23 lots we feel that the following lots create problems.
Lot I and 3. These lots narrow the main riparian corridor and nearly all of the Lot I is
covered with vegetation that would be removed to allow building. Lot 1. should be eliminated
to allow the same riparian width as delineated behind lots 4-6. This riparian area has flooding p7_1
problems that would flow into Lot I during heavy storms. This is a very active wildlife area
and a narrow corridor at Lot I would adversely affect the area. Lot 3 should be the same
depth as Lot.4 to widen the riparian corridor. J
Lots 8-11. These lots include a riparian creek area that is not being accorded the same open
space protection that the Lizzie Court creek area has. This Woodlandsidecreek carries
substantial drainage water during winter storms and should be open space rather than part of
these lots' backyards. Over time fences, gazebos, decks,etc will be built and obstruct the P7-2
creek area.. The City should have access to this riparian area and the wildlife should be
protected. This riparian area should continue down and connect up with the main Lizzie
Court creek open space. i
Lots 4 and 5. These lots are located in the Woodland creek area that will create drainage
problems during heavy storms and should be part of the open space rather than part of the P7-3
lots. When the creek overflows at this flat un-channeled area,water flows across the fields
(soon to be back yards) and floods knee deep on Wilding Lane. I
Lots 9-12. We have concerns about the steep slope and soil stability on these lots. P7-4
Lots 13-23. These lots seem very dense and have"flag lot" access alleys. Given the story
of fires in this area,the narrow access alleys do not seem adequate for fire protection P7-5
evacuation. Any fire moving through that eucalyptus grove would quickly cut off access to
fire fighters.
Traffic and Noise. The number of lots seem excessive for the neighborhood (nearly doubling P7-6
the traffic currently accessing on Lizzie and Wilding). I
Public Access. Over the years the trail up the hill behind this proposed development has
become increasingly popular. Currently hikers park along Wilding and Woodland and cause P7-7
traffic problems as.hikers,dogs and gear are loaded and.unloaded. With an officially
1
City of San Luis Obispo 1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
April 22, 2003 '
Page 2
designated open space,more city residents will want to take advantage of thetrail head. The ,
proposed development does not provide any designated parking other than street parking. We
fear that our neighborhood will develop the same problem plaguing the residents,of the
FerriniBishops Peak trail... namely hikers parking up and down the street in front of
residences. P7-7
At one timehikers used the parking lot at the old junior high and hiked up through the playing '
fields. The playing fields were closed off during renovations a few years ago and hikers were
discouraged from that route because of damage to the playing fields. Hikers then shifted over
to the Woodland trail head.
Additionally the renovation of La Loma Adobe will attract more visitors.to the neighborhood
and the proposed Lizzie Court seems too narrow to allow.parking for this historical attraction. P7-8 ,
We ask that the development provide for adequate parking for-public access other than on the
street.
This area is very unique and fraught with challenges. The EIR details mitigating measures for
some of the problems but will be hard to enforce once houses are built. Twenty years from
now residents will be painting their houses any-color,.building fences in creek areas,parking P7-9 '
RVs in creek areas, etc-and no one will be going back to read the mitigating measures or
enforce them.
We ask that the City help award the unique habitat and character of the area We also ask that
the City ensure that this development does not exacerbate the drainage, traffic, fire and access P7-10
problems that already exist. t
We have tried to keep our written comments brief but would be happy to discuss any of our
concerns in more detail if appropriate.
Sincerely, �
Marla and Frank DeMarco
2084 Skylark Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7801
1 Subject: Fwd: Bowden Ranch DEIR Comments Tue, May 13, 2003 8:29 AM
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 9:45 AM
From: Ron Whisenand <RWHISENACc?slocity.org>
To: <Lazevedo@charter.net>, <and(!rson@mha-inc.com>
MR Comments FYI
>>> John Mandeville 04/30/03 09:24AM >>>
' forwarded email
>>> "D. 6 E. Dollar" <ddollar@nacbeil.net> 04/)4/03 08:49PM >>>
Please forward to the Planning Commission, for the meeting April 9,
2003. I have another commitment and an unable to attend.
Please enter these comments into the record fcr the DEIR for Bowden
_ranch. Please read into public comment at the Planning Commission
Meeting April 9, 2003.
Thank you.
COMM,7TS DEIR BOWDEN RANCH
= The Environmentally Preferred Alternative would be appropriate l
and J P8-1
that would be to make the whole project area Open Space.
* There are way too many mitigation measures needed - that tells
us
that this should not be done. In mitigation, we are not as good P8-2
as
' we think in putting all the pieces back :ogether again.
* Rezone - NO, leave it zoned for Open Space
= New roads - we don't need more hard surf ices for more runoff
* If project goes ahead, only build on Lois 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, P8-3
and 20. Leave the rest as open Space.
* As stated in the DEIR, the most signifi:ant impacts are
biological. Too many biological resoarce; at peril; trees, P8-4
butterflies, snails, wetlands, plants ani animals; also visual
resources.
* Cumulative impacts, this open space is already impacted from
existing adjacent development over the years, which makes this P8-5
' biological island more important.
* Cutting over 20 large trees is unaccepta)le. They will not be P8-6
replaceable in my lifetime.
* This proposed project is sprawl into hil_side open space. P8-7
Since-rely,
Don Dollar
' SLO 781-0118
t
Page 1 of 1
N"ic
-.,hard A. I-lundric.L;
A imc.S. I 1widricks
IW13 Woodland L)Hw-
Sar, 1.uis Obispo, Ca. 9:3-V)
May 2W'1
Kot: Wh'sonand
. :w Obispo. )MO':
icit.cy is our uomrmm. on the I-Ilk or the Bowden R.,-jich Dovvlt)p Muni, dxX.Cl NAIajrch,
d.
is cnff clr•Ilffal 1C.", JluMlU
PLlrw. P9-1
soluii:)us appcar lo. rcly heavily on C�,&Rs associatiIon d;a( appLars Li,1.
Ila%— no flu: ifivel'ol-ccif are violald. l-'urtfici-reasons foi- the redoctlorl ili] P9-2
Ox.- of lots would,J-LI(dodc,1111:(xccss;vc.sloPC'Oi the, UrpCr JoLs that cxpose;+ Eliearea
I to lic poor access to -ni I- � -3
:T;"Cquipme 'IR P9
n
1Y .
and 1 The livtlroloi, study docs not addr"- s 6-1.1 that all 01''N' I'Li- l!
N
.
FrwnSkyiark and upper WcxyJ.I;tiid-Drive arripticsonto the propc.ny frOm.astrwi.grafi c jw:1
W'C,SL(11* 16-13 Wmxlland Driv(;and clriins into a swale. thaL.mns nordiwest acl-,)." lot 5 to P9-4
iha cnk-&dt,-signatL-d niakirij, Jij-. :.qucsdonably buildah]6 lot- Ultainlat,01V '10; Of[!I(',
dr4ina-i: Iman Lllc. r)mportv ;;RLo.a 121 inch pipe that to he an invila!411,
'ilOAhng d c bor;-:.N on Lizr(Jc sfrod ,-xen i! ponds,tanks and rc.1w.n!ion basjj-7:arc oiflivzd,
!relit .1 tkw to 6w.Creck- dosis., 3 art;Presen,dy markcd for k ifl
;,:
a ,,nauvc to.rcrnoval of tsce 152-4. a "v:l!nUt, and 1�25,an tick woul,,.i Ix. t I o charlpt-. the.
l,t'KC-Off 110Ni1i0Jz of dic proposcxl WocclL.,nd Cowl ahoill:15 feet io 1-lic,W . It P9-5
"Ills vvould al: of the ilia.( r borderin" NVoodj:!l,lkl Oriw,nvx! io (11;
'H); trail ofl'oj'jjlL7.proposcid Li Court w(ioid bl- hc.twr placed on dic Norith ,j:L
of Lhe-di:VCJL)T)il1L:nL m-xi.to the adobe tic. prc-s-.m iioinc and proposed lois 11- 19.
COU1
'd he;*acil:falcil hv h"i"ding a protc,..1;Vt,-. m j,,rcvcnit.access lo ilic,se-ilool bw;;,baj'
privacy to thosc horn-owliors. 'fl-is
and socccr and"alow lois 14-15) to 1),rw
would Providt;p;-,rkin,-, for hikers at the o'djunior high schciol lot.and would kccp
;1wily 'rtn [ho. ROrISIUVC,0!)L7,11 '1111C.lower trial COUld be mark-ed wid. P9-6
;j,"ns hil�.xs the". YO,I I paLK i t i 1YO U 1",ii 't) pack k it.opt." I ppcr Irai1
:61ould "w. all of w Iderficss ;j;ljl without
multipl,- si•,ns and ww:1--
lAli imiill ti175W( t [,: niczI, 111G nccd of who sc)t,%
la0i-c diffickll hjk;--. N,lany p1-c,,-,cni1y u is dils trail, inchAing the CDP.as ;,- Lrambq, si%il
'o to 1.11c Sierras. Hicro ac Miar illtll-"' MOZIC.raw, Lniilssuch as Bishop's P.,;JN
and R-.,scrvoir Carvon Lha! car, he ima I bv thost.: wt)k- a 4ms demanUinA ffikLt.
W1, h01V 0;11 al"C 0 COLL'."id"'l-cd il" 5dw, fii;.al plans ('Or -hU-.d.cvclopm,:n1.
May 7,2003
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Department
990 Nim Street 7--jr-
Tyf)c q:,
v 4 IL j
San Luis Obispo,CA
7W
D L'VE L 01 41 E N T
Lora Hutson
1446 A l."7zie Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
I i411
Re: Bowden Ranch Development
To: Roil..and Others It %lay Concern,
I am writing regarding the-recent draft mvironmental impact report of March 2003 for
the Bow--den Ranch Development. Firm of all. I xvould like to say I am for the
development with some caveats becaus-of the need for new affordable housing within
San Luis Obispo. .I would like to see so me of this development accommodate the.general
provision of the city plan.1 live in this ;icighbor, however. I rent. Since it is not plausible
to buy where I currently i ive. I would %,elcome the opportunity to buy within my ovm
nei&lborhood.
I feel the current report does not addres;my concerns with safety and water management
within the current development plan, I propose these changes:
• To require water storage tanks t.) be maintained by the city above lots 13 & 14,
and lois J I & 12, respectively,to catch water run--offof the urban reserve, as well P10-1
as provide assess of water in ca.,c of fire. I
• Al!oxv the proposed lot _5 to become a natural filling, shallow lake, requiring the
current owner to convert the lol by a did,out,backfillriver rock.and concrete
reinforcement_' then strategicallr placing drainage pipe.,, to and from the lake, as
well as French drains from hiuh.-r elevation,able to oven. and divert water away P10-2
From private propen ies below. rhe lake would also provide-another source of
water for Fire trucksitankers to se in the event of a fire.and add a natural
ambiance to the neighborhood.
0 Require properly installed Fren(h drains around 3 sides of each lot to divers run- P10-3
off water to the appropriate stor n drains. I
• Require retaining walls better d.an twicethe"building code" standard with extra
rebar to be builtonthe highest t!evation. side of each lot to assist in stabilizing P10-4
natural erosion and soil shifts.
• Widen ih- roads to rhe existing itrecs of Woodland (hive, and u'iidin_a Lane to P10-5
allow fire trucks easy access. '
• Enlarge the proposed streets o _izzic Cour, and Woodland Court,as n"ell as the � P10-6
access iii Lizzie Street before it turns to meet Wildina Lane. '
• Viak: additional access to the Bowden Ranch Development and the
surrourdinLz area by way of S.dnev Street and Laurel Lane to assist in managing P10-7
the increased traffic this development will have on the neighborhood. ,
• Require L'_1 struciures built or, d ese lots, anchored in bedrocK to secure the
structure from slippage of the bundarion by the natural occurring sloes «i the Pi 0-8
proper,).. ,
• Enlarge tl:e existine drainazc of the 32 inch cuh ert on the corner, of Lizzie and
Fixlini, as as L";c and V Idine to accommodate tete additional lots, water.
zinc run-offff The city is \%ell aware of the flooding that use to occur at these '
intersections prior to th culvert bcim� enlarged because of nev.,housin_at that P10-9
time watTantina the need of the -xpansion of the culvert to its present size.
Therefore,the culvert Hill need to be enlarged a2in to accommodate the ,
additional housing from the 13o%,,dcn Ranch Development.
• Add_ expand storm drainage sul ports, and back Pili nvcr rock to sides and bed of
the existing statural creek that rt ns a4jacent to Woodland Drive. and P10-10
perpendicuiarto Wilding Lane i:i order io keep; maintain, and direct flow during,
hi,h .rawr times as well as Lbro s<uhout the Lear.
• For resldeni; ln"in�_along the access roads, in particular, Lizzie Street, Sy'dne:' '
Sxeet, or Laurel Lane dcsi�nate b\ city ordinance specific arc:s onh to park P10_11
passcnser trucks and cars(no vc hicks larger or v idem.to allovy eas+-access for
Fire truck tankers,and or school buses to the starts above. ,
would grcativ appreciate it. is each on: of these recotnmendatson be adopted into the
Sinal plan in order to ensure a safe.and ryelI planned utilization of water resources. ,
current and. proposed roads. as Nyell as r royide protection not only to the en irontnent, but
also; a respectful and thoughtful approac h to the concerns -VNith the properties of the
exatin_s nerghbor>•and community at is r__e. '
t hank-you to all parties involved in ad,ancz.for your considerations regarding this
matt::. ,
5incercl�'. ,
J _
^..•%J.., ,
Lon! A 1'lL'tairil
1
..............
�V
o- Wh, se-and
S90 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 931401
ITY
:sir . Whisenaad*
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft ET.R on
:.an Development" eiui
scssed at the neighborhood meeting
M �
April :nth.
The listing of concerns coverf!d a wide range of topics involving
the environmental impact of this pj-oject on former ranching property .
1111 of the concerns listed are ver- valid; but, seemingly to us the
the most critical is the water rur—off issue. The density of twenty-
' .three proposed lots on steep hills:.de now covered with annual and
perennial vegetation is a critical alteration of the natural cover.
The reclacernent of this veget;itive cover which helps to control
flow owdith) ; themselves P11-1
water I surfaced roads, dr..veways and the residences tbemsel
gill
aggravate the water drainage :)roblem which now exists.
We sincerely hope a reduction of density coupled with a very
veil-engineered solution to water movement will minimize the ultimate P11-2
impact on the environment of the t .-act.
Thanks for listening to us , t -ie johnsons
2033 SkvIark, Lane
-Tan Luis Obispo
93401
�t 'k
A-
N' 'j,
�k4
v i iIL
1 "0
Y SAIN W" IIK:20
A!
P12-1
1 Cr
1l SI'
IJ
I k_j I
Thomas L.MillerC
i
16.:5 Woodland Dr. I
San Luis Obispo, CA I
93401-3050
r^. :7V :r
t May 5, 2003
Ron Whisenand
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
RE: The Bowden Ranch Developrr:ent Draft Environmental Impact.Report
Dear Mr. Whisenand,
GENERAL COMMENTS
I have many concerns regarding tht. Bowden Ranch Development Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). I would make the following general
observations:
' • Water run-off and drainage from our neighborhood are already inadequate.
The development will only compound this problem. In my opinion,the proposed
' mitigations and alternatives are not satisfactory. In particular, I do not see P13-1
underground tanks and open-space ponds as serious alternative mitigations (and
even if they were, who would maintain them?).
' •The traffic and parking con gestion along the lower parts of Wilding, and
particularly on Lizzie(especially at peak traffic times) are already a problem.The
' addition of 23 households will significantly worsen this problem. Were the data
employed for the draft EIR collectt:d prior to the use of the Junior High School by p13-2
the School District?The statement: that "the existing streets have sufficient unused
' capacity . . ." and that"the project would not result in a significant impact . . ."
(Section 3.141) are,in my opinion, categorically incorrect. Either their numbers are
wrong or their conclusion is.
' •Many of the suggested mitigations of identified environmental impacts
presume the implementation and efFcacy of CC&R's. Unfortunately, CC&R's are
' effective only to the degree that homeowner's wish to enforce them. As such,they P13-3
are poorly suited to the task of mitigating important environmental issues, many of
which will demand time and expense from the new homeowners association_
' Consequently I would urge that CC&R's not be employed as a means of mitigating
any identified environmental concerts and that other verifiable and enforceableI P13-3
alternatives be sought. J
•With respect to the remaincer of the draft EIR,I have general concerns
regarding: the discussion of cultural issues; the slope analysis and need for significant
grading (and its consequences);the ability to truly mitigate the environmental
concerns raised about the Morro Sh oulderband Snail as well as other sensitive fauna
and flora(the proposed mitigations Neem insufficient); the adequacy of fire P13-4
protection for the development and, by extension, the remainder of the
neighborhood; the significant number of trees which will be cut down(e.g. the
entirety of lot 1 is currently tree-covered) as well as some of the specific trees which
will be destroyed-
Most
estroyedMost of the above concerns would be at least diminished by a substantial
reduction in the number of homes constructed on the site. No alternative P13-5
development layouts were providec.
SF.30FIC ISSUES
I have attached a more detailed list )f specific referenced concerns regarding
potential inadequacies of the draft EIR(please see enclosure).
CONCLUSION
The Bowden Ranch property is truly extraordinary. It is a small natural preserve
right within our city limits. As an urban in-fill development it must be planned with
the utmost sensitivity not only to the existing residents in the area - but also with
an eye to preserving open space and to protecting the beautiful and fragile physical
environment which makes our city ;o special. In-my view,to simply proceed as ,
though it were just another project, or to plan it to reflect what is already here (most
of which was planned and designee in the 60's and 70's) would be a shortsighted
mistake and,by definition, irredeemable.
I would like to thank you and your -olleagues for providing a valuable service to
our community. You will no doubt receive a number of letters regarding this
development- all of which will exp ress their own individual and unique concerns.
We appreciate your time and expertise in these efforts.
Last, I would Iike to formally request a response to each of the concerns raised in
this letter and its enclosures. I also 1vish to receive notices of any hearings or
meetings regarding this development.
Y•
omas L. Miller
t
1 BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT PLAN
E 1R EVALUATION
' The following evaluation of the Bowden Ranch Development Plan EIR provides: 1) an
overview of relevant California EavironmentaI Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and
judicial decisions followed by 2) a listing of specific issues and concerns in response to
' information contained in the Drift ;31R. Discussions of the relevant CEQA requirements
and court decisions are shown in 'talics. Specific concerns are noted by page number
from the Draft EIR.
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
According to State CEQA Guidelin:s, Section 15124, a description of the project should
supply sufficient detail necessaryf;•evaluation and review of the environmental impacts.
The EIR is required to describe the proposed project in a way that will be meaningful to
the public, to the other reviewing al•encies and to the decision makers.
According to the 1999 CEQA Desk book, "the project description should include project
concept, proposed buildings and fa cilities, construction activities build-out assumptions,
conceptual drawings, supporting public services and reasonably foreseeable future
phases..,
1 In County of Inyo v. City of Los Ar geles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d. 185, the State Court of
Appeal declared that an accurate, s cable,finite project description is an essential element
' of an informative and legally suff ci ent EIR under CEQA.
a) Page 2-5 of the Draft EIR stites that"The City anticipates that the development of
' the individual single-family homes would be custom rather than tract development. Any
future development would be subject to additional development and environmental
review on a lot-by-lot basis at the time individual plans are submitted to the City for P13-6
1 consideration". As noted above, -.ertain construction activities build-out assumptions
should be provided as developme-it of these lots is a "reasonably foreseeable future
phase". Additional detail is needed to allow an assessment of additional project impacts
' (grading, air quality, visual,biologi(:al,etc.).
b) Page 2-9 of the Draft EIR st ates that individual detention basins be constructed on
' each lot to detain some storm water run-off. Additional information is needed within the
project description to allow an assessment of potential grading and visual impacts. Page
3-88 of the Draft EIR describes sev;ral potential problems with the tanks as they apply to
' the project. Then later in the dacument, on Page 3-92, Mitigation Measure 3.8.4 P13-7
recommends that storm water deter tion ponds be built rather than underground detention
basins. Again, no location of ponds, drainage swales, grading, etc. is provided. The
' project's proposed drainage systen. needs to be feasible and should be detailed in the
project description,not added in as a Mitigation Measure with little orno detail.
t
1
C) Page 3 —22 of the Draft EH.states that no lighting plan is included as part of the
project "at this time". Because of tie project's elevated location, the potential exists for P13-8
significantly adverse light and glare impacts. A Lighting Plan should be included as part
of the Project Description.
d) Page 3-24 of the Draft EIR states: "Related to grading, if paved drainage channels
are proposed, they may be highly N isible as distinct geometric patterns in the landscape
and the potential would exist for a conflict with the City's goal of blending hillside P13-9 t
development with the surroundings'. A Drainage Plan should be prepared as part of the
Project Description in order to allow full analysis of potential impacts.
e) Page 3-25 of the Draft EIR Includes Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 which states that a
Landscape Screening Plan will t e provided concurrent with the submittal of the
improvement plans. This mitigatioi L measure goes on to list several elements that will be t
included within this plan. There is no reason a Landscape Plan could not be provided as
part of the Project Description in cyder to allow evaluation and review of the Plan. No
information is provided on who vdIl provide the landscaping proposed in this Plan. P13-10
Mitigation Measure 3.1-8 requires tact the applicant submit a landscape and revegetation
plan which includes landscape materials to help obscure views of the project. A
definitive Landscape Plan should be prepared which contains all proposed plantings
(including the 140 trees that are pros nised throughout the document)and should be part of
the Project Description of the Draft',IR.
fl Page 3-26 of the Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.1-2, which states that
improvement plans and utility plans will be submitted prior to the issuance of the Cording P13-11
Permit. These plans should be part if the Project Description.so that the impacts of these
plans (such as grading, air quality,t iology, etc) can be assessed within the Draft EIR,not
at a later date.
g) Page 3-44 of the Draft EIR i acludes Mitigation Measure 3.3-2. It states that prior
to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit revised Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map which will be revi;ed to eliminate encroachments into the creek setback
areas and wetland areas. Page 349 )f the Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measure 3.3-12
which again calls for the submittal cf a revised Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map which P13-12
avoids the locations of live Morro Shoulderband Snails (MSS), MSS shell fragriments and
MSS habitat, and provides approp fate buffers and identifies Lot 13 as MSS habitat.
This revised Vesting Subdivision Map appears to actually be the Project Description and
should have been prepared and incl coded in the Draft EIR in order to allow a meaningful
review of the project as it is actually proposed to be constructed.
h) Page 3-49 of the Draft EIR.ncludes Mitigation Measure 3.3-16 which requires a
tree mitigation plan prior to the recordation of the Final Map. This Tree Plan should be P13-13
prepared as part of the Draft EIR Project Description in order to allow full analysis of
environmental impacts.
1
2
i
2. FULL DISCLOSURE
According to the State CEQA Guid(lines, Sections 15003, 15121, and 15362, an EIR is a
detailed informational document p;•epared by a Lead Agency that analyzes a project's
potential significant effects and identifies mitigation measures and reasonable
alternatives to avoid the significant effects. The primary purposes of an EIR are to inform
decision makers and the public ab.nit a project's significant environmental effects and
ways to reduce them, to demonstraA>to the public that the environment is being protected
and to ensure political accountabil.Iy by disclosing to citizens the environmental values
held by their elected and appointed officials. CEQA does not require technical perfection
in an EIR, but rather adequacy, con:pleteness and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
According to State CEQA Guidelin is, Section 15144, a Lead Agency is obligated to use
its best efforts to discover and disclose all that it reasonably can about an issue.
a) Page 3-88 of the Draft EIR proposes Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 which presents
three potential design alternative w mitigate the impact of increased peak discharge at.
downstream drainage facilities. Those three alternative mitigations are very different and
would result in different project impacts of their own. This method of"mitigation"does
not demonstrate a best effort at full disclosure of the proposed project and its impacts. P13-14
The method of mitigating this pote itially significant impact should be disclosed before,
not after project approval. In particular, Alternative 3: Off Channel Open Detention
Ponds could be constructed in the Open Space Lot 24, an area which contains
environmentally sensitive resources.
' 3. LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY
According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, the specificity required in an EIR
' should correspond to the specific ty of the underlying activity being evaluated. For
example, an EIR prepared for a dcvelopment project should be more specific than one
prepared for a zoning ordinance or general plan. Therefore, the EIR is obligated to
' provide a specific description of tF,a proposed project and detailed identification of its
impacts.
' As noted throughout this evaluation, many critical elements of the proposed project
remain unidentified while several of the impact assessments are deferred to a later date.
Based on the above discussion,the proposed project fits the definition of a"development
project" which requires provision c f a complete description of the entire project and a
detailed identification of project impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, etc. The
overall Ievel of specificity of data contained within this Draft EIR is not commensurate P13-15
with the level of project consideration. The proposed development plan represents the
final discretionary approval by tl ie, City of San Luis Obispo. Since no further
environmental documentation is req aired after approval of the development plan, the EIR
' must be completely revised to provide all project information and detailed impact
assessments at this time.
3
4. ;?UTURE ACTIONS
In Laurel Heights Improvement A,,sociation v. Regents of the University of California
0988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, the Califorria Supreme Court held that an EIR inadequate for not
including the assessment of the fui! use of the proposed project. The Court rejected the
argument that an EIR need not analyze future actions that where not yet formally
approved. The Court stated that t here was evidence in the record that indicating the
ultimate plans of she proposed project. Because these ultimate plans were "reasonably
foreseeable" and was likely to chmige the scope of the proposed project's environmental
effects, the EIR should have disclm ed the environmental effects that were likely to result
from ultimate development of the pi oposed project. '
a) Page 3-49 of the Draft Eft states that "an unknown number of trees may be
incidentally and adversely affected by various activities during site construction. Trees '
may also be adversely affected ':)y residents/property owners during and following
development of the individual lots. Impacts may include tree removal or significant tree P13-16
damage leading to mortality. A more accurate assessment of the project's environmental
effects is needed and the EIR shou ld disclose these environmental effects that are likely
to result from ultimate development of the proposed project.
5.DEFERRAL OF ANALYSES AND MITIGATIONS AND"PIECEMEALING"
In Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, the State Court of ,
Appeal stated that before approvivg a project, the Lead Agency must first resolve the
uncertainties regarding a project's potential significant environmental effects. The Court
concluded that the success of any initigation determined by a later study was uncertain, '
therefore, the Lead Agency cannot reasonably conclude that a project would not have the
potential to have significant envirc nmental effects. Also, the Court found that the Lead
Agency deferral of the analysis ol'signifcant effects to a study to be prepared in the ,
fixture was an inappropriate delega:ion of its CEQA duties.
According to State CEQA Guidelin?s; Section 15165, when an individual project is part
of a larger project, the EIR proje;:t description and impact analysis must address the
larger project. An agency may not.,egment a larger project into pieces (I.e., 'piecemeal"
a project), thereby avoiding an ana;ysis of the cumulative impacts of the larger project. '
An EIR must describe and analyze ''reasonably foreseeable future phases"of a project, if
the larger project is a reasonablyj breseeable consequence of the initial project and the '
future project will be significant be cause it will likely change the scope or nature of the
initial project or its environmental effects. The rule against project segmenting applies
even if the Lead Agency has not ye,formally approved the larger future project and it is '
impossible to predict precisely the J wure project's environmental effects, as long as these
effects can be discussed generally.
a) Page 3-22 of the Draft EI2 states that "Since many of the existing trees are 1
proposed to be part of the individua lots and thus privately owned,the potential exists for P13-17
continuing tree removal well beyond that proposed as part of this initial project. At some
4
future point, this potential collectiv; loss of existing trees may have an adverse affect on P13-17
the wooded visual character of the s ite". Since this additional tree removal is"reasonably
foreseeable", it must be addressed now,not later.
b) Page 3-22 states that "If fit we residences are placed on the highest, most visible
portions of the lots to take advantage of outward views, and inadequate area is allowed
for planting, the visual contrast between the built character of the development and the P13-18
adjacent open space would be increased". The visual contrast would have an adverse
affect. This"reasonably foreseeable"impact:should be addressed now.
1 c) Page 3-23 of the Draft EIR states that, "Review of the site plan and topographic
maps show a high potential for gra ling on many of the lots. Some of the lots approach
30 percent in slope steepness". Page 2-24 continues, "As a result, the potential for
extensive grading and retaining structures exists as part of this nroject. As stated above, P13-19
the rule against project segmenting applies even if the Lead Agency has not yet formally
approved the larger future project and it is impossible to predict precisely the future
project's environmental effects,as long as these effects can be discussed generally:
&FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15065, a project would have a significant
effect on the environment if the 7roject would substantially degrade environmental
quality or reduce fish or wildlife habitat, cause a fish or wildlife habitat to drop below
self sustaining levels; threaten to dimikate a plant or animal community; reduce the
numbers or range of a rare, threatened, or endangered species; eliminate important
examples of the major periods of C slifornia history or prehistory; or achieve short-term
goals to the disadvantage of long-te-n goals.
t a) Page 3-31 of the Draft EIR :.tater that"the Air Pollution Control District(APCD)
staff concluded that the project, by itselfy would not exceed CEQA significance
thresholds and would not significartly impact air quality". This conclusion is contained
within a March 15, 2001 correspondence from the APCD. Within that letter, included in
Appendix C of the Draft FIR, it is.h tcorrectly stated that"preparation of the 23 residential
lots at the site will require an estimI ted cut and fill of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of
' material". This assumed grading; total is incorrectly applied to the 23 proposed
residential lots. The project description of the Draft EIR (pages 2-6 and 2-9) states that P13-20
this grading total applies solely to o 1-site streets and driveways and that"development of
' the proposed 23 lots may require additional landform modification." The extent and
timing of this additional project grading.is not provided in the Draft EIR. Any concurrent
residential lot and roadway gradit.g will increase this estimated amount of grading.
Therefore, the conclusion within th. EIR that grading impacts are insignificant is based
upon faulty and incomplete data
' Construction activities for large d welopment projects are estimated in the San Luis
Obispo County Air Pollution '.ontrol District CEQA Handbook to generate P13-21
approximately 40 pounds per acre )er day of particulate matter, or approximately 0.42
1
' S
t
t
tons per acre per month of disturb:d.soil. If water or other soil stabilizersd are used to
control particulates, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. As such, the
determination of significance for Trading-related air quality impacts is based upon the
amount of area disturbed at one time rather than the amount of earthwork In order to
exceed the Air Pollution Control District threshold of 2.5 tons of particulates per quarter
(3 months), a total of 3.46 acres would have to be disturbed: This acreage total is based
upon a three-month grading period and utilization of mitigations to reduce particulate P13-21
generation by 50%. Although it is acknowledged that the above calculation is very
general, it does indicate a potentially unavoidable adverse impact which cannot be
reduced to a level of insignificance: and which was not addressed in any manner in the
Draft EIR. Any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts will require a full and complete
analysis in the Draft EIR prior to public review and will require the adoption of a
Statement of Overriding Considerat.ons by the Lead Agency.
7.FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 1
According to State CEQA Guideh nes, Sections 15126:4 (a) and 15364, the EIR must t
discuss feasible measures to avoid or reduce the project's significant environmental
effects. A mitigation measure is con sidered feasible if it is capable of being accomplished
in a successful manner within a t easonable period of time, taking into consideration ,
economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
a) Page 3-45 of the Draft ED. includes Mitigation Measure 3.3-6, which requires ,
off-site restoration to mitigate impa:ts to the San Luis Obispo County morning glory and
Hoffmann's sanicle. It states that "potential sites may include those open space areas P13-22
containing physical characteristics appropriate for the species". Without providing ,
specific information on the Iocation on this off-site mitigation program,it is impossible to
determine its feasibility.
b) Page 3-47 of the Draft EI.Z provides Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 regarding the
trapping and translocating of woody its. This measure should identify where,the woodrats P 13-23
would be taken, as well as State :utd Federal requirements for moving of a sensitive 1
species in order to insure compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the feasibility
of this mitigation.
8. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
When making findings on significant environmental impacts in an EIR, the Lead Agency,
according to State CEQA Guidelims, Sections 15091 (d) and 15097, must also adopt a
program for reporting or monitori,ig mitigation measures that are adopted Mitigation
monitoring and reporting program, are included within a Draft EIR in order to provide
the public with the opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mitigation
measures and the timing and rc sponsibility for their enforcement. The Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program is implemented at Final EIR certification in order to
ensure that mitigation measures are implemented.
6 '
1
a) Page ES-9 of the Draft F IR does not provide a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMI2P). :'reparation and consideration of this program is
inappropriately deferred until "the City approves the project." According to the Draft
' EIR, "final"mitigation measures, to be incorporated into the project after approval, will P13-24
provide the basis for completion of the MMRP. In so doing,the EIR not only violates its
full disclosure requirements but also prevents the public from having the opportunity to
fully evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mitigation measures as well as the timing
and responsibility for their implementation. A complete MMRP should be included in
the Draft EIR for public review and comment.
' 9. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126, the EIR must provide a range of
reasonable alternatives which must be discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision-making. In developing a range of alternatives, the
EIR should focus on those alternatives that are capable of reducing or eliminating
significant environmental impacts. rhe EIR must describe the rationale for selection and
rejection of alternatives. Alternatives should be developed that would avoid or
significantly lessen the significant environmental effects of a project. The EIR must
' identify the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative
and explain why another alternatives than the proposed project were rejected. This
determination must be based on the ability of a project alternative to reduce or eliminate
significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
a) Page ES-8 of the Draft EIR hates that the No Project Alternative would eliminate
t a number of project benefits, including implementing the City's General Plan. Because
the project conflicts with a number of City General Plan Policies (including Open Space
Element Policy 6.2.2), the project does not, in fact, implement the City's General Plan. P13-25
The discussion of the No Project Alemative further states that maintaining the site in its
current condition eliminates a number of project benefits including: protecting scenic
hillsides and "certain" on-site biol)gical resources. The No Project alternative would
protect scenic hillsides and all on-si.e biological resources.
b) Page 5 — 1 of the Draft ITR notes that the proposed project has one stated
objective,that being development o`'the 40 acre project site with 23 residential lots. This
singular project objective provides'n inadequate basis for the selection and consideration
of project alternatives. A full and complete consideration of project alternatives must
' begin with an identification of detailed project objectives, such as preservation of visual P13-26
or biological resources,provision of additional recreational opportunities, conformance to
various Elements of the City Gt neral Plan, avoidance of identified environmental
' constraints, etc. These detailed obj<ztives provide the basis fora meaningful evaluation,
rejection or possible adoption of v,uious project alternatives. Without such a basis for
comparison, the Lead Agency cajinot fully evaluate the comparative merits of any
1 proposed project alternative.
C) Page 5-5 of the Draft EIR t;ontains a discussion of reduced density alternatives 1 P13-27
1 which does not provide any specific: site plans in order to support the conclusion within
7
the EIR that`most, if not all of the potential impacts [of the project] would remain." No
less than two reduced density alternative site plans which reduce or eliminate project-
related impacts should be provided. Such detailed site plans would provide the basis for
a meaningful consideration of a reduced density alternative. Such site plans would P13-27
provide the public and decision-makers with the ability to determine the nature and extent '
of any reduction or elimination of project impacts such as a reduction in habitat loss,
grading or visual impacts. Witho�it such detailed plans, any consideration of reduced
density alternatives is cursory and speculative.
d) Page 5-5 of the Draft EIR contains a discussion of clustered development or an
attached residential project and doe:,not provide any specific plans in order to support the
conclusion that such an altemative'`would retain many of the same potentially significant
impacts and at similar levels to tlat of the proposed project". Without detailed site
plans, there is no basis for conclusions in the EIR that "a clustered development '
alternative would increase potentia.ly significant aesthetics impacts". No less than two
clustered development site plans which reduce or eliminate project-related impacts P13-28
should be provided. Such detaihtl plans would provide the basis for a meaningful
consideration of a clustered devel)pment alternative. As in the case of the reduced
density alternative discussed above, such site plans would provide the public and
decision-makers with.the ability to determine the nature and extent of any reduction or
elimination of project impacts. Without such detailed plans, any consideration of
clustered development alternatives i s cursory and speculative.
C) Page 5-5 of the Draft EIR includes a discussion of the No Project alternative and
correctly states that this alternative "would maintain the project site in its present state
and current land use(an undevelopt d parcel that currently functions as passive and visual
open space with occasional trail t se.)" It is subsequently stated that the No Project P13-29
alternative does not "accomplish the objectives of the City's General Plan". This
conclusion in the EIR indicates that preservation of open space and visual resources is in
conflict with the objectives of the C.ty General Plan.
This discussion also states that the No Project alternative"eliminates the benefits of the
proposed project in terms of added recreation for trail users". This conclusion conflicts
with page 3-117 of the EIR which states that "the proposed project would not
significantly increase recreational r.sage; "the project would also not directly result in '
the construction or expansion of City recreational facilities".and "construction of up to 23
new single family homes and development of the project site are not expected to result in P13-30
measurable increases in the use of he site's trails to adjacent open space lands". Given t
the lack of additional recreational ise, there are no identified benefits of the proposed
project in this regard. Use of these ion-existent benefits as a rationale for rejection of the
No Project alternative is, therefore, inappropriate. The only stated project objective '
eliminated by the No Project alterr:ative is the applicant's goal relative to provision of
additional housing.
This discussion further states that th-.No Project alternative"would not prevent further or 1 P13-31
similar development in the future. Such future development could result in greater or I
8
1 .
lesser environmental impacts than chose associated with the currently proposed project".
Without any specific future development plans, such statements are speculative and P13-31
without factual foundation. It must also be stated that any future development application
on the subject property will be subject to its own environmental review with an EIR that
provides a complete disclosure of potentially significant environmental impacts.
1 f) Page 5-6 of the Draft EIR provides a discussion of the Environmentally Superior
Alternative, but. does not identify any of the project alternatives as "environmentally
superior". Although the No Prr)ject alternative avoids or eliminates all direct
' environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, this alternative is not P13-32
identified as being "environment.11y superior". Instead, this alternative is rejected
because it eliminates "certain project benefits". The basis for determination of
environmental superiority must bt: based upon an alternative's ability to reduce or
eliminate impacts rather than its abi.ityto provide benefits.
None of the other proposed project alternatives are identified as being "environmentally
superior". As such, none of the p oject alternatives included within the Draft EIR are
capable of reducing or eliminating !ignificant environmental impacts. This is contrary to P13-33
the intent of the State CEQA Guie elines which require provision of alternatives which
reduce or eliminate project impacts.
The basis for rejection of the project alternatives in favor of the proposed project within
the EIR is "the presumption that it is the City's intent to have lands developed in
accordance with their General Plan' and that most of the other alternatives have the same P13-34
or similar impacts. Neither of thesc reasons provides justification for rejection of project
1 alternatives, none of which are caps)le of reducing project impacts.
The concluding discussion states that an environmentally superior alternative would be
' "strictly .guided by all of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR' which "would
guide substantial revisions to the pr)ject"which"may reduce the overall lot yield for the
project site, may dictate smaller lots than currently proposed or may substantially
constrain development potential for each of the developed lots. The specific response to P13-35
the mitigation measures that would .nanifest in the form of a revised project design would
require the experience and expertise of a number of design and environmental
professionals, and City and other agency staff, to develop a project that is sensitive to the
environment into which it would be placed".
This concluding discussion defe s consideration of the environmentally superior
alternative until the proposed project is re-designed in response to proposed mitigation
measures. Such a discussion is s)eculative since it is based on the assumption that P13-36
current project plans will be updat:d in the future. To defer this consideration in the
manner noted above is also obscure and inconclusive.
1
1
1 9
1
1
12. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS 1
a) Page ES-6 of the Draft EIR states that the project is requesting a zone change to '
R-1-S (Low Density Residential-Suecial Consideration). This zoning is not discussed
anywhere in the document. Instead; the SP (Specific Plan) zone is discussed. Page 3-98 P13-37
states"The City has determined tha:the existing zoning for the portion of the project site
proposed for residential developm:nt should be rezoned from R-1 to R-1-SP". This
conflicting zoning information need;to be clarified.
b) Page ES-7 of the Draft EI.Z acknowledges that the City's General Plan Open 1
Space Element Policy 6.2.2 (Devel(pment Practices for Sensitive Habitat Areas) requires
avoidance of sensitive habitats, including the wetlands and snail habitats. The project as P13-38
presently proposed does not avoir sensitive habitats and is in conflict with the City 1
General Plan.
c) Page 3-3 of the Draft EIR re.ers to Figure 1.0-2. No such figure is provided. P13-39 1
d) Page 3-4 of the Draft EIR lists the Hilllside Policies of the Land Use Element of
the City General Plan. No analysis of the project's conformance with these policies is
provided. However, as the Bowden Ranch Development proposal contains no detail on
the size, location and nature of the future custom housing to be built, it is impossible to
conclude that these policies are being met. The proposal contains no Architectural '
Guidelines, height restrictions, lot coverage standards, etc. Although page 3-6 states that
the R-1 development standards alow a maximum structure height of 25 feet and a
maximum coverage of 40%, it g= on to say that the City's Zoning Ordinance includes P13-40
provisions fora variance from thescand other development standards. Also,page 3-7 of
the Draft EIR states that "each homeowner may want to erect fencing or walls for
functional and/or aesthetic reasons". The project does not provide sufficient detail to 1
assure that the development will: keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes;
avoid large; continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles or
columns and include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and 1
which provides a visual transition frim developed to open areas.
e) Page 3-6 of the Draft EIR states that the project would remove a minimum of 48 1
trees. Nowhere in the document is it shown exactly where these trees will be removed. P13-41
That total does not include trees rerr oved on individual lots.
f) Pages 3-11 through 3-16 cf the Draft EIR provide photo simulations of the '
proposed Bowden Ranch Development. The method of indicating `project location" is
inadequate. It is impossible to tell where the actual project site begins and ends. A better '
method of identifying the project site is necessary. In. addition, a post-development P13-42
depiction of Figures 3.1-5 and 3.1-5 should be provided. The statement on page 345
and 3-16 that the number of potential viewers is expected to be low from the top of the 1
Palm Street Parking Structure and tl:e March Street Parking Structure is incorrect.
10
' g} Page 3-19 of the Draft EIR provides a"mitigated-development view ofthe,project
site". Who provides the landscaping shown? Is it an individual homeowner or theP13-43
developer?
' h) Page 3-21 of the Draft EIR t tates that the"most visible tree removal action would
involve the seventeen eucalyptus trees that make up the windrow" along the current
private road at the end of Lizzie St•eet". Page 3m22 states "the project proposes to plant P13-44
140 new trees as part of the develcpment plan". The precise location of the trees to be
removed as well as the trees to be Slanted should be shown in order to allow the public
' the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of this planting.
i) Page 3-32 of the Draft EIR describes the eight distinct habitat types present on--
site. The acreage of each habitat type should also be provided in order to allow a
determination of the percent of habitat lost as a result of project development. The P1345
acreage of the Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland should be provided as well as the
acreage of that portion of the blue gutn//live oak woodland habitat that is used as
tMonarch Butterfly Over-Wintering.13abitat.
j) Page 3-35 of the Draft EIR is Figure 3.3-1, Natural Habitats of the Project Area.
This figure should include the location of the freshwater marsh, rock outcrops and P13-46
ruderal/disturbed vegetation.
k) Page 3-39 of the Draft EIR states that "One Federally endangered species, the
Morro shoulderband snail, was found on and adjacent to the project site during recent
(.august and December 2002) surveys and are discussed in detail in the various reports
prepared by or on behalf of the appL,.cant and other reports listed in Section 7,References, P13-47
of this EIR". Important information presented in the Technical Appendices should be
summarized within the text of the Draft EIR rather than depending upon the reader's
ability to find and evaluate this data.
1) Page 3-43 of the.Draft EIR discusses Potential Impact 3.3-1, Potential to directly
' impact sensitive habitats. This discussion should include a quantification of the acreage
of Serpentine Bunchgrass lost as a result of project development. Quantification is also P13-48
needed of the amount of wetland habitat lost and the amount of wetland-like areas of
spreading rush lost. The extent of encroachment into the 20-f000t creek setback
proposed by the current plan should also be quantified
' m) Page 3-98 of the Draft Efrt discusses recommended zoning for the proposed
residential development, stating that the City recommends the site be rezoned from R-1 to
R-1-SP (Specific Plan Area). This is contrary to page ES-1 of the Draft EIR which states P13-49
that the proposed zoning is R-1-S (Low Density Residential -Special Consideration).
Page 3-98 further states that the City's Specific Plan Overlay requires development
standards that include residential density, height, yards, coverage and parking. Other
t development features explicitly contained in the specific plan include landscaping,
building siting and form.
1
11
1
n) Appendix B to the Draft EIF. contains the Initial Study for the project prepared by 1
the City of San Luis Obispo. The Initial Study includes the "EIR Workscope" which
details issues to be discussed within the Draft EIR. In addition to several of the items
already been raised in the preceding pages, the following additional information has been
requested in the Initial Study, but is not provided in the Draft EIR: 1) A biological
easement is needed to protect the.Monarch butterflies. Relying on the CC&R's is not
adequate; 2) A Tree Removal and Grading Plan is needed with cross-sections and road 1
profiles to better understand potential impacts to existing trees and other sensitive P13-50
resources as a result of cuts and fills necessary for mads and emergency access; 3)
Quantify damage to oaks per the Grading Plan; 4) Include exhibits that clearly delineate
creek setbacks and distinguishes between setbacks from edge of riparian habitat and
setbacks from top of creek .bank; 5) Identify project alternatives that do not impact
Historic Resources; and 6)EIR should include analysis of extent of cut and fill needed to
achieve maximum slopes for fire access, fire truck turn-around and private driveways.
These information items must be added to the Draft EIR in order to address the
potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study. '
s 1
1
12
Tue, May 13, 2003 8:32 AM
Subject: Fwd: Bowden Ranch Draft EIR
Date: Wednesday, May 7, 2003 12:44 PM
From: Ron Whisenand <RWHISENA@slocity.org>
To: <lazevedo@charter.net>, <anderson@mha-inc.com>
Email letter. I'll print out a copy for the City file.
' Ron
»> "Steve and Gina Nelson" avelson1580@charter.nev 05/07/03 12:39PM
Dear Ron,
The Draft EIR does not adequately address what is going to happen with
water run-off women it reaches the inadequate culvert at Wilding and
Lizzie. Should something be done to increase the capacity below P1 4-1
Wilding? Building a darn at the culvert is an inappropriate mitigation
measure. Additionally, the dam will be aesthetically very unattractive
to the neighborhood. A better method is needed to solve the problem.
Placing a sign at the corner of Wilding and Lizzie is aesthetically
unsightly to the neighborhood. The mitigation for this is simply to not P14-2
allow signs.
' We support having as little as possible paved as streets and sidewalks.
It is beautiful area and to have full-size City streets would not only P14-3
add to the water run-off, but would decrease the attractiveness of the
neighborhood. If anything, the size of the proposed streets with a
sidewalk on one side should be decreased.
lie question the wisdom of long driveways accessing some of the lots.
' The Fire Department's ability to fight fires on the structures and
vegetation on these lots will directly impact how protected houses in Pi"
the adjacent neighborhood will be. .The driveways on relatively steep
' slopes add even an additional problem that is not adequately addressed.
Thank you for including these issues of concern.
Stephen and Gina Nelson
1580 Lizzie Street
Page 1 of 1
To whom it may concern: ,t
I recentiv read through.the Draft Environmental Impact Report for.the"Bowden
Ranch' development. I noticed that .v thin the:cultural and historical resources sections
there was no mention of a repos done on the impacts:to paleontological remains due to
this project.
Section 21084.1 of CEQA states that"A project that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project.that may have a
sianificant effect or the environment. For purposes of this section; an historical resource
is a resource listed in, or determined to beeli,ible for listing in, the California Register of
Historical Resources. Historical resources included.ina local register of historical
resources. as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant
to criteria set t"•orth in subdivision(g) of Section 5024.1. are presumed to be historically or P15-1
culturally signittcaht for purposes of this section; unless the preponderance of the
evidence demonstrates that the:resource is not historically or culturaliv stgirilicant. The
fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the
California Re_ister of Historical Resources, not included-in a local register of historical
resources, or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria.set forth in subdivision(g)of
' Section 5024.1 shall not preclude a lead agency from detennining whether the resource
may be an historical resource for purposes of this section.'
The California Reeister of Historical Resources states that a historical resource
may be listed in the California Resister if it meets any of the following criteria: (1) itis
a>sociated with events that have made.a significant contribution to the broad.patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage,(2) it is associated with the lives of persons
important in California's past: (3) it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period. region. or method of construe-.ion, or represents,the wore:of an important creative
individual, or possesses high artistic value; or(4)it has yielded or is likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history. The Register includes properties whirl: are
listed or have been formally determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register,
State Historical Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest.
Given that evidence of local paleontological remains occurin the%icinity of this
project, there is c;neem of losini-, rltese cultural and Historical resources. i ask what is
in- to be done to protect these valuable assets, in the interest of the public." ].also ask P15-2
that a surface survey for possible paleontological remains be conducted on the land to
determine any potential impacts.
Thank you.
Daniel Sinton
1 President and.Proiect Manager
Uecr) I ne
805-748-_443:
1
1
7
ROBERT
j 0.1
VESSELY'
�.V 7
E N
.4 rti=%Uj
May 6.2003
Ms. Lynn Azcvedo,Associate Planner
Ciry ci'San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,Cali fiamia 9''401
RE: Bowden Ranch Draft EIR
Ms, Azevedo.
Havine reviewed the draft rlR for the prorx)sed Bowden Ranch Development.I was surprised io see that
little was mentioned about the potential impacts of die project on the La Loma adobe. As was seen with the P1 6-1
Rodn'--ucz Adobe.vibrations from construction activities can damage the fragile walls of the adobe and die
increase in exposure resulting from the project can mbuilding more susceptible to vandalism.
the I
t.)1'possible concern is the fact that new neighbors may not be aware oTthc significance of the adohe or the
Ciiv:goal ot'restoration of this historic propcm- ibis
goal should remain explicit so that no P16-2
misunderstanding occurs as has occurred at the Podriaucz adoix.To have new property o,.,,-ners move into
the neighborhood,only to then have them expect an accelerated restoration would be a mistake.
11 would seem that appropriate miti.-mion measures could include participation b,. the developer in the
I P16-3
>Aabilizi ion of the adobe and possibly off-street parking for the adobe in the development of the Lizzie Street
extension.
Thzmk you Ibr your consideration.
sinccrcl..
kobert S.Vess'el'..Pj--'
' Chattel
Archftecture,
Planning&
1 Inc.Preservation,
Inc. CM_
C.
May 7, 2003 �
MAY 7 2j�n,3 1
Ms. Lynn Azevedo
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
C4;'v'iriU' iTY DC'1t1'JP4?_iiT
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Bowden Ranch Development,San Luis Obispo
SCH##2002071126
Dear Ms. Azevedo:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the environmental review process for the above-
referenced project. We have been asked to provide clarification on cultural resources issues.
Qualifications
Chattel Architecture, Planning&Preservation, Inc. (Chattel Architecture) is a full service historic
preservation consulting firm with statewide practice. The firm represents governmental agencies
and private ventures, successfully balancing project goals with a myriad of historic preservation
regulations without sacrificing principles or:.either side. Chattel Architecture is comprised of
professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards(36 CFR
Part 61, Appendix A) in architectural histor, and historic architecture. My resume is attached:for
reference(Attachment 1).
Background
For the proposed project, in July 2000, Robcrt 0. Gibson prepared "Results of the Archival Records
Search and Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey for the Bowden Ranch Estates Project"
(Gibson Report). In the Gibson Report, the La Loma Adobe and a number of related, ancillary
features were identified as historical resources. These ancillary features associated with the La
Loma Adobe included: "a water system(tanks and pipes), fence lines and historic vegetation"(page
2). The Gibson.Report identified these anti llary features as"historic cultural resources"and
recommended additional mapping,research and preparation of documentary photographs be
prepared(page 2). The resulting Chattel Ar-.hitecture-prepared"Historic Review Report"
(December 21, 2000, Chattel Report), fulfilled that objective. The Chattel Report was not intended,
nor was it necessary,to provide further California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register) eligibility evaluation,because as noted below, the La Loma Adobe has"presumptive
significance" under CEQA. The Draft-Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)should summarize the
findings in the cultural resources documents prepared for this project and clearly state that the La
Loma Adobe has presumptive significance tmder CEQA.
1
1 13322%Valleyheart Drive South Sherman Oaks.(;A91423-3287 818.788.7954 818.788.9795 fax www.chattelarch.c=
City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department
DEIR, Bowden Ranch Development
May 7, 2003 CM
page 2
We have reviewed the DEIR for the Bowden Ranch Development in San Luis Obispo, and have the
following comments:
Significance of La Loma Adobe
The La Loma Adobe is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register). It
was nominated for listingin the National R.gister in 1997,but was"denied by[California Office of j
Historic Preservation] staff,"and the application is considered inactive (Attachment 2,single
property print-out). The La Loma Adobe is not listed.in the California Register. However,the La AP1-1
Loma Adobe is included in the Master List of historic Resources(San Luis Obispo City Council,
Resolution Number 827,March 15, 1994),which serves as the local register of historical resources.'
Thus,the La Loma Adobe has presumptive significance and is considered an historical resource as
defined in CEQA While While this factual information is not new,it as inadvertently not included in
the Gibson or Chattel reports,or in the DEIR. Again,the DEIR should clearly state that the La
Loma Adobe has presumptive significance under CEQA.
Significance of Ancillary Features '
The Gibson Report identified a number of ancillary features that appear to be related to the La Loma
Adobe. These include the following components stand of eucalyptus trees,approximate location of
relocated farm house, fence line, approximate location of bam, site of arroyo stone foundation;water
tank remnants,prickly pear field, exposed ABS pipe and spring box,as identified in the Gibson and
Chattel reports; and additionally,trash dump,large can dump and ash lens with red brick tile, as
identified in DEIR(collectively,"identified ancillary features'. None of these identified ancillary AP1-2
features, or the collection of these features, has sufficient separate significance or integrity for
individual listing in the California Register. Rather,these ancillary features derive whatever
significance they may have from their assurned direct association as secondary components within
the setting of the La Loma Adobe. We recommend that the identified ancillary features be
considered California Register-eligible only as secondary components within the setting of the La
Loma Adobe. The DEIR should clearly state that the setting of the La Loma Adobe, specifically its
identified ancillary features,have presumptive significance under CEQA.
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5
Under subdivision(b)(1),"substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource
means physical demolition, destruction, relocation,or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired." The AP1-3
identified ancillary features do not in and of themselves constitute historical resources, as defined by
CEQA. They principally consist of site fea::ures,disparate landscape elements,remnants and nuns
of earlier buildings that do not forma cohesively designed, cultural landscape as a whole. The
Public Resources Code§5020.1 (k)asserts that"local register of historical resources"means a list of properties
officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or
resolution.
Z Public Resources Code§2I084.1 states"[A]n historical resource is a resource listed in,or determined eligible for ,
listing in,the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical
resources...,or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(g)of Section 5024.1,are presumed to be
historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section,unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates
that the resource is not historically or culturally significant"(emphasis added).
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
DEIR,Bowden Ranch Development
May 7,2003 LQ W
page 3
majority of the identified site features appear to have potential significance for their archaeological AP1-3
information potential.
1 Mitigation Measure 3.4-1
As proposed,it is recommended that the applicant`'retain a qualified historical archaeologist... for
' the purposes of determining the CEQA significance or CRHR eligibility of those features associated
with the La Loma Adobe" (page ES-21). T:zis step is redundant as California Register eligibility has
been established and should be clear as expressed in this comment letter. As described in the
paragraph above,the Gibson and Chattel reports relied on the listing in the local register of historical
resources and thus presumptive significance of the La Loma Adobe and its ancillary features in
determining significance. The Gibson Report previously identified those ancillary features as
' 'historic cultural resources." Therefore it is not necessary to re-evaluate the La Loma Adobe or
identified ancillary features for California Register eligibility. Rather,it is appropriate to simply
treat the La Loma Adobe as an historical resource,and the identified ancillary features as
' components within its setting under CEQA. This mitigation measure is unnecessary and should be .
deleted.
While identified ancillary features are being,treated as component resources,their significance is
principally based on the potential to yield important information. Most,if not all,of the ancillary
features cannot be directly linked to specific.events or significant individuals,and none of the AP1-4
ancillary features embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,or method of
construction,nor do any represent the work of the master, or possess high artistic values. The
majority of the landscape features, including the eucalyptus stand and prickly pear field along the
creek are proposed to be retained. By process of elimination,the only remaining California Register
criterion under which the remaining ancillary features could be considered significant would be
criterion 4, for their information potential.' When feasible, avoidance and therefore retention of
resources of this type in situ is always preferable. Mitigation is only necessary if retention of the
resource is infeasible. Impacts to properties that are significant only for their information potential
can generally be mitigated to a less than significant level by retrieving scientifically consequential
' information contained in the resource.
These ancillary features' historic significance would not be enhanced by preparation of California
Department of Parks and Recreation series 523 forms. There is no such requirement under CEQA,
particularly when the lead agency supports the above-described findings of historical significance.
Based on all of the clarification contained a)ove,this Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 is unnecessary and
should be deleted. In that identified ancillary features have been recognized as component resources
13 Califomia Public Resources Code,PRC§5024.1 provides that in order for a property to be considered eligible for
listing in the Califomia Register,it must be found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be significant under
one of the following four criteria:
1. Is associated with events that have mac e a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's
' history and cultural heritage.
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,region,or method of construction,or represents
the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values.
' 4. Has yielded,or may be likely to yield,Information important in prehistory or history.
City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department
DEIR,Bowden Ranch Development c
May 7,2003
page 4
in all reports to date, Mitigation Measure 3.4-2,discussed below,should be implemented to reduce AP1-4
impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2
An archaeological survey was prepared for the proposed project and recommended essentially the
same Mitigation Measure. In the Gibson Report, it was recommended"a historic archaeologist
...review the grading plans and possibly conduct archaeological monitoring during grading. Historic
review,documentation including photographs and mapping will need to be done prior to grading
[accomplished by Chattel Report]. The historic review may also identify areas where archaeological
monitoring may be necessary of construction grading"(Gibson Report,page 6).
The Gibson Report continues: 1
In the rare event,if during construction excavation, any intact prehistoric or historic cultural AP 1-5
materials are unearthed,work in that area should halt until they can be examined by a
qualified archaeologist and appropr..ate recommendations made as outlined in California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970. In such an event;contact the San Luis Obispo City
Planning Department or a qualified historic archaeologist.
These steps will adequately mitigate any adverse impact the proposed Bowden Ranch Estates
Project may have on potentially significant historic cultural resources.(page 6)
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 appears to address the same concerns as the Gibson Report and therefore
appears adequate. With implementation,Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 should reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 3.43
The historic significance of the identified ancillary features is addressed under our comments on
Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. As noted above,we recommend deletion of Mitigation
Measure 3.4-1 and corresponding text corrections to the DEIR Cultural Resources section.
Avoidance and retention of the principal historical resource and identified ancillary features as
secondary components is, as described in the comment on Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, preferable to AP1-6
project-related damage, alteration or demolition. As stated above,preparation of California
Department of Parks and Recreation series 523 forms will not further enhance the our understanding
of the component resources,rather implementation of the remaining portions of Mitigation Measure
3.4-3, through a combination of avoidance, retention and supplementation(with appropriate new
landscaping),documentation,and retrieval of scientifically consequential information mitigates
project-related impacts to less than signifre;mt levels.
Proposed Mitigation Measure 3.4-4
We recommend that the following information be added. There are no foreseeable project-related
impacts to the principal historical resource,the La Loma Adobe. Anticipated impacts to"its
immediate surroundings"include introduction of new roadways,sidewalks,residential site AP1-7 ,
preparation(grading for building pads), ane associated other work (such as building infrastructure).
Over the past 50 or more years,the character of the immediate surroundings of the La Loma Adobe
has changed. This includes construction of school facilities, including playing fields and numerous
City of San Luis Obispo,Community Development Department
DEIR,Bowden.Ranch Development
May 7, 2003 CM
page 5
single-family residences in the vicinity of the La Loma Adobe. Based on the fact that contemporary
homes have been recently constructed on both the east and west sides,immediately adjacent to the
La Loma Adobe, construction of additional., new homes should have no further impact on its setting.
To be sure,recommendations contained in Mitigation Measures,when implemented,should reduce
impacts of the proposed residential development to a less than significant level. The Mitigation
' Measures addressing Aesthetics,Biological Resources and Land Use and Planning, are collectively
intended to maintain,as closely as possible, the current urban residential-to-natural open space
transitional character of the project site. At., additional proposed Mitigation Measure 3.4-4, would
further reduce potential impacts to the setting of the La Loma Adobe, as follows: AP 1-7
If feasible,road sections, including:meet width, curb,gutter and sidewalk, should be
designed to preserve and enhance the rural character of the existing project site. Use of the
narrowest possible, asphalt-paved read width,rolled concrete curb-and-gutter, and
elimination of sidewalks further addresses potential impacts to the setting of the La Loma
Adobe by retaining, to the extent fusible,the rural character of the existing project site.
With implementation of this additional Mitigation Measure 3.4-4,the proposed project is expected to
have no greater impact on the La Loma Adobe than previous intrusions have had to its immediate
setting. The proposed project is expected to result in a less than significant impact on the La Loma
Adobe.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
' Sincerely,
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE,PLANNING&PRESERVATION, INC.
1
By: �
Ro ert Jay C a 1,06A, President
' attachments
1
Attachment 1: 1
Resume of Robert Jay Chattel, AIA ,
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
chattel
Architecture,
Planning&
Presen2tion,
Inc.
ROBERT JAY CHATTEL,AIA
' Preservation Architect
Robert Jay Chattel, AIA has over 20 years' experience in the fields of planning, design, and
construction. Mr. Chattel's unique qualifications include: meeting the.Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards in architectural history and historic architecture,and;
licensure as both a general contractor and architect in California He specializes applying the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment and interpreting Federal,state and local
historic preservation law and regulations.
As director of programs for the LA Conservancy, he developed walking tours and brochures.As
project planner for the LA Community Redevelopment Agency,he managed development within
two National Register districts in downtown Los Angeles. As a real estate developer with H.T.
Greene,he handled projects ranging from single-family tract developments to high-rise
' commercial office buildings. Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake,Mr. Chattel conducted
a National Register eligibility review of over 1,000 earthquake-damaged buildings for the
California State Office of Historic Preservation.
Mr. Chattel holds a B.A. in Architecture from U.C. Berkeley and a M.S. in Historic Preservation
from Columbia University. In 1997,he initiated a popular series of courses in historic
preservation for UCLA Extension.
In 2001, Robert Chattel received an awzrd from the Mayor.and Los Angeles Cultural Heritage
Commission recognizing his outstanding contribution to preservation in Los Angeles for his
work to preserve the Breed Street Shul. In late 2000, Mr. Chattel received the Jewish Historical
Society's Pauline Hirsh Memorial Award for his devotion and commitment to preserving local
Jewish history for future generations. Also in 2000, Chattel Architecture and the City of Orange
were honored with a regional American Planning Association Focused issue Planning Award for
the City's Local CEQA Guidelines for Historic Resources. In 1991, Mr. Chattel received the
California Preservation Foundation's President's Award for his work on the Beverly Hills
Waterworks and the expansion and renovation of the Los Angeles Central Library.
Mr. Chattel has extensive experience working with lead agencies and developers implementing
CEQA. He has prepared a number of cultural resources evaluations and project impacts
analyses. For the City of Beverly Hills, he prepared an extensive series of alternatives for
Chateau Arnaz. This controversial project withstood legal challenge. Most.recently,Mr. Chattel
drafted historic resources guidelines for the LAUSD and serves as the district's master reviewer
in a new school building program affecting some 100 sites in the Los Angeles area. He
represents Lennar Mare Island,LLC. muster developer in reuse of over 500 contributing
resources in a National Register/NationE.l Historic Landmark district at the former Mare Island
Naval Shipyard in Vallejo. A Specific Plan with Historic Resources Project Guidelines and an
accompanying environmental review document are currently in process.
As a volunteer board member of the Jewish Historical Society of Southern California,Mr.
Chattel directs physical assessment,planning and design for rehabilitation of the Breed Street
' Shul,a historic former synagogue, in East Los Angeles. An official White House Millennium
Council"Save America's Treasures"project, the collaborative effort of Latino and Jewish
communities to create a museum, cultural and educational center is being recognized as a model
for community-based historic prescrvatian.
design
professionals
' civil engineers I !and.<an-e vnx I land plarmers
V i
May 6, 2003
Ms. Carol Florence
Oasis Associates �.J�
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Re: Bowden Ranch Estates - Comments on Draft EIR Hydrology
Dear Carol:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Hydrology section of the draft EIR for
this project. We have reviewed the section and have enclosed a copy with hand written
comments. In addition to those comments, we have the following concerns:
' i. The consultants evaluation of storm water runoff does not reflect actual
conditions.
The consultant has used standardized values with the rational formulae (CIA) to
calculate predevelopment and postdevelopment runoff from the site. Our AP2-1
experience and the City's engineering standards reflect much higher runoff
' coefficients than those used and in fact show that storm water runoff is not
increased by the proposed development. Again, this is the conclusion based on
the very high runoff coefficients from the undeveloped hillsides around the City.
2. An exposed detention basin is preferable over detention tanks due to
siltation and chemical extraction.
We believe this assertion is incorrect. The detention tanks can be cleaned of
accumulated silts with commercial septic tank companies. The silts will
accumulate not from erosion, as the EIR infers, but from dust washing off of roofs
and hardscape. Chemical extraction can be accomplished by requiring drainage AP2-2
to pass over turf areas before entering the system. Exposed basins have the
' drawback of being unsightly. probably fenced, a liability issue and an increased
cost to the homeowner through increased homeowner fees due to maintenance
of the basin.
The project as designed will reduce the impact on the existing storm drain system. The
increased inlet head on the existing 42" storm drain and the individual detention tanks
1
1998 Santa Barbara street,San Luis Obispo.CA 93401
' 805-549-8658 Fax 805-649-8704
%wm_edainc.com
Ms. Carol Florence
May 6, 2003 t
page 2
will more than offset any increase in flow from conveyance of the drainage off the new '
streets. AP2-2
Thank you for this opportunity to review the draft EIR for this project. Please contact us ,
if you have any questions.
Sincerely;
eda - design professionals
1
Jeffrey J. Emrick, P.E., AIA
end 1
0:11TRSM5151001QnR oc hydl.el
eda-design professionals '
i 998 Santa Barbara street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805-549-8658&Fax 805-549-8704
www.ecWme.com
MAY-05-03 22 :01 AM BASIS 805 546 0525 P.03
' 3:ENVI NMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Regfor al Hydrology
The proect site is located in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.The watershed drains approxLnately
' 84 squa a miles(218 km2) between the Santa Lula Mountains and coastal hills of central California.San
Luis Obi ipo Creek originates In the foothills of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range near Cuesta Grade,
flowing pproximately 18 miles(29 km)along State Highway 101 to Its discharge to the Pacific Ocean at
' San Luis Say,near the community of Avila Beach.The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed has a history of
problerr s that involve flooding,bank Instability,and erosion.Bank instability and erosion have resulted
In increi sed sedimentation of San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries(Questa 2002).
There is long history of flooding in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.Damaging floods have
occurr in 1868.69,1884, 1897, 1911,1948,19521962 1969, 1973 and most recently,during January
and Ma h 1995,with a lesser flooding problem in 1998.Within San Luis Obispo,flow overtopped
stream nks near the Intersection of Marsh and Hlguera Streets and remained out of the channel for
nearly tiree miles(4.8 km)downstream,causing damage estimated at nearly$23 million(Questa 2002).
' Site H�, rology
The pro r,site is situated on three separate sub-basins.The sub-basins,referred to herein as Sub-Basin
' A,Sub- asin B,and Sub-Basin Care moderately steepto steep and are underlain by material that
general has low permeability.Runoff within the three sub-basins is conveyed within five natural
drainag .The drainages are referred to herein as Stream A,Stream B,Stream C1 (perennial),Stream C2
1 (ephem ral),and Stream C3(ephemeral).The streams traverse in a generally east-west direction across
the 4D-i cre(16.2 hectares)project site.Project sub-basins are presented In Figure 3.8-1.
Su"a in A.Sub-Basin A,located along the northernmost boundary of the project site,drains an area of
11 acres (45 hectares)above and including the project site.'Runoff within Sub-Basle A is conveyed within
Stream .This sub-basin drains only areas of the project site designated for open space and would not
be impa cted by project development.Thus,this report does not include a hydrologic analysis of Stream
A.
Sub-BaIn B.Sub-Basin B is located in the northern half of the project site and has a drainage area of Is
acres(7 hectares),only 15 acres(0.6 hectares)of which are comprised of the proposed development
area.S*am B is located within Sub-Basin S.Stream B,an intermittent stream that originates in the
northe ern comer of the proposed development area,flows northwest to a culvert at California
Boulev rd,near San Luis Obispo High School.
Sub-Ba In C.Sub-Basin C with a drainage area of 87 acres(35 hectares)above and including the project
' slte,is a largest sub-basin affecting runoff at the project site.This sub-basin drains approximately 113
acres(4 5 hectares)of the proposed development area.This sub-basin contains three drainages;Stream
C1,Stre m C2,and.Stream C3.Stream C1,shown as an unnamed intermittent stream on the USGS
topogrz phic map,Is the primary drainage on the project site.Stream C1 originates at the top of the
mounrc in ridge located east of the project site and flows west to a 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe(RCP)
at Wildi ig Lane.The RCP is equipped with a debris rack on the upstream end.Stream Ci is fed byyear
round s xing and has a small perennial flout.Stream C2 begins Just east of the project and converges
with 5 am CI at the western end of the project site.Finally,Stream C3 flows along the southern
bound of the project site,along Woodland Drive.This channel drains portions of the undeveloped
' hillside trea and development along Woote:c!anstiruction
8riv =�rraitnage
nstream drainage problems
caused y increasing development led to ch at divert Lstrearr•eato AP
� "VP4 7 Sl towN A'9 2-3
6w6"tAa 5PN 0 t
inc Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR
March 2003
MAY-05-03 11 :03 AM OASIS 805 546 0525 P. 07
3:ENVU ONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES t
Regulatory setting
NPDES General Construction Activities Storm Water Permit Requirements
The Cie n Water Act(CWA)has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United
States f om any point source since 1971 In 1987,amendments to the CWA added section 402(p),which
establis ied a framework for regulating nonpoint source(NPS)storm water discharges under the National
Pollutar it Discharge Elimination System(NPOES).The Phase I NPOES storm water program regulates
storm m ater discharges from major Industrial facilities,large and medium-sized municipal se orm
sewer stems(those serving more than 100,000 persons),and construction sites that di five o AP
more a es of[and. OtlElyetN 2-4�
The Cal mla State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB)was last issued a statewide General Storm
Water I ermit for Construction Activities in 1999,The five-year permit requires all land disturbances K t
acres omore to Implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)to prevent the discharge of slit ard
sedime it off site.BMPs are implemented through a site specific plan called the Storm Water Pollution
Preven on Plan (SWPPP).It is the responsibility of the project applicant to prepare a project SWPPP prior
to the mmencement of construction activities.
ENVIR)NMENTAL ANALYSIS
Areas f Potential Environmental Concern
The foll Dwing are areas of potential environmental concern that may be associated with implementation
of the proposed project:
'. The potential to after existing drainage patterns
`• The potential to create or contribute runoff water exceeding current drainage system
I capacities,or produce additional sources of polluted runoff
(. The potential to violate water quality standards 1
le The potential to increase erosion or siltation due to changes in drainage patterns
• The potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge
Thres olds of Significance
Accord ng to the State CEQA Guidelines,City of San Luis Obispo environmental review guideline:and t
protect ires,and professional practices,the project would result In a significant hydrologic or water
quality mpact If It:
• Substantially altered the existing drainage pattern of the slte or area,including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increased the rate or amount of
surface runoff In a manner which would result In flooding on-or off-slte
e Created or contributed runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systemgor provided substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
e Violated SWRCB or RWQCB water quality standards
3-84 M A tnc Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR
March 2003
1 MAY-05-03 11 :07 AM OASIS e05 546 0525 P. 15
t
1 I
3:WAR ONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
Table 2.Pollutant Loading Estimates for Post-Development Conditions
I Bowden Ranch
Low/Medium-Density Residential Roads and Parking Areas Site
Ccstituent (ib/adyr) iib/ac/yr) (lbs/year)
Total tuspended 2395
' lids 190 400 0.1 tons)
Total hosphorus 0.5 0.7 5.0
T I Kjedahl 5.1 31.4
Nitrogen
' Biolo Ical Oxygen 13 47 183.5
Demand
Lead 0:2 0.8 19
Zinc OZ 0.8 2.9
Copper 0103 0.14 0.455
t Nom:
1.Based c m low-density residential loadings for 10.5 acres and typical road/parBing lot loadings from 1.0 ayes of the site.
SOURLe':_Homer etal.1994
r „1i Mitigation Measure 344.itis recommended that storm water detention ponds,rather than
J nderground detention tanks,be Incorporated into the project drainage system(Mitigation
easure 3.8-3).These.ponds should be designed to improve water quality by allowing sediments
a0� ind particulates to settle prior to discharging to downstream waterways.By detaining runoff,the
etention ponds would allow for some pollutant removal through infiltration and vegetative
• ptake.Many pollutants In storm water,Including lead,copper,zinc,phosphorus,and
ydrocarbons are associated with sediment and fine particulates.Thus,the ability of a stcrm
water practice to remove many nutrients,trace metals,and hydrocarbons is largely related to its
blllry to remove suspended sediment and particulates,Refer to Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 for
' eneral detention pond design guidelines.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-5.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit the applicant shall submit to
OW001 the Director of Public Works for review and approval a pian that Incorporates grassed swales
e4 (biofilters)into the project drainage system for runoff conveyance and filtering of pollutants:The
preliminary project grading and drainage plan indicates that runoff would be conveyed from
each parcel to roadside ditches via a series of drainage sviales.Rather than have concrete AP2-5
tJdrainage swales to transport the runoff to roadside ditches,these swales shall be lined with grass
t or appropriate vegetation to encourage the blofiltntlon of sediment,phosphorus,trace metals,
and petroleum from runoff prior to discharge Into the formal drainage network.General design
guidelines relevant to optimizing the pollutant removal.mechanisms of grassed swales are.1)a
dense,uniform growth of fine-stemmed herbaceous plants for optimal filtering of pollutants;2)
3-92 MIA Inc Bowden Ranch Development Draft IN
' March 2003
I
MAY-05-03 11:08 AM OASIS 805 546 0525 P. 16 '
3:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSES
I
vegetation that is toleranito the water,climatological,and soil conditions of the project site is
1 preferred;3)grassed swales that maximize water contact with the vegetation and soil surface
have the potential to substantially improve removal rates,particularly of soluble pollutants;and
1 4)pollutant removal efficiency is increased as the flow path length is Increased.General
maintenance guidelines for biofilters are discussed in Mitigation Measure 3.8.6.
Mitigation Measure 3A4.Priorto issuance of the Grading Permit or approval of improvement
SJR 0 '_..N plans,the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development and Director of t
Public Works for review and approval a long-term storm water poll
(SWPPP)to protect storm water quality after the construction peNod.The SW PP shall include AP2-'
the following additional BMPs to protect storm.water quality
r>F Proper maintenance of parking tots and other paved areas can eliminate the maj•5riry of litter
v1 and debris washing into storm drains and thus,entering local waterways.Regular sweeping
is a simple and effective BMP aimed at reducing the amount of litter In storm drain Inlets(to
prevent clogging)and public waterways(for water quality).The project applicant shall enter '
Into an agreement with the Qty of San Luis Obispo to ensure this maintenance is completed
prior to approval of improvement plans or final maps.
• Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality.The maintenance of '
blefllters on the project site would be the responslblilty of a homeowner's association for the
proposed project.The homeownees association would be responsible for the following
biofliter maintenance:1)Regular mowing to promote growth and increase density and
tvv pollutant uptake(vegetative height should be no more than 8 Inches,cuttings must be
KV .promptly removed and properly disposed ofl;2)Removal of sediments during srmmer
n �11 months when they build up to Cinches at any spot,cover, ite tatIon,or otherwl AP2-7
Interfere with blo ter operation:and 3)Reseeding of biofliters'as necessary,whenever
j� maintenance or natural processes create bare spots.
• If storm water detention ponds or underground detention tanks are incorporated into the
project drainage system,proper maintenance is necessary to ensure their effectiveness at
preventing downstream drainage problems and promoting water quality.The maintenance
i of the detention ponds or underground detentlon tanks would be the responsibiiity of the '
homeowner's association.Necessary detention pond tank maintenance includes:1)Regular
Inspection during the wet season far sediment buildup and clogging of Inlets and outlets;2)
Regular(approximately once a year)removal of basin sediment;and 3)if an open detention '
basin is used,mowing and maintenance of pond vegetation(replant or reseed as necessary
to control erosion.Maintenance reports shall be submitted annually to Gtys Public Works
Department.
jThe applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on residential BMPs to
• minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development.This information shall be
distributed to all residences at the project site.At a minimum the Information should cover. t
1)General Information on blofilters and detention ponds for residents concemirg their
purpose and importance of keeping them free of yard cuttings and leaf litter,2)Proper
disposal of household and commercial chemicals;3)Proper use of landscaping chemicals;4)
Clean-up and appropriate disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter,and 5)Prohibition of any
washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
Bo en Ranch Development Draft EIA MHA Ina.3'93
Mlalrch 2003 i
U!,
A -5 1
-2003
AKCXIT, LCTURI"
A NI TLAIN"..N;N'G
07 May 2003
Ms.Lynn A2evedo
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
RE: APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO THE BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR), SCH#2002071126
Dear Ms.Azevedo,
Oasis Associates, Inc., representing the applicant Bowden Ranch Partners, JV, has prepared the
following comments to the DEM. Our objective in providing these comments is to ensure
accuracy of the EIR consultant's review of the technical and environmental aspects of the project,
address the environmental determination, and the proposed mitigation measures. Inherent in our
desire for accuracy is to provide the public, and ultimately the decision-makers with a focused
and comprehensive document that allows for the maximum amount of public participation and
the ability to balance environmental concerns with other social goals,respectively.Thank you in
advance for your time and consideration. For case of reference, our comments are presented
pursuant to the organization of the sections in the DEIR.
Individual comment letters are attached for your reference and listed below.
CONSULTANT AREA OF EXPERTISE
9 Chattel Architecture,Planning&Preservation,Inc. Historic Preservation
Robert Chattel,AIA,Francesca Smith, et al.
e Engineering Development Associatcs Hydrology and Water Quality
Mr.Jeff Emrick,PE.AIA,et al.
ES: Executive Summary
1. Page ES-1 Introduction:
Streets within the project arc designed to City of San Luis Obispo Public Works standards.They AP3-1
are to be constructed, and ultimately accepted by the City. Proposed driveways that provide
access to upslope lots,will be privately owned.
2. Page ES-6 Approach to Environmental Review,para 4:
Revise sentence to read, �asihla Mitigation measures are identified in this EIR for project AP3-2
impacts that have been determined to be potentially significant.
805.541-4509
FAX 805-546-0525
3427 MIGUEUTO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401
1. 17.
1
07 May 2003
OASIS ASSOCIATES,INC./BOWDEN RANCH PARTNERS,JV
RESPONSE TO BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT DEIR
Page 2 of 2
3. Page ES-7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures,para 3,line-5: 1
Modify the sentence to read, "The habitat associated with the Morro shoulderband snail occurs
predominately in the proposed open space lot(Lot 24)and within the adjacent open space located
within the County of San Luis Obispo."The DEIR assumes that there are greater populations of AP3-3 1
this protected specie on site, without noting that the results of the protocol surveys(5 total) were
conducted within both the proposed development area and within the city limit above the Urban
Reserve Line. To put this aspect of the project in context, state the quantity of live species
observed in their location(in area proposed for developmentlarea proposed.for open space).
4. Page ES-9 Alternative to the Profen.para 2:
Typically, the No Project .AltemativZ can be considered the most environmentally superior 1
alternative, since the project and potentially significant impacts would not occur. As stated, the
No Project Alternative would not preclude future development on the project site. If the No AP3-4
Project Alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for a given issue
area, the alternative development scenario that produces the fewest impacts should be noted, in
accordance with CEQA. It may be helpful to provide an alternative impact comparison between
the proposed project(including project mitigative features)and the EIR proposed alternatives.
5. Page ES-9 Alternative to the Proicn,para 2,starting at line 4:
The EIR should clarify which of the proposed mitigation measures are actually integral parts of 1
the applicant's project description as described in the application package. A partial list of
mitigative project features includes: creek setbacks established with the aid of the city's Natural AP3-5
Resource Manager; preservation of Monarch butterfly habitat; CRLF surveys conducted/no
CRLF found; on-site mitigation for SLOC morning glory and Hoffman's sanicle; archaeological 1
monitoring. A complete description of the project mitigative features is included in Bowden
Ranch Development DEIR-Reports Acorporated by Reference, as Report 1 with Appendices.
A clear distinction between and a lis ting of the applicant proposed project mitigative featured AP3-6 1
versus those proposed b the EIR consultant should be included in the final document's Project J
Description.
6. Page.ES-10 Environmental Sectors:, 1
Reformat this section to include a summary of impacts and mitigation measures, organi7ed by AP3-7
class(i.e.,Class 1. Significant and Unavoidable;Class I1. Significant but Mitigable;Class III. Not
Significant;and Class IV.Beneficial).
7. Page 1-1 Introduction,para. 1:
See comment to Page.ES-I Introduction,above regarding public roadways. AP3-8
S. Page 2-5 Open Space Lot:
There-currently is no public access "for hikers to the Santa.Lucia Foothills and Reservoir Canyon AP3-9
area to the east".
' 07 May 2003
OASIS ASSOCIATES,rNCJBOWDEN RANCH PARTNERS,N
RESPONSE TO BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT DEIR
1 Page 3 of 3
' 9. Page 2-5 Existing Site Vegetation:
The applicant's Tree Removal/Replacemew Map (Oasis Associates, August 30, 2001) indicates
the quantity of tree removal,equaling:5 total,includes(2 1)Eucalyptus,(11)oaks ranging in size
from 3" to 8" DBH, (1) walnut, (1) cypress and (1) unidentified tree. The larger diameter
eucalyptus to be removed are located at some distance (30 - 80 feet from the top of bank) from AP3-10
the perennial stream, while the oak trees are associated with the coast live oak woodland.
' Eucalyptus seedlings, scattered predominately throughout Lots 1 -4 have sprouted since the joint
CDF, SLOFD and applicant effort to clear the property of eucalyptus for fire safety reasons. As
these are not of any substantial caliper,they are not considered in the tree removal calculation
10. Page 3-3 Present Site Visual Character,line 2:T
he proposed open space parcel,Lot 24, includes the central perennial stream from its location at
1 the property boundary at Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane, and as it continues upslope. The AP3-11
southerly riparian corridor is included within the open space parcel that forms the boundary to the
open area between the Lizzie Court lots and the Woodland Court lots.In addition,the open space
parcel includes the arras outside of the proposed easterly property lines of the upslope lots (f
from the URL to the City Limit line).
11. Page 3-3 Present Site Visual Character.line 12:
It is noteworthy that existing single-family residences are located to the east and the west of theAP3-12
La Loma Adobe.
12. Page 3-7 Sensitive Viewers,bullet item no.4:
' There is currently no designated public access across the property,as it is private property.While AP3-13
hikers "are expected to have a high degree of interest in potential changes to the project site....",
they are nonetheless technically considered trespassers.
13. Page.3-26 Mitigation Measure bullet item no. 1:
A portion of the project(Lots 14 - 18) will be visible from Taylor Field whose users consist of
' practicing high school teams,occasional city league teams and fans(i.e.,clearly not a substantial
impact to a community viewshed). While the applicant concurs with providing vegetation to AP3-14
soften the appearance of the proposed homes,a thirty-foot swath seems excessive for the intended
purpose. (Note that 30 feet on certain lots represents 25% of the lot width). A 15 to 20-foot
maximum area planted to large evergreen shrubs and trees would provide for adequate screening
and allow a potential buyerlhomeowner more extensive use of their lot.
t 14. Page 3-39 Sensitive Wildlife,paragaph 2,line I:
The sentence should clearly state that he special status species listed in Table 3.3-2 were not all. AP3-15
observed on the project site,but that th�list includes both species observed on site during surveys
and species not found during previous surveys.
1
07 May 2003
OASIS ASSOCIATES,INCJBOW%DEN RANCH PARTNERS,JV
RESPONSE TO BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT DEIR
Page 4 of 4
15. Page 3-43 Creeks. Riparian Corridors.and Wetlands: '
The project proponent staked the top-of-bank and 20 foot setback, that was subsequently
approved by the Natural Resource Manager, surveyed and depicted on the Vesting Tentative AP3-16
Map. The applicant is not requesting a variance to the creek setback ordinance for the proposed
lots.A creek setback variance is required for the bridge crossing on Woodland Court.
16. Page 3-44 Blue Gum/Live Oak Woodlands,para.2:
Building pad areas, as depicted on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, do not encroach into the AP3-17
designated creek setback.
17. Page 3114 Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: 1
Please clarify the statement "The feasibility of this mitigation shall be determined solely by the AP3-18
City of San Luis Obispo."Is this feasibility for the City to accept or feasibility for the applicant to
offer? '
18. Page 3-45 Mitigation Measure 33-4:
There currently is no public access "linking the project site and Reservoir Canyon via the Santa AP3-19
Lucia Range".
19. Page 3-47 Mitigation Measure 33-8:
Since a CRLF survey was conducted for the proposed project,and no CRLF were present,please AP3-20 t
clarify when additional CRLF surveys will be necessary (e.g., prior to constriction of tract
improvements, for individual home construction, all lots or lots within a certain distance of the
riparian corridor)? t
20. Page 3-48 Mitigation Measure 33.12:
In response to the results of the winter Morro shoulderband snail protocol surveys, the applicant t
revised the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM)to reflect the setbacks as recommended in the AP3-21
survey report(TENERA Environmental,February 21,2003).The survey report was reviewed by
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to issuance to the City of San Luis Obispo.The
document should clearly state that a revised VTTM was previously submitted by the applicant
and is included in DEIR Section 5: Alternatives to the Project.
21. Page 3-49 Potential Impact 3.3-7: J AP3-22
See response no.9 above regarding quantity of trees to be removed. J
22. .Page 3-49 Mitigation Measure(IyM)33-5:
As part of the project mitigative features, the applicant included the mitigation measures '
recommended by Dr. Dennis Frey. Dr. Frey suggested the following: " Development on lots AP3-23
immediately adjacent to this core arez should be minimized during the monarch overwintering t
period(November-February) in order to reduce the disturbance of migrating and overwintering
butterflies." Based upon Dr. Frey's recommendation,MM 3.3-5 seems excessive.
f
07 May 2003
OASIS ASSOCIATES,.INC./BOWDEN RANCH PARTNERS,JV
RESPONSE TO BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT DEIR
Page 5 of 5
23. Pages 3-59—3-61 Cultural Resources Mitintion.Measures 3.41 and 3.4-3:
Please see the attached response from Chattel Architecture, Planning, Preservation, Inc. for a AP3-24
detailed analysis of the project description and the proposed mitigation measures.
24. Page 3-66 Site Conditions/Site Topography, lines 2 and 3:
While one can describe the proposed project as containing two components: (1)area proposed for
development, and (2) area proposed to remain in open space, the boundary between these two AP3-25
areas is not the Urban Reserve Line, which is defined by the 460 foot contour elevation. The
open space parcel, Lot 24, extends from Lizzie Street @ Wilding Lane easterly to the city limit
line,and generally behind Lots 11, 12; 13 and 14.
25. Page 3-79 Hydrology and Water Qualitv:
Please see the attached response from Engineering Development Associates(EDA)for a detailed AP3-26
1 analysis of the project description and proposed mitigation measures.
26. Page 3-102 Mitigation Measure 3.4-4:
Delete measure requiring a 15-foot setback from Eucalyptus canopy. To more appropriately
mitigate for hazard concerns from Eucalyptus limb loss,those lot owners impacted by Eucalyptus AP3-27
shall be notified of the potential safety hazard, and through the CC & Rs, be required to
judiciously prune trees for health and safety.Trees shall be pruned by a qualified arborist.
27. Page 5.1 Alternatives-General Comment:
Citv staff has consistently encouraged that applicant to communicate the two-year
1 analysis/programming/community outreach/alternatives process that culminated in a modified AP3-28
and refined project description that is now the subject of this EIR. This important process
represents the starting point for the project's alternative analysis and, as such, should be brought
1 forward into the body of the EIR.
On behalf of the applicant and the project consultants, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to
provide comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Thank you in advance for your
time and consideration. Should any of our individual or collective comments require further
e Ianation and/or clarification,please contact us.
Ue �o%S bmitted,
IATES, INC.
Agent
BOWDEN RANCH PARTNERS,JV Attachments
c:BRP.JV
1 00-0083
1
1
i
i
70
� RESPONSE
�
TOCOMMENTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 7.
1
RESPONSE
1
TO COMMENTS
1
1 7.1 Introduction
The Bowden Ranch Development Project Draft EIR was circulated for review for a 45-day period
1 beginning on March 24,2003.Through that review period a total of 242 comments were received from
the-City of San Luis Obispo's Planning Commission(meeting of April 9`",2003),various agencies,
members of the public and the project proponent.
1 7.2 List of Comment Letters Received
1 The comment letters received on the Draft EIR have been grouped by Planning Commission',agency,
members of the public,and the project applicant.The letters are given an alpha-numeric designation
1 ("PC"for Planning Commission,"A"for agencies,"P"for public individuals and"AP"for applicant),as are
the comments in each letter.The commenter and the letter numbers are listed below.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
PC. San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Al. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
1 A2. California Department of Forests/San Luis Obispo County Fire Department
1
The Planning Commission's comments were derived from the Draft Minutes of their April 9,2003,meeting
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-1
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PUBLIC INDIVIDUALS
P1. Ernie and Heather Billing
P2. Wendy Brown
P3. Dr.Everett M.Chandler and Arlene B.Chandler
P4. Dr.Everett M.Chandler
P5. Arlene B.Chandler
P6. Eric Lloyd Cletsoway
P7. Marla and Frank DeMarco
P8. Don Dollar i
P9. Richard A.Hendricks
P10. Lora A.Hutson
P11. Marjory and Richard Johnson
P12. Adele Klimczak
P13. Thomas L.Miller
P14. Steve and Gina Nelson
PIS. Daniel Sinton
P16. Robert S.Vessely '
APPLICANT
API. Chattel Architecture,Planning&Preservation,Inc. '
AP2. EDA Design Professionals
AP3. Oasis Landscape,Architecture and Planning
7.3 Responses to Comments '
This section presents responses to all of the comments received on the Draft EIR during the review
period.Each comment letter received is numbered according to the numbering system identified above
(PC-X,A-X,P-X,and M-X).Each comment in each letter received has a number(PC-1).Responses-are
provided to each written comment Where a response to a comment has been provided in another
response,the reader is referred to the previous response.
The CEQA Guidelines indicate that the Final EIR should receive and consider comments on the Draft EIR. '
This section presents responses to environmental issues raised regarding the environmental effects of
the proposed project.Comments that state opinions about the overall merit of the project or comment
on the project description are generally not responded to unless a specific environmental issue is raised_ '
within the context of the specific comment made.Comments on the project are referred to the decision
maker(City of San Luis Obispo).
All changes to the Draft EIR are described in the response and referenced by the page number on which '
the original text appears in the Draft EIR.Added text is underlined;deleted text is stfieken.
PC SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION '
PC-1 Response:The City's Deputy Director of Community Development commented that the
applicant would stake the proposed lots prior to the Commission's consideration of the
Vesting Tentative Map.
7-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PC-2 Response:The portion of the project site proposed fordevelopment is currentlywithin
the R-1 Zoning District.The portion of the site above the Urban limit Line iswithin the
' C/OS-40-SP Zoning District.
PC-3 Response:The EIR includes mitigation measures designed to protect locations where
Morro shoulderband snail shell fragments were found.
' PC-4 Response:Section 3.1 of the EIR presents an analysis of the potential visual/aesthetic
impacts that might result from development of the proposed project.
PC-5 Response:Lots 9,10,and 11 would be accessed from the proposed Woodland Court.
PC-6 Response:The EIR incorporates by reference all reports submitted by the applicant as of
the date of the Draft EIR's distribution for review(March 24,2003).
PC-7 Response:Information and analyses submitted by the applicant were reviewed by City
' staff and/or the EIR's authors for the purpose of determining if the information and
analyses were adequate,based on factual data,and relevant for inclusion in the EIR.
1 PC-8 Response:The EIR's authors conducted original field workto supplement biological
information submitted by the applicant.
PC-9 Response:The highest elevation of any of the proposed development lots(Lots 1
1 through 23)is 465 feet(Lot 14).
PC-10 Response:The three hydrological alternatives are independent of each other.
PC-11 Response:The applicant prepared an alternative subdivision map that is included in the
EIR as Figure 5.2-1.That alternative subdivision map revised the building envelopes for
selected lots to provide a minimum20-foot buffer from the known locations of live Morro
' shoulderband snails.The known locations of live Morro shoulderband snails were
identified by the applicant.The alternative subdivision map did not include revisions to
building envelopes or lots to avoid the locations of Morro shoulderband snail shell
fragments.
PC-12 Response:The City's review and potential action on the proposed project will be
conducted in open meetings at which members of the public will be afforded the
opportur:tyto present comments and opinions about the proposed project prior to
action.
PC-13 Response:The parking analysis submitted by the applicant and incorporated in the EIR
did not find that formalizing the current informal trail would result in discernable
tincreases in eithertrail usage or associated parking demand.
PC-14 Response:The clearing of drainage courses and facilities on theproject site after
development would be the responsibility of the City and/or the individual homeowners
or a homeowners association,as determined appropriate by the City.There are no plans
to modify any off=site drainage course or facilities.
PC-15 Response:Comment noted.
PC-16 Response:A homeowners association would be responsible for enforcing any CC&Rs
1 that apply to the project.The comment about density reduction to"promote the
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 7-3
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
implementation of the maximum number of mitigations proposed"is noted.The
mitigation measures outlined in the EIR can be implemented without a reduction in lot
yield.
PC-17 Response:The wall at the lower end of the central drainage that parallels proposed
Lizzie Court is a head wall for the piped drainage that passes beneath Wilding Lane.That
existing headwall's height would be increased to provide for retention of storm flows.
The raised headwall could also serve as an entry wall for the project that could include
project signage.
PC-18 Response:The applicant has not proposed a specifictrail head location.Parking fortrail
users will be along a parking bay on the south side of proposed Lizzie.Court,across the
road from the La Loma Adobe.
PC-19 Response:The 48 trees proposed for removal are all along the.central drainage within
the eucalyptus grove.
PC-20 Response:It is anticipated that a stop sign would be installed on westbound Lizzie Court
at its intersection with Wilding Lane.
PC-21 Response:Comment noted.
PC-22 Response:The City's Public Works Department reviewed the traffic analysis submitted by 1
the applicant and incorporated into the EIR.The Department determined that that
analysis adequately addressed the potential traffic effects that would be generated by
the proposed project.
PC-23 Response:Analysis of the proposed project's potential hydrologic impacts concluded
that the proposed design,with the application of mitigation measures outlined in the
EIR,would reduce all potential hydrologic impacts to less than significant levels,without
the need for a reduction in lot yield.
PC-24 Response:Comment noted.
PC-25 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-13 and PC-18.
PC-26 Response:Color versions of the photo-montages included in Section 3.1 of the EIR are
available for viewing on the City s web site at
httpJ/slocity.org/communitydcivelopment/documents.asp,or in person at City Hall.
PC-27 Response:Comment noted.
PC-28 Response:The City's Fire Marshall reviewed the proposed project and concluded that its
design can provide for adequate fire prevention and protection.Prior to approval of
improvement plans the Fire Marshall will review the final construction plants to ensure
that all applicable City guidelines,standards,and regulations with regard to fire
prevention and protection are satisfied.
PC-29 Response:The City's Manager of Natural Resources determined that the alternative
subdivision map depicted in Figure 5.2-1 of the EIR adequately mitigates the proposed
project's impacts on wetlands and the Morro shoulderband snail.
7-4 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
' PC-30 Response:The City's Community Development Department determined that the
alternative subdivision map depicted in Figure 5.2-1 of the EIR is considered by the City
to be the mitigated alternative.
PC-31 Response:The alternative subdivision map depicted in Figure 5.2-1 of the EIR was
' prepared under the direction of licensed engineer.
PC-32 Response:Comment noted.
PC-33 Response:The cultural resources analysis included in the Draft EIR(Section 3.4)was
based on information submitted by the applicant.After the close of the Draft.EIR's
comment period,the applicant submitted the Bowden Ranch Development.
t Supplemental Report,prepared by Chattel Architecture,Planning&Preservation,Inc.,
July 14,2003.The City's Community Development Department determined that that
supplemental report provides adequate basis upon which to revise Section 3.4(Cultural
' Resources)of the Draft EIR.Section 3.4(Cultural Resources)has been revised to
incorporate the information and analysis presented in the Bowden Ranch Development
Supplemental Report.
PC-34 Response:The reference in Section ES-5 of the.Draft EIR to Table ES-1 is correct.The
table number ES 9-1 in the Draft EIR was a typographical error.The Table's reference
number has been corrected.
PC-35 Response:A list of acronyms has been included in Appendix I of the Final EIR.
PC-36 Response:The Munsell Chart is a standardized chart utilized by geologists and other
scientists to classify soil.colors,and is also useful in defining a range of colors commonly
referred to as earth tones.
PC-37 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 has been modified to require recordation of the.
Environmental Education and Awareness Program as a deed restriction against each of
the individual lots.This will ensure that the information presented about the Program to
the initial property owners is conveyed to all subsequent owners of the lots.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 Prior to recordation of the Final Map,the applicant
' shall submit an.Environmental Education and Awareness Program to the Director
of Community Development for review and approval.The Program shall be
recorded as a deed restriction against each of the individual lots.The applicant
shall develop an Environmental Education and Awareness Program in
consultation and coordination with the City to distribute to prospective project
site residents.The program shall include a list of sensitive resources at and near
the project site,the biological importance of these resources,their legal status
1 and protection afforded under various acts and policies,and penalties for
violations of the noted acts and policies.The program shall also stress the
importance of resource avoidance and stewardship through trail fidelity and trail
maintenance.The program shall be implemented at the time that individual lots
are sold.
PC-38 Response:The applicant field marked all trees proposed for removal.
' PC-39 Response:Comment noted.
Bowden Ranch.Development EIR MHA Inc.7-5
' August2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
PC-40 Response:The City's Public Works Department directed that the analysis for the EIR's
hydrologic section utilize a 25-year design storm.
PC-41 Response:The reference flags installed on the project site to aid preparation of the visual
analysis were placed for the principal benefit of the EIR's authors.The scale of the
photographs in the EIR are too small to allow for the easy identification of the reference
flags. 1
PC-42 Response:The wall at the intersection of Lizzie Court and Wilding Lane is intended first
as a flood control device,and second as a potential entry wall/sign base for the proposed
project.The wall does not retain earth.
PC-43 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-29. '
PC-44 Response:There are no specific regulations applicable to geology,soils and seismicity
within the context of the EIR and the proposed project.Information about the site's
geologic characteristics will be used by engineers and architects to guide development 1
of designs and construction techniques appropriate to those characteristics.
PC-45 Response:The physical attributes of each of the proposed 23 lots would allow the 1
development of single family detached residential units.
PC-" Response:The City's Public Works Department will review the final storm water
collection and disposal plan to ensure that it satisfies all City guidelines,standards,and
regulations.
PC-47 Response:Refer to the response for comment PC-46.
PC-48 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.15-1 requires the installation of booster pumps for any
construction for which a minimum 15 pounds per square inch(psi)cannot be met using
the City s public water system.Mitigation Measure 3.15-1 prohibits construction if a
minimum of 40 psi cannot be met.The City's Fire Marshall will review the final project
plans,which will include provisions to ensure the delivery of adequate fire hydrant flow
to all lots within the project,in accordance with the City's guidelines,standards,and
regulations.
PC-49 Response:Comment noted.All of the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR
can be mitigated to a less than significant level.
PC-50 Response:The applicant has proposed the installation of 140 trees to replace the 48
large trees proposed for removal.The applicant has not proposed a specific planting plan
for those 140 replacement trees,or a minimum container size for the trees.
PC-51 Response:Development of single family detached residential units on each of the r
proposed lots may require some landform alteration on each lot.Design techniques,
such as pier-and-grade-beam foundation systems can minimize the amount of landform
modification.Mitigation Measure 3.1-3 addresses she future development of each of the
lots within the context of landform modification.
PC-52 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-28.The memorandum referred to in the '
comment is a status memorandum from the Marshall indicating what outstanding
7-6 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch:Development EIR
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
' informational items were at that time to have been submitted by the applicant.All of the
information required by the Fire Marshall has been submitted.
1 PC-53 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.6-3 requires the.seeding and landscaping of all bare
areas to promote the stabilization of exposed soils.Maintenance of that landscaping will
1 be the responsibility of either individual property owners or a homeowners association,
at the discretion of the City.
PC-54 Response:Mitigation Measure.3.15-1 has been modified as follows:
Mitigation Measure 3.15-1.Prior to recordation of the Final Map or prior to
approval of improvement plans,whichever occurs first,the applicant shall submit
to the Director of Community Development for review and approval a plan to
1 ensure that a minimum of 15 pounds per square inch(psi)of water pressure will
be attained within all future homes to be constructed on the project site.All
fixtures in all homes at all floor levels must have a minimum of 15 psi.if required,
' individual pressure booster pumps shall be installed at each residential unit where
the minimum 15 psi cannot be met using the City's water delivery system
pressures.All booster pumps required by this mitigation measure must be
1 permanently connected to PG&E electrical service or another reliable source of
electricity.All booster pumps required by this mitigation measure must also have
installed and maintained in operating condition an alternative,automatically
switched,electrical supply to take over during periods of PG&E or other reliable
' source.system outages:Alternatively,if portions of homes cannot receive water at
the minimum 40 psi,then those portions of the homes shall not be constructed.
' PC-55 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-29 and PC-50.
PC-56 Response:Comment noted.
' PC-57 Response:The proposed parking bay along the south.side of Lizzie Court is intended to
meet the needs of trail users only.The proposed project does not provide for any on-
street or off-street parking associated with the present or future use of the La Loma
Adobe,The use of a parking bay design for on-street parking minimizes the overall width
of Lizzie Lane and provides a specifically defined parking area.
PC-58 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.173 has been.revised as follows:
Mitigation Measure 3.1-3.Prior to recordation of the Final Map,the applicant.
shall submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval
' language to.be recorded against each lot as a Deed Restriction.This language
shall state that future development of each of the lots require that site grading be
minimized to the greatest extent possible.Floor elevations should generally
t follow the natural landform.Stepped foundations,drilled pier and grade beams,
and other methods shall be used to
sea gminimize orading and reduce hillsidescarrino.Unavoidable grading shall
be contour-graded where possible to avoid engineered,angular landforms.
PC-59 Response:Language has been added as appropriate within the EIR where a potential
impact has been determined to be less than significant to so indicate that conclusion.
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-7
August2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Al MELISSA GUISE,AIR QUALITY SPECIALIST
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT,COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A11-1 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 has been expanded to include the following
elements:
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1:Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit,or approval of
Improvement Plans,whichever occurs first,the applicant shall submit to the
Director of Community Development for review and approval a plan for the
control of fugitive dust during and after construction.The plan shall.include,but
not be.limited to,the following measures:
• To the.extent possible,minimization of the amount of area disturbed
during construction.
• Limitation of construction vehicles.
• The speed of all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on
any unpaved surface. '
• Should airborne dust be observed to leave the construction site area,
water from.water trucks or another source shall be applied in
sufficient quantitiestoreduce those emissions. '
A11-2 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 has been added to address fugitive dust monitoring:
Mitidation Measure 3:2-2:Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit,.or approval
of Improvement Plans,whichever occurs first,the applicant shall submit to the Air
Pollution Control.District the name and telephone number of a designated.person
or persons to monitor the dust control program and order increased watering as
necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite.Their dutiesshall include holidays
and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
A11-3 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.273 shall be added to address diesel engine emissions: 1
Mitigation Measure 3.2-3:All diesel powered construction equipment,including
mobile and stationary equipment,shall adhere to the following:
• All construction equipment shall be maintained in proper tune
according to manufacturer's specifications. .
• All off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment shall be fueled
with CARE-certified motor diesel fuel.
• The use of diesel construction equipment meeting,as a minimum,
the California Air Resources Board's 1996 certification standard for
off-road heavy-duty diesel engines shall be maximized.
A1-4 Response:.Comment noted.
A7-5 Response:The text of the fourth paragraph on Page 3-29 of the Draft EIR,Baseline Air
Quality,has been revised as follows:
Baseline Air Quality.The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD)operates an air quality monitoring station at 1160 Marsh Street in San.Luis
Obispo that measures CO,NOZ,03,PM10,and PM,S.The.Marsh Street monitoring
station is approximately 0.5 miles from the project area.Both the federal and state
governments have enacted laws mandating the identification of areas not
meeting the ambient air quality standards and the development of regional air
7-8 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development.EIR
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
quality plans to eventually attain the standards.Under the federal Clean Air Act,
San Luis Obispo County has been designated attainment for all national ambient
' air quality standards(EPA 2001).Under the state system San Luis Obispo County is
designated as a non-attainment area for both the state ozone and PM10 standards.
in the year ,Feeefded30 J ..
J net- -..-J state--federal
In 2001,the state and federal
1 ozone standards were not exceeded at any of the permanent ambient air
monitoring stations.In that same year,PM10 levels exceeded state standards on 10
out of 61 different sample days,but did not exceed the national air quality
' standard(SLOAPCD 2003)."
A11-6 Response:The text of the third paragraph on Page 3-30 of the Draft EIR,Local,has been
revised as follows:
The San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan has not adopted specific significance
thresholds for any pollutants.The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District's
' CEQA Air Quality Handbook outlines significance thresholds for both operational
and construction related emissions.
All-7 Response:Table 3.2-1 has been revised,such that the State annual arithmetic mean for
1 Suspended Particulate Matter(PM10)is 20µg/m3,not 30µg/m3:
Table 3.21.Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
.Ozone ' 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.08 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.05 ppm -
1-Hour - 0.25 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm
1-Hour - 0.5 ppm
PM10 Annual 50µg/m3 3B 20µg/m'
24-Hour 150µg/m3 50µg/m3
Lead 30-Day Avg. - 1.5µg/m3
Month Avg. 15µg/m3
ppm=parts per million
µg/m'=Micrograms per cubic meter
SOURCE U.S.EPA 2001,CARB 2002
Al-8 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.2-4 has been added to address the potential for the
release of naturally occurring asbestos into the atmosphere:
' Mitigation Measure 3.2-4:Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit,or approval
of Improvement Plans whichever occurs first the applicant shall submit to the Air
Pollution Control District a project site geological evaluation.The study shall
I
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 7-9
' August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
comply with the requirements of the Air Resources.Board's Air Toxics Control
Measure(ATCM)for Construction,Grading,Quarrying,and Surface Mining
Operations.Alternatively,the applicant shall comply with-the ATCM for dust
control.
A7-9 Response:Comment.noted.
A2 ROBERT LEWIN,FIRE MARSHAL,BATALLION CHIEF
CDF/SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A2-1 Response:.Refer to the response to comment PC-28.The City s fire prevention and
protection guidelines,standards,and regulations may differ from those that apply to
lands within the unincorporated County of San Luis Obispo.
P7 ERNIE AND HEATHER BILLING
P1-1 Response:The majority of the project's existing trees will remain,as stated in Section 3.1,
Aesthetics,of the EIR.The remaining trees will continue to provide substantial filtering of
lights from Taylor Field.New residential structures constructed between the-field and the
existing neighborhood will further block visibility of the lights at certain locations. 1
P7-2 Response:The proposed removal of trees will reduce on-site nesting opportunities;
however,there are no threatened or endangered species that currently use the site for
that purpose.
P7-3 Response:The proposed removal of trees is not expected to have a significant effect on
the extent of windbreak provided by the existing tree stand.
P7-4 Response:Comment noted.
P7-5 Response:During the development of the individual lots there is a potential that t
additional trees may be removed.The City regulates tree removals based on species,size,
and health of the tree.This regulation is overseen by the City arborist and will govern tree '
removal on individual lots.
P1-6 Response:Enforcement of CC&Rs will be the responsibility of the project's homeowners
association.The City may,at its discretion prior to recordation of the Final Map,insert 1
itself as a secondary means of enforcement in the event that the homeowners
association is ineffective.
P7-7 Response:Refer to the response.to comment PC-33.
P2 WENDY BROWN
P2-1 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-13 and PC-25.The proposed on-site
roadways have been designed to meet the City's established standards.
P2-2 Response:The project applicant has proposed to implement both Alternative 1
(improvement to the Lizzie Court culvert entrance)and Alternative 2(subterranean
detention tanks).Improvements to the Lizzie Court culvert entrance.would increase the
capacity of the culvert to safely convey the estimated 10-year post project flow(the flow
calculated without the detention tanks).The individual detention tanks will be designed
7-10 MHA Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
1
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department.The combination of Alternative
1 and Alternative 2 would result in post-development peak discharges at or below
' existing levels.
P2-3 Response:The headwall at the Lizzie Court culvert entrance will be.raised a minimum of
1.5 to 3 feet on.all sides of the creek to increase capacity by the project developer as part
of the subdivision improvements.
P2-4 Response:Project plans do not include any changes to the small stream/ditch that
' parallels Lizzie Street.
P2-5 Response:Comment noted.Also,refer to the response to comment P1-6.
1 P2-6 Response:Comment noted.Refer to the response to comment PC-49.
P3 DR.EVERETT M.CHANDLER AND ARLENE B.CHANDLER
P3-1 Response:Refer to the response to comment.PC-28.Mitigation Measure.3.15-1
addresses the mechanisms to ensure the adequate supply of water at a pressure
' adequate for domestic use and fire.suppression.
P3-2 Response:The proposed"concrete drainage ditches"discussed on page 3-85 of the
Draft EIR are probably better termed"curbs and gutters."These would be typical curbs
and gutters and would be designed according to established City standards.
P3-3 Response:The proposed bridge is a concrete culvert on top of which the vehicular
connection between Woodland Drive and Woodland Court would be constructed.The
section of roadway constructed on top of the culvert would be edged with a low
fence/rail.
P3-4 Response:The subterranean detention tanks will be designed to drain completely within
a 24-48 hour period.These underground tanks would not have permanent standing
' water and would not become a potential breeding area for mosquitoes.
P3-5 Response:Pre-and post-development peak discharges are shown in Table 3.8-1 of the
EIR.These newer estimates are a revision of the first drainage calculations prepared
1 during the initial drainage analysis and do account for impervious surfaces that would
result from construction of Lizzie and Woodland Courts.Potential increases in peak
' discharge from the project site would be addressed by:(1)improving the entrance of the
Lizzie Court culvert entrance so that 10-yr or greater storm events would not over top the
culvert headwall and/or creek banks and (2)individual subterranean detention tanks:The
combination of these two mitigations measures would result in post-development peak
discharges below or at existing levels.
P3-6 Response:Design details for the subterranean detention tanks will be finalized and
approved by the City's Public Works Department prior to project construction.Regular
maintenance and inspection of the detention tanks will be the responsibility of a
homeowners association for the proposed subdivision and not the individual
1 homeowners(see Mitigation Measure.3.8-6 in EIR).The underground detention tanks
would have a maximum capacity of approximately 5,000 gallons.The tanks would detain
t - -
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-11
' August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
water and then release it slowly over 24-48 hours(this is how the tanks are able to reduce
peak discharge).Releases from the detention tanks would not result in street flooding.
P3-7 Response:Aboveground detention tanks are no longer being considered for the '
proposed project.
P3-8 Response:Refer to the response to comments A7-1 and Al-2. '
P3-9 Response:Refer to the response to comment P1-6.
P3-10 Response:Water pressure.within the existing surrounding neighborhood will not be
affected by construction of the proposed project.The issue of water pressure for the
proposed project is linked to the elevation of the project site in comparison to the
elevation of the Citys water storage system and the system's operating pressure.Refer to 1
the response to comments PC-48 and PC-54.
P3-11 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-22. '
P4 EVERETT M.CHANDLER
P4-1 Response:City regulations prevent the proposed project from resulting in an increase in
peak discharge from the project site.While the applicant is prohibited from exacerbating
drainage problems downstream of the project site,the:applicant is not responsible for
solving existing downstream drainage problems.Potential increases in peak discharge
from the project site would be addressed by:(1) improvements to the Lizzie Court culvert
entrance(headwall would be.raised 1.5-3 feet on all sides)and (2)individual onsite
detention tanks.The combination of these two mitigations measures would result in
post-development peak discharges below or at existing levels.
P4-2 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-22.The traffic analysis prepared by the t
applicant included the trips generated by the San Luis Unified School District offices.
There is an existing traffic detector loop in the westbound lane of Lizzie Street at Johnson
Avenue that activates the traffic signal at the.intersection on an as needed basis.
P4-3 Response:Prior to construction of individual driveways,proposeddesigns would be
reviewed by the City's Public Works Department to ensure compliance with applicable
City guidelines,standards,and regulations.The City's guidelines,standards,and
regulations are designed to establish a uniform standard of operation for residential
driveways and to avoid the creation of potential traffic hazards.
P4-4 Response:Refer to the response to comments PC-13 and PC-25.
P4-5 Response:Refer to the response to comment P1-6. '
PS ARLENE B.CHANDLER
P5-1 Response:The applicant has proposed to widen Woodland Drive to a 32-foot pavement
section between its intersection with Wilding Lane and the intersection with proposed
Woodland Court.Woodland Drive above the intersection with Woodland Court is not
proposed for widening,but would have curb and gutter installed along a portion of the
north side of the Drive.Construction of improvements to Woodland Drive would be the
responsibility of the project developer. '
7-12 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development.EIR
August 2003
7:-RESPONSE T0.COMMENTS
1 P5-2 Response:Refer to the response to comment P1-6.
P5-3 Response:Comment noted.
P5-4 Response:Refer to the response to comments PC-25 and PC-57.
P5-5 Response:Refer to the response to comment A2-1.
P5-6 Response:Comment noted.
P6 ERIC LLOYD CLETSOWAY
126-1 Response:Comment noted.
P6-2 Response:All plant and animal species that are protected by federal and/or state laws
are identified in the EIR,and as necessary,mitigation measures identified to provide for
their protection.There are a variety of species on the project site that do not enjoy
protected status and are not addressed in the EIR nor are mitigation presented for their
protection.
P6-3 Response:The project applicant is responsible for preventing any increase in peak
discharge from the project site.The project:applicant is not responsible for solving
existing drainage problems.Potential increases in peak discharge from the project site
would be addressed by:(1)improving the entrance of the Lizzie Court culvert entrance so
that 10-yr or greater storm events would not over top the culvert headwall and/or creek
banks and (2)individual subterranean detention tanks.The combination of these two
mitigations measures would result in post-development peak discharges below or at
existing levels.
P6-4 Response:Comment noted.
P7 MARLA AND FRANK DEMARCO
P7-1 Response:The creek setback is 20-feet for altnew development throughout the project
site,in accordance with established City policy.The proposed project's preliminary
drainage plan provides for the movement of storm waters in a manner consistent with
established engineering practice and applicable City guidelines,standards,and
regulations.
P7-2 Response:Comment noted.Also refer to the response to comment P7-1.
P7-3 Response:The subterranean detention tanks proposed by the project applicant will be
sized according to City regulations and will be designed to safely pass 100-year storm
events.
P7-4 Response:Slopes in the development area(i.e.building envelopes)range from 0 to 15%.
While no evidence of slope instability has been observed on the project site,according to
the USDA,site.soils may be prone to erosion.Refer to Mitigation Measures 3.6-2 and 3.6-3
for Best Management Practices that will be implemented to prevent soil erosion and loss
' of topsoil.
P7-5 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-28.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-13
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
P7-6 Response:The proposed lot yield is consistent with the Citys General Plan.
P7-7 Response:Refer to the response for comment PC-13.
P7-8 Response:Refer to the response for comment PC-17.
P7-9 Response:Refer to the response for comment P1-6.
P7-10 Response:Comment noted. 1
P8 Don Dollar
P8-1 Response:Comment noted.
P8-2 Response:Comment noted.
P8-3 Response:Comment noted.
P8-4 Response:Mitigation Measures have been presented in the EIR that would reduce any
potentially significant impacts to visual or biological resources to.less than significant
levels.
P8-5 Response:The proposed project only proposes development of that portion of the
_project site that is so designated for development by the Citys General Plan.
138-6 Response:Refer to the response for comment PC-50.
138-7 Response:Comment noted.
P9 RICHARD A.HENDRICKS
P9-1 Response:Refer to the response for comment PI-6.
P9-2 Response:Refer to the response for comment P74.The drainage Swale is discussed in
the EIR under"Site Hydrology!Under City regulations,project development cannot
result in an increase in peak discharge from the project site.Any potential increase.in t
peak discharge would be addressed by the construction of individual subterranean
detention tanks on the project site.The headwall of the Lizzie Court culvert entrance will
also be increased by 1.5 to 3 feet on all sides to increase the capacity of the culvert.
P9-3 Response:Refer to the response for comment A2-1.
P9-4 Response:The preliminary drainage plan for the proposed project adheres to the City's
established regulations,and would not result In a net increase in storm water flow rates.
P9-5 Response:Comment noted.
P9-6 Response:Comment noted.
1P10 LORA HUTSON
P10-1 Response:Comment noted.
P10-2 Response:Comment noted.
P10-3 Response:Comment noted.
7-14 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
tP10.4 Response:Comment noted.
P10-5 Response:Comment noted.
P10-6 Response:Comment noted.
P10-7 Response:Comment noted.
P10-8 Response:Comment noted.
P10-9 Response:Comment noted.
P10-10 Response:Refer to the response for comment P6-3.
P10-11 Response:Comment noted.
P71 MARJORY AND RICHARD JOHNSON
P11-1 Response:While it is true that an increase in impervious surfaces would result in an
increase in runoff from the project site,project development would not result in an
increase in peak discharge from the project site.It is the peak discharge that is most
important when determining flooding/drainage problems.Any potential increases in
peak discharge from the project site will be addressed by the construction of individual
1 subterranean detention tanks.Proposed improvements to the Lizzie Court culvert
entrance would increase the capacity of the culvert.
P11-2 Response:Comment noted.
P12 ADELE KLIMCZAK
P12-1 Response:Development of the proposed project would be required to adhere to
adopted Mitigation Measures outlined in the Final EIR,and other applicable regulations
of the City,state,and federal agencies.Monitoring to ensure implementation of the
Measures and regulations would be the responsibility of the City.The applicant has
proposed the establishment of a homeowners association to administer the provisions of
the CC&Rs that will be developed and recorded against the project site.
P13 THOMAS L.MILLER
P13-1 Response:The applicant and the City have decided that the best means of
1 accommodating increases in peak runoff from the project site is the combination of
individual underground detention tanks and improvements to the Lizzie Court culvert
entrance.Regular maintenance and inspection of the detention tanks will be the
responsibility of a homeowners association for the proposed subdivision and not the
individual homeowners(see Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 in this EIR).
P13-2 Response:Refer to the response to comments PC-22 and P4-2.
P13-3 Response:Refer to the response to comment P1-6.
P13-4 Response:Comment noted.
P13-5 Response:Refer to the response to comment P1-6.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-15
1 August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
P13-6 Response:The EIR anticipated the ultimate development of the proposed lots with r
single family detached residential units.The anticipated development of those units,for
purposes of the EIR,was assumed to be a reasonable worst-case-scenario to that the
potential impacts could be tested and analyzed.Development of single family detached
residential units on each of the proposed lots would be a discretionary action by the City,
on a lot by lot basis.Such an action is considered by CEQA to be a project,and therefore,
the.City must make determination under CEQA
P13-7 Response:The project description describes the project as proposed by the applicant.
The applicant is responsible for developing preliminary project plans so that they can be
adequately assessed.Given the preliminary project plans proposed by the applicant,the
City retained a team of environmental consultants to evaluate the potential impacts of
the proposed project with respect to various subject matters(e.g.,hydrology).These
consultants work for the City and not for the applicant.In the Draft EIR,the consultants
evaluating hydrology and water quality recommended that the viability of the detention
tank system be demonstrated prior to project approval and pointed out some of the
potential issues that would need to be resolved if the proposed tanks would be
incorporated into the.project.The above ground storm water detention ponds were
recommended as a mitigation to Impact 3.8-3(increase in NPS pollutants)because the
above ground storm water detention ponds would allow for infiltration and vegetative
uptake of many pollutants in storm water.They are also easier to maintain and their 1
function can be checked quickly.Since the completion of the Draft EIR,the project
applicant and the City have decided that the best way to address the potential increase
in peak runoff and inadequate capacity of downstream infrastructure is by implementing:
(1)underground detention tanks(the system will be designed in detail prior to approval
by the City)and(2)improvements to the Lizzie Court culvert entrance to increase culvert
capacity.
P13-8 Response:The City determined that submittal of a preliminary lighting plan was not a
required element of the current development review package.Its review will be
conducted by the City prior to project construction.
P13-9 Response:A preliminary grading and drainage plan for Bowden Ranch Estates was
prepared by EDA and dated January 9,2002,but was not included in the EIR due to its
scale and legibility within the EIR.The.preliminary grading and drainage plan may be
viewed at City Hall.
P13-10 Response:Mitigation Measure 3.1-1 sets strict criteria for successful screening and
blending of the project with the landscape setting.Prior to the start of any site grading
Mitigation.Measure 3.1-1 requires that the applicant submit to the City for review a
complete landscape and revegetation plan that satisfies the provisions of the Measure.
The City s review process for the plan will ensure compliance with.this mitigation
measure and in tum,reduction of potential visual impacts.
The City has determined that submittal of the landscape screening plan was not required
prior to consideration of the proposed project.
7-16 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
1 P7 3-11 Response:The City determined that submittal of an improvement and utility plan was
not a required element of the current development review package.Improvement and
' utility plans will be reviewed by the City prior to project construction.
P13-12 Response:Comment noted.
P13-13 Response:Refer to response to comment P13-10.
PI 3-14 Response:The above ground detention pond alternative is no longer being considered.
A combination of subterranean detention tanks and improvements to the Lizzie Court
culvert entrance are now proposed.The potential impacts of the subterranean detention
tanks have been adequately addressed in the EIR.No potential impacts associated with
improvements to the.Lizzie Court culvert entrance are anticipated.
P13-15 Response:The level of project detail presented in the EIR is commensurate with the
standards established by the City for the review and evaluation of development
proposals of the type and scale proposed.
P13-16 Response:An unknown number of small trees are expected to be removed during
project construction,in addition to the 48 large trees specifically proposed for removal.
Other trees may be removed during development of each of the proposed lots.The
potential removal of individual trees by individual property owners will be the subject of
review at.the time specific plans are.submitted to the City for the development of each
lot.
P13-17 Response:Referto the response to comment P13-16.
P7 3-18 Response:Section 3.1,Aesthetics,of the EIR assumed a reasonable worst case scenario in
the analysis of aesthetic impacts,including the potential of residential units being
constructed at the maximum allowable height and lot coverage.The level of impact and
corresponding mitigation measures are based on those assumptions.
P13-19 Response:Refer to the response to comment P13-18.
P13-20 Response:The quoted APCD letter is dated August 14,2002.It is unlikely that
construction of single family detached units on any of the proposed 23 lots would occur
concurrently with construction of subdivision improvements.
P13-21 Response:Refer to response to comments A-1 through A-9.
P13-22 Response:The selection of one or more off-site locations for the mitigation of Morning
glory will occur after the City makes a determination on whether to approve or deny the
proposed project
P13-23 Response:The specific details of wood rat translocation will be determined prior to
construction by a qualified biologist approved by the City.The specific details will be
based on the time of year that the translocation occurs,the population of woodrats at
the time,and the pattern of site development.None of those factors can reasonably be
predicted in advance of the project's development.
P13-24 Response:The EIR includes a preliminary Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The final Mitigation Measures will be incorporated into the project's approval,if the
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-17
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
project is approved.The Program will be refined when the measures are finalized.The
only element not included in the Preliminary Program is the specific monitoring agency.
P13-25 Response:The proposed project does not conflict with any aspect of the City's General
Plan.While the No Project Alternative would retain the project site in its current
condition,that same Alternative would not provide for implementation of the City's
General Plan.
P13-26 Response:The project objective included in the EIR was determined adequate and
complete by City staff.
P13-27 Response:The discussion of reduced density alternatives on the project site is
intentionally general.The reduced density as envisioned by authors of the EIR would
result via the elimination of lots along the upper elevations of the project site.Any
development of the project site,except an alternative that only included the
development of Lots 2,18, 19,and 20,would result in most if not all of the same impacts
as the proposed project,although to lesser degrees or extent of impact.CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines do not specifically require the development of detailed project
alternative plans for evaluation within an EIR.
P13-28 Response:Refer to the response to comment P13-27.
P13-29 Response:The City has determined via the General Plan that the project site is
appropriate for residential development.
P13-30 Response:The statement does not conflict with the minor benefit of formalizing what is
today informal use of a trail across the project site to the watershed to the east.The No
Project Alternative would translate to the continued use of the existing trail in an
informal manner. 1
P13-31 Response:if the proposed project were to be denied by the City,future development of
the site by the current owners or by different proponents would not be precluded under
the existing City General Plan.The current proposal conforms to the existing General
Plan.Any future development of the project site,if the current proposal is denied or not
constructed,would be subject to separate environmental review.The language of fourth
paragraph of Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows:
The selection of the No Project alternative would prevent or at least delay the current
applicant from developing the property,but would not prevent further or similar
development in the future.Such future development could result in greater or lesser
environmental impacts that those associated with the currently proposed project&ny _
such future development of the proiect site would be subiect to separate
environmental review in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in effect at
the time of such a future proposal.T' ` -`- - "d ppeje ' """-wetild me
i
P13-32 Response:The proposed project and the various development alternatives would result
in varying levels of environmental impact.The No Project Alternative(status quo of the
project site)would result in no environmental impacts(direct or indirect)at this time.It
7-18 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
would not realize the objectives of the General Plan,as stated,which is for development
of the project site,with the attendant potential environmental effects.
P13-33 Response:The potential impacts that might be associated with the proposed project or
any of the development alternatives,as stated,have varying and similar levels of impact.
The scope of the EIR did not include identification of specific alternative project site
development plans,nor did the scope include identification of specific alternative off-site
sites or development plans.
P13-34 Response:All of the potentially significant project impacts can be reduced to less than
significant levels by implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR(as
modified or supplemented via the Final EIR).It is in fact the intent of the City to have all
lands designated for development so developed.
P13-35 Response:Comment noted.
P13-36 Response:The City has determined that the project alternative developed by the
applicant and included in the EIR as Figure 52-1 is the Mitigated Project Alternative.
P13-37 Responses The reference reflects a typographical error in the Draft EIR.The proposed
rezoning is to R-1-S.
' P13-38 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-11.
P13-39 Responses The reference reflects a typographical error in the Draft EIR.The correct
reference is Figure 2.0-1.
PI 3-40 Response::The aesthetics analysis presented in the EIR assumed a reasonable worst case
scenario in the analysis of aesthetic impacts,including the potential of residential units
being constructed at the maximum allowable height and lot coverage,fencing,visible
grading and other potentially impacting features.Considering a worst case scenario,
mitigation measures were developed which set criteria for building profiles,colors,
' foundation types,grading,retaining walls,fencing,landscaping and revegetation design,
drainage structures,lighting design,and other features.At various stages along the
course of the site's development(presumed)plans must be submitted to the City that
satisfy the mitigation criteria.
P13-41 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-38.
P13-42 Response:Photo-simulations are intended to illustrate the general character change and
reasonably expected appearance of the proposed project as seen from identified
' viewpoints.No specific residential unit designs have been proposed at this time,so the
simulations depict a likely worst case scenario.In order to fully understand the project
limits and specific layout,the project plans should be used in conjunction with photo-
' simulations.
Relative to potential viewers on public roads within the community,the number of
potential viewers from the parking areas on the top levels of the Palm and Marsh Street
' parking structures is considered low.
I
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-19
' August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
P13-43 Response:The City determined that a preliminary landscape plan was not required for A
this stage of the projects site's development review.The City will determine at a later
date who would be.responsible for the installation of project site landscaping.
P13-44 Response:Refer to the response to comment P13-18.
P13-45 Response:The provision of habitat acreage is unnecessary inasmuch as no net loss of
habitat is projected for the proposed project with the implementation of recommended
mitigation measures.
P13-" Response:Figure.33-1 presents natural habitats relevant to the proposed project.The
City's Manager of Natural Resources provided additional comments regarding the project
site's wetlands in a memorandum dated June 13,2003,and enclosed with this EIR as
Appendix J.
P13-47 Response:The body of the EIR is intended for the lay person.Those seeking additional
technical information are directed to the technical appendices bound with the EIR.
P13-48 Response:Refer to the response to comment P13-45.
P13-49 Response:Refer to the response to comment PI 3-37
P13-50 Response:The.scope of the EIR evolved under direction of the City since preparation of
the Initial Study.
P14 STEPHEN AND GINA NELSON
P14-1 Response:Under City regulations,project development cannot result in an increase in
peak discharge from the project site.Any potential increase in peak discharge would be
addressed by the construction of individual subterranean detention tanks on the project
site.The.headwall of the Lizzie Court culvert entrance will be increased by 1.5 to 3 feet on
all sides to increase the capacity of the culvert.There is no dam associated with the,
proposed project.
P14-2 Response:Comment noted.
P14-3 Response:Comment noted.
P14-4 Response:See response to comment A2-1.
PIS DANIEL SINTON
P7 5-1 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-33.
P15-2 Response:Paleontological resources refer to those prehistoric resources discovered as or
in fossils,and are distinct from cultural or historic resources,which are typically
associated with periods of recorded history.The project site.has been fully evaluated for
the existence and significance of cultural and historic resources and appropriate
mitigation measures have been identified in this EIR to assure their protection and
preservation.There is no evidence of paleontological resources on or near the site that
would suggest the potential discovery or loss of such resources during project
1
7-20 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
construction.Further,there is no evidence to suggest that the geologic formations
underlying the project site are of a type typically associated with fossil deposits.
P16 ROBERT S.VESSELY
P16-1 Response:The comment that vibration generated during project construction could
result in damage to the La Loma Adobe structure,which is,based on visual observation,
of marginal structural integrity.The following textual revisions and mitigation measure
1 has been added to Potential Impact 3.10-2 of the EIR:
Potential Impact 3.10-2.Traffic noise and ground borne vibration.
' Large trucks and heavy equipment associated with project construction and
development would be the primary source of traffic noise and vibration along the local
roads in the project area.The nearest sensitive receptors for noise are the residents of
homes located on Lizzie Street,Wilding Lane,and Woodland Drive.The La Loma Adobe
may be susceptible to damage from around borne vibration.The noise associated with
vehicle traffic and trips would be temporary,short in duration,during daylight hours only,
and not on Saturdays,Sundays or holidays,thereby reducing project traffic noise impacts
to less than significant levels.
The proposed project would result in only a relatively small addition to existing City traffic
volume and local/neighborhood traffic trips(Refer to Section 3.14,Transportation and
Traffic).Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project would not be affected by the
small increase in traffic noise associated with the project because of distance,
topography,and vegetative cover of the area,as well as the infrequent,residential nature
of the traffic.
Because of the nature of ground-borne vibration,the extent to which the surrounding
area is affected by vibration is much less than for airborne noise.The levels of existing
ground-borne vibration transmitted to adjacent buildings or receptors are generally low
enough to be imperceptible because vibrations attenuate significantly and rapidly with
ground distance.The relatively distant location of residences near the project site would
ensure that potential,temporary,project-associated vibrations would result in less than
significant impacts to these receptors.The structural condition of the La Loma Adobe
makes it susceptible to potential.further structural deterioration from ground borne
vibration during earth moving activities To ensure the adequate protection of the Adobe
' the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to reduce the potential risk of
damage to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-3..Prior to the first ground disturbing activity on the
project site the applicant shall fund an engineering analysis of the La Loma Adobe
for the express purpose of determining what,reinforcing measures must be
installed to eliminate any potential damage.to thestructure from on-site grading
' and construction activities.The recommendations included in the analysis shall be
implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities.
' P16-2 Response:Comment noted.
PI 6-3 Response:Comment.noted.
AP1 CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING&PRESERVATION,INC.
AP1-1 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-33.
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-21
' August.2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
AP1-2 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-33.
AP1-3 Response:Refer to the.response to comment PC-33.
AP1-4 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC 33.
AP7-5 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-33.
AP1-6 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-33.
AP7-7 Response:Refer to the response to comment PC-33.
AP2 EDA DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
AP2-1, Response:We believe our peak discharge calculations are more conservative and
realistic than those initially prepared by the project engineer for a few reasons:(1)The
project engineer drainage basin delineations resulted in two basins,when in reality,
water conditions at the project site result in three.(2)The project engineer used the same
runoff coefficient for both pre-development and post-development conditions,when in
fact,surface conditions at the project site would change due to project development.(3)
The initial estimates prepared by the project engineer fail to include impervious surfaces
created by the construction of Lizzie and Woodland Courts.(4) Before taking detention
basins/detention tanks into account,an increase in impervious surfaces will almost
always result in an increase in runoff.Despite these discrepancies,we believe
improvements to the Lizzie Court culvert entrance and the subterranean detention tanks
are adequate to address increase runoff from the project site.
AP2-2 Response:Comment noted.
AP2-3 Response:Comment noted.
AP2-4 Response:The Draft EIR was prepared prior to implementation of the current CWA
provisions.The text of the first paragraph under Section 3.8 Regulatory Setting has been
amended as follows: 1
The Clean Water Act(CWA) has nationally regulated the discharge of
pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source since
1972.In 1987,amendments to the CWA added section 402(p),which
established a framework for regulating nonpoint source(NPS)storm
water discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES).The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates
storm water discharges from majorindustrial facilities,large and
medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems(those serving '
more than 100,000 persons),and construction sites that disturb one€tae
or more acres of land.
AP2-5 Response:Comment noted.
AP2-6 Response:Comment noted. '
AP2-7 Response:The language of Mitigation Measure 3.8-6 has been amended as follows:
7-22 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Mitigation.Measure 3.8-6.Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit or approval of
improvement plans,the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community
' Development and Director of Public Works for review and approval a long-term
storm water pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)to protect storm water quality
after the construction period.The SWPPP shall include the following additional
BMPs to protect storm water quality:
i • Proper maintenance of parking lots and other paved areas can eliminate
the majority of litter and debris washing into storm drains and thus,
entering local waterways.Regular sweeping is a simple and effective BMP
aimed at reducing the amount of litter in storm drain inlets(to prevent
clogging)and public waterways(for water quality).The project applicant
shall enter into an agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo to ensure
this maintenance is completed prior to approval of improvement plans or
final maps.
• Proper maintenance of biofilters is essential to maintain functionality.The
maintenance of biofilters on the project site would be the responsibility
of a homeowner's association for the proposed project The
homeowner's association would be responsible for the following biofilter
maintenance:l)Regular mowing to promote growth and increase
density and pollutant uptake(vegetative height should be no more than
8 inches,cuttings must be promptly removed and properly disposed of);
2)Removal of sediments year-round dwing sufnFneF Fnenths when they
build up to 6 inches at any spot,cover biofilter vegetation,or otherwise
interfere with biofilter operation;and 3)Reseeding of biofilters as
necessary,whenever maintenance or natural processes create bare spots.
•
If storm water detention ponds or underground detention tanks are
incorporated into the project drainage system,proper maintenance is
necessary to ensure their effectiveness at preventing downstream
t drainage problems and promoting water quality.The maintenance of the
detention ponds or underground detention tanks would be the
responsibility of the homeowner's association.Necessary detention
pond/tank maintenance includes:l)Regular inspection during the wet
season for sediment buildup and clogging of inlets and outlets;2)
Regular(approximately once a year)removal of basin sediment;and 3)if
an open detention basin is used,mowing and maintenance of pond
' vegetation(replant or reseed as necessary to control erosion.
Maintenance reports shall be submitted annually to City's Public Works
Department.
' • The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on
residential BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed
development This information shall be distributed to all residences at
' the project site.At a minimum the information should cover.l)General
information on biofilters and detention ponds for residents concerning
their purpose and importance of keeping them free of yard cuttings and
leaf fitter,2)Proper disposal of household and commercial chemicals;3)
Proper use of landscaping chemicals;4)Clean-up and appropriate
disposal of yard cuttings and leaf litter;and 5)Prohibition of any washing
and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-23
' August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
AP3 OASIS LANDSCAPE,ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
AP3-1 Response:Comment noted.
AP3-2 Response:All of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR are feasible.Removal of
the term feasible implies that one or more of the measures may not be technically
feasible.
AP3-3 Response:The range of the Morro shoulderband snail extends across the entire
development portion of the project site north of the central drainage and onto at least
the lower elevations of the proposed open space parcel (Lot 24).While the recent surveys '
for the snails located both living species and shell fragments predominantly in the lower
reaches of the open space parcel,the fact remains that shell fragments were also found '
within the development envelopes of individual parcels.Itis presumed that those
fragments were deposited in their locations upon death of the snails.The requested text
revision has not been inserted into the Final EIR. ,
AP3-4 Response:Comment noted.
AP3-S Response:Comment noted.
AP3-6 Response:Comment noted.
AP3-7 Response:Comment noted.
AP3-8 Response:Refer to response to comment AP3-1.
AP3-9 Response:There is an existing trail that crosses the project site and which connects to
the watershed east of the site in the Santa Lucia Foothills and Reservoir Canyon.The.trail
is not a formal trail.Technically,users of the existing trail are trespassing.
AP3-10 Response:Comment noted.. ,
AP3-11 Response:The text of the discussion of Present Site Visual Character has been revised as
follows: 1
Present Site Visual Character.The project site itself totals approximately 40
acres.An-T-heeastern approximately 27 acres is being proposed as permanent
open space.This lot includes central drainage and the steeper slopes which can
be seen as they rise up behind the lower portions of the site.The project site
ranges in elevation from approximately 340 to 465 feet above sea level.The
topography of the project site generally ranges in steepness from approximately 5
to 30 percent slopes.The landform of the site is characterized by the confluence of
two seasonal creeks thatjoin together near the western portion of the site.The
combined creek exits the site under Wilding Lane,which borders the site to the
west.Vegetation plays an important role in visually identifying the site.-Stands of
large eucalyptus trees and oaks are found along the creekways,and naturalized
annual grasses define the open areas.Colonies of Prickly-Pear cactus can be found
throughout much of thesite,primarily in the area between the two creeks.This
area between the creeks is also proposed as permanent open space.The project
site is currently undeveloped.The La Loma Adobe is located immediately adjacent
to the northwest portion of the project site.Remnants of the Bowden Ranch such
as a springbox,a building foundation,and a water line remain on site.The project
is generally bordered by post-and-wire fencing.Informal hiking trails have been
7-24 MHA Inc
Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
' established adjacent to and through the site for access to the hills east of the
project
AP3-12 Response:Comment noted.
AP3-13 Response:Refer to the response to comment AP3-9..
tAP3-14 Response:Comment noted.
AP3-15 Response:The title of Table33-2 has been changed as follows:
Table.33-2.List of Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring/Potentially Occurring
YANn the Project Site Vicinity
AP3-16 Response:Comment noted.
AP3-17 Response:Comment noted.
' AP3-18 Response:The inclusion of that sentence in Mitigation Measure 33-1 was a
typographical error.The Measure has been to read as follows:
' Mitigation Measure 33-1.The applicant shall offer to dedicate that portion of
the property identified as"Open Space.Lor,as such lot is ultimately configured by
the development approval process,to the City of San Luis Obispo,or to an entity
designated by the City of San Luis Obispo,for permanent conservation to protect
serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat, among other things.The feasibility-ef
' AP3-19 Response:Refer to the response to comment AP3-9.
AP3-20 Response:Mitigation Measure 33-8 clearly states that"CRLF surveys shall be conducted
"Not more than one week prior to the.start of any on-site construction..."No additional
language is needed.
AP3-21 Response:The applicant submitted a project alternative and did not specifically submit a
revised Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.Figure 5.2-1 in the EIR presents the
applicant's project alternative.
AP3-22 Response:Refer to response to comment AP3-10.
AP3-23 Response:Comment noted.
1 AP3-24 Response:Comment noted.
AP3-25 Response:The text of the paragraph has been revised as follows:
' The project site is located on west-facing slopes of the.Santa Lucia Mountains
along the eastern boundary of the City of.San Luis Obispo.The project site slopes
to the west and can be divided into two separate areas,the proposed
development area and the open space area.T'--Whan Resewe,:iii_ )fefms
the lsetindwy between these two apeas and genefally fellews the 466 feet(149.2
' : Mean-S__'_••_'(M5 ) eievatien_----_--.Elevations in the proposed
development area range from approximately 340 feet(103.6 m)MSL at the
' intersection of Lizzie Court and Wilding Lane to 465 feet MSL along the URL(EDA
2002).In the open space area,elevations range from 465 feet MSL along the URL
to roughly 800 feet(243.8 m)MSL at the northeastern corner of the project site.
' Slopes range from 0 to 15 percent in the development area to 30 percent in steep
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.7-25
' August2003
7:RESPONSE TO COMMENTS '
portions of the open space area(USGS 1965).Project site slopes are presented in '
Figure 3.6-1.
AP3-26 Response:Comment noted. '
AP3-27 Response:The provision of a 15-foot setback from the eucalyptus canopy is appropriate
due to the potential for the existing eucalyptus trees to drop limbs.
AP3-28 Response:Comment noted.
7-26 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003
i
� a :
� REPORT PREPARATION
1
1
1
1
1 $.
•
1
REPORT PREPARATION
1
1 8.0 List of Preparers
This section lists those individuals who either prepared or participated in the preparation of this EIR.
1 LEAD AGENCY
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department
1 Ron Whisenand Deputy Director of Development Review
Lynn Azevedo Associate Planner
1
' CONSULTANTTEAM
This EIR was prepared for and under the direction of the lead and surface managing agencies by MHA
Environmental Consulting,Inc.of San Mateo,California.The following staff contributed to this report:
' Dain Anderson MHA Project Director
Laurie McClenahan MHA Project Supervisor
Ted Slowik MHA Project Manager
Andrew Gentile MHA Environmental Analyst
Robert Carr Visual Resources Specialist
Jeff Tupen Biologist,The Morro Group
' Will Hopkins Senior Engineering Geologist,Questa Engineering Corporation
Sydney Temple Senior Engineering Hydrologist,Questa Engineering Corporation
1 Kelly White Environmental Scientist,Questa Engineering Corporation
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.8-1
August 2003
8:REPORT PREPARATION '
t
t
1
1
8-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
1 9:
� REFERENCES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9.
1
REFERENCES
1
Introduction
Cartesia. 1995.MapArt CD-ROM map series-Geopolitical Deluxe-USA.
1 EDA.2002.Engineering Development Associates.Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Tract 2420,Bowden
Ranch Estates.January 2002.
Oasis Associates,Inc.January.2001.Development Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420,Bowden Ranch
1 Estates,with Appendices.
Alternatives,Including the Proposed Action
1 City of San Luis Obispo. 1994.City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Digest,Land Use Element.August.
1 Aesthetics
Carr,Robert.2002.Visual Resources Technical Report.(Appendix C of this EIR)
1 Air Quality
CARB.2002.California Air Resources Board.Ambient Air Quality Standards.www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/ags.htm.
[Accessed July 22,2002]•
EPA.2001.United States Environmental Protection Agency.www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-
AIR/2001/October/Day-19/a26419.htm[Accessed July 22,2002].
' .2002.www.epa.gov/airs/criteria.html.[Accessed July 22,2002].
' SLOAPCD.2002.San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District.wwwslocleanair.org/air/annualreportasp
[Accessed July 22,2002].
World Climate.2002a.Average Rainfall,San Luis Obispo Poly,San Luis Obispo County,California USA.
Iwww.worldclimate.com/cgi-:bin/data.pl?ref=N35Wl 20+2200+047851 C[Accessed August 2,2002]
2002b.(1)Average Minimum Temperature;(2)Average Maximum Temperature,San Luis Obispo Poly,
San Luis Obispo County,California USA.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA.Inc.9-1
August 2003
1
9:REFERENCES
www.woddclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N35W120+1304+047851 C[Accessed August 2,20021 1
Biological Resources
Baicich,P.J.and C.J.O.Harrison. 1997.A Guide to the Nests,Eggs,and Nestlings of North American Birds.
Second Edition.Academic Press:San Diego,California.347 pp.
California Natural Diversity Data Base(CNDDB).2001.Database overlay for the.San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5- '
minute quadrangle.California Department of Fish and Game.Sacramento,California.September 18,
2001. '
CNDDB.2002.Rarefind II output for the.San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.February.
Cowardin,Lewis M.,V.Carter,F.C.Golet,and E.T.LaRoe. 1979.Classification of wetlands and deepwater '
habitats of the United States.Prepared forthe U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.FWS/085-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987.Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.Technical Report Y- ;
87-1,U.S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,Mississippi.
Frey,D.2000.Biological survey.Monarch butterfly habitat.Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area.
Bowden Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,CA.Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and '
Planning.January.
Hillyard,D.2002.Phone call from J.Tupen to Deb Hillyard,Biologist,California Department of Fish and ,
Game.August 8,2002.
Holland,R.1986.Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.State of
California,The Resources Agency.Department of Fish and Game.
Holland,V.L.2001.Supplement to botanical survey.Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area.Bowden
Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,CA.Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on July
20,2001.
Holland,V.L.and L.Moody.2002.Wetland delineation.Woodland Drive Specific.Planning Area.Bowden
Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,CA.Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on July
22,2002.
Holland,V:L.,D.Keil,and F.Villablanca.2001.Supplement to biological survey.Woodland Drive Specific
Planning Area.Bowden Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,CA.Prepared for Oasis Landscape
Architecture and Planning on January 2001.
.2000.Biological survey.Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area.Bowden Ranch Estates,San Luis ,
Obispo,CA.Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on December 2000.
San Luis Obispo City(SLO). 1997.City of-San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element.April 1997.
Small Planet Environmental Consulting Institues(SPECI).2000.California red-legged frog biological
assessment report for the proposed Bowden Ranch Estates Development project,San Luis Obispo, '
CA 93401.Prepared for Oasis Associates,Inc.on November 6,2000.
Soil Conservation Service(SCS). 1984.Soil survey of San Luis Obispo County,California,Coastal Part. '
United States Department of-Agriculture,Washington,D.C.
9-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 '
9:REFERENCES
Tenera Environmental.2003.Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail (Helminthoglypta
walkeriana)Survey Report.Prepared for Oasis Associates on February 21,2003
Tibor,D.P.2001.California Native Plant Society s inventory of rare and endangered plants of California
(sixth edition).August 2001.387 pp.
United States Geological Service. 1994.75 minute series quadrangle for San Luis Obispo,California.
Villablanca,F.2001.Final report.Woodrat monitoring Spring 2001.Bowden Ranch,San Luis Obispo Co.,
Calif.Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on July 22,2001.
Zeiner,D.C.,W.F.Laudenslayer,Jr.,K.E.Mayer,and M.White(eds.). 1990.. California's Wildlife.Volumes I
(amphibians and reptiles),II (birds),and III(mammals).California.Statewide Wildlife Habitat
Relationships System.The Resources Agency,California Department of Fish and Game.November
1990.
' Cultural Resources
Baker,B. 1977.Madonna Ranch CA-SLO-372:An Interpretation of an Inland Chumash Site.Unpublished
' Master's Thesis,California State University,San Luis Obispo.
Baldwin,Mary A.1971.Archaeological Evidence of Cultural Continuity from Chumash to Salinan Indians
of California.Occasional Papers of the San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society,No.6.
Beck,Warren and Ynez D.Haase.1974.Historical Atlas of California.University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman,Oklahoma.
1 Bouey,Paul D.and Mark E.Basgall.1991.Archaeological Patterns Along the.South Central Coast,Point
Piedras Blancas,San Luis Obispo County,California:Archaeological Test Evaluation of Sites CA-SLO-
264,SLO-266,SLO-267,SLO-268,.SLO-1226,and SLO-1227.Report prepared for the California
Department of Transportation.Far Western Anthropological Research Group,Inc.,Davis,California.
Breschini,G.S.and T.Haversat. 1988.Archaeological Investigations at CA-SLO-7 and CA-SLO-8,Diablo
Canyon,San Luis Obispo County,Cal ifomia.Archives of California Prehistory,No.28.Coyote Press,
Salinas,California.
t Breschini,GS.,T.Haversat,and R.P.Hampson. 1988.Archaeological Investigations at CA-SLO-99,Pismo
Beach,San Luis Obispo County,California.Coyote Press,Salinas,California.
' Chattel Architecture,Planning,&Preservation,Inc.2000.Historic Review ReporL.Bowden Ranch Estates,
San Luis Obispo,San Luis Obispo County,California.Prepared for Oasis Associates,Inc.,San Luis
Obispo,California.
' Englehart,Fr.Zephyrin,O.F.M. 1933.Mission San Luis Obispo in the Valley of the Bears.W.T.Genns,Santa
Barbara,California.
Gibson,Robert 0.2000.Results of Archival Records Search and Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey
for the Bowden Ranch Estates Project,City of San Luis Obispo,CA.Report prepared for Oasis
Landscape,Architecture and Planning,San Luis Obispo,California.
1991.Results of Archaeological Subsurface Testing at CA-SLO-433,on the Rosen Parcels,Oceano,
CA.Ms.on File,Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information.
' System,University of California,Santa Barbara.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc 9-3
August 2003
9:REFERENCES
. 1983.Ethnography of the SalinanPeople:a Systems Approach.Unpublished Master's Thesis, ,
Califomia State University,Hayward.
. 1982.Results of Subsurface Testing on SLO-832 at the Judkins School,Pismo Beach,CA.Ms.on
File,Central Coastal Information Center of the Califomia Historical Resources Information System,
University of California,Santa Barbara.
. 1981 a.Report of Archaeological Subsurface Testing at SLO-99,Detwiler Project,Pismo Beach,CA.
Ms.on file,Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information
System,University of California,Santa Barbara. '
. 1981 b.Cultural Resource Test Program at SLO-978,San Luis Obispo County,California.Report
prepared for the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles,California. ,
. 1980.Results of Archaeological Subsurface Testing and Final Monitoring at SLO-98,Located on
the Hitchen Lots,660,680 Ocean Blvd.,Shell Beach.Ms on file,Central Coastal Information Center of
the California Historical Resources Information System,University of California,Santa Barbara.
Greenwood,Roberta S. 1978.Obispeiio and Purisemeno Chumash.In California,edited by R.F.Heizer,
pp.520-523.Handbook of North American Indians Vol.8,W.C.Sturtevant;general editor.Smithsonian
Institute,Washington,D.C.
. 1972.9,000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon,San Luis Obispo County,California.San Luis
Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No.7.
Harrison;William M.and Edith S.. 1966. An Archaeological Sequence for the Hunting People of Santa
Barbara,California.Archaeological SurveyAnnuol Report 8:1-89.University of California,Los Angeles. ,
Heizer,Robert F.1974.The Destruction of the California Indians.Peregrine Publishers,Salt Lake City,Utah.
Hines,Philip.1986.The Prehistory of San Simeon Creek,5,800 B.P.to Missionization.Report prepared for '
the Califomia Department of Parks and Recreation,Sacramento.
Hoover,Robert L.1980.Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resource Evaluation of Three Parcels in Camp
San Luis Obispo,California.Report prepared for the General Services Administration,San Francisco,
California.
.1973.SLO-463:A Food Processing Site in the Los Osos Valley,San Luis Obispo County,California.
Ms.on file,Robert E.Schenk Archives,Treganza Museum,San Francisco State University.
Hoover,Robert L.,and W.B.Sawyer. 1977.Excavations at SLO-214:Los Osos Jr.High School Site.San Luis ,
Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 11.
Jones,T.L.,K.Davis,G.Farris,S.D.Grantham,T.Fung,B.Rivers. 1994.Toward a History of Morro Bay:Phase ,
11 Excavations for the Highwoy41 Widening Project,San Luis Obispo County,California.Ms.on file,
Califomia Department of Transportation,District 5,San Luis Obispo.
King,Chester D. 1981.The Evolution of Chumash Society:A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in
System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804.Ph.D.Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology,University of California,Davis.
Landberg,L.C.W. 1965.The Chumash Indians of Southern California.Southwest Museum Papers 19,Los
Angeles California.
9-4 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR
August 2003 t
9:REFERENCES
Moratto,Michael J.1984.California Archaeology.Academic Press,.New York;New York.
Parker,John.1997.Archaeological Monitoring of the Wolf-Adamski Parcel APN 002-325-015 Lizzie.Street.
' Ms.on File,Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information
System,University of California,Santa Barbara.
1 . 1996.Cultural Resource Investigation of the Wolf-Adamski Parcel APN 002-325-015 Lizzie Street,
San Luis Obispo.Ms.on File,Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources
Information System,University of California,Santa Barbara.
Reddell,D. 1970.Archaeological Investigations of 4-SLO-AS-459,The Harrigan Site,Shell Beach,
California.San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Papers No.1
Rogers,D.B.1 029 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast.Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,
Santa Barbara,California.
' Sanchez;Allen,Daryl,and Gil.1998.La Loma Adobe,Condition Assessment and Preliminary
Rehabilitation Study.Prepared for Friends of Las Casas de Adobe.San Luis Obispo,California.
Sanchez,Gil.1998.Condition Assessment and Preliminary Rehabilitation Study,Rodriguez Adobe,Butron
Adobe,La Loma Adobe.Prepared for the Friends of Las Casa de Adobe,San Luis Obispo,California.
Spanne,L.W. 1981.Report of Two Radiocarbon(C-14)dates from Along Highway 1 at 22nd Street and 25h
Street,Oceano,CA.Letter from Radiocarbon Laboratory at University of California at Riverside,CA.
Tainter,Joseph A. 1977.Population Dynamics on the Santa Barbara Coast.Pacific Coast Archaeological
t Society Quarterly,Vol.13,No.3.
. 1971.Salvage Excavations at the Fowler Site:Some Aspects of the Social Organization of the
Northern Chumash.Occasional Papers of the San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society,No.3.
tThompson and West. 1883.History of San Luis Obispo County,California with Illustrations and Biographical
Sketches of its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Friends of the Adobes,San Miguel,California.
Wallace,WJ.1962.Archaeological Investigations at the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed,San Luis Obispo
County,California.University of California Archaeological SurveyAnnual Report(1962):223-90,Los
1Angeles California.Waugh,Georgie. 1992.Further Investigations at Pico Creek,CA-SLO-179.Phase II Archaeological Test for
the Proposed Bridge Replacement at Pico Creek,State Route 1,San Luis Obispo County.Prepared for
tthe California Department of Transportation,District 5,San Luis Obispo.
Geology,Soils and Seismicity
Earth Systems Pacific.2001.Soils Engineering Report,Tract2420-Bowden Ranch Estates,San Luis Obispo,
California.
' Earth Systems Pacific.2000a.Geologic Hazards Study,Bowden Ranch Estates,22 Lot Residential Subdivision,
Northeast End of Lizzie Street,San Luis Obispo,California.
Earth Systems Pacific.2000b.Geotechnical Feasibility Report,Bowden Ranch Estates,22 Lot Residential
Subdivision,Northeast End of Lizzie Street,San Luis Obispo,California.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.9-5
August 2003
9:REFERENCES
EDA.2002.Engineering Development Associates."Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan for Tract 2420,
Bowden Ranch Estates."[Map]9 Jan.2002.
Hall,Clarence A.and Prior,Scott. 1975."Geologic Map of the Cayucos-San Luis Obispo Region,San Luis
Obispo County,California."[Map].United States Geological Survey(USGS).
Hall,C.A.et al.1979."Geologic map of the San Luis Obispo-San Simeon Region,California."[Map]. '
United States Geological Survey(USGS).
Questa Engineering Corporation.2002.Site Reconnaissance Study conducted August 16,2002.
San Luis Obispo County. 1999.Technical Background Report for the San Luis Obispo County General Plan
-Safety Element.
San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building. 1999.Technical Background Report for
the San Luis Obispo County General Plan,Safety Element.
USDA.1984.United States Department of Agriculture;Soil Conservation Service.Soi]SurveyofSan Luis '
Obispo County,California-Coastal Pan:.
USGS. 1965.United States Geological Survey."San Luis_ Obispo Quadrangle,75 Minute Series
(Topographic)"[Map].Revised 1994.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1
City of San Luis Obispo.2002.City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Digest.
wyvwslocity.org/communitydevelopment/documents.asp[Accessed July 20021
Earth.Systems Pacific.2000.Phase One Environmental Site Assessment,Bowden Ranch Property,Lizzie
Street,San Luis Obispo,California.November 13,2000.
Hydrology and Water Quality
SLO.2002.City and County of San Luis Obispo.Drainage Design Manual for the City of San Luis Obispo and
Portions of San Luis Obispo County within the San Luis Obispo Watershed. '
DWR. 1975.Department of Water Resources.California's Groundwater-Bulletin 118.Updated 2002.
Earth Systems Pacific.2000.Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,Bowden Ranch Property,Lizzie Street, '
San Luis Obispo,California.
EDA.2002.Engineering Development Associates."Preliminary Grading and Drainage.Plan for Tract 2420, '
Bowden Ranch Estates."[Map] 9 Jan.2002.
.2000.Drainage Analysis for Bowden Ranch,San Luis Obispo,California.[Revised 21 Dec.20011. '
FEMA.2002.Federal Emergency Management Agency.Frequently Used Terms.Online.
www.fema.gov/mit/tsd/fq-term.htm[Accessed August 6,2002]
. 1996.03 Flood Data,San Luis Obispo,CA.[ARC/INFO Coverage].
Horner,R.,et al.1994.Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management-Technical and Institutional Issues. '
Terrene Institute,Washington D.C.
9-6 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
9:REFERENCES
1 Livick,Robert.2002.Principal Civil Engineer.San Luis Obispo Public Works Department.Telephone
interview.August 12,2002.
IOasis Associates,Inc.2001.Development Plan,Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420,Bowden Ranch Estates.
Questa Engineering Corporation.2002.San Luis Obispo Waterway Management Plan.(Prepared for the
City and County of San Luis Obispo).
USDA.1984.United States Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service.Soil Survey of San Luis
1Obispo County,California-Coastal Part.
USGS. 1965.United States Geological Survey.''San Luis Obispo Quadrangle,75 Minute Series
(Topographic)"[Map]..Revised 1994.
1 World Climate.2002a.Average Rainfall,San Luis Obispo Poly,San Luis Obispo County,California USA.
www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N35Wl20+2200+047851 C[Accessed August 2,2002]
1 .2002b.(1)Average Minimum Temperature,(2)Average Maximum Temperature,San Luis Obispo Poly,
San Luis Obispo County,California USA.
www.worldclimate.corh/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N35W120+1304+047851C[Accessed August 2,2002]
Land Use and Planning
None
Noise
1 City of San Luis Obispo.2002a.San Luis Obispo City General Plan Noise Element.
.2002b.City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Digest.
wwwslocity.org/communitydevelopment/documentt.asp[Accessed July 20021
Consultants In Engineering Acoustics(CIEA). 1996.Noise Modeling for the Fourmile Hill Geothermal Project.
State of California,Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 1998.General Plan Guidelines.
Population and Housing
1 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments.2001.Staff Report:Status of Local Population Projections.
State of California,Department of Finance,County Population Estimates and Components of Change,
July 1,2000-2001,with Historical Estimates, 1990-2000.Sacramento,California,January 2002.
Public Services
' City of San Luis Obispo.2002.City of San Luis Obispo Economic Development.
www.slocity.org/economicdevelopment/demographics.asp[Accessed August 2002]
City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department.2002.wwW.slocity.org/fire/index.asp[Accessed August 20021
City of San Luis Obispo Police Department.2002.www.slocity.org/police/index.asp[Accessed August
2002]
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.9-7
August 2003
9:REFERENCES
Parker,Brad.2002.Supervisor of Buildings,Grounds and Transportation,San Luis Coastal Unified School
District.Personal communication with Andrew Gentile of MHA Environmental Consulting,Inc.
September 11,2002. '
Retirement America.2002.www.retirementamerica.com/san-luis-obispo.california.com [Accessed
August 20021
Recreation
City of San Luis Obispo.2002.City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Digest.
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/documents.asp[Accessed July 20021
Transportation and Traffic '
Highway Research Board.1965.Highway Capacity Manual,Special Report 87.
Smith Penfield.2001.Traffic Impact.Study for Bowden Ranch Estates Development. '
Utilities and Service Systems
AMEC.2002.AMEC Earth and Environmental,Inc.Draft Environmental Impact Report forthe Copelands
Project.EIR CASE NO.ER 192-01 AND ER-193-01 SCH#2002031058..
SLO.2002.City of San Luis Obispo,Utilities.www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/utilities/col.lection,asp
[Accessed August 2002]
t
9-8 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August 2003
� APPENDIX A
� Notice of Preparation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' NOTICE OF PREPARATION
' To: From: City of San Luis Obispo CDD
990 Palm Street
' San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
1 Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: (if applicable)
1 Agency Name: City of San Luis Obispo EIR to be prepared by.
Department Name: Community Development Firm Name: MHA Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Street Address: 990 Palm Street Street-Address: 4 W. O.Avenue, Suite 303
City/State/Zip: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 City/State/Zip: San Mateo, CA-94402
Contact Lynn Azevedo, 805-781-7.166/fax 805-781-7173 Contact:Ted Slowik, 650-373-1200
The City of San Luis Obispo will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact
Report for the project identified below. The City would like to know the views of your agency for the
scope and content of the environmental information pertaining to your agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR
prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for this project.
' The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are summarized in the
attachment. A copy of the Initial Study is not but is available upon request from the Lead
' Agency (see above contact). Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be
send at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
' Please send your response to the attention of Lynn Azevedo in the City of San .Luis Obispo.
Community Development Department at the address shown above. We will need the name of a
contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Bowden Ranch Development
Project Applicant: Bowden Ranch Partners
' Project Location: 1636 Woodland Drive, San Luis Obispo, California
Project Description (a more detailed project description is also attached):
'. Development of a vacant, 40-acre site within City limits into 23 lots for single-family residential
development and one 27-acre open-space lot, with associated road and utility improvements.
Date: July 19 2002
Signature:
Title: re Director of Develooment Review
Telephone: (805) 781-7172
Reference:California Administrative Code,Me 14(CEOA Guidelines)
Sections 15082(a),15103,15375 (Revised October 1969)
I
I
NOTICE OF PREPARATION ATTACHMENT '
BOWDEN RANCH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The City of San Luis Obispo, as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is '
requesting comments on the environmental impact report (EIR) scope of work for the proposed project,
described below and in the Notice of Preparation; and commonly referred to as the Bowden Ranch
Development. The Initial Study and detailed scope of work for issue areas identified as potentially significant '
are available for review upon request. Please contact Project Manager Lynn Azevedo at(805) 781-7166.
Project Location 1
The proposed project area is located at 1636 Woodland Drive, at the intersection of Woodland Drive and
Wilding Lane in San Luis Obispo (Assessor's Parcel Number 002-352-018 - portions of Lot 1, 2, and 5 of the
Piedmont Tract, a portion of the southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 30 South, Range 12 East, and a 1
portion of the Southwest Quarter of Sect. 25, Township 30 South, Range 12 East, M.D.M). The proposed
project area is shown in Figure 1 (attached) and is presently undeveloped. The surrounding area includes
single-family detached homes, a high school campus, an historic residence, and intermittent views of the
surrounding foothills, open space areas, and City of San Luis Obispo.
Project Description '
The Bowden Ranch Partners (applicant) are proposing the development of 23 custom residential lots on private
residential roads and one 27-acre open space lot on 40+/-acres of undeveloped land within City limits. The lots
range in size from 0.21 to 0.73 acres. Project development activities include site grading, utility installation, '
access road development, recreational-use parking, and restoration landscaping. Slopes covered with
grasslands, oak woodlands, stands of Eucalyptus, cactus, and riparian vegetation characterize the project area;
intermittent creeks also cross the project site. ,
The project is described in greater detail in application materials submitted by the applicant which are available
for review in the City of San. Luis Obispo Community Development Department or by contacting Lynn
Azevedo, Project Manager, at(805)781-7166, as listed above.
Discretionary Permits
The project will require evaluations and permit approvals by the California Department of Fish and Game,
Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the State Water Resources Control
Board. Also, the City will need to consider whether to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment (to rezone the
property from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-1-PD (Low Density Residential-Planned Development) or R-
1-S (Low Density Residential-Special Consideration)) and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the project
with possible exceptions to standards.
Probable Environmental Effects/Issues Scoped for EIR
The EIR workscope for issues determined to be potentially significant includes analysis in the following issue
areas:
• Aesthetics and Visual Resources
• Biological Resources
• Consistency with Land Use and Planning Policies
• Cultural (Archaeological and Historic) Resources
• Energy and Mineral Resources
• Geological Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrological Resources ,
• Noise
• Public Services
1 • Recreation
• Transportation and Traffic
• Utilities and Service Systems
1 Issues determined not to be significant under CEQA Thresholds of Significance include:
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Population and Housing
' The EIR scope of work for the project was reviewed and endorsed by the City Council at their March 19, 2002
meeting.
Development of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
Factors determining alternative project configurations include considerations of project objectives, site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, General Plan consistency, and a proponent's
control over alternative sites.Four possible alternatives have been tentatively identified:
• Reduced Density Alternative,
• Clustered Development Alternative,
• Alternative Site Alternative,and
• No-Project Alternative.
' These alternatives are general in nature since further environmental analyses are necessary before more specific
project alternatives can be identified. For example, avoidance of certain biological resources through an
alternative project configuration could reduce certain impacts. The need for project redesign, or a project
alternative,will be determined during the course of environmental review.
Public Scoping Meeting
A public scoping meeting has been scheduled to allow for any interested persons to supply input on issues to be
discussed in the EIR:
Date: Wednesday,July 31,2002
Time: 6:00 p.m.
' Place: Council Hearing Room,City of San Luis Obispo City Hall
The meeting is an opportunity for City and consultant staffs to gather information from the public regarding the
' potential environmental impacts of the project that need to be evaluated in the EIR. It is not intended to be a
hearing on the merits of the project. Members of the public should keep their comments focused on potential
significant changes to the environment that may occur as a direct, indirect, or cumulative result of project
1 development.
ao
ro 1
z
rn 'fJl i A
a ' Ss m � p
CDow
s,f
OAvl'
n t
m -_ _ an wrs
y
°a m
3 a o
' Aug-23-02 01 : 12P City of SLO-CD Dept- 805 781 7173 P.02
1 'TATF OF CAUEMNIA etw Da�ic (. ma
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 364
' SACRAMENTO,Cn85614
(916)653.4092
(916)657-5390-Fax Cl f Y iiF
August 21,.2002
LynCityofSan Luis Obispo COMMUNITY UEVELUPMENT
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: SCH# 2002071126 - Boden Ranch Development, City and County of San Luis Obispo
Dear Ms. Azevedo:
The Native American Heritage Commission has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) regarding the
above project. To.adequately assess and mitigate project-related impacts on archaeological resources, the
Commission recommends the following actions be required:
Contact the appropriate Information Center for a record search. The record search will determine:
P If a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural
resources,
a If any known cultural resources have already been 'recorded on or adjacent to the APE.
a If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.
a If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
if an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report
detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.
• The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be
submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native
American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be a In a separate confidential
addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure.
' • The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the
appropriate regional archaeological Information Center.
Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for:.
a A Sacred Lands File.Check
a A list of appropriate Native American Contacts for consultation concerning the project site and to
assist in the mitigation measures.
Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation
of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act(CE-QA)
§15064.5 (f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a
culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge In cultural resources, should monitor all
ground-disturbing activities.
• Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered
artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
■ Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains in their
' mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §70S0.5, CEQA§15064.5 (e), and Public Resources Code
§5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human
remains In a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
' Sincerely,
Rob wood
Environmental Specialist III
(916) 653-4040
CC: State Clearinghouse
Aug-23-02 01 : 12P City of SLO-CD Dept. 805 781 7173 P.03
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISI'O
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT to 1p8 M
COUNT (A SAN LGIS C»;ISPO
CQMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: August 14,2002 '
TO: Lynn Azevedo
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department
FROM: Heather Tomlcy,Air Quality Specialist
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
SUBJECT: Bowden Ranch Development
Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed
our review of the Notice of Preparation and project description for the Bowden Ranch '
Development located off of Woodland Drive in San Luis Obispo. The District previously
reviewed this project and submitted comments on March 16, 2001. Our current comments are
similar to those submitted during our earlier review.
COMMENDATIONS
We would first like to commend the applicant on several areas of the project design.
1. The project provides development within the city limits,with nearby access to transit services
(SLO Transit Routes 1 and 3),which will reduce dependence on driving.
2. Pedestrian environment enhancements have been included,which will encourage walking: '
• The development has reserved an area for open space,which will maintain the aesthetics
of the neighborhood.
• Sidewalks have been proposed for inclusion along both sides of the streets,where '
applicable..
RECOMMENDATIONS '
Preparation for the 23 residential lots at the site will require an estimated cut and fill or
approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material. District stalrassessment of the potential
construction and operation air emissions indicate that the project will not exceed our CEQA
significance thresholds. Therefore, no specific air quality mitigations are required.
In order to reduce the potential for nuisance concerns to nearby properties during the construction I
phase of the project however,the District recommends inclusion of the following fugitive dust
mitigation measures:
• Reduce the amount of disturbed arca where possible.
• Speed for all construction vehicles shull not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface. '
• Should airborne dust be observed to leave the construction site area,water from water trucks
or another source must be applied in sufficient quantities to reduce those emissions.
1
3433 Roberto Court - San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 - 805-781-5912 • FAX: B05-781-1002 1
info@slodcanairorg + wwwAocicanairorg
,z�.t�rrnuvl un m�rfrl p.rlx•r
� APPENDIX B.
� Initial Study
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1�
'I
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 11-01
1. Project Title: Bowden Ranch Development
If2. Lead Agency Name and Address:, City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Whitney McIlvaine, Associate Planner
805-781-7164
�. 4. Project Location: 1636 Woodland Drive
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Karl Wittstrom, Bowden Ranch Partners
5875 Stockdale Road, Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-7489
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Low Density Residential
'! S. Description of the Project Planned development rezoning and subdivision of a 40-acre site
within city limits into 23 lots for single family house development and one 27-acre open space
lot with associated road and utility improvements. The project would require approval of creek
setback exceptions for modifications of the street system and an exception to City Engineering
standards which limit the number of parcels served by a common driveway to four. The attached
"Applicant Proposed Mitigation Measures" summarizes mitigation proposed to be part of the
project description.
' 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Open space, San Luis High School, and single family
houses.
I
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Tentative map approval. Planned development rezoning.
'!., 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
1
1
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers,Regional Water Quality Control Board '
1
�d CITY OF SAN LUIS OHISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 '
ENVMONMINTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project involving at least
one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics x Geology/Soils x Public Services
Agricultural Resources x Hazards&Hazardous x Recreation
Materials
Air Quality x Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportation&Traffic
X Biological Resobrces X Land Use and Planning x Utilities and Service
Systems
X Cultural Resources X Noise x Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X Energy
and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
X and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
x The project requires review by one or more State agencies such as Cal Trans or the California Department
o of F
f Fish and Game and is.to be sent to the State Clearin—ahouse for Toutm!z.
3
CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
DETERNIINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made;
or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s).have been added and agreed to by
the project rop-onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I.find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an X
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.is;required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment,but at least one effect
(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and(2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze
only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially sianificam effects (1)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ELR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of.NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required,
September 11,2002
Sigpature Daze
1
Ron whisenand. for John Mandeville
Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director
i
1
IIIINUMB CITY OF SAN LUIS OBispo 4' INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL E AFACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources:show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g.the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be eitplaiaed where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on,a project-specific screening analysis).
1 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there we
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant Impact" The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation"measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR; or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. . For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project
1
11
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially I=nan No
sigafficarit significant significant Impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact
incorporated
1. AESTHETICS. Would the proiect:
vp 1,3, X
a)'*''!Ei�'elw-"S"^Mtbs"='tia -rsere
27
flamaga-scenic.,,res dudih-'y -not X
Ilmrted io,trees,rock o1Jr.C.0An 0,;i
ping'-: space,-and-'
s, open� itnBtorc
buildiags-withih ii-lbiagonstate scenic haghway� '
Su6kirr� te onqiialit, df X
y
.t1T&;sit6=d its.surroundings'
d) -C-feate,inew sourceofsastantiEltght
th&.glziii;A#hic '-WO
l,
:A& effact.:day ni4rdimj�views.iii: e�zre .al �,�......
The site is currently undeveloped and characterized by meadows, an extensive cactus patch,hilly grassland,and stands of oak
and eucalyptus trees along the creeks. It lies above a stretch of Johnson Avenue, which is designated as a road of moderate
scenic value in the City's Circulation Element. The most significant views from this stretch of Johnson are looking
northwest(away from the project)toward Cerro San Luis and Bishop's Peak. The project is to the east of Johnson Avenue
in the Santa Lucia Foothills. Views of the foothills also contribute to the scenic quality of this roadway. Existing
development and vegetation will likely block views of new houses on the site from the Johnson Avenue corridor. The
immediate neighborhood adjacent to the site would be most affected by the visual impacts of developing home sites on the
property.
More distant views of site development could occur from other parts of town, which are at or above elevations similar to
those of the upper slopes of the project site Gust below the urban reserve line which follows the 460-foot elevation contour).
The Open Space Element (OSE) describes the hills and mountains surrounding and within the city as a major aesthetic
resource which defines the city (OSE p. 13). The Land Use Element states that subdivision approval in hillside planning
areas will include designation of-sensitive sites, which are subject to architectural review (LUE Programs 6.3.1 and 6.3.3).
Because this project is within the Woodland Drive hillside planning area, architectural review will be required for all new
houses, and designs will be subject to compliance with specified hillside development standards(LUE Policy 6.2.2).
The Final EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element updates states that land development increases resulting from the
adopted updates will unavoidably change the aesthetic character of the City. The EIR concludes that while site specific
impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of standard City policies and ordinances,
including project-specific environmental review, the cumulative change to the aesthetic character of the community is
unavoidable and significant. A thorough evaluation of project-specific visual impacts and identification of project-specific
mitigation will help to minimize cumulative unavoidable and significant aesthetic impacts (pp. 6.12-1 - 6.12-5 and 6.12-30
-6,12-32).
Possibly one of the most notable changes to the visual character of the site is the proposed tree removal. The proposed
alignment of Lizzie Street would require removal of 19 trees, mostly large Eucalyptus that form a fairly prominent canopy
along the northerly side of the main creek channel. Plans indicate that approximately 16 other trees- mostly oaks -would
be removed in conjunction with the proposed extension of Woodland Court. As mitigation, the project includes a proposal
for replacement planting at a ratio of 4 to 1, using sycamores, bay laurels, and oaks. The replacement plan does not indicate
where on site roughly 140 new trees might be accommodated.
Another potential aesthetic concern*is grading. To avoid exceeding the maximum slopes allowed by City Standards for
streets and driveways, grading cuts will be required-in some cases up to ten feet. Depending on the overall visibility of the
site and the final configuration of the streets, this may or may not be a significant visual impact.
Conclusion: Potentially significant. The overall layout of lots, building envelopes, construction of streets, and tree
removals may have associates aesthetic impacts. This issue should be addressed with the design of the subdivision in order
to maximize the effectiveness of mitigation rather than relying on architectural review cf individual homes after the
subdivision is approved.
EIR Workscope:
ST 2001
10100roM CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKU
' Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potwaauy I I=Than I No
Significant significant Significant Impact
ER * 11-01 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact
t Mitigation
incorporated
To better understand the potential visual impacts of the project,field studies should be performed to identify vantage points
from which site development would be most visible. A visual simulation of lot development, grading for streets, and
proposed tree removal would enable a better evaluation of the magnitude of this impact.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
' a) Convert.]'sime Farmland,Unique Fatmland,2or�atirilan&of 1, 2,7 X
Staten ide Zzgportance(F, and)-,as shacvri o�the mgps
pursuant to the.FarmlaniiTvlappiiig and Ivloriitormiogram of
the Qdifo=- aResoumms agency,tonon agtzcultnral use-
;b) Conflict W-ii exisfit>a zoning for.agncu7tttral use,ora X
Wiliiainson Act.cont met?
c) involue other changes in the existing environment W6;A-, due'to X
tlieu•;locanori or nature,•.could result m conversion nfFarmland,
to nonagricultural use? _.
The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program designates most of the site as potential grazing land. The lower 13 acres
will be developed with 23 homes consistent with the property's single family residential zoning. 27 acres of the site will
remain in open space along with the 180 acres of the Bowden Ranch located above the city limits line. The development
won't impact the grazing potential of this open space area. The property is not zoned Agriculture and is not in an
agricultural use.
Conclusion: Not significant.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the ro•ect:
' a) Violate any.<air quality standard.or contribute substatrhally to ail 1,5, X
existing orprojected.aii quality viplanon-.. . 23
b) Conflict witb or obstruct irnplaimentahon of the applicable air ` X
quality.plan?,
c) Expose sensitive receptorstosa"bstanfialpolltitant. X
concentrations?
d) Create.objecbmable.odorsaffectino�asubstantialnumbenof,.. ::,:.: X
' peoples
e) Result in a cumulatively considei able net increase of<any criter5a X
pollutant:for which the-proiect region is:non-attainm'entunder::
aiiapplicable.federal.or.state arnbierrt airquality standard
' (includmg•releasing emissions wfiich exceed-qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)...
The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the project (see attached letter dated March 16, 2001). The
letter concludes that the project,by itself,will not exceed CEQA significance thresholds and so will not significantly impact
air quality. Dust control measures are recommended during construction.Dust control is required by Appendix Section 3307
of the City's modifications to the Uniform Building Code. No additional mitigation is recommended.
The letter from APCD also includes sueaestions related to energy conservation,which on a cumulative basis, would help to
reduce emissions at a power plant source. See discussion and recommended mitigation under Energy and Mineral Resources
below.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project-
a) have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or 1;2,4,
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a. 8, X
' candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional 9,10,
plans,policies,or regulations, or by the California Department 11,12,
of Fish and Game or-.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 23.24
b) Have-a substantial adverseeffect, on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X
plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife'Service?
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially potemially Less Then Na
Significant Significant Sip ficant Impact
ER * 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues UnlessMitiggatiad Imp=
on
Incorporated
c) Confuctwii�i any localpahcies'ni ardtuancas protettng
in gi, lresources,suchasa7txeepregervattonpoltiyor X
ordttyaree(e a HerjtagejseesJ?
d) .Interfere substenually with the`mavemetit of airy native resident '
origxatory orwdlrfe sp,eeies orvvtth�stablished nanve X
residenfor mi natorya%iil&ffle corridors,or-Mi de use a£
wtdlife nurserysrtes?
ie) Canflct with the prav�sio� of an adopted habitat Cgnservaton
Plzn,Natural:Conimtni>y Conservation Plan,or other approved : X
local,nen.o7.ral,or state dia7ntat conservatzom plan?
Havee tibstatiiaal adverse effect:�n Feder'.' .otected wetlands
as defined m echos 404" f:the Clean Water Act(including, X
but:not 7 kited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc)through direct ;<
remcivaL'fillin` -h drcilo itaLinte tion;`ofother neans�
The following reports on biological resources were submitted with the project application. They are incorporated herein by
reference.
• Biological Survey,prepared by V.L.Holland,David Keil,and Francis Villablanca,dated December 2000.
• Supplement to the Botanical Survey (part of the biological survey) prepared by V.L. Holland and dated July 20,
2001
• Woodrat Monitoring Report,prepared by Francis Villablanca and dated July 22,2001
• California Red-legged Frog Biological Assessment Report, prepared by Julie Schneider and dated November 6, '
2000
• Biological Survey: Monarch Butterfly Habitat,prepared by Dennis Frey and dated January 2000 '
Rare,threatened,and endangered species, sensitive habitat, and species of special concern can be found on the project site.
The applicant proposes to mitigate most of the environmental impacts of development by avoiding the most critically
sensitive areas,where possible, and by setting aside an area of open space running roughly through the center of the project
site on either side of the main creek channel. The project was redesigned from its original layout to include the large open
space lot in response to conclusions of the biological studies and recommended mitigation contained within those studies.
Previous lot layout concepts are shown at the back of the document prepared by Oasis Associates, Inc.entitled"Development
Plan: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420 Bowden Ranch Estates" A brief summary of issues related to biological resources
as discussed in the various reports follows.
Woodrats: '
There are two species of woodrats that inhabit the site: the San Diego desert woodrat and the Monterey dusky-footed
woodrat. Both species are listed as state and federal species of special concern. The estimated population on site for the
areas surveyed is 14 to 21. Two of the four woodrat houses found on site are very near the proposed extension of Lizzie
Street. One is located in the clumps of trees on the boundary between lots 20 and 21. The latter would be removed as part of
proposed site development. While they would generally be found in the woodland and cactus patch areas of the site,
woodrats were also trapped in the grasslands.
Most of the currently proposed development would occur adjacent to rather than within woodrat habitat. Suggested '
mitigation includes minimizing vegetation removal and trimming at the rear of lots I through 7; imposing a `no-cut"
restriction along the southern edge of lou 8 through 12; minimizing brush and cactus clearing; and provision of replacement
nesting structures in the open space lot. Recommended mitigation should be evaluated and further refined to achieve
consistency with the tree removal plan and the fire management plan, and to determine the best method for imposing
recommended development restrictions. '
California red-legged frogs:
�iS CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO $ INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 '
1 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Sigaificait SigiiScan Significant impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless impactMitigation
Incorporamd
The site offers potential habitat for red-legged frogs and is within the known range of the species. This species was federally
Iisted as threatened under the Endangered Species Act on June 24, 1996. A survey was conducted in September, 2000. No
frogs were sighted.A report prepared by Julie Schneider,wildlife biologist, concludes that because the project is within the
range of this listed species, mitigation recommended in the report should be included in the project to ensure potential
impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. The mitigation recommended in the report appears to follow U.S. Fish
and Wildlife protocol,but needs to be quantified in terms of creek setbacks and riparian vegetation restoration.
Monarch butterflies:
Monarch butterflies have an overwintering roosting site in the western area of the open space lot at the confluence of the two
creeks. The monarch butterfly is a species of special concern in California where its range has been progressively restricted.
The proposed project, if left unmitigated, poses a potential threat to this monarch site as a result of site disturbance
associated with lot development, tree clearance, use of pesticides, and smoke from chimneys and bar-b-ques. The report
suggests minimizing construction activity during the overwintering period (November — February); restricting the use of
pesticides and biocides;preserving a Tin inimtun area around the identified roosting sites; and cooperation among biologists,
property owners and Fire Department staff during removal of brush for purposes of fire hazard abatement Grading plans
should be reviewed for potential impacts on trees identified as important to be retained in order to preserve the roosting site.
Rareand Endangered Plant Species:
Several rare and endangered plant species were found on the site,including the San Luis Obispo morning glory,the San Luis
mariposa lily, Palmer's spineflower, the San Luis dudleya, and HofEian's sanicle. According to the botanical survey, the
San Luis mariposa lily, Palmer's spineflower, and San Luis dudleva were found in the open space lot and not on other lots
proposed for development. The survey recommends off-.site in-kind planting at a minimum ratio of 3 to 1 as mitigation for
the impacts to the morning glory. Pre-construction surveys are recommended as well as a restoration plan. The restoration
plan should be developed as a mitisation measure. The loss of species and habitat should be quantified and the location for
off-site,in-kind planting should be identified. The method for planting/transplanting and-monitoring should be explained.
Potentially Threatened Habitats:
' Oak woodlands, Califomia native grasslands and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats by the California
Department of Fish and Game and the City of San Luis Obispo.Each of these habitat types can be found on the project site.
Both the riparian areas and the grassland areas contain both native and non-native plant species. These three types of habitat
together with the cactus patch offer food,foraging,water and nesting areas for wildlife.
Each type of habitat will be impacted to some extent by the proposed development The preliminary grading plan indicates
that certain areas of oak woodland will be removed as a result of road construction and grading. Roads, housing and
residential landscaping would occupy roughly 10 acres of grassland. Road construction will also involve grading within
creek setbacks. More intensive use of the site by humans and their pets could further diminish its wildlife and habitat value.
Mitigation recommended in the supplemental biological and botanical reports and incorporated into the project plans
includes maintaining large areas of grassland outside the development as permanent open space; using building envelopes
and covenants, conditions, and restrictions to protect the oak woodlands and forest corridors from direct and indirect impacts
associated with home development;replacement tree planting; designating a lot encompassing the major riparian areas as
open space; and developing a riparian restoration plan.
The EIR should evaluate the level of significance of impacts on biological resources and the adequacy of off-setting
' mitigation.
Wildlife corridors:
' To ensure habitat inaccessible to wildlife,the biological survey prepared for this project recommends that cross and rear-lot
fencing be reduced or eliminated,or designed to enable migration corridors.
Creek Setbacks:
�i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Pot�shy Less rasa rig
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Rench �� Impact
MItiInco orated
Local policies in the Land Use Element and Open Space Element address creek preservation and restoration of degraded
riparian areas. Construction of the proposed roadways through the site will involve grading and tree removal within the creek
setbacks in certain areas.Mitigation is proposed in the form of replacement tree planting and dedication of a permanent open
space lot containing the main creek channel.
The vesting tentative map shows the location of creek channels on the property and delineates a 20-foot setback from the top
of bank. City policy and regulations specify a 20-foot setback from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever ,
is greater. In some areas, particularly at lot 13,it appears that the setback line should be adjusted to extend 20 feet beyond
the edge of riparian vegetation,rather',lust from the top of bank
Where Lizzie Street would be extended and where Woodland Court would be constructed, portions of the roadways will
encroach into the setback area.In both cases this is unavoidable given existing rights-of-way and the location of creeks. In
the case of Woodland Court, the road will cross a creek. Tract improvement plans will contain a detail of the road
construction. Permits will be required from the Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Pesticide/Herbicide Use:
The use of pesticides and herbicides by future residents of the site could pose a danger to the natural biotic community which
currently provides for wildlife corridors and habitat for listed plant and animal species. The City's Open Space Element
recommends creating a buffer between development and habitat to be protected and preserved. Ideally, lou would not
encroach into sensitive habitat areas. Designating building envelopes on lots is less effective, since pesticide and herbicide
use is largely connected to landscaping and yard maintenance.As a rule,it is more straight forward to establish clear spatial
boundaries through lot configuration and subdivision design rather than try and impose behavioral limitations on property
owners.
Conclusion: Potentially significant As proposed,the project will encroach into areas of sensitive habitat.
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should summarize the findings and recommended mitigation strategies in the biological resource reports submitted
with the project application; evaluate the adequacy of reconssnended mitigation; and identify effective monitoring strategies.
Where potential impacts are identified, they should be quantified if feasible. Where off-site in-kind mitigation is proposed,
the off-site location should be identified and a restoration,management, and monitoring plan should be prepared or detailed
criteria for such a plan should be provided. On-site mitigation should be described in terms of location, installation, ,
management, and monitoring.Potential conflicting objectives contained within mitigation strategies should be resolved.
Mitigation recommended in the biological survey report and in the report on Monarch butterflies includes restricting the
planting of ornamentals and the use of biocides through covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&R's). While not ,
unreasonable, establishing behavioral limitations on property owners through CC&R's is problematic from a practical
enforcement and monitoring standpoint. Additional means of mitigation, such as establishment of biological easement areas,
should be identified.
The tree removal plan and the grading plan should be reviewed for potential impacts on sensitive habitat areas. Some
additional cross-sections and road Drofiles would enable a better understanding of the potential impacts to existing trees and
other sensitive species and habitats as a result of cuts and Ells necessary for roads and emergency access.
The preliminary grading plan should be reviewed for impacts to trees not shown for removal. The potential damage to oaks ,
as a result of grading and construction is outlined on page 49 of the Biological Survey prepared by Holland, Keil, and
V illablanca and dated December 2000.The extent of potential damage should be quantified. '
The EIR should document the extent of riparian habitat and include map exhibits that clearly delineates creek setbacks and
distinguishes between setbacks from the-edge of riparian habitat and setbacks from the top of creek bank.
The EIR should address the issue of resident use of pesticides and herbicides and identify means to reduce potential impacts '
�q3 - 1 tl INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
�s CITY OF SAN Luis Oaisao
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potermally Porouavr I Less Than No'
Significant Sipifwam sigafficam Impact
Issues
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Unless impact
Mtiption
r Incorporated
to a less than significant level.
The EIR should evaluate the project's potential impacts on local species of concern.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the pirgiect:
at=:or a,::�,- 4,6, X
sti erse,
Cau-sd*�5 nIffi—ddV 'ffi gnific
...... 150 .4j 13 14,
23
X
6 Directly or1idiiwiictly-' oy:a;.um X
que: eo
or
.;7
7s ie geologic'featur.e
d) Disturbanyhirmanzemams,'mc. X
foimal cemeteries
An archival records search and phase one archaeological surface survey were prepared by Robert Gibson for this project. That
report is supplemented by a historic review report prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, Inc. These
reports are incorporated herein by reference.
No archaeological resources were noted during the phase one surface survey. However, Mr. Gibson concludes that site
development will have an adverse impact on important historic cultural resources, namely those related to the La Loma
Adobe and surrounding lands. He specifically cites the windrow of Eucalyptus on the north side of the main creek, fencing,
pipelines, and water tanks as part of the historic context of the La Loma Adobe. A previous survey and monitoring on the
parcel immediately east of the adobe encountered historic bits of glass and ceramics, shells, bone, and a small cobblestone
foundation. Similar items could be encountered during grading in the area once occupied by a farm house (near proposed lot
3)and where a large wooden barn was demolished in 1996.
The proposed project would remove the Eucalyptus windrow and would involve grading
for house foundations, utilities, and
roadways,which could impact buried cultural resources. The historic review report provides documentation and mapping for
the historic features identified in Mr. Gibson's report. According to the conclusion section of Mr. Gibson's report, the
historic documentation in itself could provide adequate mitigation for the adverse impacts to cultural resources. CEQA
Section 15126.4 notes that in some cases, documentation of an historical resource will not mitigate the effects to a less than
significant level. In the same section, it is also stated that where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each
should be discussed and the basis for selecting a certain measure should be identified. This analysis would be most
appropriately included as part of an Environmental Impact Report.
A letter from the Board of the Friends of Las Casas de Adobe, dated April 20, 2001, raises concerns about the adequacy of
the historic review report The letter note, that the report does not evaluate the likely effects of development on the
identified historic features.
Conclusion: Potentially significant
Mitigation:
A qualified archaeologist, familiar with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources, and approved by the Community
Development Director,shall be retained to monitor project grading and trenching activities.If any archaeological resources are
found during site preparation, all earth-work within 150 feet of obj ea(s) shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a
archaeologist. Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evahiated by the Community
Development Dirmtor, and upon DT=or approval,implemented by the applicant.
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the
archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note
concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project.
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should clearly identify likely impacts to historic resources on site as well as to the La. Lorna Adobe. It should
601ra CITY OF SAN Luis Campo 11INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially PomouauyLess Than No
Significant Significant Sigoifiaat Impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues unless Impact
T% tigation
Incorporated
provide project alternatives that do not impact the historic resources identified in Mr. Gibson's report Where project ,
alternatives will involve adverse impacts,the EIR should identify adequate means of mitigation.
A qualified archaeologist, familiar with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources shall review project plans, and
develop an historic monitoring plan which outlines the monitoring method and schedule; identifies the most sensitive areas;
and includes a final report of results with map exhibits. The monitoring plan shall specify that if excavations encounter
significant cultural materials, construction activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is ,
determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Any additional mitigation
measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community Development Director, and upon Director
approval,implemented by the applicant.
Given the likelihood of encountering historic resources and artifacts during on-site grading, a schedule for pre-construction r
monitoring should be established. This would involve trenching under the supervision of a qualified historic archaeologist
approved by the Community Development Director.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the orroiect:
a) Cobflfct•wtfth adopted«ergy conservafwn plans" 1.5 X
bj Lseatm-renewableresources
ma wastefula¢d inefficient X
tnannet'�
c) Result the loss of availability ofa Ima}vn anmerat esoutxe '' X
that vvbuld be:of valnte to ti"giton and the resxients`.of fhe
-,:-
The Energy Conservation Element policies encourage the use of techniques to minimize energy use, such as designing
subdivisions to maximize solar exposure. Lots proposed are large enough to enable houses to take advantage of solar
exposure without requiring that the longest dimension of the lot be oriented within 30 degrees of south.
To address the cumulative impacts of energy use on air quality, comments from the Air Pollution Control District
recommend that building design exceed baseline energy efficiency standards.
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. ,
Mitigation:
• All glazing shall be dual paned.
Wall and ceiling insulation shall exceed Title 24 energy standards to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
• Appliances,furnaces,water heaters,and lighting shall be high-efficiency and energy-conserving to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
• The project shall use energy efficient lighting.
• Landscaping plans for individual lots shall include shade trees along the southwestern side of the houses to reduce
summer cooling needs.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to.potential substantial adverse' 1,15,
effects,including risk of loss, injuryar:death involving;. 16,
17. 25
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault;as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,•or.based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
R. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic related ground-failure,'including liquefaction!?. X
�i CITY OF SAN LUIS 0sispo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 '
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poumfally Potentially Less Than No
Significant sipff=rl sisaffic= impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact
mitissfion
Inco orated
X
X
X
resultwould become�tnsileas a
roffsite']andsIldes
1"eal" pidin
-d).
Be. e expansive-Anal, X
'4L 'Yn:
4 u
X
�Or.
Earth Systems Pacific prepared three reports for this project: a geotechnical feasibility rep a geologic hazard study, and a
0 Ort,
soils engineering report— all of which are incorporated herein by reference. An addendum report, dated January 25, 2002,
which addresses the use of individual on-site detention basins and the potential for debris flow was also submitted.
The primary geotechnical concerns with development of this site, as identified in the geologic hazard study, are the potential
for differential settlement,the existing fill soils,the expansive on-site soils,the erodible nature of the soil, and the potential
for localized hard or cemented areas within the sandstone that may be encountered during excavation (Geologic Hazard Study
p. 5). In the past, during heavy rain fall, rocks and boulders have moved down*through hillside drainages above Johnson
Avenue. The addendum report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific concludes that this is not a likely scenario for the project
site.
Field observations did not include any evidence of slope instability or landsliding(Geologic Hazard Study p. 6). Due to the
shallow bedrock underlying most of the site,there is little or no potential for liquefaction(Geologic Hazard Study p. 8). The
site is not located in an Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no mapped faults crossing the site. However, the site does have
the potential for experiencing strong ground shaking from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults-as does all of
San Luis Obispo(Geologic Hazard Study pp. 6-9).
One issue raised in the geologic hazard study is the potential for flooding where the three drainages merge in the southwest
area of the site. This could affect lower lots between the main creek channel and Woodland Drive. Flooding is discussed
below under Hydrology and Water Quality.
The soils report provides extensive direction regarding drainage improvements and soil stabilization during and afxi
construction to address the issue of soil erodibility. The same report also provides very thorough direction for grading and
construction of foundations to address the soil and slope characteristics of the site.
Since the soils report was prepared, the project has been modified to include a proposal for individual detention basins on
each lot with a 5000 gallon capacity.The addendum report addresses this issue.
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation:
All recommendations contained in the soils engineering report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific for Tract 2420 and dated
April 23, 2001 (File No. SL-12332-SB)shall be incorporated into the project grading and construction.
EIR Workscope:
Alternatives to proposed detention basins or underground holding tanks on each lot, such as fewer and larger detention
basins, should be evaluated.
Slopes pose somewhat of a constraint in terms of gading necessary for roads and driveways as well as soil erosion. The EIR
should include a slope analysis exhibit which distinguishes slopes across the site in the following categories: 0-5%, 6-10%,
11-11%, 16-21%,2i-25%, and 26%or more,prepared using City-approved methodology.
The EIR should include an analysis of the extent of cut and fill necessary to achieve the maximum slopes for fire access
(IS%),fire truck tum-arounds(4%),and private driveways(20%).
CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenually Potantially less Than No
Significant SignificnA Siprifio= Impart
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues unless impact
Mitigation
Incomorated
8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Dro'ect: ,
a) Createastcant.'�=cLio'Efie:pn$ltcof theemuonmeat X
dmii the rautrnense,tr�nsportRordisposalofltaaardous 12,18,
matenals� 21 '
_b) Creath a stgnificant hazard to thepubhc or:the environment f X
aglr"reasoizably foreseeable upset-ati3acctcYent condmoms
uivolutng the release ofhazar�daustnatenals mto the`
' envttotnnent� ` 4 •
c) F.mtt haze dous empmons or handle hazardous or:acutely y: X
hazardous mazenals,substances,or v isle wtthm one gtrarter
mtle;1f anezistmg orpropgsedschoo]?
:.:d) Expose people or structurest. existing sources oThazardous X
emisstorts orlhazardous:�or�ctrteIX�hazardons materials, ,
substances, waste,
g) Be located on,a sitezvkcht is MCTI ad on:a.Inst ofhazardous X
materials sttes:conipiled pursua;443-Government Code Sectton
6596.2 S aid,:as a result;it4'W crege.a slguficatit ha'zard.to
the p''u corthe environment?
f} Fora,.project:located=within an airport hand use plan or avtthai X
two miles of a.pulilicairpart,woultithe piolect resiiltm a s
Safety hazardforthepeopleresiding.orivorl�gml.h proJect
�) .Impair tmpleinentatson of ar physically interfere with,fhe X
adopted emeigpncy respome:p�aramer�ency evacuation.pIan'?;.`.
h) .Expose people.or structures to a-sflcant risk oflose,;in7ttry, X
.or death, inWlvmg wild_land fires; including where 'ildlands
' - d
are adjacent to urbanized areas br•wherer�stdentsareintermixe
with wildlands
Environmental site assessment•.
Earth Systems Pacific prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for this project, incorporated herein by reference.
The assessment revealed no evidence of recognized hazardous materials on the property.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Pesticides and Herbicides: '
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Refer to the discussion in the section on Biological
Resources.
Wildland Fire:
The project site is shown on Figure 2 in the General Plan Safety Element as an area of high fire hazard potential. A fire
management plan,incorporated herein by reference,has been submitted with project to reduce potential fire hazards to a less
than significant level. The City Fire Marshall has reviewed the fire management plan submitted for this project. His
comments are attached.The document has been revised as of February 5,2002 to reflect his recommended changes.
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation: '
The Fire management plan shall be implemented as part of this project.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: ,
a) Violate any water quality sM ar4s.oi jvaste..discharge:;;,;,_;,'.;. 16.19, L X
#ei CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 ,
' Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Porentiauy Potentially Less Than No
Significant Sigaificarn sip£icant Impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact
' Mitigation
Inco orated
Tegturemem57:. 25
b� Y.-depun
leteodwatErsuppltes Drmterfere X
subsfanfia7i withgroundwater recharg@;such thatthere would
be anet deficitm aqurfervoiume ar a lowering of:fhelocal
' otmdwater table leve](eg Thepproduc i tate of preexrsfmg
nearby wells�wnuld drop to a level �vh1 Vo mot suppoi2
exi�ftn�iand.uses for which pe=tite hay@'beenarited�?
c) 4Cisate or cchtnbbutemmoff water which would ratceed the X
capaetty of existing or planned'storm water dratriage s3 steins or
provide.substamual additional.;sources of:pnlluted runofl
d): substantially alter;lie existutg dratnage.pattein of the site•or' X
area.in a manner which wouldiesult inaubstantial.erosion or
siltation onsite or;offsite'�
e) - .Substanuallq alter-t existing drainage.pattern of the site-or. X
' area3n ainnanner which would-result.m substantial flooding.-;
onsite or offsite
f) Puce homsmg widmm a]00-year.flood hazard area.a trapped on X
a`F6deia7 Flood Hazara'Bounda.` 6416od Insurance Rate Map
or otherflaodhazard.deTmeatzon�napv
Place wiUn x.100 year' oodha=ar area structures.whrch X
would;impede.or redireft.fi6oi3towS9
' hj `Qth&wise substan tall .degrade wzter-01witY2 "L X
Site development will affect four drainages that cross the property.The Flood Insurance Rate Map only shows a small area of
the project site near the intersection of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane within a 100-year flood zone.
A General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit is required from the State Water Resources Control Board. The soils
engineering repos, prepared by Earth Systems Pacific, notes that on-site soils are highly erodible and will require
stabilization during and after construction to reduce erosion damage (p. 23). The report notes the importance of landscaping
' in erosion control..
Improvements to Woodland Drive and construction of the Woodland Court entrance to the site will involve crossing the
creek that runs alone Woodland Drive. Changes to this channel will require permits from the Department of Fish and Game,
' the Army Corps of Engineers; and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
A drainage study was prepared by Engineering Development Associates for this project and is herein incorporated by
reference. The drainage study indicates that runoff after site development will not increase significantly over current site
' runoff due to the steepness of the site and existing impervious areas related to site soils and geology. With on-site detention,
post-development runoff is projected to be less than current runoff. It notes that the existing storm drain in Lizzie Street does
not have the capacity to handle a 10-year storm. Storm water currently over tops the inlet during heavy winter storms,
' sometimes resulting in down stream flooding.
Mitigation:
' Prior to issuance of any grading permits for subdivision improvements, the subdivider shall submit copies of permits
required by the Department of Fish and Game,the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
for work affecting wetlands and creeks.
' EIR Workscope:
The EIR for this project should include:
' • a summary, of the drainage analysis as prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed by the City Public Works
Department
' • an analysis of alternative methods of on-site storm water detention
�Q
CITY OF SAN LUIS Oeispo. 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources I Potentially poseatially Less Than No
Significant Significant sip ficaat Impact '
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues ��on Impact
Inaornorattd
• a method for filtering storm water before discharging it into the creeks ,
• a method for dissipating discharged storm water
• an erosion control plan for construction activity and post construction soil stabilization, or detailed criteria for such
a plan
• an analysis of potential solutions or improvements to the existing storm drainage problem, such as increasing the �.
intake capacity of the storm drain in Lizzie Street and capturing and redirecting storm water runoff in Woodland
Drive The project description should provide preliminary details of such improvements to enable evaluation of their
environmental impacts.
10 LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the ro'ect
a) Conflict with applica1ile.lau3 use.paid policy, Qojegu4-dii:6f. 1,23 X
iii agerrcy.vvifh 3uris li'ction ovei the project adopted for tlie`
purposeofzvoidrng-orznmgatin as environmeatat.affect?
6') Physicafly divide an establiibed c' X
c) Conflietwith any applicable habrtarconservafion p}aii or.natural' X 1
_'communi :conservation Tans
The City's Land Use Element map and official zoning map designate the project site as suitable for low-density residential
development. Policies and development guidelines are contained within the Land Use Element related to residential
development and residential hillside development in particular.The Open Space Element contains policies addressing private
development in and near areas with sensitive habitat or unique resources (as defined in the Open Space Element). The
Housing, Circulation, Safety and Conservation Elements also contain policies relevant to the proposed development.
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation will be necessary for compliance with
relevant general plan polices.
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should include a discission of relevant City general plan policies related to land use, safety, housing,
environmental protection and conservation and an evaluation of project consistency with those policies. '
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
-a) .Exposure:of people to.or:generation of"_unacceptablenoise 24 X
levels as define'd b3•,the.San Lris,Obispo.General Plan NDrse ,
Element,Oi veneral.noiseaevels in•excess of standards
established in the Noise.Ordmance�
b) :A substantial temporary,:periodig,.orpermanent increase m X
ambient noise levels in the project vicmtty above]eve ls existmg.
withoutthe,project?
c) , Exposure-6f persons to or geileraticn of excessive.ijoundborne . , X
vibration-or.groundbornE noise ieV610
d). For a project 3ocated within:an air'
ort:land use.plan,orwithin . X
two miles Of a public airport or putilit use-airport,'wduld-the
project expose people residing or working-in the project'areato
excessive noise levels?
Thep
roject will generate noise during grading and construction. These activities are subject to the Noise Ordinance. To
avoid exposing surrounding residents to excessive and prolonged amounts of noise, the following mitigation is
recommended:
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation:
�a6 CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues,. Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Po=i1auy Less Than No
significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Grading and construction work shall occur during the weekdays only and not on Saturday, Sunday,or holidays.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the.prqiect:
A .., X
.
1ddu6e'&VYstaii �popiflatior��gro'vidhrzdy
,
. Ilb
'y prOpMeSDV': usinesses or
OSMg '=W..
indirectly q
Jisp ze.-su suntial" iii6 fX
'�ig'hduS
Ous
Census data indicates that there is an average of 2.27 people per household. As proposed,the project would result in 23 new
houses for an estimated total additional population in this area of 52.21 people.
Conclusion: Less than simificant.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
..;6) 'F.M, protecI ' ti,on?, . . .. . .. " t
i
24 X
_b eprotectiof'?
X
s0idoo .. ......
�C)
X
-d) Parks .
X
'tift, on-m cture?
oadsia�doiffiez7trans I X
27a
stru
p
X
f) -'Qfhet� iiblic:f es2- . -:.' -:' . -
Police: The City police force is adequately staffed to provide service to this site.
Schools: The project will be subject to payment of school fees.
Parks: The project will be subject to payment of park-in-beu fees.
Fire and Roads: The provision of public roads and emergency and fire access to the Site Will require grading that may have an
adverse physical impact on the environment.
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Refer to the discussion under Biological Resources
related to potential impacts resulting from proposed grading.
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should briefly summarize provision of public services to the project including servicing potential formal public
access to the open space areas,
14.RECREATION. Would the project:
ii) Increase the use of existing:neighborli66d or a].
re ion -parks or . I X
g ,
other recreationa]Acilities�sucb that siibstantial:phys ical.
'deterioration ofthe fkcilitywouldoccur or be accelerated?
b) 'Include'riecreational facilities of-require the construction.Dr., X
expansion ofrecreational facilities, whichmight have an adverse-
Dhysical effect an the environment?'
Conclusion: Less than significant With a maximum number of 2') households,the impacts on recreational facilities will be
less than significant. Furthermore,the subdivision is subject to payment of park in-lieu fees. Currently, informal trails lead
through the site to the open hilisides beyond. The project is designed to retain access through the site to the existing hillside
trails. Parking is provided on the southerly side of Lizzie Street for hikers. Mitigation is also recommended in the
Transportation section of this initial study which would require provision of short-term bicycle parking to encourage hikers
to bike to the site. It is not anticipated that the project will increase existing use of the trails. However, the EIR should
address potential secondary impacts associated with trail use on existing and future residents of the area.
EIR Workscope:
A CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poteatially Potentially Less T No
Significant Sigoificam Significant Impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues Iv ti�oa Impact ,
Incorporated
The EIR should address current and proposed use of the trails leading through the site and up to the eastern hillsides;
possible impacts on existing and future residents of the area in terms of traffic, litter, trespassing, privacy, and noise;
adequacy of proposed parking for trail users; designated times for trail use; and the desirability of any additional amenities
such as trash receptacles and informational signs.
15 TRANSPORTATIONPI UMC Would the roiect. ,
a), Cause"anmcreasem`gafficvrhai7tsubstaritTaianreIzttomto 1, 20 7�
eitisitng traffic load and capacity of the Jslreei systeml
Li) Exceed,either,i>7dtvxduallq or ciuniilahvely,.a leuelSof setance X
st rnQ established by:the county.i oAgesnpn.tnanagement
agency,fordesigrim. --roads and}u"ghways�
cj. Substanftally increase fiasards due to design features e& sharp X
curves:ordanewns mteisecttans)ar mcompaftbleuses{e g
farm�qurpmentjv :i i ;:
d) Resultin tnatteGuate emeigencg ac6ass.. X
e) Restilt'm mai3equade parking capacify
".onsite or-0$srtti? X
fl` Conf�ictwlthadoptedpoliclessuppomagalxernatroe` X
transportatlon(6 g bus turnouts,bicycle raaks}'�
ConfIictwttli3lrewlth baa Luis Obtspootnty Airport Land; '` X
Use:P]an resultingzt sabstatthalsafety risks'from hazards,
noise;.or a.chant a as atr traffic
The ITE Manual estimates approxumately 10 trips per day for each single family house. As proposed, the project would
increase daily trips by approximately 230. A traffic report was prepared for this project by Penfield and Smith Engineers and
is incorporated herein by reference. The'report analyzed peak hour impacts on the Lizzie Street and Johnson Avenue
intersection and concluded that the additional traffic generated by this project will not reduce Ievel of service at this
intersection. At the peak hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., the project is
projected to add roughly 17 and 23 trips respectively through the intersection. Existing traffic counts for this time period
were 1,863 cars in the morning peak hour and 1,948 in the evening peak hour. The project, therefore, would increase peak '.
hour traffic by roughly one percent.
The three streets in the immediate vicinity of the project are classified as local streets, which have the capacity to serve this
development subject to certain improvements. Woodland Drive and Wilding Lane will be improved to include sidewalks. A
portion of Woodland drive will be widened. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and their continents are
attached.
To enable emergency access, parking will only be allowed on one side of the street along the extended portion of Lizzie '
Street and Woodland Court
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation:
To encourage hikers to bicycle to the site, consistent with alternative transportation policies in the Circulation Element, a
bicycle rack shall be provided reasonably close to the trailhead.
Local streets at the perimeter of the site and on-site streets shall be improved and constructed to the satisfaction of the Public ,
Works Director and the Fire Marshall.
ErR Workscope: '
The FIR should summarize the findings of the traffic study prepared for this project, project improvements related to traffic,
and relevant comments from the City's Public Works Department.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: '
�/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISpo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 ,
' Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources I Potentially Inco110tw lly less zbaa No
Significant signifirart significant Impact
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Iasis i mon Imps
' orated
a) Exceeiiwastewatertrsaiaiant requirements of the app3tcable 1, 24 X
' Reatinal Wa#er Quality Control B:oard�
ba Require or restilt me c
thvnstructioa.or e�tpanston fl -new*at& X
treatment, wastenwatertreatment,.or storm 4rama .Actlmes,
the:coastruetion bf.*hidh could canse:signincant environmental:.""
Have sufficteni`water sttQpTtes auailableo serve the pro3ect from'. X
exisxmg entt iementsand_resources,or are rev and:ezpanded
' water i esoutrxs needed?
d} Re' n -in a deteimmanon by the wastewater.treatment provrder X
which serves ormay serve theproject that it has adetauate
capacity to.serae tilzprgject'sprgjected demand and addifi6 n-to
' tha provider's wdsf i! committtent�
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficientpermitted capacity to X
accommodafe..the projecEZs solid.wasfe disposal needs9
' 1) Comply with federal�.state,and Tonal statufes andregulations - X
-ielated to solid waste?
Water Availability:
' The City's Water Conservation Coordinator has reviewed the proposed subdivision and estimates that 23 homes would
require approximately 10.3 acre-feet of water annually.As of December 4, 2001 the City has approximately 142 acre-feet of
water available to allocate to infill development.
The City of San Luis Obispo obtains its water from a combination of surface and groundwater sources. Adopted safe annual
yield from these sources is 7,530 acre-feet per year. The City is pursuing the development of additional water supplies,
including the Nacimiento Pipeline Project,the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project,expansion of groundwater resources, and
the Water Reuse Project.Reuse of treated wastewater for non-potable needs, such as landscape watering, will reduce demand
on potable water supplies. This is likely to be the first additional source developed and is projected to yield roughly 1200
acre-feet per year at buildout Half that amount would be held in reserve. The other half would be used in place of potable
water,thereby increasing the amount of potable water available for allocation by roughly 600 acre feet per year.
' Planning for future water use in the city is based on an average consumption of 145 gallons per day per person or 0.162 acre-
feet per person per year,which is somewhat higher than actual consumption during and since the most recent drought. Based
on this water use raze and current city population, present demand is about 7,246 acre-feet per year. This number is
recalculated annually using updated population estimates from the California Department of Finance. The difference between
safe annual yield and present demand is 284 acre-feet per year, which is available to serve new development Half this
amount(142 acre-feet)is available for development in infill areas.
The Utilities Department has reviewed this subdivision application and determined that it is consistent with the Water
Management Element and that there is sufficient water supply available to serve site development, although water pressure
may be an issue.
Comments from the Utilities Department note that water pressure for the uppermost lou may not meet the City's objective
of a minimum of 40 pounds per square inch at the water meter. (This is an objective as a matter of practice, but not a policy
' requirement)Water supply calculations prepared by Engineering Development Associates indicate there should be at least 20
psi at the 460-foot contour, which is the City's service limit. The Uniform Building Code requires a minimum pressure of
15 psi at the furthest water fixture. With pressures below 40 psi, individual pumps may be required to provide adequate
pressure for a fire sprinkler system and to deliver the level of water pressure occupants expect for domestic water needs.
' Conclusion: Less than significant T-he Utilities Dept. states that water supply is adequate to serve the project, although
delivering water at pressures that exceed the minimum requirements may involve additional design considerations.
' Storm Drainage:
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Seethe discussion under Waier and Hydrolop.
(�8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potetitially Less roan No
Significant Significant sisifieant Impact ,
ER # 11-01 Bowden Ranch Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Solid Waste: '
Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Solid Waste Capacity states that
In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to development,the City must determine that
'adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting any discretionary land use approval which
would increase solid waste generation.
Solid waste from this site is delivered to Cold Canyon landfill, which currently has a capacity to accept solid waste for
approximately 18 years, based on the current rate of disposal and ongoing trends showing a reduction in per capita waste
generation. Measures to reduce solid waste are still needed to improve compliance with the Integrated Waste Management 1
Act of 1989.
Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989(AB939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly
2,500 pounds of waste per person per year. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air ,
quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity in the year 2018.
To help reduce the ongoing waste stream,the City recently adopted an ordinance which requires that a construction materials ,
recycling plan be submitted with construction or demolition plans to help reduce waste and comply with Assembly Bill 939.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
EIR Workscope: '
The EIR should summarize utility and service system requirements for the project and provide an expanded discussion of the
proposed water delivery system to ensure adequate water pressure for domestic use as well as fire sprinklers. ,
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Doessthe.project have the potential to degrade the gaahty of the X '
environment,substantially reduce the,-habitai ofia fish or
wildlife species,:causea fish,or:wildlife ptipularion to drop
below self-sustammo levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal commututy,.reduce the.number.orrestnot the range of a '
rare or endangered plant oranitriai or eliminate unpoi=t
exambles•ofthe major periods_of California historyor.
prehistory?
The initial study identifies that the project raises potentially significant impacts for all the issue areas checked in the table on
Daze 3.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually.limited,'but X
Cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" ,
means that the-M' cremental.effects of a project are considerable
wheir-viewed.in-connection with the.effects of:the past.;projects,
the effects of other current projects,and theeffects..of..:probable':
R
ture oiects
Impacts discussed under the headings of aesthetics,biology, cultural resources, energy,hydrology and water quality could be
considered to have cumulative sianificance.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X '
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
An EIR will be required to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with project development.
Mitigation measures recommended in this initial study, along with mitigation proposed by the EIR consultant, will prevent
the Droiect from resultine in substantial adverse impacts on humans.
NNiii CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001 '
' Initial Study Summary
Bowden Ranch Development
TR/PD/ER 11-01
I$ EARLIER ANALYSES
Earhernalystama �emsedw]ter tusuanttofTtedt a o
y ea p erina,pr great Env. �Tlter �process; one or mora e$eds 3iave.
1 enadequateTy ana zed an
:ear, '0 or NegaTrue Dec"larattaon. Secfio>r 50fr3 (cj{3� D < `Ist tlirs case a d3soussro
'Slretlltlldea the£o'Ilo. 3te�1S' ', '� ,.
^,a: ,:Rarlier.anal'""',used. :Iden ':earner--. .."ses,aird:§ta�.w"liefeth . afe:avatTableforrevie� w:. ... ...:'='U``3 `�.'Ff
N/A
b) 7pacts aileinately addressed Jdettitfy yvhrdi effectssfFom f1e above rOlecklrsf rovere'svtfhm fire scope of and'
ategiiately analjzed ui an�ar7rer documeiit,prrrsuant to appItcable legal sthndards and state whetTier Such effects were'
'..•: addressed b mlti `.. ineasurEs based onahc:earlier analvsiss... .'r`:: �, , .. . ... .._; t: . .•.�'_. ,-
N/A
' rj ]9IifrgafJon aaea'svres For effects that are"T essthat Srgntflicaat wrTrvltfrgahan, Incorpo' describe lite M �o o
m_ias+,*P�whrehwere incorporated oLrefined frombe 8arlieC document andtfre extenrtQwihichFiey:address site-specific;.
_coitditinns;of1h6.,. fb ect:'
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Ordinance
3. ARC Guidelines
4. Information Map Atlas
' 5. 1998 Clean Air Plan, SLO APCD
6. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines
7. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency
8. * Biological Survey, prepared by V.L.Holland, David Keil, and Francis Villablanca, dated December 2000; and
supplement dated January 2001
9. " Supplement to the Botanical Survey(part of the biological survey) prepared by V.L. Holland and dated July 20,
2001
10. * Woodrat Monitoring Report,prepared by Francis Villablanca and dated July 22,2001
I 1. * California Red-legged Frog Biological Assessment Report,prepared by Julie Schneider and dated November 6,
2000
' 12. * Biological Survey: Monarch Butterfly Habitat,prepared by Dennis Frey and dated January 2000
13. * Archival Records Search And Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey,prepared by Robert Gibson and dated
July I7, 2000
14. * Historic Review Report,prepared by Chattel Architecture,Planning,and Preservation,Inc. and dated December
21. 2000
15. * Geotechnical Feasibility Report for Bowden Ranch Estates,prepared by Earth Systems Pacific and dated July 11,
2000
16. * Soils Engineering Report Bowden Ranch Estates,prepared by Earth Systems Pacific and dated August 23,2001
17. * Geotechnical Hazards Study for Bowden Ranch Estates,prepared by Earth Svstems and dated July 19,2000
18. * Fire Management Plan,prepared by Oasis, and dated 8/30/01
19. * Bowden Ranch Drainage Analysis prepared by Jeff Emrick,EDA and dated 12/21/01.
20. Traffic Study prepared by Penfield Smith and dated 1/18/01
21. * Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Earth Systems Pacific and dated 11/13/00
22. * Water Systems Analysis prepared by Engineering Development Associates and dated 8/31/01
23. Comments from City departments and other agencies(attached)
24. San Luis Obispo City Municipal Code
25. * Letter from Earth Svstems Pacific dated January 25,2002 regarding detention basins and debris flow
26. * Development Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2420,prepared by Oasis Associates Inc. and dated January 2001
27. Final EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Element Updates, dated August 1994
* - Submitted by the applicant
hiftW Study Smnmary
Bowden Ranch Development
TR/PD/ER 11-01
Attachments: ,
Vicinity and project maps
Applicant's summary of project mitigation
Comments from City departments and other agencies
wm/ER/ER I I-01 Bowden tract
S
Initial Study Summary
Bowden Ranch Development
TRIPD/ER 11-01
Summary of EIR Workscope Items/Recommended Mitigation Measures
AESTHETICS
1 EIR Workscope:
To better understand the potential visual impacts of the project, field studies should be performed to
identify vantage points from which site development would be most visible. A visual simulation of lot
development, grading for streets, and proposed tree removal would enable a better evaluation of the
magnitude of this impact
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
EIR Workscope:
' The EIR should summarize the findings and recommended mitigation strategies in the biological resource
reports submitted with the project application; evaluate the adequacy of recommended mitigation; and
identify effective monitoring strategies. Where potential impacts are identified,they should be quantified
if feasible. Where off-site in-ldnd mitigation is proposed, the off-site location should be identified and a
restoration, management, and monitoring plan.should be prepared or detailed criteria for such a plan
should be provided. On-site mitigation should be described in terms of location, installation,
management, and monitorng. Potential conflicting objectives contained within mitigation strategies
' should be resolved.
Mitigation recommended in the biological survey report and in the report on Monarch butterflies
includes restricting the planting of ornamentals and the use of biocides through covenants, codes and
restrictions (CC&R's). While not unreasonable, establishing behavioral limitations on property owners
through CC&R's is problematic from a practical enforcement and monitoring standpoint. Additional
means of mitigation, such as establishment of biological easement areas, should be identified.
The tree removal plan and the grading plan should be reviewed for potential impacts on sensitive habitat
areas. Some additional cross-sections and road profiles would enable a better understanding of the
potential impacts to existing trees and other sensitive species and habitats as a result of cuts and fills,
necessary for roads and emergency access.
The preliminary grading plan should be reviewed for impacts to trees not shown for removal. The
potential damage to oaks as a result of grading and construction is outlined on page 49 of the Biological
Survey prepared by Holland, Keil, and Villablanca and dated December 2000. The extent of potential
damage should be quantified.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL.STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
L.
Initial Study Summary
Bowden Ranch Development
TR/PD/BR 11-01
The EIR should document the extent of riparian habitat and include map exhibits that clearly delineates '
creek setbacks and distinguishes between setbacks from the edge of riparian habitat and setbacks from
the top of creek bank.
-The EIR should address the issue of.resident use of pesticides and herbicides and identify means to
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The EIR should evaluate the project's potential impacts on local species of concern. '
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation:
A qualified archaeologist, familiar.with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources, and approved by
the Community Development Director, shall be retained to monitor project grading and trenching t
activities. If any archaeological resources are found during site preparation, allearth-work within 150 feet of
objects) shaE cease until the resources have been evaluated by a archaeologist. Any additional mitigation t
measures recommended by the archaeologist shaE be evaluated by the Community Development Director,
and up on Director approval; imp kmented by the app licant.
If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in
to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply
with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on thegrading and t
construction plans for the project.
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should clearly identify likely impacts to historic resources on site as well as to the La Loma '
Adobe. It should provide project alternatives that do not impact the historic resources identified in Mr.
Gibson's report. Where project alternatives will involve adverse impacts, the EIR should identify
adequate means of mitigation. '
A qualified archaeologist, familiar with both historic and pre-historic cultural resources shall review
project plans, and develop an historic monitoring plan which outlines the monitoring method and '
schedule; identifies the most sensitive areas; and includes a final report of results with map exhibits. The
monitoring plan shall specify that if excavations encounter significant cultural materials, construction '
activities, which may affect them, shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the
Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Any additional
mitigation measures recommended by the archaeologist shall be evaluated by the Community '
Development Director, and upon Director approval, implemented by the applicant.
�® CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Initial Study Summary
Bowden Ranch Development
TR/PD/ER 11-01
rGiven the likelihood of encountering historic resources and artifacts during on-site grading, a schedule for
pre-construction monitoring should be established. This would involve trenching under the supervision
of a qualified historic archaeologist approved by the Community Development Director.
r
t
t
i
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Initial Study Summary
Bowden Ranch Development
TR/PD/ER 11-0 1
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Mitigation:
• All glazing shall be dual paned
• Wall and ceiling insulation shall exceed Title 24 energy standards to the satisfaction of the 1
Community Development Director.
• Appliances, furnaces,water heaters, and lighting shall be high-efficiency and energy-conserving to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
e The project shall use energy-efficient street lights.
• Landscaping plans for individual lots shall include shade trees along the southwestern side of the t
houses to reduce summer cooling needs.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Mitigation:
All recommendations contained in the soils engineering report prepared by Earth Systems Pacific for
Tract 2420 and dated April 23, 2001 (File No. SL-12332-SB) shall be incorporated into the project
grading and construction.
EIR Workscope:
Alternatives to proposed detention basins or underground holding tanks on each lot, such as fewer and '
larger detention basins, should be evaluated.
Slopes pose somewhat of a constraint in terms of grading necessary for roads and driveways as well as
soil erosion. The EIR should include a slope analysis exhibit which distinguishes slopes across the site in
the following categories: 0-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20%, 21-25%, and 26% or more, prepared using
City-approved methodology.
The EIR should include an analysis of the extent of cut and fill necessary to achieve the maximum slopes
for fire access (15%), fire truck turn-arounds (4%), and private driveways (20%).
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation:
The Fire management plan shall be implemented as part of this project.
�8� CITY OF SAN.Luis OBISPo 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
Initial Study Summary
Bowden Ranch Development
TR/PD/ER 11-01
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mit OFtion:
Prior to issuance of any grading permits for subdivision improvements, the subdivider shall submit
copies of permits required by the Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board for work affecting wetlands and creeks.
EIR Workscope:
The EIR for this project should include:
• a summary of the drainage analysis as prepared by the project civil engineer and reviewed by the
City Public Works Department
• an analysis of alternative methods of on-site storm water detention
• a method for filtering storm water before discharging it into the creeks
• a method for dissipating discharged storm water
• an erosion control plan for construction activity and post construction soil stabilization, or
Idetailed criteria for such a plan
O an analysis of potential solutions or improvements to the existing storm drainage problem, such
as increasing the intake capacity of the storm drain in Lizzie Street and capturing and redirecting
storm water runoff in Woodland Drive Theproject description should provide preliminary
details of such improvements to enable evaluation of their environmental impacts.
LAND USE &PLANNING
EIR Workscope:
' The EIR should include a discussion of relevant City general plan policies related to land use, safety,
housing; environmental protection and conservation and an evaluation of project consistency with those
policies.
NOISE
Mitigation:
i CITY OF SAN LUIS Gaispo 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1
Initial Study Summary
Bowden Ranch Development
TR/PD/ER 11-01
Grading and construction work shall occur during the weekdays only and not on Saturday, Sunday, or
holidays,
PUBLIC SERVICES (environmental impacts of providing)
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should briefly summarize provision of public services to the project including servicing
potential formal public access to the open space areas.
RECREATION
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should address current and proposed use of the trails leading through the site and up to the
eastern hillsides; possible impacts on existing.and future residents of the area in terms of traffic, litter,
trespassing, privacy, and noise; adequacy of proposed parking for trail users; designated times for trail
use; and the desirability of any additional amenities such as trash-receptacles and informational signs. ,
TRANSPORTATION/T_RA_F_ FIC
Mitigation:
To encourage hikers to bicycle to the site, consistent with alternative transportation policies in the
Circulation Element, a bicycle rack shall be provided reasonably close to the trailhead.
.Local streets at the perimeter of the site and on-site streets shall be improved and constructed to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshall.
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should summarize the findings of the traffic study prepared for this project, project
improvements related to traffic, and relevant comments from the City's Public Works Department.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
EIR Workscope:
The EIR should summarize utility and service system requirements for the project and provide an
expanded discussion of the proposed water delivery system to ensure adequate water pressure for
domestic use as well as fire sprinklers.
Resources Available: All maps and studies submitted as part of the application.
=-A CITY OF SAN LUIS OsispO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
� APPENDIX C
� Air Pollution Control District Letters
AIR POLLUTiOr
CONTROL D(STRIC. � Attachment 5
DATE: March 16, 2001
TO: Whitney Mclvaine
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department
FROM: Heather Tomley, Air Quality Specialist
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
1 SUBJECT: Bowden Ranch Estates; Application #11-01
Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed
our review of the application for the Bowden Ranch Estates located off of Lizzie Street and
Woodland Drive in San Luis Obispo. We have the following comments regarding the proposal.
COMMENDATIONS
We would first like to commend the applicant on several areas of the project design.
1. The project provides development within the city limits, with nearby access to transit services
(SLO Transit Routes l and 3), which will reduce dependence on driving.
2. Pedestrian environment enhancements have been:included, which will encourage walking:
• The development has reserved an area for open space, which will maintain the aesthetics
of the neighborhood.
• Sidewalks have been proposed for inclusion along both sides of the streets,where
applicable.
RECOMMENDATIONS
District staff assessment of the potential construction and operation air emissions indicate that
the project will not exceed our CEQA significance thresholds. Therefore, no specific air quality
mitigations are required.
In order to reduce the potential for nuisance concerns to nearby properties during the construction
phase of the project however, the District recommends inclusion of the following fugitive dust
mitigation measures:
• Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
• Speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 rnph on any unpaved surface.
a Should airborne dust be observed to leave the construction site area, water from water tricks
' or another source must be applied in sufficient quantities to reduce those emissions.
In addition, increasing the energy efficiency at the site will decrease demand on electrical supply,
thus reducing emissions at the power plant source. Therefore, the District recommends including
the following energy efficiency measures:
• Increase wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements.
3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX: 805-781-1002
cleanair@sloapcd.dst.ca.us •: vA~sloapcd.dst.ca.us
printed on recycled Poper .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT 4"6 W
('Ol;\IY OP SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN
DATE: August 14, 2002
TO: Lynn Azevedo
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department '
FROM: Heather Tomley,Air Quality Specialist 44
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
SUBJECT: Bowden Ranch Development
Thank you for including the APCD in the environmental review process. We have completed
our review of the Notice of Preparation and project description for the Bowden Ranch '
Development located off of Woodland Drive in San.Luis Obispo. The District previously
reviewed this project and submitted comments on March.16, 2001. Our current comments are
similar to those submitted during our earlier review.
COMMENDATIONS
We would first like to commend the applicant on several areas of the project design.
1. The project provides development within the city limits, with nearby access to transit services
(SLO Transit Routes 1 and 3),which will reduce dependence on driving.
2. Pedestrian environment enhancements have been included, which will encourage walking:
• The development has reserved an.area for open space, which will maintain the aesthetics
of the neighborhood.
• Sidewalks have been proposed for inclusion along both sides of the streets, where
applicable.
RECON I ENDATIONS
Preparation for the 23 residential lots at the site will require an estimated cut and fill of
approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material. District staff assessment of the potential
construction and operation air emissions indicate that the project will not exceed our CEQA
significance thresholds. Therefore,no specific air quality mitigations are required.
In order to reduce the potential for nuisance concerns to nearby properties during the construction
phase of the project however,the District recommends inclusion of the following fugitive dust
mitigation measures: t
• Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
• Speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface.
• Should airborne dust be observed to leave the construction site area,water from water trucks
or another source must be applied in sufficient quantities to reduce those emissions.
3433 Roberto Court • San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 • 805-781-5912 • FAX:805-781-1002
info @slocleanair-org ❖ www.slocleanair.org 1
printed on recirted paper
� APPENPIX D
� Biologic Resources Technical Reports
i
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
Biological Resources Technical Report
Prepared by Jeff Tupen
' 2002
I. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A. INTRODUCTION
This section describes and analyzes the existing biological resources of the Bowden Ranch
' Development property (project site). The objectives of this section are as follows: 1) to
determine and summarize the presence of sensitive biological resources at and near the project
site; 2)to identify potential adverse impacts to these sensitive biological resources resulting from.
implementation of the proposed project; and, 3) to provide measures and practices to avoid,
reduce, or compensate for project-related impacts to sensitive biological resources.
Information provided within this section is based largely on intensive biological surveys
conducted in 2000 and 2001 on behalf of the applicant,.including:
• Frey, D. 2000. Biological survey. Monarch butterfly habitat. Woodland Drive
Specific Planning Area. Bowden Ranch Estates; San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared
for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning January 2000
' • Holland, V.L. 2001. Supplement to botanical survey. Woodland Drive Specific
Planning Area Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared for Oasis
Landscape Architecture and Planning on July 20, 2001.
• Holland, V.L. and L. Moody. 2002. Wetland delineation. Woodland Drive
Specific Planning Area. Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared
for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on July 22, 2002.
• Holland, V.L., D. Keil, and F. Villablanca. 2000. Biological survey. Woodland
Drive Specific Planning Area. Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis Obispo, CA.
Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on December 2000.
• Holland, V.L., D. Keil, and F. Villablanca. .2001. Supplement to biological
t survey. Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area. Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis
Obispo, CA. Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on January
2001.
• Small Planet Environmental Consulting Institues (SPECI). 2000. California red-
legged frog biological assessment report for the proposed Bowden Ranch Estates
' Development project, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Prepared for Oasis Associates,
Inc. on November 6, 2000.
1
1 Morro Group, Inc. 1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
• Villablanca, F. 2001. Final report. Woodrat monitoring Spring 2001. Bowden
Ranch, San Luis Obispo Co., Calif. Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and
Planning on July 22,2001.
B. EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. General
The approximately 40-acre project site is characterized by a diversity of habitat types located on ,
the west-facing slope of an unnamed hillside within the Santa Lucia Range. The project site
consists largely of annual and perennial grasslands, traversed from east to west by an unnamed,
perennial (i.e., flows. all year) drainage course and two ephemeral tributary channels. The '
drainage nearest Lizzie Street (mainstem) is mapped by the United States Geological Survey
(1995) as a "blue-line" stream, whereas the two ephemeral (i.e., flows only during and shortly
after rainfall events) tributaries are not shown. Oak woodland and blue gum Eucalyptus forest
compose the dominant vegetation near the project site drainage courses. Areas of coastal scrub
occur patchily throughout the project site.
Elevations within the project site range from 335 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the
intersection of Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane, to 465 feet msl at the eastern limits of the project
site near the base of the Santa Lucia.Range. Soils within the project site are mapped by the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS 1984) as Diablo and Cibo clays, 9-15 percent slopes, at the western
portions of the project site, and Los Osos (loam)-Diablo (clay) complex; 15-30 percent slopes,
within the steeper portions of the eastern project site. '
2. Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats '
Eight distinct habitat types were noted within the project site. These include:
• Coastal Valley and California.Native Grasslands;
• Coastal Scrub/Opuntia (cactus) Scrub;
• Coastal Live Oak Woodland;
• Blue Gum/Coast Live Oak Forest;
• Riparian Forest;
• Freshwater Marsh;
• Rock Outcrop, and;
• Ruderal/Disturbed Areas.
Within this section, blue gum/live oak forest is discussed from this point on as coast live oak
forest. While live oaks do occur in association with blue gum forest habitat within theproject
site, the former is not considered a dominant component of this habitat type: Four of the noted ,
eight habitat types form approximately 95 percent of the plant coverage within the project site.
These include grasslands, scrub, oak woodland, and blue gum forest. The location of these four
Morro Group,Inc. 2 1
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
1 major habitat types within the project site is shown in Figure 1. The following is a detailed
1 description of the eight habitat types mapped within and near the project site.
a Coastal Valley Native Grasslands/California Native Grasslands
Coastal valley grasslands consist of various species of native and introduced grasses and herbs,
occasionally including scattered shrubs. California native grasslands are those areas dominated
1 by native, perennial bunchgrasses, as opposed to turf-forming grasses. Dominant native,
perennial bunchgrasses include purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) and slender needlegrass
(N. lepida). Other native, perennial grasses included within this community type include blue
1 wild-rye (Elymus glaucus) and melic grasses (Melica california and M. imperfecta). Annual
grasses include wild oat (Avena fatua and A. barbata), bromes (Bromus diandrus and B.
hordeaceus), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and
1 annual ryegrass (Lolium multii forum). This is the most extensive habitat within the project site,
with the largest expanses occurring north and northeast of the planned extension of Lizzie Street,
1 and south and east of the planned extension of Woodland Drive (refer to Figure,l).
Grasslands provide hunting areas and habitat for a large number of vertebrate species. Wildlife
1 species known to forage in grasslands include western meadowlarks (nesting also), western
kingbirds, sparrows, and finches. Raptors such as golden eagles, white-tailed kites, northern
harriers (marsh hawk), red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, barn owls, and burrowing owls hunt
1 in grasslands. Raptors may also use the adjacent oak woodland and blue gum forest habitats as
sites (perches) to observe prey within the grassland habitat. Amphibians and reptiles such as
Pacific chorus frogs, western fence lizards, southern alligator lizards, common kingsnakes, and
1 gopher snakes also hunt in grasslands. Rodents such as California ground squirrel, Botta's
pocket gopher, western harvest mouse, and California voles feed and nest in grassland habitat.
These, in turn, are preyed upon by foxes, coyotes, and weasels. Mule deer were seen during
1 most evening site visits foraging in the grasslands. Bobcats and mountain lions prey on mammal
species found within grassland habitat.
1 b. Coastal Scrub/Opuntia Scrub
Coastal scrub habitat is typically dominated by small- to medium-sized shrubs with an
1 herbaceous understory. The dominant shrubs in.this community type are relatively soft-stemmed
plants that undergo a significant dieback during the summer. Dominant species within the
project site include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis
pilularis), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), bush monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), and poison
oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Well-developed stands of coastal scrub occur within the
east-central portion of the project site (proposed open space area) and offsite to the north of the
1 project site (refer to Figure'1). Within the central area of coastal scrub, Mission cactus (Opuntia
ficus-indica) is expansive and dominant.
fCoastal scrub vegetation provides excellent cover, nesting sites, and foraging habitat for a wide
variety of amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and other species. Some shrubs provide nectar
sources for insects and hummingbirds. Dense shrubs provide protection for small mammals such
as woodrats, and also for birds. Mule deer were observed bedding within the coastal scrub
Morro Group, Inc. 3
Bowden Ranch Development E1R Biological Resources
communities in the central ortion of the project site and within scrub located within drainages
P . P J � g
offisite to the east of the project site.
c. Coast Live Oak Woodland
Within the project site, live oak woodland habitat is restricted largely to the upper reach of the
perennial drainage, south of proposed Lot 13, and to the ephemeral drainage at the southern
portion of the project site, near Woodland Drive (refer to Figure;l). This habitat type is
dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), with subdominant species including California
bay (Umbellularia californica), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Peruvian pepper-tree (Schinus
molle), and blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus). Understory shrubs include coffeeberry (Rhamnus
californica), poison oak, California sagebrush, bush monkeyflower, and Mission cactus.
Coast live oak woodland provides cover, nesting sites, and foraging opportunities for a wide
variety amphibians, reptiles,birds,and mammals. Oak woodlands also support insects and small
mammals that are important food items for a number of vertebrates. Snags provide excellent
roosts for raptors, and provide nesting cavities for owls, kestrels, woodpeckers, nuthatches,
wrens, chickadees, and bluebirds. Monarch butterflies find refuge and roost within woodland
vegetation and its moderate microclimate.
d. Blue Gum Forest
This habitat type is generally a tall, human-influenced forest community where blue gum
(Eucalyptus globulus) towers over other trees and shrubs. Within the project site, this habitat
dominates the flora at and near all on-site drainage courses (refer to Figure 1). Several species of t
ornamental and introduced trees also occur as understory species within these habitats.
Allelopathic (i.e., inhibitive) chemicals leached from Eucalyptus debris inhibit understory
vegetation from germinating, while canopy shading commonly inhibits understory species from '
flourishing.
Blue gum forest habitat can offer significant wildlife habitat. -Within the project site, the most 1
important use of this habitat by wildlife is nesting trees for several raptor species such as red-
tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, and great horned owl. A juvenile great
homed owl was observed within this habitat during an August 6, 2002 site visit. In general,there '
are no known California wildlife species specific to introduced blue gum trees. Birds that use
blue gum forests extensively would be found in other wooded areas. Wildlife generally responds
to the physical presence of trees rather than to the species composition of the forest. Therefore, '
many of the same species listed for the coast live oak woodland would also occur in a mixed
stand of blue gum/coast live oak. Monarch butterflies are known to use the blue gum habitat
found within the project site. 1
e. Marian
Riparian habitat is defined within this section as near-creek vegetation that is intrinsically water-
dependent. The City of San Luis Obispo defines the term riparian as "characteristic of creeks or
their edges." (SLO 1997). Based on these definitions, not all plants that grow near creeks are
Morro Group, Inc. 4
1
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
1 _
considered components of riparian habitat. Riparian habitat within the project site is very poorly
1 developed and lacks any substantial shrub or tree components. Holland et al. (2000)reported the
presence of arroyo willow(Salix lasiolepis), serpentine willow(S. brewers), California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa), coast live oak, and California bay in association with project site
drainages. None of these species were considered dominants during fieldwork associated with
preparation of this section. Riparian vegetation largely consisted of herbaceous species such as
rushes (Juncus spp.), spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), sedges (Carex spp.), and hedge-
nettle (Stachys pycnantha). Though Eucalyptus and live oaks associate with on-site drainage
courses, they are not considered riparian components, as defined previously. Allelopathic
chemicals emitted from Eucalyptus may be responsible for the lack of true riparian tree and
shrub components at the project site. In contrast, Mission cactus (Opuntia jrcus-indica) has
flourished within the understory of the blue gum. Blue gum and Mission cactus compose
approximately 95 percent of the project site vegetation in the vicinity of the noted drainages.
Complex, well-developed riparian habitat may, and often does, support a diversity of wildlife
species. While riparian habitat of the project site is poorly developed, perennial water within the
t drainage nearest the proposed extension of Lizzie Court is important to site wildlife. Shading of
the water is accomplished by nearby blue gum Eucalyptus and coast live oak.
f. Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh habitat is typically characterized by herbaceous hydrophytes that may be
annuals (seasonal freshwater marsh) or perennials (perennial freshwater marsh). Freshwater
marshes occur in nutrient rich soils that are saturated through much or all of the year. Such sites
' commonly occur along the margins of creeksor other drainages. Perennial surface water is not
necessary for establishment of freshwater marsh habitat, as shallow water tables (seasonally
perched or perennial)may support a dominance of hydrophytes. Characteristic species within
' project site freshwater marsh habitats include sedges (Carex serratodens and C. spissa), tall
flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), spike-rush, rushes (Juncus bufonius, J. patens,J.xiphioides, J.
phaeocephalus), and seep monkeyflower(Mimulus guttatus). Within the project site, freshwater
marsh habitat is located in association with creek corridors at those locations where water moves
slowly or is ponded for any duration. Holland et al. (2000) also noted the presence of a seasonal
freshwater seep within presently proposed Lot 16. Dominant vegetation included two species of
' rushes,Juncus patens and J. xiphioides. The size of this seep area was approximately 825 square
feet(55 feet by 15 feet) at the time of the.Holland survey. Another seasonal freshwater seep area
was located during preparation of this EIR. It is located in association with the northern bank of
the southern-most project site drainage (refer to Figure':2). Vegetation is entirely herbaceous,
with dominant species including brown-headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus) and common rush
(J.patens).
Wildlife inhabiting seasonal freshwater marsh habitats found along the project site drainages
includes amphibians such as chorus frog, western toad, and California slender salamander. Other
species of wildlife expected to frequent this habitat type include raccoon, gopher snake, snowy
egret, and a variety of songbirds including red-winged blackbird and song sparrow. Freshwater
' marsh habitats within the project site are not substantially different from on-site riparian habitats
with regard to wildlife usage.
fMorro Group, Inc. 5
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
1
g. Rock Outcrops
With the exception of several scattered, small areas of rock, rock outcrops largely occur east of
and offsite of the project area Rock outcrops are typically sparsely vegetated to.non-vegetated. ,
Species typically found in association with rock outcrop habitats are tolerant of drought
conditions, or are able to root in the moisture of cracks and crevices in rock surfaces. Rock
outcrop habitat east of the project site consists of serpentinite, a metamorphic form of
magnesium silicate. Serpentinite is low in some essential nutrients (especially calcium) and high
in others (magnesium). Serpentinite may contain high levels of toxic metals such as nickel and
chromium. As a result, serpentinite rocks (and soils) support endemic (exceptionally unique) 1
floras and large numbers of sensitive plant species. Wildlife species known to associate with
rock outcrop habitats are similar to those noted within grassland and coastal scrub communities.
h. Ruderal/Disturbed Areas
Ruderal/disturbed areas typically support vegetation that is capable of withstanding human 1
disturbance. Examples include roadside shoulders, agricultural margins, and ornamental
landscapes. Although many of California's native plant species are able to grow in '
ruderal/disturbed areas, they often fail to become established due to competition with aggressive,
Eurasian species. Most successful weeds produce large quantities of seeds and readily invade
disturbed areas. Many have features/characteristics that allow their seeds to be widely dispersed. '
Within the project site, ruderal/disturbed vegetation occurs in association with the grassland
habitat and near the western portion of the property nearest the La Loma adobe. These
communities are often successional in nature, corresponding to the period directly following the
oriainal disturbance until some time later. Ruderal/disturbed areas may take years to return, or
may never return naturally, to the composition present prior to disturbance. Representative
species include oats, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), poison '
hemlock (Conium maculatum), bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), veldt grass (Ehrharta
calycina), fennel (Foemculum vulgare), prickly sow-thistle (Sonchus asper), and bur-clover
(Medocago polymorpha). '
There are no native wildlife species that are exclusively found within ruderal/disturbed areas.
Rather, species that have adapted to grassland habitats may commonly be found within disturbed '
habitats. These include meadow voles, gophers, white footed mice, brush rabbits, and pest
species such as house mice and introduced rats. A diversity of seed eating birds (e.g., sparrows,
finches, towhees, and juncos) and insectivorous/carnivorous birds (e.g., shrikes, kingbirds,
phoebes, swallows, egrets, hawks, owls) and reptiles (e.g., snakes and lizards) may also be
expected to occur within grassy disturbed areas. In summary, grassland wildlife species are also
likely to associate with project site ruderal/disturbed areas.
3. Sensitive Habitats '
Sensitive habitats are defined within the context of this project as:
Morro Group,Inc. 6
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
o Habitats recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as rare,
sensitive, important, or meriting further study (R. Holland 1986),
• Wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Environmental Laboratory
1987) and classified by Cowardin et al. (1979); or,
• Creeks and riparian corridors,as defined by the City of San Luis Obispo within its
General Plan Land Use Element(SLO 1997).
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2001, 2002) lists three sensitive habitat
types within the San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. These include serpentine
' bunchgrass, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and northern interior cypress.forest. Holland et
al. (2000) reported finding "California native grassland" within the project site. This habitat
corresponds well with the serpentine bunchgrass habitat described by R. Holland(1986).
a. Serpentine Bunchaws Grassland
1 The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2001, 2002) lists three sensitive habitat
types within the San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. These include serpentine
bunchgrass, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and northern interior cypress forest. Holland et
al. (2000) reported finding "California native grassland" within the project site. This habitat
corresponds well with the serpentine bunchgrass habitat described by R. Holland (1986).
Holland et al. (2000,pg. 6) summarized their observations within the project site as follows:
"The Bowden Ranch Estates is one of the few remaining sites where the California native
grasslands have maintained a dominance and form impressive stands...... Other stands
1 occur in the hillsides east of Cal Poly and in other scattered hillside areas around the
City of San Luis Obispo where they are often associated with serpentine...."
' Serpentine bunchgrass is open grassland typified by perennial (and generally native)
bunchgrasses growing on serpentine-derived soils. Total cover is typically low. Characteristic
species include needlegrasses (Nassella pulchra,N. lepida, and N. cernua), melic grass (Melica
californica), and several other non-native grass species. This community type is noted by R.
Holland (1986) as occurring widely through the coast ranges and, less commonly, in the Sierra
Nevada and mountains of southern California. The distribution of serpentine bunchgrass
[California native grassland] habitat within the project site was noted as occurring "....in the
upland, eastern portion of the development site", the "upper portions of the grasslands away
' from the roads.....", and "on and around the serpentine hillsides in the eastern portion of the site
outside the development area." Holland et al. (2000, pg. 6). The distribution of this habitat
within the project site was not mapped specifically during preparation of this EIR. However, its
distribution is approximated within Figure.1 as the distribution of grassland habitat.
b. Freshwater Marsh Habitat/Wetlands
Freshwater marsh habitat was documented by Holland et al. (2000) in association with project
site drainages (refer.to Figure 2). These habitats may qualify as jurisdictional wetlands using
I classification criteria of the Corps (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetlands are a sub-
classification of Waters of the U.S., as defined by the Corps. Two small areas of potential
Morro Group, Inc.
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
wetland habitat exist within the project site outside of defined creek corridors. One seasonal
freshwater seep dominated by rushes occurs within Lot 16 (Holland et al. 2000). The second
seep area, described previously, is located within the southern portion of Lot 8 in association
with the ephemeral drainage near Woodland Drive(refer to Figure 2).
On July 22, 2002, the applicant's consultants prepared a wetland delineation report for the
project site (Holland and Moody 2002). Within the Methods section of the report (Appendix
W, the investigators noted that they had conducted their fieldwork within only a small portion 1
of the project site, near the proposed drainage crossing at the planned extension of Woodland
Court Wetland habitat was identified within the defined drainage swale near the planned stream
crossing at lots 4 and 5. Due to these limitations in the extent of the wetland investigation,
potential wetland areas located within proposed lots 8 and 16 were not formally addressed.
The tops-of-banks of project site drainages were mapped using a Global Positioning System
(GPS) during preparation of this EIR to provide a liberal estimate of the Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) of each. The GPS mapping compared favorably to the applicant's land-based
survey of the top of bank alignment, and the latter is presented within this EIR (refer to Figure
2). The OHWM is a datum used by the Corps to delineate the extent of waters of the U.S.
Typically,jurisdictional wetland habitat is located within the OHWM's of a defined drainage.
Adjacent wetland habitat, as defined by the Corps, is commonly located adjacent to and outside
of the OHWM of a drainage. Potential wetland habitat was also mapped during mapping of
OHWM's. The locations of mapped OHWM's and potential wetland habitat are shown in Figure
2. For purposes of this EIR, all areas within the mapped OHWM's maybe considered sensitive
habitat. The City of San Luis Obispo requires 20-foot setbacks (buffers) from the top of bank
alignment to promote protection of stream resources. This setback.is shown within Figure 2.
1
c. Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat 1
Blue gum/live oak woodland habitat of the project site was noted by Frey (2000) to support
overwintering populations of monarch butterfly. While this species is afforded no special status
by the CDFG, its overwintering habitat is considered sensitive by the CDFG due to declining
stands and distribution. The location and extent of monarch overwintering habitat within the
project site is shown is Figure 2.
4. Sensitive Species
Sensitive Species are defined as:
• Species afforded protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act(FESA) and/or
California Endangered Species Act(CESA);
• Species proposed for listing under the FESA and/or CESA;
• Species afforded protection under sections of the California Fish and Game Code; '
• Birds afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918;
• Species considered either Federal Special Concern species or California Special Concern
species;
Morro Group, Inc. 8
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
• Species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered species under CEQA;
' • Plants considered sensitive by the California Native Plant Society,or;
• Species considered sensitive or important by local resource groups/agencies or the
1 scientific community.
The following is a discussion of those sensitive plants and animals that occur within the project
' site, or those that have a reasonable chance for occurrence within the project site, given site
conditions and existing habitats.
a. Sensitive Plants
The California Natural Diversity Database (NDDB 2002) lists 19 sensitive plant species within
the San Luis Obispo 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. Of these, three plants are noted as having
occurred within a 1-mile radius of the project site. Holland et al. (2000) reported finding one of
these, and an additional four sensitive plant species,within the Bowden project site. These seven
sensitive plant taxa(e.g., species, subspecies, varieties, etc.) are listed in Table-1 and discussed in
the text that follows.
TABLE 1
List of Sensitive Plant Species Occurring/Potentially Occurring
within the Bowden Ranch Development Project Site
' Scientific Name Common Name Leval Status'
Fedenl/StaWCNPS
Calochortus obispoensis San Luis mariposa lily —/—/1B,2-2-3
' Calystegia subacaulis var.episcopalis San Luis Obispo County morning glory —/—/1B,3-2-3
Chorizanthe breweri Brewer's spineflower —/—/I B,3-1-3
Chorizanthe palmeri Palmer's spineflower —/--/4, 1-2-3
Dudleya abramsii ssp.murina San Luis Obispo dudleya —/—/IB,2-1-3
Sanicula hoffmannii Hoffmann's sanicle —/--/4, 1-1-3
Streptanthus albidus ssp.peramoenus most-beautiful jewelflower —/—/1B,2-2-3
t California Native Plant Society(CNPS): CNPSRare-Endangerment-Distribution: Endangerment: 1) not
List 113 = rare, threatened, or endangered in Rare: 1) rare, but found in sufficient numbers and endangered; 2) endangered
California and elsewhere. distributed widely enough that the potential for in a portion of its range; 3)
' extinction is low at this time; 2) distributed in a endangered throughout a
List 4=plants of limited distribution;a watch limited number of occurrences, occasionally more if portion of its range.
IisL each occurrence is small; 3) distributed in one to Distribution: 1)more or less
several highly restricted occurrences, or present in widespread outside
such small numbers that it is seldom reported. California; 2) rare outside
' California; 3) endemic to
California
San Luis Mariposa Lily (Calochortus&Woensis)
San Luis mariposa lily is a perennial, herbaceous member of the lily family that is endemic to
' San Luis Obispo County, ranging from Cuesta Pass, south to Arroyo Grande. The San Luis
fMorro Group, Inc. 9
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
mariposa lily is known from chaparral coastal scrub, grassland and freshwater seep habitats of
dry, serpentine soils. This species blooms from May to July. The California Native Plant
Society (CNPS) considers this species very rare (Tibor 2001). This species was reported by
Holland (200 1) as occurring within the coastal scrub habitat located in the east-central portion of
the project site;presently proposed as open space.
San Luis Obispo County Morning Glory (Calvstegia subacaulis var. episcopalis)
San Luis Obispo County morning glory is a perennial herb with trailing or sometime weakly '
twining stems. It has alternate, broadly triangular leaves that are minutely hairy. The flowering
period is from April to June. This taxon is distributed within grassland habitats on clay-rich
soils, often in association with serpentine soils. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
considers this plant extremely rare (Tibor 2001). San Luis Obispo County morning glory was
reported by Holland(200 1) as occurring within grassland habitat near the northeast and southeast
areas of the project site,within presently proposed lots 6-18,22, and 23 (refer to Figure2).
Brewer's Spineflower(Chorizanthe brewertl
Brewer's spineflower is an annual herb that is native to California and largely, if not entirely,
restricted to San Luis Obispo County. Hoover (1970) notes that this species is restricted to the
southern portion of the Santa Lucia range. It flowers from May to June, and is found on
serpentine soils within chaparral, foothill woodland, coastal sage scrub, and closed-cone pine _
forest habitats. It is considered extremely rare by the CNPS. Holland et al. (2000) did not report
the presence of this species within the project site during surveys conducted from August
through December 2000. Similarly, Holland (2001) did not report this species from the project
site during spring/summer surveys conducted in 2001. Given the survey effort to date, it is
unlikely that Brewer's spineflower occurs within the project site.
Palmer's Spineflower (Chorizanthe Palmeri)
Palmer's spineflower is a brittle-stemmed annual herb known from serpentine soils in Monterey,
San Luis Obispo, San Benito, and Santa Barbara counties. In San Luis Obispo County, it occurs
in the Santa Lucia and San Luis ranges from the northwestern comer of the county to the
serpentine hills around San Luis Obispo. This CNPS rare species flowers from May to August.
Holland (200 1) reported Palmer's spineflower within the rocky habitat of the applicant-proposed
open space in the east-central portion of the project site.
San Luis Obispo Dudleva(Dudleva abramsii ssp. murina)
San Luis Obispo dudleya is a perennial, herbaceous species typically found in chaparral and '
foothill woodland habitats on serpentine soils. It is endemic to California, with a flowering
period of May to June. The CNPS consider this species rare (Tibor 2001). This plant was
reported by Holland (2001) as occurring within the proposed open space in the east-central
portion of the project site.
Hoffmann's Sanicle (Sanicula ho& anniil
Hof man's sanicle occurs in broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub habitats,
often on serpentinite or clay substrates (Tibor 2001). The typical flowering period for this
Morro Group, Inc. l 0
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
perennial herb is March through May. Hoffmann's sanicle is considered rare by the CNPS.
' Hoffman's sanicle was reported by Holland et al. (2000) as occurring within coast live oak
woodland habitat in association with the ephemeral drainage along Woodland Drive, near the
southern aspects of presently proposed lots 8-10.
Most beautiful Jewel-Flower(Streptanthus albidus ssp.peramoenus)
' Most beautiful jewel-flower is an annual herb that occurs within chaparral, cismontane
woodland, and valley and foothill grassland habitat on serpentinite soils. This California
endemic blooms from April to June, and is considered very rare by the CNPS. The NDDB
(2002) notes 6 occurrences of this species within the San Luis Obispo quadrangle. One dated
(1882) occurrence is listed from approximately 0.25-mile north of the project site, immediately
east of San Luis High School. There is some question on whether this occurrence more
' accurately represented a misidentified, similarly appearing taxon: Holland et al. (2000, 2001)
and Holland (2001) did not report this plant within the project site, and considering the recent
survey effort, it is unlikely to occur at this location.
b. Sensitive Wildlife
' The California Natural Diversity Database (NDDB 2002) lists 13 sensitive wildlife species
within the San Luis Obispo 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle. Of these, five have a reasonable
chance for occurrence within the project site considering the site location and existing habitats.
Four additional species not listed by the NDDB may also occur within the project site given site
conditions. Villablanca (2001) reported finding within the project site two sensitive taxa not
listed by the NDDB. One sensitive species was found near the project site during preparation of
this section. These 12 sensitive taxa are listed below in Table 2 and discussed in the text that
follows.
' TABLE 2
List of Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring/Potentially Occurring
within the Project Site
' Scientific Name Common Name Legal Status'
FederaUState/other
Accipiter cooperi Cooper's hawk(nesting) —/CSC/—
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl FSC/CSC/—
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis(nesting) western yellow billed cuckoo FC/SE/—
Danaus plexippus(overwintering habitat) monarch butterfly
Elanus leucurus(nesting) white-tailed kite FSC/—/FP
' Eremophila alpestris actia California homed lark —/CSC/—
Helminthoglypta walkerum Morro shoulder band snail FE/—/—
Neotoma fuscipes Luciana Monterey dusky-footed woodrat —/CSC/—
Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat —/CSC/—
' Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog FT/CSC/P
Scaphiopus hammondii western spadefoot(toad) —/CSC/—
Taricha torosa torosa Coast Range newt —/CSC/—
' FE: federally endangered SE: California endangered P: protected by CDFG
FT: federally threatened CSC: Californiaspecies of special concern FP: fully protectedby CDFG
' Morro Group, Inc. 11
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
FSC: federal species of concern "habitat only
FC federal candidate species
Cooper's Hawk(Accipiter coopertl
Cooper's hawk is a fairly large accipiter hawk that ranges throughout the United States and is
widely distributed throughout California_ This species is a resident of San Luis Obispo County,
nesting and foraging in and near deciduous (plants that drop leaves annually) riparian areas.
Cooper's hawk is rarely found in areas without dense tree stands or patchy woodland habitat. '
Breeding occurs March to August, peaking May to July. Incubation lasts about 36 days, and
young are independent eight weeks thereafter (Baicich and Harrison 1997). California considers
Cooper's hawk a Species of Concern, based on a reduction in breeding numbers in recent years.
These reductions are reportedly due to destruction of lowland riparian habitat and direct/indirect
human disturbance at nest sites. This species is afforded protection under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 and section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code (nesting birds).
This species was not seen within the stream corridors or oak woodlands of the project site during
survey work to date, and the NDDB (2001, 2002) does not record its presence in the vicinity of
the project site. However, habitat is suitable for nesting within the upper portions of the
drainages north and south of the proposed open space area, and within the entirety of the stream
corridor nearest Woodland Drive.
Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia)
The burrowing owl is documented as an uncommon to common resident of the interior valleys
and plains of San Luis Obispo County, and an uncommon winter visitor to the coastal County
regions (Edell et al. 1984). This species is typically associated with extensive grassland habitats
and agricultural areas, and frequently occupies California ground squirrel burrows (Zeiner et al.
1990). Breeding in this species typically occurs from March through August, peaking in April
and May. Eggs (5 to 6 average) are incubated for approximately 30 days, with young fledging
approximately 45 days later. Burrowing owl is considered a Federal and California Special
Concern species. Population declines in this species are primarily due to development of
grassland and pastureland.habitat, or conversion to agriculture.
The NDDB (2001, 2002) does not indicate the-occurrence of this species at or near the project ,
site, and burrowing owl was not observed on the project site during survey work. However,
suitable burrowing habitat for this species does exist within the project site throughout the '
grassland habitat previously noted.
Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo(Coccvzus americanus occidentalis)
The nesting lifestage of western yellow-billed cuckoo is a state endangered taxon presently be
considered for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Suitable breeding and nesting
habitat for this species consists of well developed willow riparian forest communities. A single '
specimen of this species was reportedly collected in 1921 east of San Luis High School by the
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History (NDDB 2002). Suitable nesting habitat for this
species does not exist within the project site, and it is unlikely that western yellow-billed cuckoo
occurs or will occur at the project site.
Monarch Butterfly (Danaus pleziDpus)
Morro Group,Inc. 12
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
1
Monarch butterfly uses Eucalyptus woodland, as well as other habitat types,for winter roost sites
and has been observed to roost in a variety of areas throughout the Los Osos, Morro Bay, and
San Luis Obispo regions. Primary roost sites include Montana de Oro and Morro Bay State
Parks, and scattered areas throughout the communities of Los Osos and Morro Bay. The
overwintering habitats for this species are of special concern and protected by the CDFG, while
the species itself bears no special status. Frey (2000) reported substantial numbers of this species
overwintering within the blue gum Eucalyptus forest immediately west of the proposed open
space area, near proposed Lot 7 (refer toFigure; 2). He noted that the project site was
unique/unusual, with respect to this species, in that it provided overwintering habitat fairly far
inland. He also felt it unique that butterflies were seen to roost within live oak woodland, in
addition to Eucalyptus.
Frey (2000) and Holland et al. (2000) did not observe or report other sensitive insect species
within the project.site.
White-tailed Kite(Elanus leucurus
The white-tailed kite occurs in coastal and valley lowlands, usually associated with agricultural
lands and open fields, throughout California. Nests are constructed in treetops with dense
foliage. This species is considered an uncommon resident of most of San Luis Obispo County
(Edell et al. 1984). This species was not observed within the project site during previous
surveys, nor is it reported by the NDDB (2001, 2002) as occurring near the project site.
However, suitable nesting habitat exists within the taller trees associated with project site
drainages..
California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actio)
California homed lark is a common to abundant yearlong resident in a variety of open habitats
throughout California. This species typically constructs nests on the ground in grasslands and
other open habitats with low, sparse vegetation. Breeding and nesting activity usually occurs
from March through July, with peak activity in May. Horned larks generally forage on the
ground within grassland habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species was not observed within the
project site during site surveys. However, suitable nesting and foraging habitat for homed lark
does exist within project site grassland habitat:.
' Morro Shoulderband Snail (Helminthoglppta walkeriana)
Morro shoulderband snail is a federally endangered mollusk that historically ranged between
Cayucos and Montana de Oro State Park, and inland to San Luis Obispo City (Roth 1985). This
' species is found on sandy soils of coastal dune scrub communities near Morro Bay, and is
reportedly associated with several species of coastal shrubs, including mock heather, seaside
golden yarrow, deerweed, sand almond, and the introduced sea fig. Recent survey effort for this
' species has resulted in the documentation of its presence within the Chorro Valley (from Morro
Bay eastward to Cal Poly), in association with coastal scrub species and sweet fennel within clay
soils(Morro Group, unpublished data).
fDuring site surveys conducted during the preparation of this EIR (July-August 2002), six living
specimens of H. walkeriana were found beneath coyote brush and Peruvian pepper (Schinus
molle) located east of proposed Lot 14 (refer;to'Figure 2), near the base of the Santa Lucia
' Range. Vacant shells displaying rodent predation damage were also found east of Lot 14 and
' Morro Group, Inc. 13
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
north of proposed Lot 16 (refer to Figure 2). No Morro shoulderband snails, living or dead,were
found within the project site boundaries during this survey effort Richards (2002) also surveyed
the project site for Morro shoulderband snail on June 27, .2002, and found no evidence of
occupation,past or present.
This species may be widely distributed within the foothills of the Santa Lucia Range east of the
project site, particularly in those areas where coastal scrub species are found on clay soils. It is
possible that scattered individuals of this species may occur within the project site.
Monterey Dusky-footed Woodrat(Neotoma fuscipes luciana)
The Monterey dusky-footed woodrat occurs in coastal central California and is considered a
special concern species by the CDFG. This subspecies prefers habitats that exhibit a moderate
vegetative canopy, with a brushy understory. Nests are typically built of sticks and leaves at the
base of, or within, a tree or shrub, or at the base of a hill. Nests'may measure up to 8 feet in
height and 8 feet in diameter. This nocturnal species forages on the ground and primarily feeds
on woody plants, but also eats fungi, flowers, grasses, and acorns (Zeiner et al. 1990).
Villablanca (2001) reported trapping seven dusky-footed woodrats over four days of trapping
within the project site. Most were trapped in association with on-site drainage corridors. The
locations where Neotoma spp. were trapped within the project site are shown in 1 g',,2.
Villablanca (2001) reported that there remained some question on whether or not this species
actually occupied the project site, or occupied adjacent areas and was simply trapped on the
project site. Nevertheless, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat use the project site to some capacity.
San Dieao Desert Woodrat(Neotoma.lepida intermedia)
The San Diego desert woodrat ranges from Baja California northward to northern San Luis
Obispo County, and is typically found within woodlands and coastal scrub habitats. The CDFG
considers this taxon a special concern species. Relative to dusky-footed woodrats, San Diego
desert woodrats are generally found within more and climates. Desert woodrats build nests
within cracks and rock crevices, or in clumps of cactus. Villablanca (2001) reported trapping 13
desert woodrats over four days of trapping within the project.site. Like dusky-footed woodrats,
most desert woodrats were trapped in association with on-site drainage corridors and the central '
portion of the property proposed as open space. The locations where Neotoma spp. were trapped
within the project site are shown in Figure 2. Villablanca (2001) reported that there remained
some question on whether or not this species actually occupied the project site, or occupied '
adjacent areas and was simply trapped on the project site. Nevertheless, San.Diego desert
woodrat use the project site to some capacity.
California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora dr tar onii)
The California red-legged frog (CRLF) historically ranged from Marin County southward to
northern Baja California. Presently, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties
support the largest remaining CRLF populations within the State. CRLF prefers aquatic habitats
with little or no flow, the presence of surface water to at least early June, surface water depths to
at least 0.7 meters, and the presence of fairly sturdy underwater supports such as cattails. The
largest densities of this subspecies are typically associated with dense stands of overhanging
willows and an intermixed fringe of sturdy emergent vegetation.
Morro Group,Inc. 14
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
CRLF was formally listed by the Untied States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) as Federally
Threatened in 1996, and is considered a CSC and Protected species by the CDFG. Riparian
habitat degradation, urbanization, predation by bullfrogs, and historic market harvesting has all
reportedly contributed to population declines in this species.
1 This species was not observed within the project site during focused surveys conducted in 2000
(SPECI 2000). However, the project site represents suitable dispersal habitat in association with
nearby drainages, and CRLF may potentially occur within the project site.
Western Spadefoot Toad (Sc=hiopus hammondh)
The western spadefoot is considered a federal species of concern and California Species of
Special Concern and is currently presumed extinct in much of southern California lowland areas
(Stebbins, 1985). This species generally occurs in sandy floodplains and alluvial fans situated in
lowland, foothill, or mountain areas with elevations lower than 3,000 feet. The western
spadefoot prefers areas of open vegetation and short grasses where the soil is sandy or gravelly.
Its distribution includes the Central Valley and its bordering foothills; coast ranges south of San
Francisco; and into northwest Baja California. Ephemeral ponds provide the required conditions
for successful reproduction (e.g., breeding activity, egg deposition, and physical development).
This species breeds in the winter and spring (January through May) in pools that form after
heavy rains or in slow streams, reservoirs, or irrigation ditches. Dry periods are spent in self-
made burrows, or those of gophers, squirrels, or kangaroo rats. Spadefoots are active chiefly at
night during spring and summer rains.
Holland et al. (2000) and SPECI (2000) did not report western spadefoot from within the project
site,though neither conducted formal surveys for the species. Holland(2000) concluded that the
' entirety of the site could potentially be used by the species. Potential aestivation (hibernation)
sites were noted as occurring near the project site creeks and seeps.
' Coast Rance Newt(Taricha torosa torosa)
Two subspecies of California newt (T. torosa) are recognized: Coast Range newt (T. t. torosa)
and Sierra newt (T.t. sierrae). The former ranges discontinuously along the coast of California
from Mendocino County to San Diego County. Optimum habitats reportedly consist of valley-
foothill hardwood forest in association with rivers, creeks, ponds, and lakes. Coast Range newts
have both terrestrial and aquatic phases to their life cycle. Adults are largely inactive, aestivating
within subterranean refuges during most of the year. Following the first rains of fall, adults
migrate to water, with mating occurring from September to May.
The CDFG considers Coast Range newt distributed from San Luis Obispo County southward as
a Species of Concern. Riparian degradation related to urban development has likely contributed
to population declines. This species was not observed within the project area during any of the
' site visits. However, suitable habitat exists in association with the on-site creek corridors and
particularly, in those areas where water is perennial (i.e., drainage nearest Lizzie Street).
5. Wildlife Movement Corridors
' Movement corridors are connections between habitat areas that allow for physical and genetic
exchange between animal populations. These connections may be local, such as between
Morro Group, Inc. 15
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
foraging and nesting or denning areas, or regional in nature. As undisturbed habitats become
surrounded by urban development, they become isolated from.neighboring areas. Movement
corridors provide critical linkages between islands of open space, isolated foraging and breeding
habitats, and other important wildlife use areas. Drainage courses and adjacent upland habitats
typically function as migration corridors,providing water, food, and cover for animals.
All drainage corridors within the project site represent movement corridors. On all site visits
during the preparation of this EIR, mule deer were observed within the noted corridors located
within the project site and east of the project site in the mountainous swales of the Santa Lucia
Range. Track evidence indicates that mule deer use the drainage corridors to move between the
project site and Reservoir Canyon, east of the project site. It is likely-that several other species
of mammals use the corridors similarly.
The applicant has agreed to dedicate a portion of the project site (Lot 24) into permanent open
space. Dedication of this area, and conservation of project site creek corridors (with buffers)
should promote continued use of the project site as a wildlife movement corridor linking
Reservoir Canyon with the project site.
C. REGULATORY SETTING
1. Clean Water Act of 1977
Regulatory protection for water resources throughout the United States is under the jurisdiction
of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the
discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. without formal consent from the
Corps. Waters of the U.S. include marine waters, tidal areas, stream channels, and associated
wetlands. Wetlands often include freshwater marshes, vernal pools, freshwater seeps, and
riparian areas. Policies relating to the loss of wetlands generally stress the need to compensate
for wetland acreage losses by creating wetlands from non-wetland habitat on at least an acre-for-
acrebasis.
2. Section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act '
The Federal Endangered Species Act(FESA) provides legislation to protect federally listed plant
and animal species. Impacts to listed species resulting from the implementation of a project
would require the responsible agency to consult the Untied States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USWFS). Section 7 of the FESA requires that all federal agencies must, in consultation with
the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), ensure that its (the agency's) actions
do not jeopardize the continue existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify the
listed species' "critical habitat". Section 10 consists of the process by which take permits are
issued by USFWS/NMFS for take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity. Formal '
consultations must take place with the USFWS pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B), with the USFWS
then making a determination as to the extent of impact to a particular species. If the USFWS
determines that impacts to a species would likely occur, alternatives and measures to avoid or '
reduce impacts must be identified through preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP),
prior to issuance of the take permit.
Morro Group, Inc. 16 '
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
3. State of California P
Endangered Species Act
g
The State of California Endangered Species Act(CESA) ensures legal protection.for.plants listed
as rare or endangered and species of wildlife formally listed as endangered or threatened. The
State also lists "Species of Special Concern"based on limited distribution, declining populations,
I diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. Under State law,
the California Department of Fish and Game is empowered to review projects for their potential
to impact state-listed species and Species of Special Concern, and their habitats. Impacts to the
state-listed species would be evaluated and identification of mitigation measures would likely be
required.
4. California Department of Fish and Game Code
California Fish and Game code governs state-designated wetlands, including riparian and stream
habitat, and mandates that mitigation be implemented to replace wetland extent and value lost to
development. Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code regulates activities that
would alter the flow, bed, channel or bank of streams and lakes. Activities that affect these
areas, as well as associated riparian habitats, would require a Streambed Alteration Permit from.
the CDFG. In addition, Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits impacts to
actively nesting birds,their nests, or their eggs.
5. State Regional Water Quality Control Board—Basin Plan
The Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan provides management guidelines for
maintaining water quality and associated beneficial uses of steams and rivers within the central
coast region of California. General water quality objectives are set forth to facilitate the
jmaintenance of optimum habitat for various aquatic species.
6. City of San Luis Obispo
The City of San Luis Obispo encourages creek and wetland setbacks within its General Plan
Land Use Element (SLO 1997). Typically, the City requires 20-foot setbacks from the edges of
riparian canopies, wetlands, or the tops of creek banks. Such setbacks are intended to be
protective of instream, riparian, and wetland resources.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This sub-section focuses on identifying potential project-related (both direct and indirect) and
1 cumulative impacts associated with the scope and timing of implementing the project description
described previously (Section XX). Potential impacts are expected to occur where proposed
construction or development activities would result in temporary or permanent modification of
sensitive communities or habitats occupied or potentially occupied by sensitive species. Where
impacts to sensitive resources have been identified, measures for avoiding or minimizing adverse
effects to these resources have been recommended. Several mitigation measures were
recommended by the applicant's biological consultant team during site survey work and resource
inventory. These have been incorporated into this document, where appropriate.
1
1 Morro Group,Inc. I
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
1. Thresholds of Significance
Impacts to biological resources of the project site were evaluated by determining the sensitivity,
significance, or rarity of each resource that will be adversely affected (either directly or
indirectly) by the proposed project, and by using thresholds of significance to determine if the
impact constitutes a significant impact. The significance threshold may be different for each
habitat or species and is based upon the rarity or sensitivity of the resource and the level of
impact that would result from the proposed project. Guidance for determining significance
thresholds is based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and local/regional general
plans and ordinances. Using these guidelines, implementation of the proposed project would
have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
• adversely and substantially affect a sensitive species, as defined previously;
• have a substantial adverse effect on any important or sensitive habitat;
• interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory species of wildlife
or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
• conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or,
• conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Based on these guidelines, as well as pertinent state and federal policies and regulations, the
following thresholds of significance will be applied to project-related impacts to biological
resources within the proposed project area.
• Loss of individuals or habitat for sensitive species;
• Project related loss or degradation of wetland habitat or riverine habitat(other waters of the
U.S.) associated with on site drainages;
• Introduction of invasive/exotic species at the project site;or,
• Disruption or degradation of wildlife migration or movement corridors
2. Project Specific Impacts and Mitigation
a. Direct Impacts to Sensitive Habitats
Development of lots 6-10, 13-17, and 21-23 would adversely affect approximately 20 acres
of serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat. The California Department of Fish and Game
would consider unmitigated impacts to this community as significant (D. Hillyard, CDFG,
pers. comm.).
Potential wetland habitat within Lot 8 and Lot 16 would likely be lost during lot
development. The applicant's wetland delineation (Appendix )O ) is incomplete, and as
such, impacts to wetland'habitat cannot be completely evaluated.
Morro Group, Inc. 18
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
Frey (2000)reported that blue gum/live oak woodland habitat within the project site provided
unique overwintering habitat for monarch butterfly. Overwintering habitat is considered
sensitive by the CDFG. The applicant's designated open space area located within Lot 24 of
the project site was configured with regard to important monarch butterfly overwintering
' habitat, as recommended by the applicant's consultant(Frey 2000).
As presently configured, Lot 1, and Lots 8-13 would encroach into the 20-foot creek setback
limits required by the City of San Luis Obispo.
Level of Significance and Mitigation. Development within proposed lots 1-17, and lots 21-
23 may adversely affect sensitive habitats, including serpentine bunchgrass grassland,
wetlands, and stream corridors. These potential impacts will be mitigated to less than
significant levels with the implementation of the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure 1. The applicant shall reconfigure lot lines (e.g., through clustering
or elimination of lots) to completely avoid serpentine bunchgrass grassland habitat within
the project site.
1 Mitigation Measure 2. If Mitigation Measure 1 is not feasible, the applicant shall
dedicate a portion of the property located east of the project site (within the foothills of
the Santa Lucia Range) into permanent conservation easement status to protect serpentine
bunchgrass grassland habitat from future development. The specific acreage of
bunchgrass habitat to be secured and preserved shall be determined through coordination
with the California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG).
Mitigation Measure 3: All lot lines shall be reconfigured to completely avoid
encroachment into potential wetland habitat and creek corridor buffers.
Mitigation Measure 4. If Mitigation Measure 3 is not feasible, the applicant shall retain
a qualified biologist to conduct a wetland determination and delineation within the
entirety of the project site. The applicant shall consult with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to determine whether identified project site wetlands fall within the
regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Development within a regulated wetland will require permitting action by the Corps prior
' to site development. The applicant shall also coordinate with City to secure approvals
allowing creek corridor encroachment.
b. Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Habitats
Residents of the Bowden Ranch Development and community members choosing to use the
trail system linking Bowden Ranch with Reservoir Canyon via the.Santa Lucia Range may
adversely affect bunchgrass grassland habitat located east of the project site (e.g., trampling
' impacts). Similarly, bunchgrass grassland habitat and on-site wetlands avoided by direct
development may be adversely affected by residential traffic, despite lot line
reconfigurations.
Formalizing a trail system linking the project site, over the Santa Lucia Range, to Reservoir
Canyon has the potential to result in increased foot traffic volume on the existing/planned
trail system. Such an increase would result in adverse impacts to sensitive communities
within, and adjacent to,the project site.
Morro Group,Inc. 19
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
Level of Significance and Mitigation. Sensitive habitats of the project site and the nearby
Santa Lucia Range may be adversely affected by foot traffic and increased residential use of '
the planned trail system. These potential impacts will be mitigated to less than significant
levels with the implementation of the following mitigation measures, in conjunction with
implementing mitigation measures 1 through 4.
Mitigation Measure 5. The applicant shall develop an Environmental Education and
Awareness Program in consultation and coordination with the City of San.Luis Obispo to
distribute to prospective project site residents. Such a program shall include a list of ,
sensitive resources at and near the project site, the biological importance of such
resources,their legal statuses and protection afforded under various acts and policies, and
penalties for violations of these noted acts and policies. This program shall also stress the
importance of resource avoidance and stewardship through trail fidelity and trail
maintenance.
Mitigation Measure 6. The applicant shall develop interpretive and restrictive use
signage for the trail system linking the project site and Reservoir Canyon via the Santa
Lucia Range. Signage shall summarize the items within Mitigation Measure 5.
c. Directlmpacts to Sensitive Plants
Of the five sensitive plant species identified within the project site, three (i.e:, Palmer's
spineflower, San Luis Obispo dudleya, San Luis mariposa lily) are now located within the
proposed open space area(Lot 24)near the east-central portion of the property.
Residential development within grassland habitat of lots 6-18, 22, and 23 would adversely
affect an unknown number of San Luis Obispo County morning glory individuals(Calystegia
subacaulis var. episcopalis)reported by Holland (2001).
Development within lots 8-10 may adversely affect individuals of Hoffman's sanicle
located in association with the creek corridor near Woodland Drive.
Level of Significance and Mitigation. San Luis Obispo morning glory (CLAPS List 1B)will
be adversely affected by development within lots 6-19, and Lot 23. Hoffman's sanicle
(CNPS List 4) may be adversely affected by development within lots 8-10. These potential
impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of the '
following mitigation measures
Mitigation Measure 7. The applicant shall work with a qualified botanist to reconfigure
lot lines to completely avoid San Luis Obispo County morning glory and Hoffmann's
sanicle within the project site.
Mitigation Measure S. If Mitigation Measure 7 is not feasible, and prior to project
approval, the applicant shall work with a qualified restoration specialist, in coordination
with the City of San Luis Obispo, to identify potential off-site restoration sites for the
propagation of San Luis Obispo County morning glory and Hoffman's sanicle.
Potential sites may include those open space areas containing physical characteristics
appropriate for the species. Holland (200 1) suggested a 3 to 1 mitigation ratio (e.g., plant
for plant, or acre for acre) for San Luis Obispo County morning glory. Similar ratios may
be acceptable for Hoffmann's sanicle. The applicant shall retain by an approved
Morro Group,Inc. 20
Bowden Ranch Development FIR Biological Resources
trestoration specialist to monitor the mitigation site for a period of 3 years. Terms and
conditions of the off-site mitigation effort shall be detailed within a Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan prepared by the applicant and approved by the City and the CDFG.
Mitigation Measure 9. Prior to site development, and to the maximum extent feasible,
the applicant shall retain a qualified restoration specialist to salvage and translocate all
San Luis Obispo County morning glory and Hof(mann's sanicle to be adversely affected
during site development to the identified off-site mitigation site.
1
t d. Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Plants
Unregulated use and increased foot traffic within the proposed project site open space area
(Lot 24), and within the foothills of the Santa Lucia Range east of the project site, has the
' potential to result in adverse impacts to sensitive plant species noted by Holland et al. (2000).
These include Hoffman's sanicle, Palmer's spineflower, San Luis mariposa lily, San Luis
Obispo County morning glory, and San Luis Obispo dudleya. Other sensitive species of
plants not found during focused botanical surveys may occur within these same areas.
Level of Significance and Mitigation. Foot traffic within the proposed open space
area, oak woodlands, and creek corridors of the project site and within the Santa
Lucia Range foothills east of the project site may adversely affect sensitive plant
species. These potential impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels with
' the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 and Mitigation Measure 6.
e. Direct Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife
Villablanca (2001) trapped both Monterey dusky-footed woodrat and San Diego desert
woodrat (both California special concern species) within blue gum forest, scrub, coast live
oak woodland, and ruderal habitats of the project site. He noted that there remained some
question on whether or not this species actually occupied the project site, or rather, occupied
adjacent (off-site) areas and was simply trapped on the project site. Both species of woodrat
either use and/or occupy the project site to some capacity.
' California red-legged frog (CRLF) was not found within or near the project site during
previous survey work. SPECI (2000) reported that the site provided suitable dispersal
habitat, suggesting that CRLF could occur within the project site. Adverse impacts to this
' species during project implementation would constitute "take", as defined in the Federal
Endangered Species Act. Western spadefoot were not observed within the project site.
Suitable habitat for this species does exist within the project site within those areas near
' creek corridors.
California homed lark may nest within the grassland habitat of the project site. Site grading
has the potential to adversely affect these active nests. Other non-sensitive bird species (e.g.,
western meadowlark and various species of sparrows)may also nest within grassland habitat.
Many species of birds potentially nest within the oak woodland and blue gum forest habitats
of the project site. During preparation of this section, nesting great homed owls were
observed within the Eucalyptus forest located north of Lot 12. Several red-shouldered hawks
Morro Group, Inc. 21
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
were seen within the Eucalyptus trees within all project site drainages, and these may have
been nesting individuals.
Grading within non-grassland habitat, particularly vegetation near creek corridors, has the
potential to adversely affect both species of woodrat.
The presence of Morro shoulderband snail (MSS) within the project site was not conclusively
demonstrated during surveys conducted in June, July, and August 2002. However, living
MSS were found adjacent to the project site partially buried by leaf litter beneath woody 1
plants (e.g., coyote brush,Peruvian pepper). Site grading of coastal scrub vegetation within
grassland (e.g., within proposed lots 12, 14, and 16 has the potential to adversely affect this
species. 1
Level of Significance and Mitigation. Site grading and vegetation removal may directly
and adversely affect Monterey dusky-footed woodrat and San Diego desert woodrat (both
California special concern species), California.red-legged.frog(federally threatened), western
spadefoot (California species of concern), and/or Morro shoulderband snail (federally
endangered). Site grading and tree removals may adversely affect sensitive and non-
sensitive nesting bird species. These potential impacts will be mitigated to less than
significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 and the following
mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure 10.. Within 72 hours of site grading, a qualified wildlife biologist
shall trap and translocate woodrats from non-grassland habitats (riparian, oak woodland,
scrub) to be graded. Receptor sites shall be determined by the qualified biologist, with '
consideration given to habitat suitability and proximity to the project site. Animals may
be held in captivity, at the discretion of the qualified biologist, until such time that site
grading is complete. Animals will then be released to the project site within suitable
habitat, as determined by the qualified biologist.
Mitigation Measure 11. Within one week of planned site construction, the applicant
shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a night-time survey for CRLF within those
portions of the project site planned for disturbance (i.e., grading). If CRLF are found
within the planned project site disturbance areas during the survey,the applicant.shall not
proceed with site development until such time that the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)has been contacted and consulted.
Mitigation Measure 12. If site grading is to occur within the months of March through
mid-August, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-construction
surveys for nesting birds within the project site no more than 1 week prior to planned
grading. All active nests found shall be marked (flagged, staked) by the biologist. Nests 1
shall not be directly disturbed (e.g., by grading or tree removals) until such time that
nestlings have left (fledged from)the nest, as determined by the monitoring biologist.
Mitigation Measure 13. The applicant shall consult with the United States Fish and '
Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the potential presence of Morro shoulderband snail
(MSS) within the project site. The applicant .shall secure approval from the USFWS
stating that the project, as proposed, will not adversely affect MSS. This approval shall
be secured by the applicant prior to any ground disturbing activities within the project
site.
Morro Group, Inc. 22
Bowden Ranch Developmem EIR Biological Resources
f. Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife
Unregulated use and foot traffic within the proposed open space area, and within the foothills
1 of the Santa Lucia Range east of the project site, could result in adverse impacts to Morro
shoulderband snail, California red-legged frog, western spadefoot, and woodrats within these
ureas.
1 During preparation of this section, Morro shoulderband snails were found adjacent to the
project site within the foothills of the Santa Lucia Range. Scattered populations and
' individuals of this species have the potential to occur throughout the Santa Lucia Range east
of the project site.
Level of Significance and Mitigation. Foot traffic and increased trail system use within the
proposed open space area and within the Santa Lucia Range foothills east of the project site
may adversely affect several species of sensitive wildlife. These potential impacts will be
mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5
and Mitigation Measure 6.
g. Direct Impacts to Trees
The applicant is proposing to remove a total of 35 trees from the project site, including 21
1 blue gum Eucalyptus (6-60 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]), 11 oaks (3-8 inch dbh),
one California walnut(12 inch dbh), one Monterey cypress (12 inch dbh), and one 8 inch dbh
unidentified tree. Trees planned for removal are largely located along the planned eastern
1 extension of Lizzie Court, and at the origin of the planned extension of Woodland Court
The applicant did not quantify Eucalyptus trees less than 6 inches diameter at breast height
(dbh) and native trees less than 3 inches dbh planned for removal.
' An unknown number of trees may be incidentally and adversely affected by various activities
during site construction. These impacts may include compaction of root zones by heavy
equipment traffic, root cutting or damage during site excavation, trunk damage by heavy
equipment collision, and limb/branch damage by equipment. Such impacts may result in the
death of trees well after project completion.
Trees may be adversely affected by residents/property owners following development of lots.
Impacts may include tree removal or significant tree damage leading to mortality.
' Level of Significance and Mitigation. Thirty-five (35) trees between 3 inches and 60
inches dbh will be removed during development of the project site. These trees provide
habitat for a number of sensitive and non-sensitive species within the project site. An
undetermined number of trees may also be adversely affected by heavy equipment operation
within and near the drip lines of significant trees. Trees within developed lots may be
adversely affected by residents at their discretion. These potential impacts will be mitigated
to less than significant levels with the implementation of the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure 14. If project site tree removal is to occur within the months of
January through August, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-
construction surveys for nesting birds within the trees to be removed. All trees
Morro Group, Inc. 23
Bowden Rwrch Development EIR Biological Resources
supporting ortin active nests shall be clearly flagged by the qualified biologist. These trees
may not be removed until such time that the qualified biologist determines that the nest is
no longer active,and that.nestlings have left(fledged from)the nest.
Mitigation Measure 15. The applicant has agreed to mitigate the loss of the 35 noted
trees to be removed by planting, on site, 140 'individuals of indigenous plant species
suited for the site conditions. While final plant palettes and planting plans have not yet
been prepared, the applicant has proposed a preliminary palette including western
sycamore, coast live oak, and California bay. Prior to final project approval, the
applicant shall prepare a City-approved tree mitigation plan identifying a plant palette,
planting locations and methods,.and specifying monitoring and contingency measures.
Mitigation Measure.16. Prior to any ground disturbing activity within the project site,
the applicant shall erect exclosure fencing around all significant trees (defined here as all
native trees in excess of 3 inches dbh) with a reasonable chance for damage during site 1
development. Fencing shall be highly visible (e.g., orange snow fence or similar), and
shall completely encircle the dripline of each fenced tree. No vehicular traffic shall be
allowed within any of the exclosed areas.
Mitigation Measure 17. The applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, botanist, or
arborist to periodically inspect the form and function of each erected exclosure fence.
The qualified biologist, botanist, or arborist shall have the authority to require the '
applicant's contractor to repair or reconfigure exclosure fencing to best protect tree
resources.
Mitigation Measure 18. Excavation, including trenching and boring, shall not be
allowed within the exclosed areas of significant trees.
Mitigation Measure 19. If Mitigation Measure 16 and Mitigation Measure 18 are not
feasible, the applicant (or contractor) shall minimize root zone and other tree impacts
within exclosure zones by implementing the mitigation measures and best management t
practices detailed by Holland et al. (2000), attached as Appendix XX. Recommendations
include:
• Boring through root zones,rather than trenching; t
• Minimizing the number of trenches;
• Conserving topsoil for replacement following site work;
• Irrigating trees prior to root zone work; '
• Temporarily covering exposed roots with wet burlap;
• Cutting rather than ripping tree roots;
• Preserving drainage patterns around trees. '
Mitigation Measure 20. Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
developed by the applicant, in coordination with the City of San Luis Obispo, to ensure '
protection of significant tree resources within individual lots.
Morro Group, Inc. 24 '
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
' 3. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
'
Talk .to MHA aboutpiovirl ng description o.cum unpacts to.be d scassed.consisfen7ly vvsthin.
each section.
1
1
1
1
' Morro Group, Inc. 25
Bowden Ranch Developmeru.M Biological Resources
E. REFERENCES
1. Literature Cited
Baicich, P.J. and C.J.O. Harrison. 1997. A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North t
American Birds. Second Edition. Academic Press: San Diego, California. 347 pp.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2001. Database overlay for the San Luis '
Obispo USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game.
Sacramento, California. September 18, 2001.
CNDDB. 2002. Rarefmd II output for the San Luis Obispo USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.
February 2002.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet,,and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands '
and deepwater habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Frey, D. 2000. Biological survey. Monarch butterfly habitat. Woodland Drive Specific
Planning Area. Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared for Oasis
Landscape Architecture and Planning January 2000
Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
State of California,The Resources Agency. Department of Fish and Game.
Holland, V.L. 2001. Supplement to botanical survey. Woodland Drive Specific Planning Area. 1
Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture
and Planning on July'40,2001.
Holland, V.L. and L. Moody. 2002. Wetland delineation. Woodland Drive Specific Planning
Area. Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared for Oasis Landscape
Architecture and Planning on July 22, 2002. t
Holland, V.L., D. Keil, and F. Villablanca. 2000. Biological survey. Woodland Drive Specific
Planning Area. Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared for Oasis
Landscape Architecture and Planning on December 2000.
Holland, V.L., D. Keil, and F. Villablanca. 2001. Supplement to biological survey. Woodland
Drive Specific Planning Area. Bowden Ranch Estates, San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared for '
Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on January 2001.
San Luis Obispo City (SLO). 1997. City of San Luis.Obispo General Plan Land Use Element.
April 1997.
Small Planet Environmental Consulting Institues (SPECI). 2000. California red-legged frog
biological assessment report for the proposed Bowden Ranch Estates Development project,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. Prepared for Oasis Associates,Inc. on.November 6, 2000.
Morro Group, Inc. 26
Bowden Ranch Development EIR Biological Resources
t
Soil Conservation Service(SCS). 1984. Soil survey of San Luis Obispo County, California,
1Coastal Part. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Tibor, D.P. 2001. California Native Plant Society's inventory of rare and endangered plants of
California(sixth edition). August 2001. 387 pp.
United States Geological Service. 1994. 7.5 minute series quadrangle for San Luis Obispo,
California.
Villablanca, F. 2001. Final report. Woodrat monitoring Spring 2001. Bowden Ranch, San Luis
Obispo Co., Calif Prepared for Oasis Landscape Architecture and Planning on July 22,
2001.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990. California's
Wildlife. Volumes I (amphibians and reptiles), II (birds), and III (mammals). .California
1 Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. The Resources Agency, California
Department of Fish and Game. November 1990.
2. Personal Contacts
t Hillyard, D. 2002. Phone call from J. Tupen to Deb Hillyard, Biologist, California Department
of Fish.and Game. August 8,2002.
1
1
1
Morro Group, Inc. 27
1
Bowden Ranch Estates
Morro Shoulderband Snail
' (Helminthoglypta walkeriana)
Survey Report
� a r w i _� c •. � - Ynx _
S'
rt, yh
h� 'VrxhxL ^F
�7a
e._
' February 21, 2003
Submitted to:
Oasis Associates
1 3427 Miguelito Ct.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Prepared and Submitted by:
TENERA Environmental
' 100 Bush, Suite 850, San Francisco,CA 94104
415.445.3200, FAX:415.445.3250
225 Prado Rd.,Suite D, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805.541,.0310, FAX:805.541.0421
' ESL02003-227
f
' Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
Table of Contents
Section Page
Introduction................................................................................................................. 1
Site Location/Description............................................................................................. 1
ProjectDescription...................................................................................................... 3
Methodology............................................................................................................... 3
Weather/Survey Conditions................................................................................ 5
SurveyResults.....................:...................................................................................... 6
Summary............................................................................................................ 6
' Live Morro Shoulderband Snail Locations and Habitat Description..................... 8
Possible Threats Observed ................................................................................ 10
Discussion/Suggested Mitigation............................................................................... 10
' Literature Cited............................................................................................................ 14
List of Tables
' Table 1. Survey Effort Summary........................:..................................................... 5
Table 2. Weather Summary..................................................................................... 6
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location of Project Site.............................................................................. 2
' Figure 2. Project Boundaries..................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Aerial view showing snail locations............................................................ 7
Figure 4. Snail Location 1:......................................................................................... 8
Figure 5. Snail Location 2:........................................................................................ 9
Figure6. Snail Location 3:........................................................................................ 9
Figure 7. Snail Locations 4 and 5:............................................................................. 10
Appendices
' Appendix A............................................................................................Survey Forms
AppendixB..............................................................................................Photographs
' Appendix C .....................................................................................Rainfall Summary
%IFESLO2003-227 i 2/21/03
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
Introduction
The Morro shoulderband snail(Helminthoglypta walkeriana)is a native gastropod found
only in western San Luis Obispo County. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)
listed the species as endangered on.December 15, 1994(USFWS 1994). At the time of
the listing a description of threats to the Morro shoulderband snail included degradation
of its habitat due to invasive,nonnative plant species(e.g.,veldt grass [Ehrharta
calycinal), structural changes in its habitat resulting from the maturation of dune
vegetation,recreational use(e.g.,heavy off-road vehicle use), and the destruction of its
habitat from increasing development(USFWS 2001). Critical habitat for the Morro
shoulderband snail was designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 on
February 7, 2001 (USFWS 2001). The designation included three separate Critical
Habitat Units consisting of a total of 1,039 hectares (2,566 acres)of coastal dune and
scrub habitat, and maritime chaparral located adjacent to the Morro Bay Estuary. The
range of the Morro shoulderband snail is reported to include areas south of Morro Bay,
west of Los Osos Creek, and north of Hazard Canyon. The species (var. morroensis)has
also been reported as occurring"near"the City of San Luis Obispo.
TENERA Environmental has recently completed a protocol survey of the proposed
Bowden Ranch Estates project site to determine if Morro shoulderband snails are present
on the property. This report presents the results of the-survey effort and has been
prepared in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines to provide site-specific
information regarding the presence and distribution of Monro shoulderband snails.
' Site Location/Description
The proposed project site is located in west-central San Luis Obispo County,California,
within the City of San Luis Obispo. The site is situated in the eastern region of the City
at 1636 Woodland Drive(Figure 1). The project site, designated as Tract 2420,includes
approximately 40 acres of land located within City limits. The parcel is irregular in shape
' and is bordered to the south and west by a neighborhood of detached single-family
residences that fronton Wilding Lane and Woodland Drive. A historical adobe structure
and two single-family residences are present on lots along Lizzie Lane that adjoin the
northwest comer of the parcel. A section of the northwestern property boundary runs
along the top of a slope situated immediately above the San Luis Obispo High School
baseball field. The eastern extent of the parcel is delineated by the corporate boundary of
the City of San Luis Obispo. Property to the east of the parcel is within the jurisdiction
of the County of San Luis Obispo.
The project site is situated on the lower slopes of the western Santa Lucia Mountain
Range. The proposed development footprint slopes upward to the east from an elevation
of 340 feet near the intersection of Lizzie Lane and Wilding Lane to nearly 460 feet at the
1 City's Urban Reserve Line(URL). The natural character of the proposed project site
tESLO2003-227 1 2/21/03
��w� L � '���* ,� \ i�� �,irk •- S
wow
1
A faf. 4' � - Co.I .A .a D
r' �
�
,��. �iL•�; �.,♦ lfyl --�• r ►�.�a��.�L�R:r7i-.ice:•!. �.�
•ww-siR'givm -F Vi T`A'R'-- %� l��R, "-
"/�r/��. ,-`
*s�. \7 ' • ^�y�l :�L ; � I
ll
� � 1 ..ter_-�J�: few lir. �a ♦\�} � .r Y k � 1 ,•.. •r�+ .i�..�
1.7�^+�i`�:1 C+ `->..�1 a��...�' •
roject
�. 41 ,x`�!%:� ���"i-�• ``�`4e !'�i''��
Location
�! �r ��'• � x.1.1— ,•r'..
rl
r
1 Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
includes both native habitat and habitat that has been altered by the establishment of
introduced trees,grasses,and cacti. A stand of eucalyptus trees dominates the central
portion of the property,extending from Wilding Lane up two diverging intermittent
stream channels. Understory vegetation in the area between and around these two stream
channels is dominated by an introduced cactus species(Opuntia ficus=indica)but
includes native species such as California sage(Artemisia californica),poison oak
' (Toxicodendron diversilobum),coyote brush(Baccharis pilularis),and toyon
(Heteromeles arbutifolia). Stands of eucalyptus are also present near the northern corner
of the property(above the high school ballfield)and within the oak-lined drainage swale
adjacent to Woodland Drive. Coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia), western sycamore
(Platanus racemosa),willows(Salix spp.),and coffeeberry(Rhamnus californica)are
present in drainage swales above these eucalyptus stands. Other introduced trees and
1 plants observed on the site include pepper trees(Schinus spp.),agave(Agave spp.),jade
plant, and annual grasses.
The proposed Bowden Ranch Estates site is currently undeveloped and appears to be
used primarilyby Bikers and joggers who cross the property to access trails that traverse
the undeveloped hills to the east of the site. Two well-worn paths across the property
suggest frequent use of the property for this purpose. Historical uses of the property are
likely to include livestock grazing and other activities associated with ranching. Cattle
have traversed the property recently,however,evidence suggests that the animal(s)were
present for a very limited period of time. Grassland areas below the URL are mowed
annually as required for fire hazard suppression.
Project. Description
The proposed Bowden Ranch Estates project entails the development of 23 custom
1 residential lots with various siteamenities on approximately 13 acres of the site. The
remainder of the project site, approximately 27 acres,will be dedicated to the City as
undeveloped open space(Figure 2). Plans proposed for the development show residential
lots that range in size from 0.21 acres to 0.73 acres. Development activities include site
grading, utility installation,and restoration landscaping. Additional site amenities
include private access roads and areas for recreational use parking. Approval of an
amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance,rezoning the property from R-1 (Low
Density Residential)to R-1-P-D(Low Density Residential-Planned Development), would
be required, as well as approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the project
site.
Methodology
Snail surveys were conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in Interim
Survey Guidelines for the Morro Shoulderband Snail(Helminthoglypta walkeriana)
' (USFWS 1997). Five visual surveys of the Bowden Ranch Estates site were conducted
' ESLO2003-227 3 2/21/03
z
R ^ _
fit ` v. �'�� � a r�k.K. •O '
} Q
<r
�k♦,. �/..�.� '_, ..i gip. .. ..,�,. A
it
x
LUr o- f
�Ji j•y� r al .d. -
f
o 'm
1
' Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
between December 11, 2002 and January 11, 2003 (Table 1). Dr. Tom Richards
' (USFWS Permit#FWS-VFO-7)from the California Polytechnic State University in San
Luis Obispo conducted the survey effort with the assistance of TENERA biologists Dan
' Dugan(CDFG Permit 801029-04)and Barbie Dugan(CDFG Permit 801029-05). During
the initial survey of the property on December 11, 2002,surveyors found two live Morro
shoulderband snails and a number of empty shoulderband snail shells. The protocol
surveys were continued in an effort to collect more accurate information about the
distribution of the species relative to development plans proposed for the site. The
survey effort was focused in the 13-acre development footprint;however,a thorough
search of the area above the Urban Reserve Line(URL)was also conducted.
Table 1. Summary of Bowden Ranch Estates survey effort(approx. 8 hectares/survey).
' Survey Date Start End Number of Survey Effort
Time Time Surveyors (Person Hours/Hectare)
1 12/11/02 1000 1330 3 1.3
' 2 12/23/02 0930 1330 3 1.5
3 12/28/02 0900 1330 2 1.1
4 12/31/02 0900 1430 2 1.4
' 5 01/11/03 1230 1730 2 1.2
Surveys of the property entailed visual searches of vegetation and objects that might
' provide suitable habitat or microhabitat for Morro shoulderband snails. These areas
generally included the grass, soil, and leaf litter around the base of scrub vegetation,
cacti,fences,boulders,rocks, logs, bark,and wood/metal debris. Objects that were not
' embedded were carefully turned to inspect the area beneath. All objects that were turned
were subsequently returned to their original position/orientation. The abundant cacti(and
poison oak) on the site presented an obstacle to surveyors. In most cases only the
' periphery of a cactus patch could be thoroughly searched. All live snails,empty shells,
and shell fragments found during surveys were identified and recorded. Copies of survey
data sheets are presented in Appendix A. The locations of live shoulderband snails
' encountered during the surveys were marked using a Garmin12 hand-held GPS.
Representative photographs of the site and of snail habitat are shown in Appendix B.
' Weather/Survey Conditions
Weather conditions were documented at the beginning of and for the 24-hour period
preceding each survey. Measurements of air temperature and wind speed were collected
at the beginning of each survey using a Skymate SM-18 hand-held wind meter. A
summary of weather conditions relative to the surveys is shown in Table 2.
' Surveys were conducted during or immediately after(within 24 hours)rain events. A
rainfall summary for the project area, compiled from information published in the local
newspaper, is presented in Appendix C. Survey frequency was increased during late
' December to take advantage of rainy conditions. As a result, surveys 2,3, and 4 were
conducted during an eight-day period from December 23 through December 31. While
A AWL
uqm
' ESLO2003-227 5 2/21/03
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey ,
only a trace of rain was reported during the 24-hour period preceding Survey 1 and
Survey 3, the precipitation occurred during the previous night and early morning hours of ,
the day of the survey,so the ground and vegetation on the site were wet. Soil moisture
during all five surveys ranged from adequate to optimal.
Table 2. Summary of weather conditions prior to and during surveys. '
Survey Date Weather During and Prior to Survey
1 12/11/02 Dung:Clearing in[Homing to sunny. 17.8°C/<0.0rnph ,
Prior To:Cloudy with light PM rain on 12/10/02.
2 12/23/02 ung' Partly cloudy turning to sunny conditions. 13.9°C/<0.0mph ,
Prior To:Significant rainfall for 3 days prior,PM sprinkles on 1222/02.
During:Partly cloudy in AM,wind and sprinkles increased during survey
3 12/28/02 turning to heavy afternoon showers. 13.3°C/5-30mph
Prior To:PM rain on 1227/02
4 12/31/02 During' Partly sunny turning to sunny. 12.8°C/<3mph ,
Prior To:Intermittent rain for 3 days prior. PM showers on 12/30/02.
5 1/11/03 During: Sunny/clear with high clouds. 18.9°C/<2 mph '
Prior To:PM sprinkles/showers late on 1/10/03
Survey Results 1
Summary
Four snail species were encountered during surveys of the Bowden Ranch Estates project '
site. These included two native species,the Monro shoulderband snail and the Big Sur
shoulderband snail(Helminthoglypta umbilicata), and two introduced species, the ,
European brown garden snail(Helix aspersa),and the cellar glass snail (Oxycheilus
cellarius). Nine live shoulderband snails(var.morroensis)were encountered on the site
from five different locations. Live Morro shoulderband snails (4 to 5 individuals)were '
found at one location within the proposed development footprint. The remainder of the
live shoulderband snails found during the survey were encountered in locations within the
proposed open space area. Additionally,a total of 39 shoulderband snail shells and 8 ,
shell fragments were found on the site. The diameter of the empty shells ranged from 5.3
to 27.2 mm(0.21 to 1.1 in.). Eight of the shoulderband snail shells were subsequently
identified as those of the Big Sur shoulderband snail. Figure 3 shows the locations of live
Morro shoulderband snails and the general areas in which the shells were found. One
empty European brown garden snail shell was encountered in a cactus within the creek '
setback near the southeastern comer of Lot 4 and 12 cellar glass snails were found at
various locations within oak duff along the stream channels.
ESL02003-227 6 2/21/03 '
I
y ♦ ?R r .h .n .
.� �n.•oi•' 9 G
i ^
. iYIY•
! e
•i
it
75
rl
co
m ► .c
3 c�
LU
' V N
U
' ca - � o
m°
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shooiderband Snail Survey ,
Live Morro Shoulderband Snail Locations and habitat '
Description
Snarl Location 1- This location
consisted of a cactus situated in the
middle of Lot 10 The cactus is in af 4 '.0
moderately sloping(15 to 30
percent),disturbed_%assland area '
just inside the southern boundary of
the construction envelope proposed '
for Lot 10(1\350 16'46.7,W 1200
38'43.4). Disturbance of the area is
due to antral mowing of the grass '
for fire hazard suppression. The
cactus was situated a few meters
outside(north)of an oak/eucalyptus F"qm 4. view ofSwd Location 1:Cactus on Lot 10 '
stand and appeared to be shaded where 4-5 Morro shoulderband snails were fomn&
from direct winter sun during most of the day(Figure 4).Because the location received ,
little or no direct sum,the grass and ground around the cactus remained wet for
considerably longer than grassland areas a few meters away.
A total of five live Moro shoulderband snails,comprising at least four distinct '
sizes/mdividuals,were encountered beneath and around this cactus. Snails were found at
Location I during Survey 1 (2 snails),Survey 4(1 snail),and Survey 5(2 snails). Four
of the snails encountered were found under cactus segments on the ground beneath the
cactus(both decaying and rooted segnents). The fifth live snarl was found at the base of
a chump of grass approximately 2 in(6.6 ft)from the cactus. Additionally,two empty '
Morro shoulderband snail shells were found at Location 1 during the surveys. One shell
was found under a decaying cactus segment beneath the cactus and the second was found
at the base of a grass clump approximately 1.0 in(3.3 ft)away from the cactus. '
Snarl Location?7 This location is in the proposed open space area near the southeastern
comer of the property. A single live Morro shoulderband snail was encountered at this '
location during Survey 3 (iv 35° 16 475.W 120°38' 40.9). The snail was found under
a rock situated approximately 19 in(62 ft)above the Lot 12 boundary. The surrounding
area consisted of moderately sloping(15 to 30 percent)grassland habitat(Figure 5). The '
location is above the area that is mowed annually for fire hazard suppression so
disturbances appear to be minimal. SmaU,isolated patches of Baccharis and Baccharfs
/cacti are present 7 in(23 ft), 10 in(33 ft),and 17 in(56 ft)from Location 2. '
AM
ESLO2003-227 8 221/03 t
a
OBowden Ranch Estates Morro Shouiderband Snail Survey
Snail Location 3- This location is
a , in the proposed open space area
> above and to the northeast of the
Swale that runs through the comer
of Lot 14. Location 3 is situated
on relatively steep slopes(30 to 50
percent)approximately 75 in(246
ft)above the URL Habitat in the
area consisted of undisturbed
a grassland scattered with rocks,
Artemisia,and stands of cacti
(Figure 6). A single live Morro
F-*m-e 5. snarl Location 2:Grassland babitat in open shoulderband snail was
space area above the urban Resen a Line. encountered during Survey 3 under
a decaying cactus branch in the middle of a Large cactus patch(INT, 35° 16' 54.9;W 120°
38'41.0)_ Inspection of habitat in the surrounding area yielded seventeen shoulderband
snail shells. Four shells were identified as those of surf shoulderband snails. The shells
were found within decaying cacti,beneath rocks,and at the base of Artemisia plants.
Snal7 Dation 4- This location is
in the proposed open space area to
a the north of the development
footprint. Location 4 is located on
r - a steep slopes(30 to 50 percent)to
the northwest of one of the densely
vegetated dramage swales that
00
o cross the northern corner of the
° e _ property(Figure 7). Undisturbed
grassland and Artemisia scrub
habitat vegetated the slopes
surrounding the swale. Vegetation
Figure 6. Snail Location 3. View crows cacti where a within the Swale was dominated by
O live snail was located and numerous shells were located. Baccharis,cacti,Artemisia,and
poison oak but included coast live oak,western sycamore,and coffeeber y. A single live
Morro shoulderband snail was encountered beneath a rock near the top of the drainage
a swale during Survey 4 35° 16 57.0;W I20°38'43.6). The area immediately
surrounding the rock was vegetated with grasses and Artemisia scrub. Two Morro
shoulderband snail shells and two shell fragments were also located in the area
n Additionally, the empty shell of a Big Sur shoulderband snail was located in Artemisia
u approximately 4 m(13 ft)from the live Morro shoulderband snail.
ESLO2003-227 9 2/21/03
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shouiderband Snail Survey
►°: Snail Location 5- This location
is also in the proposed open space ,
r' area to the north of the
development footprint. Location
_ 5 is situated on steep slopes '
between the two drainage swales
_ that intersect above the San Luis
Obispo High School baseball '
field. The area lies approximately
25 in (82 ft)downhill and to the '
west of Location 4. A single live
Morro Shoulderband snail was
Figure 7. Snail Ucahons 4 and& View showing habitat located beneath a decaying oak ,
in open space area to the north of the proposed log at the location(N 35° 16'
development site where two live snails were located
57.I;W 120°38'42.9). The area
immediately surrounding the log was vegetated with scrub vegetation and grasses '
including Baccharis,poison oak,Artemisia,coffeeberry,and blackberry(Rebus ursinus).
A pepper tree and cactus were also present within a few meters of the snail location. No
shells or shell fragments were found in the surrounding area ,
Possible Threats Observed
Possible threats to Morro shoulderband snails identified during surveys of the Bowden ,
Ranch Estates development site generally include any large-scale actions that might
degrade habitat by eliminating or reducing available cover in the proposed open space ,
area(e.g mowing,cattle grazing,erosion). The open space area is of primary concern
because it is currently relatively undisturbed when compared with the acreage within the
proposed development footprint. Expansion of the area being mowed for fire hazard ,
suppression following development of the parcel would increase disturbance of grassland
areas and likely have adverse effects on snails and snail habitat ironically,fire in the
open space area would also pose some threat to snails. Overgrazing by livestock and '
increased levels of recreational use in the open space area could result in erosion and
other adverse impacts to Morro shoulderband snail habitat
No evidence of parasites (Sarcophagid fly puparia)or predation was noted during '
inspections of the empty shells found during the survey. The occurrence of introduced
snails on the site,including a carnivorous species(Oxycheilus cellarius), suggests that '
some interspecific competition for resources or predation may exist.
Discussion / Recommended Mitigation '
Surveys confirm that the Morro shoulderband snail(var.morroensis)is currently present
Within the boundaries of the Bowden Ranch Estates project site. Although live snails '
�ESL02003-227 10 20-1103 '
1
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
were encountered during the fust survey of the property,four additional surveys were
conducted to better assess the distribution and abundance of the species.. Observations
suggest that the species is more widely distributed in the proposed open space area then
within the tentative development footprint. The variability of shell sizes(and ages)found
' on the site is suggestive of a successfully reproducing snail population. The observed
distribution of snails on the property appeared to be strongly associated with suitable
cover(rocks, logs,cactus segments)situated in areas with low levels of disturbance,
shade/moisture persistence,and a paucity of leaf litter. Interestingly, one of the habitat
characteristics that both live snails and snail shells were most frequently associated with
was the introduced cacti that have become abundantly established on the site. Snails and
snail shells were often found beneath or within decaying cacti, suggesting that individuals
may derive some dietary benefit from the decaying matter. This contention is supported
by earlier reports that Monro shoulderband.snails are likely to feed on fungal mycelia
from decaying plant litter(Hill 1974;USFWS 2001). Cactus patches also provide an
impenetrable refuge that includes microhabitat where moisture is likely to persist after
' surrounding habitat has become unsuitably dry for snails.
Two factors appeared to limit the distribution of snails on the property. These included
regular disturbance of large grassland areas from mowing and the apparent repellent
effect of leaf litter from eucalyptus trees. These factors were most prevalent within the
proposed development footprint,which is situated almost entirely in grassland habitat
that is mowed regularly and bordered by eucalyptus trees. With the exception of the
cactus on Lot 10, no live snails were found within the acreage proposed for development.
The snail shells found within the tentative development footprint were encountered in
' peripheral areas(outside of the proposed construction envelope)of Lots 11, 12, 13, and
14. These lots are situated along the URL and comprise the uppermost(eastern)extent of
the proposed development. None of these small,peripheral areas were disturbed
' regularly by mowing or influenced by eucalyptus leaf litter.
The observed distribution of snails/snail shells within the acreage proposed for
development suggests that the area is generally of low habitat value for Morro
shoulderband snails. This is likely the result of the regular mowing/disturbance of the
area and the eucalyptus leaf litter. However,because live Morro shoulderband snails and
empty shells were found in and around cacti located within the development footprint,
there is a strong potential that disturbance or removal of cacti during grading(especially
on Lot 10)could result in direct"take"of the species. Proposed plans could be altered to
' avoid disturbance of known snail locations,however, snails are mobile and may move to
new locations during wet conditions. Furthermore,all areas inhabited by snails may not
have been identified during surveys because cactus/poison oak patches on the site could
not be searched.thoroughly.
In addition to direct effects during construction,consideration must be given to the
' potential direct and indirect effects to the snail population that may result from the
Aft
ESL02003-227 t i 2/21/03
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
activities of future homeowners in the development. Direct take of snails by homeowners
could potentially occur as a result of the operation of automobiles and machinery(e.g.,
mowers,rototillers,and weedwackers), or foot traffic. Examples of homeowner actions
that might indirectly impact snails include the introduction of predator or competitor
species,pesticide use(snail and slug bait),and landscaping activities. Because the
proposed project has the potential for direct and/or indirect.impacts to Morro
shoulderband snails, it is recommended that provisions be made to accommodate for '
"take"of the species. The preparation of a single species Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP)for the site would be one such provision. The ultimate objective of the HCP
process is to develop a program that will minimize and mitigate the impacts of a project
on protected species.
In addition,the following mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project to
mitigate the potentially adverse impacts to Morro shoulderband snails. These include:
• Construction setbacks- The site development plan could be altered so that the '
construction envelopes of Lots 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 include a 20 foot setback,or
habitat buffer,around known snail or snail shell locations.
• Habitat Protection- Live Morro shoulderband snails and empty snail shells were
encountered during this survey in habitat within the proposed boundaries of Lots
10, 11, 12, 13,and 14. The snails were utilizing habitat features(introduced
cacti)located either on the periphery of the lots and outside of the proposed_ '
building envelopes, or in areas that could be protected with a construction
setback. In both circumstances the cacti would be conserved during development '
of the site. However, some provision should be made for protection of these areas
after the construction and sale of the homes is completed. Such provisions shall
be stipulated in the Conditions,Covenants,and Restrictions(CC&Rs)for the 1
affected lots.
• Habitat enhancement/restoration- The litter from eucalyptus trees appears to
have an adverse effect on habitat suitability for Morro shoulderband snails. Snail
habitat in the central open space area could be enhanced or restored by the
removal of the eucalyptus trees/litter between and above Lots 12 and 13. These
eucalyptus trees and their associated litter have isolated or nearly isolated snail '
habitat in the central open space area from habitat in the open space above. The
removal of this section of the eucalyptus stand(and associated litter)would '
restore habitat contiguity by eliminating the barrier: This action would also result
in an enhancement of habitat value and a moderate expansion of suitable,
although largely non-native, snail habitat. '
• F1re Hazard Suppression Buffer- Survey results suggest that the regular
disturbance of grassland areas by mowing may negatively affect the habitat value
of the mowed area for Morro shoulderband snails. The weed abatement program
Amm
%ITESLO2003-227 12 2/21/03 '
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
for the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department typically requires that a
weed/brush free perimeter of 30 feet be maintained around all structures. A weed
abatement program for the proposed open space shall be prepared to address the
' open space areas along the eastern boundaries of Lots 11, 12, 13,and 14.
Because of potentially conflicting perspectives regarding snail habitat.
preservation and fire hazard suppression,a coordinated effort should be
1 conducted between the City Natural Resource Manager,the City Fire Department,
.and the applicant to determine the optimal extent of mowing in the open space
area.
• Open Space Management/Public Education- Management of the proposed
open space area shall include interpretive signs that promote awareness among
recreational users about the presence of Morro shoulderband snails and the
sensitive nature of habitat on the surrounding hills.. Trails through the open space
area shall be limited in number and constructed in a manner that minimizes
' erosion and habitat degradation. Signs reminding visitors to stay on designated
trails shall be posted in appropriate locations.
In conclusion, approval of the HCP by the USFWS would.satisfy the requirements of the
Federal Endangered Species Act relative to snail issues on the site and would protect the
developer,future homeowners, and the City in the event that incidental"take"of the
species occurred. Incorporation of the above mentioned mitigation measures should
satisfy City mandated policies regarding open space(SLO 1994). It is important to note
that the level of take that might result from completion of the Bowden Ranch Estates
Project would not jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of the Morro
' shoulderband snail. This contention.is especially compelling given recent information
that suggests the species has a greater distribution/abundance than previously described.
1
A AGM
Urva
1
' ESL02003-227 13 2/21/03
1
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
Literature Cited
SLO, 1994. City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Element January 1994. Prepared by
the City of San Luis Obispo.
Hill,D.L. 1974. Helminthoglypta walkeriana: A rare and endangered land '
mollusk. Senior Project, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo. 21 pp.
USFWS, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants;Final determination of Critical Habitat for the Monro Shoulderband Snail
(Helminthoglypta walkeriana). Federal Register,Vol. 66:26, 9233-9246.
USFWS, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997. Interim Survey Guidelines for the
Morro Shoulderband Snail(Helniinthoglypta walkeriana).
httv://ventura-fws:gov/SurveyELot/morrosnail.htm
USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants;Endangered and threatened status for five plants and.the Morro
Shoulderband Snail from western San Luis Obispo County,California. Federal
Register,Vol.59:240,64613-64623.
%IFESLO2003-227 14 2/21/03
1
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
1 Appendix A
Morro Shoulderband Snail
Survey Forms
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
1
!
MORRO SHOULDER BAND SNAIL FIELD SURVEY FORM
PROJECT:&WJW Mme`- DATE: 12, /(dZ- SURVEY NUM68t:_L_
TEMPERATURE h F START TIME Idod END TIME_/3�4.
WEATHER DURING SURVEY: CGW� W sum, WIND. A cimc:
AMOUNT OF MOST RECENT PRECIPITATION- 44 PfA DATE /2 i3O_(-
SURVEYOR(S) ��, t 60-� P.�t SURVEY EFFORT: 7A I�G�S I,3 ,, a
(person-hours/hectare)
SPECIES- -o LME ■ SHELL
LOCATION 1J 3 S° 16 ' S 3.8 HABITAT 5,,/ a)J
SPECIES d, imm,I kQ uma LME ❑ SHELL
LOCATION 15' .ue 44 SW&Ae, �0� HABITAT 4�u" 0.) Lof lel
s�o.a i 1
SPECIES P IUS SA LME ❑ SHELL ❑
LOCATION HABITAT OA t
SPECIES H', LME ;R SHELL ❑
LOCATION N �5° 16 KG, HABITAT l d+ 1Q
yj me 34' n.q
SPECIES:w0.1 IBX MW a LME X SHELL ❑ !
LOCATION N 3S' 16' Jf6,7 HABITAT IJW CdC`-fA& ((J4-!d,
Ul Rno 3g' k�.�j
Nates: XI!S6 t� oia llGrrw.v S't: l iU qm A,sc caa,-4K oy LcO- 1 l
TENERA ENVIRONMENTAL p -°�-
1 MORRO SHOULDER BAND SNAIL FIELD SURVEY FORM
PROJECT RDu jW F-" 2446 DATE 12 .z3 O2l SURVEY NUMBERz-
TEMPERATURE S START TIME OM END TIME: / 33
WEATHER DURING SURVEY- C" -19- e� AA!4 - WIND: 4�..
ton I IZ A 7LIT4
AMOUNT OF MOST RECENT PRKIPITATION: a k0 DATE I21 zj'. _j /?-/Z2-
+
0.07- 12/12-3 121a03
SURVEYORj�S) ✓to iZt�A SURVEY EFFORT. few IsIV5�i��ak-
D.
pu
SPECIES !f'i (ua.1i�f__rrcwe. [3LIVE ❑ SHELL :R4- i A
LOCATION Si►IO..utt. 41W J& 00AA l�r.
HABITAT �`�'!`. .' '�; k4kz ia.
L6* N
SPECIES F{;ato.I&*, w -3) LIVE ❑ SHELL IR + 2—
LOCATION S E C-n('&W Of' HABITAT Car,*Als
SPECIES 6X u CAL A a S S P. LT LIVE R SHELL ❑
LOCATION Coy WO-k 9$2 S V94 HABITAT CZIC065 J-. ma.(<
1 SPECIES 613t.LV Iu.S �L) LIVE ❑ SHELL is
LOCATION CaJml S HABITAT Rd4 s w got L I`l4ar
area pww 13
SPECIESWE ❑ SHELL
LOCATION d" SPWIL HABITAT_ t
Arm k4rm4 R,v+ 102�
Notim
TENERA ENVIRONMENTAL PAP-d-
MORRO SHOULDER BAND SNAIL FIELD SURVEY..FO '
PROJECT. , G%by A 4.x.1 i` 99 JUK DATE SURVEY NUMBER l t
TEMPERATURE a F START TIME OW, END TIME /3 30
WEATHER DURING SURVEY:Pt. CTyk1o5-7ti S�wetS WINDS 3a#
AMOUNT OF MOST RECENT PRECIPITATION: tforpL DATE PM 614
SURVEYOR(S) �Ri I`I S SURVEY EFFORT: eS 1 ti`f rwc.�w�
Lea.r.5
SPECIES, ruaf k�rbwa ��{ LNE SHELL ® Z S
LOCATION SE Caruar dF L-af- I I. HABITAT i � —a r
SPECIES W8A k tf toad LVE O SHELL ,
LOCATION A440AWL U,12L 4+- L.dF- I HABITAT C a�-EuS
SPECIES 14. W 0 l 14AT t&Md LIVE IZ SHELL 11
LOCATION HABITAT 4�kWl AAOUO- L44 12-
t A-1
2-1,.1 I u lea'
SPECIES , Wo LWOPQ LIVE SHELL ❑
LOCATION N 3S ° �6 S y, HABITAT
SPECIES If, Wal4CO&A, LIVE X SHELL ❑
LocATIoN HABrrAr ' • r1v
Norex
M Ar`j/ a s G.e.ti f;uAJ ow co-4,4as mew.. l" 4AW ji,4�5)
Z K 4 GIS i/x S &ine) o&d "e-510) �,,w hu 6A /,M+! rW
TENERAENVIROMMEMTAL �_ —
1
' MORRO SHOULDER BAND SNAIL FIELD SURVEY FORM
PROJECT: DATE V nPr SURVEY NUMBER:
TEMPERATURE: 55 °F START TIME:o9oo END TIME: 1430
t WEATHER DURING SURVEY: WIND: PL
AMOUNT OF MOST RECENT PRECIPITATION: O.-41 t n o n DATE:-3 C� 11 r r�iGYtl
SURVEYOR(S) N-;u+a� l�c�a�r�IS SURVEY EFFORT:
� f li q:: , (persoo-hourVhecmre)
SPECIES I-G. tea I l�oy �^ LIVE ❑ SHELL
LOCATION C2d: ¢ ' .z--,s l a„a .. HABITAT -
SPECILIVE 9 SHELL ❑ `
LOCATION� 3S' i 4,' -52.0" HABITAT f�r�cic Lc rra>ss 1 a,. 1
,,/
SPEC! H LIVE ❑ SHELL CY } 1
r
LOCATION �l�r, nF �w � 'ti•'nxz HABITAT rJ r c:a
SPECIES H. torn low l 1 r;��,) LIVE ❑ SHELL
LocA-noNlIlp HABITAT Art2rr<< r
SPECIES u wallrLIVE ❑ SHELL `r * I4v,a
' LOCATK?N l n d(j� ',L P- ° HABITAT AY-li ,a t a :.., 1-it Su-:
ff =r rarer 17 an J�
110'I
sNot= _
i
TMMtA EMMONNIMAL pw d�
r
1
R �
MORRO SHOULDER BAND SMAIL FIELD SURVEY FORM
PROJECT: DATE: IAB' ? 2 SURVEY NUMBER-4-- _
TEMPERATURE: START TIME E TIME:
WEATHER DURING SURVEY: WIND
AMOUNT OF MOST RECENT PRECIPITA DATE
SURVEYORS) SURVEY EFFORT:
(pwwn-hoursgw=re)
SPECIES �4 . U)x"i LIVE VSHELL ❑
LOCATION C U pA 1CA,0 HABITAT C
A r
SPECIES LIVE ❑ SHELL ❑
LOCATION HABITAT
SPECIES LIVE ❑ SHELL ❑
LOCATION HABITAT
SPEGES LIVE Cl SHELL ❑ 1
LOCATION HABITAT
SPECIES LIVE ❑ SHELL ❑
LOCATION HABITAT
Note. :M:h 0
1I Shelf — + 2 -iYA
TENEBA ENWRONNENTAL Page 2. d
1
MORRO SHOULDER BAND SNAIL FIELD SURVEY FORM
PROJECT: l,du�'/�L24 cFawUn DATE 1 f I (03. SURVEY NUMBER:.
TEMPERATURE START TIME I Z3 END TIME I
WEATHER DURING SURVEY: 5cAw4 t` y WIND: C a-
AMOUNT OF MOST RECENT PRECIPITATION: Q•ZZ r 5� DATE f T 10 l d
j -�U AufeS
SURVEYOR(S) p S SURVEY EFFORT: + 2 lArS
� ftj (Person-hours/hecmm)
SPECIES t4i WdA kvrb o LIVE 0 SHELL R
LOCATION to+ fid - SCA Car'L� HABITAT CcL4u-c>
SPECIES WOlV&-io a, LIVE 9 SHELL ❑
LOCATION I.d'I' In - ScW22 cac`tuS HABITAT LaCA
SPECIES LIVE 10 SHELL 0
LOCATION K) xWe,tav4ttr, HABITAT rmc-4--I
SPECIES K�41W-0 LIVE ❑ SHELL 9 014
LOCATION r C 04Uf, Q`� AfiY+1 J�fl(u� HABITAT�IT op Ivyl- JZ
SPECIES 1 u,w to i i Co 40_ LME ❑ SHELL
LOCATION Ce*-Wdl O� %P2eA HABITAT Df&9M rwo 6=LjV S
alc; 1! r
Notes: W a t LAL`CK"o, S T6 UAX4 r u ri fled p 1" J? Goc'�v.S
2 f�ic�c_ltie; irls ljitiw� Feu.r� !u eo..� Ir#�-tr rN �i�( o�xw .sRsc.e
TENERA ENVIRONMENTAL
1
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
Appendix B
Bowden Ranch Estates
Photographs
A
Bowden Ranch Estates Morm Shouiderband Snail Survey
r4,;e •_�y"''...�es^^^m+ ti. •r +'Pr.:y`Ly.+rte+� 7T'
.�.♦ 'S'w# TISil�C'Y• y /�'p,y .ae.L ..S°err '" 4s.i r�.s �'�'.
fllb-
Y
s 7 -+T.''>^►f ti `''I�iA�r$F;,yyiv, ,y Nva �..�, - ow`-�-s ti 4:',..�, �T
,pyo f � ? a. M•-..'y .:��'iF-, .. •- , ' 1
View B-1. Northern development site looking down from open space area. The swale
above Lot 14 is shown in the foreground
f�0
1 _
F
ate,
View B-2. Northern development site from access road adjacent to Lot 22 Shows view
facia;east toward the upper lots and open space area
%IFESL0200,*,227 2121103
•�,f.,�^ ..., ...J.Jen �._ ♦ .,.- .,fir rs !•
.L J't W'_ •-`tI'i Y f +�;i M 'a{`3 n- ! '. 1 e � � +.. � 1
• /'+ - '��� 7f• €.. �'! .1t'}'' r d �Y 4 -.p+* it's `�
Bowden Ranch Estates Morm Shoulderband Snail Survey
�''�`� '"t' � - �� s-• «Its ,�:� ._ .
View B-3. Northern s' •o/I" f ti' thei• If• wV showsam proposed e
Lots 22 and I& The high school baseball field is visible in the background,
n •
View B-4.
Northern •- - •t tl- f U' the northwest; st• I. proposed
Lots • -1• 21.
F.'.
WESLO2•• y •
,e •- - e e e e- e_ s _ -
--C.'- ` ' � .x t vim•.s„�},�Y_ e..f�''t� ,St. �'7.,� '4.a.r.� ;k'� ` 'f�
'A w
i eDTII:/. 1 •' •' •1ti:+tl t •• fti • ••• 1 t •t1 t” 0e" 1 e•e- •1 :/• 1' Y.
i e' a ' • a il• e' u' . :. ar nes" ' e • t" •' - eeie" 1 e•or ul
17►.ti +�•y�
h� as ✓ ''ori`{
i r .
y.
,��.lyt �;�H •- +icet .l' a+, � +�.�r � -T� T�� '�yV u++E x � r
•._f.
• e it
,i�
` � ' fi"'' '`•'"`�Jit•� �1'� •.' i . '
r ►° a
!'ff-,}.-wl.'t"�'�r�y�,-af..•' '�}e � :' >- �`:
Ww
0/UI:1.1 •- •- •NII Ytl '11 - •0 ,flt ' e 0•• 1 :+'1 •• -1 • ti- / •'i•`lie
• ie � • i• 1 • •ti
444
moi' T-r � T �• !�..�- t•a _
. T= ` )_-CYT^.r.f.'#.•,��'_! � _
• � ,kms.
'AFL� � i• � i ti�r. �" '_F-;C:_.. ..
1r',
4.
fR h•. �X �;`t., r`s .�'-� 'ter-....:.
••- • .1• ••, I S.
Bowden Ranch Estates _Morro Shoulcferand Snail Survey
J
_ _ Y
F.' Air � ,.. --•• y -�
w 1
-
r
»+r- �"" �„'.,r.1 gr#<w'K►�+'!' 4t,�a� ,y .s."'�'° 4+."`..--"�
,�
■\ ,
View B-9. Open space area from above and to the north of the southern development
site_
J
Ali
aT `
-
�h
4
View B-10. Open space area situated between the northern and southern development
sites. View from open space area above shows eucalyptus stands and cactus patches.
ESLO2003-227 2)21/03
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shotdderband Snail~Survey
;
o A:
LI
Lu f
tt
i
.J
'F
P }
ae 1
y' LS �bt
View B-11 Habitat in central open space area adjacent to and above(east of)the URL
»�EM
ME
y
� •_ µ r 'i 1 4 Va1'4�yt
� l�fib' » �•yw .TM1 '; �.i.4 a���
^+,•vw . � s, a p�F, g.a a •,�`>t s >���a.b'P''>�+j'.+' -�+^y`(�.P�>?r w
.,/�� W ,.
Ar-
� 4
View B-12. Undisturbed grassland habitat in open space area above northern
development site.
Amok
ESLO2003-227 =1/0
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderbartd Snail Survey
Appendix C
Rainfall Summary
Bowden Ranch Estates Morro Shoulderband Snail Survey
Rainfall Summary
Date Rainfall Survey Dam tlainfatt Survey
anchesl Number _Itnchesl Number
12/1/02 trace 12/23/02 0.07 1). '
122/02 0.00 12124/02 0.00
12/3/02 0.00 12/25/02 0.00
12/4/02 0.00 12/26/02 0.00
12/5/02 0.01 12/27/02 0.00
1216/02 0.00 12/28/02 trace 3
12/7/02 0.01 12/29/02 0.25
12!8102 0.02 12130/02 0.71
12/9/02 0.00 12/31/02 0.01 4
12/10/02 uv= 1/1102 0.21
12/11/02 trace 1 I/'J02 0.00
12/12102 0.00 13/02 0.00
12113/02 0.00 1/4102 0.00
12/14/02 trace 1/5/02 0.00
12115/02 0.02 1/6/02 0.00
12/16/02 0.65 1/7/02 0.00 '
12/17/02 2.27 118/02 0.00
12/18/02 035 1/9/02 0.00
12/19/02 0.01 1/10102 0.00
12/20/02 0.04 1/11/02 0.22 S
12/21/02 127 1/12/02 0.00
12/�O2 0.50
1
ESLO2003-227 2/21/03
r
� APPENDIX E
� - Native American Heritage
� Commission Letter
ST_4Tr 11F F'A'IF PNIA
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION _4
' 915 CAPITOL -MALL, ROOM 364
8-kCRAZEvTOY .CA- 6:.646 ,
(91s) ass-6052
Fax (916) 657-5390
Web SU www.mang.ca.gov
September 6, 2002
John Holson
Pacific Legacy
1027 San Pablo Avenue
Albany, CA 94706
RE: Proposed Bowden Ranch'Estates project, City and County of San Luis Obispo.
' Sent by Fax: 510.524.4419
Pages Sent:4
Dear Mr. Holson:
A record search of the sacred lands file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American
..aa ..af a. s.__.,.- •rte
w.au.ar rr4Saiurve.^i ... u.d ....•:.cu:naZ f;r:vjBCc ai?.d. fire avac.tie vi $7cC.%•w S•.c i... ....car.... :^
tt: -eaccr d lwnd rie dooc, nn+ fnrPnc+e .1", absence n6 cu ft rwl rescureesa ,n any niia,enl are
e � � V V V\ \ VIVY• t\\V 4Y O\\ V\ V\1V,CJl \ VV\VV \ \ \\i }I,V�V V\ area.
Other sQLrces of c'L-1�a1 r-S-co r'ces Ellculd ales he cont-acted for i.tfo.-rLlon regarding known
and recorded sites.
tEnclosed is a list of Native Americans individuals/organizations who may have knowledge of
cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation or preference
of a single individual, or group over another. This list should provide a starting place in locating
areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of
those indicated, If they cannot supply information, they might recommend other with specific
knowledge. if a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission
t requests that you follow-up with a telephone call to ensure that the project information has
been received.
' If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any these individuals
or groups, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our lists contain
current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, piease contact
me at (916) 653-4040.
Sincerely, -
Rob Wood
Environmental Specialist III
1 •
1
t
� APPENDIX F
� Letters from Fire Marshal
1
1
1
1
1
1
'Sep-12-02 01 :44P City of SLO-CD Dept - 805 781 7173 P_04
Fire Prevention Bureaut
t
1 Memorandum
' Tw. Lynn Azevedo
From Darren Drake, Fire Marshal
Date: 519/02
Re: Bowden Ranch Tentative Map
' I have completed the review of the vesting tentative map and the revised fire management plan. Please
' communicate the following required items to the applicant.
1. Map shall indicate the location of the existing fire hydrants on Woodland Drive and Lizzie Court.
This item was previously requested in a memo dated 11128101.
2. On page 5 of the FMP there is a reference to the Fire Management Zone Map. I did not receive
a copy of this document to review.
' 3. Page 6 states that lots 2 and 17-23 are not addressed within a fire management zone. Review
of the tentative map does show lot 17 bordering wildland vegetation. As such, it should be
included within a fire management zone,
tThe remainder of the document and map details appears adequate.
e
Sep-12-02 01 :44P City Of SLO-CD Dept. . 805 781 7173 P.05 ,
PreventionFire
1
Memorandum 1
To: Whitney Mcilvaine
From Darren Drake,Fire Marshal
Date: 11/28/01 i
Re: Bowden Ranch Estates
I have completed my review of the Fire Management Plan for the Bowden Ranch Estates—Tract 2420. 1
The following comments should be transmitted to the applicant and the additional information shown on '
the vesting tentative tract map.
1. Show.1%4cx t of the egg ft hydrants on Woodlara#•t?-a Lam.
2. Show the required fire department tum-around at the ends of the private driveways.
3. Add a note in the Fire Management Plan under Fre Vehicle Access and Circulation that addresses
the permanent designation and posting of fire lanes.
4. Pg.7 of the plan, Roofs shall have a Class A rating not Class C.
5. Under the heading Siding and Exterior Awnings change the wording from should be enclosed to
shall.
6. Any fences abutting the wild land interface shall be constructed of non-combustible materials.
1
� APPENDIX G
� Drainage Analysis
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
I. PEAK RUNOFF CALCULATIONS-RATIONAL METHOD
Q=(C * i * Ca * A)/Kc
Where Q=Peak rate of runoff in cubic meters per second
C=Runoff coefficient,represents relationship between rainfall and runoff
i= Average intensity of rainfall for time of concentration(Tc)for 10-year,24-
hour storm event
Ca= Antecedent moisture factor
A=Drainage area in hectares
1 K, =Unit conversion factor equal to 360(1 in English Units)
*Assume time of concentration (Tc) is 10 minutes.
' Composite CN Values for Post-Development Conditions
Sub-Basin Soil Avg CN CN-Value Composite
Sub-Basin Developed NonDeveloped Value CN-
Area Grp Slope Developed Ned Value
B 18 D >10%1 1.5 16.5 0.65 0.45 0.467
C 89 D >101/610.4 78.6 0.65 0.45 0.473
Sub-Basin Conditions
Rainfall Intensity(i)
' 2- 5-yr 1a yr
Sub-Basin B Pre-Development 43 58 71 102
Post-Development 43 58 71 102
' Sub Basin C Pre Development 43 58 71 102
Post-Dev ment 1 43 58 71 102
' Sub-Basin Conditions Moisture(Ca) C-Value A
2- 5-Vr 10-vr 10a (hectares)
Sub-Basin B Pre-Development 1 1 1 1.25 0.450 7.28
1Post-Development 1 1 1 1.25 0.467 7.28
Sub-Basin C Pre-Development 1 1 1 1.25 0.450 36.02
Post-Development 1 1 1 1 1 1.25 1 0.473 36.02
Sub-Basin Conditions Q(m3/sec) Q(cfs)
2- 5-yr I 10- 100- 2- 5-yr 10- 10a
Sub-Basin B Pre-Development 0.39 0.53 0.65 1.16 13.82 18.64 22.82 40.97
Post-Development 0.41 0.55 0.67 1.20 14.33 19.33 23.66 42.49
Sub-Basin C Pre-Development 1.94 2.61 3.20 5.74 68.37 92.22 112.89 202.73
' Post-Development 2.04 1 2.75 3.36 6.04 1 71.92 97.01 118.76 213.26
II. USLE SOIL LOSS CALCULATIONS FOR PROPOSED '
DEVELOPMENT AREA
USLE is defined as A=RKLSCP where:
A =soil loss per unit area(tons/ac/yr.)
R =rainfall and erosion factor
K =soil erodibility factor 1
LS=slope length and steepness factor
C =cover and management factor
P =support practice factor '
ASSUMPTIONS:
R=68;SLO is located in Type I Storm Area;Equation in Type I areas:R=16.55p',-Average
rainfall(p)for 2-yr 6-hr storm in SLO= 1.9 inches;
K=0.22 for Diablo and Cibo Clays;
K=0.31 for Los Osos Diablo complex.K-values derived from Soil Survey for SLA.
LS=137;Average slope is 10%,Average slope length is 100 feet.
C=0.03;based on vegetative cover of grassland with sparse vegetation(less than 3 feet in
height). '
P=1;No crop support factor,land is currently undeveloped.
Soils within the development are distributed as follows:Diablo and Cibo Clays=3.28 acres;Los t
Osos-Diablo complex=11.61 acres.
Soil Loss for Diablo and Cibo Clays=0.61 tons/acre
Soil Loss for Los Osos Diablo complex=0.87 tons/acre
Total gross soil loss within proposed development area:A =121 tons/year. '
Sediment Delivery Ratio=20%.The.Sediment Delivery Ratio is the ratio of sediment delivered to '
a particular location in the stream system to the gross erosion within the drainage area above that
location.Therefore,the ratio gives us an estimate of the sediment that actually ends up within the
stream channel.
22.6 tons/year(gross soil loss) *20% (sediment delivery ratio)=3.0 tons/year in stream. '
� APPENDIX H
� Land Use Table
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Table 3.9-1 presents an evaluation of the proposed project compared with relevant policies of the.
General Plan's Land Use,Housing,Safety,and Conservation Elements.This version of the Table presents a
complete listing of relevant General Plan policies and the proposed project's degree of conformance.
Table 3.9-1:General Plan Conformance
Policy Consistent/inconsistent Mitigation Recommended
LAND USE ELEMENT
LU 1:3:Urban Edges Character.The Potentially Inconsistent.Proposed Mitigation Measure 3.9-1.Prior to
boundary between San Luis Obispo's development on Lots 11 through 16 will abut recordation of the final map the
urban development and surrounding the proposed open space on Lot 24, applicant shall submit to the Director
open land should be dear. potentially creating a harsh urban edge of Community Development for
Development just inside the boundary against the backdrop of the undeveloped review and approval a landscape
shall provide measures to avoid a open space lands. plan for those portions of Lots 11
stark-appearing edge between through 16.The plan shall provide
buildings in the city and adjacent for a landscape palette that ensures a
open land.Such measures include: gradual visual transition from the
using new or existing groves or urban residential development to the
1 windrows of trees,or hills or other adjacent open space on Lot 24.
landforms,to set the edge of Installation and maintenance of the
development;increasing the required landscape materials identified in the
side-yard and rear-yard setbacks. plan shall be the responsibility of the
future owners of the subject lots and
shall be governed by the project's
Covenants,Codes,and Restrictions
(CC&Rs)
LU 1.7.7:Trees.Significant trees, Consistent.There are no trees located on the No mitigation required.
particularly native species,shall be project site that the City defines as native and
' preserved. significant.
LU 1.92:Means of Protection.Open Consistent The open space lot(Lot 24)is No mitigation required.
space is to be preserved either by proposed to be conveyed to the city for
' dedication of permanent easements ownership and maintenance.
or transfer of fee ownership to the
City,the County,or a responsible,
nonprofit conservation organaation.
LU 1.93:Public Access.Areas Consistent.The proposed project includes No mitigation required.
preserved for open space should provisions for retention of existing informal
include public trail access,controlled trails that cross the site for access to the hills
o
o protect the natural resources,to to the east.
assure reasonable security and privacy
f dwellings,and to allow continuing
agricultural operations.Public access
through production agricultural land
will not be considered,unless the
owner agrees.
LU 1.112 Residential Growth Rate. Consistent.The proposed project would add No mitigation required.
The City's housing supply shall grow 23 single-family homes and an estimated
no faster than one percent per year, population of 52 people,well within the
averaged over a 36-month period, projected annualized growth rate of 1%(444
excluding dwellings affordable to people at current population).
residents with very low or low incomes
as defined in the Housing Element
This rate of growth may continue so
long as the City's basic service capacity
Bowden Ranch Development Draft ER MHA Inc.Appendix H-1
March 2003
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy Consistent inconsistent Mitigation Recommended
is assured.
LU 1.15:Solid Waste Capacity.In Consistent.The City has determined that No mitigation required.
addition to other requirements for there is adequate available capacity at its
adequate resources and services prior wastewater treatment facility to accept the
to development,the City must discharge from the proposed project.. 1
determine that adequate solid waste
disposal capacity will be available
before granting any discretionary land
use approval which would increase t
solid waste generation.
LU 2.13:Neighborhood Traffic. Consistent.The proposed project includes No mitigation required.
Neighborhoods should be protected narrow roadways that will foster slower
from intrusive traffic.All vehicular speeds and which will tend to serve
neighborhood street and circulation as a traffic calming design.Sidewalks are
improvements should favor the proposed along Lizzie Court and Woodland
pedestrian and local traffic.Vehicle Court for pedestrian access.
traffic on residential streets should be
slow.To foster suitable.traffic speed,
street design should include measures
such as narrow lanes,landscaped
parkways,traffic circles,textured
crosswalks,and,if necessary,stop
signs,speed humps,and bollards.
LU 2.1 A:Neighborhood Consistent.The proposed project includes No mitigation required.
Connections.All areas should have a sidewalks on Lizzie Court and Woodland
street and sidewalk pattern that Court that will connect with existing
promotes neighborhood and sidewalks on Lizzie Street and Wilding Lane.
community cohesiveness.There
should be continuous sidewalks or
paths of adequate width,connecting
neighborhoods with each other and
with public and commercial services
to provide continuous pedestrian
paths throughout the City.
LU 2.75:Neighborhood Open Links. Potentially Consistent.The Zoning No mitigation required.
The City should treat streets, Ordinance provides for adequate front
sidewalks,and front setbacks as a setbacks to ensure a feeling of openness
continuous open link between all along the project's roadways.
areas of the City and all land uses.
These features should be designed as
amenities for light,air,social contact,
and community identity.
LU 2.2.6:Neighborhood Pattern.All Consistent The proposed project's site. No mitigation required.
residential development should be design extends the area's established
integrated with existing roadway system design similar to the project
neighborhoods.Where physical site.This includes narrow streets,a slight
features make this impossible,the new curvilinear design,and respect for the natural '
development should create new topography.
neighborhoods.
Architectural design is also expected to reflect
the variety and style of the adjacent built
neighborhoods.The combination of the City's
established Zoning Ordinance provisions,
coupled with design guidelines outlined in
this EIR,will ensure design continuity,variety, '
Appendix H-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR
March 2003 '
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy Consistentlinconsistent Mitigation Recommended
and integration with the adjacent
neighborhoods.
LU 2.2.8:Natural Features. Consistent.The proposed project's site No mitigation required..
Residential developments should design respects and retains the site's natural
preserve and incorporate as amenities features,including the natural drainages,a
natural site features,such as majority of the established trees along the
landforms,views,creeks,wetlands, drainages,and the majority of the 40-acre site
wildlife habitats,and plants. in its existing landform.
LU 2110:Compatible Consistent The proposed project's site No mitigation required.
Development Housing built within design reflects a variety of lot sizes,consistent
an existing neighborhood should be,in with the.established adjacent neighborhood.
scale and in character with that The variety of lot sizes affords the opportunity
neighborhood.All multifamily to develop a range of housing sizes
development and large group-living predicated on development standards
facilities should be compatible with outlined in the City's Zoning Ordinance.
any nearby,lower density
development. A relative degree of privacy between homes
to be constructed on the proposed 23 lots can
A)Architectural Character.New be ensured through.the application of
buildings should respect existing setbacks established in the City's Zoning
buildings which contribute to Ordinance.
neighborhood historical or
architectural character,in terms of
size,spacing,and variety.
LU 2.2.11:Site Constraints. Consistent.The proposed projects site No mitigation required..
Residential developments shall design respects the natural features of the site
respect site constraints such as by minimizing landform modification,.
property size and shape,ground slope, preserving existing drainages,and minimizing
access,creeks and wetlands,wildlife tree removal.
habitats,native vegetation,and
significant trees.
LU 2.2.12:Residential Project Consistent.The proposed project's site No new mitigation required.Refer to
Objectives.Residential projects design,provisions of the City's established. Mitigation Measure 3.9-3.
should provide: Zoning Ordinance provisions,and design
guidelines outlined in this EIR,will ensure
A)Privacy,for occupants and resident privacy,usable outdoor space on
neighbors of the project; each residential lot,opportunities to utilize
B)Adequate usable outdoor area, natural ventilation and sunlight,opportunities
sheltered from noise and prevailing to include views into.building design,
winds,and oriented to receive light separate pathways for vehicles and
1 and sunshine, pedestrians,adequate parking,buffering from
external noise sources,and design elements
C)Use of natural ventilation,sunlight, to promote neighborhood interaction.
and shade to make indoor and
outdoor spaces comfortable with
minimum mechanical support,
D)Pleasant views from and toward the
project;
E)Security and safety,
F)Separate paths for vehicles and for
people,and bike paths along collector
streets;
1 G)Adequate parking and storage
Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR MHA Inc.Appendix H-3
March 2003
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy Consistent/inconsistent Mitigation Recommended
space,
H)Noise and visual separation from
adjacent roads and commercial uses.
(Barrier walls,isolating a project,are
not desirable.Noise mitigation walls
may be used only when there is no
practicable alternative.Where walls
are used,they should help create an
attractive pedestrian,residential
setting through features such as
setbacks,changes in alignment,detail
and texture,places for people to walk
through them at regular intervals,and
planting.)
1)Design elements that facilitate
neighborhood interaction,such as
front porches,front yards along
streets,and entryways facing public
walkways.
LU 2.4S:Low-Density Residential. Consistent.The proposed project includes No mitigation required. ,
Development should be primarily the creation of 23 lots for future single family
dwellings having locations and forms detached residential development.
that provide a sense of both individual
identity and neighborhood cohesion
for the households occupying them.
Such dwellings are generally
detached,one-or two-story buildings,
with private outdoor space separating
them from neighboring dwellings.
Other uses which are supportive of '
and compatible-with these dwellings,
such as parks,schools,and churches,
may be permitted.Low-density
development is appropriate within
and next to neighborhoods
committed to this type of
development.
LU 6.7.2-Open space Uses.Lands Consistent.The proposed project includes Nornitigation required.
designated Open Space should be the creation of a 27-acre open space lot.The
used for purposes that do not need applicant has proposed no landform
urban services,major structures,or modifications on the open space lot. 1
extensive landform changes.Such
uses include:watershed protection;
wildlife and native plant habitat;
grazing;cultivated crops,and passive
recreation.Buildings,lighting,paving,
use of vehicles,and alterations to the
landforms and native or traditional
landscapes on open space lands
should be minimized,so rural
character and resources are
maintained.Buildings and paved
surfaces,such as parking or roads,
shall not exceed the following:where
a parcel smaller than ten acres already
t
Appendix H-4 MHA Inc Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR
March 2003
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy Consistent/Inconsistent Mitigation Recommended
exists,five percent of the site area;on
a parcel of ten acres or more,three
percent As explained in the Open
Space Element,the characteristics of
an open space area may result in it
1 being suitable for some open space
uses,but not the full range.
LU 6.13:Open Space Land Consistent.The proposed project includes No mitigation required.
Divisions.Parcels within Open Space the creation of asingle open space lot.
areas should not be.further divided.
LU 6.2.2-.Development Standards. Consistent The.proposed project's site No new mitigation required.Refer to
Development-including buildings, design has struck a balance.between Mitigation Measures 1.1-1 through
driveways,fences and graded yard providing adequate vehicular and emergency 1:1-7 in Section 3.1,Aesthetics,for
areas-on hillside parcels shall: access and minimizing grading and retaining measures focused on building
B)Keep a low profile and conform to walls. design.
the natural slopes; Future building siting and design will be
consistent with policy 62.2 with the.
Q Avoid large,continuous walls or application of Mitigation Measures outlined in
roof surfaces,or prominent Section 3.1,Aesthetics.
foundation walls,poles,or columns;
D)Minimize grading of roads;
E)Minimize grading on individual lots;
generally,locate houses dose to the
street;minimize the grading of visible
' driveways;
F)Include planting which is
compatible with native hillside
vegetation and which provides a
visual transition from developed to
open areas;
G)Use materials,colors,and textures
which blend with the natural
landscape and avoid high contrasts,-
H)
ontrasts;H)Minimize exterior lighting.
1
1
Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR MHA Inc.Appendix H-5
March 2003
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy Consistentfinconsistent Mitigation Recommended
LU 6.2.6:Hillside Planning Areas. Consistent.The proposed Vesting Tentative No mitigation required.
Hillside policies apply to all hills in and Subdivision Map,combined with provisions of ,
around the City.Specific policies to the proposed rezoning to the R-1-SP Zoning
address particular concerns for the District including Mitigation Measures
areas as shown on Figure 6 are.list-ed outlined in this EIR will be adopted in the form
below.For each of these areas,land of a Specific Plan.
above the development limit line
should be secured as permanent open Included in the probable adoption of the
space. Specific Plan will be the location of public
roadway and private access drives,water and
B)The Woodland Drive area includes sewer system extensions to the site,
vacant land where residential identification of building envelopes,and the.
development may occur in the vicinity creation of Lot 24(open space)to be
of the high school and residential or dedicated to the City for ownership and 1
medical-care facilities may occur in the maintenance.
vicinity of the hospital.Before further
subdivision or development of any of
certain vacant land near Woodland
Drive(Figure 7)a specific plan or
development plan should be
approved.This plan should address
the following,in addition to relevant
items as noted in LU Policy 23.1.
1)The location and design of new
public streets and private drives
serving several owners,and any
necessary changes to existing streets
in the area;
2)Water and sewer systems,including
new storage tanks,pumps,main pipes,
and access roads,and changes to
existing facilities necessary for
adequate service to the area
3)New parcels and existing parcels to.
be changed or combined;
4)Location of building sites on parcels
next to or crossing the urban reserve
line;
5)Areas to be kept open through
easements or dedication of fee
ownership;
6)A program fortransferring
development potential,consistent
with these hillside planning policies;
7)Location of creek easements to
provide flood protection and to
protect eAsting creekside vegetation;
8)Phasing of development and public
improvements.
Appendix H-6 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR
March 2003
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy ConsistenUlnconsistent Mitigation Recommended
LU 6.6A:Archaeological Resources. Consistent.The application of Mitigation No new mitigation required.Refer to
' Measures 3.41 through 3.4-2 will ensure that Mitigation Measures 3.41 through
A)The City shall provide for the all lands graded during construction of the 3.42,which will ensure that al l lands
protection of both known and project are seeded forthe purpose of graded during construction of the
potential archaeological resources.To minimizing erosion. project are seeded for the purpose of
1 avoid development on important minimizing erosion.
archaeological sites,all available
measures,including purchase of fee
interest or development rights,shall
be explored at the time of a
development proposal.Where such
measures are not feasible and
development would adversely affect
identified archaeological or
paleontological resources,adequate
mitigation shall be required.
B)Activities other than development,
which could damage or destroy
archaeological sites,including off-road
vehicle use on or adjacent to known
sites or unauthorized collecting of
artifacts,shall be prohibited.
C)The City shall establish and
maintain archaeological site records
about known sites.Specific
archaeological site information will be
kept confidential to protect the
resources.The City will maintain,for
public use,generalized maps showing
known areas of archaeological
sensitivity.
D)Development within an
archaeologically sensitive area shall
1 require a preliminary site survey by a
qualified archaeologist
knowledgeable in Chumash culture,
prior to a determination of the
potential environmental impacts of
the project.
E)Where a preliminary site survey
finds substantial archaeological
resources,before permitting
construction,the City shall require a
' mitigation plan to protect the
resources.Possible mitigation
measures include:project redesign;
covering with a layer of fill;excavation
t and removal under the direction of a
qualified professional;presence of a
qualified professional during initial
grading or trenching.
t F)Where substantial archaeological
resources are discovered during
construction or other activities,all
1 activities shall cease until a qualified
Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR MHA Inc.Appendix H-7
March 2003
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy Consistentlinconsistent Mitigation Recommended
archaeologist knowledgeable in
Chumash culture can determine the
significance of the resource and
recommend alternative mitigation
measures.
G)All Native American cultural sites
and archaeological sites should be
protected as open space wherever
possible.
H)All areas proposed for development
should be surveyed for significant
Native American resources before
planning is finalized.
I)Native American participation
should be included in the City's
guidelines for resource assessment
and impact mitigation.Native
American monitors should be present
during archaeological excavation,and
during construction in an area likely to
contain cultural resources.
J)The City will respect the fact that
sites may be culturally significant to
Native Americans even if they have
lost their scientific archaeological
integrity through previous
disturbance,and that artifacts may
have intrinsic value even if their
archaeological context has been
disturbed.
IQ The Native American community
should be consulted as knowledge of
cultural resources expands and as the ,
City considers updates or significant
changes to its General Plan.
HOUSING ELEMENT
H 7.2.1:Character,Size,Density and Consistent.The proposed project's lotting No mitigation required.
Quality.Within established pattern and design is compatible with the
neighborhoods,new residential established residential neighborhood.
development must be of a character,
size,density,and quality that.
preserves the City s neighborhoods
and maintains the quality of life for
existing and future residents.
SAFETY ELEMENT
S 1.1:Flood Hazard Avoidance and Consistent.The proposed projects site No mitigation required.
Reduction. design would not site any buildings or
structure atop or near the existing natural
C)No new building or fill should drainages. '
encroach beyond,or extend over,the.
top-of-bank of any creek.
Appendix H-8 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR
March 2003 '
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy Consistent/inconsistent Mitigation Recommended
S 2.1:Adequate Fire.Services: Consistent.The San Luis Obispo Fire No mitigation required.
Development should be approved Department has adequate resources available
only when adequate fire suppression to deliver service to the proposed project.
services and facilities are available or
will be made available concurrent with
development,considering the setting,
type,intensity,and form of the
proposed development.
1 S 2.2:1NIdland Fire Safety Potentially Consistent The project site is Mitigation Measure 3.9-2.Prior to
within a High Fire Hazard Area as defined by recordation of the Final.Map the
C)Buildings that are in areas of the City's General Plan.Because the proposed applicant shall submit to the Director
moderate fire hazard and which are project does not include the actual design or of Community Development for
dose to areas of high or extreme fire construction of homes,there is a potential for review and approval language for a
hazard shall have noncombustible the design and construction of homes that deed restriction to be recorded
exteriors;noncombustible exteriors would include combustible roofing materials. against each of the residential lots.
are encouraged for all buildings in The.Deed Restriction shall specifically
t moderate fire hazard areas. Because the proposed project does not allow the use of Class A rated
include the actual design or construction of materials only.
D)In areas of moderate or higher homes,there is a potential for the design and
1 wildland fire hazard,defensible space construction of homes that would not provide Mitigation Measure 3.9-3.Prior to—accessible space free of highly adequate defensible space. recordation of the.final map the
combustible vegetation and materials applicant shall submit to the Director
—shall be provided around all of Community Development for
' structures. review and approval language for a
deed restriction to be recorded
against each of the residential lot.
The Deed Restriction shall specifically
require the provision of adequate
defensible space around each of the
homes to be built in accordance with
the City's Fire Marshal.
S 33:Avoiding Slope Instability. Consistent.The proposed project does not No mitigation required.
Development shall not be located on site any homes on,above,or below any slopes
or immediately below unstable slopes, identified as unstable or susceptible to failure.
1 or contribute to slope.instability.Any
development proposed in an area of
moderate or high landslide potential
' shall be subject to review and
recommendation by a State-registered
engineering geologist.
57.1:Hazardous Trees.Minimize Potentially Consistent.The proposed project Mitigation Measure 3.9-4.Prior to
danger to people and property from could result in the construction of homes recordation of the final map the
trees that are weakened and close to large Eucalyptus trees that have the applicant shall submit to the Director
susceptible to falling or limb loss tendency to have limbs fall. of Community Development for
1 during storms. review and approval a graphic
depiction of building envelopes for
each of the residential lots that
includes or is adjacent to Eucalyptus
trees.The map shall indicate that no
buildings may be sited closer than 15
feet from the outside edge of the
canopy of any Eucalyptus tree.
tCONSERVATION ELEMENT
CO 1.2.7:Unique and Endangered Consistent.The application of Mitigation No new mitigation required.Refer to
1 Resources.Special protection should Measures 33-1 through 3.418 will ensure that Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through
Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR MHA Inc.Appendix H-9
March 2003
APPENDIX H:LAND USE TABLE
Policy Consistent/Inconsistent Mitigation Recommended t
be provided for unique or endangered all lands graded during construction of the 3.4-18.
resources in the City.The elimination project are seeded for the purpose of
of wildlife or plant species due to minimizing erosion.
human activities should be prevented.
Rare or unique historic buildings and
other cultural resources should be
preserved.
CO 2.1.6:Sewage Treatment.Urban Consistent Wastewater will be collected and No mitigation required.
areas should be sewered and septic conveyed via in-ground piping to the Citys '
tanks prohibited in areas where wastewater treatment facility for treatment
contamination of groundwater would and disposal.
take place.Existing sewage.treatment
regulations should be updated and
modernized,with the addition of
stricter regulations where necessary.
The disposal of domestic,industrial,or
mineral wastes into watercourses or
roadside ditches should be prohibited,
unless requirements of the Water
Quality Control Board can be satisfied. t
CO 4.1 A.Soil Erosion.Removal of Consistent The application of Mitigation No new mitigation required.Refer to
groundcover in long-term advance on Measure 3.6-3 in will ensure that all lands Mitigation Measure 3.6-3.
development should be prevented, graded during construction of the project are
and emergency measures to prevent seeded for the purpose of minimizing erosion.
soil erosion should be utilized during
and immediately after construction.
_ 1
Appendix H-10 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development Draft EIR
March 2003 '
� APPENDIX
� List of Acronyms
Acronyms
The following acronyms are used in the Bowden Ranch Development EIR:
ADT Average.Daily Traffic
APCD Air Pollution Control District
BGS Below Ground Service
BMPs Best Management Practices
CC&Rs Covenants,Codes,and Restrictions
CDF California Department of Forestry
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDMG California Department of MinesandGeology
' CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
COE United States Army Corps of Engineers
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CRLF California Reg Legged Frog
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC California Water Code
dBA Decibels,A-scale
DFG California Department of Fish and Game
DOF Department of Finance
DWR Department of Water Resources
' ECP Erosion Control Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Area
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
' FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
GPS Global Positioning System
' HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
' HPA Hillside Planning Area
Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.Appendix 1-1
August 2003
8:REPORT PREPARATION
KVAs Key Viewing Areas
LOS Level of Service
mgd Million Gallons per Day '
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph Miles Per Hour
MSL Mean Sea Level '
MSS Morro shoulderband snail
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission '
NDDB Natural Diversity Database
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act '
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOI Notice of Intent ,
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System '
NPS Non-Point Source
OHWM ordinary high water mark
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PG&E Pack Gas and Electric Company '
PRC Public Resources Code
psi Pounds per Square Inch
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board '
SLCUSD San Luis Coastal Unified School District
SORT Situation Oriented Response Team 1
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program '
SWRCB State.Water Resources Control Board .
TACs toxic air contaminants
UBC Uniform Building Code
URL Urban Reserve Line '
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Appendix 1-2 MHA Inc. Bowden Ranch Development EIR '
August2003
' APPENDIX I
' USGS United States Geological Survey
USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
1
' Bowden Ranch Development EIR MHA Inc.Appendix 1-3
August 2003
1
� APPENDIX J
� Memorandum from the Manager
� of Natural. Resources
f
MEMORANDUM
June 13
DATE: , 2003
' TO: Lynn Azevedo; Ron Whisenand
tFROM: Neil Havlik
SUBJECT: Bowden Ranch Project—Wetlands
1 During the course of the public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for
the Bowden Ranch project, an apparent discrepancy between the DEIR and two of the technical
reports supporting the DEIR was raised by a.Planning Commissioner. This involved discussion
of wetlands and"wetland-like" areas on certain of the proposed lots (3,4, 5, 8, and 16). The two
reports were the Wetland Delineation report by Holland and Moody, dated July 22, 2002
(referred to hereafter as the Holland and Moody report), and the Wetland Delineation report by
Holland and Langford, dated November 12,. 2002 (referred to hereafter as the Holland and
Langford report). This memo is to describe Natural Resources staff review of those areas, the
rationale for their treatment in the two reports, and to reconcile the City's position on their
treatment in the DEIR.
Lot 3. The Holland and Moody report described a series of swales or erosion channels that
extend across lots 1 through 4 and dissipate in the eucalyptus woodland on Lot 1. In some areas,
chiefly on Lot 3, small seasonally wet areas have developed. This was evidenced by the
1 occurrence of spreading rush(Juncos patens) along portions of these drainages. The Holland and
Moody report went on to state that these areas did not support enough wetland indicator species
to qualify as jurisdictional wetlands and that the report therefore did not include these areas in
the delineation. However, one area on Lot 3 that was sampled fit wetland criteria.
' Staff review of the report and a site visit confirmed this situation with regard to the swales. It
was felt, however, that the resources represented by the wetland species at that site warranted
salvage efforts in conjunction with enhancement of the drainage swale crossing the site between
Lots 4 and 5, and therefore mitigation measure 3.3-2 was structured to include such salvage as
part of an Enhancement Plan for that drainage. It was felt that this action would reduce the
impact on the "wetland-like" area alluded to in the Holland and Moody report to a level of less
than significant.
In reviewing the one sampled area meeting wetland criteria, Natural Resources staff concluded
1 that (1) the reliance on non-native species such as Bermuda grass, prickly lettuce, and dock as
wetland indicators was not appropriate given such a routinely disturbed habitat, and therefore did
not agree that the site constituted a wetland; and(2) even if one accepted the premise that such a
' location was a wetland, its poor quality, small size, and isolated location made it of minimal
value as a wetland, if retained intact within the development. Wetland values for the project site
would be best served by consolidation of wetland resources and their enhancement in a suitable
location or locations within the open space of the project.
Lots 4-5. The Holland and Moody report identified the drainage crossing Lots 4 and 5 as a
jurisdictional wetland. Natural Resources staff review of this assessment concurred on the basis
that the drainage included waters of the United States. In addition, this situation meant that the
City's Creek Setback Ordinance applied to the drainage. As mitigation for impacts to this t
drainage occasioned by a necessary crossing, the drainage and a 20 foot setback area on each
side of the drainage would be established and enhanced. This would provide an enhancement
area of over 2,500 square feet for wetland resources, well in excess of all presumed wetland '
losses incurred elsewhere on the site regardless of delineation.
Lot 8. The Holland and Langford report identified a small area meeting State but not Federal '
wetland standards on Lot 8, adjacent to the oak woodland forming the southern side of the
property. Natural Resources staff concurred in this opinion; but given the ease with which
protection could be provided to this site and its connectivity to other open space resources,
mitigation measure 3.3-2 was crafted to ensure protection of this wetland resource by
incorporating it into the project's open space.
Lot 16. The Holland and Langford report also identified an area meeting State but not Federal '
wetland standards on Lot 16. The criteria being satisfied were the occurrence of wetland
hydrology and hydric soils. Natural Resources staff again felt that this wetland suffered from the 1
same drawbacks as that on Lot 3 (mediocre quality, not meeting full standards, and isolation),
and that the best approach for wetland conservation was to concentrate mitigation efforts in the '
creek setback area between Lots 4 and 5. The wetland area on Lot 16 would be incorporated into
landscaping programs for that lot as a subdivision requirement,but would not be required to have
a buffer or be required to retain its existing vegetation, except as various tree protection measures ,
might require.
Conclusion. In the judgement of City Natural Resources staff, implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.3-2 from the DEIR, and the requirement for protection of the identified wetland area
on Lot 16 and its incorporation into landscaping for that lot would reduce impacts on wetland
resources occasioned by the Bowden Ranch project to a level of less than significant. '
1
D...-..-....«.!'..��..-... D.....J..-D..-.7.CTD '
l